Comments on: AAA Honduras Resolution (Vote Jan. 18)

By: Pulse of the Planet #13 « American Anthropological Association

Pulse of the Planet #13 « American Anthropological Association — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:58:00 +0000

[...] meeting of the 2009 AAA annual meeting in Philadelphia. Members discussed the resolution on the AAA blog, and ultimately voted to pass the statement in February [...]

By: AAA Members Vote to Support Honduras Resolution « American Anthropological Association

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:13:36 +0000

[...] Voting on the resolution began January 18, 2010 and ended February 19, 2010. Full text of the resolution, along with comments provided by members, is available on the AAA blog at the following URL: http://blog.aaanet.org/2009/12/17/aaa-honduras-resolution-vote-jan-xx/ [...]

By: Camila Pastor

Camila Pastor — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:45:00 +0000

In the 1950′s and 1960′s, coups by military officers in Egypt, Iraq and Syria ousted monarquies or elites from state power. In those cases, coups were instruments which introduced socialist regimes. The point I was making is very simple- coups are tools, and the actors as well as the politics they introduce are historically specific. I then detailed the specificity of the coup in Honduras.

By: Adrienne Pine

Adrienne Pine — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:36:07 +0000

Actually, Serge didn’t just repeat the debunked arguments of the golpistas; he plagiarized them in their entirety from a heavily disputed Wikipedia post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya

By: Adrienne Pine

Adrienne Pine — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:07:12 +0000

Since you weren’t able to translate my letter, I thought I’d help out. Thanks for bringing it up- it is indeed important that the nature of the various political incentives of the different sides be made clear. I care deeply and passionately about my compañeras y compañeros in Honduras who are suffering under the current anti-intellectual, anti-democratic military regime, and mourn for my friends who have been killed for their non-violent opposition to it. I stand in solidarity with the majority of Hondurans who oppose this military dictatorship, and against a U.S. policy that supports it. That is my political motivation, and that is all this resolution is about.

From: Adrienne Pine
Subject: RESISTANCE: Proposed AAA Resolution in Support of Hondurans Resisting Military Dictatorship
To: fian-honduras
Date: Friday, January 1, 2010, 6:00 AM

Thanks to Esteban for sending to the list the resolution that we presented to the American Anthropological Association (AAA). I want to clarify that there are still two weeks left before the membership votes on whether or not to ratify the it, and we need your help for it to pass. The resolution that Rosemary Joyce and I wrote is in support of the Honduran Resistance and also criticizes the policies of the Obama government toward Honduras. You can see it translated into Spanish here: http://quotha.net/node/677

We believe that this resolution can be important for various reasons. It’s the biggest organization of anthropologists out there, with more than 10 thousand members. If the membership votes in favor of the resolution, the organization will be obligated to publicly advocate for the resistance and against the politics and policies of military coups in Honduras, which should result in media coverage. It’s also worth mentioning that Obama’s mother was an anthropologist and the condemnation will carry greater weight as a result. Additionally, it is a small effort to save the soul of anthropology- a discipline that is generally on the side of the people, not of power.

It was a huge challenge for us to get a quorum of 250 people to be able to win the first battle of the resolution during the annual AAA conference; it was actually—I believe—only the third time in the history of the organization that anyone has managed to get enough people in the business meeting to be able to hold a vote. Although we won, there was unexpected counter-resistance from six golpistahttp://quotha.net/node/626

The next (and current) stage of the resolution is a public debate, open to everyone (not just anthropologists) on the AAA blog. It can be seen here: http://blog.aaanet.org/2009/12/17/aaa-honduras-resolution-vote-jan-xx/

After a month of debate, that is on January 18th, the electronic vote for all members of the organization will begin to ratify (or not) the vote taken in favor of the resolution three weeks ago.

The current problem we face is that, despite the ridiculous arguments of the coup-supporting anthropologists, my North American colleagues (like all academics) can at times be cowardly, preferring to do nothing rather than think critically. Given an excuse, in this case an accusation made by "authentic" Hondurans, it becomes easy for them to vote against the resolution. Although it disgusts me to have to lend legitimacy to such superficial identity politics, I do think it is very important that more Hondurans involve themselves in the process.

This is why I am asking you to add your own commentaries to the blog. You can do it individually or in group (for example, in a letter signed by several people repudiating the lies of the letter by the coup-supporters). It should be in English.

It is also good for us that there be vigorous and healthy debate because the more noise that comes out of this, the greater the possibility that what is happening in Honduras will be reported on in international media.

In solidarity,

Adrienne Pine
Assistant Professor of Anthropology, American University
Senior Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Blog: http://quotha.net/
Working Hard, Drinking Hard: On Violence and Survival in Honduras: http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10769.php

By: Serge Roshal

Serge Roshal — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:03:56 +0000

I did not know that coups “sometimes brought socialist governments to power”…..the previous blogger really needs to brush up on her history…..

By: Camila Pastor

Camila Pastor — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:34:25 +0000

I apologize for not contributing to the debate earlier, I was working towards an article submission deadline. I co-signed the resolution along with several coleagues, and I am startled by the concerns and tone of the conversation that has developed. Voting for such a resolution is in no way voting against Honduras, or against Honduran anthropologists as has been suggested. It is voting against a violent attack on democratic and constitutional government in the region. As a Honduran citizen, I am horrified by the fact that something like this was possible in 2009. Coups and military dictatorships have characterized Honduras during the twentieth century, but I and many others believed that they were finally a thing of the past. Coups are a desperate measure, and unlike the ones that brought socialist governments to power in the Middle east at mid-twentieth century, coups in Honduras have been historically a recourse of tradionally powerful sectors (the miltary, the wealthiest) and a way to perpetuate extreme social inequality. Violence, suspension of civil rights, intervention and censorship of media- these are unacceptable regardless of where they happen or who are their perpetrators. I have been as concerened as Dr. Lara by the popular identification of Palestinian descent elites as solely responsible for organizing and financing the coup. As an anthropologist, and one who has specialized on Middle Eastern migrations to Mexico and Central Ameica, I believe it is necessary to carefully analyze the emergence of such an imaginary- it has happened across the region before, especially in the years before and during the Great Depression. To analyze and to denounce it. What I find equally disturbing however, is the suggestion that the resistance is barbaric or morally bankrupt because some of its members make racist and xenophobic accusations. Racism is a problem common across the world, Honduras is no exception. Officials participating in the coup itself have given us ample taste- as when Enrique Ortez Colindres, Secretary of Foreign Relations of Micheletti’s coup regime, referred to President Obama as ‘ese es un negrito del batey que no sabe donde esta Tegucigalpa’- he’s a plantation negro who doesn’t even know where Tegucigalpa is. For anyone who followed events on the first day of the coup on international broadcast- unavailable to people inside Honduras, incidentally, since electric installations had been taken the previous evening and electricty was down across the country- the legalistic fabrications that the coup politicians performed one after the other were terrifying. A forged letter of resignation supposedly signed by Manuel Zelaya in which he and his entire cabinet resigned due to health problems was read to the world, and it was announced that it would be speedily processed. This was followed by the broadcast of CNN interviewing Zelaya in Costa Rica, who denied ever writing such a statement. The theatrics of terror continued throughout the day, with plenty of invocations of God and divine righteousness by the coup leaders. Upon being sworn in as president by the Congress that evening, Micheletti publicly thanked, on the global news, God, the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Honduran military and former Honduras presidents (read Carlos Flores Facusse and R Maduro Joest) for their moral, financial and logistical support for the coup! As he was unanimously applauded, the camera panned to back of the room, where the ring of armed military men surrounding the emergency congress assembly came into view. It was a perverse list of thanks, a farce, staged and executed in a single day to forestall international intervention. As perverse as the head of the Tegucigalpa police describing the gasing of the Brazilian embassy as a harmless cleansing operation on the Honduran news. These people are dangerous, they are powerful and lack moral scruples. They haver murdered andtortured illegaly detained protesters. While Latin American countries and the world at large has condemned the coup and refused to acknowledge the claims made by its leaders, the US government has played an ambiguous role in the process. The AAA’s resolution can contribute towards a more responsible U.S. intervention. I sincerely hope that the AAA, a diverse professional community which is concerned enough about power and inequality to make it an annual conference theme, responds with integrity.

By: Sergei Kan

Sergei Kan — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:32:05 +0000

As a significant number of posting on this website by Honduran colleagues of ours (!) have demonstrated, there were enough problems with the Zelaya regime and enough problems with this resolution (as it is worded) no to vote for it.

I definitely not going to vote for it until I see a thoroughly rethought and rewritten version.

Sergei Kan
Professor of Anthropology and Native American Studies
Dartmouth College

By: Ernesto Ruiz

Ernesto Ruiz — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:30:25 +0000

Again, some defenders of the resolution resort to questionable logic in advancing their views and in dismissing dissenting voices. It has almost become a mantra for some supporters of the resolution to assert that “objective knowledge is impossible”. Certainly, no one here (on either side of the debate) subscribes to a view of science as that which was outlined by the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. What I find interesting is the logical (?) connection that is quickly established by defenders of the resolution in asserting that:

Premise: Objective knowledge is not achievable through anthropological discourse.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must support the resolution.

Through some mechanisms that remain to be articulately explained, subjective knowledge of an emotional kind automatically results in support of the resolution. Far be it from me to judge people on ethical and aesthetic criteria, but I find such claims to be void of rigorous anthropological thinking.

Furthermore, I think this situation should make us pause and reflect on the positioning of our discipline vis-à-vis society at large. When the AAA has taken stances on Gay marriage and race, the connection between the positions advanced by our organization and the vast amounts of knowledge that have been produced anthropologically has been self-evident. This, I fear, is not the case with this resolution. In fact, I think the exact opposite is the case: much complexity and confusion has been evinced through our discussion of the matter. There is simply no specific anthropological contribution contained in the resolution. This is wearisome to me. What will the public (who for a large part already either: a) knows nothing about us, or b) does know about us and doesn’t take us seriously from an epistemic perspective) think about the fact that we pronounce ourselves on matters from a standpoint that has no basis in how we do what we do? Certainly, many of you who have posted on this blog have been witnesses to injustices. But to witness something you don’t have to be an anthropologist. Furthermore, from the witnessing of an event to the analytical examination and explanation of the situation, there should be anthropological theory (of some kind) moderating the outcome if we are to consider the pronouncement anthropological. That is, if a professional organization of anthropologists is to pronounce itself on a social issue, then I think that a prerequisite for this is that the perspective offered by the professional organization should be a strictly anthropological. What I see in the present situation is a heart-felt attempt to address a messed-up situation. What I don’t see is the anthropological contribution to the analysis of the situation.

Finally, one last reply to the following comment made by Bunny K. Lasker: “one observation – mostly. I was present at the discussion in Philadelphia – and what struck me was that those speaking against the resolution were all trying to protect their OWN JOBS.”
Ms. Lasker, I was the person who read the letter co-authored by Dr. Lara-Pinto and colleagues stating their position against the resolution. I too muttered some comments against the resolution. Let me assure you that my employment is currently funded by the NSF, through the department of Applied Anthropology at the University of South Florida, and that nowhere in my contract is there a stipulation stating that I must hold certain political stances in relation to Honduran geopolitics. Just thought I should clarify this in relation to your ignorant and acerbic remark.

By: Jose Enrique Hasemann Lara

Jose Enrique Hasemann Lara — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:58:15 +0000

The Honduran anthropologists that wrote the letter against the resolution did not take the resolution as a personal affront. Rather, they were concerned that the resolution presented a Manichean version of the events on and after June 28th. The Honduran anthropologists that drafted the letter against the resolution took the resolution as an affront to the complex, and delicate political situation Honduras is currently submerged in. The anthropologists concerned were merely asking AAA members to really consider the complexity of the situation, though it seems, from Dr. Joyce’s comments, that the anthropologists that drafted the letter against the resolution are neither rational individuals nor genuine anthropologists by virtue of being opposed to the resolution.

The anthropologists that drafted the letter against the resolution are not supporters of human rights abuses either, and to think that proposing a AAA resolution is the best way to fight injustice and halt human rights abuses seems naïve at best, if that really is the intention of this resolution. I mean, the intention of the resolution is to lobby the US government for help, the same government that founded the School of the Americas. I say this only because the School of the Americas is identified by Dr. Joyce as some sort of a catalyst. Well, it’s a good thing we have our US counterparts around to monitor our country. If not, who knows what we would do?

It’s astounding to me that after thirty years of working in Honduras, one of the countries with the most pathetic human rights record in Latin American, Dr. Joyce finally feels compelled to denounce the injustice of the Honduran government; to denounce it a time when it is at its weakest and fighting to avoid a civil war. I guess internal wars do not count as human or civil rights abuses. And I will say this, Manuel Zelaya was a parasite and a puppet, he was not the answer to Honduras woes and greatly contributed to Honduras’s ills. As for Honduras contributing to regional destabilization, well, Ortega in Nicaragua and Colom and Guatemala seem to be doing just fine destabilizing their own countries.

If you think that voting for a resolution in an organization (I express only my opinion here, and not any one else’s) that has no practical impact on the world is an easy way to soothe whatever burning guilt you may have after decades of silence, then indeed, I see no rationale for voting against the resolution. That is if you believe in the need for symbolic gestures. If on the other hand, you consider that this resolution is short-sighted and simply an indictment against a struggling government, then perhaps this is not the forum for you. I won’t urge you to vote against the resolution once again—I realize now how silly and misguided that was on my part. I urge you to simply close this web page and to do something that WILL make a difference if you are so abhorred by the Honduran situation.