ANTHRO: DNA stories from the end of the last millenium.
Two classics from the Vault of Nicholas Wade's copntributions to the New York Times science page:
Genomics 101:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/11/science/in-the-hunt-for-useful-genes-a-lot-depends-on-snips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Mitochondrial DNA and evolutionary family trees, such as they were in 1999:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/science/all-in-the-mitochondrial-family.html
Genomics 101:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/11/science/in-the-hunt-for-useful-genes-a-lot-depends-on-snips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Mitochondrial DNA and evolutionary family trees, such as they were in 1999:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/science/all-in-the-mitochondrial-family.html
GEO: Language- Britishisms on the rise in the US, for better or worse.
In the New York Times, Alex Williams notes that what he believes to be an annoying trend has taken root. Namely, "Anglophonia." This brilliant turn of phrase (sorry Alex- I know "brilliant" has been coopted into British vernacular, but hey, I was going to say "smashing" but I stopped myself.) literally means "talking like British people" but it also, deliciously, implies that one is "phoney" for doing so. Did I mention how brilliant that is?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/fashion/americans-are-barmy-over-britishisms.html
The point is, don't we speak the same language? Must we police our linguistic boundaries? If a Brit loses their accent after living in the US we don't think "Tsk Tsk- they're trying to be American." So why is it that when an American, like Madonna, starts sounding British people get on her case? I think it's an inferiority complex, personally. The British have a way with words, and we can all enjoy the bumbling diction of amiable bumpkins like Larry the Cable Guy, but we don't have to talk like him to be true Americans. Better we should pay homage where homage is due. After all, the British have very gernerously shared their language with us- it would be rude to say no to dessert after we have eaten the entre. Oh wait, do I sound French? Bother.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/fashion/americans-are-barmy-over-britishisms.html
The point is, don't we speak the same language? Must we police our linguistic boundaries? If a Brit loses their accent after living in the US we don't think "Tsk Tsk- they're trying to be American." So why is it that when an American, like Madonna, starts sounding British people get on her case? I think it's an inferiority complex, personally. The British have a way with words, and we can all enjoy the bumbling diction of amiable bumpkins like Larry the Cable Guy, but we don't have to talk like him to be true Americans. Better we should pay homage where homage is due. After all, the British have very gernerously shared their language with us- it would be rude to say no to dessert after we have eaten the entre. Oh wait, do I sound French? Bother.
GEO: Immigration in the age of neoliberalism
Immigration is innevitable in the global capitalist susyem, and the neoliberal economic policies our government forces upon developing countries, (Mexico is a good example) virtually guarantees that large streams of immigrants will come here, if those policies don't downright force people to do so. So the sad irony is that our government cannot find the political will to come up with a fair, useful and effective immigration policy to deal with the immigration that 1) it needs, and 2) it causes. Instead, employers and employees are alternately criminalized and played against each other, and middle class Americans are played off against working class Americans because the former wants cheap services and the latter wants a secure livelihood. Both end up losing, as do the immigrants, and who ends up winning? Follow the money.
I found this article on a blog but it originated (as the website indicates) from a Canadian pubblication called "Rabble" magazine.
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/immigration-in-the-age-of-neoliberalism/
Immigration In the Age of Neoliberalism
by the Political Analysis Collective
January 9, 2008
Since the town of Hérouxville made headlines several months ago, a debate has been raging in Quebec regarding the impact of Muslim immigration on “the true values of Quebec.”
Through the media, this debate has sparked the collective imagination. “There are too many immigrants”. “Reasonable accommodations are becoming unreasonable”. An aggressive tone has emerged.
While its mandate is to examine inter-community relations, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was set against this controversial background. The goal of the Commission is laudable, but one would hope that the debate would be return to questions of inclusion and respect. However, it should not come as a surprise that this polemic controversy should “blow up” in Quebec, as in any other capitalist society.
Immigration and capitalist development
According to the UN, there were roughly 200 million immigrants (3% of the world population) in 2005. Millions of people leave their homes and this constitutes the largest migration in history. These people migrate out of necessity, even when they know that doing so may be expensive and even dangerous. They also migrate because it is possible to do so: contemporary capitalism, in its neoliberal form, relies on the concept of “workforce mobility”, as various powerful groups like to point out.
Neoliberalism is proceeding with a profound restructuring of work which depends on an enormous influx of new “heads and hands”. On the one hand, this is in response to the new needs of capitalistic accumulation. On the other hand, it is in response to demographic changes in capitalist countries. The current cycle requires an abundant workforce with few qualifications to work in agriculture, construction, private and personal services – a workforce that can be found in the large population “surplus” of the Third World.
This workforce is usually destined for low-wage, not very gratifying, sometimes dangerous and non-unionized or hardly “unionizable” jobs. The workforce must be mobile and precarious, while workers’ and social rights are de-emphasized. At another level, capitalism needs to recuperate qualified workers from other countries. The brain-drain is hardly new, but it is accelerated, especially in the “knowledge” economy, where the concentration of capital is greatest. Industrial quantities of qualified workers are required by the information technology, biomedical and engineering fields.
This phenomenon is even greater in the U.S., where more than 30 million “legal” immigrants can be found, and quite possibly as many “illegal” immigrants. The border indeed has become quite porous, letting in “legals” and “illegals”, thanks to policies that favour both legalisation and criminalisation of immigration. This contradiction effectively forces immigrants to accept working conditions that are below the norm. According to various estimates, more than 60% of “unqualified” jobs in the USA will be filled by immigrants within the next 10 years.
The Canadian context
Capitalist restructuring in Canada also calls on larger numbers of immigrants. An estimated quarter of a million persons immigrate legally to this country every year. Though much lower, the number of illegal immigrants is on the rise (especially from Asia). It is estimated that 22% of Canadians will be immigrants by 2017 (the proportion is currently 18.3%), a number unseen since 1920.
As is the case in other countries, the immigrant population is segmented. Even though the percentage of university-educated is higher for new immigrants, their income is, in general, 10% lower than other segments of the Canadian population. Here is another revealing statistic: 15% of immigrants live below the poverty line, which is twice the national percentage. In fact, capitalist social structures reproduce inequality. Pitting workers of the world one against another is profitable. Immigrants against born citizens, men against women, white against black, everyone against everyone: it all maintains the dominant order in place.
Currently, the immigration influx is mainly coming from Third World countries. In Canada, 47% of the population now affirms being from an origin ethnic other than British or French. In most large cities, the skin colour of the population has changed. Along with these indicators, others make singling out – and therefore discriminating and disciplining – immigrant workers easier. Part of this new wave of immigration comes from regions inhabited by Muslims in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. According to certain projections, 10 years from now more than 1.8 million Muslims will live in Canada. These immigrants are often fleeing war and other atrocities in troubled regions such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As a rule, Muslim immigrants tend to live their daily lives much like the population at large. Religious identity is expressed through traditions, memories, important religious holidays, as well as food and clothing-related customs. Every now and then, these cultural differences, which count for very little in daily life, are manipulated by projects which seek to exaggerate these artefacts of identity, or they are used to control or manipulate other types of conflicts.
We must remember that similar policies have been used by those in power in the past. Under the rule of Duplessis, Quebec society in the 1950s was dominated by an anti-Semitic discourse. Repression was not limited to Jews only. Other religious minorities were also targeted, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, the true enemy of power was the union movement, with Jews and communists as scapegoats. Nowadays, this scapegoat is Muslim and is visible for other reasons.
War without end
We are concerned with an enormous conflict, which ties together a vast range of crises that span Indonesia, Central Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa. The American Empire needs to exert control in these parts of the world over enormous energy resources. This new conquest of the region requires a re-engineering, and the subjugation of the people who live there. Obviously, resistance is strong, as evidenced by the failures of NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy is evil incarnate and dehumanised so that he may be eradicated with little regard for international law. It is us against them, a war of civilizations, as Samuel Huntingdon has stated.
This war is not only fought in Kandahar or Gaza: it is also fought in neighbourhoods where immigrants from those regions can be found. Though this tension existed before 2001, the events of that year have intensified police and security operations and tipped society into a “rights-free” zone. These operations include imprisonment without trial, black lists, so-called “security” certificates, intimidation or worse yet – as in Maher Arar’s case – the use of clandestine means to put “suspects” in life-threatening conditions.
This enemy must therefore “be constructed”. The demagogic media portrays the Muslim immigrant as “perverse, sly, and difficult to assimilate”. His customs are in direct contradiction with the modern world and human (especially, women’s) rights. From this perspective, the young girl wearing a veil is no more than a weapon in the hands of Islamic-terrorist groups. This Muslim menace must then be confined, monitored, controlled, even suppressed and deported, if the members of the community do not accept our “values”.
Responsibilities of civil society
Immigration as an “issue” is thus redefined in neoliberal “reasoning” and helps new, offensive, geopolitical measures that predispose opinion for war. It also justifies obvious regressions in civil rights by creating a feeling of insecurity all over the world. This strategy aims to divide society into numerous “ethnic”, religious and community groups, each one preoccupied in a struggle against the other.
It goes without saying that civil society must stand against this. It is incumbent upon us to rally the working class, immigrant or not, and fight against all these forms of discrimination that single out and marginalize immigrants, with regards to access to services, housing, employment and recognition of foreign credentials.
*Pierre Beaudet, Philippe Boudreau, Donald Cuccioletta, François Cyr, Thomas Chiasson-Lebel, Éric Martin, Michèle St Denis and André Vincent are members of the Political Analysis Collective (Collectif d’analyse politique). The original French version of this article was translated by Julie Daigneault.
I found this article on a blog but it originated (as the website indicates) from a Canadian pubblication called "Rabble" magazine.
http://ofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/immigration-in-the-age-of-neoliberalism/
Immigration In the Age of Neoliberalism
by the Political Analysis Collective
January 9, 2008
Since the town of Hérouxville made headlines several months ago, a debate has been raging in Quebec regarding the impact of Muslim immigration on “the true values of Quebec.”
Through the media, this debate has sparked the collective imagination. “There are too many immigrants”. “Reasonable accommodations are becoming unreasonable”. An aggressive tone has emerged.
While its mandate is to examine inter-community relations, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was set against this controversial background. The goal of the Commission is laudable, but one would hope that the debate would be return to questions of inclusion and respect. However, it should not come as a surprise that this polemic controversy should “blow up” in Quebec, as in any other capitalist society.
Immigration and capitalist development
According to the UN, there were roughly 200 million immigrants (3% of the world population) in 2005. Millions of people leave their homes and this constitutes the largest migration in history. These people migrate out of necessity, even when they know that doing so may be expensive and even dangerous. They also migrate because it is possible to do so: contemporary capitalism, in its neoliberal form, relies on the concept of “workforce mobility”, as various powerful groups like to point out.
Neoliberalism is proceeding with a profound restructuring of work which depends on an enormous influx of new “heads and hands”. On the one hand, this is in response to the new needs of capitalistic accumulation. On the other hand, it is in response to demographic changes in capitalist countries. The current cycle requires an abundant workforce with few qualifications to work in agriculture, construction, private and personal services – a workforce that can be found in the large population “surplus” of the Third World.
This workforce is usually destined for low-wage, not very gratifying, sometimes dangerous and non-unionized or hardly “unionizable” jobs. The workforce must be mobile and precarious, while workers’ and social rights are de-emphasized. At another level, capitalism needs to recuperate qualified workers from other countries. The brain-drain is hardly new, but it is accelerated, especially in the “knowledge” economy, where the concentration of capital is greatest. Industrial quantities of qualified workers are required by the information technology, biomedical and engineering fields.
This phenomenon is even greater in the U.S., where more than 30 million “legal” immigrants can be found, and quite possibly as many “illegal” immigrants. The border indeed has become quite porous, letting in “legals” and “illegals”, thanks to policies that favour both legalisation and criminalisation of immigration. This contradiction effectively forces immigrants to accept working conditions that are below the norm. According to various estimates, more than 60% of “unqualified” jobs in the USA will be filled by immigrants within the next 10 years.
The Canadian context
Capitalist restructuring in Canada also calls on larger numbers of immigrants. An estimated quarter of a million persons immigrate legally to this country every year. Though much lower, the number of illegal immigrants is on the rise (especially from Asia). It is estimated that 22% of Canadians will be immigrants by 2017 (the proportion is currently 18.3%), a number unseen since 1920.
As is the case in other countries, the immigrant population is segmented. Even though the percentage of university-educated is higher for new immigrants, their income is, in general, 10% lower than other segments of the Canadian population. Here is another revealing statistic: 15% of immigrants live below the poverty line, which is twice the national percentage. In fact, capitalist social structures reproduce inequality. Pitting workers of the world one against another is profitable. Immigrants against born citizens, men against women, white against black, everyone against everyone: it all maintains the dominant order in place.
Currently, the immigration influx is mainly coming from Third World countries. In Canada, 47% of the population now affirms being from an origin ethnic other than British or French. In most large cities, the skin colour of the population has changed. Along with these indicators, others make singling out – and therefore discriminating and disciplining – immigrant workers easier. Part of this new wave of immigration comes from regions inhabited by Muslims in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. According to certain projections, 10 years from now more than 1.8 million Muslims will live in Canada. These immigrants are often fleeing war and other atrocities in troubled regions such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As a rule, Muslim immigrants tend to live their daily lives much like the population at large. Religious identity is expressed through traditions, memories, important religious holidays, as well as food and clothing-related customs. Every now and then, these cultural differences, which count for very little in daily life, are manipulated by projects which seek to exaggerate these artefacts of identity, or they are used to control or manipulate other types of conflicts.
We must remember that similar policies have been used by those in power in the past. Under the rule of Duplessis, Quebec society in the 1950s was dominated by an anti-Semitic discourse. Repression was not limited to Jews only. Other religious minorities were also targeted, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, the true enemy of power was the union movement, with Jews and communists as scapegoats. Nowadays, this scapegoat is Muslim and is visible for other reasons.
War without end
We are concerned with an enormous conflict, which ties together a vast range of crises that span Indonesia, Central Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa. The American Empire needs to exert control in these parts of the world over enormous energy resources. This new conquest of the region requires a re-engineering, and the subjugation of the people who live there. Obviously, resistance is strong, as evidenced by the failures of NATO in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy is evil incarnate and dehumanised so that he may be eradicated with little regard for international law. It is us against them, a war of civilizations, as Samuel Huntingdon has stated.
This war is not only fought in Kandahar or Gaza: it is also fought in neighbourhoods where immigrants from those regions can be found. Though this tension existed before 2001, the events of that year have intensified police and security operations and tipped society into a “rights-free” zone. These operations include imprisonment without trial, black lists, so-called “security” certificates, intimidation or worse yet – as in Maher Arar’s case – the use of clandestine means to put “suspects” in life-threatening conditions.
This enemy must therefore “be constructed”. The demagogic media portrays the Muslim immigrant as “perverse, sly, and difficult to assimilate”. His customs are in direct contradiction with the modern world and human (especially, women’s) rights. From this perspective, the young girl wearing a veil is no more than a weapon in the hands of Islamic-terrorist groups. This Muslim menace must then be confined, monitored, controlled, even suppressed and deported, if the members of the community do not accept our “values”.
Responsibilities of civil society
Immigration as an “issue” is thus redefined in neoliberal “reasoning” and helps new, offensive, geopolitical measures that predispose opinion for war. It also justifies obvious regressions in civil rights by creating a feeling of insecurity all over the world. This strategy aims to divide society into numerous “ethnic”, religious and community groups, each one preoccupied in a struggle against the other.
It goes without saying that civil society must stand against this. It is incumbent upon us to rally the working class, immigrant or not, and fight against all these forms of discrimination that single out and marginalize immigrants, with regards to access to services, housing, employment and recognition of foreign credentials.
*Pierre Beaudet, Philippe Boudreau, Donald Cuccioletta, François Cyr, Thomas Chiasson-Lebel, Éric Martin, Michèle St Denis and André Vincent are members of the Political Analysis Collective (Collectif d’analyse politique). The original French version of this article was translated by Julie Daigneault.
ANTHRO and GEO: Presidential candidates, economic philosphy and development
New York Times analysis of the first presidential debate last night :
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/debate-a-clash-over-governments-role-news-analysis.html?hp&_r=0
Earlier in the day, when discussing the concept of progress and development in my ATR 220 (cultural anthropology) class, I found myself trying to tie the discussion of neoliberal economic theory to the varying political philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties. I figured it was a great opportunity to "repatriate: andthropology- to apply the concepts we were studying back here at home.
While not all politicians and their supporters subscribe to the same ideas, I think it safe to say things like "Republicans tend to be in favor of less regulation of markets, lower taxes, fewer government services and personal responsibility while Democrats tend to favor stricter governmental oversight of business, more taxpayer-funded programs, pand some kind of a safety net for when market forces leave people behind."
The neoliberal approaches to markets and to economic development applied in the global system seem to me quite analogous to the different party-line approaches to the economic condition of the country today, despite what either candidate has done in the past or is likely to do in the future when freed from the neccesity of campaigning for votes.
TheNew York Times' analysis of the debate referenced above seems to me to echo that- that what we saw last night was discussion of competing and starkly contrasting views of how to grow an economy and govern a country. Whether Romney is a neoliberal or Obama a true opponent of neoliberalism is certainly debatable itself, but it sure seemed to me that last night they were debating the relative merits of a neoliberal approach to development here in the United States. And that debate has been going on worldwide for some time now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/debate-a-clash-over-governments-role-news-analysis.html?hp&_r=0
Earlier in the day, when discussing the concept of progress and development in my ATR 220 (cultural anthropology) class, I found myself trying to tie the discussion of neoliberal economic theory to the varying political philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties. I figured it was a great opportunity to "repatriate: andthropology- to apply the concepts we were studying back here at home.
While not all politicians and their supporters subscribe to the same ideas, I think it safe to say things like "Republicans tend to be in favor of less regulation of markets, lower taxes, fewer government services and personal responsibility while Democrats tend to favor stricter governmental oversight of business, more taxpayer-funded programs, pand some kind of a safety net for when market forces leave people behind."
The neoliberal approaches to markets and to economic development applied in the global system seem to me quite analogous to the different party-line approaches to the economic condition of the country today, despite what either candidate has done in the past or is likely to do in the future when freed from the neccesity of campaigning for votes.
TheNew York Times' analysis of the debate referenced above seems to me to echo that- that what we saw last night was discussion of competing and starkly contrasting views of how to grow an economy and govern a country. Whether Romney is a neoliberal or Obama a true opponent of neoliberalism is certainly debatable itself, but it sure seemed to me that last night they were debating the relative merits of a neoliberal approach to development here in the United States. And that debate has been going on worldwide for some time now.
ANTHRO: Five essays and a Cartoon about Neoliberalism
A primer on Neoliberalism (fairly centrist take):
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
This one is fairly short and basic but definitely takes a left-wing take on neoliberalism:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
This one is left wing, entertaining and informative:
http://pplp.tripod.com/neoliberalism.html
Translation of the comic from above:
"The symptoms of neoliberalism are:
1) Anti-union politics 2) unemployment 3) End of social welfare programs 4) closing of social security institutions 5) decline of real wages 6) sacrifice of the majorities 7) enrichment of a minority 8) loss of sovereignty, 9) loss of prospects (hope).
This one is rather dire, but hard to argue with in my view.
http://www.tni.org/article/short-history-neoliberalism
Lastly, this one is a bit more detailed than the others:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
How many slaves work for you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/how-many-slaves-work-for-you.html
How about this- the CEO of Nestle arguing that fresh water is a commodity that should be priced and regulated by business, not a natural resource that is a basic human right (which he claims is the real EXTREME position):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nTqvBhFVdvE#!
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
This one is fairly short and basic but definitely takes a left-wing take on neoliberalism:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
This one is left wing, entertaining and informative:
http://pplp.tripod.com/neoliberalism.html
Translation of the comic from above:
"The symptoms of neoliberalism are:
1) Anti-union politics 2) unemployment 3) End of social welfare programs 4) closing of social security institutions 5) decline of real wages 6) sacrifice of the majorities 7) enrichment of a minority 8) loss of sovereignty, 9) loss of prospects (hope).
This one is rather dire, but hard to argue with in my view.
http://www.tni.org/article/short-history-neoliberalism
Lastly, this one is a bit more detailed than the others:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
How many slaves work for you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/how-many-slaves-work-for-you.html
How about this- the CEO of Nestle arguing that fresh water is a commodity that should be priced and regulated by business, not a natural resource that is a basic human right (which he claims is the real EXTREME position):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nTqvBhFVdvE#!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)