D I A L O G U E April 2004 Anthropology News

Anthropology News, the offiaal newspaper of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), is published monthly, except for June, July and August. The mission of the AAA is to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in aII its aspects, through archaeological, biological, ethnological and linguistic research; and to foster the use of anthropological knowledge in addressing human problems. Anthropology News (AN) advances this mission by pro- viding members with news of Association business; discussions of issues of vital importance to the discipline; and informa- tion on publications, professional job opportunities, research funding availabili- ty, meetings and other items of importance to members. AN promotes the discipline of anthropology and the interests of anthro- pologists aaoss all subfields. Members are encouraged to submit letters, news stories, commentaries, reports and other materials for publication. The AN Style Guide is available at http://members. aaanet.org/an/info/styleguide.htm. Please email text or send a word-processed disk (clearly labeled) plus hard copy to the address below. For the return of materials, send a self-addressed stamped mailer. Members are encouraged to contact the A N editor before submitting commentaries or lengthy reports. Deadline for receipt of accepted copy is six weeks preceding cover date. AN reserves the right to edit or reject any submission. Member dues (except for Joint Members) include a subscription to AN. Available by separate subscription for $103 for institu- tions and $93 for nonmembers. Single copy $12.50 for members, $15.00 for non- members.

Anthropology News American Anthropological Assodation 2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600 Arhgton, VA 22201-3357 Telephone: 703152&1902

www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm Copyright 8 2004 American Anthmplogid Assodation Peridah postage paid at Arlington, VA, and additional mailing offices Postmaster: Send address changes to AnthmporogV News, 2200 Wilson Bhrd, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3357; membe@aaanet.org Subscriptions: 7031528-1902, ext 1; members@aaanet.org Display ad rate information: www.ucpress.edu/joumals/3a/aa/ad.h~; marge.dd%qxess.edu Contact Job Placement Coordinator Richard Thomas for infonnation on placing line ads at 703/5281902, ext 3030; plamnent@aanet.org

Fax: 7031528-3546

The Correspondence column is primarily for the use of AAA members for the purpose of addressing issues that relate to the discipline and practice of anthropology AN reserves the right to select and edit letters All letters must be clearly marked for Anthropology News Correspondence, not to exceed 400 words and consisting of a signed origi- nal plus an electronic copy whenever possible Letters published reflect the views of the correspondents, their publication does not signify endorsement by the American Anthropological Association

Visualizing the NCO Problematique In her Feb AN commentary "Speaking Truth to a Powerful Film," Biesele raises concerns about Part Five, Death By Myth of John Marshall's series A Kalahari farnib. She concludes by asking: "Most importantly" "what may happen if Namibian politicians see the Juhoansi portrayed as rejecting the very environ- mental approaches by which their land was finally secured?" Yet the issue for many Namibians is not about environ- mental approaches; it's about the power of white expatriates.

In July 2003 a British anthropologist expressed (ndive) surprise at the Nami- bian government's hostile reaction to his report on minorities in Namibia since it was ostensibly largely favorable toward the government. The critics were Presi- dent Sam Nujoma and a senior Perma- nent Secretary who complained "for- eigners compiling reports on issues in Africa and Namibia should not base their finding on assumptions and hear- say." Nujoma's outburst was more sig- nificant. At Tsumkwe he warned San to be careful of people who work with NGOs and charity organizations as they were bent on exploiting San and causing division while making money for them- selves. NGOs "colonized us. They denied us education. Now they are the ones saying we are the ones who are margin- alizing some portion of our population" (The Namibian, August 1, 2003). Over the last five years Nujoma has been making increasingly critical comments about the role of whites engaged in ad- vocacy on behalf of indigenous groups.

Correction The Grand Inga Project discussed in "Rivers for Life" in last month's issue is located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not China. The photo for the student profile in the March SUNTA column war Rachel Adler, not Rachel Heirnan. Rachel Adler's grant from the New Jersey State Historical Commis- sion was announced in March's Grant Recipients column.

Nujoma's outburst expresses sentiments shared by large segments of Namibia's burgeoning bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Should the situation escalate into an anti-white dominated NGO binge by powerful government functionaries then all the argument and struggles to create a Conservancy in Nyae Nyae to preserve Juhoansi land rights from out- side encroachment will have been for naught.

Death By Myth is controversial, not because it skewers Axel Thoma the erst- while Development Foundation Director, but because it is one of the first visual attempts to problematize the work of NGOs, which have become major con- duits and links between Northern and Southern countries. Anthropologists have almost as an article of faith viewed them positively, papering over the cracks of conflict and contradiction for fear that criticism might scare away potential donors, although this is gradually chang- ing with the appearance of several impressive sympathetic yet critical self- reflective analyses of their role. The case that much NGO "aid" does not con- tribute to the prosperity of recipients but rather assists in shoring up relations of domination is being made more and more frequently, not just by Marshall. In particular, the role of "race" in narratives and practices of development needs to be acknowledged, especially the unac- knowledged assumptions of middle class Western bourgeois "experts, " whose roles as gatekeepers need to be scrutinized.

If we are sincere in our interests of those popularly labeled as Bushmen we have to have the courage to be self crit- ically aware of our own role and the NGOs we support.

Robert Gordon U Vermont

Oral History and IRBs 1 read with interest the Feb AN articles by Stuart Platner ("Human Subjects Pro- tections and Anthropology") and Helen McGough ("IRBS and Ethnographers, Why Can't We All Just Get Along?"). From my experiences as a hospital based

Institutional Review Board (IRB) adminis- trator, I see three important messages for those who conduct oral history inter- viewing.

First-Institutions conducting re- search are overseen by one or a combi- nation of the following organizations or laws: Office for Human Research Pro- tections (OHRP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). All have policies that both agree and disagree in terms of subject protections. Therefore, organizations create IRBs to synthesize these regula- tions into a workable Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM) which also incorporates state and local regulations. Our policy is to examine regulations and incorporate strictest policy into our PPM so it will cover the other two. Our PPM outlines that any prospective contact of a patient, even a survey, must have IRB review.

Secondly-The FDA and OHRP judge IRBs according to each institution's PPM. If your institution's policy requires con- sent for historical data collection under FDA or HIPAA rules, these regulations must be followed regardless of OHRP regulations, meaning informed consent must be obtained before historical inter- view data are obtained. For example, if your university has a nursing school pro- gram that conducts research, it may be overseen by the FDA rather than the OHRP If the FDA requires informed con- sent, you may have to go through your FDA approved nursing school IRB.

Lastly-Differences in PPMs are often confusing to investigators that work at several institutions. Consider a research- er who performs oral history interviews. One IRB governed by OHRP regulations may correctly elect not to review the research. However, another may require review according to their PPM. If this second IRB elects to not review the research it will be in OHRP violation because they didn't follow their own PPM. This can frustrate the researcher because they often interpret this as needless interference.

It's best to contact the institutional IRE in writing to determine their policy. Ask for a copy of their PPM. And be flexi- ble-tnost IRBs have answered similar questions before and can help you streamline the process. Although often perceived as roadblocks to research, IRBs protect the patient and can protect the researcher by preventing FDA and OHRP violations from occurring.

Tom Wasser Lehigh Valley Hospital

Motion on Palestine I write to offer a critique of the proposed "Motion on Palestine" before it is for- warded to the AAA Board. A recent let- ter objected to the motion's lack of anthropological orientation; I want to elaborate on this point, outlining the motion's specific problems: Orientalism,

3