Massacre in Peru [read what you can do!]

*Background*

Between December 2007 and June 2008 Peruvian President Alan Garcia was granted special powers to pass laws relating to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, without them having to be fully consulted. During this time he passed a series of laws impacting indigenous territorial rightsand land security. These laws systematically undermine the legal rights that indigenous peoples hold over their land, promoting the privatization of lands currently under communal control, reverting some lands classed as
abandoned and unproductive to state control and enabling companies (petrol, mining etc) to enter indigenous lands without prior negotiation with the communities. Aside from the violations of indigenous rights to territory
which these laws contain, they were never consulted with indigenous people, itself a violation of ILO Convention 169 of which Peru is a signatory, and in contravention of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights.

In August last year indigenous peoples across the Amazon protested and held strikes in opposition to these laws, and as a result 2 laws, which facilitated the selling of indigenous communal lands, were repealed. In addition a multiparty committee was set up to investigate the problems faced by indigenous peoples in relation to the new laws, the issue of consultation, and the recent criminalization of protests. The report published on December 19th called for ten of the laws affecting indigenous peoples to be repealed as they undermined indigenous rights and were unconstitutional. However congress has delayed approving this report, never putting it on the agenda to be discussed.

On the 9th of April 2009 Amazonian indigenous peoples gave up waiting, and began new protests and road and river blocks across the region. The strikes were, on the part of the indigenous peoples, entirely peaceful. However in early May the Peruvian Government declared much of the Amazon to be in a State of Emergency, employing new tactics and authorizing military intervention to resolve the strikes.

One of the biggest protests was on the road between Jaen and Bagua, in the Department of Amazonas, where indigenous Awajun and Wampis were blocking the road at a bridge called Corral Quemada. On May 10th police entered and cleared the block using force and shooting tear gas bombs into the crowd. Many people were injured.

The Awajun and Wampis retreated a few kilometres to a curve in the road called “Curva del Diablo” (Devils Curve). There they set up new road blocks, which they held until June 5th. The indigenous protesters were not armed with firearms during the blockade, having only their spears, which they carry with them for ceremonial purposes.

*Events of June 5th*

On June 4th Peruvian Congress was supposed to discuss the possible repeal of
one of the more controversial laws (1090), however it was postponed by congress. Alan Garcia was reported in national press as saying “the time for dialogue is over, it is time to bring order back to the country” (El
Correo).

In the evening of Thursday, June 4th, a meeting was held between local police, indigenous and religious leaders in the town of Jaen, near Bagua. The police general is reported as informing the meeting that he had received orders to clear the road on the 5th or 6th, but that he would give the protesters until 10am on the 5th to leave peacefully, before using any force.

Before dawn on the morning of the 5th, armed police entered the area from various directions and by 7am had cleared the road block at the Curva del Diablo. During this time there appears to have been shooting from both police and protesters, and casualties were reported on both sides. Shooting took place not only on the road but up in the hills around the blockade where it seems police followed indigenous people who fled when the attack began.

The police advanced along the road, continually firing guns and tear gas, backed up by helicopters dropping tear gas bombs. The police beat indigenous peoples they managed to detain. By the time the protesters reached a major crossroad known as the Reposa, they met crowds of non-indigenous people coming to meet them from Bagua Chica and Bagua Grande, who had heard about the conflict on the radio and were coming to support the indigenous protesters. There were many people injured by firearms, and the protests continued in Bagua Chica and Bagua Grande where people fled from the tear
gas and bullets.

The hospitals in Bagua Chica and Bagua Grande were full of wounded, and at 6pm there were 5 confirmed dead in the hospitals (including 1 police officer), and 5 dead bodies on the Curva del Diablo, in addition to dead police who had been evacuated.

The State reported that in the evening of June 5th, indigenous protestors holding a petrol installation 5 hours away known as Estación 6 took 35 police captive, and that early on the morning of the 6th ten officers were killed before or during a rescue operation.

Following these events a curfew was placed on the whole area, with restricted movement in the streets between 3pm and 6am.

*Reports and testimonies*

Total numbers of dead and injured remains unclear. The State claims there
have been 24 police killed in total. Numbers of dead protesters (majority indigenous peoples, but also some local mestizos) range from 10 to over 100.

The Peruvian government claims that indigenous peoples attacked the police,
who then acted in self-defense, and that they took guns off murdered police officers. However indigenous peoples and the local mixed population in the area have made serious allegations against the Peruvian police and government. Their claims, many of which have been made in filmed testimonies include:

·       Police opening fire upon indigenous protesters without provocation

·       Police shooting people who were running away

·       Police opening fire from helicopters on the crowd

·       Police firing upon and threatening press

·       Removal of bodies in helicopters from the mountain

·       Unauthorised removal of bodies from local hospitals

·       Burning of bodies

·       Disposal of bodies in the river

·       Appearance of bodies in the river

·       Rape and torture of detained protesters

·       Mass graves

·       Unpublished lists of those detained, many of whom were wounded

·       Police searching houses in the area one by one and detaining anyone with an ‘indigenous looking’ face

*Current situation in Peru*

During the first three days after the attacks, the government created obstacles for anyone providing an unofficial version of the facts of June 5 th. The press was bombarded with images and discourses portraying indigenous peoples as savages, with the focus being on the police killed and very little said about the many indigenous and mestizo deaths. Anyone working with indigenous peoples was portrayed as being part of an international complot to stop Peru from developing and having sovereignty over its resources. NGOs and human rights organizations were accused.

The national Amazonian indigenous organization AIDESEP has been attacked in
Government statements and by the national press. The President of AIDESEP, Alberto Pizango, has been vilified as the author of the attacks, despite the fact that he always promoted dialogue and during the 54 days of protest before June 5th repeatedly called on the protesters to remain peaceful. A warrant for his arrest has been released and he is currently in asylum in the embassy of Nicaragua in Lima.

The situation at the sites of other protests in the Amazon is escalating, with more indigenous peoples arriving and the government sending in special armed forces. An indefinite strike has been called across the Amazon starting on June 11th.

The laws indigenous peoples are protesting against have still not been properly discussed in congress, although one of them, 1090, was suspended for 60 days on June 10th. It should have been repealed.

*What Peruvian organizations are doing*

A large number of human rights, indigenous rights and environmental organizations in Peru have close links to the issues and the areas where these events occurred, and have now come together to identify priorities and form emergency working groups to ensure actions taken are coordinated and cover all necessary fields, and support the indigenous movement and the need
for the truth to be revealed. These actions include:

·       Call for precautionary measures from the InterAmerican Commission
for Human Rights. Requested by AIDESEP before the attacks.

·       Legal support for the indigenous leaders and others implicated in
the protests, many of whom are now in hiding.

·       Humanitarian support for the protesters, including medical aid for the wounded, helping them return to their communities and psychological support to recover what they have witnessed and suffered.

·       Continued pressure on Peruvian Congress for the laws that violate indigenous rights to be repealed.

·       Coordinated press and communications campaigns.

·       Collection of information, video and photographs from June 5th and recording of testimonies from witnesses.

·       Educating the national and international public about the problems with the package of laws in question.

·       Activities promoting peace in Peru, including an international commission and a peace vigil and march in Lima.

*What international organizations can do*

This event is the greatest human rights tragedy in Peru in recent years, and
there are very serious allegations being made against the government, including that of genocide. As yet there has been no concerted international response to these events, and international press has been slow to publish the story.

We call upon everyone, not just lovers of the Amazon, but anyone who respects life and peace, to take this issue as seriously as it deserves. People wanting to help can take the following actions:

·       Donations for humanitarian aid to the indigenous people wounded during the protests. Donations will be sent to the Vicariato of Jaen, a local religious institution that has many years of experience in the area and supports the local indigenous peoples. Money can be sent to them via Amazon Watch

http://www.amazonwatch.org/peru-protests.php

·       Send letters to Alan Garcia and sign petitions calling for the violence to end, a full investigation into the events, and for the laws to be repealed

http://amazonwatch.org/peru-action-alert.php

http://www.avaaz.org/en/peru_stop_violence/?cl=250912030&v=3462

·       Hold vigils / demonstrations outside Peruvian Embassies

·       Circulate information to all contacts, especially press

·       Write to SPDA, (Peruvian Society for Environmental Law) which has been advising the Government on environmental law, including the laws the indigenous people are protesting against, asking them to take international indigenous rights agreements into account, and support the repeal of the laws (postmaster@spda.org.pe, Prolongación Arenales 437 Lima 27, Perú)

*Links*

There are many, many links on the internet, with information and discussion of the events of June 5th, the background and current situation. This is a very short selection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8093729.stm – BBC article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG7rHB1nnOw – Peruvian press report on the
massacres with interviews with local people

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/08/peru.violence/ – CNN
article on the incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUJdGipiJ4 – Peruvian Governmet propoganda
against the indigenous peoples

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/8/peruvian_police_accused_of_massacring_indigenous-
US news piece on the incident

*Post prepared by Aliya Ryan [Shinai] & Others
Please circulate as widely as possible.

to define ‘anthropology’ (indications)

As I was suggested in another post, anthropology lacks precision. [As I noticed  before always when I'm using term  'anthropology' in this blog I understand by this 'social/cultural anthropology'. This call for precision is about sociocultural anthropology]

I believe, good anthropologist have to clearly precising terms which he use (indeed, anyone who wants to be comprehensible, needs to). First of all, he have to clearly defining his vision of anthropology, because all depends from it… his field of interest, methods of gathering data and at last his final (product) interpretation (mostly in textual form). I’m not professional anthropologist (wish to say ‘yet’) but as a student I really perceive this lack of precision in anthropological texts, books and unfortunately blogs, which I read.

So what I can do…I can only start from myself.

Whole this blog will be vision of this what means ‘to do anthropology’ for me. But what I’m calling here is hope that if everyone of anthropologist bloggers would precise (through his blogs) what is their visions of anthropology…

Precisely, what is  as specific for anthropology, as we can say that is in general any ‘anthropology’? What constitute anthropology as an separate formation (discipline)?

…reply for this, could be not only creative (!) but also a great sign to represent power of Internet (open exchanging ideas project), and firstly, this could be a grate (visible) counterbalance for hidden agenda of misunderstandings about unexplained old debate: what define anthropology, what differ anthropological interpretation, and at last did anthropology could be a social science or only literature.

Anyway I’m going to tackle with this. I’m going start my blog from precising what is for me (core) definition of anthropology (there is a few anthropologists bloggers which clearly defines it). Not my whole individual vision of anthropology (my individual interpretation of core definition of anthropology will be whole this blog, I wish) but a core definition – a minimum which demarcate what can be understand as an sociocultural anthropology. To not to bore, in this post I’m going propose my indications for core definition of anthropology, only.

“What is doing anthropologist?…he write!” suggest Geertz – I dare to suggest, he don’t only write…

Or rather, to write he have to do a lot of other things. He needs to have a [1] field of interest, [2] methods of gathering data and [3] notion of description (which I prefer conceptualize as ‘tool’) to present his ideas (interpretations) in text. Whole this ‘things’  I think represent minimum of that what means “to write”

At once this three spots I perceive as fundamental indications for core definition of anthropology. They are only indications – they don’t define anthropology. To define we have to fill up indication by content. We have to reply for three questions which indications bring for us:

[1] What can be field of interest for anthropology? (Does everything can be interpreted anthropologically?)

[2]What is a specific method of gathering data in anthropology? By ’specific’ I mean that is importand to distinguish fundamental methods and auxiliary methods.

[3] Have anthropology any specific notion of description, or we have to use tools (conceptions) from another disciplines to describe our field of interest?

I’m going to tackle with this questions, off course in another post (this one is lengthy, yet).

Anthropology and culture – call for precision!

Firstly important note: Always when I’m using in this blog single term ‘anthropology’  I understand by this social/cultural anthropology. Sometimes I will be use term ’sociocultural anthropology’ (to put both traditions together)

There is no doubt, that lack of precision is the one of  fundamental problems of  anthropological theory. Unfortunately most of anthropologist don’t care about definition of words which they use at description. Of course, this is difficult to keep precision in social science, because we all knows now (as contrasted with most of our colleagues from natural science) that every kind of  description (“explanation” as preferred our colleagues) is simultaneously interpretation.

 Nevertheless, I believe that carry on precision  and clarity (of definitions) is fundamental for understanding (especially in social science). Complexity of social/cultural reality can’t be explain away by laxity of definition, because concepts are tools of description for anthropologist.

So, I want to begin with definition of two fundamental words (concepts) for this blog (and I hope for any blog with anthropological background) – anthropology and culture.

I believe that this is fundamental to explain in anthropological discourse, what anthropologist understand when they used words such as “anthropology” or “culture”? Of course I’m not calling for particularly definition, but rather for core definition.

I’m aware of individual understands(interpretations) of this words for any anthropologist (and I respect it). But, if we want to understand each other, we have to express ours definition and try to establish agreement. Simply because, this is creative.

Whole this blog will be my individual understand of this words, I hope. But to respond at my own appeal (to give example) I will try to establish my own proposition of core definitions for this concepts.

Before I present it here, I want to underline why it is so important for me (and I hope not only form me).

In case of notion of anthropology (I mean ‘cultural/social anthropology’) it’s clear that there isn’t one understanding of what cultural/social anthropology really is. Variety of individual interpretations are off course common sense, but in the same breath risky is, if we don’t have, much or less, common core definition of our discipline. Core definition which explain what establish specific kind of gaining knowledge in area of anthropology.

Psychologists, linguistics, sociologists for example, all of them have his own individual understanding of his discipline,  but they also have core definitions of what exactly psychology, linguistic and sociology really is – in that sense, that they more or less  are agree of what is specific in gaining knowledge for this disciplines.

One can critic, what for is it, what for precising definition of discipline in our interdisciplinary (globalising) world!? The answer is simply and important – To better understand. I’m advocate of interdisciplinary studying (research), but I’m also advocate of idea that every discipline (of this interdisciplinary call) have his own methods (and knowledge) as educating strong and useful as they are precise. We have to precise if we want to be understandably, and crucially if we want to submit interpretations which are valuable.

 

What about notion of ‘culture’. Here the case is simple. Notion of culture is ours tool of description. Anthropologist’s explanations (descriptions) are explanations through notion of ‘culture’. It’s logic that we have to establish core definition of culture if we want to be understandably and practically! Besides, that this is an order of methodology.

I’m optimist. I believe that cultural/social anthropology is a kind of knowledge which can offer valuable (mindful postmodern critic) and practically interpretation about human (and world which he establish in relations). That’s why I’m calling for precision in anthropology.