HUMAN RIGHTS in GLOBAL LIGHT - San Francisco State University

HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL LIGHT 

HUMAN RIGHTS 

in 

GLOBAL LIGHT 

Selected Papers, Poems, and Prayers 

SFSU Annual Human Rights Summits 

2004 - 2007 

San Francisco State University 

Treganza Museum Anthropology Papers 

Numbers 24 & 25 

2007- 2008


Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 

Department of Anthropology 


Year Double Issue: 2007 - 2008 

Numbers 24 and 25 

Editor Mariana Leal Ferreira 

Editorial Board 

Mariana Leal Ferreira 

Miko Yamamoto 

Bernard Wong 

Lucia Volk 

Eva Langman 

Kellen Prandini 

Tina Palivos 

Copy Editors 

Eva Langman 

Andrea Fitzpatrick 

Kellen Prandini 

Celia Alves 

Webmaster 

Jennifer Kennedy 

http://humanrights.sfsu.edu 

This Special Issue of the Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers was funded by 


College of Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Public Research Institute 

The Biobehavioral Research Center 

Center for Health Disparities Research and Training 

Instructionally Related Activities 

Jay Young 

Special Thanks 

Joel Kassiola (Dean, College of Behavioral & Social Sciences, SFSU) 

Jim Wiley (Director, Public Research Institute, SFSU) 

In Memory of 

Floyd Redcrow Westerman (1936-2007) 

Copyright © 2007-2008 by the 

Treganza Anthropology Museum 

ISSN 1532-5687



in 

GLOBAL LIGHT 

Selected Papers, Poems, and Prayers 

SFSU Annual Human Rights Summits 

2004-2007 


Treganza Museum Anthropology Papers 

Numbers 24 & 25 

2007-2008

HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL LIGHT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 



• Foreword: Human Rights – Where Are We Today? Nancy Scheper-Hughes 1 

• Introduction: Human Rights in Global Light. Mariana Leal Ferreira 5 

• The Importance of the Human Rights Summit at San Francisco State University. 

Joel Kassiola 11 

• Brief Reflections on Anthropology and Human Rights. Lucia Volk 13 

• Make Your Voice Strong Enough to Change a Vote. Melinda Cordasco 14 

• Art and Social Activism. Debby Kajiyama 15 

PART ONE – THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 19 

• Cycles of Rights, Rites of Cycles. Melissa Nelson 21 

• IronHawk on Death Row. A Play on Genocide and Indigenous Peoples Rights. 

Mariana Leal Ferreira 23 

• The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: 

Past and Future. Alberto Saldamando 33 

• Graves Protection and Repatriation: An Unresolved Universal Human Rights 

Problem Affected by Institutional Racism. James Riding In 37 

• Human Rights and the Practice of Repatriation. David Kojan 43 

• Impact of Environmental Racism on Indigenous Peoples. Manuel Pino 49 

• Human Rights and the Academy: Analysis, Passion and Purpose. Philip Klasky 52 

• Health Disparities and American Indian Self-Knowledge. Rachel Huffman 53 

• Power Negotiations Between Indigenous Peoples and the U.S. in Northern 

California: A Human Rights Perspective. Brian Gleeson 56 

• The U.S. Supreme Court, The Western Shoshone, and the Fight for Human 

Rights in the International Arena. Jennifer Wolowic 61 

PART TWO – SEXUALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 67 

• The Future of Sexuality is Human Rights. Gil Herdt 69 

• Brown/Black/Yellow/Jail>Poor>Abused>Girl. Tamaya Garcia 71 

• Human Rights as Rightful Action. Gillian Goslinga 73 

• AIDS Call for Action. Jorge Zepeda 73 

• Street Sexology. Carol Queen 75 

• ’Hers and His’. A Gendered Perspective on Disaster. Anna Ruddock 77 

• Intersex Genital Mutilation Without Informed Consent. Michael Mallory 81 

• Dialogues of Disability: Reproductive Rights and the ‘Double Handicap’. 

Eva Langman 85 

• Abstaining from Education: The Danger of Abstinence-Only Programs in 

Public Schools. Andrea Fitzpatrick 90 

• Rights for the Rest of Us: Demanding International Human Rights for Sexual 

Minorities. Gregory T. Hunt 96 

• Burma: Reproductive Rights in a State of Violence. Tani Helen Sebro 99


PART THREE – THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 105 

• Toward a Manifesto on Children’s Agency. Brad Erickson 107 

• How to Fix Our Broken and Dysfunctional Juvenile Justice System. 

Loren Buddress 109 

• Kidnapping by Convention: Good Intentions or Intentional Indifference? 

Emily Birky 110 

• Children as Players in the U.S. Food Corporation Game: A Human Rights Issue. 

Donnabeth M. Pascual 114 

• Expendable KIDS: Infringing on the Medical Privacy of Placer County Students 

in California. Natalie Rold 119 

• ‘Kiddie Porn’: More Than You Think It Is. James Climaco 123 

• Child Sex-ploitation: Tourism and Trafficking in Cambodia. Phimy Truong 127 

• Silencing the ‘Rebellious Body’: Refusal of Standardization and the Advent 

of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Celia Alves-Rivière 132 

• Missing Children in Anthropological Research: A Human Rights Perspective. 

Veronika Zimova Hopkins 137 

PART FOUR – THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND PEOPLES OF COLOR 141 

• Learning and Teaching about Human Rights. Sherry Keith 143 

• Human Rights, Anthropology, and Our Times: Triangulating the Emancipatory 

Potential in All. James Quesada 145 

• The People of Plachimada vs. Coca-Cola and the Fight For Water Democracies 

in India. Gavin Rader 148 

• The Refugee Body: Human Rights and the Continuum of Violence. 

Alexandra Dobos-Czarnocha 153 

• The Consequences of Sexual Violence in Sudan. Melinda Cordasco 156 

• Institutionalized Racism: The Prison Industrial Complex in the United States. 

Lindsay Clark 161 

• Forces that Kill: Structural Violence in Mexico. Nikki Humes 166 

• Symbolic Violence and the Internet: New Technologies Against Women. 

Richie Cruz 168 

• Religion, Martyrdom, and the Basij in Iran. Amir Arman 170 

INSIDE BACK COVER 

• Prayer. Eva Langman 175 

BACK COVER 

• Dedication: Floyd Red Crow Westerman 176 

Ideas contained in this publication are the sole responsibility of their authors, 

and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of San Francisco State University.


FOREWORD 

Human Rights - Where Are We Today? 

NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was 

a singular event in modern political history, a bold 

attempt at global peacemaking, world-saving, and 

world repair. Following the Holocaust and WWII, 

the world was in tatters; the notion of humanity and 

the nature of the ‘human’ were in question. The 

death camps, the Nazi medical experiments, the 

massive political and popular denials of these 

events – and, later, the denial that they had ever 

happened – spoke to a collapse of western culture 

and civilization as “we” (thought) we knew it. 

Both the search for a new moral compass and the 

need for a new global social contract resulted in the 

articulation of a universal code that (while based 

on earlier formulations of the rights of “man”) was 

one of the most extraordinary and radical 

documents ever written. 

Sixty years later, where are we today with 

respect to the defense of those basic human rights, 

both at home and abroad? Following the bloody 

second half of the 20 th century, we have learned 

that the recognition of universal human rights and 

the passionate refusals of mass-killing political 

machines – “Never Again!”, “Nunca Mas!” – 

remain utopian premises. Genocides beget new 

genocides, as the victims of mass killing and their 

survivors harbor wounds that never heal. The scars 

never disappear; the images of genocide, of torture, 

of barbarism last forever. On the second day of a 

conference on genocide, “Reporting from the 

Killing Fields” (April 10 & 11, 1997), sponsored 

by the Human Rights Center at the University of 

California, a tall African man stood up and 

confronted a Hutu panelist with the words: How 

can we ever forgive your people? How will we 

ever be able to live together again?” There are no 

easy answers to these questions. There are NO 

answers at all. Jacques Derrida, in one of his few 

attempts to reflect, as a public intellectual as well 

Nancy Scheper-Hughes is Chancellor’s Professor of Medical 

Anthropology at UC Berkeley, where she directs the doctoral 

program in Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body. 

Scheper-Hughes' lifework concerns the violence of everyday life 

examined from a radical existentialist and politically engaged 

perspective. She is co-founder and Director of Organs Watch, a 

medical human rights project, and she is currently an advisor to 

the World Health Organization (Geneva) on issues related to 

global transplantation. 

1 

as a social philosopher, about the aftermaths of 

genocides, argued that the only path to 

reconciliation, if it were to exist at all, entails an 

almost divine mandate: “to forgive the 

unforgivable.” In The Human Condition, Hannah 

Arendt adds another requirement to allow history 

to continue: the forging of new social contracts 

rooted in the claim of all people – adults and 

children, settlers and indigenous people, citizens 

and immigrants, the rooted and the rootless, the 

disgraced and the displaced, the born and the yet to 

be born – to human rights. 

The United States has so often played the role 

of global moral broker that Americans tend to see 

“human rights” and human rights violations as an 

external discourse, as irrelevant to ourselves and to 

our country. Aren’t we, after all, the land of the 

brave and the home of the free? And yet, sixty 

years following the signing of the Declaration of 

Human Rights, there are more than one and a half 

million Americans incarcerated in jails and prisons. 

The Supreme Court has affirmed the death penalty 

and embraced lethal injection as an acceptable tool 

of the state. Constitutional law has been 

reinterpreted to allow the torture of political 

prisoners of “a war on terror” that has taken the 

lives of more than 600,000 Iraqi civilians – the 

unacknowledged deaths of an invisible “dirty 

war.” 1 We have the tragedy of the aftermath of 

Katrina and the inability of the United Nations to 

prevent the U.S. government from the demolition 

of public housing. We have institutionalized social 

inequality and urban apartheid in our schools, in 

1 In 2004, the Lancet, the world's premier medical journal, 

published an epidemiological research report which concluded 

that as many as 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since 

the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Since then, war-related 

violence has been the primary cause of death within Iraqi 

households surveyed by the America-led team of medical 

researchers. More than half of the people who died since the 

invasion began from the war and its aftermaths – infectious 

disease, dehydration, malnutrition – are women and children. 

The U.S. response to the report was muted. American 

newspapers only noted how much higher the Lancet report's 

estimate was than official government estimates. Neither the 

Defense Department nor the State Department responded to the 

article. The findings were simply buried. This is what the denial 

of history looks like. In October 2006 an updated study was 

published, again in the Lancet, in which it was asserted that the 

most likely statistical estimate of war-related civilian deaths in 

Iraq since the 2003 invasion is 655,000.

our neighborhoods, and in our churches. We have 

“no go” zones in U.S. neighborhoods – places 

where white or black or brown or gay people are 

threatened, or made to feel unsafe, as if passing 

through a war zone. 

In short, we are living in tense and difficult 

times. We face an out-of-control, escalating war in 

Iraq and destructive cultural wars at home. We are 

a divided nation within a profoundly divided 

world, despite globalization and its allegedly 

democratizing effects. The global gap between 

north and south, rich and poor, Middle East and 

Mid-West has become a chasm, and tensions 

among Islamic, Jewish and Christian 

fundamentalists have made all of us less free and 

less safe. As Michael Moore so graphically 

portrayed in his film, Bowling for Columbine, the 

more we arm ourselves, the more terrified we 

become – frightened as it were by our own dark 

shadow. The Department of Homeland Security 

has in fact created a great deal of homeland 

insecurity. The ‘right to bear arms’ is debated and 

defended by our current presidential candidates; 

the right to affordable housing is barely mentioned. 

Several months before reports of torture and 

prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib had come to light, a 

New York Times journalist wrote an essay asking 

where all the anthropologists had gone and why 

they weren't actively intervening and helping the 

country disentangle itself from the chaotic situation 

in Iraq. He recalled that toward the end of World 

War II, Ruth Benedict, the famous Columbia 

University anthropologist, had advised the state 

department on how to better understand and treat 

our former enemy in U.S.-occupied Japan. Her 

report on Japanese society and culture, quickly 

published as The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, 

was distributed among the American troops 

involved in the post war occupation. The analogies 

between occupied Japan and occupied Iraq are 

startling. Both nations were viewed by Americans 

as exotic, forbidding, ideological and undemocratic. 

Japanese Kamikaze pilots were as 

frightening and incomprehensible to Americans in 

the 1940s as suicide bombers are to us today. What 

is different, however, is that during WWII, 

American policy makers actively sought out 

intellectuals and scholars to help them understand 

the societies, cultures, and psychologies of the 

people they were fighting. They listened to 

scholars from diverse backgrounds and political 

sympathies that were knowledgeable about 

Germany and Japan. Ruth Benedict had famously 

characterized Japanese culture as based on "honor" 

and "shame," as opposed to cultures like the U.S. 

and England, which were "guilt" cultures. Guilt 


2 

cultures, she argued, tended to be stubborn, rigid, 

and hard to change. Shame cultures were otherdirected 

and very responsive to external judgments. 

Standards of behavior tended to adapt to changing 

circumstances and social perceptions. 

Benedict advised the U.S. war office that 

occupying forces should try to effect changes by 

working within the norms of Japanese culture 

rather than by obliterating them. Above all, it 

would be a grave mistake, she said, to humiliate a 

people whose lives and wellbeing were so closely 

connected to honor and to saving face. Ruth 

Benedict understood that cultural traditions and 

religions, to which people give their most intense 

loyalties, "cannot be changed on demand from 

outside without the gravest consequences." The 

New York Times essay ended with a plea: "As the 

occupation of Iraq becomes more complex each 

day, where are today's Ruth Benedicts and 

Margaret Meads, the authoritative anthropological 

voices of reason who will carry weight with both 

Iraqis and with Americans?" 

Unfortunately, those anthropologists who have 

directly “weighed in” on Iraq have done so at the 

expense of their anthropological vision. They have 

joined the war effort, working in intelligence and 

homeland security. This is hardly what the New 

York Times essayist had in mind. At the December 

2007 meetings of the American Anthropological 

Society in Washington, the President of the Society 

for Medical Anthropology, Marcia Inhorn, 

commented that there were no medical 

anthropologists, to the best of her knowledge, 

conducting ethnographic work on the war in Iraq. 

While acknowledging the extreme danger of the 

war zone as an anthropological “field site,” Inhorn, 

a former journalist, praised the courage of the more 

than 140 journalists who have been killed in Iraq, 

in the effort to tell a story that needs to be told. She 

recorded the “body count” of Iraqis and 

Americans, the unprecedented numbers of 

returning soldiers with PTSD and serious 

debilitating injuries, and the environmental damage 

of US-made weapons which scatter radioactive 

poison and create innumerable health problems that 

will affect current and subsequent generations. 

Finally, she questioned the professional neglect of 

the Iraq war on the part of medical anthropologists 

and called for an engaged and, I would say, an 

enraged anthropological analysis of the war. 

In her political manifesto, Three Guineas, 

Virginia Woolf noted how easy it is to invent 

reasons not to participate in acts of civil 

disobedience in defense of universal human rights. 

What holds people of good conscience back, she 

asked. “Do we really want to pay for torture?”

Freedom, Woolf argued, is frighteningly malleable 

and all too readily transformed into a banner for 

war – but freedom could be reclaimed and used to 

support other and more creative peacemaking 

struggles as well. 

When asked, in 1938, what kind of freedom 

would advance the fight against racism, fascism, 

colonialism and sexism, Virginia Woolf replied 

“freedom from unreal loyalties.” “You must rid 

yourselves of pride of nationality in the first 

place;” she explained, “also of religious pride, of 

college pride, family pride, sex pride, and all the 

other unreal loyalties that spring from them.” The 

practice of freedom required “distance,” a cutting 

loose from one’s “natural social moorings, from 

conventional ties and behavior. But one must be 

ready to risk “respectability,” audience, 

professional standing, and career advancement. 

The voluntary marginality that Virginia Woolf 

advocates drew from her own experience of 

marginality as a woman – albeit a wealthy and 

privileged one – and the exclusion of women from 

the epicenters of power, knowledge and authority. 

Locked out of the inner circles of state, church, 

university and military influence, women were 

naturally “subversive,” lacking in loyalty to 

patriarchal institutions. As a woman, Virginia 

Woolf wrote, “I have no state, no country, only the 

world is my country.” 

Woolf asked that all who wished to protect 

human culture and intellectual liberty not enter the 

male-centered professions unless they “refuse to 


WORKS CITED 

be separated from the four great teachers of 

women: poverty, chastity, derision, and (above all) 

freedom from unreal loyalties, loyalties to old 

notions of nationhood and statehood, loyalties to 

old families and old wealth, to old schools and old 

schools of thought.” In proclaiming herself a 

citizen of the world, Virginia Woolf was 

embracing a human “citizenship,” with all the hope 

and all the possibilities inherent in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights. 

It is an honor to introduce and to salute this 

collection of stunning undergraduate and graduate 

student and faculty papers. These contributions to 

thinking about human rights were written across 

age and gender and sex and generation, and even 

across the barrier of the Bay Bridge as students 

from SFSU and UC Berkeley came together to 

contribute to the first four Annual Human Rights 

Summits organized and convened by Professor 

Mariana Ferreira of SFSU. The papers in this 

collection are an example of the radical moral 

imaginations of members of the so-called “new 

millennium generation”: young critical thinkers in 

America, students who refuse exactly what 

Virginia Wolf was alluding to – the old and unreal 

loyalties to nation, to class, to gender – in order to 

cast their lots with humanity and, in all its 

diversity, the human itself. 

Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Berkeley, California 

April 21, 2008 

Derrida, Jacques 

2001 On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge. 

Arendt, Hannah 

1958 The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Benedict, Ruth 

1946 The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Cleveland: Meridian Books. 

Virginia Woolf 

1938 Three Guineas. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co. 

3


4

FIGHTING WITH FLOWERS AND FRUITS 

IN XAVANTE TERRITORY, CENTRAL 

BRAZIL 

On a blasting hot day of July 2003, when 

rising temperatures reached 125 degrees Fahrenheit 

due to large-scale savannah fires set by mega 

sugarcane, soybean, and cattle ranchers in Mato 

Grosso, Central-Brazil, a group of 15 Xavante 

children and I gathered in the cool shade of the 

Idzô’uhu School on the Sangradouro Indigenous 

Land. We met early morning after a quick 

breakfast of manioc cakes to work on illustrations 

for the environmental project “Fighting with 

Flowers and Fruits in Xavante Territory, Central- 

Brazil.” Sponsored by the United Nations 

Development Project (UNDP), a team of Xavante 

women lead by medicine woman Batika Dutsi’wa 

had just finished identifying more than 150 

endangered plant species used in the daily life of 

this Gê-speaking people. 

The extra supply of red colored pencils and 

crayons spread over the Idzô’uhu School table was 

quickly consumed by the youth, as flowers, fruits, 

sprouts, seeds, and the land itself—usually colored 

green, yellow, blue, and brown in schooling 

activities—became tinged with red, ipré in the 

Xavante language, the color of wapru, blood. The 

drawings were created in the wake of the summary 

execution and decapitation of one of the kids’ 

elders, Joaquim Maradezuro, by a local soybean 

farmer a couple of months before, on April 12, 

2003. Joaquim was stabbed in the back, his body 

chopped into pieces and hidden in an old sewage 

pipe. The elder was hunting on ancestral Xavante 

territory, now almost entirely overtaken by soybean 

farmers and cattle ranchers, such as Ernesto Ruaru 

himself, one of the largest soybean plantation 

owners in the state of Mato Grosso. Ruaru is the 

title-holder of traditional Xavante lands now 

known as Fazenda Rica I e II—literally Rich Farm 

I and II—where Joaquim was summarily executed. 

Mariana Leal Ferreira is an Associate Professor at San 

Francisco State University, and co-director of the Global 

Peace, Human Rights, and Justice Studies Program. As an 

affiliated faculty in Public Health at the SFSU Public Research 

Institute, and outreach coordinator for the SFSU Biobehavioral 

Research Center, she conducts research on the social causes of 

illnesses, in particular type 2 diabetes and breast cancer in 

poor, minority communities. 


INTRODUCTION 

Human Rights in Global Light 

MARIANA LEAL FERREIRA 

5 

Given the state and federal governments’ 

refusal to investigate the killing, we contacted 

Amnesty International in England, which 

immediately launched, on June 12, 2003 an Urgent 

Action (UA 216/02) on behalf of the elder. Two 

weeks later, on June 26, the International Indian 

Treaty Council (IITC) here in the United States 

requested United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on 

Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, 

Ms. Asma Jahanqir, to exercise her mandate in 

respect to Joaquim’s assassination. Hundreds of 

letters, faxes, and phone calls from all over the 

world started pouring into the office of Brazil’s 

Minister of Justice, the president of the National 

Indian Foundation - Funai, and other top 

government officials. 

As the kids worked steadily on the drawings 

that sweltering morning, I noticed the bright color 

of the flower utoparané, a classic in Xavante 

medicine, change from a bright yellow to a deep 

ruby red in the hands of the young artists. Tones of 

red conveyed the young ones’ deep distress with 

Joaquim’s death, as flowers and fruits 

metaphorically became weapons used to fight 

against violations of their most basic human 

right—the right to life. Inspired by the little ones, 

two Xavante research assistants gave a detailed 

account of the elder’s assassination (Ferreira 2004). 

The narrative and drawings produced by the youth 

conveyed their perceptions of a series of 

conversations held at night in the central plaza of 

the village on the Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples, finally ratified by the United 

Nations in September 2007. In addition, we had 

created the Livro de Mapas da Associação Xavante 

Warã (AXW 2002), portraying dozens of maps of 

Xavante lands past and present, clearly showing 

the dramatic reduction of ancestral territories after 

colonizing fronts and Catholic missionaries 

officially invaded their territory and created 

Xavante “reservations” in 1958. 

Our multiple reports to the UN and Amnesty 

International, and in particular the use of the new 

Livro de Mapas in all Xavante schools on several 

reservations, infuriated Blagio Maggi, the multimillionaire 

governor of Mato Grosso—also known 

as o rei da soja, the soybean king—as well as 

farmer Ernesto Ruaru and other big land owners in 

the area, missionaries and Funai officials. When I

was making copies and binding the map book at a 

small bookstore in the city of Primavera do Leste, 

30 miles West of the Sangradouro rez, the sheriff 

of this small town recognized our truck and came 

inside with two other policemen and asked: “Since 

when do Indians use GPS? I thought they didn’t 

even know how to count.” Our Flowers and Fruits 

pick-up truck became an easy target for vandalism 

wherever we went. We were constantly followed 

by the police, Funai employees or the farmers’ 

peons, who slashed our tires, branded their guns 

and rifles as they sped by us on narrow dirt roads, 

and tried to kill us by attempting to push our truck 

down into a cliff with their huge SUV. We barely 

made it. 

Death threats started arriving in June, 2003 at 

the Idzô’uhu village where the Flowers and Fruits 

headquarters was located. The first note, sent to 

medicine woman Batika Dzutsi’wa, then in her 

early 70s, read: “Your son Hipa [president of the 

Associação Xavante Warã] will show up headless 

in a trash can.” Hipa’s wife and two children 

received dozens of threatening phone calls at their 

home in São Paulo, starting in 2002. My children 

also received menacing phone calls at home in the 

US, claiming things like “we’ll cut your mother’s 

head off if she doesn’t stop messing around,” or 

else someone in the background would just breath 

very heavily, simulating rape—a common way to 

intimidate women over the phone in Brazil. 

Amnesty International reported that in the first few 

months of 2003, 14 indigenous leaders were killed 

in Brazil, their deaths never investigated (AI 2003). 

In addition, Funai imposed severe sanctions 

against Xavante villagers that were supportive of 

the Flowers and Fruits project. Entire villages were 

deprived of medications and diesel for 

transportation of the sick. The mortality rate on the 

reservation soared to 87.1 per 1,000, well above the 

national Brazilian average (37.5 per 1,000), and 

much higher than the average for the miserable 

Brazilian northeast, one of the poorest regions in 

the world. An “Indian curfew” was set by the 

mayor of Primavera do Leste, prohibiting Indians 

to wander in the streets after dark. Villagers who 

collaborated with the oppressors, on the other hand, 

received truckloads of sardine cans, rice, beans, 

pasta, coffee, sugar, and antibiotics. The catholic 

missionaries installed solar-powered artesian wells 

in villages that aligned with Funai and the farmers, 

while men, women, and children at Idzô’uhu drank 

water from a river polluted by mercury and 

pesticides due to intense logging and mining 

activities on the outskirts of the reservation. In 

other words, a “state of emergency” ensued, 


6 

aggravating the structural and symbolic violence 

against the Xavante people. 

This dramatic situation helped polarize the 

Xavante youth, eager to respond back to all this 

violence with even more violence, against the 

elders, who claimed they were A’uwẽ uptabi— 

“real Xavante,” a peaceful people. Every night 

following Joaquim’s execution, the headman of the 

Idzô’uhu village, Adão Top’tiro, spoke vehemently 

against retaliation, exhorting the youth to “resist 

the temptation” of engaging in more violence. 

Top’tiro explained that violence attracts violence, 

and the cycle would never stop if the Xavante 

responded in kind. In addition, the elder clarified 

that being A’uwẽ uptabi today meant learning new 

skills and using new technologies on their behalf, 

such as map-making and educating themselves 

about the human rights of indigenous peoples. 

Top’tiro kept the youth busy typing up all the 

letters and documents sent to the UN and to 

Amnesty International, which I helped translate 

into English, as well as all reports in Portuguese 

sent to Funai and other government officials. 

International attention undoubtedly afforded 

some protection to the Xavante people, and 

encouraged the youth to stick to their elders’ 

peacemaking plan. A Xavante “demarcation team” 

was formed to replace missing landmarks on the 

reservation’s border with the help of GPS 

instruments, while documenting land invasions and 

polluted headwaters in video and photography. 

While the death threats still continued, no one was 

killed in the following months. A culminating 

demonstration of Xavante peacemaking efforts 

took place on July 26, 2003, during a meeting at 

the Catholic Salesian Mission of São José (located 

inside the Sangradouro reservation) between Funai 

officials and Xavante leaders. More than 300 

policemen clad in full riot gear carrying heavy 

machine guns offered “protection” to the 

government officials, who insisted that Joaquim 

had probably been “swallowed by an anaconda or 

eaten by a jaguar.” Wearing body paint only and 

bearing no weapons, Xavante leaders patiently 

explained that Joaquim was a good hunter, who 

could never have been killed by an animal. In 

addition, the elders clarified that the Xavante were 

going to take matters into their own hands, 

demarcating the land themselves and working for 

environmental justice with the help of national and 

international non-governmental organizations. At 

this point, a group of about 30 Xavante women, 

carrying babies on their hips, walked up to the 

police men, who sweated profusely behind their 

shields in the midday heat, and threw flowers and 

fruits at their feet, while chanting “stop killing the

Xavante people.” In a couple of hours, Funai 

officials had agreed to sign a document which 

officially constituted the “Xavante working group” 

to demarcate the Sangradouro land and annex the 

neighboring Volta Grande territory to the 

reservation. Xavante children portrayed the tense 

encounter in their Flowers and Fruits drawings, as 

shown below, capturing well the peacemaking 

efforts of their people when confronted with the 

brutality of Funai officials, farmers, and the police. 

Later that evening, as we gathered around the fire 

in the central plaza of the Idzô’uhu village, Adão 

Top’tiro reiterated to his people that the power of 

the A’uwẽ uptabi stems precisely from their 

peaceful nature. On the other hand, the waradzu or 

non-Indians had very little power, he explained, 

and thus had to resort to violence. Top’tiro was 

enunciating in the Xavante language the main 

argument made by political theorists, such as 

Hannah Arendt, that violence and power are 

opposites: where one is absent, the other one rules 

(Arendt 2004). Until that day, I had always 

believed the contrary was true. Exactly two weeks 

later, in August 2003, I started my first semester at 

San Francisco State University determined to 

create the course Anthropology and Human Rights, 

focused, in its first year, on the human rights of 

indigenous peoples, and dedicated to the study of 

violence, peace, social and environmental justice. 

Human Rights in Global Light conveys four 

years of intense human rights related work at San 

Francisco State University, inspired by the wisdom 

of the Xavante people, as well as by our dedicated 

students, faculty, activists, and community 

members. This selection of papers, commentaries, 

poems, prayers, and even a one-act play addresses 

the various topics discussed at the first, second, 

third and fourth summits (2004 – 2007), briefly 

described below, including the human rights of 

indigenous peoples, children, women, prisoners, 

refugees, gays, lesbians, transgender, and intersex 

individuals. 

THE CONTINUUM OF VIOLENCE: The First 

Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit, May 4-7, 

2004. 

Reflections on Top’tiro’s wisdom, brilliantly 

theorized by Hannah Arendt in her studies On 

Violence in the 1960s, provoked heated debates 

among students who participated in the first SFSU 

Anthropology and Human Rights class in the 

Spring of 2004. Our discussion was fueled by 

intense reflections on what anthropologists Nancy 

Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois (2004:1) 

call the mimetic aspect of violence, that is, its 

nonlinear, productive, destructive and reproductive 


7 

characteristics. As we tried to understand the 

myriad ways in which we are affected by different 

types of violence in our daily lives, the 

homeopathic quality of violence—like produces 

like—crept up on some of the students who 

realized how difficult it was to “resist the 

temptation,” in Top’tiro’s own words, of violent 

retribution. 

Because SFSU is a minority serving 

institution, most students are working-class and 

many live in poverty-stricken neighorhoods in the 

Bay Area, such as Bay View-Hunter’s Point in San 

Francisco itself. Some of the students in the class 

claimed that in theory, they agreed with Top’tiro 

and Arendt, but in practice, they often felt like the 

Xavante youth did, in response to Joaquim’s 

killing, tempted to respond back in kind. One of 

our students described how she would dream of 

“getting back at gang members” who seriously beat 

up her boyfriend in broad daylight in East Oakland, 

while no one came to his rescue. The student 

wanted to understand the violence “in” her, as she 

put it, so she could “get rid of it.” She claimed she 

did, in her presentation at the first summit in 2004, 

when students decided to make it very clear to a 

broader audience outside of classroom walls, that 

the study of violence, in association with human 

rights knowledge and practice had, in their own 

experience, empowered them to more easily detect 

and therefore avoid the slippery and insidious 

forms that violence can take in everyday life. I 

argue, in this brief introduction, that both the 

peacemaking efforts of the A’uwẽ uptabi of 

Sangradouro, and the creation of our annual 

summits at SFSU benefited tremendously from the 

energy and knowledge gained from our studies and 

practice of human rights. 

HIDDEN GENOCIDES: Second Annual SFSU 

Human Rights Summit, May 3-6, 2005. 

The second summit grew much bigger than the 

first, outside of the Department of Anthropology, 

and included panels, discussants, and speakers 

from other SFSU departments, as well as various 

academic institutions, and human rights 

organizations in California and nationwide. The 

International Indian Treaty Council provided 

valuable information and many insights for an 

important discussion of indigenous peoples’ rights 

and the repatriation of human remains and cultural 

artifacts still held at SFSU. Panel topics also 

addressed the prison system in the United States, 

women’s rights, and gender violence, among many 

others.

ROOTS OF OUR FUTURE. THE HUMAN 

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN: Third Annual SFSU 

Human Rights Summit, May 2-5, 2006. 

The third summit brought together an 

impressive group of scholars, artists, social 

activists, and community members. Participating 

local, national, and international health and human 

rights organizations included Clínica Martin-Baró, 

Books Not Bars, Legal Services for Children, and 

Survival International. The third summit was cosponsored 

by the Graduate Anthropology Program 

at UC Berkeley and Professor Nancy Scheper- 

Hughes, whose students presented their work on 

the anthropology of disaster (two papers, by A. 

Ruddock, and G. Rader, are in this volume). This 

was the first year we fully incorporated art and 

social justice into the program, featuring dance, 

theater, and poetry performances by Youth Speaks, 

Navarrete X Kajiyama Dance Company, Dandelion 

Dance Company, Breaking Success, and Grrrl 

Brigade. Students stage-read Firewater, my first 

full play on indigenous peoples’ rights. We have 

added one of my most recent short plays, 

IronHawk, to this volume, as it was stage-read at 

the fifth summit in May 2008 (see ahead). 

EXPRESSIONS AND REPRESSIONS OF 

SEXUALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE 

RIGHTS: Fourth Annual SFSU Human Rights 

Summit, May 2-5, 2007. 

The fourth summit was dedicated to the rights 

of women, children, and the Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex - 

LGBTQI community. Co-sponsors included the 

SFSU Department of Human Sexuality Studies, the 

National Sexuality Resource Center, and the Center 

for Research on Gender and Sexuality. At this 

point, we started talking about the creation of a 

Human Rights Center at SFSU, given the 

incredible interest in human rights on the part of 

community members on and off campus. In 

addition, we decided it was time to put together a 

selection of papers, poems, and prayers presented 

at first, second, third, and fourth summits, which is 

now in your hands. 

PRIVILEGED DESTRUCTION. EXAMINING 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Fifth Annual 

SFSU Human Rights Summit. (April 30 – May 

2, 2008). 

Human Rights in Global Light, a special, 

double edition of the Treganza Anthropology 

Museum Papers, 2007-2008 (numbers 24 and 25) 

is being released at the opening ceremony of the 

fifth summit, dedicated to environmental justice. 

The fifth summit has received university-wide 


8 

support, and is being co-sponsored in 2008 by 

Anthropology and Human Rights students, 

Students for Critical Anthropology, College of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences, College of Ethnic 

Studies, College of Humanities, Institute for Civic 

and Community Engagement, Public Research 

Institute, Biobehavioral Research Center, 

Department of Anthropology, Environmental 

Studies Program, and American Indian Studies 

Program. We’ve included a full day of tabling on 

the campus main law by SF Bay environmental 

organizations, and performances by Trash Mash- 

Up, the Stop Impunity Project, the Oliver Hunt 

Trio, Thee Hobogobbelins, and many others. 

HEALTH DISPARITIES. Sixth Annual SFSU 

Human Rights Summit, May 2009. 

Health Disparities is the chosen topic for the 

sixth summit, in May 2009. As the event grows in 

size and importance, we’ve had to start organizing 

more than a year in advance. The SFSU Human 

Rights Center will be inaugurated during—if not 

before!—the 2009 summit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Many thanks to my Anthropology and Human 

Rights students, and to Students for Critical 

Anthropology at SFSU, who have worked really 

hard since 2004 to make our annual summits a 

great success. I’d especially like to acknowledge 

Tina Palivos, Debby Kajiyama, Tamaya Garcia, 

Liberty Winn, Jennifer Wolowic, Amir Arman, 

Debby Kajiyama, Eva Langman, Gregory Hunt, 

Celia Alves-Rivière, Alejandra Portillo, Emily 

Hillman, Richie Cruz, Jennifer Kennedy, Andrea 

Fitzpatrick, Tani Sebro, Kellen Prandini, Nathan 

Embretson, and Nikolas Stojanovic. I’d also like to 

thank my colleagues at SF State for all their 

support and wisdom, in particular Dean Joel 

Kassiola, and Professors Jim Wiley, Lucia Volk, 

Miko Yamamoto, Bernard Wong, Sarah Soh, 

Dawn Terrell, Gil Herdt, Deborah Tolman, Sherry 

Keith, Sheila Tully, Melissa Nelson, Joanne 

Barker, Clay Dumont, Phil Klasky, Karen Lovaas, 

David Kojan, and Leticia Marquez. Anthropology 

office managers Sylvia Leng and Kimberlee Yee 

worked diligently to make our multiple summit 

events run smoothly. Without the support of Mary 

Keller, César Chávez Student Center’s assistant 

director, our multiple dance, theater, and spoken 

word performances would not have happened. We 

all appreciate very much the concerted efforts of all 

SFSU janitors, especially José Ramirez, who 

worked overtime to make SFSU facilities available 

and clean after our quite messy multimedia 

activities! 

Special thanks to my UC Berkeley colleagues 

who have helped sponsor our summits, and served 


WORKS CITED 

as discussants and speakers on many panels—in 

particular, my mentor Nancy Scheper-Hughes, 

Brad Erickson, Saúl Mercado, Cyrus Card, and 

Tara Bianca Rado. 

Many community members and grass-roots 

organizations have helped us throughout the years 

create a wider awareness of human rights issues at 

the local, regional, national and international 

levels, including the Associação Xavante Warã, 

Amnesty International, Survival International, 

Cultural Survival, Youth Speaks, Books not Bars, 

Greenaction, West County Toxic Coalition, 

Indigenous Environmental Network, and 

International Indian Treaty Council. 

Last but not least, I want to acknowledge the 

incredible solidarity I have received during all 

these years of very hard work from family 

members, especially my mother Ilsa and father 

Jorge (in loving memory), adoptive parents Mollie 

(in loving memory) and Reidar Ruud, Carlos 

Kawall, Marcia Reybitz, Manuel Pino, Stefano 

Baldissarri, and my children Mairum, Djuni, Pedro, 

and Amanda. Muito obrigada! 

With much love, and deep appreciation for all the 

beautiful moments we shared and created together 

toward the promotion of human rights, 

Mariana Leal Ferreira 

San Francisco, April 22, 2008. 

Amnesty International 

2003 Indigenous Rights are Human Rights: Four Cases of Human Rights Violations in the Americas. 

Amnesty International Report, London, May 2003 

AXW – Associação Xavante Warã 

2002 Livro de Mapas da Associação Xavante Warã. São Paulo: AXW. 


2004 On Violence. In: Scheper-Hughes, N. & P. Bourgois, eds. Violence in War and Peace. An 

Anthology. Pp. 236-243. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Ferreira, Mariana L 

2004 The Color Red. Fighting with Flowers and Fruits in Xavante Territory, Central Brazil. Indiana 

21:47-62. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Philippe Bourgois 

2004 Introduction: Making Sense of Violence. In: Scheper-Hughes, N. & P. Bourgois, eds. Violence 

in War and Peace. An Anthology. Pp. 1-31. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

9

Where is Joaquim? By Décio Õmõhi. 


Joaquim Maradezuro’s body covered in 

hawk dawn as he joins the world of the 

dead on April 12, 2003. By Timóteo 

Tserewaropá. 

The utoparané turns red, like blood. Pequi fruit (Caryocar brasiliense). By Tseredzaró Ruri’õ. 

By Marlito Nõ’rõ’re. 

10


Human Rights and the Importance of the Annual Summit 

at San Francisco State University 

DR. JOEL J. KASSIOLA 

It is my great pleasure as the Dean of the 

College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at S.F. 

State to introduce this exciting publication 

reflecting the energy of the past four SFSU Annual 

Human Rights Summits. I want to express my 

appreciation and commendation to the many 

students and participating faculty both at SFSU and 

at the University of California at Berkeley – our 

most recent partner in this important endeavor – 

who have created and continually improved upon 

the Human Rights Summit. 

In addition, the visionary founder and director 

of this outstanding event, Dr. Mariana Ferreira, is 

most deserving of recognition. She had the 

foresight, commitment, and persistence to create 

the Summit during her first year as a member of 

the San Francisco State University faculty, and has 

continued to develop the project each year and 

broaden its impact and scope. Having attended and 

introduced all of the previous Summits, personal 

experience has led to my immense pride in the 

project. I have personally witnessed its expansion 

and enhancement each year under the expansive 

leadership of Professor Ferreira. 

In our world today, human rights grow more 

precious and, alas, more fragile and in need of 

support. This is true in the Middle East, Latin 

America, Africa, Asia, as well as right here at 

home in the United States. It is not an exaggeration 

to say that human rights are under siege 

everywhere in the world. Events like the SFSU 

Anthropology Department’s Annual Human Rights 

Summit are important to expand awareness and 

solidarity with regards to human rights in 

contemporary society. Everyone involved in the 

creation and production of past Summits has 

earned praise for the high quality of events and 

presentations, which span a diverse collection of 

media. These Summits contribute to the increased 

understanding and protection of human rights 

through a variety of diverse and provocative 

programs involving dance, art, music, film, 

Joel Kassiola is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the 

College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at San Francisco 

State University. His work has revolved around the nature of 

environmental political theory and environmental ethic. He is 

most currently researching and writing about China's political 

thought and development pertaining to green political theory 

and environmental policy. Dean Kassiola has supported Annual 

SFSU Human Rights Summits since the First event in 2004. 

11 

lectures, posters, and panel discussions that are 

open to the public and offer a forum for 

interdisciplinary collaboration. May the 2008 and 

all future Summits continue this grand record of 

success, especially given the vital role of human 

rights to global human welfare in contemporary 

social life! 

As a political philosopher, I study and teach 

about human rights. Therefore, I am delighted that 

Professor Ferreira, in close collaboration with her 

colleagues and students, continue the tradition of 

the Annual Human Rights Summit and have 

consistently expanded and enhanced it. The 

concept of human rights is at the core of the 

questions surrounding health and wellbeing in 

society. It must be perpetually emphasized and 

clarified for the general public and the student 

body in order to generate discussion about the 

many discrepancies within the understanding and 

implementation of human rights around the world. 

Furthermore, human rights discourse must be made 

relevant by specific applications to people living in 

the world today and the diversity of issues they 

face, which include the subject of food, shelter, 

medical care, education, procedural criminal and 

civil justice, and the freedoms of speech, press, and 

religion, among many others. 

I am delighted that the College of Behavioral 

and Social Sciences is associated with and sponsors 

the Annual Human Rights Summit and I look 

forward to supporting, participating in, and 

learning from the 2008 and all future Summits at 

the university. I look forward to the day when the 

articulation, education, and protection of human 

rights, as well as the remedying of infringements 

upon them, will not be so urgently needed in the 

world!


12


Brief Reflections on Anthropology and Human Rights 

LUCIA VOLK 

Anthropology and human rights could be seen as 

antithetical. Many anthropologists pride themselves 

on practicing cultural relativism, i.e. learning about 

other cultures without imposing value judgments, 

appreciating cultural diversity, and accepting other 

lifeways for being just another way - as equally 

valuable as anyone’s - to find solutions to life’s 

challenges. Human rights practitioners, on the other 

hand, work in a normative world that stresses a 

uniform code of law that should be applied to people 

worldwide. Every human being should have a basic 

set of rights. Human rights practitioners often 

advocate for change in lifeways and in the status quo. 

In cultures that educate girls less than boys – 

because it is that culture’s solution to utilizing scarce 

resources – how do we reconcile the anthropological 

mandate of cultural appreciation with a notion that 

those girls might not get their basic human rights? 

See for instance, in this volume, Nyuieko Bansah’s 

intimate look into the ways Arab and Black women 

are portrayed in the media, questioning imposed 

identities (and imposed notions of “inalienable” 

rights) that reinforce stereotypes and essentialisms. 

Other papers, like hers, make us wary of drawing 

conclusions too soon in the name of the protection of 

these rights. And what if girls with little access to 

education grow up and pride themselves, for instance, 

on not having careers in the realm of paid work, 

because they host and visit neighbors, thus 

accumulating important cultural capital (or honor) for 

the family? Should we advocate that these women 

have more human rights? Should we celebrate the 

women for meeting their culture’s expectations and 

receiving respect from society at large? How do we 

respond if some women in such a culture enjoy and 

defend their way of life, while others might emigrate 

or seek asylum for being denied their basic human 

rights? 

What do we make of those women who enjoy 

performing traditional gender roles that pin them to an 

identity that other women - perhaps on the other side 

of the world - interpret as heterosexist, patriarchal, 

and oppressive? Michele Moreira, in her paper 

entitled “Gendered Violence in the Media,” critically 

approaches the issue of symbolic violence as it is 

refracted through the many lenses of popular culture. 

She makes us ponder the notion that violence against 

women – in both its physical and symbolic forms – is 

Lucia Volk is a Professor of Anthropology at SFSU, and has 

participated as a discussant at the 3 rd and 4 th Human Rights 

Summits in 2006 and 2007. Her research centers on Middle 

East anthropology, nationalism in the post-Civil War period, 

collective memory, and societies in transition. 

13 

so habitual, so pervasive, that it constrains even those 

women who may not individually suffer from such 

violence. 

If we look at the world through the prism of 

(human) rights – those who can exercise them and 

those who cannot – we quickly realize that it helps to 

be white, adult, male, straight, and middle to upper 

class. If you are non-white, a child, a woman, queer, 

or poor, it is less likely that you can exercise rights, 

be they defined in universal, country-specific or 

religious codes. If we look at institutions that 

promulgate and enforce legal codes, they are often 

white (or formerly, colonial white), adult, male, and 

middle class. It is therefore not surprising that rights 

should work in favor of that group of people. What 

we need, I would think, are more studies of persons in 

the legal profession and legal institutions. Legal 

anthropology once used to be a vibrant field in 

anthropology, but it has become less so. While it is 

very important to state that rights differentials exist in 

this world, and to call for more rights for people who 

have less – as most of the contributions to this 

important volume do – it is also crucial that we 

understand the mechanisms by which unequal rights 

are produced. As anthropologists, who have 

ethnographic research tools at our disposal, we need 

to study case by case who is in charge of writing laws, 

who is in charge of implementing them, and compare 

cases where rights were actually applied or denied. It 

requires studying up, and looking at centers of power 

and money, as well as studying the people who lack 

rights. It requires looking hard at ourselves as 

practitioners of anthropology and assess the rights we 

apply and deny to people we work with in our attempt 

to produce “knowledge”. 

As anthropologists, we need to strike a balance 

between the appreciation for cultural diversity - and 

the rules and values of those cultures - and the notion 

that every person should possess rights to feed 

themselves, to learn, to be healthy, to embrace their 

sexuality, etc. We have to find answers to the 

question if there is room for “shoulds” in a world of 

knowledge production that prides itself on 

establishing “facts.” Can we be “normative” and 

“scientific” at the same time? Should we? The 

answers are not easy. But maybe that is why we 

practice anthropology.

Jan 15, 2008 


Make Your Voice Strong Enough to Change a Vote! 

Hey Mariana, 

… I have a point here I promise and my point 

is that your Human Rights class is incredibly 

important for those students whether they realize it 

right now or not. I believe it allows your students 

to look beyond academics and beyond their yards 

and safe homes and take a look at the reality of the 

world they live in and empowers them to want to 

make a difference and want to make a change and 

in the process they learn about themselves and 

what propels them through their own lives. In order 

to write an essay about what is happening in Sudan 

I had to face things within myself, and so in a sense 

a part of me was in that paper, it was deeply 

personal and I hope it reaches out to other people 

who have been sexually abused to empower 

themselves to empower others to create and 

propagate change and so for that I am thankful you 

have chosen my essay for publishing. 

I also want to say another thing about that 

class. The second essay I wrote, and I don't think 

you have a copy, made a huge impact on my life. It 

was about children's rights to receive family 

planning without consent from a parent or 

guardian. I don't know if you remember but after I 

read my essay a woman stood up and told me that 

because of my essay she had decided to vote 

against that proposition. I never knew before how 

powerful words could be until that day. To have a 

voice strong enough to change a vote, to change 

the way laws are written, is quite amazing! Even 

my parents, who are strong conservatives voted no 

after hearing my argument! So again thank you for 

helping me find my voice, it is something I will 

always remember you for. 

I have given a lot of thought to writing another 

essay for you but not for publishing, actually for 

your students if they are interested. I constantly 

think about the everyday violence of Mongolia and 

I think you might find it interesting. It's very 

centered on former communism, alcohol, and 

gender issues all wrapped up in one big 

complicated mess. I think when we discussed the 

concept of everyday violence in your class it was 

difficult for me to look beyond the violent issues 

and explore the intricate reasons why they exist. I 

know I wasn't alone in my confusion and I attribute 

that to not having any real "world" experience and 

many of your students do not have that. However, 

now that I am living in a developing country and 

seeing how the majority of people live in the world 

14 

I can finally understand the concept, at least more 

so than before. It might take me awhile to get 

around to writing that essay so I have something 

else to ask of you instead. I will be in California at 

the end of March and plan on visiting SFSU and 

was wondering if maybe you could have me come 

in and talk to your students? I would really like to 

do that, kinda like a peer education session! It's 

easy to zone out when teachers are talking 

sometimes because we expect you all to say those 

things having the backgrounds that brought you to 

becoming professors in the first place. But I think 

hearing some stories from someone of similar age 

would be helpful, besides, how many people know 

about Mongolia and it would be a fun crosscultural 

experience! So let me know your thoughts 

on that. 

As for life in the Peace Corps it has been quite 

a challenge and I feel a remarkable change as I 

have grown and matured in ways I never thought 

possible. If only I could have been a student after 

the Peace Corps, maybe I would have been more 

attentive! I miss school and can't wait to go back to 

grad school. I was supposed to apply for next year 

but I decided to wait another year. I think I need a 

good year of decompressing since kindergarten! 

Besides I want to go the full distance and get my 

PhD so taking a little time off is probably for the 

better or else I might go insane! I can't wait to 

come home and see all of you again, I miss San 

Francisco and I miss all my professors and friends. 

I never realized how much of an impact you all had 

on me until I came here but I suppose we never 

realize what we have until it's gone. However I will 

not be staying in San Fran, I want to move on and 

make changes in other places and I'm a bit of a 

gypsy anyway and get a little antsy when I stay in 

one place too long! 

Enough about me, how are you? Are you 

excited about the new semester? What was the 

topic at last year's summit? I might be far away but 

I'm still curious! How is all of your research going? 

I hope you and your family are well! Is your little 

one still coming and joining your classes hushing 

people up? She seems like a very assertive young 

lady with a good head on her shoulders! Well it is 

late my side of the world and time for bed. I 

sincerely hope that you are doing good and are 

happy! Tell the department I say hi and look 

forward to seeing everyone! 

Take good care, 

Melinda Cordasco 

Peace Corps Volunteer in Mongolia


Art and Social Activism at the SFSU Human Rights Summit 

DEBBY KAJIYAMA 

INTRODUCTION 

San Francisco State University’s Third Annual 

Human Rights Summit boasted a new component 

in 2006: a collection of performances entitled Art 

and Social Activism. Alongside traditional panel 

presentations of original research, more than ten 

artists presented works of dance, literature, spoken 

word/poetry, theater and music that addressed 

human rights concerns. The result was a strong 

dose of real-world transformative practice 

grounded in a context of human rights. The 

performances helped bring the research into the 

real world, and the intellectual inquiry 

contextualized the performances, shining a light on 

their human rights facets. Artist-activist 

participation continued in 2007 at the Fourth 

Summit, and is planned for future years as well. 

ART AS TOOL, ART AS DIALOGUE 

Anthropologist Victor Turner wrote that 

“cultural performances” are not merely reflections 

of the status quo, ”but may themselves be active 

agencies of change, representing the eye by which 

culture sees itself and the drawing board on which 

creative actors sketch out what they believe to be 

more…interesting ‘designs for living’” (Turner 

1988:24). The five youth groups that performed in 

2006 – R-Type from East Oakland Community 

High School, Grrrl Brigade, Malcolm X Academy 

Polynesian Dance Group, Breaking Success 

Project and Youth Speaks were proof that the 

making and performance of art can transform and 

empower not only the artist, but the audience as 

well. The seven young women from Grrrl Brigade 

paid homage to Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel 

Peace Prize winner and founder of the Greenbelt 

Movement, with their uplifting excerpt from 

Daughters of the Earth. Combining contemporary 

dance, spoken word, and thunderous Taiko 

drumming, the creator-performers embodied the 

practice of taking a stand for what they believe is 

important, and captivated the attention of everyone 

in the audience. Likewise, thirty elementary school 

Debby Kajiyama has performed with Dandelion Dancetheater 

since 1998, and has toured with them to New York, Hawaii and 

Scotland. She also directs and performs, with Jose Navarrete, 

the "Navarrete x Kajiyama Dance Theater," a company that 

blurs the traditional lines of demarcation between art, activism, 

politics, and anthropology. Debby was Artistic Director for the 

3 rd , 4 th , and 5 th Annual Human Rights Summits, 2006 – 2008. 

15 

students from the Malcolm X Academy Polynesian 

Dance Group shared a high-energy performance of 

traditional dances, proudly celebrating their 

heritage. 

Through their performances, the youth 

commented on racism, the environment, the status 

of women, cultural preservation and the power of 

self-expression. The artists and audience were 

engaged on a visceral and kinesthetic level, and 

were perhaps not even fully conscious of the power 

of art as a vehicle to convey and conduct deep 

emotions about human rights. The performers 

represented aesthetically various human rights 

concerns, using alternate channels of expression - 

the body, poetry, music - to respond to these issues 

and inspire change. The power relations in the 

room seemed to flow in a more illuminated and 

constructive way between the audience and the 

artists, and the performers answered poignant 

questions from the crowd about their creative 

work. 

More seasoned artists on the program explored 

such issues as the U.S. military presence in 

Okinawa, Indigenous Peoples’ right to selfdetermination 

in the Brazilian Amazon, food 

sovereignty and immigration. The performances 

provided a glimpse of the works forged by current 

and future community leaders and their hopes for a 

more egalitarian society; it helped show Summit 

participants that there are many means by which 

human rights can be exercised in provocative and 

fun ways in community events. Interactions among 

young artists and anthropologists did not stop with 

the last day of the conference; the experience 

spurred a group of SFSU students to continue 

working with East Oakland Community High 

School in an after school program. This shows how 

open forums can facilitate meaningful work 

experiences outside the classroom to promote 

equity and social justice within a respectful and 

safe environment. This is in fact the first goal of 

SFSU’s Strategic Plan, which seeks to create a 

more just and humane world. 

Both the performers and witnesses to the 

performances are social actors engaged in human 

rights praxis. Norman Long’s actor-oriented 

approach, as described in Ann-Belinda S. Preis’ 

article “Human Rights as Cultural Practice,” is a 

framework that can be applied to the Human 

Rights Summit. In an actor-oriented approach,

then, “concepts are grounded in everyday life 

experiences and understandings of men and 

women” (Preis 1996:311-312). I would add that 

they are grounded also in the experiences of youth. 

East Oakland Community High School’s R-Type 

presented Who’s the Criminal?, a spoken word 

piece that addressed negative stereotypes faced 

regularly by Oakland youth. The piece takes place 

in a courtroom, where two hypothetical cases are 

being tried: People vs. Stereotype and People vs. 

Gender Violation. The youth challenged viewers to 

pay attention to their real world experiences and 

engage in dialogue about them. In a less linear 

way, Dandelion Dancetheater’s work, Between, 

visually and kinesthetically delved into the concept 

of the barriers we erect between ourselves and 

others. 

At the Fourth Annual Human Rights Summit 

in 2007, Korean performance artist Dohee Lee’s 

Puri Project performed powerful melancholic song, 

dance and poetry that artistically depicted the 

experience of a Korean comfort woman enslaved 

in Japan. Following Eva Langman’s presentation 

of her paper on the sexual and reproductive rights 

of disabled women, which appears in this volume, 

Assistant Professor of Dance at the University of 

California East Bay, Eric Kupers, brought his 

ensemble of dancers both with and without 

disabilities on stage to perform their 

choreographed work. The subsequent question and 

answer session was evidence that both artists and 

scholars were working toward similar goals for 

social justice. Throughout the Summit, artists and 

scholars acknowledged each other’s agency, that 

each has the power to effect change using their 

own unique methods. As they interacted, they 

began to shape each other’s processes, finding 

solutions together. The creation of these works, 

their execution, and the discussion they generated 

are examples of critical social practices that make 

up a culture of human rights. 

“EXPERIENCE INTO EXPRESSION” 

The role of the artist, according to theater 

director Anne Bogart, is to listen, to watch, to 

observe wholeheartedly the world we live in, and 

to create future possibilities out of chaos through 

bold and decisive action. Bogart writes, “Artists 

are individuals willing to articulate in the face of 

flux and transformation. And the successful artist 

finds new shapes for our present ambiguities and 

uncertainties. …[This] demands an aggressiveness 

and an ability to enter into the fray and translate 

that experience into expression” (2001:2-3). In 

some ways, the role of the anthropologist is 


16 

similar: immersed in a community, anthropologists 

must risk articulating what they have experienced, 

even if they realize such “truths” are relative and 

ever-changing. This articulation can only serve its 

genuine purpose if it is framed in the same way 

Preis would construct a culture of human rights, 

that is, if “both the observer and the observed are 

enmeshed in the process” (Preis 1996:309). 

Whether through artistic performance or another 

mode of expression that evokes the nuances of 

everyday life experience, the Human Rights 

Summit would do well to continue to bring 

together diverse community members to create 

opportunity for dialogue about a culture of human 

rights. 

============= 

Performances at Human Rights Summits 

R-Type from East Oakland Community High 

School 

Who's the Criminal? A spoken word piece about 

society's judgment of youth of color. 

Malcolm X Academy Polynesian Dance Group 

Malcolm X Academy is an elementary school in 

the underserved neighborhood of Hunters Point, 

San Francisco. Thirty percent of students are new 

immigrants from Samoa. The dance group has 

become an integral part of the school and after 

school program. About 30 youth, aged 6-10 

performed traditional Polynesian Dance. 

Breaking Success Performance 

The Breaking Success Project is an exploration of 

the social roles and dance practices of two 

Cambodian breakdancers from refugee families 

living in East Oakland. 

Grrrl Brigade 

Grrrl Brigade was founded with the intention of 

providing high quality dance training, performance 

opportunities, and a sense of self-empowerment for 

San Francisco's girls. It is the youth company of 

San Francisco's socio-political dance 

theater company, Dance Brigade. Seven girls, aged 

13 and up, performed a dance and drumming piece 

they co-created about Wangari Maathai, Nobel 

Peace Prize winner in 2004, and founder of the 

Greenbelt Movement in Africa. 

Youth Speaks Poetry Performance and Writing 

Workshop for Teens 

Founded in 1996, Youth Speaks is the leading 

nonprofit presenter of Spoken Word performance,

education, and youth development programs in the 

country. Presenters of local and national youth 

poetry slams, festivals, reading series, and more, 

Youth Speaks also offers a comprehensive slate of 

literary arts education programs during the school 

day and the after-school hours, and conducts 

numerous publications and youth development 

programs. Several Youth Speaks poets performed 

their original works. Facilitators from Youth 

Speaks also led students through a poetry writing 

exercise. 

Wesley Ueunten and Takuro Akamine 

Wesley Ueunten is a third generation Okinawan 

from Hawai'i who teaches Asian American Studies 

at SFSU. He sings Okinawan music to the 

accompaniment of a three-string instrument called 

the sanshin, and is a member of the Okinawan 

Peacefighters, a group advocating for rights of 

Okinawans and opposed to the US military bases 

in Okinawa. Takuro Akamine is a master’s student 

in Public Administration at SFSU and a member of 

the Okinawan Peacefighters. 

Staged Reading of Firewater 

In Mariana Ferreira's play, Firewater, an 

Amazonian prophet liberates his people from the 

grips of military dictators in the 1980s after his 

vision that the world will end buried under a pile of 

gold, diamonds, and semi-precious stones. 

Students and community members presented a 

staged reading of the play. Directed by Adele 

Prandini. 

Nona Caspers, Professor of Creative Writing at 

SFSU, read from her award-winning story 

“Country Girls,” which deals with a young 

lesbian’s budding sexuality. 


WORKS CITED 

Allison Cabrera read from her father’s play, My 

Cuban Story. 

Dandelion Dancetheater 

Between by Dandelion Dancetheater examines the 

walls that are erected between countries, 

communities, identities, families, lovers and 

different parts of each person, as well as between 

life and death. The dancers experiment with the 

risk involved in dismantling these walls, piece by 

piece. Music by Ryan Francesconi and Steroid 

Maximus. Choreography by Eric Kupers, Assistant 

Professor of Dance at Cal State East Bay. 

California State University, East Bay 

Students presented work about spirituality, rape 

and anger, and women’s empowerment. 

Assistant Professor of Dance, Eric Kupers 

presented a work set on dancers with and without 

developmental disabilities. 

Navarrete x Kajiyama Dance Theater 

Navarrete x Kajiyama presented excerpts from The 

Revenge of Huitlacoche and Other Stories. The 

work explores issues that are relevant locally and 

worldwide: immigration, the environment, food 

sovereignty, and concepts of alienation and 

community. This project addresses issues that 

affect communities that are marginalized by the 

current model of corporate globalization. 

Dohee Lee’s The PURI Project 

The Korean word PURI refers to the relieving and 

releasing of suppressed or suffering spirits. The 

Puri Project brings meaning to people's lives as 

well as vitality to their souls through using various 

art forms. Dohee Lee and Liz Suk presented a 

work about the memoirs of a Korean comfort 

woman who was enslaved by the Japanese Army 

during WWII to work as a prostitute. 

Bogart, Anne 

2001 A Director Prepares. Seven Essays on Art and Theatre. New York: Routledge. 

Preis, Ann Belinda S. 

1996 Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique. Human Rights Quarterly 

18(2): 286-315. 

Turner, Victor 

1988 Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications. 

17


The Malcolm X Academy Polynesian Dance Group in San Francisco performed at the 3 rd Annual SFSU 

Human Rights Summit “Roots of Our Future: The Human Rights of Children,” in May 2006. (Photo: 

Mariana Ferreira) 

Grrrl Brigade, a dance, theater and taiko drumming company for girls ages 13 and up, performed in Jack 

Adams Hall at the 3 rd Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit in May 2006. (Photo: Mariana Ferreira) 

18


PART ONE – THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are 

those which, having a historical continuity with preinvasion 

and pre-colonial societies that developed on 

their territories, consider themselves distinct from 

other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those 

territories, or parts of them. They form at present 

non-dominant sectors of society and are determined 

to preserve, develop and transmit to future 

generations their ancestral territories, and their 

ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued 

existence as peoples, in accordance with their own 

cultural patterns, social institutions and legal 

system.” 

(Special Rapporteur of the Permanent Forum on 

Indigenous Issues) 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples 

The United Nations Declaration on the 

Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration) was 

adopted by the General Assembly on September 13, 

2007 after decades of struggle. Some of the rights the 

Declaration recognizes include the collective rights 

of indigenous peoples, the right to self-determination, 

the right to participate in the institutions of the state, 

the right to nationality, and the right to live in 

freedom, peace and security. The 46 Articles of the 

Declaration specify the most comprehensive body of 

rights ever developed. 

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous 

Issues 

In 2000 the United Nations Permanent 

Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) was created as 

an advisory body to the Economic and Social Forum. 

Since then, the UNPFII has worked toward 

promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous 

people around the world by collaborating with 

indigenous groups, NGOs and other international 

organizations. According to its mandate, the UNPFII 

will: 

INTRODUCTION 

19 

• provide expert advice and recommendations on 

indigenous issues to the Council, as well as to 

programmes, funds and agencies of the United 

Nations, through the Council; 

• raise awareness and promote the integration and 

coordination of activities related to indigenous 

issues within the UN system; and 

• prepare and disseminate information on 

indigenous issues. 

The Permanent Forum consists of sixteen 

representatives. Eight members are nominated by 

governments and elected by ECOSOC to serve for a 

term of three years. Indigenous groups also nominate 

eight members who are appointed by the President of 

ECOSOC and represent seven socio-cultural regions 

including Africa, Asia, Central and South America 

and the Caribbean, the Artic, Central and Eastern 

Europe, Russian Federation, Central Asia and 

Transcaucasia; North America; and the Pacific. 

The UNPFII fulfills its mandate with a 

number of programs and activities. For example, in 

addition to annual sessions, the UNPFII has 

established an Inter-Agency Support Group on 

Indigenous Issues that promotes the support of 

indigenous issues throughout the UN system. 

The UN Cyber School Bus page on 

Indigenous People was created to provide 

information about indigenous issues to students and 

educators. The activities of the PFII contribute to 

creating a greater awareness of the indigenous rights. 

Today there are more than 370 million 

indigenous people in 70 countries around the world. 

The UNPFII is a powerful resource that brings 

together the insights from indigenous representatives 

with perspectives from people holding governmental 

positions. The combined efforts create a forum for 

disseminating the knowledge of indigenous rights 

into social practice. 

Source 

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/


20

The right to be born 

“pulled from the waters” 

As the Mohawk say 

In a natural way 

By aunties and grandmothers 

Not forced into medical custody 

In sterilized walls of whiteness 

Where governmental agents 

Send crying babies away 

To Mormon families 

The right to learn and be free 

To follow inspiration and one’s 

Innate gifts and talents 

In discovering self and the world 

Not pushed into foreign tongues 

With algebraic logic and 

Brutal reprimands of the strap 

For singing homecoming songs 

With a sister 

The right to pray and worship 

The mountains where 

Ancestors were born 

The spring where 

Medicine grows 

The valley where 

Delicious roots nourish 

Not taken to gilded 

Halls of shame 

Where suffering is worshipped 

And sin is taught 

To force one 

Into submission 

The right to love and couple 

With men, women, 

Womanly men, manly women 

And other genders of 

Baskets and bows 

Melissa Nelson is Professor in the American Indian Studies 

Department at SFSU. Her work is dedicated to indigenous 

revitalization, environmental protection and restoration, and 

the renewal and celebration of community health and cultural 

arts. She participated as a discussant during the 2 nd Annual 

Human Rights Summit in 2005. 


Cycles of Rights, Rites of Cycles 

MELISSA K. NELSON 

21 

Not squeezed into binary sex 

Roles and beaten with sticks 

For being two-spirit 

The right to be a mother 

A sexual being with needs 

Wants and concerns 

To breast-feed one’s child 

To raise her at home 

Teach her the ways 

Of one’s people 

Not bullied into baby formulas 

Plastic diapers and Christian 

Pre-schools of conformity 

The right to eat nutritious, 

Local, affordable food 

Grown with care and love 

For the land 

And human body 

Not made to eat pesticide-ridden 

Genetically modified, artificial foods 

Because they are cheaper than 

Organic, native foods 

The right to care for, manage, 

And relate with forests, 

Waters, fields and seashores 

With one’s own 

Cosmo-vision of creation 

Where hawks are brothers 

Sharks are teachers 

Wild rice is medicine 

Not restricted to gather 

By forest service permits 

Forbidden by private property fences 

Arrested for following one’s 

Original instructions 

Rather than 

Western laws 

The right to die with dignity 

At home, or wherever one chooses 

With family 

Care of the spirit 

Peace and fresh air

Not spliced with tubes and needles 

Bound to hospital jell-o and 

Insurance requirements 

The rights of the dead 

To be at rest, whole 

Untouched 

Kapu as the Hawaiians say 

So the spirit can 

Leap into the next 

Realm of mystery 


22 

Without violation of 

Scientific meddling 

DNA scraping 

Or any form of 

Dismemberment 

The right to dissolve 

To regenerate and be re-born 

To continue 

In the rights and responsibilities 

Of endless cycles of renewal 

January 15, 2008 

Hanalei, Hawai’i


IronHawk 

A Play on International Law & 

the Genocide of American Indians 

MARIANA LEAL FERREIRA 

Synopsis: 

IronHawk, an Apache warrior now on death row for 33 years, embarks on a spiritual journey at the moment 

of his botched execution at a maximum security prison in Oklahoma, in the Summer of 2007. The play 

examines the continuing Genocide of American Indians on death row in the United States, highlighting the 

Geneva Convention's ban on the execution of Prisoners of War or P.O.Ws. Playwriting is proposed as an 

effective media to make anthropology more public, creating a dialogue amongst anthropologists, national 

and international agencies, and policy makers in the 21 st century. 

Cast of Characters: 

IronHawk, Apache death row inmate, 52. Spiritualist, educated and smart. [Saúl Mercado, UCB] 

Hutch, death row inmate, 48. Pragmatist, uneducated, smart. [Brad Erickson, UCB] 

Ms. Manslaughter, prison warden, 45. Sadist, pig-headed. [Lucia Volk, SFSU] 

Executioner, 45. [Brad Erickson, UCB] 

Time and Place: 

Contemporary Maximum Security Institution in Oklahoma. Scenario: Inside IronHawk’s cell, in an outdoor 

exercise iron cage, and in an execution chamber. 

First public reading: 106 th AAA Annual Meeting—Difference, (In)equality & Justice. 

Invited Presidential Session- Anthropologists in the Global Arena: Dialogues for Change. Washington DC. 

Nov. 29 th 2007. 

Second public reading: 5 th Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit, May 2 nd 2008. 

23

SCENE ONE 

Your turn. 


IronHawk 

Mariana L. Ferreira 

(IronHawk and Hutch are playing poker in the “cage,” a 10 X 12 cemented 

patio enclosed by steel bars in the prison yard at a maximum security 

facility in Oklahoma. IronHawk’s left eye is covered by a black patch 

because of injuries sustained in a gladiator fight staged by prison guards 

and the warden.) 

IRONHAWK 

HUTCH 

Fuck, I’m out of luck. Sucker, you took all my money! 

IRONHAWK 

I’m going blind and you curse the Devil? You gotta watch yourself here in Unit Six. Bros 

don’t play cards with sissies like you. Straight Flush, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 

HUTCH 

Lucky mother fucker! You cheating me, Chief, some ol’Injun trick? Two flushes in a row 

... 2, 4, 6, 7 … I hear you’re full of magic – hypnotize guards, disappear from your cell – 

how come your magic ain’t got you off death row? … 15, 16, 17. Took all my money, 

shit. (pause) Always wanted to transfer here to watch you fight. Folks say you take two, 

three at a time, bare-handed. Pretty good for slashing a white man’s throat with a 

hunting knife! Ain’t that what you’re in for? 

IRONHAWK 

You a snitch? I’m no Chief. I’m an Apache warrior -- IronHawk is my name, and I am 

innocent. I'm a political prisoner of the United States government, a P.O.W. 

HUTCH 

P.O. What? 

IRONHAWK 

P.O.W. means Prisoner of War. 

HUTCH 

You gotta be kidding me. What war? Vietnam? Iraq? 

IRONHAWK 

Indian wars, colonial wars. They’ve been waging war against my people for hundreds of 

years. Never heard of Wounded Knee? 

HUTCH 

Yeah, I seen cowboy movies on TV. Dance with Wolves, my favorite. But that was 

waaaay back then. Wake up Chief, we’re in the 21 st century! 

IRONHAWK 

Big Foot, Geronimo, Crazy Horse… My heroes were all P.O.W.s -- all killed cowboys. 

Did’ya ever wonder why? 

24

‘Cause you guys are savages! 

Genocide! 


HUTCH 

IRONHAWK 

HUTCH 

Genocide? Fuck. Too much reading those damn books. You think the law gives a fuck 

about us? Now, gladiator fights are cool, man, you ain’t giving up on those, are you. 

What fun is there for an inmate like me if there ain’t no fighting? Listen up, Chief. You 

planning some big escape? Cause books ain’t gonna get you out of this hole. And magic 

ain’t either. 

IRONHAWK 

You know nothing about your rights on death row. More than 100 inmates have been 

released on DNA evidence. 

HUTCH 

Rights for poor folks like us? Who gives a fuck? DNA is for the rich, O.J. Simpson types. 

IRONHAWK 

Indian people care, good people who know. The Genocide Convention says you can’t kill 

prisoners of war. ‘Cause it’s a war, you know. 

Never heard – Geneva what? 

HUTCH 

IRONHAWK 

I can show you, books in my cell. Law books. There are international laws that protect 

victims of Genocide and prisoners of war. 

Your lawyer teach you all this? 

HUTCH 

IRONHAWK 

I got no counsel, I represent myself. Got all the paperwork ready for my last appeal in 

the Federal Supreme Court. 

HUTCH 

That’s gonna screw things up in here, this international P.O. crap. Manslaughter’s 

coming down real hard when she finds out. 

It’ll all be said and done by then. 

IRONHAWK 

HUTCH 

You would’ve saved Willie from the chair if you only punched him harder. 

Still can’t believe he refused the needle. 

25 

IRONHAWK

He hates needles. 


HUTCH 

IRONHAWK 

The chair smoked so bad it didn’t kill Pancho right. His head was on fire while his heart 

was still beating. It’s cruel and unusual punishment. 

HUTCH 

You know your stuff, but the needle ain’t no better. Big Charlie was wide awake for 34 

minutes moaning and groaning, them drugs didn’t work him in. He was asking ‘Where’s 

my mama?’ when he was supposed to be dead. 

IRONHAWK 

I’m allergic to electricity and I can’t take needles either. My body is sacred. I’m an 

Apache warrior and I fight with my own weapons. 

HUTCH 

Weapon? You got some weapon in your cell? 

A peace pipe. 

IRONHAWK 

HUTCH 

A peace pipe? You plan on cracking someone’s head with that? 

I pray for peace in the world. 

IRONHAWK 

HUTCH 

Pray as much as you want, Chief. But all this pow-wow stuff sounds like bull shit to me. 

Here come the guards. Behave or they’ll stick that Taser gun in your balls again. 

IRONHAWK 

I’ll pray for you, Hutch. Grandfather says liberty is a state of mind, not a place. 

SCENE TWO 

(Ms. Manslaughter is talking to Hutch in his cell.) 

MS. MANSLAUGHTER 

Speak up, what did you find out? Is Chief playing another Indian trick anytime soon? 

HUTCH 

Ma’am, the Injun’s got some smarts. I saw books in his cell, lots of’em. That’s what the 

ol’Injun does, study them law books. 


How can an ignorant Indian learn from a book? I’ll kill him one way or another, it’s my 

revenge. The last fight is mine. Can’t wait to see him drooling, his braids going up in 

smoke, his eye balls popping. I should even get a promotion out of this! 

26


HUTCH 

He’s not taking the chair, Ma’am, not the needle, neither. Guess what, he calls himself a 

P.O.W. A prisoner of war. I seen it in the books, too, some Geneva thing that protects 

him. The Injun’s smart, Ma’am, he really is. Something to do with Genocide. 


Bull shit, there’s never been no Genocide in this country. 

HUTCH 

It’s true, Ma’am, I saw it in the books. Here it is, he wrote it down for me. (pause) It’s 

called Geneva Convention. That ol’Injun knows his stuff. He’s read every fucking book in 

the library. 

What else? 

HUTCH 

He’s got a weapon in his cell, some kind of pipe. 



The peace pipe? I’ve made sure he won’t burn sage in that thing ever again. 

HUTCH 

He says the pipe’s sacred, some peace mission he’s onto. Still calls it a weapon, he 

does. Ma’am, I think the pipe gives him special powers. 


The pipe’s his weak spot. If he doesn’t take our deal we’ll confiscate it right away. I’m 

saving that for last. 

HUTCH 

Ma’am, if he finds out I’m a snitch he’ll kill me! 


You go back to Unit Two as soon as we’re done. Good work, Hutch. Now, find out 

exactly when he’s filing the federal appeal cause that’s when he’ll get the letter. 

SCENE THREE 

(IronHawk is sitting on his prayer mat, praying softly) 

IRONHAWK 

At the East, where the jet ridges of the earth lie, we two will meet… 

(Ms. Manslaughter is coming down the prison aisle singing.) 


Bye bye, you were never meant to live/ from the ghetto, you've got nothing to give; 

Bye bye you got no place to go/ where they find you, Chief? Right here on death row! 

(pause) Chief! Get your ass up here you lazy Indian! 

27


IRONHAWK 

From where the ripe fruits are fragrant, we two will meet. … 


Chief, you better get over here ‘cause I have an important letter for you. 

A letter? 

IRONHAWK 


I need you to sign right here…on the X … make sure you receive this letter all right. 

IRONHAWK 

What is this? Oklahoma Department of Corrections? I’m waiting for a letter from the 

Supreme Court! … “On this date, June 1 st , 2007, the Oklahoma Department of 

Corrections… 


Chief, we have a great deal for you, you lucky son-of-a-bitch! Six months of extended 

yard time, free commissaries, intimate visits, and you get to keep the pipe. Just give up 

your appeals and take the chair, easy! 

IRONHAWK 

My pipe? That’s not a privilege, it’s my right, my religion. 

MS. MANSLAUGHTER: 

Religion here only Jewish, Christian or Muslim. 

IRONHAWK 

Six months of privilege if I … what? Blow my head up in smoke? I’m a prisoner of war, 

you guys can’t kill me! 


In California, you have gas. In Washington, hanging. Idaho, firing. Here in Oklahoma, if 

you decide to take the needle, like a dog, I’ll make sure you’re awake every step of the 

way. 

IRONHAWK 

I’m protected by the Geneva Convention! I am an Apache Warrior! The Third Convention 

deals with prisoners of war. Article 130 says you can’t kill me, the Genocide of American 

Indians isn’t over, yet. 


The Geneva Convention doesn’t mean shit at Guantanamo or in Iraq, real wars. 

IRONHAWK 

The United Nation’s just ratified the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, after 30 

years. 

28



Rights, rights, rights! You’re no warrior! You’re going to die anyway, so why not take this 

sweet deal? If you take the deal you get to keep the pipe. 

IRONHAWK 

You can’t take my pipe, I’ve had it in my cell for 30 years. The 3 rd Geneva Convention, 

article 17 says that “articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be 

taken from prisoners of war.” Take the letter, I’m not signing anything. 


You’re an ignorant Indian. Think you know something about international law? Next 

thing, you’re innocent. Murderer! You’re giving up six months of pleasure and your pipe. 

Or would you rather go back to the hole and then straight to the chair? 

IRONHAWK 

Ms. Manslaughter, you can’t kill a P.O.W. I’ve got my rights. 

(IronHawk takes a piece of paper from his pocket and reads 

aloud.) 

IRONHAWK 

(facing audience) “Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful 

act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the 

health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious 

breach of the present Convention. The willful killing of protected persons—including sick 

and wounded, and captured or surrendering soldiers—is a grave breach of the Third 

Geneva Convention.” 


Sign the letter, you bastard! 

IRONHAWK 

I’ve got nothing for you, Manslaughter. Just a prayer to make you see the light. 


Our country has no use for international law. Rights of the Child, Kyoto Protocol, 

International Criminal Court—none are ratified, and plenty more. 

IRONHAWK 

Like them, Manslaughter, you talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. You’re a genocidal 

butcher! 


You got 24 hours to decide. We can even getcha spare ribs and some Scotch before the 

execution! I’m tired of you, Chief. You’re disgusting, fat, and your ringworms stink. We 

need fresh new kids in here. If you don’t give up your appeals and take the Chair, I’ll 

make sure the needles paralyze you but you feel terrible pain till your heart finally stops. 

I control the injection chamber. You’ve always fought and won in this joint. But this last 

gladiator fight is mine. I wanna watch you die. I’ll be back tomorrow for your autograph, 

Mr. No-Man’s Chief. 

29

SCENE FOUR 


[The Death Chamber. The Executioner ties down IronHawk’s arms and 

legs to the gurney and shaves the inmate’s right calf. He then hooks up 

IronHawk’s arms to an IV. The curtains between the execution room and 

the witness stand are closed. Manslaughter comes out of the adjoining 

room where the cocktail of lethal drugs is prepared. IronHawk is praying 

softly. ] 

IRONHAWK 

Grandfather! I will go up the mountain and light a fire to the feet of your spirit. 


(speaking directly to IronHawk) It’s just too bad you didn’t take our deal. I guess Apache 

magic isn’t that powerful, is it Chief. Your pipe’s gone. Now it’s finally my turn, and you 

can’t escape my magic! Got a good potion brewing in there for you! You’ll die like an 

animal. 

IRONHAWK 

Hear My Voice, Grandfather! I prepare a feast for you to feed on. 

EXECUTIONER 

The veins are good for nothing. I’ll try the calf. 


Poke harder. Aren’t you the best jabber we got? 

IRONHAWK 

Grandfather! Beauty is before me, and beauty behind me. I shall walk the beautiful trail. 

EXECUTIONER 

Seems like I found a trickle of blood under the fat. (pause) Ma’am, is the cocktail ready? 


Sodium Pentothal, check. Tubocurarine, check. Potassium Chloride, check. All three 

drugs ready to flow, one by one, into his sacred … temple, is it Chief? We’ll have to see 

just how sacred you are today. 

IRONHAWK 

My fathers, Sun. Our mothers, Dawn. From my heart I send forth my prayers. 

[It is 11:55 pm, 5 minutes before the execution. The executioner lowers 

the gurney, placing IronHawk flat on his back. Ms Manslaughter opens 

the curtains, giving 12 witnesses full view of IronHawk in the death 

chamber.] 

30



The governor and wife, what an honor. And the mayor. Folks out there like cowboys, 

don’t ever miss an execution. Five more minutes to go. Goodbye, Chief. Say ‘hi’ to your 

grandfather. I’ll take good care of your pipe. 

[IronHawk opens his eyes and raises his head looking directly at the 

witnesses.] 

IRONHAWK 

You can kill me but you can’t take away my dignity. 


Dignity? You’ll be at the Body Farm first thing tomorrow. We’ve donated your body to 

science. 

[Manslaughter steps into the witness room, shaking hands with all 

spectators, and takes a front seat.] 

IRONHAWK 

(to the Executioner) Make sure my braids are not touching the floor. 

Do you have anything else to say? 

I am innocent! 

Let the execution begin! 

EXECUTIONER 

IRONHAWK 


[At exactly midnight, a green light flashes, indicating the initial flow of shot 

number one. Sodium Pentothal, a sedative drug, shall induce a coma in 

2 to 3 minutes. IronHawk continues praying.] 

IRONHAWK 

I have made a footprint. I call for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. 

[The Executioner checks the IV on IronHawk’s arms. He speaks to 

Manslaughter.] 

EXECUTIONER 

Ma’am, we missed the vein. It’s going right in the flesh. His arms are swollen. He’s still 

awake. 

Shot number two will knock him out. 


[Ten minutes after midnight a yellow light starts flashing. Tubocurarine, 

known as curare, shall freeze the muscles and paralyze everything but 

the heart. IronHawk is still praying, his lips moving.] 

31


IRONHAWK 

I have made a footprint. My death is a violation of the right to life. 

[At 20 past 12 the Executioner moves forward again, checking the IV 

connections. IronHawk’s feet and hands are still twitching. He opens his 

eyes.] 

IRONHAWK 

What’s going on? 

Dead man talking! 

EXECUTIONER 


A double shot of curare will stop the twitching. 

[The Executioner presses the yellow switch twice. A double dose of 

curare is sent flowing into IronHawk’s arms. It is 12:25.] 

Ma’am, his lips are still moving. 

Go ahead with shot number 3. 

He’s still conscious, gasping for air! 

EXECUTIONER 


EXECUTIONER 


(to witnesses) Still trying to be tough! Won’t take much longer, so enjoy. 

[It’s half past midnight. A red light flashes indicating that Potassium 

Chloride is the lethal drop that will finally stop IronHawk’s heart.] 

IRONHAWK 

The preying bird of death is calling. (gasping) May the Creator bless the fallen warriors! 

God bless you, Chief. 

[IronHawk’s mouth starts foaming. His head falls to the side. The 

Executioner picks up one braid, then the other, placing them across the 

Indian’s chest.] 

EXECUTIONER 

[A physician walks into the Death Chamber to certify IronHawk is dead.] 


(facing audience). The inmate is finally dead, it’s 12:39 am. Y’all are 

cordially invited to the electrocution of Willie Softskin at midnight on 

Friday, September 30 th , 2007. May God be with y’all, Amen. 

The End 

32


The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: 

Past and Future 

ALBERTO SALDAMANDO 

On September 13, 2007, the United Nations 

General Assembly adopted, by vote, the United 

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples. Hailed as a milestone in the recognition 

and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ human 

rights all over the world, the declaration was 

adopted by a vote of 144 States (countries) in 

favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining (UN 2007). The 

adoption of this treatise by the United Nations 

General Assembly, however, was not without 

controversy. After a decade of negotiation and 

discussion within the Human Rights Commission’s 

Working Group on Indigenous Populations, and 

another exceedingly long interval – from 1994 to 

2006 – in the same commission’s Open-ended 

Working Group on the Draft Declaration, it then 

took over a year from its adoption at the new 

Human Rights Council to its presentation to the 

General Assembly in New York, where it was 

finally endorsed. 

The precepts advanced in the declaration are 

fundamental to any meaningful recognition of 

Indigenous Peoples’ human rights, and include 

such basic liberties as the right to selfdetermination, 

which turned out to be a major issue 

throughout negotiations. Many nations were 

opposed to the idea that Indigenous Peoples should 

have the same rights as all other Peoples. The 

United States, as well as Canada, New Zealand and 

Australia – the four States that voted against the 

declaration – insisted to the bitter end that the right 

of self-determination, stated in Article 1 in 

Common 1 , did not apply to Indigenous Peoples. 

These States wanted to include language in Article 

3 of the Draft Declaration that would limit this 

notion to “internal” self-determination, autonomy 

only within the state itself. The declaration as it 

was adopted contains no such language and 

Alberto Saldamando is the General Counsel for the 

International Indian Treaty Council in San Francisco. He has 

participated in past Human Rights Summits at SFSU as guest 

speaker and panel discussant. 

1 This mandate appears as Article 1 in both the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

(ICESC), and is thus referred to as Article 1 in Common. It 

states unequivocally, “all Peoples have the right of self 

determination” (emphasis mine). 

33 

reiterates the definition proposed in the first 

sentence of Article 1 in Common. 

Another fundamental issue was the acceptance 

of collective rights. Even the most active 

supporters of Indigenous rights in the past – the 

Nordic countries – joined the four dissenting votes 

submitted by the aforementioned nations, and the 

European Union, in a rejection of the proposition 

that collective rights could be human rights. In the 

end, although the declaration does not specifically 

recognize collective rights as human rights, instead 

speaking of “collective and human rights” 

(emphasis mine), the declaration as adopted refers 

specifically to collective rights in many forms. It 

would be difficult to argue now that a human rights 

document that recognizes collective rights does not 

firmly establish collective rights as human rights. 2 

To be sure, the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, as well as the ICCPR and ICESC – 

known collectively as the Universal Bill of Human 

Rights – are Eurocentric in design, as they deem 

human rights and individual rights to be 

interchangeable. The only sections of the document 

that acknowledge the notion of collective rights are 

those that invoke the right to property 3 and the 

right to the free practice of one’s culture, language 

and religion, 4 where the individual is granted, alone 

and “with others,” to enjoy these fundamental 

liberties. 

Ever since Indigenous Peoples arrived on the 

“human rights scene” in 1974, first with the 

International Indian Treaty Council, and soon after 

with the Sami Council and other Indigenous Non- 

Governmental Organizations, the process of 

inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ legitimate and 

rightful human and communal needs has been a 

daunting and unending task, given the Eurocentric 

nature of any such discussion of rights. These 

Indigenous bodies have been ceaselessly trying to 

introduce into the United Nations’ human rights 

2 See also International Labor Organization Convention No. 

169, which explicitly recognizes collective rights of Indigenous 

and Tribal Peoples without reference to the nature of collective 

rights. 

3 See Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

which states “everyone has the right to own property alone as 

well as in association with others.” 

4 See Article 27 of the ICCPR, which states “persons… shall not 

be denied the right, in community with other members of their 

group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their 

own religion, or to use their own language.”

framework a “different” view of human rights – 

namely, one that honors interdependence and 

mutuality, and that recognizes our spiritual 

relationship to Mother Earth as a human right (as 

well as a duty) basic to our human dignity. 5 

Indigenous Peoples have a long history of 

delving deeply into United Nations discourse in an 

effort to ensure that our view of human rights 

would be incorporated within international 

protocol. This engaged and critical participation 

can be traced to the formation, in 1982, of the 

Commission on Human Rights and its Subcommission’s 

Working Group on Indigenous 

Populations. Almost immediately following the 

establishment of these entities, the beginnings of a 

Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples were pursued, in turn followed by the 

negotiation and subsequent adoption of ILO 169 on 

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent 

Countries in 1988; the UN Declaration on the Year 

of Indigenous Peoples in 1994 and International 

Decade in 1995 (and the Second Decade in 2005); 

and the acceptance, in the mid-to-late 1990s, of an 

Indigenous view of human rights by the United 

Nations’ and Organization of American States’ 

human rights mechanisms. 

Thousands of Indigenous Individuals, and 

hundreds if not thousands of Indigenous Nations, 

Tribes, and their representatives within rights 

organizations participated with the Working Group 

on Indigenous Populations in raising awareness of 

our human rights. The former Chairwoman of the 

Working Group, the excellent Mme. Irene Daes 

from Greece, herself published and presented 

numerous reports to the Commission on the Rights 

of Indigenous Peoples, emphasizing the spiritual 

indigenous relationship to land and resources. 6 

Jurisprudence and international standards now 

firmly established within United Nations and OAS 

systems recognize Indigenous Peoples’ right to 

self-determination, 7 as well as their collective 

rights to determine membership within their 

group, 8 and the right of Indigenous Peoples to selfgovernment 

or autonomy, in keeping with their 

traditional cultural practices. 9 Essential to the 

establishment of these mandates is the principle of 

Indigenous Peoples’ right to their ancestral lands, 

and the mandatory return of those lands should 

they be taken without free, prior and informed 

5 

See UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25. 

6 

It is beyond the scope of this paper to include more than 

references to these events and associated accounts of 

jurisprudence. 

7 

UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3. 

8 

ibid, Article 9. 

9 

ibid, Article 4. 


34 

consent. 10 The United Nations Declaration on the 

Rights of Indigenous Peoples created no new law; 

it simply compiled in one doctrine the measures of 

jurisprudence and standards already recognized by 

UN and OAS human rights mechanisms (such as 

Treaty Monitoring Bodies that supervise 

compliance with the various human rights 

covenants and conventions), as well as the OAS 

Commission and the OAS Court of Human Rights. 

The United States, in its explanation for the 

nation’s negative vote at the General Assembly, 

admitted that: 

Under United States domestic law, the 

United States government recognizes 

Indian tribes as political entities with 

inherent powers of self-government as 

first peoples. In our legal system, the 

federal government has a government-togovernment 

relationship with Indian 

tribes. In this domestic context, this means 

promoting tribal self-government over a 

broad range of internal and local affairs, 

including determination of membership, 

culture, language, religion, education, 

information, social welfare, maintenance 

of community safety, family relations, 

economic activities, lands and resource 

management, environment and entry by 

non-members, as well as ways and means 

for financing these autonomous 

functions. 11 

However, the United States, along with the three 

other nations that voted against the declaration, 

now claim that these statutes cannot apply to them, 

by nature of their vote. But they themselves 

recognize many, if not most, of the rights listed in 

the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. 

It is true that a declaration carries no real weight of 

law, and is instead really a moral obligation, a 

standard to aspire to. But international law is 

established through the acceptance of measures by 

a consensus of States, and since it has clearly 

joined international consensus to accord the many 

rights found in the declaration that can, and should, 

be considered principles of customary international 

law and pose a legally binding obligation on all 

States including the United States, “at best, [it] can 

only be considered a ‘persistent objector’ to some 

parts of the UN Declaration” (Anaya and Wiessner 

2007). 

10 ibid, Article 26. 

11 Explanation of vote by Robert Hagen, U.S. Advisor, on the 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to the UN 

General Assembly, September 13, 2007.

The sad truth is that Indigenous Peoples across 

Mother Earth face some very harsh realities in spite 

of these international affirmations of their rights. It 

could be said that international law does not really 

exist, as there is no country in the world willing 

and able to invade the United States in order to 

force compliance with international human rights 

standards. The United States and many other 

countries, including some that voted in favor of the 

Declaration at the General Assembly, continue to 

grossly and massively violate Indigenous Peoples’ 

rights with great impunity. They do so as well with 

rights once thought to be sacrosanct, such as the 

right to be free from torture. In fact, the United 


WORKS CITED 

States does not recognize about 50 percent of the 

mandates within the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights – namely, those articles recognizing 

social and economic rights. But we can just as 

honestly say that the human rights of indigenous 

communities are more firmly established and 

upheld by the international community. The 

articulation of our rights as peoples, after a 

generation of work at the international level, is now 

much more clear. It is just as important that people 

understand that they have rights as it is for States to 

recognize them. It is now up to us to make them 

real. 

Anaya, S. James, and Siegfried Wiessner 

2007 The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Reempowerment. Electronic 

document, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous.php, 

accessed November 27, 2007. 

United Nations 

2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Electronic document, 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/declaration.htm, accessed January 28, 2008. 

1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

35


36


Graves Protection and Repatriation: 

An Unresolved Universal Human Rights Problem Affected by 

Institutional Racism 

JAMES RIDING IN 

A lasting burial is a fundamental right taken 

for granted by most U.S. citizens. Yet Native 

American Peoples – comprised of American 

Indians and Native Hawaiians – have experienced a 

long legacy of scientific grave-looting and 

curatorial practices, sanctioned by U.S. laws and 

beliefs of racial superiority, that have denied them 

this basic human right. The practice of collecting 

native remains was so pervasive that few, if any, 

nations escaped the blade of either the 

archaeologist’s shovel or the headhunter’s knife. 

Consequently, Native Americans, as an obligation 

to their ancestors, have been struggling for the past 

forty years against an enduring scientific mindset 

and a complicit federal government that continues 

to view the dead as specimens for study. Their 

efforts have resulted in the enactment of landmark 

laws that have curbed much of the grave looting, 

but these statutes have not resolved conflicts over 

the dead. 

To understand this struggle, it is first necessary 

to comprehend the historical roots of the 

controversy. Although laws protected non-Indian 

burials and bodies from scientific abuse, Indians 

were not afforded equal consideration because of 

virulent racial biases that infected dominant 

society. Nineteenth-century popular opinion 

considered Indians “savages” who existed in a 

vacuum beyond the boundaries of “civilized” 

society, presumably evidenced, in part, by the 

traditional practice of leaving their graves 

unmarked by headstones, as is the custom of white 

Americans. These attitudes encouraged non- 

Indians to seek out and disturb Native American 

graves as their expanding country appropriated the 

lands and resources of Indigenous peoples (see 

Berkhofer 1978). 

Beginning in colonial times and continuing up 

to the present, European settlers, followed by 

individuals working in the name of science, 

literally stole tens of thousands of bodies and 

funerary objects from Native American graves in 

James Riding In is Professor of American Indian Studies at 

Arizona State University, where he has played a prominent role 

in the program’s development. He is the editor of Wicazo Sa 

Review: A Journal of Native American Studies. His research 

about repatriation as well as historical and contemporary 

American Indian issues has appeared in various books and 

scholarly journals. 

37 

the United States and Hawaii. The rise of scientific 

inquiry during the nineteenth century gave further 

justification for dominant society to deny burial 

rights to Native Americans. Informed by 

contemporaneous racial precepts, Samuel G. 

Morton employed a flawed methodology called 

craniometrics to give the stamp of scientific 

validity to the widely accepted belief that the 

Anglo Saxon race was intellectually superior to 

Indians, Africans, and Asians. Called the “Father 

of American Physical Anthropology” in scientific 

circles, Morton’s celebrated practice of collecting 

Indian skulls for study became commonplace. 1 

In 1867, the United States Surgeon General 

sent a memorandum to field doctors requesting 

“Indian specimens,” stating that “medical officers 

will enhance the value of their contributions by 

transmitting with the specimens the fullest 

attainable memoranda specifying the locality 

whence the skulls were derived, the presumed age 

and sex” (Harjo 1996:3). Obedient U.S. army field 

surgeons shipped hundreds of decapitated heads of 

Indians killed in battle to the Army Medical 

Museum (AMM) in Washington, D.C., for study. 

In all, the AMM collected about four thousand 

Indian remains, most of which were transferred to 

the Smithsonian Institution in the 1890s (Harjo 

1996:3-4; Riding In 1992:101-17). Meanwhile, 

many of the individuals in museums and 

universities who participated in these ghoulish 

actions, either actively or passively, became 

recognized experts of Native American cultures 

and histories. Confined to reservations under 

deplorable conditions of poverty and political 

subjugation, Indians lacked the power to challenge 

those who denied them their human rights. 

In addition to the desecration and theft of 

many of their burial sites, Native Americans of the 

late 1800s and early 1900s had to deal with 

predatory museum curators and other collectors 

who came to them in search of cultural objects, 

especially significant religious objects, to purchase 

or steal. This was a time when the heavy hand of 

federal pressure was using coercive measures to 

force Native Americans to adopt white American 

1 For a discussion of how Morton manipulated his finds, see 

generally, Stephen Jay Gould’s 1981 The Mismeasure of Man. 

New York: Norton.

values, styles of living, and ways of worship. With 

Indian resolve weakened by oppression and 

destitution, collectors often walked away with vast 

quantities of cultural objects. The collectors’ 

sponsoring institutions routinely displayed Indian 

remains (mostly skulls), sacred objects, and other 

cultural articles in exhibits that consciously 

represented Indians as culturally inferior savages 

(Harjo 1996:7). 

In 1906, Congress officially denied Native 

Americans’ full burial rights by enacting the 

American Antiquities Act. This statute essentially 

classified Indian burials on federal and reservation 

lands as cultural resources belonging to the United 

States government. Those wishing to conduct 

excavations on public and reservation lands had to 

apply for a permit and agree to place excavated 

objects in public repositories for study in perpetuity 

(Dumont, Jr. 2003:117). Operating without ethical 

and moral constraints, hundred of museums, 

universities, and federal agencies across the nation 

amassed large collections of Native American 

human remains. The Smithsonian Institution had 

the remains of approximately 18,000 Native 

American individuals, the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) had over 8,000, and the Phoebe 

Hearst Museum at the University of California, 

Berkeley, had another 12,000. Hundreds of other 

institutions had human remains ranging from just a 

few to thousands in number. 

The TVA illustrates the discriminatory 

treatment that Indians received at the hands of a 

federal agency. Congress created the TVA as a 

federal corporation in 1933. With the construction 

of reservoirs along the Tennessee River and its 

tributaries, the TVA developed an archaeology 

program that surveyed the land and removed 

human remains, funerary objects, and cultural 

items from the area to be flooded. TVA personnel 

approached the relatives of non-Indians buried in 

low-lying cemeteries. As a result of the 

consultation process, thousands of bodies were 

exhumed and reburied elsewhere in accordance 

with the wishes of the relatives. This 

archaeological work, funded largely by the Works 

Progress Administration, excavated approximately 

1.5 million square feet of sites where Indians had 

lived for thousands of years. 2 Over time, diggers 

unearthed over eight thousand human remains and 

twenty thousands affiliated funerary objects. 3 

2 

See the National NAGPRA Online Databases and the 

Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Inventories Pilot 

Database, http://64.241.25.6/CUI/index.cfm. 

3 

See the Frank H. McClung Museum website, University of 

Tennessee, 


38 

Pursuant of the Antiquities Act, the disinterred 

Indian bodies and funerary objects were placed in 

repositories in different states without consulting 

the next-of-kin. 

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing until 

the present, a voice for Indian advocacy surfaced to 

address an end to such desecration, restore lost 

burial rights, and gain a legal process for 

recovering the stolen human remains and cultural 

objects for proper disposition. By the 1980s, the 

message resonated loudly throughout the American 

social landscape, and served to educate the public 

about the immorality of treating Native American 

remains as cultural resources and specimens for 

study. The force of the movement reached 

Congress as the 1980s came to a close. Rather than 

establishing a process that empowered Native 

Americans to take the lead in determining the 

disposition of the human remains and cultural 

objects, Congress authorized the holding 

institutions to make the final decision regarding 

matters of repatriation. 

In 1989, Congress passed the National 

Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act, a 

repatriation law pertaining only to the Smithsonian. 

The act requires the Smithsonian to repatriate 

human remains and funerary objects in its 

collections linked to present-day Indians, upon 

request, by a preponderance of evidence. This 

standard of proof simply reiterates that the human 

remains in question are more likely than not to be 

associated with the claimant tribe or organization. 

The following year Congress passed a more 

sweeping bill entitled the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which 

applies to all federal agencies and museums 

receiving federal funding. NAGPRA provides a 

legal avenue for American Indians nations, Native 

Hawaiian organizations, and lineal descendents to 

repatriate human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, and objects of cultural patrimony linked to 

them by a preponderance of evidence. NAGPRA 

also criminalizes trafficking in NAGPRA-protected 

objects (25 U.S. C. 3003, Section 7(a)(4)). 

Under the NAGPRA protocol, museums and 

federal agencies were to compile inventories of 

human remains and associated funerary objects by 

November 16, 1993, and summaries of 

unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and 

objects of cultural patrimony by November 16, 

1995 (25 U.S.C. 3003(a)). Institutions were to 

determine cultural affiliation in consultation with 

potentially related federally recognized Indian 

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/newpermanent/archaeology/inde 

x.html.

nations and Native Hawaiian groups. Drafting 

regulations to establish a process for the disposition 

of those human remains and funerary objects that 

could not be culturally affiliated was left up to the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Review Committee, a board 

composed of Native Americans and museum and 

academic representatives that oversees NAGPRA 

projects. The secretary of the interior was to 

promulgate the rule (25 U.S.C. 3003, Section 

8(c)(5)). 

To date, regulations for the disposition of socalled 

culturally unidentifiable human remains 

have not been adopted because of the 

contentiousness of the issue. At stake are over a 

hundred thousand human remains. Native 

Americans, who see NAGPRA as a repatriation 

law, want all of their ancestors, along with funerary 

objects, repatriated for reburial. Conversely, 

scientists and other like-minded individuals and 

organizations, who view the law as a congressional 

initiative that balances the interests of science with 

those of Native Americans, insist on retaining 

control over as many of the culturally 

unidentifiable human remains as possible for the 

purposes of study. 

Given the long legacy of broken treaties, 

racism, religious intolerance, attacks on Indian 

sovereignty, and scientific opposition to universal 

burial rights for Native Americans, it should not 

come as a surprise that the repatriation laws have 

failed to live up to their promise. On the one hand, 

NMAI and NAGPRA have theoretically restored 

ownership of disinterred Native Americans to their 

next-of-kin. Collectively, Native Americans have 

reburied perhaps as many as thirty thousand human 

remains, along with great numbers of funerary 

objects, and have recovered hundreds of cultural 

articles. Through repatriation processes, they have 

encouraged many – though not all – museums and 

federal agencies to become more inclusive in their 

operations (Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Review Committee 2007:3). 

On the other hand, a fatal flaw of the 

repatriation laws – the empowerment of institutions 

to make repatriation decisions – has led to the 

classification of a relatively small percentage of the 

disinterred human remains as culturally affiliated, a 

prerequisite for repatriation, and to the 

determination that the vast majority of the human 

remains are culturally unidentifiable. By 2007, 

reporting museums and federal agencies had 

categorized human remains representing 118,833 

individuals as lacking cultural affiliation (Kline 

2007:1). According to the NAGPR Review 

Committee’s 2007 report to Congress, as of 


39 

December 31, 2006, museums and federal agencies 

had established cultural affiliation “for the remains 

of 32,054 individuals and 669,977 associated 

funerary objects” (NAGPR Review Committee 

2007:3). Because National NAGPRA, the National 

Park Service program that administers the law, 

does not keep a record of repatriated human 

remains, the actual number of remains transferred 

to Native Americans is unknown (NAGPR Review 

Committee 2007:3). 

Federal agencies have determined cultural 

affiliation for forty-six percent of the human 

remains in their control. An October 31, 2006, 

study indicates that thirteen federal agencies had 

identified the cultural affiliation of 13,145 of the 

28,411 human remains under their jurisdiction. Of 

these, the U.S. Corps of Engineers; the Department 

of Defense of the U.S. Army; the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; and the Department of Energy 

had recognized cultural affiliation for less than half 

of the human remains in their control or 

possession. On a particularly disturbing note, the 

Tennessee Valley Authority listed all of the human 

remains in its control, totaling over eight thousand 

individuals, as culturally unidentifiable (Murdock 

and Lavallee 2006:9). 

Regarding the total number of reported human 

remains, institutions with NAGPRA 

responsibilities hold at least 150,887 (118,833 + 

32,054) Native American human remains but only 

32,054 of them have been culturally affiliated. This 

means that museums and federal agencies have 

collectively determined that approximately eighty 

percent (78.8 percent) of the human remains in 

their collections lack cultural affiliation with 

present-day Native Americans. It is as if those 

individuals had lived in cultural isolation, having 

never intermarried with outsiders and having never 

shared their technologies, ceremonies, and 

worldviews with others. This scenario is a 

convenient rationale devised by institutions to 

circumvent the reburial intentions of the 

repatriation laws. 

The Smithsonian’s record of establishing 

cultural affiliation is equally dismal. According to 

its website, the Smithsonian repatriation program 

has offered 5,000 of its 18,000 Native American 

human remains for repatriation. Of those, only 

3,500 individuals have been repatriated. In other 

words, seventy-two percent of the Native American 

human remains at the Smithsonian have not been 

culturally affiliated. 4 

4 See The Smithsonian Institution’s Department of 

Anthropology Repatriation Office report, “Collections,” 

http://anthropology.si.edu/repatriation/collections/index.htm.

What factors have contributed to the 

disproportionate classification of Native American 

remains as culturally unidentifiable? While many 

human remains and cultural objects lack obvious 

provenience, those human remains that are without 

documentation to identify origin is small in 

comparison to those obtained through systematic 

archaeological diggings (Kline 2007:9). Thus, 

other explanations must be considered. 

The fact is that institutional barriers (read: 

racism) inevitably come into play in repatriation 

processes. Many members of the anthropological 

discipline’s scientific community consider 

NAGPRA an anti-science statute that has 

empowered Native Americans to strip museum 

collections of irreplaceable cultural items and 

native human remains. A situation that occurred in 

Nevada during the 1990s illustrates how a federal 

agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

worked collaboratively with a museum, the Nevada 

State Museum (NSM), to find ways to undermine 

NAGPRA protocol in a case involving a very old 

set of human remains known as Spirit Cave Man. 

In 1994, Pat Barker, BLM’s Nevada state 

archaeologist, coauthored an article entitled, Legal 

and Ethical Implications of the Numic 

Expansionism, which criticized NAGPRA for 

weakening the archaeologists’ control over the 

archaeological record. 5 The authors also warned 

readers about the pitfalls of establishing tribal 

cultural affiliation with items in museums, stating 

that “control over cultural items is removed from 

federal agencies, museums and universities, and 

placed in the hands of the descendants. This means 

that the group or individual can manage and 

dispose of these items as if they are private 

property.” 6 

On December 13, 1994, BLM and NSM 

personnel discussed NAGPRA compliance issues. 

A candid report that scrutinizes the exchange of 

ideas at this meeting provides a rare and 

penetrating glimpse into the mindset of a cadre of 

scientists and museum personnel whose beliefs in 

the privileges of science would put them at odds 

with the Northern Paiutes People seeking to rebury 

their disinterred ancestors. The report shows the 

5 This legal brief, written by Amicus Friends of America’s Past 

for the case Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. United States 

Bureau of Land Management, is entitled “Fallon Tribe’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Support Thereof.” 

6 Quoted in Linda Bowman, et al., “Motion for Leave to File 

Amici Curiae Brief in Opposition to the United States Bureau of 

Land Management’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and 

Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities,” Fallon 

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. United States Bureau of Land 

Management. 


40 

choices the participants made regarding how they 

could curtail, avoid, violate, and otherwise 

manipulate their NAGPRA compliance 

responsibilities. Expressing the meeting’s purpose, 

the report’s author wrote: “Some of the most 

important prehistoric artifacts in our collections are 

human grave goods, so it is important to coordinate 

carefully with the BLM to do all we can to 

preserve information from these burials before 

repatriation destroys their scientific value forever” 

(Dansie 1994; emphasis mine). It should not come 

as a surprise that the two organizations collectively 

determined that the Spirit Cave Man’s remains and 

funerary objects were not culturally affiliated with 

any present-day Native Americans. Although the 

Northern Paiutes later submitted evidence showing 

their cultural affiliation with Spirit Cave Man, the 

BLM continued to deny the Paiutes’ repatriation 

requests. 

If what happened in Nevada is occurring 

elsewhere, significant numbers of recalcitrant 

museums and federal agencies may have 

established a standard that exceeds NAGPRA’s 

preponderance of evidence requirement. Under this 

heightened criterion, if Indians of the distant past 

made cultural adjustments to accommodate new 

ecological and climatic conditions or developed 

and adopted new technologies, modes of living, 

and burial practices, their behavior would 

undoubtedly fall beyond the ability of 

anthropological science to understand and account 

for processes of Native Peoples’ cultural change 

and development. It is very likely that the vast 

majority of human remains were excavated by 

professional archaeologists, which means that 

unearthed physical objects – especially those found 

among the contents of graves – have voluminous 

amounts of associated documentation, including 

field notes, that describe in detail the place of the 

excavations, the surrounding material cultural 

items, and the approximate age of the remains. 7 

7 For a discussion of the shortcomings of the archaeological 

methodology, see generally, Adam Fish, “Indigenous Bodies in 

Colonial Courts: Anthropological Science and the (Physical) 

Laws of the Remaining Human,” Wicazo Sa Review 21:77-95, 

Spring 2006.

Another strategy to subvert NAGPRA’s 

requirements was to simply not submit the 

mandated inventories and summaries in a timely 

fashion. In its 1998 report to Congress, the Review 

Committee pointed out that although the Bureau of 

Land Management, Corps of Engineers, and 

National Forest Service held thousands of human 

remains, these federal agencies had failed to submit 

inventories and had offered no reasons for their 

failure to comply (NAGPR Review Committee 

1998:4). Expressing concern about the attitude of 

these agencies, the Review Committee declared 

that “it would appear that the agencies believe 

themselves exempt from the statue and its 

associated regulations and they are not following 

the standards set by the leadership of the non- 

Federal agencies” (NAGPR Review Committee 

1998:4). Although most federal agencies 

eventually did comply with the law, in 2007 the 

Review Committee wrote: “Overall Federal 

agency compliance with NAGPRA has been 

uneven, difficult to measure, and lacking in 

transparency despite the huge role Federal agencies 

play in implementing the terms of the Act” 

(NAGPR Review Committee 2006:4). 

Interestingly, the Review Committee has been 

silent regarding the exorbitant number of human 

remains listed as culturally unaffiliated. 

The repatriation laws contain other problems 

that affect repatriation. NAGPRA excludes nonfederally 

recognized Indian nations from 

participation in the repatriation process, yet many 

entities hold human remains that are linked to them 

(NAGPR Review Committee 2006:5). Those 

disenfranchised peoples must work in cooperation 

with federally “recognized” Indian nations to 

repatriate items connected to them. Indian nations 

often lack the resources to conduct the costly 

NAGPRA consultations with those museums and 

federal agencies (NAGPR Review Committee 


WORKS CITED 

1999:5). In some instances, spiritual leaders have 

refused to divulge information about sacred 

objects, and how those objects are used 

ceremonially, because their traditions prohibit 

disclosures of sacred knowledge. This means that 

they could not pursue the repatriation of certain 

objects without violating their spirituality (NAGPR 

Review Committee 1998:9). The application of 

pesticides by museum personnel on masks, 

clothing, and other perishable items has either 

discouraged repatriation of certain items or has 

rendered repatriated objects unusable for any 

purposes because of the presence of deadly 

contaminants (NAGPR Review Committee 

2003:8). 

Non-scientific grave looting, another 

longstanding problem, has grown into a lucrative, 

if not legal, business. A domestic and international 

black market caters to those who want to purchase 

pottery and skulls from burial sites. NAGPRA, 

through the Archaeological Resource Protection 

Act of 1979, imposes criminal punishment on those 

convicted of looting Indian graves. Yet many 

Indian burial sites are situated in remote areas 

beyond the easy reach of law enforcement, either 

tribal or federal. Moreover, not all states have 

included Indian cemeteries in their burial laws. 

Consequently, acts of vandalism, destruction, and 

grave looting in many places are not considered 

criminal acts (NAGPR Review Committee 

1998:5). 

Clearly, the repatriation acts of 1989 and 1999 

have not ended the Native American struggle for 

burial and repatriation rights. Native Americans are 

still struggling against the force of institutional 

racism for the return of more than 125,000 human 

remains in the control of museums and federal 

agencies. And there is no end in sight for the 

resolution of this conflict. 

Berkhofer, Robert F. 

1978 The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present. New 

York: Knopf. 

Dansie, Amy 

1994 NAGPRA Meeting Report. Carson City, Nevada. 

Dumont, Jr., Clayton W. 

2003 The Politics of Scientific Objections to Repatriation. Wicazo Sa Review 18:117. 

Harjo, Suzan Shown 

1996 Introduction. In Mending the Circle: A Native American Repatriation Guide. Barbara Meister, 

ed. Pp. 3-7. New York: American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation. 

Kline, Andrew 

2007 Who Are the Culturally Unidentifiable? Virginia: University of Mary Washington. 

41


Murdock, Cynthia, and Jaime Lavallee 

2006 Federal Agency NAGPRA Statistics, Report of the National NAGPRA Program. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee 

1998 Report to Congress, 1995-1997. 

1999 Report to Congress on 1998 Activities. 

2003 Report to Congress for 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

2007 Report to Congress for 2006. 

Riding In, James 

1992 Six Pawnee Crania: The Historical and Contemporary Significance of the Massacre and Decapitation of 

Pawnee Indians in 1869. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 16(2):101-17. 

42


Human Rights and the Practice of Repatriation 

DAVID KOJAN 

INTRODUCTION 

It is appropriate and important that the issue of 

repatriation be discussed in the context of this 

volume. Although there are many political and 

technical considerations raised by the repatriation 

movement (Mihesuah 2000; Watkins 2000), at the 

end of the day it is an issue of human rights and 

social justice. Although many of the issues I will 

discuss here can be applied to other regions of the 

world (see for example Conkey 2005; McNiven 

and Russell 2005), here I will specifically focus on 

repatriation in the United States. 

Very often discussions of repatriation take 

place within highly polarized debates such as those 

between science versus religion, or anthropologists 

versus “Indians” (Deloria 2000; Meighan 2000). 

Such discussions often pit one worldview against 

another, encouraging one to choose sides on a set 

of issues that has few clean answers. Such debates 

are important, but the tensions they create often 

overshadow crucial issues, and tend to generate 

more heat than light. In contrast, understanding 

repatriation as a concern of human rights exposes 

and crystallizes some key issues in a powerful way. 

First, and most importantly, such a perspective 

forces us to come to terms head-on with a history 

of human rights violations and social violence that 

has sadly characterized much of anthropology’s, as 

well as our country’s, relationship to Native 

Peoples. Secondly, I believe (or perhaps I should 

say that I sincerely hope) that understanding 

repatriation in the context of human rights holds 

the potential to heal many of the wounds that have 

been inflicted over the history of American 

anthropology. 

Because I am, along with every other 

American, a political actor in the history of the 

colonization of the United States, it is important to 

identify and acknowledge my own position within 

this dialogue. I am an anthropological 

archaeologist by training, and have conducted 

research in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico and California, 

and have worked with human bodies on several 

occasions. Though my parents were both born in 

the United States, my ancestors all came from 

various parts of Europe - many of them fleeing 

violence and oppression - and I have certainly 

David Kojan is an Instructor in the Department of Anthropology 

at SFSU. This paper was presented at the 2 nd Summit in 2005. 

43 

benefited from my ethnic and economic status. 

Although I have worked diligently to expand my 

thinking on these issues, I also know that my 

understanding of the histories of the United States, 

Native Peoples, the field of anthropology, and 

repatriation are all heavily informed by my own 

personal history and societal status. With these 

words, I would like to offer a few observations and 

reflections about repatriation in the context of 

human rights, and I do so with an understanding of 

my own subjectivity. 

ACKNOWLEDGING VIOLENCE 

There is no getting around the many atrocities 

that have been committed in the name of the 

advancement of science. It is a past that will no 

doubt continue to be a difficult one for 

anthropologists and Indian Peoples alike to 

remember and talk about. But a full 

acknowledgment of the social violence that is at 

the foundation of the United States, and at the root 

of the field of anthropology is the first step in 

healing the serious individual and social harms 

caused by this violence. I understand social 

violence in very broad terms to refer to the 

physical, psychological and symbolic oppression 

that has been inflicted on the Native Peoples of the 

United States (along with most other parts of the 

world) as part of the colonial expansion of Western 

power structures (Wolfe 1982; McNiven and 

Russell 2005). 

From the ideas of scientific racism and cultural 

evolutionism that originated in the 19 th century, 

which place Indian Peoples on a lower rung of 

historical development (Bieder 2000; Gould 1996; 

Pagden 1982; Trigger 1989), to the widespread 

excavation, examination and display of Indian 

bodies (Mallouf 2000), to the cynical opposition to 

demands by Indian Peoples that such practices are 

insensitive and damaging (see Watkins 2003 for 

overview and Meighan 2000; Weiss 2001 as 

examples of this perspective), American 

anthropology has been complicit in the colonial 

exploitation of America’s Indigenous Peoples. This 

is not to say that this social violence is the only 

legacy of American anthropology – many 

anthropologists have also been instrumental in 

dismantling the legitimacy of such problematic 

concepts and practices (Atalay 2006; Stocking 

1968; Zimmerman 1989, 1997). In my view it is 

precisely these contradictions and complexities that

necessitate a fuller dialogue about the historical 

and contemporary practices within American 

anthropology. 

While I am in no position to make 

generalizations about the diversity of American 

Indian knowledge systems and practices, there 

seems to be wide agreement among Indian Peoples 

around the issue of human remains and repatriation 

(Atalay 2006; Deloria 1969, 1973; Hurst-Thomas 

2001; Watkins 2000). For many Indian Peoples, 

the human body continues to be connected to the 

spirit even after death, and the disruption and 

separation of ancestral remains from their resting 

place can have serious spiritual and physical 

repercussions for both living descendants and the 

ancestors themselves (Deloria 1969, 2000; Watkins 

2003). The excavation, dismemberment, and 

warehousing of Indian ancestral remains has thus 

been both a symbolic as well as a concrete form of 

imperialism. It is emblematic of America’s 

historic and contemporary oppression of Indian 

Peoples, and can cause very real and sustained 

injury to living individuals and communities. 

For many American anthropologists there has 

been a strange kind of disconnect – perhaps one 

born of shame or sadness – between the horrible 

atrocities inflicted on Indian Peoples, and the 

subjects of our own anthropological research. Even 

for those who explicitly acknowledge the physical 

and social violence that has characterized much of 

the past 500 years of American history, the 

collection and study of Indian remains and sacred 

objects has been viewed as a suitable topic of 

scientific and intellectual inquiry (Zimmerman 

1997:97-100). Perhaps most shameful of all has 

been anthropology’s role in creating and 

perpetuating the absurd myth that Indians are an 

extinct people who lived long-ago forgotten lives, 

whose only remnants are their material objects and 

human bodies (McGuire 1997). From the early 

days of anthropology right up to the present, these 

objects and remains have not typically been 

discussed or displayed in art museums alongside 

the work of Euro-American artists, but rather in 

natural history museums alongside fossilized 

shells, rare minerals, and two-headed snakes. This 

narrative represents the most base level of racism 

and disenfranchisement, as it attempts not only to 

place Indian Peoples on a lower rung of “progress” 

or evolution, but makes every effort to erase their 

modern voices from existence altogether (Trouillot 

1989). 

Overt human rights violations, such as statesanctioned 

genocide, are only one form that social 

violence can take (although the United States does 

not officially recognize the genocide of American 


44 

Indian Peoples). The mass excavation of Indian 

graves for personal gain and profit is an obvious 

violation of social justice, but much more common, 

and perhaps more troubling, are the subtle 

complacencies and even well-intentioned 

ignorance that lead to human rights violations, 

whether in the name of economics, religion, or 

science (Zimmerman 1997). 

In the history of the United States, for every 

act of overt desecration of Indian bodies - whether 

for the profit of “pot-hunters,” as witnessed at 

Slack Farm in Kentucky (Echo-Hawk and Echo- 

Hawk 1994), the display of Indian bodies in 

museums and at roadside attractions like Dickson 

Mounds in Illinois or the Nebraska State Historical 

Society (Echo-Hawk and Echo-Hawk 1994; Hurst- 

Thomas 2001), or for pseudoscientific “research” 

like the racist craniometric studies of Morton, 

Hrdlicka, and others (Gould 1996, Hurst-Thomas 

2001) - there are a hundred acts of complacency 

and ignorance that are no less damaging: a novice 

archaeology student, hoping to learn the methods 

of his field, helps to excavate an Indian burial 

because he is instructed to do so; a magazine editor 

publishing photographs of human remains doesn’t 

think about the potential harm his actions inflict on 

living communities; or a small museum curator, 

hoping to educate an indifferent public about 

history, creating a display of Indian artifacts next to 

the fossils of extinct Pleistocene animals. I would 

argue that such transgressions are enacted not out 

of malice, but out of ignorance and a failure to 

connect the practice of anthropology to its realworld 

impact on the lives of individuals and 

communities. 

I don’t raise these issues to excuse or explain 

away the activities of the past, nor to argue that 

American anthropology is inexorably fated to 

repeat such colonial practices. Quite to the 

contrary, I suggest that anthropologists can come to 

terms with this history, but only by understanding 

and acknowledging the past through careful 

examination of our own actions and assumptions as 

we engage in our work today (Kojan and Angelo 

2005). If the history of American anthropology is 

any guide, good intentions, while surely important, 

are not enough. We need to constantly question 

and observe the consequences of our work. 

We must remember that the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) became law just fifteen years ago, and 

this was made possible only through the protests 

and hard work of Indian activists. From its 

inception, the repatriation movement has been 

answered with a loud cry of indignant opposition 

on the part of a minority of outspoken

anthropologists (Meighan 2000). As Zimmerman 

(1997:98) notes, in 1983 the Society for American 

Archaeology Executive Board passed an antireburial 

resolution aimed at thwarting the growing 

repatriation movement. But perhaps more 

powerful still has been the deafening silence on the 

part of most of the rest of the field who have sat on 

the sidelines watching in acquiescence. While 

Indian bodies were being excavated by the 

hundreds (Echo-Hawk and Echo-Hawk 1994; 

Hurst-Thomas 2001) or put on display in roadside 

attractions, even those anthropologists not directly 

involved in this “research” were notably silent 

(Zimmerman 1997). Those anthropologists who 

have taken up the cause of repatriation should be 

acknowledged for their contribution (see for 

example, Walker 1991; Zimmerman 1989), but the 

sad fact is that anthropologists have largely been 

led kicking and screaming to show concern for 

repatriation. 

MATERIAL CULTURE 

Much of the work that archaeologists do 

involves the study of what is often called “material 

culture” – that is, the physical objects that are 

produced by people and often survive over the 

centuries and millennia. For many archaeologists 

and non-archaeologists alike, this study of material 

culture has become almost synonymous with the 

study of the past through archaeology. Often when 

I tell someone at a party that I am an archaeologist 

they ask me, “Do you go on digs?” or “What’s the 

best thing you’ve ever found?” – referring to the 

close connection between the practice of 

archaeology and the material culture being studied. 

This link between physical objects – including 

human bones – and the study of the past through 

archaeology has deep roots in the field and can be 

traced back to the “cabinets of curiosity” which 

once decorated the homes of European elites 

during the Renaissance, and later expanded into 

what we know of today as museums. 

Nadia Abu El-Haj, a cultural anthropologist 

who has studied the practice of archaeology in 

Israel-Palestine, most notably in the city of 

Jerusalem, makes a keen observation that in 

addition to studying material culture, archaeology 

also produces its own material culture. The 

structures and features that archaeologists uncover, 

and the historical narratives that archaeologists 

help create, are used in very tangible ways in the 

real world. El-Haj (1998) argues that the 

architecture and monuments of Jerusalem tell a 

story of the primordial roots of the dominant state 

identity, while the physical manifestations of 

alternative stories of the city are left in silent ruin. 


45 

These stone and concrete markers of a purportedly 

“physically” indisputable social memory have 

effects in the lives of people today. They provide 

persistent cues to the citizens and visitors of 

Jerusalem about who belongs to Israeli society and 

who does not. The simple act of walking through 

the streets of the city, admiring the architecture, or 

stopping to read about a recent archaeological 

discovery serve as reminders and reaffirmations of 

present-day social hierarchies and dominance. 

Similarly, the museum collections and storage 

facilities in the United States that house the 

material remains of Indian Peoples are in fact also 

forms of material culture – ones that provide subtle 

but powerful cues about who belongs and who 

does not in contemporary America. Perhaps even 

more than in the case of Jerusalem, the holding and 

study of Indian remains have served as tangible 

structures of dominance and oppression. This 

warehousing of Indian bodies functions both as a 

constant material reminder of past acts of violence 

and genocide, and reinforces the mythology that 

Indians are figments of our country’s historical 

imagination (McGuire 1997). 

The study of the past is thus never an objective 

or passive reading of historical events and physical 

evidence, but is a process that actively writes a 

story of the past in the present moment (Kojan and 

Angelo 2005). Anthropologists have been much 

too slow to realize that our work has tangible 

consequences in the world. One could argue that as 

a field we have actively chosen not to believe that 

our work has consequences, preferring instead to 

position ourselves as distanced and objective 

interpreters of a stable material reality, rather than 

active agents in it. This denial is itself most 

certainly an act of oppression, and perhaps it is also 

a coping mechanism to deal with a sad and 

shameful history that is difficult to confront. But if 

we truly believe that our work does not have real 

world consequences, then why do we bother? 

BUILDING A POSITIVE MATERIAL 

CULTURE 

Until this point I have focused primarily on the 

damaging and hurtful consequences of 

anthropological work. But there is also a flip side 

to this picture – and this is the reason I am an 

anthropologist. If we accept that our work has a 

real impact on the world, then it stands to reason 

that we can choose to make that impact the support 

of social justice and human rights. If the work of 

anthropologists produces a material culture of its 

own, then that material culture can be one that 

strives to acknowledge the social complexity and 

cultural diversity of the world we live in, rather

than a reiteration of the dynamics of domination 

and power that have unfortunately characterized 

much of anthropology’s relationship to Native 

Peoples. This is the importance of the repatriation 

movement. Repatriation should not be seen as a 

symbolic gesture, or a form of restitution for past 

wrongs – in very simple terms, it is about doing the 

right thing right now. 

It is a sad commentary on the state of the 

world we live in that we generally confront the 

issue of human rights only in the context of 

violations against them – genocide, murder, 

imprisonment. The work to expose such atrocities 

and educate the world about their occurrence is a 

critically important task, and many of the papers in 

this volume make important contributions in this 

regard. But this is not the only story of human 

rights. This volume also shows that there is a 

tremendous affirmative power that comes from 

acknowledging and supporting human rights in a 

positive sense. 

I am reminded here of many of the stories I 

have heard from both Indians and anthropologists 


WORKS CITED 

of the powerful healing that can take place through 

repatriation. When the Zuni War Gods were 

finally brought back home to do their important 

work, I have been told that even after the long 

years of separation, and the protracted and bitter 

legal battle to return them, the feeling was one of 

great joy and pride, not revenge or anger (Ferguson 

et al. 2000; Ferguson personal communication). 

The long struggle to repatriate the Pawnee Scouts 

from the Smithsonian Institution was motivated not 

by a desire to punish the museum or the field of 

anthropology, but to honor the deceased veterans 

and to bring closure to their long absence (Echo- 

Hawk and Echo-Hawk 1994:41-72). 

In this sense, institutions like San Francisco 

State University that house the remains of Indian 

Peoples have an historic opportunity to build a 

material culture that supports and honors human 

rights. The graves of repatriated ancestors will 

probably always carry a sadness for the years of 

separation, but perhaps they can also form a 

material culture of healing and reconciliation. That 

is my personal hope at least. 

Atalay, S. 

2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):280-310. 

Bieder, Robert E. 

2000 The Representation of Indian Bodies in Nineteenth-Century American Anthropology. In 

Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Devon Abbott Mihesuah, ed. Pp. 19-36. 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Conkey, M. 

2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection?: Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies. 

Archaeologies 1(1):9-59. 

Deloria Jr., Vine 

1969 Custer Died For Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: Macmillan. 

1973 God is Red: a Native View of Religion. New York: Delta. 

2000 Secularism, Civil Religions, and the Religious Freedom of American Indians. In Repatriation 

Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? D. Mihesuah, ed. Pp. 169-179. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

El-Haj, Nadia Abu 

1998 Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the Remaking of Past and 

Present in Contemporary Jerusalem. American Ethnologist 25(2):166–88. 

Echo-Hawk, Roger C., and Walter R. Echo-Hawk 

1994 Battlefields and Burial Grounds. Minneapolis: Lerner Publication Company. 

Ferguson, T. J., Roger Anyon,, and Edmund Ladd 

2000 Repatriation at the Pueblo of Zuni: Diverse Solutions to Complex Problems. In Repatriation 

Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Devon Abbott Mihesuah, ed. Pp. 239-265. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press. 

Gould, Stephen Jay 

1996 The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton. 

Hurst Thomas, David., and Vine Deloria Jr. 

2001 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. New 

York: Basic Books. 

46


Kojan, David, and Angelo, D. 

2005 Dominant Narratives, Social Violence and the Practice of Bolivian Archaeology. Journal of 

Social Archaeology 5(3):383-408. 

Mallouf, Robert J. 

2000 The Unraveling Rope: the Looting of American’s Past. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns 

American Indian Remains? Devon Abbott Mihesuah, ed. Pp. 59-73. Lincoln: University of Nebraska 

Press. 

McGuire, R. 

1997 Why Have Archaeologists Thought the Real Indians Were Dead, and What Can We Do About It? 

In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Thomas Biolsi 

and Larry J. Zimmerman, eds. Pp. 63-91. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. 

McNiven, Ian J. 

2005 Appropriated Pasts: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonial Culture of Archaeology. Walnut Creek: 

AltaMira Press. 

Meighan, Clement W. 

2000 Some Scholars’ Views on Reburial. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian 

Remains? Devon Abbott Mihesuah, ed. Pp. 190-199. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Mihesuah, Devon Abbott, ed. 

2000 Introduction. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Pp. 1-15. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press. 

Pagden, Anthony 

1982 The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Stocking, George W., ed. 

1968 The Scientific Reaction Against Cultural Anthropology, 1917-1920. In Race, Culture, and 

Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology. Pp. 270-307. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Trigger, Bruce G. 

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph 

1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Walker, Jr., Deward E. 

1991 Protection of American Indian Sacred Geography. In Handbook of American Indian Religious 

Freedom. Christopher Vecsey, ed. New York: Crossroads Publishing Co. 

Watkins, Joe 

2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek: 

AltaMira Press. 

2003 Beyond the Margin: American Indians, First Nations and Archaeology in North America. 

American Antiquity 68(2):273–285. 

Weiss, E. 

2001 Kennewick Man’s Funeral: The Burying of Scientific Evidence. Politics and the Life Sciences, 

20(1):13-18. 

Wolfe, Eric 

1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Zimmerman Larry J. 

1989 Human Bones as Symbols of Power: Aboriginal American Belief Systems Toward Bones and 

‘Grave-Robbing’ Archaeologists. In Conflicts in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. R. Layton, ed. 

Pp. 211-216. London: Utwin Hyman. 

1997 Anthropology and Responses to the Reburial Issue. In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria 

Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Thomas Biolsi and Larry J. Zimmerman, eds. Pp. 92-112. 

Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. 

47


48


Impact of Environmental Racism on Indigenous Peoples 

MANUEL PINO 

INTRODUCTION 

The International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) 

and the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) 

participated in the Third World Conference 

Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, 

Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) held 

in Durban, South Africa in 2001. IEN, in 

consultation with IITC, developed a working 

discourse to be applied to issues of environmental 

racism and justice, a new protocol that was 

included in the Declaration and Programme of 

Action documents of the WCAR. 

Environmental racism has been defined as the 

implementation of environmental, natural resource, 

and land development schemes that nullify or 

impair access for Indigenous Peoples to their basic 

human rights and fundamental freedoms. This new 

form of racial discrimination is an assault on 

Indigenous Peoples’ public health and safety, 

which includes their right to preserve and maintain 

their unique social, cultural, spiritual, and historical 

lifeways and worldviews. Environmental racism 

results in the devastation, contamination, 

dispossession, loss, and denial of access to the 

inherent biodiversity of Indigenous Peoples’ 

traditional lands and sources of water. 

Environmental racism, manifest in the forced 

separation and removal of Indigenous Peoples from 

their lands and territories, alienation from their 

major means of subsistence, their language, 

knowledge and spirituality – all of which is derived 

from their cultural, physical and spiritual 

relationship to the physical landscape – is now the 

primary cause of health problems among 

Indigenous Peoples. 

The intentional locating of hazardous waste 

sites, landfills, incinerators, and polluting 

industries (such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear 

power plants and various types of mining 

operations) on indigenous lands and among 

Indigenous communities has had devastating 

impacts on all aspects of the contemporary Native 

American experience. These violations have been 

enacted by the U.S. government and the private 

corporate sector, through the implementation of 

reckless and predatory policies and practices, 

Manuel Pino is Professor of Sociology and Director of 

American Indian Studies at Scottsdale Community College in 

Arizona. He has been a discussant at the 1 st , 2 nd , and 5 th 

Human Rights Summits at SFSU. His research deals with 

environmental issues and their impact on American Indians. 

49 

which disproportionately target and harm 

indigenous ecosystems, and the quality of life and 

security within Native American communities. The 

implementation of unsustainable processes such as 

mining, biopiracy, deforestation, dumping of 

contaminated waste, oil and gas drilling, and other 

land use practices that do not respect indigenous 

spiritual beliefs, traditional medicinal processes, 

and lifeways, have led – and continue to lead – to 

the ruination and abuse of indigenous economies, 

means of subsistence, and right to health. 

THE NUCLEAR FUEL CHAIN AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM 

Real life examples of nuclear fuel chain 

hazards impacting Indigenous Peoples in the 

United States are numerous. Some of the more 

egregious violations include the following 

incidents: 

• Over 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and 

mills on the lands of the Navajo Nation 

remain unclaimed for 50 years by the 

federal government and the corporations 

who reaped millions of dollars in the 

mining and milling processes, posing a 

continuing health hazard to traditional 

Navajos who live in close proximity to 

these sites. 

• The lands of the Navajo Nation, a territory 

that spans the New Mexico-Arizona 

border, has remained polluted since 1979, 

when an accident at the United Nuclear 

Corporation’s Church Rock Mill near 

Gallup, New Mexico, released 94 million 

gallons of radioactive waste into the 

Puerco River. The defilement of this 

major water source has impacted the 

population of 10,000 Navajos living in 

reservation communities along the river, 

who use its shallow wells and springs to 

draw water for livestock and personal 

needs. Despite the fact that the spill is 

considered the second worst nuclear 

accident in U.S. history after the 1979 

Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant 

meltdown in Pennsylvania, and has been 

designated a superfund site by the EPA, 

the area remains un-reclaimed almost 30 

years after the spill.

• From the mid 1940s through the early 

1990s, Indigenous miners who worked for 

the uranium milling industries in the 

United States were exposed to radioactive 

contaminants through their work at these 

sites, and excluded from any knowledge 

of the dangers of exposure to such toxins 

by the parties responsible for their 

employment under such hazardous 

conditions – the mining companies, the 

federal government, and individual states. 

As a result, Congress passed the 

Radioactive Exposure Compensation Act 

(RECA) in 1990, which initially covered 

only those populations living downwind 

from atomic testing sites, and atomic 

veterans that were present at nuclear 

weapons testing. In 2000, Congress 

amended RECA to include all uranium 

workers, including millers who were 

exposed through their work at the plants, 

but who were not included in the 1990 

legislation. The current legislation only 

compensates uranium laborers that 

worked before 1971, and those who 

participated in uranium mining and 

milling after 1971 are now petitioning 

Congress to amend RECA 2000 to include 

them as well. As a result, thousands of 

RECA claims are now filed with the 

federal government. Health studies are 

currently being conducted by the 

University of New Mexico Medical 

School to address the growing concern of 

kidney failure correlated with uranium 

working populations. 

• The Jackpile Mine on the Laguna Pueblo 

Reservation in New Mexico, which grew 

to be the largest open pit uranium mine in 

North America from 1952-1982, 

continues to be monitored for radioactive 

emissions despite purported claims of 

decontamination. The mining site stands 

2,000 feet from the Laguna village of 

Paguate with its population of 2,500 

people. Numerous Laguna miners who 

worked at Jackpile have filed claims 

under RECA, as over 80% of the male 

workforce were employed in the mines, 

and “cancer clusters” have developed in 

the Pueblo among both mining and nonmining 

populations. 


50 

• Water quantity and quality were directly 

impacted by the mining of uranium in the 

Grants Mineral Belt in New Mexico, one 

of the most intensely mined areas for 

uranium in the U.S. from 1950-1990. 

Laguna, Acoma, and the Navajo Nation 

have all experienced impacts of depleted 

water sources from uranium development 

in the mineral belt. In the de-watering 

process necessary in uranium mining and 

milling, many underground sources of 

water used by the three tribes went dry. 

Surface water sources like the Puerco 

River became contaminated due to their 

close proximity to mines and mills, which 

spread contaminants through run-off and 

the force of winds. 

• Indigenous peoples in the United States 

have been continuously organizing to 

resist the establishment of hazardous 

waste sites on reservations. According to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, over 

42 tribes in the United States have been 

approached by both waste disposal 

companies and the federal government to 

“discuss” these aspirations. The Goshute 

Tribe in Utah is currently being 

considered a potential site for a low-level 

nuclear “monitored retrievable storage 

facility,” despite vehement opposition by 

a majority of tribal members and the state 

of Utah. Disposal of spent fuel and highlevel 

radioactive waste proposed by the 

U.S government for Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada – a traditionally sacred site to the 

Western Shoshone – has been in 

discussion for the past 25 years. 

These issues exemplify only one area of 

environmental racism – the nuclear fuel chain and 

its impact on Indigenous Peoples in the United 

States. The negative impacts these nuclear legacies 

promise for the environment, human health, and 

the livelihood and wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples 

in the U.S. has necessitated the passing of the Dine 

Resource Protection Act by the Navajo Nation 

Council in April 2007. This measure seeks to 

legally ban all forms of uranium mining on the 

largest reservation in the United States. However, 

the current rise in the price of uranium on the 

world market due to the participation in the 

industry by developing countries such as India and 

China, has encouraged uranium companies to offer 

new proposals for site development on or near

Indigenous lands and territories in the U.S., 

specifically the Southwest, Northwest, and the 

Great Plains. Despite abundant documentation of 

the horrific negative impacts of the past, the federal 

government continues to create policies that favor 

the uranium industry. The threat posed by this new 

wave of uranium development to sacred sites like 

Mount Taylor in north central New Mexico has 

provoked the Navajo Nation, the All Indian Pueblo 

Council (which represents 19 individual 

communities), and tribes in New Mexico, Laguna 

and Acoma, to pass resolutions opposing uranium 

mining and milling on the site. 

As stated in Article 29 of the United Nations 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 

Indigenous Peoples have the right to the 

conservation and protection of the 

environment and the productive capacity 

of their lands or territories and resources. 

States shall establish and implement 

assistance programmes for indigenous 

peoples for such conservation and 

protection without discrimination; States 


51 

shall take effective measures to ensure 

that no storage or disposal of hazardous 

materials shall take place in the lands or 

territories of indigenous peoples without 

their free, prior and informed consent; 

States shall also take effective measures to 

ensure, as needed, that programmes for 

monitoring, maintaining and restoring the 

health of Indigenous Peoples, as 

developed and implemented by the 

peoples affected by such materials, are 

duly implemented. 

As the Bush administration continues to 

forcefully advocate for the implementation of 

nuclear power programs as an answer to global 

warming and climate change, indigenous and nonindigenous 

communities alike must critically 

consider the oppressive legacy the unsustainable 

and destructive practices of the past have left on 

the present and future face of human health and 

environmental wholeness and stability.


Human Rights and the Academy: Analysis, Passion and Purpose 

PHILIP M. KLASKY 

Nadia Moreira worked hard in preparation for 

the Human Rights Summit, conducting the most 

rigorous research of her college career to present to 

a room of other students and faculty about the 

environmental, cultural and social justice impacts 

of a Canadian mining company displacing 

indigenous residents from the highlands of 

Guatemala. The documentary footage showed that 

the forced relocation was accomplished with the 

assistance of the Guatemalan government. Nadia 

confessed a bit of nervousness before her 

presentation, but when her twenty minutes were up, 

she wanted more time to talk about the issue with 

the passion that fuels her studies. 

Mike Dyer and David Friedman presented 

their research regarding the radioactive 

contamination of the Navajo Indian Reservation in 

Arizona. Mining companies have left a toxic 

legacy of uranium mine waste rock that has 

resulted in high cancer rates and contamination of 

the environment. They investigated and presented 

the issue through government reports, scientific 

studies, the popular press and personal testimony. 

They analyzed the political and legal framework of 

the conflict and presented their findings at the 

Fourth Annual Human Rights Summit with a 

choreographed presentation of information and 

images. Their research led them to a deeper 

understanding of the concept of environmental 

justice, and they were excited to be able to share 

what they had learned with others. 

Morrigan Shaw has a love of science that she 

combines with her personal and cultural 

relationship with “all our relations” in her native 

lands. She has researched the impacts of persistent 

organic pollutants (POPs) on the Inuit peoples and 

the environment, and developed a power point 

presentation that was both accessible and thorough. 

Her scholarship is excellent, and her analysis 

includes recommendations for public policy. In 

her presentation, Morrigan asks fundamental moral 

and ethical questions about the impacts of 

industrialization on populations far from the point 

source of pollution. The way in which she 

combines different academic disciplines to analyze 

the issue provides a multi-faceted approach that 

yields valuable perspectives. 

Phil Klasky is a lecturer in the American Indian Studies 

Program at SFSU, and a Storyscape Project Director for The 

Cultural Conservancy organization. 

52 

These students and others have participated in 

the San Francisco State University Annual Human 

Rights Summit organized by the Anthropology and 

Human Rights students each spring. The Summit 

is an opportunity for the university, faculty and 

students to make their educational experience 

relevant to current issues while reaching out to the 

larger community and the world of human rights 

advocacy. Using academic skills for a purpose 

brings the pursuit of knowledge into focus. 

Students crave the opportunity to make their efforts 

on campus applicable to the real world. They 

discover that the deep passion for justice is a 

powerful engine that, when combined with solid 

research and informed analysis, has been shown to 

be an effective agent for change. 

A study of the history of the human rights 

movement is a discovery about the individuals, 

social movements and organizations that have 

made significant progress to secure rights to 

dignity and self-determination. The research that 

students and faculty produce can be used to inform 

affected communities, bring attention and 

awareness of their plight to the college community, 

provide support and solidarity, apply pressure 

where appropriate and become engaged with 

efforts on the ground. 

When I visited the Xavante Indians of Central 

Brazil on a cultural exchange program, I brought 

with me a suitcase full of research information 

about the multi-national companies that had 

targeted their lands for resource extraction by 

employing “suicide economics” – the depletion of 

lands for accelerated agricultural export. These 

same companies have operated in over fifty “third 

world” countries, promising jobs and a benign 

impact on the environment. But they have 

instituted a scorched earth policy of decimated 

ecosystems, fouled waterways and impoverished 

communities. Their efforts are supported by 

international banking institutions and corrupt 

government agencies. The information I provided 

to the tribe continues to sustain a legal bulwark 

against attempts to exploit their lands and destroy 

their cultural practices. 

Students are invited to bring their best and 

brightest ideas for presentations to the SFSU 

Human Rights Summit on Environmental Justice 

for May 2008.


Health Disparities and American Indian Self-Knowledge 

RACHEL HUFFMAN 

Abstract 

Throughout North American history, American Indians have been noted to be particularly vulnerable 

to diseases such as diabetes and alcoholism, and blames for their illness based on an argument of “thrifty 

genotypes” or high “risk associative behaviors.” I argue that such health disparities need to be recognized 

as a response to colonial oppression that has placed Indigenous Peoples at risk for these ailments and 

damaged their self-knowledge, through the practices of marginalization, ethnocide and discrimination. I 

explore the court case of Havasupai vs. Arizona State University that refers to the institution’s collection of 

numerous Havasupai blood samples during the 1990s for ostensible research on diabetes. Instead, the blood 

samples were used without consent for research into schizophrenia, inbreeding, and patterns of migration. 

The misuse of material and information has resulted in a devastating effect on the identity and selfknowledge 

of the Havasupai Peoples. 

INTRODUCTION 

Throughout American history, American 

Indians have been noted to be particularly 

vulnerable to diseases such as diabetes, alcoholism, 

and mental illness (Ferreira 2005; Grandbois 

2004). For much of the past few centuries, 

American Indians have been blamed for their 

illnesses due to “thrifty genotypes” or increased 

“risk associative behaviors.” I argue that these 

illnesses must not be blamed on Indigenous 

Peoples, but rather recognized as a response to 

extended colonial oppression through the practices 

of marginalization, ethnocide and discrimination. 

These “diseases” are the symptoms of a horrendous 

subjugation, and the subsequent integration of 

these illnesses by Indigenous communities as a 

“normal” way of life is extremely damaging to 

their self-knowledge. This type of insidious 

oppression is much more obtuse than the American 

government’s physical attempts to dismantle the 

American Indian nation through violence such as 

warfare. Federally imposed forms of oppression 

have become woven into American Indian selfknowledge. 

In Michel Foucault’s 1965 essay, The 

Birth of the Asylum, he speaks of recognizing an 

illness as a principle of coercion in which the 

“afflicted” integrate their illness into their selfknowledge 

and become prisoners of their own 

minds. My argument is illuminated both by 

Foucault’s theoretical framework, and the legal and 

scientific reasoning surrounding the Havasupai vs. 

Arizona State University court case. 

This paper was originally presented at the 2 nd Annual Human 

Rights Summit in 2005, as part of the panel entitled 

“Repatriation and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.” 

53 

DRAWING BLOOD, IMPEDING RIGHTS 

On February 27, 2004, 52 tribal members of 

the Havasupai nation, residing in the Grand 

Canyon in Arizona, filed a lawsuit against Arizona 

State University (ASU). More than 400 blood 

samples taken from them between 1990 and 1994 

were supposed to have been used for diabetes 

research. Instead, the blood samples were used to 

study inbreeding, schizophrenia, and theories of 

human migration to the North American continent. 

The actions taken by Arizona State University were 

in blatant violation of federal and international law, 

as outlined in the Nuremberg Codes, and a grave 

oversight on the part of ASU’s Institutional Review 

Board for allowing this unauthorized study (Health 

and Medicine Week 2004). 

This misuse of information has resulted in a 

devastating effect on the morale and selfknowledge 

of the Havasupai Peoples. The 

Nuremberg Codes were established to ensure an 

international standard of ethical medical behavior 

for the post-World War II human rights era. This 

document pronounces clearly the requirement of 

voluntary informed consent of the human subject. 

This fundamental of voluntary informed consent 

protects the rights of the individual to control his 

own body. The Permissible Medical Experiments 

portion of the Nuremberg Code states, “the 

experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all 

unnecessary physical and mental suffering and 

injury” (Mitscherlich 1949: xxiv, italics mine). No 

such ethical precautions had been employed during 

the collection and research practices of the 

Havasupai community’s blood samples by ASU, 

greatly compromising their integrity as an 

autonomous group, and exploiting and distorting 

their body of self-knowledge.

In the United States’ public laws, Title I of the 

Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training 

protocol states that the “Commission shall conduct 

a comprehensive investigation and study to identify 

the basic ethical principles which should underlie 

the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research 

involving human subjects…The nature and 

definition of informed consent in various research 

settings [needs to be employed]” (U.S. Public Laws 

1974:9). 

The initial project between the Havasupai and 

Arizona State University was to have been directed 

towards the education of tribal members on the 

subject of nutrition, and the blood samples were 

ostensibly to be used to screen for diabetes. The 

experiment went awry when many cell lines grown 

from the original blood samples were accidentally 

destroyed and the Havasupai donors were not 

informed of the incidents. Chris Armstrong, a 

doctoral candidate at ASU, began a study that 

analyzed the Havasupai genes and their correlation 

with schizophrenia. He discontinued the study 

when he was unable to determine which tribal 

members suffered from this mental illness. 

Armstrong said he was told by Teri Markow, a 

leader in the study, to “deceive and withhold 

information from the Havasupai about the true 

focus of his studies.” (Shaffer 2004). ASU is 

currently refusing to recognize the validity of the 

concept of self-knowledge in the case, and is using 

this as a dialectical mechanism to have the charges 

against them dismissed. 

What is so damaging about this misuse of 

information is that it challenges Havasupai cultural 

knowledges and practices. The Havasupai are 

raised with the indigenous belief that a global flood 

caused a retreat of waters that formed the Grand 

Canyon. The Grand Canyon, in the Havasupai 

cosmology, is the birthplace of the human race. 

The migration studies that were executed with the 

blood samples were therefore offensive to 

Havasupai lifeways and traditions. Carletta 

Tilousi, a tribal member of the Havasupai 

expressed her concern for the study’s ramifications, 

saying it was akin to “a scientist asking Christians 

from Nazareth to give blood for a diabetes study, 

then producing research to suggest that Jesus never 

existed” (Phoenix New Times 2004). 

Not only does this misuse of information 

challenge cultural knowledges and practices, it has 

also challenged Havasupai identity. Schizophrenia 

is a stigmatizing condition, and studies such as this 

one can inadvertently produce pejorative labels 

injurious in a variety of ways, like the term “crazy 

tribe” explicitly demonstrates. Diabetes among 

American Indians is also a deeply stigmatizing 


54 

phenomenon. This and other diseases such as 

alcoholism and mental illness have been both 

normalized and racialized in popular understanding 

of Indigenous Peoples, and within the selfknowledge 

of American Indians themselves 

(Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004:2). The 

normalization and racialization of these pathologies 

damages the very fabric of the American Indian 

identity and has the ultimate effect of turning 

Indigenous Peoples against themselves. In 

addition, these stereotypes are used as a means to 

justify American Indian “social failure” within 

their community. 

IMPOSED IDENTITIES, OR THE ANATOMY 

OF OPPRESSION 

Michel Foucault’s The Birth of the Asylum 

(1965) is particularly insightful in efforts to 

understand this complex issue. The essay was 

written in reference to madness and the 

phenomenon of institutionalization, but I have 

found that “madness” can easily be substituted by 

the words “diabetes,” “alcoholism,” and “mental 

illness” that are indiscriminately imposed on 

Indigenous communities. There has been a sort of 

anthropological myth-making regarding American 

Indians and their “connected” illnesses. The 

American Indian has been indoctrinated to the fact 

that he is “predisposed” to these illnesses due to 

either “faulty” genetic make-up or “negative” 

behavior, and has integrated this into his selfknowledge, 

allowing it to become self-fulfilling 

prophecy (Ferreira 2005; Scheper-Hughes and 

Bourgois 2004). The American Indian individual 

thus becomes a Foucaultian prisoner of his own 

mind. In the following quote, I will replace the 

word madness with diabetes to help illustrate this 

point: “…to place the [diabetic] individual within 

a moral element where he will be in debate with 

himself and his surroundings: to constitute for him 

a milieu where, far from being protected, he will be 

kept in a perpetual anxiety, ceaselessly threatened 

by Law and Transgression (Foucault 1984:144).” It 

is through the imposed “realization” that the 

American Indian will necessarily contract diabetes 

or become an alcoholic that he becomes, by way of 

his own guilt, an object of punishment vulnerable 

both to himself and the other (Foucault 1984:146). 

Foucault speaks of three ways in which the 

mad become “recovered” by the asylum. First, 

there is the silencing, which is an analogue to the 

genocide and ethnocide that has taken place on our 

soil for the past three hundred years against 

Indigenous populations. The U.S. government 

“delivered” the American Indian from his chains 

and allowed them to live “freely” on reservation 

land where economic, social, and political

marginalization and discrimination began, and 

persists to this day. Second is a recognition of an 

imposed self through the mirror’s image, by which 

the American Indian internalized his status within 

American society; “[his] awareness was now 

linked to the shame of being identical to that other, 

of being compromised in him, and of already 

despising oneself before being able to recognize or 

to know oneself (Foucault 1984:154).” By this 

reflection of his self in the mirror, his affliction is 

“called upon to judge itself…so that he understands 

what universe of judgment he now belongs to 

(Foucault 1984:154).” The third principle is 

perpetual judgment, a systematic discrimination by 

which the Indigenous individual is persistently 

contained and contaminated. 

These illnesses, so closely correlated with the 

realities of American Indians, are in fact 

symptomatic reactions to an oppressed history and 

distorted social memory. Foucault’s theory of biopower 

refers to the way in which historico-political 

institutions such as the United States government 

can become an instrument of social control that 

disciplines the body (1978:140-144). Diabetes, in 

this sense, becomes a disease linked to social and 

political agendas (Scheper-Hughes 2004:2). The 

statistics that illustrate the high prevalence of 

diabetes, alcoholism and mental illness within 

American Indian communities are not seen as 

astonishing but rather as “normal” and therefore 

“to be expected” (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 

2004:2). 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

The medical community needs to shift 

emphasis away from the dominant paradigm that 


has defined past frameworks within 

sociopathology. Diabetes in the American Indian 

community can no longer be seen as a genetic 

“fault.” Alcoholism can no longer be seen as a 

disease but rather a symptom of an underlying 

socio-political cause. Mental illness needs to be 

reexamined as a psychosocial reaction to a 

communal historical memory full of oppression 

and discrimination. The Cartesian mind--body 

split needs to be de-emphasized and the two 

underlying parts of the human experience merged, 

in order for accurate diagnoses and etiologies to be 

determined. This shift will give Indigenous 

Peoples a chance to see themselves as whole 

individuals, with a robust history and culture, and 

complete control and responsibility over their own 

health and wellbeing, as well as notions 

determining these realities. The world needs to 

acknowledge the American Indian community as a 

rich, empowered people rather than a “fallen race.” 

We need to demand a world where a healthy, 

positive self-knowledge can be fostered and 

realistically sustained, and the Havasupai people of 

Arizona, along with all Indigenous communities, 

can live free from damaging stereotypes. 

A quote by Barbara Kruger from her book 

Love For Sale (1990) strikes me as incredibly 

appropriate for discussing illness and its integration 

into self-understanding, especially in the case of 

American Indians: “The technology of early death. 

The provider of consumer goods to a dying 

populace. The manufacture of plague. The denial 

of epidemic. The manipulation of the object. The 

blaming of the victim. The accusation of hysteria. 

The making mute. No. Don’t.” 

WORKS CITED 

Ferreira, Mariana, and Gretchen Chesley Lang, eds. 

2006 Indigenous People and Diabetes: Community Empowerment and Wellness. Durham: Carolina 

Academic Press 

Foucault, Michel 

1965 Madness and Civilization. In The Foucault Reader. Paul Rabinow, ed. Pp. 123-168. New York: 

Pantheon Books 

1978 The History of Sexuality. Volume I: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books 

1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Colin Gordon,ed. New 

York: Pantheon/Random House 

Health & Medicine Week 

2004 Arizona Tribe Sues State University Over Unauthorized Use of Blood Samples. Health & 

Medicine Week, March 15 

Kruger, Barbara 

1990 Love For Sale: The Words and Pictures of Barbara Kruger. New York: Abrams. 

Mitscherlich, A., and F. Mielke 

1949 Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes. New York: Schuman. 

Phoenix New Times 

2004 Indian Givers: The Havasupai Trusted the White Man to Help with a Diabetes Epidemic. Instead, 

ASU Tricked Them Into Bleeding for Academia. Phoenix New Times, May 27 

Shaffer, Mark 2004 Arizona University Faces $25 Million Lawsuit for Alleged Blood-Sample Misuse. Indian 

Country Today. March 10:A1-3 

55


Power Negotiations Between Indigenous Peoples and the 

U.S. in Northern California: A Human Rights Perspective 

BRIAN GLEESON 

Abstract 

This paper presents a short history of the struggle between U.S. irrigation and hydroelectric interests 

and Northwest Californian Indigenous Peoples, looking at how regional history and human rights law 

interconnect. This set of legal battles over water diversions from the Trinity and Klamath River systems 

involves several tribes, government agencies, and other private interests. The history of the litigation and 

historical antecedents illustrate the active role of Indigenous Peoples in asserting sovereignty and selfdetermination 

in order to counter violations to their human rights as Indigenous Peoples and survivors of 

genocide. Although the involved parties are still actively contesting water flows, the efforts of the Hupa 

Valley Tribe, Yurok Tribe, and other Peoples have had some success in exercising their right to selfdetermination 

and protecting fisheries by restoring water levels. Lastly, a human rights perspective offers 

insight into the application of international laws concerning Indigenous Peoples and the struggle for water 

in northern California, and in the United States in general. 

INTRODUCTION 

For over 175 years, conflicts between 

Indigenous Peoples and colonial powers in 

Northwest California have forged a unique history 

that is linked to land, water, and other regional and 

national issues, as well as to international human 

rights. This is evident in the struggle between 

Indigenous Peoples and U.S. interests over 

Northern Californian watersheds, where irrigation 

and hydroelectric interests clash with the 

restoration of fisheries and riparian habitats 

important to local tribes. In these struggles over 

water, power dynamics are intrinsically linked to 

the colonial history of the region, in particular to 

the relations between the United States government 

and California Indigenous Peoples. An analysis of 

water struggle in the area demonstrates the active 

role that Indigenous Peoples have taken in 

asserting self-determination and sovereignty over 

their lands till this day. However, the U.S. does 

not even recognize the genocide of American 

Indians, and human rights violations are often 

absent from current debate, or regarded simply as 

“water under the bridge.” This paper suggests that 

the struggle over water rights between the U.S. and 

Indigenous Peoples of northern California is a 

human rights issue, since Indigenous Peoples in 

California have been subjected to human rights 

violations and are survivors of genocide as defined 

by international law. To draw focus on this 

situation, I examine recent negotiations and court 

battles between the Hupa Valley and Yurok tribes, 

This paper was originally presented at the 1 st Annual Human 

Rights Summit in 2004, as part of the panel entitled “Indigenous 

Peoples’ Rights.” 

56 

and U.S. interests and government agencies, over 

the restoration of the Trinity and Klamath River 

water flows. I will consider closely historical 

antecedents and the trajectory they draw to current 

water struggles. Finally, I examine how 

Californian Indigenous Peoples’ water claims are 

intimately tied to the broader realm of human 

rights law and the discourse of international forums 

– in particular that of the United Nations. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GENOCIDE OF 

CALIFORNIA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 

Starting in the mid-1800s, waves of settlers, 

land prospectors, power brokers, and U.S. soldiers 

came to California, perpetrating genocide against 

Indigenous Peoples of the state. In many cases the 

genocide and oppression of Indigenous Peoples 

was state sanctioned within law, as was the case 

with the euphemistic 1850 Act for the Governance 

and Protection of Indians. This law maintained 

indentured servitude of California Indians by 

industrialists in the region, since California had 

been admitted into the Union as a “free-state,” thus 

prohibiting the use of African-American slaves 

(Heizer and Almquist 1971:211). Moreover, it was 

not possible for an Indigenous Person to files 

charges in California, granting total impunity to the 

perpetrators of genocide (Heizer and Almquist 

1971:212). In Northern California, tens of 

thousands of Indigenous People died during early 

statehood, causing cultural distress that created 

both armed and unarmed resistance (Cook 1943). 

While the Gold Rush was a period of great 

prosperity for colonists, it decimated Indigenous 

communities and drove them from their lands.

During the Gold Rush, bounties were paid for 

Indian scalps, vigilante militias attacked villages, 

and land titles were corruptly issued to colonists; 

these atrocities led to the shrinking of land bases 

and the extermination of populations of Indigenous 

Peoples. This initiated a stress on resources and 

patterns of subsistence, leading to starvation and 

further regional violence. In order to quell the 

resistance of Indigenous groups in the region, the 

U.S. deployed military forces and began imposing 

the establishment of a reservation system, which 

encapsulated Indigenous Peoples in diminutive 

territories, making some Peoples landless 

altogether (Phillips 1997). To make matters worse, 

none of the peace treaties drafted between 1851 

and 1853 that were ostensibly meant to end the 

conflicts and set up reservations, were ever ratified 

by Congress (Nelson 1988). Upon 

recommendation from California elites, the treaties 

were rejected on the grounds that they allowed too 

many concessions and gave too much valuable land 

to tribes (Nelson 1988). U.S. plenary control in the 

region wished to stabilize relations between both 

colonists and Indigenous Peoples so as to allow for 

a U.S.-determined political economic development, 

and Indian policy was specifically designed to 

enable that domination. The attitude held by 

United States policy makers was often a 

paternalistic one, and these roots are evident in the 

organization of reservations today, as well as in the 

limits placed on Indigenous sovereignty. 

Moreover, this attitude can still be seen in the 

politico-ecological positions of The Department of 

the Interior, and in U.S. interests regarding 

conflicts over natural resources in the region. This 

early history is too often forgotten, though it is 

critical to understanding contemporary struggles 

and the status of Indigenous Peoples in California. 

The Hupa, Yurok, Karuk, and other 

Indigenous Peoples whose ancestral territories are 

transected by the Trinity and Klamath Rivers have 

been involved in a highly complex legal struggle 

over the control of water flows, investing huge 

sums of money in their cases in order to challenge 

powerful interests. These rivers are vitally 

important to the Peoples that live on their banks, 

supporting massive salmon and riparian habitats, 

and are central to their traditional lifeways. This 

case study illuminates links to the colonial past, the 

legacy of U.S. federal Indian policy, and issues of 

human rights. 

REPARATION AND LITIGATION 

In 1963, the Trinity River was dammed and 

water was diverted to the Sacramento River to help 

support Central Valley industrial agriculture. 


57 

However, the 1955 law that allowed the dam to be 

constructed simultaneously prohibited the 

diversion of excess waters since it could harm the 

fisheries and Peoples living downstream. The 

flows, however, were mismanaged for decades, and 

Congress eventually intervened in 1992 by 

enacting Section 3406 (b)(23) of The Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act. This legislation 

ordered the completion of a fisheries study by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and set minimum 

flow levels so as to restore the health of the rivers. 

Furthermore, in December of 2000, the Secretary 

of the Interior met with members of the Hupa 

Valley Tribe’s leadership and signed a Record of 

Decision, allowing for the restoration of the river 

and protection of fish stocks. Much of these policy 

shifts were due to the direct pressure of The Hupa 

Valley Tribe and others in the region, and to a shift 

in U.S. policy towards reparations, an act that 

aimed to “undo” past mismanagement and shield 

the Government from greater legal jeopardy. 

However, soon after this Record of Decision was 

made, the Westlands Water District of the San 

Joaquin Valley acted to maintain their water 

diversions by filing a lawsuit, tying the restoration 

up in the courts (Nelson 1998). 

In response to the Westlands lawsuit, 

Indigenous groups and allied U.S. and local 

government agencies worked successfully to secure 

water releases from federal judges while the case 

was in litigation. In early 2002, the Hupa Valley 

Tribe filed a motion to modify the first injunction 

that allowed for the release of 468,600 acre-feet of 

water to the Trinity River. Then, in December of 

2002, a U.S. District Court ruled in Westlands 

Water Dist. et al., v. Hupa Valley Tribe et al., that 

the 2000 Record of Decision violated Federal 

environmental law and the presiding judge ordered 

a new fisheries study to be conducted. This ruling 

caused problematic delays; in the summer of 2002, 

between 34,000 and 68,000 adult salmon died in 

the lower-Klamath River below the confluence 

with the Trinity River. The confluence of the 

Trinity and Klamath Rivers is about 44 miles 

upstream from the Pacific Ocean, and since water 

flows on the Klamath were low due to diversions in 

Oregon, water temperatures had risen to lethal 

levels for the fish coming in to spawn. The water 

diversions off the Klamath River for Oregon 

farmers epitomizes the conflict between 

agribusiness and the interests of Indigenous 

Peoples, and reflect the clash over Indigenous 

interests when they are not in line with mainstream 

political economic goals. 

To ameliorate the effects of low flows in the 

Klamath River, the Hupa Valley and Yurok Tribes,

acting as defendant-interveners in the case, were 

able to secure court authorization for the release of 

more water on the Trinity to help the lower portion 

of the Klamath in 2003 and 2004. In July 2004, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed all but one 

of the previous rulings in Westlands Water Dist. et 

al. v. Hupa Valley Tribe et al. This shift in the 

Westlands Case ended the need for further studies, 

upholding the 2000 Record of Decision. Following 

this victory for the Hupa and Yurok Peoples, 

Westlands Water District and their fellow plaintiffs 

petitioned for more hearings but were rejected by 

the courts. Following these losses, several coplaintiffs 

dropped off the lawsuit due to the 

“futility of the case,” effectively ending the 

Westlands Water District’s case (Associated Press 

2004). 

Despite these legal victories for the Hupa 

Valley and Yurok Tribes, the court delays had 

already killed thousands of fish and none of the 

riparian restorations scheduled at 24 river sites 

were completed. Many of the fish died from 

exposure to bacteria that had grown in the warm 

low-flowing water near the mouth of the Klamath 

River before they could reach the Trinity River 

(Bailey 2003). To combat further fish-kills, the 

Hupa Valley and Yurok Tribes joined as plaintiffs 

with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s 

Association in a case against the federal agencies 

responsible for Klamath River water flows. In July 

of 2003, the court ruled that the U.S. agencies 

violated the Endangered Species Act, and later on 

remand, the judge granted an injunction for the 

Bureau of Reclamation to stop irrigation diversions 

that would make water levels unsafe for fish. 

Furthermore, in Pacific Coast Fisherman’s 

Association et al. vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

et al. (2003), the court ruled that by killing fish the 

U.S. may have violated their fiduciary trust 

relationship with the Hupa Valley and Yurok 

Tribes, and that a trial would be required. 

With regard to the potential trust violations, 

The Hupa Valley Tribe and the federal defendants 

settled in October 2004 with the establishment and 

funding of a consultation group to examine 

important river fisheries. The Yurok Tribe could 

not settle on jurisdictional grounds, but they 

appealed and received a settlement in 2006. 

Following these copious acts of litigation and 

“negotiation” between U.S. agencies and the 

Indigenous Peoples of northern California, the 

federal licenses of six dams on the Klamath River 

expired on February 28, 2006. The Yurok, Karuk, 

Klamath, and Hupa Valley Peoples all joined the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

proceedings regarding the future of these licenses. 


58 

Due to past litigation and damage to fisheries, new 

laws and regulations have been enacted to establish 

protective conditions and allow for riparian 

restoration along the river systems. However, the 

utility company holding claim over the dam 

licenses, PacifiCorp, is disputing these new 

regulations. Using provisions within The Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, hearings are under way and 

briefs have been filed as recently as late September 

2006. 

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM 

While it is difficult to predict the kind of 

resolution that will come to this contentious water 

rights case, some things are clear. First, the 

Peoples involved in this struggle have not acted 

passively, but have instead taken a very prominent 

role in the defense of the watersheds and fisheries 

of their homelands. Second, this case brings forth 

the ways in which the rights of Indigenous Peoples, 

granted under international legislation like the U.N. 

Charter, are continuously challenged and violated. 

Moreover, this case shows a glimpse of the latent 

environmental racism enacted against Indigenous 

Peoples in the past as well as presently, by interests 

opposed to the restoration efforts. Tribal desires 

and survival needs rest on restoring salmon 

populations, respecting the cultural sacredness of 

these rivers, and guaranteeing their right to selfdetermination 

as provided for under U.S. and 

international law. This conflict over water rights 

can thus be easily defined as a human rights issue. 

Per the federal trust relationship statute, the 

U.S. government has a fiduciary obligation to 

better the lives of Indigenous Peoples in the 

country and protect lands held in trust. However, 

what we see is a blatant violation of this obligation 

when the interests of Indigenous Peoples are in 

conflict with national administration policies or 

regional economic efforts. This is evident in the 

Trinity and Klamath River case, since U.S. 

agencies have mismanaged water flows for decades 

to the benefit of state and private irrigation and 

hydroelectric interests. While the U.S. did seek to 

broker a compromise between the recognized tribes 

and irrigation interests, it wasn’t until the situation 

was critical that the conflict gained national 

attention. Moreover, the Hupa Valley and Yurok 

Tribes regained federal recognition in 1988 and 

thus became even stronger political entities, 

experienced with bringing grievances to federal 

courts. 

FINAL THOUGHTS 

Reflecting on this case, clear legal, economic 

and politico-ecological connections to the past and

present colonization of this region are evident. The 

irrigation interests of private landholders in this 

case are essentially part of the same colonizing 

impetus of early settlers and industrialists, 

employing the rhetoric of “growth,” 

“development,” and “progress,” as well as holding 

an attitude of plenary ownership over natural 

resources and lands. Evidence of this can be found 

in news articles and legal briefs surrounding the 

case, indirectly labeling Indigenous water uses as 

“wasteful” and “contrary to the needs of 

California” (Bailey 2003:A9). 

A human rights perspective is important in that 

it allows the legal and discursive scope of these 

cases to be broadened beyond United States law. 

While Indigenous groups like the Hupa Valley 

Tribe can now more effectively wield political 

power within U.S. courts, there can be no legal 

solution in those cases where the U.S. completely 

usurps Indigenous sovereignty; in instances where 

Indigenous Peoples lack federal recognition, 

human rights arguments on an international level 

may offer some recourse. Moreover, by framing 

such conflicts in a human rights context more 

facets of national and international water rights can 

be revealed beyond jurisdictional or strictly 

economic aspects. For example, the Trinity and 

Klamath Rivers case relates to very important 

articles from the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights (UN 1948), such as Article 2, which refers 

to freedom from discrimination; Article 7, which 

cites the right to equality before the law; and 

Article 27, which imputes the right to participate in 

the cultural life of community. In addition, 

American Indian tribes have filed grievances in the 

international arena for protection under the status 

of Indigenous Peoples and survivors of genocide in 


WORKS CITED 

the United States, petitioning for rights of selfdetermination 

and cultural preservation entitled 

within international law such as those enumerated 

by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and 

the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples. 

Considering the human rights aspect of power 

dynamics and legal contests between Indigenous 

Peoples and the United States in both domestic and 

international legal frameworks, allows for a wider 

discussion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples 

worldwide. Lastly, acknowledging the deaths of 

hundreds of thousands of Indigenous People during 

the colonization of California as acts of genocide 

may extend the discourse to include the ways in 

which local histories make sense within a broader 

national and international context where water 

rights are becoming the number one global 

concern. Reconciling a past history of genocide 

with contemporary conflicts over water rights can 

foster the healing of long-standing political rifts 

and create a more fundamental understanding of 

how Indigenous Peoples today construct the 

present in light of past historical events. 

Ultimately, there is great need to respect the 

different perspectives and ethical aspirations of the 

numerous Indigenous Peoples in California, 

recognizing their human right to cultivate 

traditional knowledges and lifeways, and enable 

their children to do the same. I end this paper by 

suggesting that community-based partnerships may 

help apply international human rights law to local 

and regional contexts, with an emphasis on local 

solutions that respect the right to sovereignty and 

self-determination of Indigenous Peoples in the 

U.S. 

Associated Press 

2004 Alameda Withdraws From Lawsuit Blocking Trinity River Restoration. Contra Costa Times, 

January 28. 

Bailey, Eric 

2003 Tribe Sees Its Culture Drying Up: The Hupa are Fighting to Keep Water, Diverted for 

Agricultural Use, in the Trinity River to Save the Fish and Their Way of Life. Los Angeles Times, 

June 9: A9-11. 

Cook, S. F. 

1943 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 

Heizer, Robert F., and Alan Almquist 

1971 The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination Under Spain, Mexico, and the United 

States to 1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

59


Nelson, Byron Jr. 

1988 Our Home Forever: The Hupa Indians of Northwestern California. Salt Lake City: Howe 

Brothers Press. 

Phillips, George Harwood 

1997 Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849 1852. 

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 


2006[1948] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, accessed November 11, 2006. 

2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Electronic document, 

http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp, accessed November 15, 2006. 

Anthropology Human Rights student posters displayed in the Hohenthal Gallery in the Anthropology Department at the 

First Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit, May 2004. (Photo: Mariana Ferreira) 

60


The U.S. Supreme Court, the Western Shoshone, 

and the Fight for Human Rights in the International Arena 

JENNIFER WOLOWICK 

Abstract 

The Western Shoshone have been fighting the violence of being forced from their 60 million acre 

ancestral homeland to a contested 50 thousand acres for over a century. During the last five decades, they 

have battled through the courts, fighting a system founded on Christian Rights of Discovery and written 

into law by Chief Justice John Marshall. Losing to the United States, the Western Shoshone went to the 

Inter-American Human Rights Court of the Organization of American States (OAS), and the UN 

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. These courts found the U.S. in violation of the 

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, but structural violence embedded in passive UN 

and OAS charters prevents the enforcement of these rights. In this paper, I connect the Supreme Court’s 

role in not only removing Native American rights in the U.S., but also in creating the foundations of 

intentional law that impede international courts. 

INTRODUCTION 

Considered the highest and most respected 

court in the land, the Supreme Court’s history is 

filled with decisions that have changed the policies 

of the United States, for better or for worse. The 

Supreme Court has argued for the equality of all 

peoples, but continues to uphold precedents that 

deny Native American Peoples their human rights. 

Its policies embed structural violence into Native 

American Law and the court system by forcing its 

“definition of what is appropriate” on Native 

American Peoples, creating the structural violence 

that continues unabated to this day (Schelhas 

2002:746). According to Philippe Bourgois 

(2004:426), structural violence is the “historically 

entrenched political-economic oppression of social 

inequality.” This concept of violence reaches 

beyond poverty, social exclusion and unfair 

treatment, however. Structural violence is the 

hidden element of a system that causes horrific 

historical events and the violation of peoples’ 

rights. 

To combat these elements we must reveal the 

foundations of the system that has created these 

problems. With regard to Native American 

Peoples, such as the Western Shoshone of Nevada, 

California, and Idaho, who have tried to fight for 

their rights using the court system, this means 

revealing the foundation of the Supreme Court’s 

policies. Specifically, what must be critically 

addressed is Chief Justice John Marshall’s role in 

writing Christian Rights of Discovery into United 

States law during the early 19 th century and placing 

This paper was originally presented at the 2 nd Human Rights 

Summit in 2005, as part of the panel entitled “Sovereignty and 

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.” 

61 

concepts into international law that have led to 

passive United Nations and Organization of 

American States charters that prevent the effective 

protection of human rights. 

THE WESTERN SHOSHONE 

Native Americans in the United States are 

increasingly using the courts to fight for rights over 

their land. In each case, Native American Peoples 

have faced the precedents set by Chief Justice John 

Marshall and the prejudice that still exists in the 

United States’ court system. The Western 

Shoshone of Nevada’s Great Basin have been 

fighting in the courts for over five decades to 

regain rights over land they never legally lost. The 

Western Shoshone have taken their battle to the 

U.S. Supreme Court and beyond, becoming the 

first Native American People to take their case 

against the United States to the international arena 

(O’Connell 2002). 

The Western Shoshone began their battle over 

100 years after they signed the Treaty of Ruby 

Valley with the United States. In 1946, the U.S. 

created the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) to 

alleviate conflicts over Native American land. In 

1966, the ICC awarded 26 million dollars for land 

the Western Shoshone “lost,” despite a record of 

their “continuing occupation” of the land 

(O’Connell 2002:773). The ICC never found 

documentation showing what date, “the number of 

acres, or specific areas where U.S. citizens 

encroached” (Sansani 2005). Instead, the ICC 

chose 1872 as the date of loss, so that the United 

States would not have to pay the Western 

Shoshone for mineral rights to one of the richest 

gold veins in the United States. Through the ICC 

decision, the U.S. bureaucracy and courts created

“legal fiction,” and the arbitrary 1872 date “has 

come to be treated as if it were the date of an 

historical event” (O’Connell 2002:781). The ICC 

then attempted to pay the Western Shoshone the 

1872 value of the land of 15 cents per acre, but the 

Shoshone People immediately contested the ICC 

payment, causing the 26 million dollars to be 

transferred to a separate government bank account 

where it sits collecting interest. To this day, only 

the ICC attorneys have been given their share of 

the award (O’Connell 2002). 

At the same time the ICC was deciding 

payment, the Bureau of Land Management sued 

Carrie and Marie Dann, two members of the 

Western Shoshone, for an injunction and trespass 

damages of $288,191.78 for grazing cattle on 

“public land” without paying grazing fees 

(O’Connell 2002). The Danns upheld that they 

were not required to pay grazing fees because it 

was ancestral land, which still belonged to them. 

The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 

that Western Shoshone rights to land had been 

“extinguished” by the ICC payment, even though it 

has yet to reach any Shoshone Peoples. The 

Supreme Court ruling was based on a statutory 

interpretation of the 1946 ICC Act, rather than on 

an “actual finding of extinguishment of title” 

(Sansani 2005). The ICC “legal fiction” and 

subsequent Supreme Court rulings continue a 

pattern that began in John Marshall’s court and 

strengthen the traditional structural violence 

endured by Native Americans. 

The Danns took their case to the American 

Human Rights Court of the Organization of 

American States, contending that the United States 

violated their rights as stated in the 1948 American 

Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In 

Mary and Carrie Dann v United States (Report Nº 

75/02, Case 11.140 July 29, 2002), the Intercommission 

on Human Rights declared that “the 

U.S. government is violating international human 

rights in its treatment of Western Shoshone elders 

Carrie and Mary Dann,” by violating Article 2, 

Right to Equality Before the Law, Article 17, Right 

to a Fair Trial, and Article 23, Right to Property of 

the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of 

Man (1948). The commission found the ICC 

procedure “erroneous and even fraudulent” by 

paying for land without legal evidence of it ever 

being taken (Sansani 2005). 

The UN Commission on the Elimination of 

Racial Discrimination (CERD) also heard the case 

and directed the U.S. to halt actions “that threaten 

irreparable harm and to enter into negotiations” to 

resolve land issues (Lebeeni and Nelson 2002:827). 

CERD also recommended that the U.S. 


62 

ensure effective participation by 

indigenous communities in decisions 

affecting them, including those on their 

land rights as required under article 5(c) 

of the Convention, and draws the attention 

to the State party to general 

recommendation XXIII on Indigenous 

Peoples which stresses the importance of 

securing “informed consent” of 

indigenous communities and calls, inter 

alia, for recognition and compensation for 

loss (UN 2001:380-407). 

The OAS courts also found that the United States 

violated its own Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution (1776), by taking the land without 

“valid public purpose and the entitlement of 

owners to notice, just compensation, and judicial 

review.” This was the first international decision 

finding the United States in violation of Native 

American Rights (Sansani 2005). 

In its failed defense case, the United States 

argued support for Marshall’s 19 th century 

precedents that created the prejudiced image of the 

Native American (Luebenni and Nelson 2002). 

These precedents founded the structural violence 

that led to the human rights violations of the 

Western Shoshone in the 20 th century. We cannot 

understand the Western Shoshone’s battle today 

without revealing the role of the Supreme Court in 

the momentous events of the past. 

CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SUPERIORITY IN 

NATIVE AMERICAN LAW 

The fictional history generated by the ICC and 

the Supreme Court decision against the Western 

Shoshone in Dann v United States (1985) is a 

continuation of the violence Native American 

Peoples have endured for hundreds of years. 

Despite the separation of church and state in the 

United States, Christian policies influenced Chief 

Justice John Marshall and his court in the early 19 th 

century when they created the precedents of Native 

American law. U.S. court law regarding Native 

American Peoples was built upon the religious 

ideology of Christian doctrines written prior to the 

founding of the United States. These decisions and 

other congressional statements of the time became 

socially acceptable and encouraged as “moral 

rights or duties” based on Christian ideology, 

making them acts of structural violence (Scheper- 

Hughes and Bourgois 2004:5). 

Steve Newcomb, a member of the Shawnee 

and Lenape nations of North America, has traced 

the Christian precepts embedded in Native 

American law to the Papal Bulls of the 15 th

century. In 1452, for example, Pope Nicholas V 

wrote, “capture, vanquish, and subdue the 

Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ…put 

them into perpetual slavery” and “take all their 

possessions and property.” After Columbus landed, 

the Inter Caetera Bull of 1493 is said to have 

declared, “we command you in virtue of holy 

obedience…to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants 

and residents in the Catholic Faith [who] are bound 

to yield to superior genius of Europe” (Nicholas V 

1452). Throughout the 15 th century, Popes made 

similar statements directing the European 

colonization of the world (Newcomb 2004). 

Spreading Christian faith became justification for 

colonial invasions of the Americas, creating the 

Christian Right of Discovery. Thus, this “treaty,” 

as advanced by Papal Bulls in the 15 th century, 

“stand[s] for the whole argument that Christians 

had a divine right, based on the Bible, to subdue 

and replenish the earth and to exercise dominion 

over it” (Newcomb 2004:36). The use of faith to 

justify government and colonial actions reflected 

the mindsets of Europeans who created the power 

structures that continue to mistreat Native 

Americans today. 

Supreme Court Justice Marshall is responsible 

for writing Christian Right of Discovery into U.S. 

law, destroying Native American sovereignty while 

preserving the sovereignty of Christian nations. 

Marshall argued for “the recognition of the 

Doctrine of Discovery” and used this religious 

doctrine to find that the Native Americans had 

been conquered, even without documentation that 

verified it (Wallace 2005:4; Newcomb 2004). 

Reflecting the prejudice of the court during this 

era, Marshall’s colleague Justice Joseph Story said, 

“as infidels, heathens, and savages, they [the 

Native Americans] were not allowed to possess the 

prerogatives belonging to absolute, sovereign and 

independent nations” (Story 1891:106; Newcomb 

1995). The decisions of a biased Supreme Court 

used Christian Rights of Discovery to create the 

foundations of Native American law, deeply 

embedding structural violence into the U.S. court 

system. 

Incorporated into the branches of the United 

States government, the Christian Rights of 

Discovery influenced every step of the invasion 

into Native American land, and their importance is 

reflected in the appearance of Marshall’s 

precedents in the U.S. international defense case. 

The importance of 19th century Supreme Court 

decisions in 20th century policy is reflected in their 

appearance in the U.S. international defense. 

Marshall wrote into law the structural violence that 

plagues Native Americans, but his policies 


63 

regarding international law also prevent the 

Western Shoshone from finding justice in the 

international arena. 

THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN 

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM 

The U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions are 

used as precedent in every court battle involving 

Native Americans, created penetrating forms of 

structural violence by both destroying Native 

American rights and defining a form of sovereignty 

that impedes the international process. During the 

same era that the supreme court was taking away 

the rights of Native Americans to their ancestral 

lands, Chief Justice Marshall’s Supreme Court 

dictated an international policy that influenced the 

United Nations and OAS charter by amending the 

power of ruling states to dictate the parameters of 

Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty; Marshall 

demanded that international enforcement 

procedures require the consent of nations before 

enforcement. Thus, even though international 

organizations cited the U.S. to be in violation of 

Western Shoshone rights, these organizations 

remain powerless to enforce their rulings. This 

becomes a form of structural violence since it 

“refers to policies of majority institutions” that are 

intended to be neutral “but have differential and/or 

harmful effects” (Schelhas 2002:727). In this case, 

the courts’ inability to stop the hegemonic practices 

of the United States protects the U.S. government’s 

interests and harms Native American Peoples. 

While destroying the rights of Native 

Americans, the court increased the independence of 

Christian nations. In Schooner Exchange v 

McFaddon (1 U.S. 7 Cranch 116, 1812), Marshall 

explained “that the world is composed of distinct 

nations, each endowed with equal rights and equal 

independence” (Caplan 2003:746). The world has 

equal nations, but Marshall’s court did not include 

the nations of Native American Peoples with whom 

the United States had signed diplomatic treaties. 

Thus the U.S. Supreme Court manipulated the term 

sovereignty to destroy the independence of Native 

Americans in one court case and strengthen the 

independence of the United States in another. 

Marshall’s court opinion created a definition 

of sovereignty that negates the idea of a higher 

international power “unless consented to by the 

nation state” (Jackson 2003:782). Because the 

United States is not a party to the American 

convention on Human Rights, the Statute of the 

IACHR says the commission can only “make 

recommendations to such states, when it finds this 

appropriate, in order to bring about more effective 

observance of human rights” (Article 20, Statute of

the IACHR). The UN Charter (1945) says it is 

bound to “promote and encourage respect for 

human rights,” but does not create a system to 

implement these actions. The Vienna Declaration 

of Human Rights leaves the responsibility for their 

implementation to the individual states (Megret 

and Hoffmann 2003:321). Instead of policy, the 

UN has treated human rights “primarily as 

aspirational goals to be achieved progressively” 

(Dennis and Stewart 2004:465). Without effective 

human rights enforcement the international arena 

falls short of its goals. 

In the Western Shoshone case, the OAS 

Commission left the fundamental issue in the hands 

of the U.S. government – the question of to what 

extent the Western Shoshone have rights over their 

lands. This is an issue that the U.S. clearly cannot 

decide fairly, since Marshall’s policy regarding the 

Rights of Discovery effectively eliminates the 

Shoshone People’s rights to their land. Allowing 

the United States the possibility to make a biased 

decision violates the Western Shoshone Peoples’ 

human rights, ostensibly protected by the Inter- 

American Courts of Human Rights. Thus we see 

how John Marshall’s concept of “equal 

independent nations” requiring consent before 

international influence has led to an impotent 

international system. 

Change is needed within the international 

arena to stop the violation of human rights. One 

way to combat the presently ineffective structure is 

through the Normative Hierarchy Theory, which 

says that a state’s immunity from international 

influence is “abrogated when the state violates 

human rights protections that are outside 

peremptory international law norms or jus cogens” 

(Caplan 2003:741). Jus cogens are accepted 

principles of international law that do not require 

the consent of nation states to implement. 

Violations, as defined by this law, include the acts 

of slavery, torture and genocide. Unfortunately, jus 

cogens have yet to be specifically declared by the 

international community, which means that there 

remains no effective protection against their 

violation (Parker 1989). However, when 

combating structural violence, this theory remains 

important because it argues that international 

courts are superior to state courts in regards to 

human rights. The United Nations and other 

international institutions must create a system 


64 

“under the theory of collective state benefit, to 

curtail unnecessary state immunity privileges for 

human rights violations” so they can effectively 

protect human rights (Caplan 2003:741). Only then 

can international organizations fulfill their charters 

to promote and protect human rights. 

CONCLUSION 

Today, the United States has yet to negotiate 

the issue of land rights, and continues to believe 

that the fictional history created by the ICC’s 

payment extinguishes Western Shoshone rights to 

the land. The United States rejected the 

commission’s findings in their entirety, claiming 

the OAS had no jurisdiction over the case (Sansani 

2005). In fact, the United States’ refusal to 

recognize international influence was so ardent that 

in 2002, the same year the OAS Commission 

published its findings, the Bureau of Land 

Management invaded the Danns’ ranch and 

impounded their cattle grazing on “public land,” 

and continues to confiscate the Danns’ estate on an 

almost yearly basis (Luebbeni and Nelson 

2002:808). The United States also continues to 

follow the precedents of John Marshall’s Supreme 

Court law in other Native American cases that are 

increasingly being brought against them. These 

actions are a slap in the face of international 

organizations, proving their ineffectiveness at 

protecting the rights of people against a biased 

state. 

Fortunately, by revealing where policies that 

violate human rights come from, we can empower 

their change. Media coverage of the Western 

Shoshone case helped put the United States on 

Amnesty International’s list of the world’s greatest 

human rights violators and brought worldwide 

attention to the wrongs committed against Native 

Americans. Unfortunately, much more must be 

done. All peoples of the United States must be 

reminded to “form a more perfect union” by 

recognizing the rights of Native American Peoples 

to participate in determining their own present and 

future needs and commitments. The United States 

must work to form a stronger international union 

by conceding to the influence of the international 

community and ratifying international human 

rights documents, so that the inviolable rights of 

the Western Shoshone and other Indigenous 

Peoples of the world can be effectively protected.


WORKS CITED 

Adamson, Rebbeca 2003 Land Rich, Dirt Poor. Native Americas 19(2):26-37. 

Alexander VI 1493 Papal Bull Inter Caetera. Electronic document, www.nativeweb.org/nativelaw/nw_legal/indig- 

inter_caetera.html, accessed April, 15, 2005. 

Organization of American States (OAS) 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Ninth 

International Conference of American States, Bogotá, Colombia. 

Bourgois, Philippe 2004 The Continuum of Violence in War and Peace: Post-Cold War Lessons from El Salvador. In 

Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois eds. Pg 425-434. Malden, 

MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Caplan, Lee M. 2003 State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: Critique of the 2003 Normative Hierarchy 

Theory. American Journal of International Law 97(4):741-781. 

Dennis, Michael J., and David P. Stewart 2003 Justifiability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Should There 

Be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing, and Health. 

American Journal of International Law 98(3):462-515. 

Jackson, John 2003 Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept. American Journal of 

International Law 97(4):782-802. 

Kappler, Charles, ed. 1971 Treaty of Ruby Valley. In Indian Affairs. Washington DC: AMS Press. 

Luebbeni, Stomas E., and Cathy Nelson 2002 The Indian Wars: Efforts to Resolve Western Shoshone Land and Treaty 

Issues and to Distribute the Indian Claims Commission Judgment Fund. Natural Resources Journal 

42(4):801-833. 

Megret, Frederic, and Florian Hoffmann 2002 The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United 

Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities. Human Rights Quarterly 25(2):314-342. 

Newcomb, Steven T. 1995 Pagans in the Promised Land: A Primer on Religious Freedom. Electronic document, 

http://www.ailanyc.org/pagans%20in%20the%20promised%20land.htm, accessed April, 15, 2005. 

2004 In the Name of God, Gold and Greed. Native Americas. Electronic document, 

http://nativeamericas.aip.cornell.edu, accessed April 14, 2005. 

Nicholas V 1452 Papal Bull Cum Nalla. Electronic document, www.nativeweb.org/nativelaw/nw_legal/indig 

cum_nalla.html, accessed April 15, 2005. 

1455 Papal Bull Roman Pontifex. Electronic document, 

www.nativeweb.org/nativelaw/nw_legal/indig-romanUS_pontifex.html, accessed April 15, 2005. 

O’Connell, John D. 2002 Constructive Conquest in the Courts: A Legal History of the Western Shoshone Lands 1861 

to 1991. The Natural Resources Journal 42:769-833. 

Parker, Karen and Lyn Beth Neylon 1989 Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights. Hastings International 

and Comparative Law Review 12(2):411-463. 

Robyn, Linda 2002 Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Creating Environmental Justice in the Twenty-First 

Century. Native American Quarterly 26(2):198-220. 

Sansani, Inbal 2005 Land Rights in the Inter-American System: Dann v. United States, Human Rights Brief. The 

Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Washington College of Law. Electronic document, 

www.indianlaw.org/WS_HR_Brief_Article_by_Sansani_2005-1.pdf, accessed April 15, 2005. 

Schelhas, John 2002 Race, Ethnicity, and Natural Resources in the United States: A Review. Natural Resources 

Journal 1(42):723-763. 

Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. 2004 Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell 

Publishing. 

Story, Supreme Court Justice Joseph 1891 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 5:1. 

Vienna Declaration and Program of Action 1993 World Conference on Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.157.23.En?OpenDocument, 

accessed April 15, 2005. 

Wallace, William 2005 Sovereignty, Challenges to Sovereignty and Reassertion of Sovereign Interests. Chicago-Kent 

Journal of International and Comparative Law. Electronic document, 

www.kentaw.edu/jic/articles/spring2005_william_wallace.pdf accessed April 15, 2005. 

United Nations 1945 United Nations Charter. Electronic document, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, accessed 

April 15, 2005. 

65


66


PART TWO – SEXUALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 

Sexuality and reproductive rights and the right to 

sexuality are related, yet distinct areas of the 

international human rights regime. The former are 

more widely incorporated into various international 

documents, conventions, and programs for change. In 

contrast, the right to sexuality remains highly 

controversial and has yet to be clearly defined in 

international human rights law. The translation, 

adoption, and implementation of laws involving the 

sexuality of human beings are complex and often 

highly contested processes. This brief introduction 

addresses two attempts to bring international law into 

social practice, and to bring social practice under the 

protection of international law. 

Sexual and Reproductive Rights—from human 

rights ideal to social policy 

In 1994, the International Conference on 

Population and Development (ICPD) convened 

representatives from 179 countries in Cairo, Egypt to 

address a number of key issues affecting the global 

population. After eight days of deliberation, the 

committee adopted Resolution 1, which established 

the 20-year Programme of Action of the ICPD, also 

known as the Cairo Consensus. While building upon 

previously established international agreements and 

guidelines, the mandate of the ICPD marked the 

acceptance of a new paradigm that emphasized the 

importance of incorporating human rights into 

population and development policies. The Preamble 

to the Cairo Consensus, explicitly “affirms the 

application of universally recognized human rights 

standards to all aspects of population programmes.” 

While the Cairo Consensus also addressed a wide 

range of interconnected issues, such as sustainable 

development, urbanization, and migration, the subject 

of sexual and reproductive rights and health have 

continued to remain high on global agendas. Guided 

by internationally recognized human rights principles 

and conventions, the ICPD Programme of Action 

presented an approach that emphasized individual 

empowerment and well being rather than treating 

human reproduction and sexuality as merely 

mechanisms of population control. 

For example, the Preamble to the ICPD 

Programme of Action defines reproductive health as 

a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing 

and not merely the absence of disease or 

infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive 

system and to its functions and processes. 

INTRODUCTION 

67 

Reproductive health therefore implies that people are 

able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that 

they have the capability to reproduce and the 

freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.” 

(ICPD Progamme of Action, Article 7.2) 

This shift in perspective provided a framework to 

develop policies that promote gender equality, 

informed family planning, safe-sex education, and 

individual choice regarding each individual’s sexual 

and reproductive health. 

Right to Sexuality—from social practice to human 

rights ideal 

The right to sexuality is more expansive than 

sexual and reproductive rights as they are defined in 

International Human Rights Law. A human rights 

approach to sexuality includes a broad range of rights 

and freedoms, some of which include the freedom of 

sexual expression, the right to sexual association, the 

right to sexual pleasure, and the right to sexual and 

bodily integrity. 

Sexual and reproductive rights do not extend to 

issues related to sexual and gender orientation. To 

address this omission, in April 2003, the Brazilian 

government introduced a historic resolution on 

“Human Rights and Sexual Orientation,” to the 59 th 

Session of the United Commission on Human Rights. 

The draft resolution, also known as the Brazilian 

Resolution, did not introduce new laws; rather, it 

stressed that the universality of existing human rights 

protections should be extended to all human beings 

regardless of their sexual orientation. For example, in 

article OP 1, the resolution “expresses deep concern 

at the occurrence of violations of human rights all 

over the world against persons on the grounds of their 

sexual orientation” (OP 1). The next article, 

Stresses that human rights and fundamental 

freedoms are the birthright of all human 

beings, that the universal nature of these 

rights and freedoms is beyond question and 

that the enjoyment of such rights and 

freedoms should not be hindered in any way 

on the grounds of sexual orientation (OP 2) 

In prolonged and heated debates, the issue elicited 

strong responses both in favor of and in opposition 

tothe resolution. Ultimately, the Commission on 

Human Rights decided, by a recorded vote of 24 

votes to 17, with 10 abstentions, to postpone

consideration of the draft resolution until the 

following year. Unfortunately, the opposition lobbied 

throughout the year and successfully prevented the 

issue from being re-introduced to the Commission 

and ended the course of the Brazilian Resolution. 

The question of sexual orientation is not currently 

on the formal agenda of the Commission. However, 

LGBT groups continue to work towards gaining 

recognition and protection in international legal 

instruments. In July 2007, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual 

and Transgender (LGBT) non-governmental 

organizations achieved consultative status at the 

United Nations after years of struggle to have some 

form of representation at UN proceedings. The 

Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec (CGLQ) and 

the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual 

and Transgender Rights (RFSL) will be able to raise 

concerns that are fundamental to LGBT communities 

around the world. 

Sexual and Reproductive Rights and the Right to 

Sexuality are Human Rights 

Sexual and reproductive rights and the right to 

sexuality are essential to secure and respect each 

individual’s freedom for self-determination and 


68 

bodily integrity. International human rights law must 

provide the standards of protection for individuals to 

choose how they will share intimacy and with whom. 

The right to sexual and reproductive health for all 

people is necessary to support the well being of 

individuals and to promote a socially just society. 

Free access to education and to information is 

essential to ensure that people are aware of their 

rights. Although, the need for progress continues, 

international, regional, and domestic organizations 

are working together to encompass a broader 

understanding of the practice of these rights and for 

finding ways to protect them. 

Sources 

Programme of Action of the International Conference on 

Population and Development 

http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd_poa.htm 

International Lesbian and Gay Association 

http://www.ilga.org/ 

Commission on Human Rights. Final Report. 59 th Session. 

Economic and Social Council Official Records, 2003. 

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E. 

2003.23,E.CN.4.2003.135.En?Opendocument


The Future of Sexuality is Human Rights 

GILBERT HERDT 

No issue facing our country is more significant than the sexual and reproductive rights of people. 

Every human being is entitled to the rights of being a sexual person, having sexual relationships filled with 

pleasure, joy and love. Violations of these rights, or the knowledge and tools that lead to their full 

enjoyment – such as denial of comprehensive sexuality education – is harmful and degrading to the dignity 

of people. In 2008 we look toward a time when all people enjoy the health and basic security of having a 

place to live and the necessities of life, which in themselves support the unique role that sexuality plays in 

our individual lives. When everyone can enjoy these protections and respond to them in responsible ways, 

our society will be improved, and citizenship will be a reality. 

Gil Herdt is Chair of the Department of Human Sexuality Studies and Professor of Human Sexuality and Anthropology at San 

Francisco State University. He is the Founder/Director of the National Sexuality Resource Center at SFSU, and the founding editor of 

the journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Gil Herdt has been a discussant at the 1 st , 3 rd and 4 th Human Rights Summits. 

SFSU Anthropology students Adam Rule and Ashley Fischer work on the Global Sex Rights map displayed at the 

“Power and Pleasure: Expressions & Repressions of Sexuality and Reproductive Rights” exhibit during the 4 th 

Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit, April 30-May 2, 2007. 

(Photo: Richie Cruz) 

69


70


Brown/Black/Yellow/Jail>Poor>Abused>Girl 

TAMAYA GARCIA 

As the economic gap widens at a rapid pace 

for the have and have-nots in the once again 

booming town of San Francisco, a growing 

population of black and brown girls finds itself 

behind bars. The charges range from attempted 

murder, beating up a boyfriend/pimp, selling dope, 

being caught high on dope, prostitution, truancy, 

and violation of probation. These are the same girls 

you see strolling the Tenderloin, the brown girls in 

the Mission district, the girls taking the 9 San 

Bruno to the projects and the black girls on the 22 

Fillmore. The Asian Pacific Islanders (API) make 

up a small majority of this population. The girls 

from the API community getting locked up are 

mostly Samoan and Southeast Asians, both coming 

from ethnic groups that are struggling in the Bay 

Area. What most of these girls have in common is 

that they are poor, non-white (mostly), and have 

experienced sexual abuse as a child. 

Working at The Center for Young Women’s 

Development (CYWD), an organization run by and 

for previously incarcerated young women, I have 

found two things to be consistent with every young 

woman I have come across: they have all figured 

out a way to survive despite some of the most 

atrocious circumstances impeding their success 

(one of the reasons CYWD prefers to use the term 

“young woman” over “girl” is because it validates 

their proven capabilities and survival skills); they 

all want something better for themselves and their 

children – a decent job, a high school diploma, the 

opportunity to go to college, a safe home, the 

option to travel, a supportive network of friends, 

and the freedom and resourcefulness to be good 

moms. Almost half of the girls that walk through 

our doors are either pregnant or have one or more 

children. Most don’t get help from their parents or 

other family members. In most cases, young 

women are expected to help support their families 

by bringing in much needed income or handling 

the caretaking of younger siblings. These are not 

“girls” that are worried about their prom or 

wondering who has a crush on them. These are 

Tamaya Garcia served as Developmental Director at The 

Center for Young Women’s Development in San Francisco, and 

also sits on the board of Tenth Muse Presents, an organization 

that promotes Latinas in the arts. Tamaya has participated as 

both student panelist, presenting work that focused on the 

criminalization of African-American and Latino populations, 

and discussant in the 1 st and 4 th Human Rights Summits. 

71 

young women that have been forced to take care of 

themselves and often inadvertently become caught 

up in a number of illegal situations not so much by 

choice, but by their lack of viable choices. 

Can this lack of choice be construed as 

violence against young women? Some would argue 

that each of these young women consciously 

adopted choices in every situation that landed them 

behind bars, and if only they had made the “right” 

(and presumably “legal”) choice, they would not 

have found themselves in their present situation. 

This is a weak argument and cannot account for 

most of the circumstances that work against young 

minority women trying to survive in San Francisco. 

This is a shortened list of real circumstances 

that I have seen young women face on a daily 

basis: being beat up by a “baby daddy” and/or 

pimp; having to come up with enough money to 

take BART or Muni and still have enough left over 

to feed herself and her sister or child(ren); 

struggling to get a little brother to school and then 

make it to their own classes on time; trying to 

balance two jobs and stay enrolled in high school; 

trying to take care of a mom who is still living on 

the streets as an addict; trying to find someone’s 

house to sleep in for the night until they can find 

stable housing; trying to figure out how they can 

track down their birth certificate and immunization 

records so they can get back in school and/or get a 

job; trying to find someone and somewhere safe to 

leave their baby while they work or go to school. 

Through an anthropological lens and an 

understanding of the racist structures both overtly 

and subliminally in place in this country, we can 

clearly surmise that these everyday circumstances 

are linked to the practices of structural violence, 

state violence, structural racism, and the 

patriarchal, prejudiced framework that governs the 

prison industrial complex in the United States. 

What these young women are facing everyday is a 

form of violence that has become “normalized into 

invisibility” (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004: 

9). Even though girls are now the fastest growing 

population in the juvenile justice system, there is 

no rush by the local, state or federal government to 

address this issue. Most people are not talking 

about these young women’s lives in direct 

relationship to the violence imposed on them by 

social processes that are structurally tainted by bias 

and discrimination, even though the majority of 

these young women are victims of violence. Even

traditional organizations are not addressing the fact 

that the majority of young women getting locked 

up have suffered, and are still suffering from 

multiple forms of abuse, have been abusers 

themselves, and have not been given the 

opportunity to engage in culturally relevant therapy 

and support groups to heal from the trauma they 

have experienced, and so remain inextricably 

trapped in patterns of violence. 

The Center for Young Women’s Development 

is one of only a few organizations that is doing 

more than just addressing the issue. Our mission is 

to empower and inspire young women who have 

been involved with the juvenile justice system 

and/or the underground street economy to create 

positive change in their lives and communities. Our 

core values of sisterhood, social justice, spirituality 

and self-determination infuse all aspects of our 

work. The nature of our organization – both the 

fact that we are run by young women of color 

coming from backgrounds of incarceration and 

poverty, combined with the intentional integration 

of race and gender analyses into all the work we do 

– has created a unique and creative space for young 

women, both physically and spiritually. This space 

has allowed us to successfully challenge and 

change those copious local institutional processes 

that are rooted in racism and sexism, and that serve 

to demobilize and drain our communities of their 

most precious resources: ourselves and our sisters. 


WORKS CITED 

The CYWD has learned that young women 

who have endured multiple traumas, including long 

periods of incarceration, the loss of their children 

while in the “justice” system, poverty, violence, 

drug addiction and the incarceration of one or both 

parents do not simply need a job; they need to 

believe that they can succeed and find security in 

the mainstream economy, reclaim their education, 

and pursue emotional balance and spiritual growth. 

These women must come to see themselves and be 

supported as individuals whose voices matter in 

their communities, and recognize their role as 

potential agents of social change. We offer young 

women who have been locked up and abused an 

opportunity to heal, build trust in their 

communities and learn the skills it takes to engage 

in meaningful employment and/or a vocational 

program, and at the same time become active in 

institutional processes and decision-making 

dialogues that directly affect them. We are 

reclaiming our physical and spiritual selves and 

unifying our communities so that we can claim our 

rightful space in society and rise to our full 

potential. 

To learn more about The Center for Young 

Women’s Development please visit us at 

www.cywd.org. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Philippe Bourgois, eds. 

2004 Introduction. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Pp. 1-32. Malden, MA: Blackwell 


72

Human Rights as Rightful Action 

GILLIAN GOSLINGA 

My grandfather, whom I met only as an infant, 

wrote Holland’s first book on Human Rights in the 

first quarter of the nineteenth century. The book 

has not been translated into English and I do not 

speak or read Dutch. I know from my father that 

this man took all six of his children each Sunday to 

a different church, mosque, or synagogue so that 

they could appreciate how religions were similar, 

and learn tolerance. When posted to the Dutch 

Caribbean colonies as Superintendent of Culture 

and Education right before World War II, my 

grandfather moved his large family into the old 

slave quarters on the island to telegraph his policy 

of equal rights and his intentions to include the 

disenfranchised slave descendants in social policy. 

When his much younger wife, my grandmother, 

gave birth to a seventh child, a little black girl 

clearly not his own, he adopted this child, covering 

my grandmother’s shame. 

My father – this man’s youngest son – left 

home when he was fifteen. At sixteen he studied 

pre-med and pre-law at Columbia. At twenty he 

spent two years at the Sorbonne while in the U.S. 

army, earning his “naturalized” American identity. 

Post army, my father took a job with Texaco in the 

Congo and worked for more than a decade in oil 

operations in West Africa and South America, two 

ugly hotbeds of U.S. and European imperialisms. 

In 1969, at 36, he walked off a team of American 

consultants hired by the young Algerian 

government to set up its national oil industry in the 

wake of colonial independence from France. He 

walked off with the client, however, because he 

knew the team was sneakily building structural 

dependency on American oil and business interests 

into its recommendations. It was not difficult for 

him to persuade his Algerian client that this was 

not in the country’s best interest. My father was 

blackballed in the oil industry and consulting 

world, but he is the reason why no imperial war has 

been fought on Algerian soil in the name of 

democracy. A modest man, he will tell you that he 

did what he did because he gambled he could make 

enough money to retire at forty. He was forty-four 

when he finished the job. 

Gillian Goslinga is a cultural and visual anthropologist, 

feminist, and graduate of the History of Consciousness Program 

at UC Santa Cruz. Her research on gender, reproductive 

technologies, and "traditional" god-assisted reproduction or 

virgin birth beliefs in Tamil Nadu, South India, explores the 

intersection of religion, science, and modernity in women’s 

lives. Goslinga’s film, “The Child the Stork Brought Home,” 

was screened at the 4 th Annual Human Rights Summit in 2007. 


73 

Neither of these forefathers of mine was 

perfect, but at those important moments in their 

lives, they made perfect, and courageous, choices – 

choices that upheld the dignity of others, and the 

values of integrity, generosity, and respect, as well 

as hard and honest work. At these moments in 

their lives, they did what was right. I am proud to 

be in their lineage, though the shoes are sometimes 

big to fill. 

We are all called in our lives to make rightful 

choices, big and small. While legal definitions of 

human rights are important as a means to safeguard 

our privileges of recourse and voice within a 

system that otherwise would exploit without 

restraint, we must not let human rights discourse 

get us lost in righteous abstractions. We must 

remember that it is in the smallness of our lives 

that we can make the biggest difference. 

AIDS: Call For Action 

JORGE ZEPEDA 

As a community member, I want to make a 

call for action to fight health disparities around 

issues related to HIV and AIDS among women, 

especially among African American and Latina 

women. In 2005, most women diagnosed with 

AIDS in the United States were between the ages 

of 25 and 44, which indicates that many were 

likely infected at a relatively young age and 

through heterosexual transmission (Kaiser Family 

Foundation 2007). 1 

Many HIV-positive women become aware of 

their HIV status in the later stages of their HIV 

infection, and as a result do not seek access to early 

therapeutic treatment that can greatly increase their 

chances of maintaining a healthy and long life. We 

need to work harder in fighting health disparities 

among women; we deserve healthier sisters, 

mothers, wives, partners, girlfriends, and 

community members, and they most certainly are 

entitled to enjoy the best quality of life they can 

get. Access to health services is a basic human 

right 

Jorge Zepeda serves as Director of Latino Programs at the 

SFAIDS Foundation. He has done research and outreach in 

public policy, HIV prevention, case management, group 

facilitation and HIV education programs. Jorge received his 

MA in Clinical Social Work from SFSU, and was a discussant at 

the 4 th Annual Human rights Summit in 2007. 

1 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 

2007 Fact Sheet: Women and HIV/AIDS in the United 

States. Electronic document, http://www.kff.org/ 

hivaids/6092.cfm, accessed January 8, 2008.


74

There's such a great distance sometimes 

between the street and the ivory tower. This is 

especially true in the social sciences and is 

nowhere more evident than in my specialty, 

sexology – the study of what people do sexually 

and how they feel about it. My undergraduate 

degree in sociology was earned in a department 

with greater and lesser degrees of activism among 

its professors and students – many would bristle at 

the term "ivory tower," but others were as far from 

the streets as they could be. That grounding made a 

deep impression on me as I began my sexology 

studies, since this is a marginalized and sometimes 

downright dissociated field in which individuals' 

sexual issues can be viewed in a bubble, as 

personal rather than social/political. I call myself a 

"cultural sexologist" to differentiate myself from 

the white-lab-coated types. 

I am fortunate to have been able to get a 

doctorate and know that it gives me tools (and is 

itself a tool) to effect consciousness-raising and 

change. My field is one beset by "sexperts" – 

people who hang out a shingle when their chief 

source of expertise is having “discovered” some 

element of the sexual world that plenty of other 

people had explored already, and who have no real 

idea how this discovery is positioned in the 

universe of sexual difference. They have a 

disproportionate effect on sexual knowledge as 

mediated by popular culture because its 

gatekeepers (editors and producers, especially) 

don't know how to evaluate the sexperts' 

knowledge (or its limitations). My favorite 

example of the latter-day sexpert is that woman 

from Sex and the City who wrote a book about a 

particular clitoral technique that had finally, in her 

40s, brought her to orgasm – she had no clue that 

the same trick, illustrated by circles and arrows 

superimposed over a shady gray drawing of a clit, 

would not necessarily be every woman's path to 

nirvana. But a doctorate also comes with its own 

blind spots, many installed by the institution 

whence it was earned. And many people live their 

life, it turns out, well away from the shadow cast 

by the ivory tower. 

That's why, when I have the opportunity to 

Carol Queen is a writer, speaker, educator, activist and cultural 

sexologist with a doctorate of education in human sexuality. She 

is worker/owner at Good Vibrations, and co-founder/director of 

the Center for Sex and Culture in SF. She appeared as keynote 

speaker during the 4 th Annual Human Rights Summit in 2007. 


Street Sexology 

CAROL QUEEN 

75 

speak to an academic audience, I urge listeners to 

examine their own education for signs of 

academic bias that may play well in departments 

and conferences, but which renders us all but 

irrelevant to real people in the communities we 

immerse ourselves in. Why is this important? 

Many academics don't seem to think it is. They 

don't have to run for popular election; once in a 

stable granting situation and tenured, research can 

proceed and be discussed with peers. So why does 

it matter if USA Today presents it to the people? 

It matters – in sexology, anyway – because the 

objects of study are the sexual bodies or minds of 

individuals, often aggregated into sexual 

communities, and when these communities and 

individuals don't feel the researcher “gets” it, they 

turn away from the research process as subjects as 

well as consumers of information. This, I think, is 

one of the main reasons we have seen an upsurge 

of academic studies of sex workers by people who 

actually have some experience in the sex industry. 

Onetime insiders know how to communicate with 

their former compatriots better than outsiders 

generally do; ivory-tower denizens are not trusted 

by rank-and-file sex workers, or by many other 

sexual minorities either. When I was studying for 

my sociology degree in the mid-1980s I was 

incensed – even before my own entry into the sex 

industry – by the fact that prostitution was 

discussed under the rubric of "deviance," as was 

homosexuality! I'd have turned tail and flounced 

away from the entire discipline but for the fact that 

I took this as a challenge. Why on earth should 

people living their sexual lives in the world take 

seriously a discipline that would classify them that 

way? 

In the mid-1990s we saw a large, important 

new sex survey, the "Chicago Study" (also known 

as the "Sex in America" study). It was trumpeted as 

outclassing the Kinsey sex studies, but reading 

between the lines, some examples of its potential 

problems were more than evident: using political 

polling strategies for the first time in a sex survey, 

and the pursuit of up to seven interviews 

(administered by middle-aged women hired simply 

because, you know, we “trust” them) with 

recalcitrant interviewees who's names had been spit 

out of a database. The challenge of getting good 

information about private issues had been 

subsumed by the challenge of getting a large 

random sample, and the information thus received

egarding subjects most people would be wary to 

disclose to a stranger showed – surprise! – lower 

rates of everything from homosexuality to sex toy 

use to sex outside marriage than many other studies 

had recorded. And of course the biggest challenge 

of all – finding funding to conduct such a survey in 

the first place – means that most of us will never 

have the opportunity to try to do a better job, at 

least on a large scale. 

At the Center for Sex and Culture, of which 

I'm founding director, we don't privilege academic 

material or teaching over community-based, popculture, 

and marketplace-generated sex 

information, entertainment, and ephemera. This is 

because *all* of it is the product of its own era in a 

culture which produces knowledge in many ways 

other than academic, and it is up to us as academics 

to try to keep abreast of it. 

I want to share one more anecdote about this, 

and it is, I think, a telling one. Speaking about the 

value of community-generated materials (“the 

street” is my admittedly problematic metaphor to 

describe this) at SFSU a couple of years ago, I was 

approached by two students who were working 

with safer sex modalities and training “out in the 

world.” They wanted to do academic work around 

this also, but were being discouraged from linking 

up their scholarship with their activism, as if the 

latter made the former suspect. 

This is the message I want to send to such 

academics: one reason so much lively work, study, 

and teaching happens entirely outside the academy 

(at least until the academy catches on and wants a 

piece of the action) is that we do not get what we 


76 

want from the academy, and most important of all 

the things we might want (my “we” here is meant 

to denote my sex community affiliations) is to be 

taken seriously. In forty years, when academics 

look back on the HIV epidemic (or any sex/cultural 

phenomenon of our day), they will not restrict 

themselves to studying academic papers on AIDSrelated 

topics; they will sift through the rich loam 

of the culture, no matter where that culture was 

created and the knowledge associated with it was 

unearthed. 

I'm a sexologist and perhaps you are not, but if 

you are an academic in any branch of the social 

sciences (and I include medicine in that category 

because of the way the medical field has been 

thoroughly implicated in the creation of sexual 

knowledge in the past century and a half), you 

know that our disciplines as a whole address 

sexuality and gender issues all the time. This is 

mostly done outside the module of sexology, by 

people who have not set out to specialize in 

sexuality-related issues but who have come to this 

study more circuitously, sometimes carrying with 

them bias and insufficient information about the 

full spectrum of sex-in-culture and sexual diversity 

issues. Sexology is highly interdisciplinary, which 

is to its credit, but we must all continue our 

ongoing dialogue about sexuality in order to fill in 

gaps of understanding – and to stay credible to the 

sexual person on the street, who will, if s/he/ze 

can't learn what s/he/ze needs by consulting the 

knowledge we've generated, go out and make some 

of hir/her/his own.


‘Hers and His’: A Gendered Perspective on Disaster 

ANNA RUDDOCK 

Abstract 

Women tend to suffer disproportionately in relation to men as a result of “natural” disasters. This 

phenomenon is attributable to underlying social structures that are exposed to an unprecedented degree by 

disasters. Using the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as a case study, this paper analyzes disaster from a 

gendered perspective. While acknowledging instances of women’s vulnerability, I take issue with the 

depiction of women as helpless victims and advocate wider recognition of their increased involvement 

during recovery and reconstruction. Disasters provide unique opportunities to engage with societal 

inequities that affect both men and women. I contend that effective disaster relief must maintain a 

commitment to social justice at its core; social science can contribute to this objective through studies of 

community gender relations and by engaging with the knowledge and experience of local women in an 

effort to mitigate gender bias in the impact of future disasters. 

INTRODUCTION 

So-called “natural disasters 1 ” are of increasing 

interest to the social sciences. One benefit of this 

attention has been the recognition of disasters as 

“processual phenomena” (Hoffman and Oliver- 

Smith 2002:3): as unfolding social processes 

possessing a past, present and future, as opposed to 

one-off events isolated in time and space. Perhaps 

more starkly than any other experience, disasters 

expose fundamental social structures for all to see 

(Hoffman and Oliver-Smith 2002:9). The impact 

of Hurricane Katrina continues to affirm this, yet a 

discussion of gender as a risk differential has not 

been as forthcoming in Katrina’s wake as that of 

race and class (Eisenstein 2005; Seager 2005). The 

gendered experience of disaster comprises the 

focus of this paper. I examine issues of particular 

pertinence to women in disasters, and stress the 

need to utilise, rather than marginalise, women’s 

skills and local knowledge in disaster mitigation 

and response. The central analysis stems from an 

assertion that vulnerability is not an inherent trait 

that results in women suffering disproportionately 

during disasters, but is indicative of societal 

structure and the nature of gender relations. I 

suggest in conclusion that it is these foundations 

that demand the most attention if we are to 

alleviate gender bias in the experience of disaster, 

and indeed, in the experience of life in general. 

This paper was originally presented at the 3 rd Annual Human 

Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “No Such 

Thing as a Natural Disaster: Perspectives on the Anthropology 

of Human Rights.” 

1 Throughout this paper I employ the following description: “a 

natural disaster is the result of the impact of a natural hazard on 

a socio-economic system with a given level of vulnerability… 

natural hazards themselves do not necessarily lead to disasters. 

It is only their interaction with people and their environment 

that generates impacts, which may reach disastrous 

proportions” (United Nations Division for the Advancement of 

Women (UNDAW) 2004:4). 

77 

WOMEN IN RHETORIC, WOMEN IN 

REALITY 

Women in disasters are frequently depicted 

within a paradigm that typecasts them as weak, 

helpless victims awaiting heroic male rescuers 

(Enarson 1998:158; Enarson and Morrow 1998b:6; 

Enarson and Morrow 1998b:171; UNDAW 

2004:2). Casting women as uniquely vulnerable, 

rather than focusing on their roles as disaster 

responders and mitigators, disguises and devalues 

their essential contributions and may serve to 

further entrench subordination, affecting women’s 

access to aid and preventing their active 

participation in the reconstruction of communities 

(Enarson 1998:164; Fordham and Ketteridge 

1998:81; Yonder et al. 2005:4; All India Disaster 

Mitigation Institute (AIDMI) 2005:15; UNDAW 

2004:2,12; Oxfam 2005). Reports that emphasize 

that disaster response tends to reflect traditional 

gender roles (Fothergill 1998:20; UNDAW 

2004:7) and that regard women’s work as “socially 

invisible, undervalued and unacknowledged” 

(UNDAW 2004:12) are not altogether surprising, 

given that “to the degree that the everyday 

practices of ‘doing gender’ mean that women and 

men perceive, experience, respond to and recover 

from disasters differently, both top-down and 

grass-roots models of disaster mitigation will 

reflect existing gender relations and hence gender 

power” (Enarson 1998:165). The essentializing of 

roles, including assumptions about the availability 

of women’s time and the physical capabilities of 

men, affects both genders. While women’s 

knowledge and capabilities beyond the domestic 

sphere may be ignored, the perceived 

“feminization” of responses to mental health 

needs, for instance, often acts to the detriment of 

men who may feel excluded from such services 

(Enarson 1998:163), with damaging consequences. 

There is a fine balance to be struck between 

the integration of women into disaster mitigation 

and relief strategies, and attention to the unique 

vulnerabilities to which they are subject. In

discussing the latter part of this equation, I use the 

2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as a primary case 

study. Recent figures put the death toll at 187,000 

people, with 43,000 still considered missing and 

1.6 million displaced; in certain areas the ratio of 

female to male deaths was 3:1 (UN Office of the 

Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery 2005; 

Oxfam 2005). Whilst acknowledging the dangers 

of generalisation, suggested explanations for the 

disparity include women’s roles as primary 

caregivers to children and other dependents, 

underscoring the fact that they were more likely to 

be at home in coastal villages when the tsunami 

struck, and less likely to escape alone: the physical 

strength needed to withstand the force of the water 

was considerable and even more so for those trying 

to keep hold of others (UNDAW 2004:6; Enarson 

1998:162; Fothergill 1998:18). For women who 

did work outside the home, the cruel timing of the 

waves was perhaps the greatest cause of death. In 

southern Indian fishing villages, women 

responsible for preparing and selling the day’s 

catch were waiting on the shore for the return of 

men’s fishing boats and were overtaken by the 

speed and force of the waves as they tried to flee. 

On the east coast of Sri Lanka, the waves arrived 

as women took their Sunday morning bath in the 

sea. Women were less likely than men to employ 

the two skills which proved decisive for survival – 

swimming and climbing trees, as these are 

primarily taught through the undertaking of male 

tasks such as fishing and picking fruit (Oxfam 

2005). 

“UNMASKED AND UNMANLY,” OR A 

DELUGE OF VIOLENCE 

Such a horrific death toll has an obviously 

devastating impact on those left behind. Men who 

have lost wives may experience a degree of role 

uncertainty as they find themselves in unfamiliar 

territory as sole providers and carers for their 

children (Oxfam 2005). Particularly in cases where 

lost livelihoods make such provision difficult, a 

loss of self-esteem may ensue – a sensation of 

being “unmasked and unmanly” (Enarson 2005; 

AIDMI 2004:4,9). This, in turn, has a significant 

impact on surviving women, particularly young 

and adolescent girls. Organisations working in the 

aftermath of the tsunami reported concerns about 

an increase in marriages, particularly of young 

girls to older men as male widowers sought to 

replace lost wives (Oxfam 2005; Fisher 2005:13). 

Reports from the south Indian district of Cuddalore 

reiterate stories of girls being married off to 

extended family and becoming primary carers for 

children whose mothers died in the tsunami; this 

has drastic implications for girls’ education, 

livelihood and reproductive health, as new wives 

may be prevented from spacing pregnancies in an 


78 

effort to rapidly replace those children who were 

lost (Oxfam 2005; Fisher 2005). 

The very physical impact of disaster upon 

women’s bodies is further exemplified by the 

widely reported increase in violence against 

women in the wake of disaster (Fothergill 

1998:17–18; Wilson et al. 1998; Bari 1998:128; 

AIDMI 2004:4–8; UNDAW 2004:8; Gender and 

Disaster Network (GDN) 2006; Fisher 2005; 

Yonder et al. 2004:5; Carballo et al. 2005:401; 

Enarson 2005). Sarah Fisher’s 2005 study of 

violence against Sri Lankan women in the wake of 

the tsunami highlights reports of rape, gang rape, 

molestation and physical abuse of women and girls 

in the storm’s immediate aftermath, particularly in 

relief camps and aid centres. The paramount 

importance of consulting women and recognizing 

their specific needs during the design and set-up of 

camps is made obvious in subsequent accounts of 

abuse and mistreatment: women reported rape and 

violent harassment on their way to and from 

distant toilets and washing facilities as well as 

within the poorly lit facilities themselves. There 

were also cases of men triggering power-cuts in 

women’s sleeping areas before molesting them, 

and of male “humanitarian” workers watching 

women bathe and threatening to bar access to the 

facilities when they complained (Fisher 2005:14- 

15). 

The increased violence in the wake of the 

tsunami is likely to be far greater than reported, in 

part because of documented police sympathies 

with male perpetrators and the blame placed on 

women for inviting the violence by “nagging” 

(Fisher 2005:18). Such “nagging” was no doubt 

the cause for the violent response of the man who 

burned his wife to death following her objection to 

his spending her tsunami compensation money on 

alcohol (Fisher 2005:13). Susanna Hoffman has 

argued for a model of cultural response to disaster, 

suggesting that “in the dawning aftermath victims 

save and aid one another no matter what their 

predisaster differences” (2002:138). For those 

women who are beaten, raped and abused in the 

disaster aftermath, I would suggest that this 

scenario is sadly uncommon. 

The increase in violence against women 

during and after disaster is attributed to, but by no 

means excused by, male stress and psychological 

trauma and a concomitant increase in alcohol 

abuse (Fisher 2005:12). The observation that men 

become increasingly violent as they feel their lives 

deteriorate raises important questions about the 

gendered expression of trauma, and invites greater 

research into men’s embodied experiences of 

disaster. Just as women must be incorporated 

beyond the domestic sphere, so must men have 

stigma-free access to mental health services and be 

worked with to encourage the non-violent

expression of trauma, while recognizing that “men 

cannot easily step out of a stereotyped 

characterization that would regard the seeking of 

help as a display of weakness” (Fordham and 

Ketteridge 1998:93). 

FROM “VULNERABLE VICTIMS” TO 

“AGENTS OF CHANGE” 

As with all social consequences of disaster, 

violence against women doesn’t occur in a vacuum 

but is informed, rather, by social structures that 

exist long before waves begin to swell, winds to 

blow, or fires to burn. Disaster exposes these 

structures to an unprecedented degree and thereby 

presents a unique opportunity for the contestation 

of inequities and the development of “creative 

strategies to overcome the limitations of the near 

uniform domination of men in leadership 

structures” (Oxfam 2005; Enarson 1998:166; 

UNDAW 2004:14). Central to this is the 

replacement of a perception of women as 

“vulnerable victims” (which directly informs their 

exclusion from decision-making), with a respect 

for “their rights as citizens with specific 

perspectives and capacities” (Oxfam 2005). 

Women’s groups and coalitions have made 

decisive inroads in this direction in various disaster 

contexts. Building on the premise that “local 

knowledge is the first element for effective disaster 

reduction” (UNDAW 2004:6), women’s groups 

and coalitions have been galvanised to prove their 

status as “agents of change, actors and contributors 

at all levels” (UNDAW 2004:18; Enarson and 

Morrow 1998c). 

The actions of women have a demonstrable 

impact on the long-term security and social 

construction of a community, yet such optimism 

entails important caveats. Solutions must target the 

structure of gender relations in a community, 

rather than alienating women from the factors that 

determine their circumstances. Research 

demonstrates that women’s domestic work 

virtually always increases in the wake of a disaster 

(Enarson and Morrow 1998b:180; AIDMI 

2004:10; Yonder et al. 2004:2–3; UNDAW 

2004:8). Thus, the greater involvement of women 


WORKS CITED 

must not simply mean the creation of additional 

responsibilities; “in order to fully utilise the 

abilities of women, ways need to be found to free 

them from sole responsibilities for their families in 

times of crisis” (Scanlon 1998:50). It is critical that 

“women survivors and responders […] have a seat 

at the table and their voices […] heard when 

disaster decisions are made, relationships forged, 

and agendas set” (Enarson and Morrow 

1998b:227), and that an awareness of both 

vulnerabilities and capabilities be integrated into 

every decision. This objective is aided by the 

understanding of disaster as a process and not an 

isolated event, and the recognition that every 

experience is shaped and determined by preexisting 

societal structures. 

Social scientists have a role to play through 

the formation of long-term community studies of 

gender relations pre- and post-disaster, including 

analyses of how disaster decisions affect gender 

equity, with the aim of informing future disaster 

relief and mitigation strategy. The Sphere Project 

Humanitarian Charter states that “women and men, 

and girls and boys, have the same entitlement to 

humanitarian assistance; to respect for their human 

dignity; to acknowledgement of their equal human 

capacities, including the capacity to make choices; 

and to the same level of power to shape the 

outcome of their actions” (AIDMI 2004:15). A 

recognition of social justice as “the linchpin of 

effective disaster mitigation” (Enarson and 

Morrow 1998b:226) should constitute the core of 

all approaches to human vulnerability and disaster. 

For women, this means taking a macro approach 

and acknowledging the reality that, “addressing the 

root causes of gendered disaster vulnerability 

means challenging the social forces sustaining 

male privilege” (Enarson and Morrow 1998c:226), 

while at the same time maintaining a solidarity 

with the individual and appreciating that, “the most 

urgent need of all is for those most affected to 

reclaim their sense of place, some degree of 

control and autonomy, and the certain knowledge 

that their views count too in the re-imagining of 

the future” (Enarson 2005). 

All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI) 

2004 Tsunami, Gender, and Recovery. Electronic document, http://southasiadisasters.net, accessed 

May 2, 2006. 

Bari, Farzana 

1998 Gender, Disaster, and Empowerment: A Case Study from Pakistan. In The Gendered Terrain of 

Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Elaine Enarson and Betty H. Morrow, eds. Pp. 125-131. Westport, 

CT: Praeger. 

Carballo, M., M. Hernandez, K. Schneider, and E. Welle 

2005 Impact of the Tsunami on Reproductive Health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 

98(9):400-403. 

79


Enarson, Elaine 

1998 Through Women’s Eyes: A Gendered Research Agenda for Disaster Social Science. Disasters 

22(2):157-173. 

2005 Women and Girls Last? Averting the Second Post-Katrina Disaster. Electronic document, 

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Enarson/, accessed May 2, 2006. 

Enarson, Elaine, and Betty H. Morrow, eds. 

1998 The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Eisenstein, Zillah 

2005 Katrina and Her Gendering of Class and Race. Electronic document, 

http://whrnet.org/docs/issue-katrina.html, accessed May 2, 2006. 

Fisher, Sarah 

2005 Gender Based Violence in Sri Lanka in the After-Math of the 2004 Tsunami Crisis. Electronic 

document, http://www.swisspeace.org/koff/uploads/website/gender/IOs_and_PosttsunamiGBV.pdf, 

accessed May 2, 2006. 

Fordham, Maureen, and Anne-Michelle Ketteridge. 

1998 “Men Must Work and Women Must Weep:” Examining Gender Stereotypes in Disasters. In The 

Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Elaine Enarson and Betty H. Morrow, eds. Pp. 

81-94. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Gender and Disaster Network (GDN) 

2006 Violence Against Women in Disasters Fact Sheet. Electronic document, 

http://www.gdnonline.org/resources/violence-against-women-in-disasters.doc, accessed May 2, 

2006. 

Hoffman, Susanna M. 

2002 The Worst of Times, The Best of Times: Toward a Model of Cultural Response to Disaster. In 

The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective. Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna M. 

Hoffman, eds. Pp. 134-155. New York: Routledge. 

Hoffman, Susanna M., and Anthony Oliver-Smith, eds. 

2002 Introduction: Why Anthropologists Should Study Disasters. In Catastrophe and Culture: The 

Anthropology of Disaster. Pp. 3-22. Santa Fe: SAR Press. 

Oxfam 

2005 The Tsunami’s Impact on Women. Electronic document, 

http://www.disasterwatch.net/disaster%20brief%20links/Oxfam%20gender.doc, accessed May 2, 

2006. 

Scanlon, Joe 

1998 The Perspective of Gender: A Missing Element in Disaster Response. In The Gendered Terrain 

of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes. Elaine Enarson and Betty H. Morrow, eds. Pp. 45-51. Westport, 

CT: Praeger. 

Seager, Joni 

2005 Noticing Gender (or Not) in Disasters. Chicago Tribune, September 14. 

United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (UNDAW) 

2003 Making Risky Environments Safer: Women Building Sustainable and Disaster-Resilient 

Communities. Electronic document, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/w2000-natdisasterse.pdf, 


Wilson, Jennifer, Brenda D. Phillips, and David .M. Neal 

1998 Domestic Violence After Disaster. In The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s 

Eyes. Elaine Enarson and Betty H. Morrow, eds. Pp. 115-122. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Yonder, Ayse, Sengul Akcar, and Prema Gopalan 

2004 Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief and Recovery. Electronic document, 

http://www.disasterwatch.net/Brief/Seeds2005final.pdf, accessed May 2, 2006. 

80


Intersex Genital Mutilation Without Informed Consent 

MICHAEL MALLORY 

Abstract 

Fear, shame and secrecy surrounding issues of genitals and sex have stymied our understanding of 

sexuality and how gender roles are constructed. This miscomprehension has been the impetus for parents 

whose children are born with “ambiguous” genitals to seek reconstructive surgery for them. Not an 

officially recognized gender category, the intersex group has nonetheless asserted their identity and 

initiated a challenge to the unsubstantial research of John Money, which led pediatricians and other health 

care practitioners to support a concealment-centered model of care for intersexed infants. I explore how 

people with intersex conditions and their allies have come together to demand a shift in paradigm in which 

a more appropriate patient-centered model is established to empower intersex children to make their own 

decisions. I also examine how conventional language perpetuates the fear, secrecy and shame attached to 

issues regarding sex and gender, implicating many people in a type of symbolic violence that, as Bourdieu 

explains, is “exercised through cognition and misrecognition, knowledge and sentiment, with the unwitting 

consent of the dominated” (Bourgois 2004:426). 

FEAR, SECRECY, SHAME 

As if looking through a lifting fog, new ideas 

about what it means to be a male or a female in the 

United States are beginning to appear on the 

horizon. The chastity belt of the Victorian era has 

been unfastened, and new paradigms concerning all 

areas of sex and gender are beginning to emerge. 

As a result, new identity categories have 

crystallized, and movements ranging from women 

liberation to gay rights have challenged and helped 

shape our different perspectives. It took fantastic 

courage for the participants of each movement to 

face the fear, secrecy and shame associated with 

challenging the status quo and to come together, 

claim their own power, and begin the shift to a 

more inclusive paradigm. The gay movement 

faced real challenges in the 1980s when the Gay 

Related Immuno-Deficiency (GRID) virus, later 

renamed AIDS, was discovered. As a gay man 

who has HIV, I am acutely aware of the challenges 

of integrating myself into a society that is gripped 

by fear of the unknown, secrecy surrounding 

sexual health and wellbeing, and shame about 

sexual diversity and expression. Rising above the 

tides of popular opinion to claim an identity as 

good and wholesome for oneself is never easy for 

divergent groups of people. The fear of the 

forbidding unknown entraps humans in a past in 

which they hold tightly to old ideas. In writing 

about scientific revolutions, Thomas Kuhn would 

call this in-between time a crisis, and suggest that 



“Transnational Gender Violence.” 

81 

the effects of crisis do not entirely depend 

upon its conscious recognition… All 

crises begin with the blurring of a 

paradigm and the consequent loosening of 

the rules for normal research… And all 

crises close with the emergence of a new 

candidate for paradigm and with the 

subsequent battle over its acceptance 

(1962:84). 

In the last two decades, the group that calls 

itself “Intersex” has appeared in popular discourse. 

Thea Hilman, at the Intersex Public Hearing in San 

Francisco in May 2004, defines intersex 

individuals as “people born with sex anatomy that 

somebody decided isn’t standard for male or 

female.” Some of these conditions include 5-alpha 

Reductase Deficiency, Androgen Insensitivity 

Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, large 

clitorises, micro-penises, hypospadias and over 

sixty others. Organizations such as the Intersex 

Society of North America (ISNA) were created to 

address these issues among groups of people 

dedicated to the proliferation of understanding 

regarding people who have been, or could be, 

threatened by unnecessary surgical intervention to 

“correct” their non-gender conforming genitals. 

Cheryl Chase, director of ISNA, says “we need to 

assert… an intersex identity in order to… protest 

the way that we have been treated” (Kessler 

1998:86). In her essay On Violence, Hannah 

Arendt explains that “power is never the property 

of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains 

in existence only so long as the group keeps 

together” (2004:239). Although the word intersex 

is an inadequate epithet for the population we

speak of (because it indicates that these individuals 

are somehow between maleness and femaleness), it 

nonetheless had to be asserted as an identity in 

order to stand in opposition to the discriminative 

dominant power. 

Rather than simply entering into a dialogue of 

gender dimorphism and a critique of traditional 

concepts of gender role, we must address the rights 

of the intersex child to make his or her own 

decision regarding his or her own bodies and his or 

her own preferred gender identity. It is enough to 

say at this point that an intersex identity is not a 

third, or separate, gender category. People with an 

intersex condition may identify as male, female, 

both or neither. It is important that we set aside 

our misconceptions of what it might mean to be an 

“intersexual” and look instead at how doctors, 

parents, and even – unintentionally – the intersex 

child itself contribute to the fear, secrecy and 

shame that leads to unnecessary surgery before the 

child can offer their informed consent. 

CONCEALMENT-CENTERED VS. PATIENT- 

CENTERED MODELS OF CARE 

Relaying the unfortunate case of the botched 

circumcision that obliterated the boy’s penis, 

Kessler asserts, “physicians, believing that he 

could not develop a normal male gender identity 

without a penis, reassigned the boy to the female 

gender and performed surgery to create female 

genitals” (1998:6). This incident led researcher 

John Money to suggest that gender was a social 

construct that could be assigned through surgical 

intervention. As long as the parents treated the 

child as the assigned gender, then she or he will 

grow up without gender confusion. Later, sex 

researcher Milton Diamond found this child, whom 

Money had claimed “had been lost to follow-up, 

[later] reported that the child never accepted the 

female gender label, never acted like a ‘normal’ 

girl, and at the age of fourteen requested hormones 

and surgery to convert him back to the male 

gender” (Kessler 1998:6). This socialization 

theory soon became the mechanism that 

encouraged doctors and parents to accept what 

intersex activists now call a concealment-centered 

model of intersex treatment. As a consequence, Dr. 

Alice Dreger of Michigan State University has 

created an opposing paradigm called the patientcentered 

model. 

When I was first diagnosed with HIV, a doctor 

spoke only briefly to me and prescribed me some 

medications. When I asked about side effects, he 

simply said he could write a different prescription 

but they all basically did the same thing. His tone 

was authoritative and harsh; I left the doctor’s 


82 

office with a number of medications, including 

azidothymidine, or AZT, an antiretroviral drug 

with potentially severe side effects. A week later, I 

was so sick I couldn’t move. I didn’t know what to 

do, or what was wrong. I went to the clinic and I 

was assigned to a nurse practitioner, Barbara 

Kennedy. She immediately took me off of AZT, 

commenting how often people get sick from this 

drug, spent a little time explaining my options and 

which medications would be appropriate according 

to my lifestyle. She was not afraid to admit that the 

science was very new, and that what they know 

now may be completely different tomorrow. Her 

approach was to empower me to make informed 

decisions for myself. All of a sudden, I realized 

that doctors are not an absolute authority and are 

limited in their own knowledge. Nurse Kennedy’s 

honesty helped me feel more comfortable with my 

circumstances and gave me a better sense of 

control, whereas the doctor who did not even 

introduce himself contributed to the fear, secrecy 

and shame that was much more palpable for me in 

those days of initial discovery. The patientcentered 

model of care proposed by Dr. Dreger is a 

shift towards this type of honesty and openness 

about speaking to patients and their parents. 

Thanks to the efforts of the intersex movement 

now there are tremendous amounts of resources 

and support available. Yet in spite of this everincreasing 

flow of information, doctors do not 

agree with activists, or each other, on what 

constitutes an intersex condition and what course 

of treatment should be applied. In Columbia, for 

instance, it has recently been declared illegal for 

doctors to perform reconstructive surgery without 

informed consent based on several international 

laws and protections. 

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIONS AND 

COVENANTS 

First, do no harm. This cardinal principle of 

medical practice is scattered throughout and 

reinforces the ISNA’s Amicus Brief on Intersex 

Genital Surgery that was written to the Supreme 

Court of Columbia. Cheryl Chase elaborates in 

detail the above precept by exposing the following 

about genital surgery: “there exists no medical 

reason to reduce the size of a large clitoris; surgery 

is irreversible; genital surgery can cause harm; 

there is no significant follow up data; and safer 

alternatives exist” (1998). In addition to this 

evidence, Cheryl Chase also highlights the 

international protections that are already in place to 

protect children, including those born as intersex 

individuals. The first point in the Nuremberg Code, 

which was developed in response to inhumane

medical experimentation on prisoners during Nazi 

Germany, states that “the voluntary consent of the 

human subject is absolutely essential” (1949:181). 

Further elaboration indicates that the subject must 

know the nature and purpose of the experiment. 

One could argue that because there is a protocol of 

treatment for the intersex child, it should not 

technically be considered experimental. However, 

as evidence and testimony confirm, the actual 

outcome is no less trial and error than experiments 

in general, and is based not on scientific fact, but 

on ideological constructs of gender. Therefore, 

regardless of medical advancements, surgeries to 

“normalize” genitals are indeed experimental. 

The American Convention on Human Rights 

(1969) also elicits protections for children with an 

intersex condition. Article 1 states that “‘person’ 

means every human being.” Children are human 

beings. Article 5 states that “every person has the 

right to have his [or her] physical, mental, and 

moral integrity respected.” Article 11 refers to the 

right to privacy. 

LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM AND 

SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE 

There is no doubt in my mind that these laws 

will eventually be realized and these new 

paradigms will become standard practice and 

understanding. However, laws do not necessarily 

change popular opinion or behavior. The word 

intersex conjures up misleading images and makes 

it difficult to employ language without being 

offensive; the same is true with the word 

homosexual, which was coined in the late 19 th 

century to signify a type of psychological 

“disorder.” Words such as invert, sodomite and 

today, faggot, are indicators of fear, secrecy and 

shame on the part of the individuals or institutions 

who feel the need to confer these labels upon 

others. Taken out of the psychiatric diagnostic 

manual in 1974, the word homosexual lost its 

potency and it wasn’t long before the words gay 

and queer became acceptable, yet limited, forms of 

identity, both self-ascribed and imposed. 

Language is not a mere tool that humans have 

at their disposal in order to interact with one 

another and share information regarding the world 

and their place in it. Language is much more 

intimate than that; it is reflexive, malleable and 

powerful. It is, at the same time, a physical and 

psychological process; hence, the words we choose 

and the ways in which we use them illuminate our 

worldviews, but also serve to reproduce our fear, 

secrecy and shame. Edward Sapir says, “the 

complete vocabulary of a language may indeed be 

looked upon as a complex inventory of all the 


83 

ideas, interests, and occupations that take up the 

attention of the community” (1912:228). Linguistic 

relativism is much more than the simple reflection 

of reality. Language and culture shape each other. 

By examining carefully the language in medical 

reports and articles, it is clear that the main concern 

for doctors is the emotional distress of the parents 

and the aesthetics of the genitals – not the future 

sexual wholeness and integrity of the child. 

In addition to what is said, what is left out of 

the conversation is equally as important to our 

analyses. According to Anne Fausto-Sterling, 

“treatment teams were never to use such words as 

‘intersex’ or ‘hermaphrodite:’ instead, they were to 

tell the parents that nature intended the baby to be 

the boy or the girl that the physicians determined it 

was” (2000:20). The most obvious linguistic 

indicators are from the victims of reconstructive 

surgery themselves. Thea Hillman says that “what 

intersex people feel most scarred by is being lied 

to, and being treated as if their bodies are freakish, 

shameful, and something to be fixed and never 

spoken of again” (2004). Silenced. Ignored. 

Hidden. 

This very general understanding of how words 

emulate our emotions (and all too often, our 

negative opinions) concerning topics that are either 

unfamiliar or uncomfortable, leads us to our final 

analysis – that of symbolic violence. We can 

extrapolate Pierre Bourdieu’s potent concept of 

symbolic violence as the type of abuse “exercised 

through cognition and misrecognition, knowledge 

and sentiment, with the unwitting consent of the 

dominated,” to understand how it colors the acts of 

manipulation and violation of the rights of intersex 

children through the fear, secrecy and shame of 

ignorant adults (Bourgois 2004:426). 

Our American belief system convinces the 

common citizen that genitals must equal gender, 

and that one is not recognized as a person unless 

one’s gender is indisputable. My sister-in-law, 

eleven weeks pregnant, said to me, “Next week 

we’ll know if it is a boy or a girl.” It. Impersonal. 

Unidentifiable. Bourdieu says that gender 

domination involves a physical and discursive 

imprisonment within the body, and “imposes upon 

men and women different sets of dispositions with 

regard to social games that are held to be crucial to 

society” (2004:341). We place a lot of value in 

those games of domination, power and control. 

Inept to face our fears, or perhaps unequipped to 

travel through them, we perpetuate our ignorance 

and deny a group of people full and wholesome 

existence. It is in some ways a relief to see these 

paradigms shift and change, but at what cost? 

Genocide?


WORKS CITED 

Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights 

1969 American Convention on Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://www.hrcr.org/docs/American_Convention/oashr.html, accessed May 25, 2005. 


2004 On Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and 

Phillippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 236-243. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Bourdieu, Pierre 

2004 Gender and Symbolic Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy 

Scheper-Hughes and Phillippe Bourgois, eds. Pp.339-342. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant 

2005 Symbolic Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper- 

Hughes and Phillippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 272-274. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Bourgois, Philippe 

2004 The Continuum of Violence in War and Peace: Post-Cold War Lessons from El 

Salvador. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and 

Phillippe Bourgois, eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Chase, Cheryl 

1998 Amicus Brief on Intersex Genital Surgery. Electronic document, 

http://www.isna.org/node/97, accessed May 1, 2005. 

Fausto-Sterling, Anne 

1992 Myths of Gender. New York: Basic Books. 

2000 The Five Sexes, Revisited. The Sciences 40(4):18-23. 

Hillman, Thea 

2004 San Francisco Human Rights Commission. Intersex Public Hearing. Electronic 

Document, www.sfgov.org, accessed May 24, 2005. 

Intersex Society of North America 

1998 ISNA’s Amicus Brief on Intersex Genital Surgery. February 7. Electronic document, 

http://www.isna.org/node/97, accessed May 1, 2005. 

Kessler, Suzanne J. 

1998 Lessons from the Intersexed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Kuhn, Thomas S. 

1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago. 

Nuremberg Code 

1949 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control 

Council Law No. 10. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 

Rosario, Vernon A. 

2001 Homosexuality and Science. A Guide to the Debates. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 

Sapir, Edward 

1912 Language and Environment. American Anthropologist 14(2):226-242. 

84


Dialogues of Disability: 

Reproductive Rights and the ‘Double Handicap’ 

EVA LANGMAN 

Abstract 

Women with disabilities are often said to be encumbered by a “double handicap.” Their sociallyframed 

inferiority as members of the female sex is compounded by physical or mental impairments, the 

delineative features of which are also often socially conceived and imposed. Because they do not conform 

to stereotypes of the socially beautiful body, women with physical disabilities suffer egregious violations of 

their human rights. They are “constrained in their opportunities to nurture and be nurtured, to be loved and 

to love, and to become parents if they so desire.” Through an inquiry into the social construction of the 

body and the prejudice toward the “disabled” form in contemporary culture, we can better appreciate how 

the process of embodiment is manipulated to reflect and reiterate society’s expectations of the individual 

body. In my examination of the popular perceptions of disability in American society, I argue that we must 

look closely at who is classified as “disabled” and who is invested with the power to confer this label on 

others. I also consider the ways in which these formulations are intimately connected to the tropes of 

productivity, competency, and “worth” that govern the construction and reproduction of social and 

individual bodies. 

“DOUBLE HANDICAP” AND THE LIMITS 

OF REPRESENTATION 

This paper is partly an attempt, as an ablebodied 

individual sharing collective space with 

those marked in public discourse as “dis-abled,” to 

come to terms with my own ignorance of the lived 

experiences of these men and women. There have 

been no comprehensive attempts, neither within 

federal policy nor popular culture, to dispel the 

myths surrounding disability. I feel unwillingly 

bound to an abstruse narrative that limits the depth 

of our understanding and our abilities to 

authentically respond to other bodies and others’ 

embodied experiences. Who do we protect, who do 

we claim to respect, when we avert our eyes in 

order not to see, in order not to be held 

responsible? On whose behalf do we maintain our 

awkward ignorance? Who benefits from the myth 

that we are all equal? 

Human Rights Watch postulates that 

approximately 300 million women around the 

world suffer from mental and physical disabilities, 

and are more inclined than men to become 

“disabled” within their lifetime (n.d.). This fact is 

largely the result of pronounced discrimination 

imposed on women worldwide, one symptom of 

which is the unequal “allocation of scarce 

resources and…access to services” that precipitates 

these disparities in lifestyle, and experiences of 

illness and wellbeing (United Nations 2006:2). It is 

This paper was originally presented at the 4 th Annual Human 

Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “The 

Reproductive Rights of Women and the Family.” 

85 

not surprising then, that women with disabilities 

are often said to be encumbered by a “double 

handicap” (Chinery-Hesse 1991:ix). Their sociallyframed 

inferiority as members of the female sex is 

compounded by physical or mental impairments, 

the delineative features of which are also often 

socially conceived and imposed. “Disabled women 

and girls face the same spectrum of human rights 

abuses that non-disabled women face,” according 

to Human Rights Watch, “but their social isolation 

and dependence magnifies these abuses and their 

consequences” (United Nations 2006:2). 

It is therefore vital to identify the multiple 

circuits of connectivity whereby women are doubly 

derogated, and to examine the ideological factors 

and practices that cooperate against them to carve 

out a distinctively gendered discrimination. I argue, 

however, that the trope of the “double handicap” is 

itself problematic, and reinforces dialectically the 

very oppression it seeks to expose in the 

hegemonic social structure. In other words, the use 

of the term “double handicap” in discourse 

perpetuates the image of the handicapped woman 

as irredeemably dependent on society for support 

and personal validation because of this dual onus. 

It implicitly condones her secondary status through 

the naturalization of relationships between the 

disabled and able-bodied members of the 

community. 

I would like to clarify the way in which I use 

the words “impairment,” “disability,” and 

“handicap” in this paper. Because we do not as yet 

possess the collective vocabulary necessary to 

competently refer and respond to the lived

experiences of people with physical and 

developmental disabilities in the U.S., we are 

likewise limited in the ways we conceive of and 

acknowledge their needs and rights as equal 

members of society. Despite certain shortcomings, 

I’ve adopted the definitions used in the United 

Nations’ 1983 document, “World Programme of 

Action Concerning Disabled Persons,” which 

identifies an impairment as “any loss or 

abnormality of psychological, physiological, or 

anatomical structure or function;” a disability as 

“any restriction or lack (resulting from an 

impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the 

manner or within the range considered normal for a 

human being;” and a handicap as “a disadvantage 

for a given individual, resulting from an 

impairment or disability, that limits or prevents the 

fulfillment of a role that is normal, depending on 

age, sex, social and cultural factors, for that 

individual” (UN 1983:I.c. 6-7, italics mine). This 

definition of “handicap” clearly acknowledges the 

likelihood that the main source of a disabled 

person’s incapacity to perform certain tasks or 

achieve a specific degree of faculty may be social, 

and that the experience of disability may largely be 

the reflection of a lack of opportunities, lack of 

accessibility, lack of services, poverty or 

discrimination, which it often is. 

There is a growing forum for women with 

disabilities to voice opinion and fight for the 

acknowledgement and extension of their political 

and human rights. However, many activists still 

adamantly argue that neither the feminist 

movement, which fails to give ample attention to 

the concerns and needs of handicapped women, nor 

the disabled rights movement, which often 

overlooks the very specific social impediments 

women with disabilities face, adequately represent 

the lived experiences of this community (Schur 

2004). We must likewise explore the limitations in 

representation for which any claims to 

“community” is inevitably liable, and strive to 

reveal the differences between the type of woman 

the disabled community purports to be 

representative and the woman whose experience it 

actually embodies in political and social process. 

REFLECTIONS ON “DISABILITY” 

For the purposes of this paper, I focus on the 

experiences of women with physical disabilities 

living in the United States, with conditions that 

exist either from birth or as the result of an 

accident or illness. It is important to note that only 

15% of people living with disabilities are born with 

them, a truth that challenges the predominant 

notion that the disabled population is stable and 


86 

determinate (Siebers 2001:742). In other words, we 

are all only temporarily able-bodied, and 

mainstream culture has a difficult time accepting 

the notion that one day in the ineludible future we 

will all experience disability to some degree, 

whether through the often incapacitating natural 

consequence of growing old, for instance, or as a 

result of injury, illness, or the particularities of our 

position on the socio-economic ladder. 

Furthermore, selfhood and disability is experienced 

differently by women with noticeable physical 

handicaps, on the one hand, who must deal on a 

daily basis with the public’s response to the overt 

visibility of their impairment and on the other hand 

by those who can, however temporarily, conceal or 

disguise it. Therefore, the conspicuousness of the 

handicap inevitably influences the degree to which 

the physical and gendered identity of a person with 

a disability is socially managed or infringed upon. 

Understandings of what constitutes physical 

disability are differentially formulated within the 

channels of an active social praxis that dictates 

citizens’ roles in society at large. An examination 

of the popular perceptions of what designates 

disability in America requires looking closely at 

who is classified as disabled and who is invested 

with the power to confer this label on others. It is 

therefore necessary to inquire, too, into both the 

discursive and the imaginative discrepancies 

between self-ascribed and imposed identification 

with physical impairment to appreciate the 

difficulties faced in “standardizing” disability. 

Paramount to an understanding of the social 

construction of the body is a reflection on the ways 

in which it is portrayed in contemporary popular 

culture, especially in the media and within the 

realm of Western biomedicine. Through such an 

inquiry, we can better appreciate how the process 

of embodiment is manipulated to reflect and 

reiterate society’s expectations of the individual 

body, further complicating the experiences of 

disabled people in America and contributing to 

their circumscribed status as individuals within 

community and citizens of this country. 

What constitutes disability? How is it defined, 

and for whom? There is much controversy 

concerning what characterizes a “real” physical 

handicap. In the increasingly integrated worlds of 

modern technology and biomedicine, impediments 

to the enjoyment and expression of the material 

body that would have been insurmountable less 

than 20 years ago are now much more easily 

overcome and even considered trivial. We must 

therefore also ask, who decides what characteristics 

are essential and optimal for the human body to 

possess, and towards what purposes its potential

must be directed? Would we consider the 

experience of disability of a girl with paraplegia 

equal to that of one whose opportunities to live to 

her full human potential in the world are crippled 

by poverty? Is an elderly man who relies on a cane 

handicapped by his impairment, or a child with a 

hearing aid? How is the lived experience of a 

woman without an arm, for example, different from 

that of a man? And do we see it as a disability to be 

a woman without a womb? 

Here is where a close consideration of the 

discrepancies among definitions of terms such as 

“disability,” “handicap,” and “impairment,” 

becomes crucial. Because officially acknowledged 

designations greatly determine people’s legal and 

practical entitlement to many forms of assistance, 

examining these important distinctions helps us to 

appreciate both the highly complex and contestable 

nature of these labels, and the symbols and scripts 

reproduced within the social nexus within which 

these different identities acquire validity. 

Disability studies has embraced much of the 

work done within the women’s and LGBTQ 

movements to destabilize dominant notions of the 

normative body; the theories born from the work of 

the last few decades have provided “a powerful 

alternative to the medical model of 

disability…which situates disability exclusively in 

individual bodies and strives to cure them” (Siebers 

2001:738). The theoretical framework of social 

constructionism allows us to perceive the 

experience of disability as contingent on an 

ideological model that creates an environment that 

rejects some bodies and accepts others. As a 

practice, social constructionism insists priority be 

given to research geared towards “advances in 

social justice rather than medicine” (Siebers 

2001:738). 

THE SCRIPT OF THE SOCIAL BODY, OR 

THE REPRODUCTION OF A MYTH 

If we look at the construction of “stigma” 

around physical disability and disabling illness, and 

the social “othering” of those individuals 

implicated within this framework that is its 

invidious consequence, we see that “stigmatization 

is embedded in the daily interactions” (Gerschick 

2000:1264) between able-bodied and disabled 

individuals. The common assumptions regarding 

physical disability in the United States are 

intimately connected to the conception and 

deployment of the State-implemented tropes of 

productivity, competency, and “worth” that govern 

the construction and reproduction of social and 

individual bodies. Within this discourse, some 

bodies are marked as defective and peripheral, 


87 

while others come to symbolize the desired 

confluence of fitness, faculty, and beauty. “More 

often than not, these theories [of appropriate 

bodies] are driven by ethical concerns rather than 

the desire to represent what happens to bodies in 

the world. They are part of a rhetoric that exists 

less to explain how the body works than to make 

claims about how it ‘ought’ to work in the society 

we all apparently desire” (Siebers 2001:749). 

These social scripts are also gendered. 

Because the body is key to one’s acceptance as an 

“appropriately gendered being” (Gerschick 

2000:1264), the bodies of individuals with physical 

disabilities make them vulnerable to being denied 

this recognition as “normal” women and men. 

Much is at stake in this process, as one’s 

impression of self and sense of meaning depends 

critically on others’ acceptance or rejection of 

one’s performance of gender. In the contemporary 

United States, to be perceived as physically 

attractive is to be socially and sexually desirable. 

Because they do not conform to stereotypes of the 

socially beautiful body, women with physical 

disabilities are “constrained in their opportunities 

to nurture and be nurtured, to be loved and to love, 

and to become parents if they so desire” (Gerschick 

2000:1266). 

They are likewise disqualified from the 

physically-enacted and figuratively conceived 

social rhetoric that emphasizes a distinct type of 

competence and civic contribution; disabled 

women are assumed to be incapable of full 

participation in the realm of “heterosexuality, 

work, and motherhood” (DePauw 1996:21) by 

which “normal” functioning in society is defined. 

They are labeled as “outcasts,” unable to adopt the 

“natural” role of mother and wife and the 

responsibilities that are so essential to the carefully 

honed image of the righteous female citizen and 

her reproductive “duties” to the nation. Disabled 

women thus become the invisible minority of 

“others,” “incomplete people” inherently deficient 

in their capacity as mother, daughter, woman. 

Women with physical disabilities are often 

perceived as asexual by the able-bodied majority, 

an imposed assertion that denies them agency 

within their own bodies and reinforces the 

repression of their rightful sexuality. Some of the 

most egregious violations inflicted upon women 

with disabilities by social institutions include the 

blatant exploitation of their sexual and 

reproductive rights (Boylan 1991). This includes 

the denial of relevant reproductive health 

information and access to resources, a basic right 

outlined in the Equalization of Opportunities for 

Persons with Disabilities segment of the Beijing

Declaration and Platform for Action of 1995. This 

treaty, presented and ratified at the Fourth World 

Conference on Women, became an important 

program for women’s empowerment as it sought to 

reaffirm the principles outlined in the 1948 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights with an 

emphasis on the universal recognition of the 

specific rights of the world’s women and girls. 

Physically disabled women in the United 

States also suffer from systematic infringements on 

their right to marry and to establish a family, which 

is in direct violation of the fundamental tenets of 

life as affirmed in the 1948 Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights and the International Covenant 

on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. The Program 

of Action of the International Conference on 

Population and Development states that “persons 

with disabilities must not be denied the opportunity 

to experience parenthood” (1994:Rule 9.2), though 

there is ample documentation that such inalienable 

rights are systematically violated. Disabled women 

and girls are subject to forced sterilization; forced 

abortion due to discriminatory attitudes about their 

parenting abilities; denial of information on 

reproductive health and contraception; and forced 

abdication of the custody of their children (United 

Nations 2006). 

In reality, “few disabilities are hereditary” 

(Boylan 1991:57), and the injunctions made to 

physically disabled women to estrange them from 

the embodied knowledge of reproduction and the 

experience of mothering, as well as the 

aforementioned acts of coercion perpetrated against 

them in modern medical practice, reflect much 

more the myths and fears society holds towards the 

disabled body than the affirmation of any 

legitimate reality. It is the stigma attached to being 

disabled that creates the incapacity, rather than the 

physical “flaws” of the individual human body! 

Physically disabled women are also the 

frequent victims of high rates of domestic abuse 

and other forms of intimate violence at the hands of 

both relatives and non-kin caregivers. 

Contemporary justice systems fail to adequately 

integrate an ethical awareness of disability, making 

it difficult for women to legally confirm and 

authenticate abuses of their human rights (United 

Nations 2006). Surveys conducted in Europe, 

North America, and Australia affirm that over half 


WORKS CITED 

of disabled women have experienced physical 

abuse, compared to one-third of non-disabled 

women (United Nations 2006). In addition, women 

with disabilities are poorly accommodated and 

inadequately supported in the labor market, 

receiving significantly lower wages than disabled 

men and confronting much higher levels of 

harassment, both sexual and on the basis of their 

disability (United Nations 2006). According to the 

United Nations, only one quarter of women with 

physical disabilities worldwide are in the 

workforce, and they are twice as unlikely to find 

work as physically disabled men. In the United 

States, disabled men earned 55 percent more than 

disabled women in 1994-5 (United Nations 2006). 

Social and cultural codes of behavior always 

augment and help shape the physical dimensions of 

disability, and the relationship of the disabled 

person to the social body. “Societies regularly 

reproduce and socialize the kind of bodies that they 

need” (Scheper- Hughes and Lock 1987: 217), 

while those that do not conform to the ideals of the 

body politic are routinely marginalized and 

devalued. We can say, therefore, that there is no 

conception of disability that is purely biological. 

Indeed, “her inferior status in society is often more 

debilitating for a disabled woman than the 

disability itself” (Boylan 1991:1). 

As I have attempted to show in this analysis, 

cultural and political notions of health and illness 

infuse the imagery of the body and its identity in 

collective space, and play a significant role in 

structuring and legitimizing legal and social 

definitions of disability. As stated in the 2006 Draft 

Convention on the Rights of Persons With 

Disabilities, we must recognize that “disability is 

an evolving concept,” and that the experience of 

impairment or infirmity “results from the 

interaction between persons with impairments and 

attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders 

their full and active participation in society on an 

equal basis with others” (preamble:c). An 

acknowledgement of these dimensions is an 

important part in the process of understanding the 

construction of “disabled” identity and moving 

towards an authentic acknowledgement of the 

rights of physically impaired women whose biggest 

impediment is negotiating identity in a society 

hostile to the “other.” 

Asch, Adrienne, and Michelle Fine, eds. 

1987 Introduction: Beyond Pedestals. In Women With Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and 

Politics. Pp. 1-37. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

88


1988 Shared Dreams: A Left Perspective on Disability Rights and Reproductive Rights. In Women 

With Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. Pp. 297-305. Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press. 

Begum, Nasa 

1992 Disabled Women and the Feminist Agenda. Feminist Review 40:70-84. 

Blackwell-Stratton, Marian, Mary Lou Breslin, Arlene Brynne Mayerson, and Susan Bailey 

1988 Smashing Icons: Disabled Women and the Disability and Women’s Movements. In Women 

With Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. Adrienne Asch and Michelle Fine, eds. 

Pp. 306-332. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Center for Reproductive Rights 

2002 Reproductive Rights and Women With Disabilities. Electronic document, 

www.reproductiverights.org, accessed February 15, 2007. 

Corbett, Katherine, Susan Shurberg Klein, and Jennifer Luna Bregante 

1987 The Role of Sexuality and Sex Equity in the Education of Disabled Women. Peabody Journal of 

Education 64(4):198-212. 

Csordas, Thomas J. 

1990 Embodiment as a Paradigm for Anthropology. Ethos 18(1):5-47. 

1993 Somatic Modes of Attention. Cultural Anthropology 8(2):135-156. 

Davis, Barbara Hillyer 

1984 Women, Disability, and Feminism: Notes Toward a New Theory. Frontiers: A Journal of 

Women’s Studies 8(1):1-5. 

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie 

2003 Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. Smith 

and Beth Hutchison, eds. Pp. 73-103. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

Gerschick, Thomas J. 

2000 Toward a Theory of Disability and Gender. Signs 25(4):1263-1268. 

Human Rights Watch 

Nd Women and Girls With Disabilities. Electronic document, http://hrw.org/women/disabled.html, 

accessed February 22, 2007. 

Lindgren, Kristen 

2004 Bodies in Trouble: Identity, Embodiment, and Disability. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. 

Smith and Beth Hutchison, eds. Pp. 145-165. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

McNeil, Melissa J., and Thilo Kroll 

2004 Women and Emerging Disabilites. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. Smith and Beth 

Hutchison, eds. Pp. 286-293. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

O’Toole, Corbett Joan 

2004 The Sexist Inheritance of the Disability Movement. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. Smith 

and Beth Hutchison, eds. Pp. 294-300. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Margaret M. Lock 

1989 The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology. Medical 

Anthropology Quarterly 1(1):6-41. 

Schur, Lisa 

2004 Is There Still a “Double Handicap?”: Economic, Social, and Political Disparities Experienced by 

Women with Disabilities. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. Smith and Beth Hutchison, eds. Pp. 

253-271. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 

Siebers, Tobin 

2001 Disability in Theory: From Social Constructionism to the New Realism of the Body. American 

Literary History 13(4):737-754. 

Smith, Bonnie G. 

2004 Introduction. In Gendering Disability. Bonnie G. Smith and Beth Hutchison, eds. Pp. 1-8. New 

Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 


1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

1979 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 

1995 Beijing Declaration: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace. 

2006 Draft Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. 

Wendell, Susan 

1996 The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. London: Routledge. 

89


Abstaining from Education: 

The Danger of Abstinence-Only Programs in Public Schools 

ANDREA FITZPATRICK 

Abstract 

The federal funding of abstinence-only education in U.S. public schools is harmful to youth. These 

programs actively endanger the health of young people by withholding important medical information 

regarding contraception. In addition to the health risks, these programs steal dignity from teens that fall 

outside the prescribed doctrine of the program, reproducing intolerance and violence against those who 

identify as other than heterosexual. Abstinence-only education is a violation of our constitutional right to 

freedom of speech, as well as numerous articles that comprise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

and UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the Child. My argument is informed by the above documents, 

along with Gail Rubin’s theory of the charmed circle, Foucault’s right to life, and statistics from the 

Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) and The Alan Guttmacher Institute. 

INTRODUCTION 

In the face of some of the more blatant and 

visibly violent forms of human rights violations 

that plague the world today – such as war 

atrocities, genocide, child labor and sexual 

violence – sex education in the United States may 

appear to be, in comparison, a trivial concern. I 

suggest, however, that despite the initial urge to 

brush aside what may appear to be a “lesser” 

human rights violation, it is important to explore all 

human rights violations systematically and 

thoroughly. If sex education appears to be a minor 

matter at first glance, it is only because the 

connection between the lack of sex education in 

schools and its devastating results in the practical 

sphere is not as nakedly obvious. 

All human rights are equally important to 

uphold, and all violations of human rights have 

traumatic consequences on the lives and wellbeing 

of individuals and communities. It is from this 

perspective that I address the issue of federally 

funded abstinence-only sex education in United 

States public schools, and argue that such programs 

perpetuate a continuing, and in some instances 

deadly, mode of structural violence, defined by 

Phillipe Bourgois as "chronic, historically 

entrenched political-economic oppression and 

social inequality" (2004:426) among school-aged 

youth. This structural violence comes in the form 

of an institutionalized heterosexism that elevates 

heterosexual marriage as the only socially 

acceptable mode of sexuality. In the process of 

elevating heterosexual marriage above other 

relationships, this “educational” program steals the 


Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “The Rights 

of Women and Children.” 

90 

dignity and denies the rights of sexually active 

teens, persons who do not desire marriage, and 

persons who identify as other than heterosexual. In 

addition, the withholding of medically accurate 

information regarding the availability and 

effectiveness of contraceptives decreases the 

likelihood of contraception use and increases the 

probability of teen pregnancy and/or contraction of 

sexually transmitted diseases (Alan Guttmacher 

Institute 2004b; SIECUS 2005b; ACLU 2004). 

Taken as a whole, abstinence-only education 

represents a violation of our constitutional freedom 

of speech and is at odds with numerous articles of 

the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

and UNICEF’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of 

the Child (CRC), the latter signed but not yet 

ratified by the United States. 

A brief look at the federal government 

requirements toward abstinence-only education 

programs reveals the numerous violations inherent 

in them. Although various federal statutes bar the 

federal government from dictating the specific 

content of sexuality education in schools, the 

federal government does make certain funds 

available to schools that adhere to abstinence-only 

educational programs that they do not make 

available to schools with other agendas (SIECUS 

2005b:115-116). By creating a condition of 

abstinence-only education in exchange for federal 

funds, the government in effect does dictate the 

content of sex education programs; however, it 

achieves this through a means of economic 

stronghold rather than direct force. In addition, the 

federal government clearly defines exactly what 

the definition of “abstinence education” entails:

an educational or motivational program 

which – (A) has as its exclusive purpose, 

teaching the social, psychological, and 

health gains to be realized by abstaining 

from sexual activity; (B) teaches 

abstinence from sexual activity outside 

marriage as the expected standard for all 

school age children; (C) teaches that 

abstinence from sexual activity is the only 

certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock 

pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, 

and other associated health problems; (D) 

teaches that a mutually faithful 

monogamous relationship in context of 

marriage is the expected standard of 

human sexual activity; (E) teaches that 

sexual activity outside of the context of 

marriage is likely to have harmful 

psychological and physical effects; (F) 

teaches that bearing children out-ofwedlock 

is likely to have harmful 

consequences for the child, the child's 

parents, and society; (G) teaches young 

people how to reject sexual advances and 

how alcohol and drug use increases 

vulnerability to sexual advances; and (H) 

teaches the importance of attaining selfsufficiency 

before engaging in sexual 

activity (U.S. Social Security Act §510b). 

While federal support of abstinence-only 

education programs can be traced back to 1982, the 

major expansion of these programs took place in 

1996, when a $50 million a year mandate to fund 

abstinence-only programs was attached to a 

national welfare reform law. It was at this stage 

that the eight-point definition quoted above was 

adopted (Advocates for Youth 2007:1). 

There are three main programs through which 

federal funding for abstinence-only programs are 

made available. These include the Adolescent 

Family Life Act, or AFLA, the Title V Welfare 

Reform Act and the Community-Based Abstinence 

Education program, or CBAE. In 2005, these 

three programs disbursed a combined total of 

$163,000,000 to support abstinence-only 

educational programs (SIECUS 2005a:1-2). In 

order to receive this money, federal funding 

requirements based on the aforementioned 

programs demand that the funded schools’ sex 

education programs adhere to strict guidelines. 

Among other things, schools may not speak about 

contraception (unless pointing out failure rates) and 

must equate abstinence before marriage with 

“being honorable and having integrity, having 

fewer psychological disorders…[and] committing 


91 

fewer crimes and staying out of prison,” despite the 

fact that these claims have no scientific backing 

whatsoever (SIECUS 2005d:1-4). 

ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS AS A 

VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 

“More than 9 in 10 teachers believe that 

students should be taught about contraception, but 

1 in 4 are prohibited from doing so” (Alan 

Guttmacher Institute 2004a:3). In addition, over 

90% of polled parents desire that birth control be 

taught in schools (SIECUS 2005b:118). This is a 

clear violation of the United States Constitution’s 

promise of freedom of speech. Furthermore, while 

a discussion of the religious implications of 

abstinence education are too extensive to include in 

this paper, it would be remiss not to mention that 

abstinence education can be construed as existing 

in direct conflict with the Constitution's guarantee 

of a separation between church and state (ACLU 

2004; Association of Reproductive Health 

Professionals 2003; Public Broadcasting Service 

2005; United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Government Reform 2004). 

In addition to violations of constitutional 

rights, this directive to withhold potentially life 

saving information and discourage youth from 

seeking this information is in specific violation of 

Articles 3, 19 and 26 of the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights, which state that everyone has the 

right to “security of person,” the right to “seek, 

receive and impart information,” the right to 

“education…directed to the full development of the 

human personality and to the strengthening of 

respect for human rights and fundamental 

freedoms” and that parents have a “right to choose 

the kind of education that shall be given to their 

children” (UN 1948). Also in violation are Articles 

3, 6 and 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child, which state that “in all actions concerning 

children, whether undertaken by public or private 

social welfare…the best interests of the child shall 

be a primary consideration,” that “States Parties 

shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the 

survival and development of the child,” and 

guarantees that “the child shall have the right…to 

seek, receive and impart information and ideas of 

all kinds” (UNICEF 1989). 

It is worthwhile to note here that Section 2b of 

Article 13 of the CRC clarifies that “the exercise of 

this right may be subject to certain 

restrictions…[such as]…for the protection of 

national security or of public order…or of public 

health or morals” (1989). While I concede that 

arguments could be made that sexuality education 

which does not stress abstinence may be

objectionable to the morals of certain individuals 

who, for example, disagree with the propriety of 

sex outside of marriage, I argue that since the CRC 

is a document adopted and ratified by nations, 

rather than individuals, the reference to “morals” 

here can only apply to the morals of the nation. 

The “morals” of a nation may, admittedly, be an 

ambiguous concept; however, certain national 

foundational documents, such as the United States 

Constitution, can be utilized to evaluate the 

“morals” of a nation. If this is the case, than the 

primary moral at stake in this debate is the right to 

freedom of speech, which, as stated earlier, is 

violated by abstinence-only programs. In addition, 

abstinence-only education does indeed pose a 

threat to public health. 

According to research conducted by The Alan 

Guttmacher Institute, the United States’ teenage 

pregnancy rates are more than 70 in 1,000; this is 

“one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the 

developed world – twice that of England, Wales, or 

Canada and nine times as high as rates in the 

Netherlands and Japan” (Alan Guttmacher Institute 

2004a:1; 2004b:3). In addition, the abortion rate of 

U.S. teens remains one of the highest among 

developed countries (about 29 per 1,000), and U.S. 

teenagers also suffer from STDs at a rate of about 4 

million new infections per year – this, again, is far 

higher than the majority of developed countries. 

Cross-national studies conducted by The Alan 

Guttmacher Institute have conclusively shown that 

“countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, 

childbearing and STDs are characterized by 

societal acceptance of adolescent sexual 

relationships, combined with comprehensive and 

balanced information about sexuality and clear 

expectations about commitment and prevention of 

pregnancy and STDs within these relationships” 

(2004b:3). For the United States government to 

pursue a sexual health educational program clearly 

at odds with promoting the health of teens is not 

only irresponsible, but amounts to a blatant act of 

active violence against youth. 

Spuriously claiming that abstinence before 

marriage guarantees psychological wellbeing and 

individual integrity, and insisting that “the term 

‘marriage’…be defined as ‘only a legal union 

between one man and one woman as a husband and 

wife’” (SIECUS 2005a:1) is, again, an act of 

federal violation of the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights and the CRC. In addition to 

violating the articles already mentioned, it 

encroaches on the rights set forth in Articles 1, 2, 

12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights, which protect equality in “dignity and 

rights,” “freedoms…without distinction of any 


92 

kind” (of which sexual preference would most 

certainly fall), freedom from “attacks upon [a 

person’s] honour and reputation” and “the right to 

marry” (United Nations 1998:2-3). Abstinenceonly 

education is also in violation of Article 19 of 

the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which 

demands that “States Parties…protect the child 

from all forms of physical or mental violence” 

(UNICEF 1989:5). The policies of abstinence-only 

education clearly inflict both mental violence 

against non-heterosexuals and encourage actual 

physical violence against non-heterosexuals 

through instructed intolerance. 

The difficulties facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) youth today are 

real and staggering: “over twice as many lesbian, 

gay, and bisexual students…report being 

threatened or injured with a weapon at their public 

high school than heterosexual students” and 

“attempted suicide rates are over four times 

higher…than [among] all other students” (SIECUS 

2005d:1). Coupled with physical violence is the 

overwhelming mental and emotional violence 

directed toward these youths; “92% of lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, and transgender students in middle and 

high school report that they frequently hear… 

homophobic remarks… Almost one in five of these 

students heard homophobic remarks from faculty 

or staff at their school” (SIECUS 2005c:1). A high 

school student in the United States can expect to 

hear a gay slur more than twenty-five times a day 

(Carter 1997:1). Abstinence-only programs not 

only tolerate psychological and emotional abuse 

aimed toward non-heterosexual students, but are 

themselves often the perpetrators of this abuse; as 

evidenced by the curriculum of CLUE (Creating 

Love and Uplifting Esteem), a popular abstinenceonly 

program used widely in public schools 

throughout the Chicago area which states, in part, 

that “among Kinsey’s most outrageous and 

damaging claims are the beliefs that pedophilia, 

homosexuality, incest, and adult-child sex are 

normal” (SIECUS 2005c:2). 

THE CHARMED CIRCLE 

In addition to exposing the numerous human 

rights violations inherent in the federal funding of 

abstinence-only programs in U.S. public schools, 

and the potentially devastating consequences these 

curricula have on the lives of youth, it is important 

to understand the meanings behind such policies 

and the characteristics of the larger structure of 

which it is a symptom. In an effort to understand 

the structural violence intrinsic to heterosexism, I 

turn to anthropologist Gail Rubin’s theory of the 

charmed circle (1993:19-22). As Rubin eloquently

states, “like gender, sexuality is political. It is 

organized into systems of power, which reward and 

encourage some individuals and activities, while 

punishing and suppressing others” (1993:34). 

Rubin has envisioned a charmed circle at the center 

of which lies a “good, normal, natural, blessed 

sexuality” (1993:13). This sexuality is envisioned 

as “belonging” to a “heterosexual, married, 

monogamous, procreative, non-commercial” paired 

couple of the same generation that has sex in 

private using only their own bodies, and does not 

engage in or appreciate pornography (Rubin 

1993:13). The more of these aspects that are 

missing from a sexual relationship, the farther from 

the “charmed” and sanctioned center that sexuality 

falls. This means that not only will a very small 

minority ever reach this honored sexual realm, but 

that most realistic sexual relationships are relegated 

to the outer layers of the coded system. For 

example, a monogamous homosexual couple will 

be closer to the center of the circle than a nonmonogamous 

homosexual couple (see Fig. 1). 

Figure 1. 

This sexual stratification is not only 

emphasized by abstinence-only programs in public 

schools, but is actually constructed and supported 

by them. Moreover, acceptance of such prejudiced 

orientations reproduces and encourages a 

structured circle of violence, in which the 

acceptable level of violence aimed toward a 

particular “type” of body depends on how far away 

that body lies from the center of the charmed circle 

of sexuality. This violence is generated not only 


93 

through indoctrination of youth against those that 

inhabit the “outer limits” of sexuality, but thrives 

also on the purposeful exposure of teens to 

potentially devastating health risks through 

insufficient information and access to 

contraceptives. 

French philosopher Michel Foucault speaks 

about the notion of the right to life as the 

prerogative of those who are in power to either 

“foster life or disallow it to the point of death” 

(Foucault 2005:80, original emphasis). According 

to Foucault, in modern society “biological 

existence is reflected in political existence;” that is, 

the fact of living is no longer a random possibility 

subjected to the whims of biological nature, but is 

far more capable of being controlled and 

manipulated by state institutions such as the 

medical and welfare establishments. This has 

given rise to a “normalizing…technology of power 

centered on life,” or bio-power (Foucault 2005:82). 

From the standpoint of bio-power, we can 

clearly see that while abstinence-only programs 

foster “life” primarily for teens who fall within the 

“normalized” realm of sexually appropriate 

practices, these same programs work to actively 

disallow life from those who exhibit what has been 

deemed by the government as “undesirable” 

sexuality. This bio-political exercise of power over 

life is exhibited in the frank unwillingness of the 

government to protect teens from sexual health 

risks such as STDs, unwanted pregnancy and 

traumatic abortion procedures. The distance from 

the center of the charmed circle a young person’s 

sexual preferences may lie is directly proportional 

to the likelihood that they will be systemically 

“disallowed” life. For example, the more sexually 

promiscuous a teen is, the more likely that teen is 

to be exposed to STDs, especially if that teen is 

unaware of contraceptive options. If adolescents 

happen to engage in homosexual activity, the 

health risks are even higher: between 2001-2004, 

estimated cases of HIV transmission in the United 

States were reported at a rate of 16,625 for maleto-male 

sexual contact versus 5,095 for 

heterosexual contact (Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 2005:10). 

Despite the overwhelming evidence for a 

social structure geared toward punishing teens who 

fall outside of the center of the charmed circle, 

there is plenty of room for a concerted movement 

toward social acceptance of sexual diversity and 

freedom. Although the federal government 

provides funding only for abstinence education, 

decisions regarding implementation of sex 

education programs are ultimately preformed at the 

local level (SIECUS 2005e). Change must occur

on a school-by-school basis, through direct parent 

and community involvement, in order for a larger 


WORKS CITED 

action against abstinence-only education to garner 

success and support. 

Advocates For Youth 

2007 Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs. Electronic document, 

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abstinenceonly/index.htm, accessed March 25, 2006. 

Alan Guttmacher Institute 

2004a Facts in Brief: Sexuality Education. Electronic document, 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html, accessed March 25, 2006. 

2004b Teenagers’ Sexual and Reproductive Health: Developed Countries. Electronic document, 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html, accessed March 25, 2006. 

American Civil Liberties Union 

2004 Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education Censors Vital Health Care Information, Jeopardizing 

Teenagers’ Health. Electronic document, 

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12670res20041201.html, accessed December 31, 2006. 

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals 

2003 Why We Should “Just Say No” To Exclusive Abstinence-Only Funding. Contraception 68(4). 

Electronic document, http://www.arhp.org/editorials/ october2003.cfm, accessed December 31, 2006. 

Bourgois, Phillipe 

2004 The Continuum of Violence in War and Peace: Post-Cold War Lessons from El Salvador. In 

Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Phillipe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 

425-434. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Carter, Kellye 

1997 Gay Slurs Abound. The Des Moines Register, March 7:A1. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

2005 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Vol. 16. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 


2004 Right of Death and Power Over Life. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy 

Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 79-82. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Public Broadcasting Service 

2004 Abstinence-Only Sex Education. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, February 4. Electronic 

document, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week823/feature.html, accessed December 31, 

2006. 

Rubin, Gail S. 

1993 Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In The Lesbian and Gay 

Studies Reader, Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin, eds. Pp 3-44. New 

York, NY: Routledge. 

SIECUS 

2005a A Brief Explanation of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding. Electronic document, 

http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/2004/Explanation.pdf#search='Title%20Vfederal%20fundingabsti 

nence', accessed April 23, 2006. 

2005b Issues and Answers: Fact Sheet on Sexuality Education. In Readings in Contemporary Sexuality, 

2 nd edition, John P. Elia, Albert J Angelo, and Ivy Chen, eds. Pp 109-121. Dubuque, Iowa: 

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. 

2005c SIECUS Public Policy Office Fact Sheet: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning 

(LGBTQ) Youth. Electronic document, http://www.siecus.org/policy/LGBTQ_FS.pdf, accessed 

March 25, 2006 

2005d SIECUS Special Report: A Revamped Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program Goes 

Extreme. Electronic document, http://www.siecus.org/pubs/cbaereport.html, accessed March 25, 

2006. 

94


2005e Sexuality Education Policy: Who Makes Decisions? Electronic document, 

http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Education_Policy.html, 

accessed March 25, 2006. 

UNICEF 

1990 Conventions on the Rights of the Child. Electronic document, 

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf, accessed February 12, 2006. 


1998 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, accessed February 6, 2006. 

United States House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform 

2004 The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Programs. Electronic document, 

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/ 20041201102153-50247.pdf, accessed 

December 31, 2006. 

95


Rights for the Rest of Us: 

Demanding International Human Rights for Sexual Minorities 

GREGORY T. HUNT 

Abstract 

In this paper, I argue that the 2008 United Nations Commission on Human Rights must draft a 

convention that specifically addresses violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender 

identity, in order to validate and protect the basic human rights of LGBTQI people across the globe. I 

discuss the shortcomings of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other United Nations 

agreements as they pertain to the protection of gay, lesbian, and transgender people, and highlight examples 

of oppression and abuses directed at these sexual minorities globally. I support my argument by citing 

global human rights violations against LGBTQI people and offer analyses of cross-cultural definitions of 

sexual and gender constructions. I conclude with a discussion of the ways in which the convention I 

propose the UN adopt would help to secure the rights of sexual minorities and work to eliminate the many 

forms of violence they face daily. 

INTRODUCTION 

It is of utmost importance to encourage and 

support agencies such as Amnesty International to 

call upon the United Nations Commission on 

Human Rights to develop and enforce global 

human rights declarations of protection for sexual 

minorities. This includes the adoption of a 

resolution to affirm the universality of human 

rights and condemn the violations against 

individuals based on their sexual orientation or 

gender identity. The UN Commission should also 

call on states to promote and protect these rights on 

a national level (Human Rights Watch 2003). 

Individuals are often victims of human rights 

abuses in countries throughout the world based on 

their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is 

important to clarify some of the definitions of 

terms I use here and to whom they are applied. 

For the purposes of this paper, the term sexual 

minority refers to people who both identify as, or 

are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, queer, or intersexed (LGBTQI). 

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, 

romantic, or sexual attraction to another person 

that exists along a continuum that ranges from 

exclusive homosexuality (attraction to the same 

sex) to exclusive heterosexuality (attraction to the 

opposite sex) and includes bisexuality (attraction 

to both same and opposite sexes) (Human Rights 

Education Associates 2003). Gender identity 

refers to the psychological sense of being male or 

female and whether or not an individual feels they 

fit traditional social gender roles, including an 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “Gendered 

Violence and Sexual Rights.” 

96 

adherence to cultural norms of feminine and 

masculine behaviors (HREA 2003). 

“INDECENT BEHAVIOR” AND THE 

USURPATION OF RIGHTS 

In approximately one hundred countries, 

sexual relations between persons of the same sex 

remain illegal (HRW 2003). In other countries, 

vaguely worded laws against “indecent behavior” 

are used to penalize and persecute individuals 

whose only crime is looking, dressing or behaving 

differently from strictly enforced social norms. In 

many countries, people detained in police custody 

are beaten, tortured and otherwise abused as the 

result of their real or perceived sexual orientation 

or gender identity. Many sexual minorities face 

violence in their communities or from members of 

their own family. Unfortunately, many government 

officials and policies refuse or otherwise fail to 

protect these people, as they are driven by 

discrimination and prejudice (HRW 2003). 

A call for the UN Commission on Human 

Rights to adopt a resolution protecting the human 

rights of sexual minorities is not a request for any 

special or additional rights. This is simply a 

demand for the observance and protection of the 

same rights as those allowed to heterosexual 

persons. In many countries around the world, 

including the United States, sexual minorities are 

denied basic civil, political and economic rights 

that were expressed in global human rights efforts 

including the United Nations’ 1948 Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 of the 

declaration states that everyone is entitled to all of 

the rights and freedoms set forth in the document 

“without distinction of any kind, such as race, 

colour, sex, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or 

other status” (Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights 1948, italics mine). 

Studies conducted by human rights 

organizations such as Amnesty International have 

revealed that UN member states that have 

supported human rights declarations have 

“provided an important framework for combating 

violations against ethnic minorities and women, yet 

there was not recognition in the international 

community that gays and lesbians require and 

deserve similar protections” (Wetzel 2001:16). The 

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (ICCPR) states that everyone has the right 

to life; the right not to be subjected to cruel, 

inhumane or degrading treatment; the right to 

liberty and security of the person; the right to 

privacy; the right to freedom of thought, 

conscience and religion; the right to hold opinions; 

the right to peaceful assembly; freedom of 

association; the right to marry; and equality and 

equal protection under the law (Graupner 2005:11). 

The 1966 International Covenant on Economic, 

Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) highlights 

the need to protect the right to work; the right to 

social security; the right to an adequate standard of 

living; the right to the highest attainable standard 

of physical and mental health; and the right to 

education for all individuals (Graupner 2005:11). 

Human rights commissions such as the ICCPR 

and ICESCR mentioned above, as well as the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and 

the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), have 

previously addressed violations of rights that are 

enshrined within international declarations and 

have called on governments to promote and protect 

the rights of everyone without discrimination on 

the grounds of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, 

during prior years’ United Nations Commissions 

and UN World Conferences, governments have 

resisted any recognition of these rights violations 

and have deleted any proposed reference to sexual 

orientation from Commission resolutions and 

human rights instruments adopted at world 

conferences (Amnesty International 2003). 

STEPPING STONES TO SEXUAL FREEDOM 

In 1994, in a landmark decision regarding the 

case of Toonen vs. Australia, the UN Human 

Rights Committee declared that sexual orientation 

must be understood as a status protected under 

Article 2, the enjoyment of rights without 

discrimination; Article 17, the right to privacy; and 

Article 26, the right to equality before, and equal 

protection under the law, as provided within the 


97 

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights (Grauper 2005:12). Nicolas Toonen was a 

gay man who argued that the Tasmanian Criminal 

Code, under which consenting sexual contact 

between adult men in private was illegal, violated 

the ICCPR (Grauper 2005:13). Australia argued, 

among other things, that the law posed no human 

rights violations because it had not been enforced 

in over a decade (Grauper 2005:13). 

An important aspect of the UN Human Rights 

Committee ruling was its agreement of the notion 

that even if laws are not enforced, they have the 

potential to be enforced, and their very existence 

has a pervasive impact that leads to various forms 

of discrimination, stigmatization and violence 

(Grauper 2005:13). The committee held that 

Toonen’s right to privacy under Article 17 had 

been violated, and that the reference to sex in 

Article 2 must be understood to include sexual 

orientation. 

Almost ten years later, in 2003, Brazil 

presented a draft resolution entitled “Human Rights 

and Sexual Orientation” that encountered a great 

deal of opposition from other countries at the 59 th 

session of the Commission (AI 2005). The draft 

resolution did not attempt to create a new body of 

rights, but sought to affirm existing principles of 

non-discrimination established under human rights 

law. Unfortunately, this resolution was fiercely 

contested and eventually postponed, once again 

leaving sexual minorities without any specific 

protections that guarantee their basic human rights 

(AI 2005). 

THE VIOLENCE OF IGNORANCE, OR 

LEGAL ABUSES 

Violence perpetrated against both women and 

LGBTQI individuals is often sexual in nature. 

Rape is a common element of torture inflicted on 

homosexual women and men, as well as 

transgender people (Bamforth 2005:5). Violence 

against sexual minorities is gender-based in nature, 

committed against people who challenge or fail to 

conform to traditionally defined gender roles by 

not engaging in sexual practices or behaviors that 

are viewed as “appropriate” to their sex. The 

violence perpetrated against these people is 

therefore a result of the social enforcement of 

gender-related norms and the punishment of those 

who violate them (Bamforth 2005:4). 

The laws of many countries play a role in 

justifying violence against sexual minorities, while 

state agents – especially the police – play an active 

part in inflicting it (Bamforth 2005:9). A 2005 

report released by Amnesty International revealed 

that sexual minorities in the United States are the

victims of widespread abuse and mistreatment by 

police. These injustices “go largely unchecked due 

to underreporting and unclear, under-enforced or 

non-existent polices and procedures” (AI 2005). 

Amnesty International stresses that there is a 

“heightened pattern of misconduct and abuse of 

transgender individuals and all LGBT people of 

color, young people, immigrants, the homeless, and 

sex workers by police” (AI 2005). There are a large 

number of countries today where same-sex sexual 

acts are illegal, and the US is no exception. This 

may suggest that there is a connection between the 

existence of these prohibitive, biased laws and the 

prevalence of abuse against sexual minorities. The 

criminalization of homosexual behavior is often 

used as a cultural or even legal justification for the 

actions and opinions of those who would inflict 

violence on sexual minorities (Bamforth 2005:8). 


WORKS CITED 

The social stigmatization and exclusion of these 

groups may often make them more likely to live in 

poverty, leaving them vulnerable to homelessness 

and exploitation and “less likely to draw public 

outcry or official scrutiny” (AI 2005). 


Some of the ways we empower ourselves, and 

work toward protecting the rights of others, are by 

gaining new knowledge and staying informed of 

what is happening throughout the world. I urge the 

reader to seek information regarding human rights 

for all of us, including sexual minorities. I also 

encourage the support of organizations that strive 

for securing these rights, and recommend that the 

reader appeal to human rights and social justice 

organizations to broaden their awareness and the 

cause of equality. 


2004 UN Commission on Human Rights. Mission: To Promote and Protect Human Rights. Electronic 

document, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR410102004?open&of=ENG-ZW, accessed 

February 21, 2007. 

2005 USA: Stonewalled: Police Abuse and Misconduct Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and 

Transgender People in the U.S. Electronic document, 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/122/2005, accessed April 5, 2007. 

Bamforth, Nicholas, ed. 

2005 Sex Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Human Rights Education Associates 

Nd Sexual Orientation and Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://hrea.org/learn/guides/lgbt.html, accessed March 3 rd 2007. 

McDonough, M. 

Nd Gay Iraqis Fear For Their Lives. BBC News. Electronic document, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk.go/pr/fr//hi/world/middle_east/4915172.stm, accessed February 21, 2007. 

Onken, Steven J. 

1998 Conceptualizing Violence Against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Intersexual, and Transgendered 

People. In Violence and Social Injustice Against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People. Lacey M. Sloan 

and Nora S. Gustavsson, eds. Pp. 5-24. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. 

Tahmindjis, Phillip, ed. 

2005 Sexuality and Human Rights: A Global Overview. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. 


1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

1979 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

Wetzel, Janice W. 

2001 Human Rights in the 20 th Century: Weren’t Gays and Lesbians Human? Journal of Gay and 

Lesbian Social Services 13(1/2):15-31. 

98


Burma: Reproductive Rights in a State of Violence 

TANI HELEN SEBRO 

Abstract 

This paper brings to light the ongoing violence committed against refugees who have fled the military 

junta in Burma to neighboring Thailand. Women, children, and ethnic minorities experience dismal 

conditions as refugees, as their access to health care and basic human rights is inadequate. This especially 

affects refugees living in marginalized spaces, such as refugee camps, border towns, and villages where 

dissent movements remain. I focus on the reproductive rights of women, children, and ethnic minorities 

such as the Shan, Wa, and Karen peoples of Burma, who have been forced from their land due to the 

structural violence committed against them by the Burmese military government. Burma’s colonial past, 

paired with the illegitimate power held by the despotic military junta, is creating a violent space within the 

nation state that marginalizes vulnerable minority groups in both the geographic and social periphery of the 

country, denying them access to health care, security of person, and the right to speak out against their 

oppressors. 

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN A STATE OF 

VIOLENCE 

“Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be 

contested by any government or nation, not even 

the most belligerent.” 

- Aung San Suu Kyi, peace activist 

The military junta in Burma has waged a 

decade’s long war against its peoples. The 

Burmese State Peace and Development Council 

(SPDC) usurped power in a military coup d'état in 

1988, and since then the peoples of Burma have 

been fighting and fleeing the violent government to 

no avail. 1 The peace activist Aung San Suu Kyi, 

president of the National League for Democracy 

(NLD), the opposition party to SPDC, won a free 

election in 1990 (BBC News 2006). The elections 

proved futile however, as the military junta once 

more assumed power and placed Aung San Suu 

Kyi under house arrest in order to quell the nation’s 

democratic reform movement. The Norwegian 

Nobel Peace Prize Committee recognized Aung 

San Suu Kyi for her courageous work to establish 

peace and democracy in Burma in 1990, by 

awarding her the distinguished honor. 

Unfortunately, she remains detained by the SPDC 

party at her home in Burma. 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “The 

Reproductive Rights of Women and the Family.” 

1 When the SPDC came to power in 1988, they changed the 

nation’s name from Burma to Myanmar. Although many 

Burmese refer to their nation as Myanmar, I have chosen to 

continue using Burma in solidarity with Burmese scholars and 

activists such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Ardeth Maung 

Thawnghmung. 

99 

The peoples of Burma are victims of a violent 

regime that is struggling to maintain legitimate 

power as a sovereign nation-state. As Hannah 

Arendt explains, “the loss of power becomes the 

temptation to substitute violence for power” 

(1969:35). The SPDC military junta party is 

enforcing control through violence, as oppressive 

regimes repeatedly do, to maintain illegitimate 

power. The military’s corrupt system relies on a 

raison d’être based purely on violence to maintain 

its hegemonic role. The harsh state of affairs in 

Burma saddles women, children, and ethnic 

minorities with the greatest burdens. In this paper, I 

inquire into the methods and practices by which 

war and violence within the nation-state 

marginalizes groups such as women, children, and 

ethnic minorities. I also examine the rationale of 

perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Burma 

and explore the issue of reproductive rights for 

refugees who are forced to the social and 

geographic peripheries of Burmese society. 

Protecting the reproductive rights of refugees 

has not been a high priority for international relief 

agencies and non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) until recently. The formation of the 

Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium 

(RHRC) and the creation by the World Health 

Organization (WHO) of a Minimum Initial Service 

Package (MISP), which implements measures that 

address “safe motherhood, sexual and genderbased 

violence; sexually transmitted diseases, 

including HIV and AIDS; family planning; other 

reproductive health concerns, such as postabortion 

care and female genital mutilation,” have been 

crucial steps towards a refugee rights policy that 

deems reproductive rights a fundamental human 

right (Krause et. al. 2000:181).

Access to health care is scarce for the refugees 

who are fleeing the violence in their homeland. A 

survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University 

found that “1 in 12 mothers in eastern Myanmar is 

dying during pregnancy or childbirth…In Thailand, 

by contrast, the rate is 1 death for every 900 

pregnancies” (Osnos 2007:B7). This may explain 

the dismal conditions inside Burma that have led to 

the refugee movement into Thailand. According to 

the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 

(USCRI), “an estimated 600,000 to 1 million 

Burmese were internally displaced at the end of 

2002” (2003). There is no doubt that Burma is 

undergoing a humanitarian crisis that is affecting 

the most vulnerable groups in Burmese society, 

namely women, children, and ethnic minorities. 

Many of the refugees are of the Shan, Wa, and 

Karen communities of Indigenous Peoples. The 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) considers these groups to be “at higher 

risk than the general refugee population [of 

suffering from] severe prosecution, including 

torture, imprisonment, forced labor, burning of 

villages and forced relocation in their homeland” 

(Narinjara News 2007:20). 

RAPE AS A WEAPON OF WAR 

Rape is one of the common methods of 

tyranny against women and girls used by the 

Burmese military. In an attempt to document the 

prevalence of rape in Burma, the Shan Human 

Rights Foundation (SHRF) published a report 

entitled Licensed to Rape in 2002, which 

uncovered 173 rape cases involving Burmese 

military officers who victimized 625 Shan women 

and girls. The report states that “rape is officially 

condoned as a weapon of war against the civilian 

populations” and that there is “a concerted strategy 

by the Burmese army troops to rape Shan women 

as part of their anti-insurgency activities” (Labiste 

2005:2). Further, the report showed that “victims 

were tortured, maimed and killed. Gang rapes were 

also committed, sometimes by officers in front of 

the troops” (Labiste 2005:2). A refugee from 

Burma, who now lives in India, gives a startling 

account of the violent experience of rape: “The 

soldiers came to my house asking for food. They 

raped me in front of my mother. Then they took me 

to work for them. I was raped again and ran away. I 

did not stop running until I reached India” 

(Randeep 2007:5). 

Philippe Bourgois considers gang rape a 

symptom of what he calls structural violence – a 

form of violence that systematically harms peoples 

by impeding their access to resources, security, and 

wellbeing. In his ethnographic analysis of the 


100 

phenomenon of gang rape (2002), Bourgois shows 

how crack dealers in Spanish Harlem engage in 

such sexual abuse because “crime and violence had 

been normalized into their daily lives” (2002:343). 

Congruently, we see rape as it is performed by the 

military junta in Burma as a normalized activity, 

and the consequence of the widespread prevalence 

of violence in the absence of any legitimate power 

or moral authority. This scrutiny does not in any 

way condone such acts of brutality, but rather 

demonstrates the devastating state of violence 

within which the soldiers of the junta must locate 

themselves, forge their identities, and engender 

their roles as militiamen. 

Another insightful foray into this experience is 

offered by Sally Engle-Merry, who refers to a 

“culture-free zone” in which such violence exists, 

and where violent acts occur not because they are 

normalized cultural practices, but because the 

“boundary between acceptable forms of violence 

against women” has been blurred to include rape 

and abuse (Engle Merry 2006:24-25). The practices 

and behaviors that lead to the normalization of 

violent acts such as gang rape are neither rooted in 

the cultural beliefs of the Burmese people, nor the 

Puerto Ricans of Spanish Harlem. Commonplace 

violent acts, especially of a sexual nature, are a 

result of the daily oppression endured by a 

demoralized social group, and are used to fortify 

the power of the oppressor over the oppressed. 

Contrary to Philippe Bourgois’ argument, Engle 

Merry asserts that there is nothing “everyday” 

about gang rape; rather, this kind of violence exists 

in spaces where legitimate power and moral 

authority are absent. 

In order to provide health care for the refugees 

who have fled from Burma to the Thai border, Dr. 

Cynthia Maung, a Burmese refugee, opened the 

Mae Tao Clinic in the border town of Mae Sot, 

Thailand. The free health clinic treats 80,000 

refugees a year and keeps specialists in 

reproductive health on staff (Osnos 2007). There 

are roughly 250,000 Burmese refugees living in 

Thailand and the Thai government does not grant 

those fleeing from human rights abuses refugee 

status (US Committee for Refugees and 

Immigrants 2003). This makes it very difficult for 

Burmese refugees to gain access to health care as 

they do not have the paperwork or the money 

needed to be treated at a Thai hospital. The Mae 

Tao Clinic is a desperately needed service to the 

Burmese refugee population, as the Burmese 

military has “slashed its spending on health care to 

less than $1 per person per year,” and the UN 

estimates this to be the lowest in the world (Osnos 

2007).

VIOLENCE WITH A COLONIAL PAST 

The Burmese struggle with civil war and 

violence has a long and arduous past. Burma was 

occupied by Great Britain as an outlying province 

of the already colonized India in the 1800s, and the 

British reveled in the cornucopia of natural 

resources gained from the abounding Burmese land. 

After nearly a century of opposition to colonial rule, 

Burma was freed from the British Empire in 1948 

(Thawnghmung 2003:39). As the country was left 

in a state of instability, corruption, and poverty the 

military that had been installed by the British 

became the most powerful command within 

Burmese society. A discriminatory policy against 

ethnic minorities such as the Shan, Wa, and Karen, 

who make up one third of the Burmese population, 

emphasized the "Burmization" of the nation, a task 

to be carried out by the ruling Burmese military 

(Suu Kyi 1995:52-53). The refugee movement 

started in 1988 when the SPDC party came to 

power and began exerting, with hegemonic force, a 

violent form of control and coercion to maintain 

their illegitimate command over the Burmese 

(Osnos 2007). 

The Karen minority living in the northwest 

have been especially affected by the internal strife 

between the ethnic resistance armies and the SPDC 

military. A woman interviewed by Human Rights 

Watch describes the events leading to her decision 

to flee Burma to the Thai border: 

In 1997, the Burma Army shot my brother 

in the bladder. He bled to death. Later, in 

2002 in Baw Gwa village, Burma Army 

troops twice destroyed our rice barns. The 

second time, they also burnt our houses 

while we were hiding in the forest. We 

were so scared. Later, when we crept back 

to the village, we had nothing to eat and 

nowhere to sleep. We were still scared, 

but also hungry - and angry too. Now, 

whenever I hear of or see the Burmese 

soldiers, my heart beats quickly, and I get 

all shaky and nervous (Human Rights 

Watch 2005). 

This brings us back to one of my first questions: 

who are the perpetrators of crimes against 

humanity in Burma and what is their rationale? 

Undoubtedly, the SPDC military is responsible for 

the injustice committed against the ethnic Burmese 

and Burmese minority groups. However, as 

Mahmood Mamdani illustrates for post-colonial / 

post-genocide Rwanda, there was an “uncritical 

reproduction of the colonial legacy” where “the 

settler identity was racialized [and] the native 


101 

identity was ethnicized” (Mamdani 2005:472). In 

Burma, as in Rwanda, the colonial legacy left by 

the British took the form of a strengthening of 

Burmese nationalism via granting preferentiality to 

Burmese elites and military officials, whilst 

rejecting ethnic minority’s rights. 

Burma’s SPDC military conscripted child 

soldiers to carry out their mission of 

"Burmization." According to Human Rights Watch, 

Burma has the highest number of child soldiers in 

the world, some recruited as young as age eleven 

(Human Rights Watch 2002). The International 

Criminal Court has deemed recruitment of children 

under the age of fifteen a war crime, and the United 

Nations (UN) adopted in 2000 an optional protocol 

to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 

which states in Article 2 that “State Parties shall 

ensure that persons who have not attained the age 

of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their 

armed forces” (United Nations 2000). Burma 

signed the CRC in 1991 but has yet to ratify it, and 

it has not signed or ratified the optional protocol. 

Judging from the words of a high-standing 

Burmese general, Saw Maung, Burma’s policies 

on child soldiers and human rights will not be 

changed to accord with the CRC’s protocol: “I can 

only grant human rights suitable for Myanmar 

[Burmese] people” (Erlanger 1991). 

As can be seen in a series of drawings by 

Karen children who live in a refugee camp on the 

Thai border, the memory of horrendous violence, 

rape, burning of villages, murder, and escaping 

from the command of the military is alarmingly 

vivid. These are conspicuous forms of suffering 

and violence; however, poverty is another major 

manifestation of structural violence endured by the 

Burmese. As one researcher in Burma put it, 

“[t]hey are fleeing a situation that is deliberately 

depriving them of the resources indispensable for 

survival” (La Guardia 2005). Medical 

anthropologist Paul Farmer declares,“[it] is 

possible to speak of extreme human suffering, and 

an inordinate share of this sort of pain is currently 

endured by those living in poverty” (2004:288). 

Despite poverty, violence, and political instability, 

Burma’s hope for the future ought to be as peace 

activist Aung San Suu Kyi sees it: “Burma’s 

borders form a natural boundary for a country rich 

in peoples and natural resources. In time, both 

could be developed to create a strong and 

prosperous nation” (1990:81). 

CONCLUSION 

What can be done to aid the plight of the 

Burmese refugees? How can we as students, 

professors, and human rights activists put an end to

human suffering as it is experienced in Burma? We 

must enlarge the scope of the problem of displaced 

peoples to include the actions and responses of us 

all. There are many Burmese residing in the Bay 

Area, who carry the social and physical memory of 

human rights violations such as those I have 

outlined. We must fully acknowledge that the 

rights of displaced peoples are being imperiled by 

structural violence in the form of restricted access 

to resources and health care, and conspicuous 

abuse in the form of physical and emotional torture 


WORKS CITED 

such as that caused by gang rape. The reproductive 

rights of Burmese refugees must be ensured so that 

they may safely return to their homeland without 

being endangered by the oppressive regime that 

forced them to leave. While pondering these moral 

questions and deep injustices, we as citizens of 

countries that boast democratic and international 

humanitarian policies must use the words of Aung 

San Suu Kyi as our guideline: “[u]se your liberty to 

promote ours” (1995:235). 


2004 On Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe 

Bourgois, eds. Pp. 236-243. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 


2004 The Everyday Violence of Gang Rape. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy 


Burns, Kate, Serge Male, and Daniel Pierotti 

2000 Why Refugees Need Reproductive Health Services. Theme issue, “The Reproductive Rights of 

Refugees,” International Family Planning Perspectives 26(4):161-162. 

Economist 

2000 Drugs and Slavery in Myanmar: Refugees Tell Stories of Forced Labor in Burma. Economist, 

January 24:48. 

Engle-Merry, Sally 

2006 Human Rights & Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. London: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Erlanger, Steven 

1991 The Power of the Peace Prize May Be Lost on Myanmar. The New York Times, October 20. 

Farmer, Paul 

2004 On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below. In Violence in War and Peace: An 

Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 281-289. Malden, MA: Blackwell 



2000 Burmese Refugees in Thailand at Risk. Electronic document, 

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/05/thaiback0506.htm, accessed January 5, 2007. 

2002 Burma: World's Highest Number of Child Soldiers. New Report Details Widespread Forced 

Recruitment. Electronic document, http://www.hrw.org /press/2002/10/burma-1016.htm, accessed 

April 23, 2007. 

2005 Human Rights Abuses of the Karen. Electronic document, 

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/burma0605/5.htm#_Toc105572400, accessed April 23, 2007. 

Krause, Sandra K, Rachel K. Jones, and Susan J. Purdin 

2000 Programmatic Responses to Refugees' Reproductive Health Needs. Theme issue, “The 

Reproductive Rights of Refugees,” International Family Planning Perspectives 26(4):181-187. 

Kyi, Aung San Suu 

1995 Freedom from Fear and Other Writings. New York: Penguin. 

Labiste, Ma Diosa 

2005 Myanmar: Rape as a Military Weapon. Women’s Feature Service. New Delhi, Nov 21. 

La Guardia, Anton 

2005 Burma's 'Slow Genocide' is Revealed Through the Eyes of its Child Victims. Telegraph, June 24. 

102


Mamdani, Mahmood 

2004 When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. In Violence 

in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 468-474. 

United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. 

Narinjara News 

2007 Canada to Welcome 2,000 More Karen Refugees. Narinjara News, March 8. 

Osnos, Evan 

2007 Refugee Disaster Unfolds on Thailand-Myanmar Border. Chicago Tribune, March 5. 

Randeep, Ramesh 

2007 Burmese Army Using Rape to Terrorize Villagers, Says Report. Guardian Unlimited, Monday 

April 2. 

Thawnghmung, Ardeth Maung 

2003 Burma: A Gentler Authoritarianism. Foreign Policy 139:39-40. United Nations 

2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in 

Armed Conflict. Electronic document, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/protocolchild.htm, 

accessed April 24, 2007. 

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants 

2003 World Refugee Survey 2003: Country Report. Electronic document, 

http://www.refugees.org/countryreports, accessed April 24, 2007. 

103


104


PART THREE – THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 

UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the 

Child 

On November 20, 1989, the United Nations 

General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). It 

realizes that children need extra protection to 

prevent their rights from being violated. This 

declaration guarantees that a child’s “best 

interests” will be taken into account when any 

decision affecting a child occurs. 

The United States has not yet ratified the 

Convention. This may be connected in part to the 

practice in this country of sentencing criminal 

offenders under the age of eighteen, which the 

CRC defines as a child, to death. Another factor 

may also be the current usage of migrant 

children as farm labourers in the U.S. By 

agreeing to undertake the obligations of the 

Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), 

national governments worldwide have 

committed themselves to protecting and ensuring 

children's rights. They have also agreed to hold 

themselves accountable for this commitment 

before the international community. States 

parties to the Convention are obliged to develop 

and undertake all actions and policies in the light 

of the best interests of the child. 

Children’s rights are human rights 

The Convention sets out the rights that 

children need to develop their full potential, free 

from hunger and want, neglect and abuse. It 

reflects a new vision of the child. Children 

neither the property of their parents nor are they 

helpless objects of charity. They are human 

beings and are the subject of their own rights. 

The Convention offers a vision of the child as an 

individual and as a member of a family and 

community, with rights and responsibilities 

appropriate to his or her age and stage of 

development. By recognizing children's rights in 

this way, the Convention firmly sets the focus on 

the whole child. 

Human rights apply to all age groups. 

Children have the same general human rights as 

adults. But children are particularly vulnerable, 

so they have particular rights that recognize their 

special need for protection. Education is the first 

step in protection, and we urge you to familiarize 

yourself with this document, and apply it to 

issues which affect you and your community. 

INTRODUCTION 

105 

In the years since the adoption of the CRC, 

the world has seen significant advances in the 

fulfilment of children’s rights to survival, health 

and education through the provision of essential 

goods and services, and a growing recognition of 

the need to create a protective environment to 

shield children from exploitation, abuse and 

violence. 

Third Annual SFSU Human Rights Summit, 

May 2-5, 2006 

Translating the discourse of international 

human rights into multiple languages and forms 

of expression effectively increases an awareness 

about these rights. The Third Human Rights 

Summit undertook this task to promote the rights 

of children. The Summit localized the ideas 

defined in the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child with numerous scholarly papers presented 

to attentive audiences, through packed 

performances of music, theater, and dance, and 

visually with photographs, artwork, and poster 

presentations. The meaning of international 

human rights came to life in vibrant, expressive, 

and informative social practices. 

The Human Rights Summit exemplifies a 

process Sally Merry (2006:39) describes as 

vernacularization, which occurs when “the 

people in middle: those who translate the 

discourses and practices from the arena of 

international law and legal institutions to specific 

situations of suffering and violation”. Students, 

faculty, and activists in the week of events 

created a venue to present powerful human rights 

ideals to a broad sector of the population. 

In order to empower children by informing 

them of their rights, SFSU students distributed 

500 copies of the Convention of the Rights of the 

Child to children in schools throughout the SF 

Bay. We printed the CRC in lay terms and 

presented it in a brightly colored pocket-size 

book. Providing such easy access to information 

is essential since understanding children have 

human rights is one of the most important first 

steps towards protecting them. 

Sources 

Merry, Sally Engle 2006 Transnational Human 

Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle. 

American Anthropologist 108 (1): 38-51. 

UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child 

http://www.unicef.org/crc/


106


Toward a Manifesto on Children’s Agency 

BRAD ERICKSON 

In 1914, socialist playwright George Bernard 

Shaw published a Treatise on Parents and 

Children. This polemic essay included a proposal 

for a “Magna Carta” for children’s rights, thus 

providing inspiration for my title and the comments 

that follow. In the Treatise, Shaw excoriated 

schools as prisons, and family homes as theaters of 

abuse and neglect. He argued that children who are 

governed for the convenience of adults – through 

the use or threat of violence, artless and dogmatic 

instruction, and confinement to the school room – 

will become adults who are unfit for the duties of 

citizenship in a democratic society. He argued that 

such an upbringing is liable to produce people 

unable to tolerate difference, engage in dialogue 

with others, or appreciate the cultural forms 

imposed upon them as children. Shaw raised a 

series of concerns with regard to what we now call 

the agency of the child, particularly the rights to 

the integrity of one’s physical person and the 

freedom to explore and choose one’s own religious 

and political convictions. 

While Shaw condemned the stark disparity 

between the rights of children and adults, he 

recognized that children do not have an adult 

capacity to provide for or protect themselves. Thus 

he struck a middle path, calling for the reasonable 

protection of children’s safety while encouraging 

the development of their own agency and 

socialization. He argued that children should be 

allowed to experience a much greater degree of 

intellectual risk. 

Shaw’s battle cry helps make sense of 

contemporary threats to the agency and well-being 

of children. During the 2007 Human Rights 

Summit at San Francisco State University, 

panelists in the session on children’s rights 

discussed contests over the social construction of 

children as subjects in various domains, and within 

multiple systems of knowledge and power, 

including sexuality and illness and wellbeing. 

These themes were elucidated by the panelists 

through discussion of such issues as mothering 

behind bars, child pornography, and child 

trafficking. In the latter two in particular, we 

witness the sexual ideologies of adults played out 

Brad Erickson is a Ph.D. Candidate at UC Berkeley, working 

on his dissertation, "Sensory Politics: Catalan Ritual and the 

New Immigration." 

107 

upon and through the bodies of children, a topic 

also raised by Shaw. 

To varying degrees in many times and places, 

children have been idealized as non-sexual beings. 

Shaw described young middle-class Englishwomen 

of his day as beings so sheltered from knowledge 

of human sexuality that they were wed, still 

ignorant of the mechanics of their expected 

procreative role; thus, these women effectively 

entered into marriage contracts under false 

pretence. In the folk Catholicism of rural Mexico, 

children who die in sexual innocence are referred 

to as “angels,” and are said to go directly to heaven 

without a term in purgatory. In the United States, 

defenders of censorship under the rubric of public 

decency invariably cite the harm presumably done 

to children by the utterance of words such as 

“fuck” or the momentary glimpse of a woman’s 

bare breast on television. 

Because they are idealized as non-sexual, the 

real or imagined emergence of children’s sexuality 

tends to become the subject of adult anxieties, and 

also adult arousal and predation. Both types of 

behavior contribute to the sexual socialization of 

children and their subjectification as victims of 

exploitation, and objects of adult desire and 

regimes of sexual and reproductive management. 

To differing degrees, these adult contests waged 

through the medium of children’s bodies – whether 

predatory or protective – serve to deprive children 

of their own agency, and rob them of the 

opportunity to establish positive relations with their 

own bodies and sexualities. 

Within an international human rights 

framework, the sexual exploitation of children 

through trafficking or pornography, for example, is 

evidently criminal and merits the pursuit of justice 

as the Summit panelists and authors of several 

papers in this volume propose. However, I think 

there is a risk in reducing the problem to one of 

legal frameworks, of enforcement or of economic 

disparity. Some people, although abjectly poor, do 

not allow their children to be sold into sexual 

slavery. Moreover, in places where the practice has 

emerged and become prevalent, we need to inquire 

into the set of social conditions that accompanied 

the process of change and the ethical horizon that 

enables child trafficking to become commonplace. 

What could fine-grained ethnographic accounts of 

relevant communities render in terms of a

diagnostic picture, and how could this help 

generate strategies of resistance? 

A significant number of adults, particularly 

parents, want to protect their children from sexual 

exploitation, and at the same time, would also like 

them to be able to explore their sexuality in a 

positive and age-appropriate manner. In the U.S., a 

child’s sexual development takes place on the 

ideological battleground between supporters of 

“abstinence only” and “safer sex” education, each 

establishing a basis for the subjectification of 

children as (de)sexualized in a particular manner. 

Adding to the dilemmas faced by children, the 

social regimes that determine when minors become 

adults – and therefore capable of making decisions 

– are also structurally confused. There are 

divergent age benchmarks, for example, for 

employment, driving a motor vehicle, voting, 

drinking alcoholic beverages, military service, 

purchasing tobacco, serving as a juror, marriage, 

being the perpetrator or the victim of statutory 

rape, and the coming of age ceremonies of faith 

communities. Each of these thresholds recognizes 

passage into a new realm of agency, but the 

chronological disjunctures between them 

demonstrate their blatantly arbitrary nature – an 

arbitrariness obvious and often irksome to young 

people. These benchmarks rest on appraisals about 

a person’s capacity to make choices – to affirm 


WORKS CITED 

religious belief, to kill and risk dying in military 

service, to self-medicate or intoxicate, to engage in 

sexual acts, or to enter into legal contracts. These 

vigilantly guarded gateways of agency are 

constituted and contested by members of a variety 

of social categories including parents, educators, 

law-makers, health care professionals, religious 

leaders, purveyors of popular culture, proponents 

of diverse cultural traditions, and the peer cultures 

of youth themselves. 

The emancipation of children will not be 

achieved simply through more “rational” rules or 

improved economic conditions, but by fundamental 

reorientations of intergenerational sociality. To 

approach this goal requires an effort of will, as well 

as insight gained through close-grained 

ethnographic data about the processes by which 

children and adolescents forge their own lifeways, 

and how adults thwart or help them in that process. 

The paradigm needs to change, and not by creating 

a better regime of subjectification but by a change 

in adult behavior. As a starting point, adults must 

stop regarding youth as receptacles for their own 

agendas and enter into dialogue with them. Shaw 

opined that “the right of liberty begins, not at the 

age of 21 years but of 21 seconds,” suggesting that 

children be recognized as agents in the process of 

becoming from the moment of their birth. 

Shaw, George Bernard 

1914 Treatise on Parents and Children. In Misalliance, The Dark Lady of the Sonnets: Fanny’s First 

Play. Pp. v-cxvi. London: Constable and Company. 

108


How to Fix Our Broken and Dysfunctional Juvenile Justice System 

LOREN BUDDRESS 

For many years, California has had a broken, 

dysfunctional juvenile justice system. 

Approximately five years ago, the state sought six 

“Technical Experts” to assess the needs of the 

youth in what was then called the California Youth 

Authority (CYA) – essentially a state prison for 

kids – and is now known as The Division of 

Juvenile Justice. The 450-page document 

submitted by these “experts” was a scathing review 

of the CYA, in which it was declared that rampant 

violence and abuse existed within the institutions, 

along with a remarkable lack of educational 

resources, inadequate physical and mental health 

treatment services, and a great deal of gang activity 

and gang violence. Some youth, it was reported, 

were kept in cages. 

Things were so intolerable at the California 

Youth Authority that a civil rights lawsuit was filed 

against the state and the CYA, resulting in the state 

entering into an agreement in court to make major 

changes to its juvenile justice system. The bad 

news is that these problems have existed for 

decades. The good news, however, is that the 

solutions to the problems within juvenile justice are 

now known. 

What then, is the remedy for California’s 

debilitated juvenile justice system? Criminal justice 

experts have clearly shown that there are four 

evidence-based, data-driven interventions that 

change criminal, delinquent, and recidivistic 

behavior and reduce community victimization: 

drug treatment; mental health treatment; cognitive 

based programs; and educational and vocational 

programs. Research also shows that the practice of 

locking people up to “get tough on crime,” and 

providing no treatment to those in custody, actually 

increases recidivism by approximately seven 

percent. 

Therefore, it appears that the roadmap to 

successful juvenile justice reform entails a 

partnership between the state and counties. If most 

youth are kept locally, treated locally, and not sent 

Loren Buddress is Chief Probation Officer of San Mateo 

County, and was a guest speaker at the 2 nd and 3 rd Annual 

Human Rights Summits in 2005 and 2006. Underpinning all his 

work with the Probation Department is his firm belief in the 

responsibility of such state entities to ensure the resources 

necessary to rehabilitate and empower individuals to become 

positive members within their communities. 

109 

to state institutions, the state must compensate 

counties for the cost of the services these youth and 

their families need. This would allow most youth to 

be kept within the counties where they, their 

families and loved ones reside, and where they 

would receive essential services that include a 

validated “Risk-Needs Assessment,” an 

individualized treatment and supervision plan, and 

the relevant treatment services necessary for the 

circumstances of each individual youth and their 

family. 

This process was initiated on September 1, 

2007. However, it is my judgment that a sufficient 

period of time has not passed to effectively 

determine whether or not this state-county 

partnership will be successful in terms of reducing 

juvenile recidivism and community victimization 

by providing our kids with their much needed 

extensive rehabilitative care. If such a partnership 

is to be successful, the state must provide counties 

with appropriate fiscal resources to proffer the 

necessary local supervision and services. 

In summary, I am hopeful that policy makers 

and key stakeholders remember that it is treatment 

that changes criminal/delinquent behavior. 

Curricula that mete out punishment without 

offering lateral treatment only worsen the criminal 

“problem.” Hopefully, the new state-county 

alliance will combine appropriate punishment with 

the much needed treatment programs that will 

allow youth and their families to develop positive, 

pro-social lifestyles, and eventually extricate 

themselves from the juvenile justice system.


Kidnapping by Convention: 

Good Intentions or Intentional Indifference? 

EMILY BIRKY 

Abstract 

Afghani youth Mohammed Ismail Agha’s separation from his parents during Guantanamo Bay 

imprisonment demonstrates that the United States is not living up to its duties as a signatory and intended 

ratifier of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nancy Scheper-Hughes’s proposition 

of bureaucratic indifference and Primo Levy’s discussion of the World War II German concentration camp 

system are applied here to address Agha’s situation in light of the Convention and accompanying protocols. 

It is essential to raise awareness of cases like Agha’s because many people are either unfamiliar with the 

United States’ deficiency of attention to international human rights protocol, or they may not think the U.S. 

capable of employing policy that violates the rights of a child. Only when the greater public is made aware 

of a previously unimaginable deficiency will we be able to demand and strive for its correction. 

INTRODUCTION 

After a sunny day, my thirteen-year-old 

brother has oodles of freckles to match his carrotred 

hair. Christian is quite a figure in his 

community. He and my sixteen-year-old sister 

Kathryn are known in their small town as the kids 

who have been on National Public Radio, in 

Ranger Rick Magazine, and in nearly every 

newspaper within a 50-mile radius for their 

environmental and political activism work. A new 

wave of interviews began a couple months ago 

when Christian was one of ten children worldwide 

selected for the Junior Board of this year’s United 

Nations International Children’s Conference on the 

Environment, where children from about a hundred 

countries will draw up a proposition to present to 

the United Nations. Christian, Kathryn and the 

young conference participants may be the epitome 

of what was envisioned by the writers of the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 

1989. Though I am impressed by my brother’s 

accomplishments, and though he has now 

surpassed me in height, to me Christian is still the 

freckled little brother who smothers me with hugs 

and kisses when I visit. I cannot bring myself to 

imagine him in danger, and I shudder to think of 

what would go through the heads and hearts of my 

parents should he disappear for even a day. 

On the other side of the world, in another 

small town, lived another 13-year-old political 

activist, son of another set of attentive parents. In 

November 2002, his parents’ worst nightmare 

came true: Mohammed Ismail Agha did not return 

home one day (Constable 2004) – nor the next day, 

This paper was originally presented at the 1 st Annual SFSU 

Human Rights Summit in 2004, as part of the panel entitled 

“Peacetime Violence in the Bay Area.” 

110 

nor the next. For ten months he was not heard 

from or heard of. His parents thought he was dead 

(Khan 2004). 

These kinds of things are not supposed to 

happen, according to the United Nations 

Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United 

States signed this Convention in 1995, indicating 

its intent to act to the best of its abilities under the 

Convention’s umbrella until it can ratify it. So it 

would seem impossible that the United States 

would be the perpetrator of Agha and his parents’ 

nightmare. But sometimes the seemingly 

impossible turns out to be the truth. This is the 

importance I see in considering Agha’s case: only 

when we are aware of an unthinkable deficiency 

will we be able to demand and strive for its 

correction. Here I examine the case of Agha’s 

secret separation from his parents to demonstrate 

that the United States is not living up to its duty as 

a signatory and supposed future ratifier of the UN 

Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

BACKGROUND 

“They stole fourteen months of my life:” 

fifteen-year-old Mohammed Ismail Agha 

summarized the situation for Associated Press 

reporter Noor Khan (Khan 2004). When he was 

thirteen, Agha was accused of being a Taliban 

fighter and taken from his home province in 

Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There he 

would come to spend over a year in the now 

infamous U.S. high-security prison that houses 

about 650 people suspected of being terrorists 

associated with the Taliban and al-Qaida groups 

(Constable 2004). This paper does not investigate 

the myriad accusations brought against the United 

States government regarding prisoners’ political 

status or their treatment under the Geneva

Convention, as that would easily fill several 

volumes. Instead I focus on the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child, specifically those parts 

devoted to separation of parents and children. 

The Convention on the Rights of the Child 

“spells out the basic human rights that children 

everywhere – without discrimination – have: the 

right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to 

protection from harmful influences, abuse and 

exploitation; and to participate fully in family, 

cultural and social life” (UNICEF 1999). The 

Convention on the Rights of the Child has been 

ratified by every country in the world, except 

Somalia and the United States. The deep fissures 

within Somalia’s government renders it incapable 

of ratifying the convention. The United States 

government employs a policy that allows it to 

consider only one Human Rights treaty at a time, 

and it has been examining the Convention on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against 

Women for the past 17 years. The United States 

has signed the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child, indicating its intent to ratify at a later date. 

Signing a Convention is not a legally binding act, 

but it does “create an obligation to refrain from acts 

that would defeat the objectives of the Convention 

or to take measures to undermine it” (UNICEF 

1999). However, considering the long and 

unavailing plight of the Convention on the 


Women, things do not bode well for children like 

Mohammed Ismail Agha. 

At the age of 15 years (13 when brought into 

custody), Agha is clearly classified under 

international law as a “child:” The Convention on 

the Rights of the Child defines a “child” in Article 

1 as a “human being below the age of 18 years.” 

The preamble to the Optional Protocol to the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child on the 

involvement of children in armed conflict defines a 

child in identical terms. Though the United States 

has not yet ratified the Convention, it did ratify the 

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights 

of the Child on the involvement of children in 

armed conflict on December 23, 2002, and is 

therefore bound by law to the measures set forth in 

this protocol. 

THE ABDUCTION 

In November 2002, Mohammed Ismail Agha 

was taken to the Guantanamo Bay prison under 

charges of being an “enemy combatant” (Khan 

2004). Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the 

CRC reads, “States Parties shall take all feasible 

measures to ensure that members of their armed 

forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do 


111 

not take a direct part in hostilities.” The Preamble 

to this document says that children under the age of 

15 shall not take part in hostilities. Article 7, 

Paragraph 1 states that “States Parties shall 

cooperate in the implementation of the present 

Protocol, including…the rehabilitation and social 

reintegration of persons who are victims of acts 

contrary thereto.” In other words, if Agha was a 

combatant as accused, participating in hostilities at 

the age of 13, his rights as a child were nonetheless 

being violated. It was the duty of the United States, 

as a State Party to the Protocol, to see that he was 

rehabilitated and reintegrated into his society. 

While no specification is made as to the required 

speediness of that rehabilitation, it is difficult to see 

how 14 months of imprisonment (and 

mistreatment, which due to space constraints shall 

not be discussed here) demonstrates intent to 

rehabilitate and reintegrate this young man. 


details in numerous articles that no child should be 

imprisoned or detained for long periods of time. 

Article 37(b) of the CRC states, “The arrest, 

detention or imprisonment of a child…shall be 

used only as a measure of last resort and for the 

shortest appropriate period of time.” Article 37(d) 

reads, “Every child deprived of his or her liberty 

shall have the right to prompt access to legal and 

other appropriate assistance…and to a prompt 

decision on any such action.” Article 40, 

Paragraph 2, Section (b) states that “every 

child…has at least the following guarantees: …. 

(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the 

charges against him or her ... (iii) To have the 

matter determined without delay.” If the United 

States is truly working towards ratification of the 

Convention, it would take note of and abide by 

these guidelines in the cases of children like Agha. 

Instead, nothing resembling a “prompt decision” or 

a determination “without delay” was provided. 

But this is only the beginning. Not only was 

Mohammad Ismail Agha physically separated from 

home, liberty, society, comfort, and family for 

fourteen months. He was also separated from his 

family in every other way during most of that time. 

THE REAL ISSUE 

Among the Ilongot people of the Philippines, 

grief at the loss of a child is considered to be of 

such magnitude as to necessitate the taking of a 

head (Rosaldo 2004:151-152) in order to “carry” 

and “throw away the anger of [the parents’] 

bereavement” (Rosaldo 2004:150). Though not a 

parent myself, I can think of nothing more horrible 

than the loss of a child. This is what Agha’s 

parents had to face when after months of absence

they began to fear that their son was gone forever. 

Said Agha’s father in a recent interview, "I sent my 

son out to look for construction work, and he just 

vanished. I went to all the work sites in the towns, 

but no one had seen him. Finally I thought he must 

be dead" (Constable 2004). 

Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Convention on 

the Rights of the Child states that “a child shall not 

be separated from his or her parents against their 

will, except when….such separation is necessary 

for the best interests of the child.” It is difficult to 

see how imprisonment for over a year and 

estrangement from one’s parents could be in the 

best interests of a child. In fact, the abovementioned 

paragraph gives two examples of valid 

reasons for separation of parent and child. One is 

“abuse or neglect of the child by the parents.” The 

other is the case of parents living in separate 

residences, when it would be physically impossible 

for the child not to be separated from one of his or 

her parents. Both of these examples indicate that if 

a child must be away from a parent, this necessity 

should be based expressly on shortcomings on the 

part of parents themselves. Agha’s separation 

from his parents was not in any way related to his 

parents’ actions, but was based on his speculated 

capacity to provide intelligence to the United States 

(Khan 2004). 

One may argue that Agha’s situation could be 

compared to domestic juvenile detention, which 

imprisons and isolates children convicted of crimes 

in the name of their own “best interests.” But 

Agha was never found guilty of a crime and never 

even had a trial (Khan 2004)! His detainment, and 

that of two boys his age and younger, was 

described by military officials as functioning to 

provide intelligence; when the boys had no further 

value, they were released (Khan 2004). 

Additionally, while detained juveniles can receive 

visitors and stay in contact with their parents, Agha 

was not so lucky. 

Mohammad Ismail Agha’s whereabouts were 

unknown to his family for almost a year. At first 

Agha’s family thought he had gone to Pakistan or 

Iran to search for work. But by the time they 

received his letter via the International Red Cross, 

10 months after his entry into the Guantanamo 

prison, they had long ago recognized the fear that 

their child could be dead (Khan 2004; Constable 

2004). 

Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Convention on 

the Rights of the Child says that “no child shall be 

subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with 

his or her….family, home or correspondence.” 

Article 37(c) says that “every child deprived of 

liberty….shall have the right to maintain contact 


112 

with his or her family through correspondence and 

visits.” Article 9, Paragraph 3 states that children 

separated from their parents have the right to 

“maintain personal relations and direct contact with 

both parents on a regular basis;” Paragraph 4 says 

that “where such separation results from any action 

initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, 

imprisonment, exile, deportation or death…of one 

or both parents or of the child, that State Party 

shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child 

or, if appropriate, another member of the family 

with the essential information concerning the 

whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the 

family.” How many times must it be repeated 

before it becomes obvious? Children and their 

parents are not, for any length of time, to be 

prevented from maintaining contact. It is the 

responsibility of the State(s) involved, should child 

and parent be separated, to see that lines of 

communication are opened immediately. 

The absence of these basic measures in the 

legal protocol of the United States demonstrates 

that our government does not find it imperative to 

comply with the obligations to human rights 

outlined in the CRC. The conditions of secrecy 

under which Agha was detained initiated what 

must have been the most frightful period in the 

lives of Agha’s parents, as they wondered what 

they should assume about their son’s safety. As 

Nancy Scheper-Hughes attested about 

disappearances in Brazil, “the intolerableness of 

the situation is increased by its ambiguity” (Green 

2004:186). Neither Agha nor his parents should 

have had to leave details to the imagination. Agha 

should have been able, from the start, to write 

letters to his parents to let them know whether he 

was healthy or unhealthy, scared or in good spirits, 

hungry or well fed, respected or punished, 

comfortable or in pain, and whatever else he may 

have been experiencing. His parents should have 

been able to hear the details of their son’s situation 

in his own words, and should have been able to 

keep him up-to-date on events back home. Even 

more elementarily, Agha’s parents should have 

been notified immediately of their son’s safety and 

whereabouts. They should not have had to 

entertain the possibility that they had lost a child. 

WHAT IF…? 

My mind draws connections between the 

Agha case and the speculations of Nancy Scheper- 

Hughes on governmental inattention to 

disappearances of civilians in Brazil. Asks 

Scheper-Hughes, “What if the disappearances... the 

anonymity... and indifference were not, in fact, an 

aberration?…What if a climate of anxious,

ontological insecurity about the rights to ownership 

of one’s body was fostered by a studied, 

bureaucratic indifference?” (Scheper-Hughes 

2004:177; emphasis mine). Primo Levy makes a 

pertinent statement in his recollection of his 

experiences in Nazi Germany’s concentration 

camps. In his essay, “The Gray Zone,” Levy says 

that the concentration camp system “had as its 

primary purpose shattering the adversaries’ 

capacity to resist” (Levy 2004:83). Scheper- 

Hughes speaks of the ownership of one’s own 


WORKS CITED 

body; is not a child considered by his or her parents 

to be a part of their own body, or at least as dear as 

a part of their own body (Malkki 2004:134)? Levy 

speaks of capacity to resist. What nation of parents 

could resist indefinitely the disappearances of their 

children? The blatant prevention of 

communication between parent and child certainly 

appears to be a “studied,” deliberate tactic to instill 

terror in the hearts of parent and child alike; many 

such instances could bring a nation to its knees. 

Who is the terrorist now? 

Constable, Pamela 

2004 An Afghan Boy’s Life in U.S. Custody. Washington Post, February 12:A1. 

Green, Linda 

2003 Living in a State of Fear. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe 


Khan, Noor 

2003 Afghan Youth Tells of ‘Lost Year’ at Guantanamo Bay. Oakland Tribune, February 8. 

Electronic document, www.oaklandtribune.com, accessed February 17, 2004. 

Levi, Primo 

2003 The Gray Zone. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, 

eds. Pp. 83-90. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Malkki, Lissa H. 

2003 From Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in 

Tanzania. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 


Rosaldo, Renato 

2003 Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and 

Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 150-156. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy 

2003 Bodies, Death, and Silence. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe 


United Nations General Assembly 

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child: Introduction. Electronic document, 

http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm, accessed February 24, 2002. 

2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in 

Armed Conflict. 

113


Children as Players in the U.S. Food Corporation Game: 

A Human Rights Issue 

DONNABETH M. PASCUAL 

Abstract 

The structural violence created by food corporations against children violates Article 25 of the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social, 

and Cultural Rights. Child obesity is an emerging phenomenon that has created a public health concern in 

the United States, and the food corporations are the forerunners to blame. The health of America's youth is 

being implicated to such a degree that the lives of children are highly at risk because obesity is the leading 

cause of chronic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other health concerns. It is important to raise public 

awareness about the problem of child obesity and to come up with possible ways to prevent further harm to 

children's health. Children and their parents, as well as teachers, administrators, policy makers, and the 

broader American population need to be aware of the seriousness of the obesity epidemic and take 

immediate action to protect the youth from the violation of their human right to a long and healthy life. 

INTRODUCTION 

The topic I address in this paper is obesity – 

specifically, child obesity. Child obesity is an 

emerging phenomenon that has created a public 

health concern in the United States. According to 

Robin Drucker, a medical doctor at the Palo Alto 

Medical Foundation, “obesity is considered to be 

one of the most dangerous health problems facing 

children today” (2004). Doctor Jeffrey B. 

Schwimmer and his colleagues from the University 

of San Diego and Texas A & M University also 

state that “obesity [is] one of the most common 

chronic disorders in childhood and its prevalence 

continues to increase rapidly” (Heart Center Online 

2006). Obesity is associated with many life 

threatening health risks, such as chronic heart 

disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, 

stroke, asthma, sleep disorders, certain cancers, 

depression, and other mental health problems (U.S. 

Dept. of Health & Human Services 2006). The 

Center for Disease Control reveals, “excessive 

weight and physical inactivity account for more 

than 300,000 premature deaths each year in the 

United States, second only to smoking” (American 

Dietetic Association n.d.). 

The health of millions of America's youth is 

being impaired to such a degree that their lives are 

in great danger. In an interview with Newsweek, 

nutritionist Lisa Tartamella reveals that “children 

may have a shorter life expectancy than [that of] 

their parents” due to obesity (Ozols 2005). 

According to the Center for Disease Control 


Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “Health 

Disparities: Youth at Risk.” 

114 

(CDC), "the prevalence of overweight [children] 

among [those] aged 6 to 11 more than doubled in 

the past 20 years, going from 7% in 1980 to 16% 

in 2002. The rate among adolescents aged 10 to 12 

more than tripled, increasing from 5% to 16%" 

(n.d.). Obesity can be defined by one's body mass 

index, or BMI. It is a person's weight in kilograms 

divided by the square of a person's height in meters 

(Drucker 2004). The CDC defines a child whose 

BMI is between the 85 th and 95 th percentile for 

their age as being “at risk” for obesity. A child 

who has a BMI at or above the 95 th percentile for 

their age is considered obese. Currently in the 

United States, 30% of children ages 6-19 years 

have a BMI at or greater than the 95th percentile. 

The numbers are much higher among the children 

of minority groups, such as African Americans, 

Hispanics, and Native Americans (PAMF 2004). It 

is important to address this problem as a human 

rights issue because of the implications of this 

phenomenon for the lives of young people; the 

public must become aware of the ways in which 

we can all play a local role in preventing further 

harm to our children's health, and in protecting 

their fundamental freedoms and human rights. 

According to Marion Nestle, a professor and 

chair at the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, 

and Public Health at New York University, 

“though many factors influence childhood obesity, 

the quality and quantity of the foods consumed by 

America's youth are major contributors” 

(2002:174). Children and their parents are 

responsible for the quantity of foods they eat, but 

food corporations are responsible for the quality of 

the foods that Americans consume. In regard to 

child obesity, I argue that U.S. food corporations

enefit from the circumstances, and violate 

children's right to healthy and adequate food by 

offering instead low quality products high in fat 

and carbohydrates, and low in protein and 

vitamins. These junk foods are presented in 

attractive ways through packaging and 

advertisement to lure the kids and appeal to their 

impressionable appetites. According to the Food 

and Agricultural Organization of the United States 

(FAO), 

states should do everything possible to 

promote full enjoyment of [that right] for 

everyone in their territory. In other words, 

people should have physical and 

economic access at all times to food that 

is adequate in quantity and quality for a 

healthy and active life. For food to be 

considered adequate, it must also be 

culturally acceptable and it must be 

produced in a manner that is 

environmentally and socially sustainable 

(n.d.). 

FOOD CORPORATIONS: STRUCTURAL 

VIOLENCE AGAINST YOUTH 

Food corporations in the United States are 

“companies that produce, process, manufacture, 

sell, and serve foods, beverages, and dietary 

supplements” (Nestle 2002:11). This includes the 

food service sector, and is comprised of food carts, 

vending machines, restaurants, fast food outlets, 

and school cafeterias (Nestle 2002). Food 

corporations have the power to influence and 

determine the health of a child. In other words, the 

power that food corporations wield over 

impressionable young consumers is a form of 

structural violence that sabotages the health of 

America's youth and violates their right to 

nutritious food. According to anthropologists 

Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, 

structural violence is “the violence of poverty, 

hunger, social exclusion and humiliation” 

(2004:1), and can take the form of everyday abuse 

such as the exploitation and manipulation of 

identity, belief, and even appetites, as in the case of 

American youth. In the child obesity epidemic, 

structural violence in the guise of such subtle, 

everyday assaults can cause severe harm to a 

child's health, because it acts in ways that “[are] 

generally invisible because it is part of the routine 

grounds of everyday life and transformed into 

expressions of moral worth” (Scheper-Hughes and 

Bourgois 2004:4). Such violations occur on a daily 

basis and thus become an embedded part of society 


115 

that is left unchallenged, precisely because it is 

assumed to be the “normal” order of things. 

Child obesity is part and parcel of the 

structural violence that U.S. food corporations 

have imposed on America's youth. Such violence is 

exercised by means of everyday advertisements 

strategically scattered throughout the places where 

young people will run into them – on public 

billboards and buses, in magazines, commercials 

and television shows, as well as in schools. Kids 

are exposed to advertisements all the time and the 

images become ingrained in their minds. This is 

precisely what food corporations wish to happen; 

they begin advertising to young kids early in order 

for those kids to become reliable consumers as 

they get older. 

Food politics play a role in how food 

corporations engender structural violence. Every 

packaged food product found in grocery store isles, 

as well as advertisements of food and beverages, 

have been promoted by food corporations. “In a 

competitive food marketplace, food companies 

must satisfy stockholders by encouraging more 

people to eat more of their products. They seek 

new audiences,” and children and their schools are 

the targets for food companies because they are the 

population that will become loyal consumers of 

their products as they become adults (Nestle 

2002:21). This could also mean that an obese child 

may become an obese adult. With the use of 

advertisements and marketing strategies, “food 

companies entice children to buy their products or 

[influence children to] demand that their parents 

[buy the products for them]” (Nestle 2002:174). 

Let us take the case of the most franchised fast 

food chain worldwide, McDonald's. According to 

Nestle, McDonald's has “12,804 outlets in the 

United States that brought in $19.6 billion in 2000 

sales” and “spent $627.2 million on advertisements 

in 1999” (2002:13, 22). “[They] produce 

commercials, advertisements, and [even] have a 

website aimed specifically at children aged 8-13” 

(Nestle 2002:178). McDonald's entices children to 

eat more of their foods by advertising “Happy 

Meal” toys with characters in cartoons, and movies 

like Chronicles of Narnia and Chicken Little. 

Celebrities such as pop singer Justin Timberlake, 

also act as spokespersons for the McDonald’s 

campaign. McDonald's icons like Ronald 

McDonald and his friends are also marketing tools 

used deliberately to attract children; Ronald and his 

friends seem nice and friendly and kids appear to 

like them. “Happy Meals,” celebrity endorsements, 

and Ronald McDonald and his gang certainly 

appeal to the youth. McDonald's has also added the

“Dollar Menu” that has a number of McDonald's 

foods that cost only a dollar, such as small fries, 

double-cheeseburgers, apple pies, and ice cream 

sundaes, among others. Such strategies are 

especially marketable to poor communities because 

the cost of the food is relatively low and there's a 

number of foods to choose from. However, fast 

foods such as McDonald's are high in calories, 

sugars, fats, and salts that can be detrimental to 

one's health and cause obesity, diabetes, or 

hypertension if consumed on a daily basis. Not 

only are these fast food restaurants strategically 

placed in certain neighborhoods to maximize 

consumption, but fast foods are also available in 

many school cafeterias, enticing children to 

consume them on a daily basis. 

Obesity is more common among individuals of 

lower socioeconomic class. Therefore, poor and 

minority children are at higher risk of obesity than 

children from more affluent families, and 

especially whites. “In the United States, lowincome 

groups seem to have about the same 

nutrient intake as people who are better off, but 

they choose diets higher in calories, fat, meat, and 

sugar, and they display higher rates of obesity and 

chronic diseases” (Nestle 2002:27). One reason 

that poor and minority children are at higher risk of 

obesity may be that “residents in lower-income 

neighborhoods might not have accessibility to 

more nutritious food options like fresh fruits and 

vegetables” in their areas (Ozols 2005). Also, the 

convenience of fast foods in both cost and 

preparation time are other significant reasons they 

appeal to families on the lower end of the socioeconomic 

scale. “In the United States, lower prices 

stimulate sales” (Nestle 2002:19). Therefore, fast 

food chains implement things like the “Dollar 

Menu.” The majority of American families adore 

convenience foods since families today lead very 

busy, though increasingly sedentary lives. Families 

spend less time at the dinner table and more time 

eating outside the home at fast food restaurants, or 

consuming “instant” meals such as “prepackaged 

cereal in a bowl,” “McDonald's shaker salads” and 

easy microwavable meals (Nestle 2002:19). “Many 

of these products are high in calories, fat, sugar, or 

salt but are marked as nutritious because they 

contain added vitamins” (Nestle 2002:19). 

U.S. FOOD CORPORATIONS: A HUMAN 

RIGHTS ISSUE 

The correlation between child obesity and 

structural violence engendered by U.S. food 

corporations suggests that this is a human rights 

issue. “The blatant exploitation by food companies 


116 

of even the youngest children raises questions 

about the degree to which society at large needs to 

be responsible for protecting children's health in a 

free-market economy” (Nestle 2002:174). I will 

address three international instruments of 

protection of children's rights that are being 

expressly violated by the food corporations. 

The first important international instrument of 

protection is Article 25 of the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which states 

“everyone has the right to a standard of living 

adequate for the health and well being of himself 

and of his family, including food” (Eide et al. 

1984:3). With the issue of child obesity, albeit 

children have the human right to adequate and 

nutritious food, U.S. food corporations have 

systematically infringed on this and other rights 

they fundamentally possess as individuals. Highcalorie 

foods saturated in sugars, fats, and salts, 

and low in nutritional value, are not acceptable 

foods for children, or anyone else for that matter. 

Article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on 

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 

is another international instrument of protection for 

children. Article 12 “confirms the right to health as 

the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of 

physical and mental health” (Eide et al. 1984:219). 

“Without adequate food, [children] cannot lead 

healthy, active lives” (US Food and Agricultural 

Organization n.d.). Advertising and marketing 

strategies in food politics constitute violations of a 

child's wellbeing. Children are being manipulated 

by U.S. food corporations, an act that amounts to 

an egregious violation of their rights. The United 

Nations’ 1989 Convention on the Rights of the 

Child (CRC) is the third international instrument 

being transgressed by U.S. food corporations. In 

fact, only the United States and Somalia have not 

yet ratified the document, denying millions of 

children basic human rights as delineated in the 

UN charter. The CRC commands that 

States Parties…pursue full 

implementation of [the child's right to the 

highest attainable standard of health] 

and… shall take appropriate measures… 

to combat disease and malnutrition… 

through the provision of adequate 

nutritious foods… States Parties 

recognize the right of every child to a 

standard of living adequate for the child's 

physical, mental, spiritual, moral and 

social development… States Parties… 

shall… in case of need provide material 

assistance and support… particularly with

egard to nutrition, clothing and housing 

(UN 1989). 

By refusing to ratify the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child, the U.S. chooses to ignore its 

inherent obligation to protect the rights of the 

child. States should regulate the advertising of the 

U.S. food corporations to America's youth, and 

stop brainwashing children through the use of 

advertisements. The human rights provisions 

mentioned above should guarantee everyone the 

human right to adequate food; as seen, however, all 

three of the international instruments on the rights 

of the child are being violated right here in this 

“democratic” country (People’s Movement for 

Human Rights Education 2006). If the U.S. 

government and U.S. food corporations do not act 

promptly to protect human rights, it is up to the 

public to implement change in order to protect our 

youth and guarantee respect for their human rights 

today. 


“The real problem of childhood obesity is not 

obese children - this is a symptom - it is the lack of 

responsibility in the food sector combined with our 

willingness to allow our children to eat food that 

has no value, and in some cases, harmful” 

(Experience Designer Network n.d.). It is 

immensely important to raise public awareness 

about child obesity, and come up with possible 

ways to prevent further harm to children's health. 


WORKS CITED 

This is clearly a rapidly growing public health 

concern in the United States and worldwide. 

Without recognizing the existence of a problem, 

there is no way to take action to solve it. 

Parents should educate their children about 

healthy eating by implementing changes in their 

eating habits from processed foods to more 

nutritious foods, such as vegetables and fruits. 

Schools are also a good place to educate children 

in healthy eating by first banning the selling as 

well as advertising of fast foods, soda, and other 

junk foods away from campus. Since poor and 

minority youth are at greater risk of developing 

childhood obesity, “adequate funds [should] be 

provided by local, state, and federal sources to 

ensure that the total school environment supports 

the development of healthy eating patterns” (ADA 

n.d.). Children spend the majority of their day time 

at school. Therefore, schools should adopt health 

programs in order to teach students to balance and 

manage their food choices. “People must be 

recognized [as well as recognize themselves] as 

social beings with a need and a right to share in 

shaping not only their individual futures but also 

the futures of their communities,” which include 

youth (Kent 2005:47). In order to combat child 

obesity, children and their parents, teachers, 

administrators, policy makers, and the broader 

American population need to be aware of the 

seriousness of the obesity epidemic and take 

immediate action to protect the youth from the 

violation of their human right to life. 

American Dietetic Association (ADA) 

Nd Childhood Obesity: Remarks to New Jersey School Nurses. Electronic document, 

http://www.eatright.org, accessed May 1, 2006. 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

Nd Obesity. Electronic document, http://www.cdc.gov/health/youth/obesity/index.html, accessed 

March 27, 2006. 

Drucker, Robin 

2004 Childhood Obesity: A New Epidemic. Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Electronic 

document, http://www.pamf.org/health/toyourhealth/child_obesity.html, accessed March 23, 2006. 

Eide, Asbjorn, Wenche Barth Eide, Susan Goonatilake, Joan Gussow, and Omawale Omawale. 

1984 Food as a Human Right. United Nations University. 

Experience Designer Network (EDN) 

Nd Health: Nutrition vs. Corporate Obesity. Electronic document, 

http://www.experiencedesignernetwork.com/archivers/000310.html, accessed March 23, 2006. 

Food and Agricultural Organization of the USA (FAO) 

Nd Food: A Fundamental Human Right. Electronic document, 

http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/rightfood/right1.htm, accessed May 1, 2006. 

Heart Center Online (HCO) 

2003 Study Explores Effect of Childhood Obesity on Quality of Life. Electronic document, 

117


http://www.heart.healthcentersonline.com/newsStories, accessed November 29, 2006. 

Kent, George 

2005 Freedom From Want: A Human Right to Adequate Food. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown 


Nestle, Marion 

2002 Food Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Ozols, Jennifer Barrett 

2005 Generation XL. Electronic document, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6794412/site/newsweek, 


The People's Movement for Human Rights Education (PDHRE) 

Nd Governments' Obligation to Ensuring the Human Right to Adequate Food. Electronic document, 

http://www.pdhre.org, accessed May 1, 2006. 


2004 Introduction: Making Sense of Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Pp. 1- 

31. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 


1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 

United States Department of Health & Human Services 

2005 The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. 

Electronic document, http://www.surgeongeneral.gov, accessed November 29, 2006. 

“I’m a very lucky girl: I’ve never been shot, beaten, or hungry” (Amanda Patarra, 2004) 

Title of an essay by Amanda Patarra (then 6 years old) presented at the First Annual SFSU Human Rights 

Summit: A Continuum of Violence, in May 2004. Amanda is shown performing at the Berkeley Repertory 

School of Theater in November 2006. (Photo: Mariana Ferreira) 

118


Expendable KIDS: 

Infringing on the Medical Privacy of 

Placer County Students in California 

NATALIE ROLD 

Abstract 

Following the work of Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois (2004), I argue that the violation 

of the basic human rights of 9,000 students attending the Roseville Joint Union School District in Placer 

County, CA is capable of reducing these socially vulnerable high school students to "expendable nonpersons." 

These students are being denied their basic human right to receive health education and 

treatment. Educational institutions are "normative social spaces," and in cases like these they end up 

reproducing a continuum of violence. Specifically, the Roseville Joint Union High School District’s August 

6, 2003, 5113 policy decision violates the rights of students to privately seek sensitive medical attention, 

including treatment for sexually transmitted infections, prenatal care, contraception, abortion, substance 

abuse counseling and treatment, mental health counseling, and diagnosis of HIV infection and AIDS. 

INTRODUCTION 

“Standing in front of a train” instead of 

“standing for something” (Rosen 2003:A1): this 

was how one trustee described the Roseville Joint 

Union High School District’s decision regarding 

medical release forms on Monday September 22, 

2003. Board Trustees voted, four to one, to keep 

the controversial ban on medical release forms for 

sensitive medical treatment during school hours 

without parents’ consent in grades seven through 

twelve (Rosen 2003). This decision inevitably 

causes major losses to the district, and more 

importantly, to the students, whose human rights 

are being infringed upon. I am interested in 

demystifying the perceived safety youth in middle 

and upper middle class communities have, by 

exposing broadly silenced violence and human 

rights issues affecting youth in these areas. An 

example of this is the county I grew up in, Placer 

County, which is comprised of suburbs east of 

Sacramento, California. 

According to the Sacramento Regional 

Research Institute (2005), Placer County is 83% 

white, which is significantly higher than the greater 

Sacramento area (64%) and California (47%). As a 

result of “white flight,” Placer County is currently 

the second fastest growing county in the state, 

growing much faster then the San Francisco Bay 

Area. Placer County is also currently matching and 

projected to soon surpass Marin County in wealth 

(Sacramento Regional Research Institute 2005). 

One main reason that most families are moving 

there is because of a perceived excellent public 


Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “Violence 

Against Youth.” 

119 

school system, and low crime rates. Roseville 

Joint Union High School District schools have 

consistently scored high among public schools both 

in California, and nationwide on STAR testing, 

advanced placement tests, ACT and SAT exams. 

The School district’s seniors also have a 95.6% rate 

of graduation, a rate much higher then Sacramento 

County or any other graduation rates in California 

(Sacramento Regional Research Institute 2005). 

However, due to the School District’s 5113 policy, 

which forces the students to contact and gain 

consent from parents when seeking sensitive 

medical treatment, some 9,000 students are losing 

rights that other students exercise statewide. 

A POLICY THAT PRIVILEGES FEAR 

This decision has the great potential to 

intimidate, humiliate and create fear among those 

students who have valid reasons for not informing 

their parents of their need to seek medical 

attention. Following the work of medical 

anthropologists Nancy Scheper-Hughes and 

Philippe Bourgois (2004), I argue that the everyday 

violence exercised against youth by the Roseville 

Joint Union School District is capable of reducing 

the socially vulnerable high school students into 

expendable non-persons. This means that the high 

schools, which are part of this District, and 

generally considered normative spaces, are 

therefore capable of generating continuums of 

violence due to the everyday infringement of 

student rights (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 

2004), which Article 12 of the 1948 Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights clearly aims to 

protect: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary 

interference with his privacy, family, home or

correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and 

reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection 

of the law against such interference or attacks” 

(UN 1948, italics mine). 

Additionally, the Placer County School 

District’s decision violates Section 46010.1 of the 

California Education Code which acknowledges 

students’ rights to receive medical attention that 

includes “treatment for sexually transmitted 

infections, prenatal care, contraception, abortion, 

substance abuse counseling and treatment, mental 

health counseling, and diagnosis of HIV infection 

and AIDS” (Crosby 2002), without parental 

knowledge or consent. Furthermore, since 1986, 

the California State Education Code has made it 

mandatory for parents and students, grades nine 

through twelve, to be annually informed that the 

students have a right to seek sensitive medical 

attention without the consult of their parents. Due 

to the unconstitutional 2003 decision, the Roseville 

Joint Unified School District now sends out an 

annual letter, which reads, in part: 

Educational Code 46010.1 states that 

authorities may excuse student from 

school to obtain confidential medical 

services without the consent of the 

student’s parent/guardian. However, it is 

the policy of the Roseville Joint Union 

High School District that students shall 

not be released from school without 

parent/guardians’ knowledge or consent 

except in cases of medical emergencies 

(RJUH Board Policy 5113). 

Parents and board members uphold the 

stereotypical perception that teens are 

untrustworthy, as well as incapable of making 

informed decisions, when they leave this 

unconstitutional policy change unchallenged. 

Parents wanting to maintain control of their 

children’s medical decisions make arguments much 

like Kristin Shaffer, who argued that she alone, as a 

parent, should wield the right to make choices on 

behalf of her child concerning medical treatment: 

“I don’t think anyone, let alone the local school 

district, has the…authority to take this right away 

from me” (Minugh 2003:H1). Shaffer argued that 

her role as primary decision-maker for her child 

“should not be usurped just because some parents 

aren’t caring for their children” (Rosen 2003:A1). 

The problem with these arguments is that they are 

strongly rooted in parents’ personal perceptions of 

their community, not their children’s, and therefore 

do not appear to show any sympathy or knowledge 

for why the law was created in the first place. 


120 

PARENTS WEIGH THE PROS AND CONS 

Board member Dan Forman, the parent of a 

Granite Bay High School graduate, has explained 

on behalf of the majority of parents of students at 

the school, “We believe this is a community where 

parents can send their kids, and know they are at, 

school. They can’t drive a car without a parent 

when they start driving, and they can’t go to an Rrated 

movie without a parent. It’s not like Planned 

Parenthood closes at 2:30 when school ends either” 

(Probst 2003b:A1). In another public address, 

Forman has declared, “Let’s get rid of [the 

state]…in our business and tend to our own…as 

parents in our local jurisdiction” (Rosen 2003:A1). 

Forman failed to acknowledge the fact that, while 

children can see R-rated movies and drive with a 

permit with their parents, they are also allowed to 

do these things with any adult over the age of 

twenty-five. It is not the consent of the parent 

specifically, then, but the guidance and supervision 

of an older and ideally more experienced adult, 

which the law insists is adequate for the youth who 

needs to make an important decision regarding 

their sexual health. Therefore, in situations where 

children experience abuse by parents, or fear for 

their safety should the reason for their seeking 

medical attention be disclosed, a responsible adult 

such as a nurse or counselor at school should be 

legally entitled to assist the students in obtaining 

proper care and attention during school hours. 

The Placer County School Board has 

attempted to legally support their decision by 

claiming that two other school districts in the state 

have similar policies and have “faced no legal 

challenges” (Probst 2003a:A1) to this day. The 

District’s decision to break the law merely because 

other school districts have gotten away with it, sets 

poor examples for the community and initiates a 

bad record for human rights regarding 

“controversial” issues such as child sexual health 

and awareness. The Roseville Joint Union High 

School District’s board has decided to take this risk 

for the sole purpose of saving parents from their 

own fears of inadvertently condoning sexual 

behavior among their children. 

Many students, faculty members, and a 

handful of parents have sound reasons for 

supporting Jim Joiner, the sole opponent of the 

policy. The majority of lawyers confronted on this 

topic have said that state law requires school 

personnel to let teenage students leave the premises 

for care related to reproductive and mental health, 

as well as to receive counseling or resources for 

substance abuse without disclosing this information 

to their parents (Rosen 2003). Precisely because of 

the sensitive nature of the care, and the commonly

overprotective and uninformed resistance to this 

type of treatment for their children by parents, 

going against this state law will undoubtedly affect 

the District’s insurance liability policy; its 

underwriter, according to a Sacramento Bee article, 

“declined to say whether it would continue to 

insure the district if trustees overturned” (Minugh 

2003:H1). 

Many students rebut the idea that helping 

young people such as themselves gain access and 

knowledge about services such as those offered by 

Planned Parenthood encourages sexual behaviors 

among them. Former Placer County student and 

fellow classmate, Leah Rosenthal, supported this 

popular student opinion; she asserted that rather 

than enable students to be sexually reckless or 

promiscuous, circulation of such information 

simply allows them to responsibly protect 

themselves (Minugh 2003:H1). While many in the 

Roseville School District community are scared of 

testing the borders of how far the school is allowed 

to infringe upon the rights of parents by 

empowering their children to make serious choices 

without their knowledge or approval, the new 

policy that unabashedly revokes student rights will 

guarantee detrimental consequences if it remains 

enforced. 

Many studies show that this policy of 

“protection” is indeed harmful to students’ health. 

The Department of Pediatrics at the University of 

Massachusetts Medical Center conducted a survey 

with an objective to assess adolescent opinion, 

understanding, and awareness regarding their rights 

to privacy in the health care setting (Cheng et al. 

1993). This study found that 58% of students who 

took the survey had health concerns that they 

wished to keep private from their parents, and that 

an alarming 25% of students reported that they 

would forego healthcare in some situations if their 

parents might find out. The report also showed 

that 68% had concerns about the privacy policies 

of their local school health center. 

Heather Montgomery, a junior at Roseville 

School District’s Granite Bay High School, 

confirmed this report: 

I know a lot of students who haven’t 

wanted to let their parents know about 

personal issues, like getting on the pill – 

that’s a big one – but most of them figure 

out how to get clinical advice and 

attention by ditching school or going after 

or before school. You know, they usually 

end up telling their parents eventually 

anyway. But I have a few friends who just 

won’t go at all because of their parents. I 


121 

think some parents aren’t really 

supportive (personal communication, 

April 6, 2006). 

What is so startling about this District’s policy 

is that besides the potential decrease of students 

receiving important medical attention because of a 

fear that their parents or guardians will find out, 

there may be an additional decrease of students 

receiving sensitive medical care if the parents who 

are informed do not allow the medical treatment. 

Guardians who physically, emotionally, or 

psychologically abuse their children, or those who 

may not approve of their child obtaining 

contraceptives or the assumed implications of such 

an allowance, may sabotage their child’s only 

chance to seek and receive the pertinent care that 

may save their lives. The potential harm that 

unquestionably occurs when these individuals are 

denied access to such medical treatment greatly 

outweighs any benefits that may accrue by 

requiring them to obtain parental consent. The 

Roseville Joint Union High School District’s 

principle guideline states, “students are the center 

of everything we do. Our district will change and 

adapt to best serve our students” (Roseville Joint 

Union High School District 2003). Clearly, 

however, this mandate has been manipulated to 

better serve the community of parents who tighten 

the reins on their children’s rights out of a fear that 

they will lose control themselves. 

HONORING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE 

CHILD 

Finally, I acknowledge that the Placer Country 

High School District policy violates major precepts 

of UNICEF’s Convention on the Rights of the 

Child (CRC), which has not been ratified by the 

United States, nor by Somalia. The school policy 

violates Article 3, which demands that the “best 

interest of the child” be served. If a child does not 

feel that he or she can safely receive needed 

medical attention because of the constrictions of 

this District’s medical policy, clearly their needs 

are not being met. The policy can cause an 

adolescent seeking private medical attention to feel 

that he or she is incapable of arriving at their own 

informed decisions regarding their wellbeing and 

doubt their reasons for requesting medical privacy, 

in violation of their rights under Article 12 of the 

CRC, which states that the “views of the child” 

should “be respected.” The policy blatantly 

infringes on Article 16 as well, which protects “the 

child’s right to privacy,” and Article 24, which 

maintains “the child’s right to health and health 

services.”

While I believe that it is very important for 

parents and children to share intimate knowledge 

and engage with one another on issues concerning 

sexual, emotional and psychological health, we 

must also acknowledge that not all families are 


WORKS CITED 

respectful of their children’s rights to obtain certain 

information. It is in these cases especially that the 

child’s right to seek medical attention must be 

protected to better meet the needs of this 

underserved population. 

Cheng T.L., J.A. Savageau, A.L. Sattler, and T.G. DeWitt 

1993 Confidentiality in Health care: A Survey of Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Among 

High School Students. Electronic document, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed March 26, 2006. 

Crosby, Margaret, and Lilly Spitz 

2002 Revision of Board Policy 5113: Student Medical Appointments. Electronic document, 

http://www.aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/021202-roseville.pdf, accessed March 24, 2006. 

Kennedy, Maria 

2003 San Francisco Faith: This Policy is Illegal: The Fight for Parental Rights in Public Schools. 

Electronic document, http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2004/0403mk.htm, accessed March 24. 

Minugh, Kim 

2003 Medical Policy Stays Put. The Sacramento Bee, September 23: H1. 

Probst, Jason 

2003a Student Rules Tightened. The Press-Tribune, August 9: A1. 

2003b Board Opts for Parental Notification Policy. The Press-Tribune, September 23: A1. 

Rosen, Laurel 

2003 Roseville School Board Rejects Medical Secrecy. The Sacramento Bee, August 6: A1. 

Roseville Joint Union High School District 

2004 Guiding Principles. Electronic document, http://www.rjuhsd.k12.ca.us/about/about.html, 


2005 Board Policy 5113. Electronic Document, 

http://www.rjuhsd.k12.ca.us/board.boardpolicies/500serious/bp5113.pdj, accessed March 24, 2006. 

Sacramento Regional Research Institute 

2006 Placer County Economic and Demographic Profile. Electronic document, 

www.placer.ca.gov/business/current-edp/foreward.pdf, accessed March 24, 2006. 


2004 Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

UNICEF 

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Electronic document, http://www.unicef.org/crc/, 



1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Electronic document, 

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, accessed March 24, 2006. 

122


‘Kiddie Porn’: More Than You Think It Is 

JAMES CLIMACO 

Abstract 

With the introduction of the internet, access to various types of information has been made easier for 

the masses. Child pornography has thrived in this medium. Statistically, child porn is the fastest growing 

internet industry in the world, bringing in several billions of dollars yearly. Child pornography entangles 

children who lack the legal, psychological, and physical power to protect themselves from such exploitative 

and dangerous situations. Sexually abused children are not only forced to undergo physical violence, but 

more subtle forms of abuse and exploitation – such as symbolic and structural violence – as well. Where 

actual physical violence is absent in the production and distribution of the illegal material, the 

psychological dehumanization of these children corresponds to blatant and debilitating symbolic violence. 

Structural violence comes into play when practices and behaviors that endanger a specific population 

remain unaddressed in law or public and international policy. In the case of child pornography, structural 

violence is the underlying cause of the violations of the agency and rights of children. 

WHAT IS “KIDDIE PORN?” 

Child pornography is any material such as 

pictures, movies, or written works that depicts a 

child in sexually suggestive ways or actually 

engaged in the act of sex itself, either with another 

child or with an adult. Virtual images available on 

the internet are also considered child pornography, 

and cut-and-paste or digitally altered images 

portraying the sexuality of children are considered 

just as violent as the “real thing.” Debate over 

what is actually sexually suggestive commonly 

takes place throughout international legal systems 

in regards to the artistic merit of the material. 

What is legal? What is illegal? In countries such 

as Canada and the United States, if such material is 

produced in a manner of artistic merit it is 

considered legal, with certain limitations that 

restrict images of actual intercourse, overt 

obscenity, or genital-themed works. Any material 

that seems to push the limits and cross these 

boundaries is considered child pornography and 

therefore illegal, and can lead to the prosecution of 

its producer or its possessor (Ferguson 1998:44- 

47). Different countries have different age 

restrictions regarding the individuals “exhibited” in 

material that is pornographic. For example, in the 

United States, a person is considered an adult when 

they reach the age of 18, but they can legally 

consent to sex at a younger age depending on the 

state they reside in. Therefore, it is legal for 

minors to have sexual relations with other minors, 

as long as the act is not available for others to view 

(Wells 2003:14-22). 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “Children’s 

Rights.” 

123 

For the most part, child pornography has been 

made illegal throughout the world with only a few 

exceptions. Hong Kong as well as mainland China 

have yet to outlaw child pornography, due to the 

2003 ongoing legal standstill over the word 

“possession” in the proposed bill that would make 

it illegal to distribute and possess child 

pornography in the country (Stout 2003). The 

word “possession” is under debate among Chinese 

legislators because lawmakers are concerned about 

giving authorities too much prosecutive power. 

Legislators fear that “possession” has to be clearly 

defined in order to prevent innocent people who 

may have unsolicited material on their computers 

from being punished under the proposed law (Stout 

2003). While the debate ensues, those who are 

actually guilty of pedophilic intentions are able to 

dodge prosecution. Until fairly recently, Japan did 

not have any policies regarding child pornography, 

but it was finally made illegal with the Protecting 

Children Online law which took effect in 1999. 

The remaining countries which have yet to follow 

suit need to do so in order to thwart these egregious 

human rights abuses and establish a legal system 

that protects the country’s most vulnerable citizens. 

We must push these remaining countries into 

adapting world policies regarding children’s rights 

by limiting their political power if they refuse. 

With the introduction of the internet, access to 

information through a variety of channels has been 

made easier for the masses. Due to online forums, 

chat channels, peer-to-peer file sharing programs, 

electronic mail, and increasingly sophisticated 

cellular phone technology, pornographic material 

in general has experienced a boom in dispersal 

around the world (Bangor Daily News 2007). Child 

pornography has thrived in this medium. People

who seek or produce such illicit material now have 

a novel outlet for their activities, and are able to 

find a community of individuals with whom they 

may collaborate. Internet Relay Chat channels and 

online forums are used as meeting places to make 

trades with other individuals in the virtual world 

and in the real world (Ferguson 1998:40). 

Peer-to-peer programs allow people to directly 

download media from the computers of others; 

each computer acts as a mini-server, allowing 

approved others easy access to their digital content. 

There are individuals who have become 

entrepreneurs and have turned the sexual 

exploitation of children into a business from which 

they profit economically. Websites, either blatant 

or disguised in name, are set up to receive 

payments and give subscribing individuals monthly 

or yearly user accounts in order to access the 

website’s material for a nominal fee. Child 

pornography entangles minors who lack the 

psychological, physical, and legal power to protect 

themselves from such exploitative and dangerous 

situations. Statistically, child pornography is the 

fastest growing internet business in the world, 

bringing in several billion dollars a year (Vachss 

2006). In the United Kingdom alone, reported 

cases of child pornography have risen 1,500% from 

1988 to 2001 (Guardian Unlimited 2004). 

Child pornography is illegal in most countries 

because its production and distribution are of a 

violent and coercive nature. Sexually abused 

children are not only forced to undergo physical 

violence, but more subtle forms of abuse – such as 

symbolic and structural violence – as well. 

Symbolic violence is "...gentle, invisible violence, 

unrecognised as such, chosen as much as 

undergone, that of trust, obligation, personal 

loyalty, hospitality, gifts, debts, piety" (Bourdieu 

1990:127). Criminals take advantage of the 

trusting nature of children in order to get them to 

do things they wouldn’t do otherwise. Many 

children are manipulated by adults into submitting 

themselves to the will of the older individual after 

they are shown media depicting other children in 

sexual acts, obscuring perhaps their actual intent. 

By showing the child such media, the child might 

start to believe that such material and the acts 

contained in it are acceptable. In other words, the 

production and distribution of child pornography is 

a form of symbolic violence because it creates a 

world where children are no longer “human” but 

merely sexual objects to exploit, an identity that 

some of the victims of sexual abuse actually submit 

to. 


124 

THE ARCHITECTURE OF ABUSE 

Viewing the produced and distributed material 

might be thought of as a “victimless crime” since 

the viewer is sometimes in no way involved in the 

palpable act of abuse. However, studies have 

shown that people who indulge in the viewing of 

child pornography are more likely to lower their 

inhibitions towards deviant acts and commit 

physical abuse themselves (Paul 2003:85-87). 

Many pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to 

sexual images of children fueled their fantasies and 

played an important part in leading them to commit 

physical sexual offences against children (Guardian 

Unlimited 2004). In instances where actual 

physical violence is absent from the production and 

distribution of the illegal material, for example, the 

psychological dehumanization of children 

indubitably corresponds to blatant and debilitating 

symbolic violence. 

Some people would argue that adult 

pornograhy is just as bad as child pornography 

because it essentially exploits the individuals 

“acting” in it. The difference is that adult 

pornography consists predominantly of consenting 

adults who are ostensibly aware of the implications 

of such behavior, while the children that are 

manipulated to perform pornographic acts do not 

have that privilege or that choice, and are 

systemically inhibited from claiming these rights. 

Structural violence comes into play when certain 

practices and behaviors that endanger a specific 

population remain unaddressed in law or in public 

and international policy. In the case of child 

pornography, structural violence is the underlying 

cause of the exploitation and violation of the 

agency and rights of children. 

Many victims of child pornography are 

sexually abused when they are very young by 

family members or close adult friends (McMillen 

2003). Children that endure such violence can 

develop post-traumatic stress disorder, along with 

feelings of worthlessness and guilt; this scenario 

precludes them from “properly” functioning in 

society, as well as claiming and exercising their 

fundamental human rights. Children who were 

previously abused are more likely to experience a 

lowering of inhibitions towards future sexual 

abuse, just as the adults who view the material on a 

prolonged basis are more likely to become child 

abusers themselves (Mcmillen 2003). 

THE LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT 

PROTECTION 

Realizing the consequences of such heinous 

abuse of the physical, emotional and psychological 

wellbeing of the child victim, the United Nations

General Assembly adopted the Convention on the 

Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. The treaty 

establishes a standardized guideline as to what 

rights children should have and how individual 

countries should abide by the standards created to 

protect them. So far, every nation has ratified the 

CRC except for Somalia and the United States. 

Somalia is in a state of political crisis, but its 

current leaders intend to ratify the treaty as soon as 

the civil disputes are resolved. In the U.S., former 

president Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1995, but 

it has yet to be sent to the Senate for a vote on 

ratification (Ferreira 2007). 

There is hesitation among U.S. legislators 

about ratifying the CRC because other laws would 

be undermined or need to be altered to 

accommodate the commands of the treaty. For 

example, certain states would no longer be able to 

exercise the death penalty on youth under the age 

of 18 years old, since such a practice would be 

deemed criminal under the proposed treaty. The 

minimum age of legal consent in many of the 

country’s states would have to be standardized as 

well, and would most likely become 18 years of 

age. Because the treaty would affect the current 

policies of so many states across the nation, it has 

been adjourned for the time being while “more 

important” things are discussed by the legislating 

bodies. So while Somalia is riven by internal strife 

and violence, the United States postpones 

children’s rights to deal with “more important 

issues” and China is in civil debate over the word 

“possession,” human rights abuses in these 

countries continue unabated. 


WORKS CITED 

The International Bureau of Children’s Rights 

(IBCR) was created in 1994, a year before the CRC 

was adopted by the United Nations, because its 

developers realized just how important children’s 

rights were, and they wanted to promote the newly 

addressed treaty worldwide. While the CRC is the 

outlet through which standards are implemented, 

the Canada-based IBCR is an organization 

dedicated to promoting the CRC and developing 

strategies that deal swiftly and judiciously with 

children’s rights violations. In 2003, the IBCR was 

recognized and granted consultative status by the 

United Nations, giving the organization a stronger 

prerogative over the CRC. Since then, the IBCR 

has developed tools and models used to monitor 

and inspire the implementation of children’s rights 

among lawmakers and other professional 

organizations around the world (IBCR 1994). 

However, in order to make the CRC and the 

efforts of the IBCR tangible and substantive, 

people worldwide must recognize that children, as 

well as everyone else, have fundamental human 

rights to live healthy and safe lives, free of abuse. 

Suggestions for the United States and the rest of 

the world, although costly, can be the 

establishment of a government spending budget to 

enforce child’s rights laws, or policing credit card 

companies and auditing the company’s records in 

order to trace routes of child pornography between 

producers and buyers (Green 2004:121-127). This 

can become feasible, of course, only when genuine 

cooperation between governments can be 

established as a mutual goal (Vachss 2006). 

Bangor Daily News 

2006 Man Sentenced to Maine’s 1 st Child Porn Case. Bangor Daily News, December 12. Electronic 

document, http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/12/12/man_ 

sentenced_in_maines_1st_cell_phone_child_porn_case/, accessed February 15, 2007. 

Bourdieu, Pierre, and L. Wacquant 

1990 The Logic of Practice. Richard Nice, trans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

2004 Symbolic Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and 

Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 272-274. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 


1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Electronic document, 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm, accessed March 10, 2007. 

Ferguson, Ian 

1998 Sacred Realms and Icons of the Damned: The Ethnography of an Internet-Based Child 

Pornography Ring. M.A. Dissertation, Carleton University, Canada. 

Ferreira, Mariana 

2007 Classroom Lecture: March 10. San Francisco State University, San Francisco. 

125


Green, Michael 

2004 Child Pornography on the Internet: The Victims Deserve a Response. M.A. Dissertation, 

Concordia University, Canada. 

Guardian Unlimited 

2004 Internet Porn “Increasing Child Abuse.” Guardian Unlimited, January 12. Electronic document, 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,,1121315,00.html, accessed March 10, 2007. 

International Bureau of Children’s Rights 

1994 International Bureau of Children’s Rights (IBCR). Electronic document, http://www.ibcr.org/, 


McMillen, Susan 

2003 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Repressed Memories, and the Creative Art Process. M.A. 

Dissertation, Ursuline College, Ohio. 

Paul, Bryant Matthew 

2003 Testing the Effects of Exposure to Virtual Child Pornography on Viewer Cognitions and 

Attitudes Toward Deviant Sexual Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa 

Barbara. 

Stout, Kristie Lu 

2003 Logjam Blocks HK Child Porn Laws. CNN, January 23. Electronic document, 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/01/27/china.childporn/index.html, accessed February 4, 2007. 

Vachss, Andrew 

2005 Let’s Fight This Terrible Crime Against Our Children. Parade.com, February 19. Electronic 

document, http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/Andrew_Vachss, 


Wells, Melissa 

2003 Law Enforcement Dilemmas in the Investigations of Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of New Hampshire. 

SFSU faculty and students listen to speakers on the Gendered Violence and Sexual Rights Panel in 

the SFSU Hohenthal Gallery during the 4 th Annual Human Rights Summit in May 2007. 

(Photo: Richie Cruz) 

126


Child Sex-ploitation: Tourism and Trafficking in Cambodia 

PHIMY TRUONG 

Abstract 

Cambodia is one of many South East Asian countries where sex trafficking thrives. Thousands of 

children each year are forced into prostitution, kidnapped, traded, and sold as sex slaves. Most people who 

seek sexual relations with children are adult men from Europe and the United States. Child sex trafficking 

grossly violates the rights of children as guaranteed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Males play a dominant role in the sex trafficking business of 

Cambodia, handling the transactions between customers and trade between countries. Foreign tourists 

make up the bulk of the customers: up to 30% of tourists visiting Angkor Wat beaches are sex tourists 

seeking vulnerable children. Though there are laws in Cambodia against sex with children, they are often 

overlooked by authorities. There are not enough vigilant policemen to catch sexual predators, and hotel 

workers look the other way when Western businessmen enter a room with a child. 

A DISTURBING TREND OF VIOLENCE 

Globally, sexual exploitation of children has 

been on the rise in the last few decades. The Asia- 

Pacific NGO Work Group states that, “sexual 

exploitation, also known as sex-ploitation, includes 

sexual harassment, rape, incest abuse, wife abuse, 

pornography and prostitution” (1997:1). There are 

areas in the world, such as countries in the global 

South, where children have a higher risk of 

becoming enslaved and sexually trafficked. The 

violation of children's rights is not only an issue of 

great concern for the countries in which sex 

trafficking most often occurs, but must also be 

recognized in relation to the Western nations 

directly or indirectly involved. 


(CRC) defines a child as any individual under the 

age of 18. Children between the ages of 6 and 18 

are found working as prostitutes in many Southeast 

Asian countries (Flowers 2001). “In Cambodia, 

the Human Rights Vigilance reported that more 

than 3 in 10 sex workers in the country were 

between 13 and 17 years of age” (Flowers, 

2001:149). The exact number of children being 

forced into the global sex trade each year is 

unknown. Estimates range from 400,000 children 

being exploited in India to 100,000 in the 

Philippines, and up to 500,000 in Brazil's sex trade 

industry (UNICEF 2001). Clearly, child 

prostitution is a growing problem everywhere. 

Child sex workers are found in virtually every 

country, including the United States, the United 

Kingdom, and Japan, three of the wealthiest and 

politically powerful countries in the world. There 

are estimates of teenage prostitutes ranging from 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “Children’s 

Rights.” 

127 

the thousands to millions in the United States, with 

200,000 in Canada (Flowers 2001:149). These 

numbers show that child sex-ploitation is not only 

increasing in poorer countries, but is prominent in 

affluent nations as well. 

In Asia alone, more than one million young 

boys and girls are forced to engage in commercial 

sexual activity (Flowers 2001:149). Nearly a 

quarter million women and children employed in 

the sex trade are from the region of Southeast Asia 

(Coalition Against Trafficking in Women 2001). 

There are about 21,000 sex workers in Cambodia 

and about 35% of these workers are less than 17 

years old (CATW 2001). Who are the people 

behind such a heinous industry? Where are the law 

enforcers and how are they involved? Who are the 

customers? And more importantly, who are these 

children and how are they being affected? Lacking 

protection and the guidance of adults, these 

children are susceptible to numerous dangers 

within the sex trafficking industry. The gross 

violation of children's fundamental rights, as stated 

in the CRC and the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, can be seen “in every aspect of the 

sex industry that insists on profiting and benefiting 

from those most vulnerable and least able to 

protect themselves” (Flowers 2001:148). 

SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS: PATTERNS OF 

ABUSE, DECEIT, AND INJUSTICE 

The people behind the industry of sex 

trafficking and tourism are usually males. They are 

the ones handling the money and engaging in the 

politics of management and trade. They are also the 

tourists who seek young girls and boys to engage in 

sexual relations. It is evident by the number of 

young girls in the sex trafficking and tourism 

industry compared to boys, and the low socio-

economic status of females in Cambodia, that 

gender domination is a motivating force in these 

abuses. Females do not have as much power as 

males in Cambodian society; men have more 

rights, more social services to accommodate their 

needs, more privileges and more protections under 

the law. Males are treated with more respect and 

thus are given more power. The prevalence of 

gender discrimination within various channels of 

social life in Cambodia makes it easier for young 

girls to stray into the path of prostitution in 

response to the scarcity of opportunities available 

to them elsewhere. 

Pierre Bourdieu's (2004) concept of misrecognition 

can be used to understand this 

situation. Within a life of prostitution, pimps and 

traffickers view sex workers as mere objects of 

trade, and for the patrons of the industry, objects to 

exploit. This commodification of women and 

children as sexual objects fortifies the perception 

that sex workers are worth something only in the 

sex trade; this skewed approach inspires the 

negative sentiment which the individual then 

maintains about themselves. Without the proper 

protection from their governments, the sex workers 

are mistreated in such a systematic and significant 

way that they are likely to resignedly submit to the 

routine of daily sexual abuses. Bourdieu identifies 

this inclination as the “push to conform” because 

of the “order of things” in the lives of sex workers 

(2004:341). With time, sex workers internalize the 

gender discrimination because they come to 

experience and understand the situation as natural 

(Bourdieu 2004). This misrecognization leads to 

the perpetuation of gender discrimination and 

abuse based on these biases in Cambodia, which 

serves to justify “limits placed on women's access 

to education and financial assets, [and their] lack of 

power and influence” (Mahler 1997:80). Women’s 

lack of opportunity for upward mobility and 

independent financial status in Cambodia is a direct 

result of beliefs and practices that assume male 

superiority over females. Attitudes that regard 

females as “naturally” predisposed to existing in a 

lower socio-economic niche makes it harder for 

young girls to escape the sex trade, and validates 

the perpetuation of sexual violence against them. 

Mahler states that this “devaluation of girls and 

their inferior social status has been repeatedly 

linked to the development of a climate that 

encourages and sustains sexual mistreatment” 

(1997:80). 


128 

A COUNTRY IN DISTRESS 

The economic stability of a country also 

affects the sex trade business. When compared 

with countries in the global North such as the 

United States, Cambodia is still on the lowest rungs 

of economic advancements. Thirty-five percent of 

the country’s citizens lives below the poverty line 

(UNICEF 2004), and many Cambodians are forced 

to find different means of making a living, often on 

the black market. For many poor families, the 

eldest daughter(s) take on the responsibility of 

ensuring her family's wellbeing and financial 

stability. However, it is difficult for females to 

find employment in a setting where males are 

given priority in the job market. Discriminatory 

beliefs and behaviors are prominent factors in the 

worldview of poor Cambodian villagers; males are 

thus disproportionately privileged (Jeffreys 2002), 

and women are forced to accept dangerous 

propositions to counter this dearth of opportunity. 

“The search for employment opportunities among 

people in impoverished rural communities also 

leads to voluntary labor migration to urban areas, 

frequently within a nation's borders [where sex 

tourism is most prominent]” (Mahler 1997:80). 

For Cambodian females, the possibilities of 

working in a safe environment while making a 

moderate income for the family are slim. 

Commercial sex work in these urban areas then 

becomes a feasible way for young girls to provide 

food and economic support for their families. 

Corruption in politics has played a large part in 

the rise of gender discrimination and violence in 

Cambodia's illegal sex trafficking practices, 

especially among policemen and officials who are 

supposed to be the “civil protectors.” Though there 

are laws in Cambodia that prohibit the exploitation 

of children, it is easy to bribe officials to 

collaborate or remain silent. Many reports show 

that even officials working within the immigration 

and judicial systems are bribed by pimps to ensure 

that there will be no trouble for their businesses 

(Mahler 1997:81). Therefore, the motivation for 

policemen to enforce the law and protect these 

children's human rights is sorely lacking; the 

criminals they are supposed to be arresting are 

offering them financial security. Even so, many 

NGOs, community groups, and international 

organizations are working with the Cambodian 

government to combat sex trafficking. Groups 

such as End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism 

(ECPAT) work by advocacy, raising more 

awareness and campaigning against the sex trade 

alongside government officials.

SEX TOURISM AND THE PRICE OF ABUSE, 

OR THE MYTH OF THE THIRD-WORLD 

FEMALE 

There are other factors that drive the sex 

tourism business and increase the incidence of 

child sex trafficking. The recent flux of tourists 

and the thriving tourism industry in Cambodia 

brings in a great amount of business for the pimps 

and their brothels. Their customers are usually 

foreigners, coming from a Western country on a 

business trip or vacation. In Cambodia, up to 20% 

of the tourists visiting the beaches of Angkor Wat 

are sex tourists seeking vulnerable children 

(UNICEF 2001). The travelers, who are usually 

well-to-do businessmen, are then offered a girl or 

boy of their choice (UNICEF 2000). For a couple 

of dollars these men are then able to spend a few 

hours with the child in private rooms. The younger 

the child, the more popular they are to sex tourists 

for a number of reasons including, but not limited 

to, the fetishization of the sexuality of youth and 

concerns about contracting sexual diseases from 

older sex workers. In the last three decades, the 

sex trade industry has answered this call, and 

conscripted more children into the trade; it is, after 

all, the “young ones that are most amenable, 'fresh 

and untouched'” (Facio 2003:136). 

According to a report on child sex tourism in 

Southeast Asia most of the tourists sexually 

exploiting children are traveling from wealthy 

Western nations and of this group Americans make 

up the largest number (Flowers 2001:151). There 

is not only a fetishization of the sexuality of youth, 

but also of the “exotic” Asian, which helps 

perpetuate the stereotype of Asian females being 

submissive and is a form of gender and racial 

discrimination that devalues women from 

developing countries. It also encourages 

stereotypes about rich, white men who are attracted 

to the “docile” and “exotic” young Asian female. 

The exoticization of Asian women can be partly 

traced to the Vietnam War, when many American 

soldiers engaged in sexual relationships with 

Vietnamese women while on tours of duty. The 

presence of the military also created a demand for 

sex workers in the sex trade industry. “It also 

provided contact with foreigners and the social 

construction, through pornography, of an exotic 

sexual image of young South Asian women” 

(Pouline 2003:40). 

In the case of underage girls in the sex 

industry, one reason for their popularity as 

attractive sexual commodities is the threat of 

AIDS. There is an implicit belief that sex with a 

child does not carry the same risk of contracting 

the deadly virus as sex with more “experienced” 


129 

women. “In some countries, sex with a minor is 

actually seen as a cure for AIDS” (Flowers 

2001:153), a notion that encourages men to 

specifically seek out children for sex. In reality, 

however, the opposite is true. Young boys and 

girls are more likely than adults to become infected 

with the disease. “Their underdeveloped bodies, 

weaker immune systems, and greater susceptibility 

to injuries and lesions incurred during sex make 

them more at risk for becoming infected with 

AIDS” (Flowers 2001:153). Another reason for 

the popularity of child sex trafficking in Cambodia 

is the higher tolerance for such abuse within the 

local legal system. In the United States, on the 

contrary, consumers of child pornography are 

predominantly male child molesters, pedophiles, 

and individuals with an abnormal sexual interest in 

children (Flowers 2001:152). They are unable to 

enact their fantasies in their own country without 

the high risk of being caught and thrown in jail. In 

a poor country like Cambodia the risks are lower, 

as human rights are not as avidly supported or 

protected by the governments of developing 

countries; additionally, the lucrative nature of the 

business means that a sex tourist can buy his safety 

and protection from the law itself, in the form of a 

deal of complicity with an individual police officer. 

In trying to fight the corruption of the system 

that is suppressing anti-human trafficking group 

efforts, we need to understand more about who the 

child sex workers are and how their socioeconomic 

status comes into play. We are already 

aware that girls are forced into this kind of lifestyle 

in order to provide for their families in a society 

that does not offer them the same opportunities as 

it does to men; prostitution become one of the sole 

means of making money, but there are other factors 

involved as well. Human Rights Watch has 

documented the “unscrupulous behavior of 

traffickers who capitalize on the poverty and 

desperation of families living in remote villages” 

(Mahler 1997:80). There are instances where poor 

rural families pool their money in order to send 

their daughters to different cities so that they may 

find work. They are tricked by pimps who promise 

these desperate families that their daughters will be 

given jobs as waitresses or clerical workers in the 

city. In actuality, the girls are forced to work in a 

brothel to pay off the “debt” incurred by her family 

for her travel expenses and living arrangements in 

the city. This debt often comes with interest, and is 

rarely paid off, as girls don't see much of the 

money they make as sex workers (Mahler 1997). 

Their payment may only ever be in the form of 

shelter and some food.

Young girls are thrown into these abominable 

situations and often are unable to leave. 

Commonly, children are even kidnapped from their 

homes in neighboring countries like Vietnam or 

Thailand and transported to Cambodia. 

Approximately 80% of Cambodia's sex workers are 

Vietnamese women and girls (U.S. Department of 

State 2006). These girls are treated as chattel and 

suffer an even harsher fate because they are 

considered criminals without legal status. They are 

also unable to speak the native language and thus 

become easily manipulable by sex traffickers. 

Mahler reports that in the case when they are able 

to escape from the brothels to return to their 

countries, they are met with hostility from the 

immigration officials and sometimes even face 

arrest (1997:81). 

ATTEMPTS AT ACCOUNTABILITY 

Despite all of these injustices, many 

organizations are working together alongside the 

Cambodian government to expand awareness and 

heighten measures of protection for these children. 

ECPAT has played an important role in 

strengthening anti-child prostitution laws in many 

countries, including Cambodia. The 1989 United 

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

(CRC) is one of the major forces behind the 

mobilization of the international community 

around the eradication of these and other 

horrendous abuses of children's rights. The 

fundamental goal is the protection of children 


WORKS CITED 

through the spreading of awareness and the 

establishment of cooperative networks among 

different governments. So far, the CRC has been 

ratified by 191 countries, but not by the United 

States. 

The rights of children should be recognized 

and protected in every country. Though there has 

been a lot of recognition around the world about 

child sex-ploitation within the last few years, we 

must all continue to cultivate and advance 

awareness of this urgent problem and support the 

campaign for the ratification of the CRC by the 

United States and Ethiopian governments. 

The problem of child sexploitation is an allencompassing 

one that affects everyone, 

everywhere. If the U.S. has not ratified the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child, and if U.S. 

businessmen and tourists benefit from the sex 

trade, then what sort of global message are we 

sending to our neighbors? By ignoring the need for 

ratification of the CRC, we are implicated in these 

sex crimes against humanity. Bourdieu's concept of 

misrecognition delineates the “push to conform” in 

instances of subjugation and oppression; the 

opposite impulse is the “push to create” (2004). 

The threat of misrecognizing sex trafficking as a 

problem specific only to countries such as 

Cambodia is dangerous. The United States needs to 

recognize its role in these realities, and push to 

create real change in human rights practice and 

protocol. 

Asia-Pacific NGO Work Group Media Information Pamphlet 

1997 “Trafficking in Asian Women.” Quezon City. 


2004 Gender and Symbolic Violence. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Nancy Scheper- 

Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 339-342. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) 

Nd Facts and Statistics: Trafficking and Prostitution in Asia and the Pacific. Electronic document. 

http://www.catw-ap.org/facts.htm, accessed April 1, 2007. 

ECPAT 

2005 End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes: 

ECPAT Cambodia. Electronic Document, www.epcatcambodia.org, accessed April 9, 2007. 

Facio, Alda 

2003 Trafficking in Women and Children for the Sex Trade: Reflections From a Latin-American 

Human Rights Feminist. Canadian Women Studies 22(3/4):136. 

Flowers, Barri R. 

1998 The Prostitution of Women and Girls. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. 

2001 The Sex Trade Industry's Worldwide Exploitation of Children. Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Sciences 575:147-157. 

130


Human Trafficking 

2006 Web Resource for Combating Human Trafficking: Cambodia. Electronic Document, 

www.humantrafficking.org/countries/cambodia, accessed March 30, 2007. 

Jeffreys, Sheila 

2002 Review of No Hiding Place: Child Sex Tourism and the Role of Extraterritorial Legislation. 

Contemporary Sociology 31(6):687-688. 

Mahler, Karen 

1997 Global Concern for Children's Rights: The World Congress Against Sexual Exploitation. 

International Family Planning Perspectives 23(2):79-84. 

Poulin, Richard 

2002 Globalization and the Sex Trade: Trafficking and the Commodification of Women and 

Children. Canadian Woman Studies 22(3/4):38. 

Steinfatt, Thomas M. 

2003 Measuring the Number of Trafficked Women and Children in Cambodia: A Direct 

Observation Field Study. Electronic Document, 

http://www.slate.com/Features/pdf/Trfciiif.pdf, accessed April 5, 2007. 

UNICEF, United Nations Children's Fund 

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Electronic Document, http://www.unicef.org/crc, 



1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Electronic Document, 

http://www.unorg/Overview/rights.html, accessed March 27. 

U.S. Department of State 

2006 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000: Trafficking in Persons 

Report. Electronic Document, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006, accessed April 17, 

2007. 

131


Silencing the ‘Rebellious Body’: Refusal of Standardization and the 

Advent of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

CELIA ALVES-RIVIÈRE 

Abstract 

This paper discusses the indiscriminate diagnosis and subsequent medication of children ascribed with 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the United States. I argue that medicalizing children’s 

refusal to fit within a uniform model violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. 

government should be held accountable for failing to protect the welfare of children by allowing public 

institutions responsible for their wellbeing to function as the most active facilitators for ADHD diagnosis, 

and endorsing the use of psychotropic drugs as the primary choice to address its purported symptoms. 

INTRODUCTION 

“The irreducible reality and materiality of the 

human body is always part of a symbolic order that 

is situated within a social realm which assigns to 

each individual body its place, its social status, and 

ultimately its destiny.” 

- Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Margaret Lock 

(1991:412). 

This paper discusses the indiscriminate 

diagnosis and subsequent medication of children 

ascribed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADHD) in the United States, and 

denounces the role of the biomedical establishment 

and other public institutions responsible for 

children’s welfare in perpetrating violence against 

them. The following inquiry is informed by 

Scheper-Hughes and Lock’s elaboration on how 

“societies reproduce and socialize the kinds of 

bodies they need” (1987:33), which follows a 

Foucauldian perspective on how specific 

techniques of control are used by the state in order 

to assert its power (Foucault 1995). In this 

particular case, it is control exercised to discipline 

individual bodies and produce complacent citizens. 

Without neglecting individual suffering, I 

perceive the symptoms clustered under ADHD as 

signs of a collective refusal by children and young 

people to fit within a uniform model of personhood 

for which they are being shaped to become 

compliant adults. Such a view requires an 

understanding of the individual and social bodies 

as inherently interconnected, which implies that 

causes of distress are always responses to, and 


Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “Health 

Disparities: Youth at Risk.” 

132 

reflections of, the social context (Kleinman 1988; 

Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1991). I am not in any 

way suggesting that children’s suffering is not real, 

but I am concerned with the ways in which medical 

labels such as ADHD become normalized, 

ultimately denying children the legitimacy of their 

individual and social experiences, and with the 

potential harm to individual bodies and 

consequently to society at large by the long term 

use of stimulants to “treat” ADHD. 

I interpret the dismissal by the medical 

apparatus of children’s physical and emotional 

messages – their refusal to “sit still,” for example – 

in favor of a normalizing label of obedience that 

disregards the meanings they confer to the world 

they live in and help to create, as a legal abuse 

inflicted by the state under its “techniques of 

control” on those upon whom it has the obligation 

to protect the most. I claim that the indiscriminate 

and widespread diagnosis, and subsequent 

medication of children ascribed with ADHD, is a 

violation of the UNICEF Convention on the Rights 

of the Child, specifically Articles 19 and 29(a) 

which establish that 

states must take all appropriate legislative, 

administrative, social and educational 

measures to protect the child from all 

forms of physical or mental violence, 

injury or abuse, neglect or negligent 

treatment or exploitation…such measures 

should include effective procedures for 

the establishment of social programs to 

provide necessary support for the child, 

[and that] the education of children shall 

be directed to the development of the 

child’s personality, talents and mental and 

physical abilities to their fullest potential 

(UN 1989).

Although the US has not ratified the CRC, the 

government should be held accountable for failing 

to protect the welfare of its children by allowing 

public institutions responsible for their wellbeing 

to function as the most active facilitators for 

ADHD diagnosis, and endorsing the use of 

psychotropic drugs as the primary choice to 

address its purported symptoms. By suggesting 

that a pill is the most effective solution to treat the 

signs attributed to ADHD, the government ignores 

children’s plea to be heard in favor of a label that 

prevents and invalidates any questioning directed 

at the social context in which children are 

perceived as functioning “inadequately.” These 

acts allow the U.S. government to exempt itself 

from the responsibility of providing children with 

an educational environment in which the various 

“faces” of creativity could be nurtured over 

standardization. 

MEDICALIZATION OF “DEVIANCE” 

Since the beginning of the 20 th century a 

variety of names were used in the U.S. to identify 

children’s (mis)behavior. In the 1920s and 1930s a 

cluster of symptoms similar to those ascribed to 

ADHD were gathered under various diagnostic 

categories including Hyperkinesis and Minimal 

Brain Dysfunction (MBD). These behaviors 

included symptoms such as hyperactivity, short 

attention span, restlessness, fidgetiness, mood 

swings, clumsiness, aggressive behavior, 

impulsivity, non-compliance to rules, and low 

frustration level (Conrad 1975:13). In the late 

1930s, the psychiatrist Charles Bradley observed 

that the use of Benzedrine Sulfate, a type of 

stimulant, improved the attention of children with 

disruptive behavior in school (1937), and in the 

1940s, when researchers Alfred Strauss and Laura 

Lehtinen found that children with postencephalitis 

improved their attention when treated with 

stimulants, these behaviors started to be credited to 

organic causes (Conrad 1975:13). In 1957, Laufer 

and his associates described MBD and 

Hyperkinesis and renamed these disorders 

Hyperkinetic Impulse Disorder, lumping together 

children who had suffered brain injury with those 

presenting socially disruptive behaviors, claiming 

that “the salient characteristics of behavior pattern 

[of children with no brain injury]…are strikingly 

similar to those with clear cut organic causation” 

(Conrad 1975:13). From this assumption 

Hyperkinesis began to categorically engulf all 

children presenting behaviors considered socially 

unacceptable, despite no evidence for organic 

causation, merging the physical and the social into 

one disease category. 


133 

Until the beginning of the 1970s, the sine qua 

non symptom characterizing Hyperkinesis was the 

“expression of excessive motor activity,” but by 

the middle of the decade a shift in its signs and 

symptoms led to emphasis on “poor attention and 

distraction” (Diller 1998:32). In 1980, the third 

edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual) included a new disease category, 

“Attention Deficit Disorder,” extending the 

diagnosis to millions of children without symptoms 

of hyperactivity (Diller 1998:32). In 1994, 

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder was 

defined by the DSM IV as having the 

characteristics mentioned above, but with the 

distinction of either lack of attention or 

hyperactivity, or both, as part of the criteria for 

diagnosis. To meet the new criteria, one now 

needed to exhibit six out of 22 behaviors 

considered characteristic of the disorder if 

persistent for a period of six months or longer. 

Examples of such behaviors include acts in which 

the child “often leaves [their] seat in classroom or 

in other situations in which remaining seated is 

expected; often runs about or climbs excessively in 

situations in which it is inappropriate; and often 

avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks 

that require sustained mental effort such as 

schoolwork or homework” (American Psychiatric 

Association 1994:83-85). 

The most obvious problem with the DSM 

diagnostic criteria is that these behaviors are 

common among children. The levels considered 

acceptable are in the eyes of the beholder, so to 

speak, and since alleged symptoms of ADHD 

appear most often in the school setting, teachers are 

at the forefront of spotting “abnormalities” in 

students’ conduct. In a nation with a diverse 

population as in the United States, defining 

“normality” is unquestionably a difficult task, and 

often comes with a “white flavor” (Kleinman 1988; 

Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1991). In such a 

context, many “minority” parents complain that 

their children’s behavior is misunderstood as 

pathological. In a case study examining perceptions 

of ADHD among black communities in the U.S., a 

white school counselor offered an explanation for 

some of the reasons African American parents are 

suspicious of the educational system and of 

suggestions made by teachers about the presence of 

pathological behavior in their children: 

The rating scales we use to determine 

ADHD are ethnocentric. They are made to 

the White woman system, which is what 

elementary school teachers basically are. 

There is also a problem with a minority

student going over to schools with White 

majority…they don’t fit into the norm 

there and are seen as having ADHD 

because they don’t fit into how those 

teachers would define the norm (Davison 

and Ford 2001:268). 

In his research on how foster care children and 

ADHD “intersect as medical and social categories” 

(2000:203), Nirajan Karnik uses the case of a boy 

he calls Darren, who was taken from his biological 

mother at two months of age, to illustrate how 

emotions are robbed from the child’s experience of 

traumatic events by the medicalization of his life 

experiences. Looking at the boy’s extensive 

records after a number of years, Karnik observed a 

pattern through which Darren’s experience of 

suffering became buried under a medical label after 

he was diagnosed with ADHD at age 5 and 

medicated with Ritalin (2000:203-205). The post- 

ADHD diagnosis reports clearly omit Darren’s 

history by attributing his anger and lack of 

attention to the “disorder,” contradicting previous 

reports that point to his impressive ability to focus 

despite the stressful conditions he lived under. The 

following excerpt shows how one caseworker 

based her assessment solely on biomedical 

discourse to describe Darren’s behavior: 

Darren has consistently continued to 

display symptoms of Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity Disorder. Darren has been 

very impulsive, acting before thinking, 

which has tended to get him into trouble 

at home and in school…The teacher and 

administrators are in constant contact with 

the foster parents because of Darren’s 

disruptive and hyperactive behavior in 

class and group situations. He has trouble 

staying on task and is often out of his seat 

bothering other children (Karnik 

2000:205). 

In both examples, it becomes evident how the 

ADHD label is used to further disenfranchise 

people who already possess “undesirable” social or 

emotional needs and characteristics. They not only 

illustrate who is in charge of defining socially 

accepted behaviors and thus inadvertently 

reproducing patterns of racism and inequality, but 

also how the suppression of people’s social 

experiences ultimately imputes the blame to the 

suffering individual. 


134 

RITALIN 

Ritalin, produced by Novartis, is the most 

popularly known brand name for a derivative of 

amphetamine called methylphenidate. Newer 

brands include Concerta, Methylin, Metadate, and 

Attenta. Methylphenidate is a central nervous 

system stimulant (CNS), and although the way it 

works is not fully understood, research suggests 

that it improves attention by increasing the levels 

of dopamine in the brain (Volkow et al 2001). The 

most common adverse reactions to Ritalin, as 

described by its manufacturer, are palpitation, 

changes in blood pressure, increase in heart rate, 

tachycardia and cardiac arrhythmia, and the 

possibility of suppression of growth and weight 

loss with long term use in children. Novartis 

reports as well the possibility of sudden death in 

patients with a history of heart malfunction 

(Novartis 2006:8). What is not mentioned in the 

medication’s fact sheet are the possible prolonged 

effects of methylphenidate in the brain. In an 

interview with Joan Baizer, a professor of 

physiology and biophysics at the University of 

Buffalo and senior author of a study analyzing the 

effects of methylphenidate in animals, she reports 

that “gene expression in an animal model suggests 

that [methylphenidate] has the potential for causing 

long-lasting changes in brain-cell structure and 

function” (University of Buffalo Reporter, 

November 8, 2001). Other studies also suggest that 

the long term use of methylphenidate may trigger 

drug abuse later in life (Brandon et al 2001; 

Brandon et al 2003; Carlezon Jr. et al 2003). 

RITALIN AND ADHD 

The history of ADHD is closely related to that 

of Ritalin. Following its approval by the FDA in 

1961, Ritalin was advertised by the pharmaceutical 

company Ciba-Geigy (now part of Novartis) as a 

drug to improve the memory of geriatric patients 

and for the treatment of various behavioral 

problems in children (Conrad 1975:14; Diller 

2998:20-21). After Hyperkinesis was defined in the 

DSM, Ciba-Geigy started to heavily advertise 

Ritalin to physicians specifically for the treatment 

of the condition, and during the 1960s it founded 

most of the new research on that disease category. 

As expected, “three quarters of the research was 

concerned with drug treatment of the new defined 

disorder” (Conrad 1975:14). Thus, from the 1960s 

onward, the use of stimulants to treat a condition 

with no proven organic causes has been the 

dominant pattern in the medicalization process of 

the child’s body politic. 

Today, ADHD “affects” not only school 

children, but toddlers and adults as well, and the

number of children between 2 and 17 years old 

diagnosed with ADHD nears five million (National 

Survey of Children’s Health 2003). Of these, 

approximately two million are being medicated, 

including “off label” prescriptions assigned to 

small children, which increased “dramatically 

between 1991 and 1995” (Zito et al 2000:1025) 

despite the fact the stimulants are not approved by 

the FDA for use on kids younger than 6 years old. 

The US alone is responsible for 80% of the world’s 

consumption and manufacture of Ritalin and 

similar medications, and an increase of 700% of 

Ritalin production occurred since 1991 following 

extensive publicity on ADHD (Diller 1998:34). 

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE 

OF MENTAL HEALTH (NIMH) 

Despite lack of scientific evidence for a 

biological cause, ADHD is described in the website 

for the National Institute of Mental Health as not 

only most likely to be of “genetic origin” but as a 

chronic condition as well, suggesting that even if 

correlative genes happen never to be found, one 

will be bound forever to the condition and 

medically treated throughout his or her lifespan. In 

the lengthy text describing the category, five 

paragraphs are dedicated to “recent studies on 

causes of ADHD” that delineate specific parts of 

the brain in which “the cause” of ADHD may 

reside (NIMH 2003). Although the NIMH text 

acknowledges that none of these studies are 

conclusive, the way information is presented 

clearly reveals its intention to depict the condition 

as having biological origins, and to endorse the use 

of methylphenidate as the primary choice to treat 

this “chronic disorder.” This trend becomes clear 

by the citation of findings of the Multimodal 

Treatment Study of Children with Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA), a study organized 

by the NIMH (Breggin n.d.). According to the 

study, the most effective way to treat ADHD is 

through the use of “stimulants;” the study suggests 

further that “psychotherapy works to help people 

with ADHD to like and accept themselves despite 

their disorder. It does not address the symptoms or 

underlying causes of the disorder” (NIMH 2003, 

italics mine). Such statements make clear the 

agency’s disregard for non-chemical options to 

address children’s needs, and reinforces the claim 

that ADHD is a chronic condition. 

It is worth noting that most of the 18 principal 

organizers of the MTA study are psychiatrists who 

are avid advocates of the use of medication to 

address ADHD symptoms, and that many received 

funding from pharmaceutical companies for 

research on the efficacy of psychotropic 


135 

medications (Breggin n.d.). Also, in a study 

analyzing the financial ties between DSM-IV panel 

members and the pharmaceutical industry, Lisa 

Cosgrove and colleagues (2006) found that from 

the 170 DSM panel members, fifty-six percent 

“had one or more financial associations with 

companies in the pharmaceutical industry,” and 

that “one hundred percent of the members of the 

panels on mood disorders and schizophrenia, and 

other psychotic disorders had financial ties to drug 

companies” (2006:154). Given their position to 

influence diagnosis and treatment, it becomes 

evident that these physicians are using their 

privilege and “expertise” to help the state 

medicalize its noncompliant citizens. 

The NIMH report also emphasizes the role of 

schools as the primary institution in recognizing 

ADHD: “it is the school's obligation to evaluate 

children that they suspect have ADHD or some 

other disability that is affecting not only their 

academic work but their interactions with 

classmates and teachers” (NIMH 2003). Thus, the 

NIMH legitimizes the controlling role of public 

schools in its endeavor to produce docile bodies – 

that is, bodies that will become conditioned to 

perform repetitive and monotonous tasks such as 

staying still for hours and memorizing information 

with no real experiential or emotional connection 

to the life of the child. Here we see a clear example 

of how the public school system serves to curb 

dissatisfaction, preparing students to become 

complacent adults who are unable to critically 

question their social condition. 

By endorsing the use of stimulants as the 

primary means to curb “deviant” behavior and by 

suggesting that ADHD is a chronic disease, the 

federal government agency responsible for 

providing guidelines to the American public 

regarding mental health serves as the chief 

instrument in the hierarchy of techniques of control 

that lead to the production of docile bodies. These 

techniques are essential in the maintenance of a 

particular ideology – one that depends on the 

“thingification” of human beings (Taussig 1988). 

This would not be possible without the authority of 

the biomedical community, which lends its 

expertise to maintain the state’s agenda by 

ascribing the ADHD label to its “wayward” 

citizens. In order to achieve such outcomes, the 

state, through its hierarchical institutions, 

medicalizes children’s refusal to fit into a 

standardized model, ultimately blaming the child 

for his or her “disease” and creating a social body 

in which spontaneity is seen as deviance and 

compliance is praised as a desired behavior.


WORKS CITED 

American Psychiatric Association 

1994 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III and IV). Washington DC. 

Bradley, Charles 

1937 The Behavior of Children Receiving Benzedrine. American Journal of Psychiatry 94:577-585. 

Brandon, Cindy L., Michela Marinelli, and Francis J. White 

2003 Adolescent Exposure to Methylphenidate Alters the Activity of Rat Midbrain Dopamine Neurons. 

Biological Psychiatry 54(12):1338-1344. 

Brandon, Cindy L., Michela Marinelli, Lorinda K. Baker, and Francis J. White 

2001 Enhanced Reactivity and Vulnerability to Cocaine Following Methylphenidate Treatment in Adolescent Rats. 

Neuropsychopharmacology 25(5):651-661. 

Breggin, Peter R. 

Nd A Critical Analysis of the NIMH Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity Disorder (The MTA Study). Electronic document, http://www.breggin.com, accessed April 10, 

2006. 

Carlezon Jr., William A., Stephen D. Mague, and Susan L. Andersen 

2003 Enduring Behavioral Effects of Early Exposure to Methylphenidate in Rats. Biological Psychiatry 54(12): 

1330-1337. 

Conrad, Peter 

1975 The Discovery of Hyperkinesis: Notes on the Medicalization of Deviant Behavior. Social Problems 23(1): 

12-21. 

Cosgrove, Lisa, Sheldon Krimsky, Manisha Vijayaraghavan, and Lisa Schneider 

2006 Financial Ties Between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Psychotherapy and 

Psychosomatics 76:154-160. 


1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. Electronic 

document, http://www.unicef.org/crc/, accessed April 7, 2006. 

Davison, Judy C., and Donna Y. Ford 

2001 Perceptions of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in One African American Community. Journal of 

Negro Education 70(4):264-274. 

Diller, Laurence H. 

1998 Running on Ritalin. New York: Bantam Books. 


1995[1975] Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books. 

Karnik, Nirajan S. 

2001 Categories of Control: Foster Children and ADHD. Children and Youth Services Review 23(9/10):761-780. 

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 

2003 Electronic document, http://nimh.nih.gov, accessed April 10, 2006. 

National Survey of Children’s Health 

2003 Electronic document, http://childhealthdata.org, accessed April 10, 2006. 

Novartis 

2006 Ritalin Prescribing Information. Electronic document, 

http://www.novartis.ca/downloads/en/products/ritalin_scrip_e.pdf, accessed July 2, 2006. 

Kleinman, Arthur 

1988 The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing and Human Experience. New York: Basic Books. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Margaret Lock 

1986 The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology. Medical Anthropology 

Quarterly 1(1):6-41. 

1991 The Message in the Bottle: Illness and the Micropolitics of Resistance. The Journal of Psychohistory 

18(4):409-432. 

Taussig, Michael 

1992 The Nervous System. New York: Routledge. 

Volkow, Nora D., Gene-Jack Wang, Joanna S. Fowler, Jean Logan, Madina Gerasimov, Laurence Maynard, Yu-Shin 

Ding, Samuel J. Gatley, Andrew Gifford, and Dinko Franceschi 

2001 Therapeutic Doses of Oral Methylphenidate Significantly Increase Extracellular Dopamine in the Human 

Brain. The Journal of Neuroscience 21(121):1-5. 

Zito, Julie M., Daniel Safer, Susan dos Reis, James F. Gardner, Myde Boles, and Frances Lynch 

2000 Trends in Prescribing of Psychotropic Medication to Preschoolers. Journal of the American Medical 

Association 283(8):1025-1030. 

136


Missing Children in Anthropological Research: 

A Human Rights Perspective 

VERONIKA ZIMOVA HOPKINS 

Abstract 

The many sub-disciplines in the field of present day anthropology focus on different ethnographic, 

racial, and gender issues plaguing the human kind. However, only recently did the topic of children become 

of interest to contemporary anthropologists. The following article is an analysis of the portrayal of children 

within anthropological research. I argue that by neglecting the study of youth, several rights of children 

have been violated based on the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child. Secondly, I argue that the 

cross-field comparative anthropological study of issues pertaining to children is necessary in order to 

ensure a fair treatment of all children worldwide. Thirdly, by showing a growing interest in youth, my 

generation of anthropologists is contributing to the expansion of the field of the Anthropology of Children 

within a human rights perspective. 

INTRODUCTION 

As an aspiring anthropologist and a mother of 

two children, I find myself struggling with the fact 

that the discipline I enjoy so much seems to pay so 

little attention to the topic of youth. The many subdisciplines 

in the field of present-day anthropology 

focus on different political, ethnographic, ethnic, 

socio-economic, and gender issues plaguing the 

human kind. At San Francisco State University for 

instance, the current topics of study include 

women, urban life, North American Indians, Latin 

America, and issues of diversity in the workplace, 

among a few other elective courses. All of the 

above-mentioned topics are very interesting, but 

nevertheless, none of them are primarily concerned 

with the topic of children or youth. Furthermore, 

since my primary interest is the study of 

archaeology, I find it rather distressing that there 

has been very little communication between 

different sub-disciplines of anthropology in the 

U.S. concerning children. In this article, I argue 

that by neglecting the study of youth in a 

collaborative fashion, anthropologists are directly 

violating several rights of children based on 

UNICEF’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of the 

Child. Secondly, I argue that the cross-field 

comparative anthropological study of issues 

pertaining to children is necessary in order to 

ensure a fair treatment of all children worldwide. 

Thirdly, by showing a growing interest in youth, I 

assert that my generation of anthropologists is 

contributing to the expansion of the field of the 

Anthropology of Children within a human rights 

perspective. 


Rights Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “Education 

and Social Activism.” 

137 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF YOUTH RESEARCH 

IN ANTHROPOLOGY 

Throughout the late 19 th and early 20 th 

centuries, very little attention was given to children 

in anthropology. Children served instead as a 

research tool towards the study of other issues. 

Ales Hrdlicka, one of the early proponents of 

physical anthropology, in the racialized manner 

typical for the time period, conducted a study in 

which he referred to children as “specimens of 

white and colored children” (1898:347) to illustrate 

differences between “races.” Anthropologist Franz 

Boas and several of his students also conducted, in 

the early 1900s, a series of tests on children to 

“argue the point that attempts to classify racial 

differences in terms of differences in anatomical 

structures must be preceded by knowledge about 

normal growth processes in populations” (Sullivan 

1917:409). Even though reports on children, their 

social interactions, physical appearance, and 

collections of artifacts such as toys are quite 

abundant in anthropological research, very few 

analyses of their actual behavior and thought 

processes have been done. Children are simply 

viewed in most studies as vehicles for further 

research about a particular society. As 

Schwartzman states, “even though children and 

youth are seen as an important group to use for 

examining the psychology of acculturation, the 

major interest of researchers…was to examine the 

persistence or change in ‘modal’ (i.e., adult) 

personality structure under conditions of 

acculturation” (2001:20). 

Anthropologist Margaret Mead raised some 

important issues about appropriate field methods 

for the study of children in 1933. In her hotly 

debated book More Comprehensive Field Methods, 

she argued that “anthropologists should expand the

questions all good ethnographers ask and include 

the study of child behavior in their rubric of 

investigation” (1933:15). However, the vast 

majority of anthropologists did not devote attention 

to children until the 1950s and 60s, and it was not 

until the early 1980s that the Anthropology of 

Children was given its due importance. In the mid 

twentieth century, anthropologists such as W. 

Caudill, J. Henry, S.F. Nadel and others 

experimented with processes of studying children 

through the application of different tests including 

figure-drawing, doll-play interviews, etcetera 

(Schwartzman 2001). Even though these tests are 

not used in anthropological research interviews 

anymore, they are, in modified form, used in 

psychological, sociological and criminal studies to 

date. 

The first anthropologist I know of who truly 

acknowledged the role of children as the most 

valuable “informants” was Mary Ellen Goodman, 

who writes: 

…children can serve as anthropologicalstyle 

informants, being qualified like their 

elders by membership in a society and 

command of a limited part of that 

society’s culture. It is reasonable to 

assume that children not only can but 

should be solicited to act as informants, 

since their very naiveté offers advantages. 

They can tell us first-hand and without 

retrospection, what their society and 

culture look like through their eyes, or 

what childhood is like with respect to its 

perceptions of society and culture. The 

concept of the child as informant is not 

new, though it is seldom explicitly stated 

and has been minimally utilized 

(Goodman 1957:979). 

After Goodman’s acknowledgement of children in 

the late 1950s, children again became marginal in 

anthropological research until the mid 1980s, when 

a memorial issue of American Anthropologist 

(1980) about Margaret Mead and her controversial 

research in the 1920s on the sexuality of teenage 

girls in Samoa sparked a new debate on the topic of 

youth research within the social sciences. Because 

of this debate and the post modern movement in 

anthropology, the last decade of the twentieth 

century saw an increased interest in the study of 

children. Many (mostly female) anthropologists, 

including H. Schwartzman, M. Ferreira, and E. 

Chin, among others, have contributed significantly 

to a new and evolving field of the Anthropology of 

Children. 


138 

CHILDREN AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

Although some anthropological research into 

the topic of children has been attempted in the past 

100 years as mentioned above, the actual field of 

the Anthropology of Children has been established 

only in the last 20 years. Why is it that 

anthropologists who are generally so interested in 

human behavior were inclined to disregard children 

and their worlds so obviously? The issue here is as 

SFSU anthropologist Mariana Ferreira states, that 

“children should be studied as people in their own 

right, and not just as receptacles of adult teaching” 

(2001:130). By excluding children from the social 

worlds that anthropologists analyze, we 

unwillingly end up contributing to the process of 

structural violence against children worldwide. 

Structural violence is “the violence of poverty, 

hunger, social exclusion and humiliation” 

(Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004:1). If this is 

the case, then it is our ethical obligation as 

anthropologists to dedicate ourselves to the study 

of children and the social worlds they live within 

and help create. 

THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF 

THE CHILD 

The United Nation’s Children’s Fund, or 

UNICEF, composed a document that addresses the 

particular needs of children in 1989. Known as the 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the 

treaty consists of 54 articles, which the United 

States government has signed but not ratified, and 

that in content are the equivalent for children of the 

United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights of 1948. There are two articles of the CRC 

that anthropologists could be violating due to their 

systematic lack of interest in youth. Article 2, Part 

II says that “States Parties shall take all appropriate 

measures to ensure that the child is protected from 

all forms of discrimination of punishment on the 

basis of the status, activities, expression of personal 

opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal 

guardians, or family members” (UNICEF 1989:2). 

This CRC article begs the question of how we can 

ensure that a child is protected from discrimination 

if we do not make such violations known, and 

ultimately if we do not consider seriously the 

contributions of children to the making and 

remaking of the world. If Article 2 of the CRC is to 

be respected, then children’s knowledge, including 

the ways in which they think of themselves and 

make sense of their socio-cultural milieu, needs to 

be explored and given due consideration. The 

American Anthropological Association itself, 

under their 1995 guidelines for human rights, says: 

“Anthropologists’ first responsibility is to those

whose lives and cultures they study. Should 

conflicts of interest arise, the interests of these 

people take precedence over other considerations” 

(AAA 1995). My generation of anthropologists 

thus seems to be the one taking the lead in a 

systematic, thorough, and path-breaking 

exploration of children’s interests, knowledges, and 

practices in order to satisfy this professional, 

ethical, social, and theoretical responsibility. 

The other CRC article of interest, Article 29, 

reads: “States Parties agree that the education of 

the child shall be directed to the development of 

the child’s personality, talents and mental and 

physical abilities to the fullest potential; the 

development of respect of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms, and for all the principles 

enshrined in the charter of the United Nations” 

(UNICEF 1989:9). If CRC Article 29 is to be 

respected, it is even more necessary to increase the 

study of children in anthropology within a 

collaborative and participatory framework that 

privileges the autonomy of the little ones’ worlds 

in the first place. Anthropologists need to do more 

research in order to have access to the 

understanding of children’s views of the world that 

surrounds them and which they help create. In 

doing so, anthropologists would become better 

equipped to contribute to a larger understanding of 

children’s critique of the world and their views of 

human society today. 

COMPARATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY 

CRC Articles 2 and 29 mentioned above 

indicate that we as anthropologists neglect children 

by not adequately exploring their practices and 

knowledges. However, another issue at hand seems 

to be a lack of communication across different subfields 

of anthropology that would be both 

informative and comparative to an Anthropology 

of Children. 

To illustrate this issue further I will return to 

the work of Mariana Ferreira, who explains how 

early works of anthropologist Alfred Kroeber and 

child psychologist Erik Erikson helped to shape the 

present day view of Yurok society. Ferreira writes: 

“The Yurok women maintain that the ways in 

which they have been portrayed in academic 

studies as anal, neurotic, hostile and uncaring 

mothers shape their self-understanding as well as 

the knowledge created by outsiders about the 

persons Yurok are today” (1996:1). Kroeber 

created this subjective picture of Yurok mothers as 

uncaring by closely observing Yurok child-rearing 

practices such as early weaning. I wonder what 

Kroeber would say about contemporary western 

mothers such as me, who opt to substitute formula 


139 

for breast milk due to their busy schedules. I 

certainly would feel offended by being called an 

uncaring or hostile mother. However, in the case of 

the Yurok, this allegation led to more severe 

consequences that negatively affected the children 

who, due to their mothers’ “lack of care,” grew up 

to become “troubled adults.” If that is not enough, 

combined with the poverty of the Yurok and the 

misconception of “hostile mothering,” the 

California state social services were quick to act, 

causing many Yurok children to be adopted out or 

raised in non-Indian foster homes, until the 

American Indian Child Protection Act was enacted 

in 1978. Unfortunately, the case of Yurok mothers 

is not unique. On the contrary, the vast majority of 

American Indian communities suffer from 

similarly misguided, and often forcefully imposed, 

views and moral edicts. 

The historical evidence however, offers quite a 

different view from the picture of the unfit and 

uncaring American Indian mother. Due to 

increased scientific and public interest in American 

Indian archaeology in the past several decades, 

many of their burial mounds and cemeteries have 

been excavated. For example, in 1999 

archaeologists excavated a Chumash cemetery 

located in Medea Creek about 15km southeast of 

Malibu, in Southern California. As reported by Los 

Angeles State archaeologist Terisa Green, “…the 

two excavated cemeteries contained over 140 

individuals and over 58000 artifacts. In both of the 

cemeteries, children and infants, despite being 

outnumbered by adults, accounted for roughly 

double the amount of artifacts” (1999:1). The 

mainstream archaeological explanation of this 

phenomenon is that contributors to this occurrence 

of rich child burials are assets of a tribe based on 

inheritance of wealth and ascribed status. That 

explanation seems rather controversial and 

inhumane. A 19 th century anonymous missionary 

from the Mission of Saint Ine’s commented on the 

issue of Chumash parenting: “both Chumash 

parents are extremely fond of their children”(Green 

1999:2). If his observations were correct, than why 

has mainstream anthropology not able to evaluate 

the burials in more encompassing terms so as to 

incorporate the love of a parent and a deep sadness 

for the tragic loss of their child? Is it perhaps 

because if we accept that American Indians are 

capable of being caring, loving parents, then we 

need to look elsewhere for the deep social 

consequences of a history of domination and 

oppression of American Indian Peoples?


Imagine for a moment that, despite the politics 

and bickering between the sub-fields of 

anthropology about what post-colonial 

anthropology should be concerned with, we all 

agreed that anthropology should be structured 

around of the active role of Indigenous Peoples in 

theorizing about their own histories and 

knowledges. Imagine how much all the sub-fields 

would benefit by working in tandem, sharing 

information and cooperating with each other about 

the contributions of children to the re-making of 

the world. Imagine cultural anthropologists and 

archaeologists already have enough ethnographic 

evidence that the Yurok, the Chumash, as well as 

Indigenous Peoples worldwide are in fact loving 

and caring parents as all humans, in fact, can be. 

Imagine how such a simple acknowledgment could 


WORKS CITED 

vindicate mothers around the world who love their 

kids unconditionally, and supply their little ones 

with the best resources available, and how it could 

raise the confidence of the children at high risk for 

mental and physical illnesses, due to common 

misconceptions about their identities and 

sophisticated child-rearing practices. 

For this to happen, I again stress that it is 

important for anthropologists to consider very 

seriously the knowledge and practices of children 

of all societies so we can avoid or erase the 

established false impressions about children as 

replicas of adult life. Furthermore, it is extremely 

important for anthropologists to work together 

within the field and share ideas and findings 

regardless of specialization, in order to correct 

these misconceptions about the role of children in 

the making and remaking of the world. 

Bluebond-Langner, Myra 

1996 In the Shadow of Illness. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 


1997 Symbolic Power. In Identity and Structure: Issues in the Sociology of Education. Denis Gleeson, ed. Pp. 

112-19. England: Nafferton Books. 

Ferreira, Mariana K. L. 

1996 Native Women and Anthro Men: The Politics of Ethnographic Fantasy. Paper presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, California, November 

21. 

2002 Tupi-Guarani Apocalyptic Visions of Time and the Body. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 7:128- 

169. 

Green Teresa 

1998 Reinterpretation of Wealthy Chumash Child Burials. Electronic document, 

http://ioa.ucla.edu/backdirt/spring99/chumash.html, accessed February 17, 2005. 

Goodman, Mary Ellen 

1957 Values, Attitudes, and Social Concepts of Japanese and American Children. American Anthropologist 

59(6):979-999. 

Hrdlicka, Ales 

1898 Physical Differences Between White and Colored Children. American Anthropologist 11(11):347-350. 

Manz, Beatriz 

2005 Paradise in Ashes: A Guatemalan Journey of Courage, Terror, and Hope. Berkeley: University of California 

Press. 

Mead, Margaret 

1933 More Comprehensive Field Methods. American Anthropologist 35(1):1-15. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Philippe Bourgois, eds. 

2004 Introduction. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Pp. 1-31. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 

Schwartzman, H. 

2001 Children and Anthropology. Westport: Bergin and Garvey. 

Sullivan, Louis R. 

1917 Growth of the Nasal Bridge in Children. American Anthropologist 19(3):406-409. 

Committee for Human Rights 

1996 Guidelines. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. 


1996 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Electronic document, www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm, accessed 


140


PART FOUR – THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND PEOPLES OF COLOR 

The rights of women and peoples of color are 

explicitly recognized in two major international 

human rights conventions—the International 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

Discrimination and the Convention on the 


Women. Although the first line of the Preamble of the 

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

recognizes the “inherent dignity and…the equal and 

inalienable rights of all members of the human 

family,” in reality, this ideal of shared humanity has 

not been fully realized for women and peoples of 

color. Many cultural, political and economic 

practices continue to promote and perpetuate racial, 

ethnic, and gender discrimination in both obvious and 

insidious ways. As a result, translating and 

incorporating human rights ideals into social practice 

is incredibly difficult. One strategy to address this 

challenge is the creation of permanent UN 

committees that monitor the efforts of member states 

toward the elimination of all forms of racial and 

gender discrimination. 

The International Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall 

mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference 

based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin 

which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing 

the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, 

of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, 

economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. 

(Article 1.1) 

In 1963, the UN General Assembly drafted this 

Convention in response to the growing international 

concern over racial discrimination. The Convention 

came into force 6 years later when 27 states had 

ratified or acceded to it. The articles of the 

Convention also established the Committee on the 

Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)--the 

first official body created for the purpose of 

monitoring and reviewing state practices. 

The Convention defines three procedures that 

CERD employs to achieve its objectives, including 

mandatory state-issued national reports detailing 

strategies to eliminate racial discrimination; a formal 

mechanism for states to file claims against states; and 

finally, a procedure that allows individuals to register 

complaints against their own state. These institutional 

mechanisms provide a means for redress and 

accountability when human rights are violated. 

INTRODUCTION 

141 

The Convention and CERD set a precedent as 

the first instruments to refine the general principles 

defined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights by 

focusing on particularly vulnerable populations. 

While the struggle for an end to racial discrimination 

is far from over, throughout the past 20 years 

countries have gradually instituted public policies 

and promoted social practices to advance this goal. 

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of 

Discrimination Against Women 

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 

"discrimination against women" shall mean any distinction, 

exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has 

the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the 

recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective 

of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and 

women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the 

political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. 

(Article 1) 

In 1979, the UN adopted the Treaty for the Rights 

of Women, which required member states to examine 

their policies in relation to women and girls. The 

Treaty, also known as the Convention on the 

Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against 

Women (CEDAW), addresses women’s issues related 

to education, employment, healthcare, finance, and 

violence, among others. As of 2007, 180 countries 

had ratified CEDAW, although with numerous 

reservations. The U.S. remains the only industrialized 

nation that has failed to ratify the treaty, followed by 

Sudan, Iran, and Somalia. 

The ratification process and attempts to 

incorporate CEDAW standards into social practice 

are wrought with controversy. Women’s issues are 

embedded in cultural traditions, and religious, social, 

and economic practices, compounded by statuses 

related to race, ethnicity, and class. Nevertheless, the 

Convention serves as a powerful international 

acknowledgement that women’s rights are human 

rights. Article 17 created the CEDAW Committee, 

which closely resembles the CERD described above. 

However, in December 2000, the Optional Protocol 

to CEDAW came into force to create additional 

mechanisms to hold governments accountable to their 

commitments under the Convention. These 

mechanisms include a communications procedure 

that allows groups and individuals to lodge 

complaints with the Committee and an inquiry 

procedure that enables the Committee to investigate 

claims of systematic abuses against women. The 

Optional Protocol helps to promote a greater public

awareness of CEDAW by requiring states to publish 

the Protocol and its procedures. 

CERD and CEDAW Committee—bridges to 

localizing human rights in social practice 

The International Human Rights Regime is one of 

the most widely recognized regimes in existence. 

Yet, while the idea and language of human rights is 

pervasive, the widespread implementation and 

practice of human rights in local contexts is 

questionable, suggested by the numerous reports of 

human rights violations throughout the world. 

Affecting most of the world’s population, racial and 

gender discrimination are two of the most pervasive 

forms of social injustice. 

Localizing human rights laws involves the 

participation of individuals, communities, nations, 

and international institutions. The United Nations 

Human Rights conventions provide principles that 

are broad enough to allow for culturally specific 

forms of implementation. The UN Committees, such 

as CERD and CEDAW, provide a bridge (one of 

many) between international laws as principles and 

the translation of those laws into social practice. 


142 

Sources 

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for 

Human Rights 

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx 

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Racial Discrimination 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw.htm 

Optional Protocol to CEDAW 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/text.h 

tm


Learning and Teaching about Human Rights 

SHERRY KEITH 

One semester, just before showing a film on 

women and human rights, a student approached me 

before class asking whether or not the film would 

show scenes of human rights abuses. She indicated 

that graphic depictions of people being mistreated 

were very disturbing to her, and she preferred not 

to view them. I admit to feeling the same; 

sometimes I think I would even prefer not to teach 

about human rights abuses that demonstrate 

extreme misogyny. Indeed, when human rights are 

mentioned, the words are often a code for “human 

rights violations,” evoking images of gross 

mistreatment of innocent human beings. 

There is, however, a more fundamental 

perspective from which we can approach the issue 

of human rights, and that is the perspective of what 

constitutes human rights. This more expansive 

view of human rights is elaborated in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that was so 

masterfully championed by Eleanor Roosevelt and 

shepherded through the United Nations to its 

adoption in 1948. The first article of the UDHR 

states, “all human beings are born free and equal in 

dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason 

and conscience and should act towards one another 

in a spirit of brotherhood.” This is the basic 

conception of human rights as formulated by 

representatives of the United Nations Commission 

on Human Rights. And together with other rights 

and protections elaborated in its subsequent 

articles, the UDHR constitutes the standard to 

which all governments should be held. 

When learning about the too numerous 

instances in which people’s human rights have 

been violated, I think it essential to refer carefully 

and specifically to the internationally sanctioned 

standards that constitute decent and rightful 

treatment of human beings. These standards 

provide us with a beacon of sanity when 

confronted with barbarism. Remembering the 

principles embodied in the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights, along with many more similarly 

relevant conventions 1 approved by the United 

Sherry Keith is Professor of Social Sciences at SFSU, exploring 

a full range of issues in her multiple- course curricula, 

including women and international policy, the individual in 

modern society; and the sociology of poverty, education, and 

community service. She has participated as discussant in the 2 nd , 

3 rd , 4 th and 5 th Human Rights Summits. 

1 Other United Nations international conventions which refine 

and extend agreements of the fundamental human rights of 

143 

Nations since 1948, we can retain our clarity with 

respect to international agreements about the 

inalienable rights of all human beings. This 

agreement is based on moral authority, political 

consensus and increasingly sophisticated links to 

measures of legal instrumentality. 

However, when we study, discuss and demand 

action with regard to the implementation of human 

rights, it helps to look beyond moral authority and 

legal instrumentality to those situations and 

conditions where local and supra-local leaders have 

been able to advance the human rights agenda in 

the face of great opposition and serious obstacles. I 

have been especially pleased when students have 

identified and studied international figures like 

Agatha Uwilingiyimana of Rwanda; Aung Sang 

Suu Kye of Burma; Las Madres del Plaza de Maio 

(The Mothers of the Plaza of May) of Argentina; 

and Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela of South 

Africa – each and every one a model human rights 

leader and activist. 

The Annual Human Rights Summit held at 

San Francisco State University provides an 

important forum for members of the SFSU 

community and the Bay Area to celebrate as well 

as reinforce awareness and vigilance with respect 

to human rights. The positive, proactive tenor of 

the Summit renders the occasionally unpleasant 

aspects of teaching and learning about human 

rights violations more palatable. Moreover, the 

Human Rights Summit provides an important 

venue for cultivating and supporting future human 

rights leaders and activists prepared to carry 

forward this important work on behalf of all of us. 

The Fifth Annual Human Rights Summit’s 

focus on environmental justice is especially timely. 

Environmental degradation is intimately linked to 

human rights abuses throughout the world. An 

women and children in particular include: Convention on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

(CEDAW, 1979) and Optional Protocol to the Convention 

(1999); Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in 

Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the 

United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized 

Crime (2003); Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum 

Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages (1962) ; 

Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960); 

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 

(1958); Convention on the Nationality of Married Women 

(1957); Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952); 

Equal Remuneration Convention (1951); Convention for the 

Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of 

the Prostitution of Others (1949).

emphasis on environmental justice will ardently 

and actively direct our energy and attention 

towards sharing and renewing the earth’s resources 

for the benefit of all humanity. Thus we look 

forward to the upcoming Summit of 2008 and in so 

doing praise Mariana Ferreira’s efforts as well as 

those of students and participating faculty to create 

and maintain a firm culture of human rights at San 

Francisco State University that addresses the needs 

of the broad, diverse community which we serve. 

***************************************** 

Speakers at the 3 rd Annual SFSU Human Rights 

Summit on the Rights of the Child included 

(clockwise): Summit co-organizer Debby 

Kajiyama (Navarrete x Kajiyama Dance Theater), 

Wasiem Mansur (SFSU Anthropology student), 

and Sheila Tully, (SFSU Anthropology). Panel 5 

“The Rights of Women and Children,” organized 

by Professors Sherry Keith (History) and Karen 

Lovaas (Communication Studies) included SFSU 

students Tracee Coltes, Jamie Cao, Doris Fendt, 

Rhonda Terry and Melinda Cordasco. 


144


Human Rights, Anthropology, and Our Times: 

Triangulating the Emancipatory Potential in All 

JAMES QUESADA 

It may be trite and repetitive to assert, but 

given the velocity with which massive sociopolitical 

and physical environmental 

transformations are occurring, there appears to be 

no better time than now to struggle with 

establishing universal standards and viable 

institutions of Human Rights intent that address the 

momentous challenges of our times. If one accepts 

that the 20 th century was about establishing 

standards and institutions to sustain efforts to 

achieve global peace and justice, our challenge in 

the opening of this new century is on finessing and 

ensuring that we do so fairly and effectively. The 

United Nations and the International Criminal 

Court are only two examples of established 

institutions that ostensibly function toward such 

lofty aims, but that have been found wanting. 

The necessity of an international body that can 

judiciously address and remedy the ills of the 

world – inequality, poverty, violence – with 

recognition of the rights of all people regardless of 

race or ethnicity, gender and sexuality, class and 

cultural background, to live in peace and security; 

that will strictly and consistently renew the 

responsibility of all institutions and states to live up 

to implicit social contracts; that distributes fairly 

the opportunities, goods and services requisite to a 

good life while concomitantly safeguarding the 

environment and all species within it, is an 

expression of deep human yearning that many of us 

possess. The means for founding such standards 

and institutions, however, are elusive, and raise 

questions regarding the role advocates of human 

rights and social justice around the world might 

play in the process of establishing such practices to 

effectively and judiciously put these ideals into 

motion. And it is at precisely this juncture that the 

double-edged sword of whether or not such 

protocol can be effectually established – and if it 

can, whether or not it should – challenges the very 

purpose of anthropology. 

This is nothing new. Indeed, following the end 

of World War II, Goodale refers to a near forty- 

Jim Quesada is Associate Professor of Anthropology at SFSU. 

His interests are ethnography of structural and political 

violence, social suffering, critical medical anthropology, urban 

anthropology, culture change, transnational and refugee 

migration in North and Central America. He has served as a 

discussant at the 1 st and 2 nd Human Rights Summits of 2004 and 

2005. 

145 

year absentia anthropology had in avoiding 

addressing human rights as a central theme: 

As the domain of academic expertise on 

culture, anthropology became 

synonymous with cultural relativism, and 

cultural relativism became synonymous 

with the categorical rejection of universal 

human rights. When the specter of 

anthropology was raised, it was a sober 

reminder that the richness of the world’s 

ethical diversity meant that one could not 

simply weigh a culture’s values — or 

actions — against the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights as if it were 

a straightforward and objective normative 

metric. Yet it was not anthropologists 

themselves who were injecting cultural 

relativism into human rights debates at the 

United Nations, within the conference 

rooms of Amnesty International, or the 

pages of Human Rights Quarterly. The 

symbolic anthropological voice had been 

transformed into a discursive weapon, one 

wielded by opponents of human rights — 

real or imagined — from Marxists to the 

political advocates of so-called Asian 

values…[by the time anthropologists 

began to re-engage with human rights in 

significant number in the 1980s], it was 

almost too late. In relation to human rights 

theory and practice, anthropology had 

been consigned to the savage slot: 

epistemologically exotic, fated to push 

against the universalizing discourses of 

the Cold War, incapable of contributing 

anything of scientific value to a global 

project of enlightened emancipation 

(2006:25). 

Perhaps the primary reason for our discipline 

to have been so reluctant in fully embracing human 

rights as a central raison d’etre in the recent past is 

a healthy skepticism regarding the nature and 

durability of modern social institutions to operate 

according to their original purpose. The fear of 

establishing an alternative disciplinary regime, no 

matter how well intended, can easily dissolve into 

another ‘empire of law’ that may just as easily 

deny, neglect and repress as it may potentially

uphold, nurture and generate a human rights canon 

and practice that serves some and repudiates 

others. 

Hence the importance of the San Francisco 

State University Fourth Summit on Human Rights; 

2007’s attention on sexuality and reproductive 

rights was a purposeful act of training a laser beam 

on some of the most difficult and intractable of 

social issues that transect all societies, and so easily 

shatter into a swelter of culturally relativist 

practices and rationales that can defy good faith 

efforts to place them under a universal regimen of 

order and accountability. 

Last year, an SFSU anthropology student 

attended an international medical conference in 

Istanbul, Turkey on the problems associated with 

early sex assignment of inter-sexed children. The 

conference, attended by physicians, surgeons and 

medical ethicists from India, the Arab world, Asia 

– indeed, everywhere – reflected the maddening 

challenge of what best to do: lessen the ambiguity 

and stigma for the parents and family of the 

intersexed child and immediately surgically 

intervene to assign a sex, or wait and allow a child 

to grow and autonomously make the decision of 

sex and gender for themselves, while in the interim 

having to likely endure ridicule and exclusion for 

being “other.” What are the standards and who 

makes the decisions? Or more recently in the news, 

the admonishment the President Mahmoud 

Ahmadinejad of Iran made of the British for 

deploying a 26-year-old female sailor and mother, 

Faye Turney, to serve in troubled waters was based 

on the grounds that society ought not treat women 

this way, a comment counter-posed by an 

internalist critique from Western commentators 

identifying Turney's motherhood as reason for 

reopening the debate on women's role in war. 

Completely differing views of womanhood, 

nationalism, militarism and the limits of propriety 

again raises the challenge of how to enact, let alone 

conceive, whether universal standards of the role of 

women in the “global” society are even possible. 

And it is in this regard – on the brink of 

despairing that perhaps this is impossible – that the 

SFSU Annual Human Rights Summit provides 

some light. For it may be that the contribution the 

discipline of anthropology has to offer is less the 

ever-elusive goal of establishing a canon and 

practice – that is, a universal set of laws and 

established institutions to uphold them – and more 

a thicker lens with which to nuance and enrich our 

understanding of the social and historical stakes 

that are constantly shifting and changing. 

The issues and concerns that derive from the 

ways people see and accept, and sanction or deny, 


146 

value or depreciate, celebrate or repress sexuality 

and children strikes at core ontological issues that 

fundamentally broadcast the value and worthiness 

of societies. Do we accept same-sex marriages and 

ensure “rights for the rest of us,” as Gregory Hunt 

inquires in his essay of the same name; are children 

accorded less or greater civil rights than adults, and 

do we make national efforts to carve out new 

modes of protection for them in arenas where they 

are newly susceptible to exploitation and abuse, as 

James Climaco proposes in his paper on child 

pornography; do we demand protocol that will 

defend the rights and integrity of women in ever 

more vulnerable “virtual” communities, as Richie 

Cruz prescribes in his essay ”Symbolic Violence 

and the Internet?” The critical discussions of 

students in this volume explore the limits and 

tolerance of societies to protect or depreciate those 

sectors regarded subordinate, marginal, vulnerable, 

or dependent. 

Here, the capacity of an anthropology that 

trains its eye on specific cultural processes and 

meanings, and the ways in which power operates in 

micro localities and nation-states through 

ideologies, everyday practices, established laws 

and unselfconscious common assumptions, gets at 

the fecundity of plural cultural practices that 

function against a canonical human rights regimen. 

And in resistance to the establishment of wellintentioned 

global institutions and practices aimed 

specifically at preserving and protecting what some 

accept as the inherent emancipatory potential of a 

universal human right ethics, we see how others 

see just efforts to meet these needs as attacks 

against their “natural” order. But whether one is 

referring to sanctioning or refusing the rights of 

LGBTQI individuals to imagine and actualize their 

own relevant forms of family and community; 

pressing ahead or holding back from early sex 

assignments among intersex children; securing or 

denying specific human rights covenants and 

conventions that address the unique needs of 

physically handicapped women and girls, and 

within the various channels of cyber 

communication, such issues are the stuff of cultural 

debate that really matters to a people and society 

regardless of their positions, values, and beliefs. 

Whether we are talking about local traditions and 

customary practices that place women, 

homosexuals, children in subordinate positions, or 

modern cosmopolitan values that reify each as fully 

identified humans endowed with indivisible 

autonomous rights, both perspectives paradoxically 

divulge the cultural impulse to protect, cherish, and 

value, even if seen as practices of repression, 

dependency, and hierarchy. Latent in all practices

is a discourse of emancipation, even if it doesn’t 

readily appear to be so. The power of an 

anthropological optic on these matters requires an 

acknowledgement of the strange contours of such 

emancipatory logics that may at first seem the 

absolute inverse. It is perhaps in tracing these 


WORKS CITED 

logics and attending to them in finely tuned 

descriptions and analytics that anthropology, in its 

struggles to be inclusive, can contribute to 

enlarging our understandings and practices of 

human rights around the world. 

Goodale, Mark 

2006 Introduction to “Anthropology and Human Rights in a New Key.” American Anthropologist 

108(1):1-8. 

147


The People of Plachimada vs. Coca-Cola 

and the Fight For Water Democracies in India 

GAVIN RADER 

Abstract 

This paper presents ethnographic, electronic, and archival research on the struggle over water rights and 

access to clean water in Kerala, India. The people of Plachimada have undertaken direct action in the face of 

state repression and violence in order to successfully close down Hindustan Coca-Cola’s largest bottling plant. 

They have taken their challenge over who should rightfully control groundwater access – corporations, the 

State, or communities represented by democratic village councils – directly to the Indian Supreme Court. Like 

the 150 other bottling plants owned by Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co. throughout India, the plant in Plachimada has 

severely disrupted the hydrological cycle by overexploiting groundwater supplies while blatantly dumping its 

toxic waste in surrounding fields. This paper seeks to critically examine national liberalization and privatization 

policies, the elusive “promise” of modernity presented as collateral to these communities, government 

corruption, the corporate plunder of precious natural resources, and the response of local communities in an age 

of global/local water scarcity and crisis. 

INTRODUCTION 

Indian farmers throughout the subcontinent are 

reeling in distress after decades of export-oriented 

industrial agricultural production sponsored by the 

World Bank, USAID, the Indian Government, and a 

variety of international lending agencies. With the 

expressed intent of “modernizing” India’s agricultural 

system, “experts” have forced a massive amount of 

chemical pesticides and fertilizers; expensive, water 

intensive hybrid seeds (both of which require loans to 

purchase); and colossal yet ineffective irrigation 

projects on Indian farmers (Briscoe 2005). These 

efforts to manage India’s local farm culture and extract 

the most profit from the labor of the poorest 

populations has led to seemingly insurmountable 

personal debt, as well as having polluted, salinized, 

and waterlogged soils, and depleted aquifers (Black 

2004). Thirsty commercial crops with no nutritional 

value like cotton, sugarcane, and flowers are endorsed 

at the expense of traditional foods such as millet, 

groundnuts, and chickpeas grown by the poor. Small 

farmers in India simply cannot compete in an “unfree” 

market where huge farm subsidies in rich 

industrialized nations depress produce prices 

worldwide (BBC News 2003). 1 These policies have 

spawned an environment in which only homogenized 

and corporatized agriculture can compete, a worldwide 

This paper was originally presented at the 3 rd Annual Human Rights 

Summit in 2006, as part of the panel entitled “No Such Thing as a 

Natural Disaster: Perspectives on the Anthropology of Human 

Rights.” 

1 The refusal by the U.S., EU, and Japan to budge on their farm 

subsidy policies led to a breakdown of the WTO trade talks in 

Cancun when they were confronted by a bloc of developing nations 

led by India, China, and Brazil. 

148 

phenomenon indeed. Looted of their livelihoods 

and dignity as a direct result of these policies, tens 

of thousands of South East Asian Indian farmers in 

the past decade have resorted to the most forlorn 

form of social protest readily available – ingesting 

pesticide to commit suicide. 

WATER CRISIS IN INDIA 

It is within this context that I would like to 

present my research on the fight against water 

privatization and corporate groundwater exploitation 

in India. Across the political and ideological 

spectrum, India is recognized to be in the throes of a 

tremendously destabilizing water crisis. John 

Briscoe, the Senior Water Advisor at the World 

Bank, wrote a draft report in 2005 for the Bank 

entitled “India’s Water Economy: Bracing for a 

Turbulent Future,” in which he estimates that by 

2020, India’s demand for water will exceed all 

sources of supply, with “catastrophic” public health 

consequences (Briscoe 2005). 2 India has twenty 

percent of the world’s population and four percent 

of its freshwater resource; water riots and disputes 

over river take-offs are evidence of a water crisis 

and they are becoming more strident every dry 

season (Black 2004). The Central Ground Water 

Board has divided India into 5,723 geographic 

blocks and has classified almost 1,100 of these 

blocks as “overexploited” or “critical” (Central 

Groundwater Authority n.d.). Yet the present 

official Indian government policy favors 

2 The report predicted that the availability of surface and 

groundwater would decline to less than 80 cubic kilometers (2.8 

million cubic feet) in 2050 from about 500 cubic kilometers (17.6 

million cubic feet) now.

groundwater exploitation by rich farmers and 

corporations, as no national legislation exists to curb 

the indiscriminate pumping of groundwater. 

LOSSES, REPARATIONS, AND CONTINUED 

VIOLATION 

In 1882, the British Colonial Government passed 

the Indian Easement Act, which legally classified 

groundwater as the private property of an individual 

landowner. The act, which is still in effect, provides 

an unlimited right on the groundwater to the owner of 

the overlying land, without regard for “prior 

appropriation” or “reasonable use” (National Academy 

of Agricultural Sciences 2005:2). The enactment of 

this law effectively created the legal justification that 

enabled the transfer of water jurisdiction from 

democratic community control to the colonial state 

government; transnational agricultural companies 

dealing in rubber, sugar, and tea; and the new landowning 

class. As technological innovations in waterpump 

machinery surfaced and as millions of electric 

pumps were subsidized and distributed throughout 

India, aquifers that took many thousands of years to 

fill began to be quickly depleted. 

The Supreme Court of India intervened in 1992 in 

an attempt to check the depletion of groundwater 

reserves by creating and empowering the Central 

Groundwater Authority (CGA) to assess and declare 

over-exploited areas, prohibiting (in writing at least) 

further extraction of groundwater in such areas 

(Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. The State of Kerala 

2003). However, the entrenchment of neoliberal, 

technocratic governmentality has put managerial 

power in the hands of powerful administrative bodies 

such as the CGA and the State Pollution Control 

Boards that have time and again proven themselves to 

be highly receptive to corporate pay-offs. For 

instance, the Member-Secretary of the Kerala State 

Pollution Control Board, K.V. Indulal, is currently 

under investigation by the Vigilance and Anti- 

Corruption Bureau for accepting illegal bribes from 

Coca-Cola (The Hindu 2005). Obviously, the structure 

and substance of the law favors land-owning elites in 

rural India who can pay the high electricity costs 

needed to pump deeper into the shrinking aquifer 

while utilizing their political and economic influence 

to resist the demand for a constitutional amendment 

restricting groundwater exploitation. 

This legal regime has been most deeply exploited 

by mega-corporations in the mining, pharmaceutical, 

liquor, and soft-drink/bottled water industries that 

profit immensely from the most essential natural 

resource in India - water. Today, Coca-Cola and Pepsi 

Co. together own and operate around 80 bottling 

plants throughout India, each of which extracts an 

obscene volume of water – approximately 500-1,500 


149 

thousand liters of groundwater from hundreds of 

feet below the surface per day – virtually for free 

(Down to Earth 2002). 3 

COCA-COLA AND THE PLIGHT OF THE 

PLACHIMADA COMMUNITY 

In the summer of 2006, I conducted 

ethnographic research in Plachimada, Kerala, where 

low-caste farmers and villagers had successfully 

shut down the largest Hindustan Coca-Cola bottling 

factory in all of India after 4 years of round-theclock 

dharna (non-violent protest vigil) outside the 

factory gates. Through participant observation at 

the dharna, informal household surveys, and more 

than two dozen in-depth interviews of local 

community leaders, activists, farm workers, landowners, 

scientists, professors, politicians, public 

health officials, school teachers and Coca-Cola 

executives, I sought to examine how and why a 

disenfranchised group comprised of Dalits, small 

farmers, and landless agricultural laborers belonging 

to the Eravalar and Malasar Scheduled Tribes 

(classified as “primitive” by the Kerala 

Government) were able to stop the largest soft drink 

company in the world from taking any more 

precious fresh water and turning it into Coke and 

wastewater. 

Plachimada lies in a rainshadow region of the 

Western Ghats mountain range; although it gets very 

little rainfall for the region, the site was selected 

after satellite imaging conducted by Coca-Cola 

revealed an enormous underlying aquifer (personal 

interview with Coca-Cola’s Senior Manager of 

Public Affairs and Communication in Plachimada, 

July 2006). The company, along with politicians 

across the political spectrum, championed the 

opening of the factory as the solution to 

underemployment and economic distress in the 

region, and many villagers were initially optimistic 

about the potential for economic benefit. However, 

after six months of operation, villagers began to 

notice that many private and community wells were 

drying up and that the water that was available to 

them had changed drastically in quality. The water 

table fell from 45 to 150 meters and 260 dug wells 

had gone dry according to one estimate taken three 

years after the plant opened (Shiva 2005). In 2002, 

after 2 full years of unremitting and irresponsible 

groundwater extraction at the site, the state 

government finally recognized the fact that an area 

3 According to the Water Cess Act of 1977, industrial water users 

need to specify how much water they plan on using to be billed 

for it. The Coke plant at Plachimada claims to use 500 thousand 

litres/day. At 3 paise (.01 rupees)/kilolitre, Coke pays 15 

rupees/per day in water charges, or approximately 38 U.S. 

pennies.

with abundant groundwater reserves was quickly 

going dry. The state enacted the Kerala Groundwater 

Regulations Act of 2002, which placed the Chitoor 

Block (which includes Plachimada) and four other 

blocks on the notified list of “over-exploited areas” – a 

symbolic act at best, as no follow-up actions were 

taken (personal interview with former President of the 

Panchayat, Balakrishnan, July 5, 2006). 

Rice cooked with the well water turned hard and 

rancid within a few hours after being cooked, and the 

water that was available soon proved harmful to wash 

in and drink. About two-thirds of school children in 

Plachimada suffered from skin rashes, itching, and red 

bumps on their skin after contact with well water 

(personal interview with “Kalanath,” a pre-school 

teacher and Panchayat Health Inspector, July 6, 2006). 

One half of all families I surveyed within 2 km of the 

plant reported that they or their children had suffered 

from stomach pain, vomiting, and pain in the limbs 

after ingesting the water. Three-fourths of the mothers 

I communicated with complained of abnormal hair 

loss and burning of the eyes after bathing with the well 

water. Women were soon forced to walk 3 km each 

way to fetch and haul potable water that would not 

harm themselves and their families. The words of one 

Adivasi woman who asked me to take a sip from her 

well so I could taste the water for myself (it tasted 

metallic and I spit it out) are representative of the 

experiences and feelings of nearly every Plachimada 

villager I spoke to: “Our water was pure before the 

factory opened. We never had any problems. Now we 

can’t bathe in the water. Our hair clumps together and 

falls out, even on head of my baby. We can’t drink 

this water. It hurts (pointing to her stomach). The 

workers in the fields come home and find their feet 

and legs covered in rashes. They ruined our water and 

land, and they don’t care” (personal interview with 

“Saguna,” July 5, 2006). 

Although Coke officials and some state health 

inspectors blamed the rise in skin ailments on the 

“poor hygiene” of “uneducated tribals,” everyone I 

interviewed in Plachimada (with the exception of a 

Coke executive who traveled 200 km just to speak to 

me) vowed that they never had any issue with water 

from community and private wells before the Coke 

plant opened. Mylamma, the Adivasi woman who 

was recognized as the leader of the peoples’ resistance 

movement in Plachimada, blamed five deaths in the 

village (including the death of her grandchild) on the 

water the people of Plachimada contend was ruined 

through a combination of corporate greed and state 

complicity (personal interview with Mylamma, July 7, 

2006). 


150 

PRIVATE INTERESTS, PUBLIC ATTENTION 

Initially, not a single political party responded to 

the peoples’ protests. The villagers could not wait 

any longer for the state to fulfill its duty to protect 

the Right to Life precept encoded in Article 21 of 

the Constitution of India (1949). With the help of 

vibrant civil society groups in Kerala advocating 

social revolution through science, the people of 

Plachimada set out to scientifically prove what they 

knew to be true: the Coca-Cola plant was destroying 

their local ecology and their very means of survival. 

Water samples were taken from numerous wells 

within a 2 km radius of the factory and analyzed by 

various institutes recognized by the Central 

Government Department of Science and 

Technology. Derided as “indigenous science” by 

Coca-Cola executives, these studies all concluded 

that the groundwater was polluted and unfit for 

domestic use (personal interview with Coca-Cola’s 

Senior Manager of Public Affairs, July 2006) 4 . 

Despite these scientific studies and the persistent 

protests among the people in Plachimada, few 

bureaucratic and political power brokers in the state 

or central government would speak out against 

Coca-Cola. 

All this began to change once the international 

media caught on to the water conflict. A major 

BBC report exposed the fact that toxic sludge 

containing high levels of cadmium and lead was 

being handed out as “free fertilizer” to farmers in 

Plachimada by Coke officials (with directions to 

burn it and mix it in with soils) -- to which Coca- 

Cola’s Vice President responded: “It’s good for the 

farmers because most of them are poor” (Srivastava 

2006). Many villagers recognize the widespread 

publication in India and around the world of such 

egregious lawlessness as the turning point in the 

struggle. An international movement to hold Coke 

accountable for its human rights abuses in India was 

born, comprised of environmental organizations, 

student groups, corporate watchdogs, and activistcelebrities 

such as Vandana Shiva, Medha Paktar, 

and Maude Barlow to support the struggle of the 32 

disparate organizations in Kerala that came together 

as the Plachimada Solidarity Committee. The India 

Resource Center website was created to connect 

Indian villages facing similar conflicts over natural 

resources to one another, as well as to broadcast the 

struggle against corporate globalization in India to 

the student groups in the United States, Canada, and 

4 Studies by the Integrated Rural Technology Center and an NGO 

called Jananeethi measured more than 500mg/l of chloride and 

about 1500 mg/l of total dissolved solids (the desirable standards 

are 250 mg/l and 300 mg/l respectively, while the residual sludge 

analyzed by the BBC found dangerous levels of cadmium and 

lead.

Europe who were then able to use this online resource 

to successfully organize the cancellation of exclusive 

university contracts with Coca-Cola on over a dozen 

campuses (Stecklow 2005). 

The 2004 World Water Conference was brought to 

Plachimada, and journalists and activists from all over 

the world began to descend on the village. As a result 

of this surge of local, national, and international 

publicity generated by the BBC report, every political 

party in Kerala (with the exception of the Bharatya 

Janata Party, or BJP) finally sprang into action. At 

long last, Coca-Cola was forced to admit to the State 

Pollution Control Board in 2005 that it had been 

dumping millions of liters of wastewater directly into 

the ground, water that had been mixed with chemical 

cleaning solutions to sanitize used bottles and clean 

factory equipment (Kerala State Pollution Control 

Order 19.08.2005). With its newfound political 

support, the Panchayat, or village council, of 

Plachimada canceled the operating license for the 

factory and issued a notice of closure, bringing the 

conflict into the Kerala High Court. 

Like many current counter-hegemonic movements 

across the world, the Plachimada Solidarity 

Committee has used a combination of legal and illegal 

strategies (i.e. trespassing, destroying property) to 

advance their cause. The Committee has recognized 

that law operates simultaneously at multiple scales 

under globalization: at the international, national, and 

local levels. As Balakrishnan Rajagopal (2005) 

writes, this perception provides a much greater 

opportunity to use law as a tool of contestation by 

deploying legal tools at one level against another in an 

effort to combat the ideological apoliticization of law. 

At various stages of the legal battle to shut down the 

Coca-Cola plant, the Plachimada Panchayat has 

employed state legislation such as the Kerala Land 

Utilization Act of 1967, which prevents the use of 

agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, and the 

Kerala Panchayati Raj Act of 1994, which gives the 

Panchayat jurisdicition over its water resources. It has 

likewise conjured in its legal battles international 

conventions signed by India that (symbolically) 

defend the right to life (Article 6 of the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the right to 

health (Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of 

the Child), and the right to clean water (Article 4 of 

the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 

Discrimination Against Women) -- all to combat the 

colonial legal vestige that gives landowners unlimited 

rights to the groundwater (Kerala State Pollution 


151 

Control Board 2005; National Academy of 

Agricultural Sciences 2005). 


It is most important to realize that legally 

enshrined rights are useless without enforcement. 

International human rights conventions place the 

onus on the state to gauge implementation of the 

agreements, and there is currently no mechanism to 

hear cases when the human rights of groups or 

individuals in member states are reported to be 

abused. Many activists I spoke to in Plachimada 

were wary of placing the outcome of their struggle 

for social transformation into the jurisdiction of the 

rule of law and technocratic legal experts in which 

they have little faith. Nonetheless, the significance 

of legal precedent is evidenced by the Kerala High 

Court, whose judgment on December 16, 2003 ruled 

that groundwater is a public property held in trust by 

the government and that the state had no right to 

allow a private party to overexploit the resource to 

the detriment of the people. In making his ruling, the 

judge referenced M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1 SCC 

388, 1997) that upheld the doctrine of public trust as 

well as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India that 

recognized the right to clean drinking water as a 

component of the right to life guaranteed by Article 

21 of the Constitution of India. This ruling was 

overturned by Kerala High Court in June, 2005. 

The case will now be heard in the coming months 

by the Indian Supreme Court. 

The fight for true democratic control over water 

and other natural resources is both global and local; 

there are literally thousands of Plachimadas across 

India, as well as here in the United States and 

around the world. Generating population-induced 

hype about water scarcity (cited by the World Bank 

as the humane justification for water privatization) 

is an ideological tool used to direct attention to 

“natural scarcity” while diverting focus from the 

artificial scarcities generated by social policies and 

human and corporate greed. The people of 

Plachimada have confirmed that self-sacrifice, 

unrelenting direct action, formation of international 

alliances, the aggressive use of the internet and all 

forms of media that globalization has to offer, 

political support, and a nuanced combination of 

legal and illegal tactics are absolutely necessary to 

force states to uphold the law in an age of rampant 

corporate unlawfulness and natural resource 

exploitation.


WORKS CITED 

BBC News 

2003 World Trade Talks Collapse. BBC News, September 15, 2003. Electronic document, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3108460.stm, accessed January 10, 2007. 

Black, Maggie 

2003 The No-Nonsense Guide to Water. Oxford: New Internationalist Press. 

Briscoe, John 

2003 India’s Water Economy; Bracing for a Turbulent Future. World Bank Draft Report. Electronic 

document,http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/IND 

IAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20668501~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295584,00.html, 

accessed January 15 th 2007. 

Central Ground Water Authority 

Nd Electronic document, http://cgwb.gov.in/GroundWater/gw_regulation.htm, accessed January 10, 

2007. 

Constitution of India 

1949 Electronic document, http://lawmin.nic.in/coi.htm, accessed January 10, 2007. 

Down To Earth 

2002 Coca-Cola Water Wars, August 15, 2002. Electronic document, 

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20020815&filename=spr&sec_id=31&sid=, 

accessed January 10, 2007. 

Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Order 19.08.2005 

The Hindu 

2003 Vigilance Raids. The Hindu, August 12, 2005. Electronic document, 

http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/12/stories/2005081219760300.htm, accessed January 10, 2007. 

National Academy of Agricultural Sciences 

2003 Emerging Issues In Water Management - The Question of Ownership. Policy Paper No. 32, 

National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi. p. 2. Electronic document, http://www.naas- 

india.org/naas/Policy32.doc, accessed January 10, 2007. 

Rajagopal, Balakrishnan 

2005 Limits of Law in Counter-Hegemonic Globalization. In Law and Globalization from Below. 

Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Cesar A. Rodriguez-Garavito eds. Pp 183-217. Cambridge: 


Shiva, Vandana 

2005 Soft Drinks, Hard Water. Le Monde Diplomatique, March 14, 2005. Electronic document, 

http://www.mindfully.org/Water2005/India-Coca-ColaPepsi14mar05.htm, accessed January 10, 

2007. 

Srivastava, Amit 

2004 Coca-Cola: Poisoning Water, Land, and People. Electronic document, 

http://www.indiaresource.org/campaings/coke/2006/cokepoisoning.html, accessed January 15 th , 

2007. 

Stecklow, Steve 

2003 How a Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India. Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2005. 

Electronic document, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05158/517150.stm, accessed January 10, 2007. 

152


The Refugee Body: Human Rights and the Continuum of Violence 

ALEXANDRA DOBOS-CZARNOCHA 

Abstract 

Displaced persons have come to embody a certain discourse within human rights rhetoric, based 

specifically on the definition ascribed to refugees in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of 

Refugees. The charter describes refugees as people outside their country of origin and unable to return due 

to persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. Within 

this discourse, the refugee identity itself can perpetuate further human rights abuses as the displaced person 

travels through time and space in morally defined contexts of dislocation, asylum, and repatriation. 

Utilizing anthropologist Liisa Malkki’s work on the politics of nationalism and displacement, I argue 

against the popular interpretation of the UN definition that delineates a space of victimhood as the only 

identity available to displaced persons or groups. Specifically, I am concerned with the dangers of this type 

of objectification and spatial manipulation of refugees by state political agendas such as the United States’ 

War on Terror. I also illustrate an alternative role of the refugee body as that of creating, recreating and 

maintaining a narrative of these experiences as agents of their own identity. In order to define and defend 

the rights of displaced peoples as the 1951 Convention was set up to do, it is imperative that the 

international community acknowledge the multiplicity of refugees’ experiences, and the social, political 

and spatial constructs connected to those experiences. 

INTRODUCTION 

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of 

Refugees defines refugees as people who are 

outside their country of origin, and are unable to 

return due to persecution on the basis of race, 

religion, nationality, or membership in a particular 

social group. Based on this definition, displaced 

persons have come to embody a place within a 

specific discourse on human rights in which the 

refugee identity exists through time and space in 

morally defined contexts of dislocation, asylum 

and repatriation. 

Utilizing Liisa Malkki’s work on the politics 

of nationalism and displacement, I argue against an 

interpretation of “refugee-ness” that delineates a 

space of victimhood as the only identity available 

to displaced individuals and groups. Specifically, I 

am concerned with the dangers involved in this sort 

of objectification and resulting manipulation of 

refugees by state political agendas, such as the 

United States’ War on Terror. I am also interested 

in the self-defined role of refugees’ bodies in 

creating, recreating and maintaining a narrative of 

these experiences as agents in their own alternative 

identities. In order to define and defend the rights 

of displaced peoples as the 1951 Convention was 

set up to do, it is imperative that the international 

community come to acknowledge all the social, 

political, and spatial constructs involved in 

refugees’ experiences. 


Rights Summit in 2004, as part of the panel entitled “Peacetime 

Violence in the Bay Area.” 

153 

DISCOURSE OF DISLOCATION 

The work of Liisa Malkki (2004:130) concerns 

the refugee body as it comes to physically manifest 

the “deviance” projected upon it by what she refers 

to as “socio-political constructions of time and 

space.” This invokes notions of the social and 

moral effects of distinct territorial separations, 

which have the perceived power of giving a body 

the right to belong somewhere or not. The refugee 

experience has come to symbolize a process of 

deviation, victimization and, at least ideally, 

salvation. Criticizing this paradigm is not meant to 

underestimate the effects of great suffering of 

horrible crimes against these groups and 

individuals; rather, it is to serve as a warning 

against the effects of using only combined 

instances of violence and dislocation to define 

people. Within this discourse, the problem is seen 

not in the context of the violence that separates 

people from places, but in the body that is 

dislocated. The resulting implication of the loss of 

one’s national community is a moral loss of 

identity; concepts of displacement work then to 

universalize and depoliticize refugees into a single 

population defined on the basis of a generalized 

victimhood. People who are seen as physically and 

morally “out of place” must be put into a system of 

location. This then validates mechanisms of power 

and physical control such as refugee camps run by 

flawed ideas of salvation, detainment, and 

immigration policies that are inevitably biased.

DIMENSIONS OF VICTIMHOOD 

Through these modes of containment and 

control, political violence becomes the dominant 

form of governance in the isolation of refugees 

from formal arenas of self-determination as defined 

in Article 1 of both the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and 

Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which were 

entered into force in 1976. Within the overt 

violence of isolation there is also the structural 

violence in the stifling of any articulation of the 

effects of such violence by the “displaced” 

themselves. In fact, the discourse on refugees as 

survivors of violence disassociates them from any 

sustaining relations to their human rights once they 

qualify as refugees. 

Philippe Bourgois (2004) uses the idea of a 

continuum of violence to discuss the interrelated 

nature of violence and the political, structural, 

symbolic and everyday ways it manifests through 

time and space. I argue that in the case of refugees, 

there is such a continuum of violence enacted 

through the following means: explicit brutality 

occurring before, and embedded within, processes 

of territorial separation; the real and perceived 

victimization of the refugee “population;” and the 

exploitation of the body by States, when the 

“damaged” refugee comes to embody a security 

risk to potential points of asylum. At this point, the 

ongoing effects of terror and displacement that are 

at first used to define refugees are easily 

exploitable within the nearsighted forums of 

economically - and politically - driven immigration 

policies. 

THE REFUGEE-TERRORIST 

Within the state-mediated politics of location 

there are discrete points of tension, as in 1996, for 

example, following the Oklahoma bombing and the 

first official declaration of the “War on Terror.” 

This became a discernible point in time when the 

U.S. began channeling our country’s media to 

instill hysteric fear into immigration-based security 

measures. These acts were influenced directly by 

concepts of victimhood that entered national 

discourse and policy through the Illegal 

Immigration Act and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996, which contains the Expedited Removal 

clause. This clause bases asylum, detention, and 

even deportation on the whims of individual 

(usually uninformed) asylum officers in 

determining who is an “authentic” refugee in 

danger or distress. Under expedited removal, the 

denial of the right to fair hearings is a blatant 

example of human rights abuse that occurs right 


154 

here in San Francisco’s own points of reception. 

Earlier this year, the Lawyer’s Committee for 

Human Rights circulated information about the 

case of an ethnic Albanian student from Kosovo 

who arrived at San Francisco International Airport, 

was provided with a Serbian interpreter by INS 

officers, and then denied entrance and deported. 

Not only did the student speak only the Albanian 

language, but Serbian had been the official 

language of the army that had carried out the ethnic 

cleansing of the area from which the student was 

fleeing. 

Now, under the jurisdiction of the newly 

formed Homeland Security Department, current 

U.S. immigration policies use the confinement and 

deportation of refugees as a tool in creating a false 

sense of security for its own population. The 

current detention and mistreatment of illegal 

immigrants and refugees is the embodiment of a 

systematic denial of rights and a blatant abuse of 

human rights for any and all individuals and groups 

onto whom the United States has projected its 

definitions of terrorism. Under the new regulations, 

even people who were granted asylum twenty years 

ago can be deported on minor felony charges. Such 

is the case with many Cambodian young people 

born in refugee camps in Thailand and the 

Philippines currently residing in the Bay Area. 

According to the Southeast Asia Resource Action 

Center (n.d.), most of the Cambodians facing 

deportation charges in the Bay Area today are 

refugees who have been living in the U.S. since 

they were toddlers, and have just as many – if not 

more – ties to the U.S. than to Cambodia. Many of 

these young people have been locked in detention 

centers without judicial review or any knowledge 

of their rights within the deportation process. 

Noam Chomsky (2003) considers this control 

of undesirables within arenas of public interaction 

for security reasons as a justification for the 

violence of state-sanctioned counter-terrorism 

efforts. It also offers the opportunity for the 

unexpressed violent effects of displacement to find 

a common enemy in their oppression and 

confinement. What happens when it becomes clear 

that the continuum of violence does in fact operate 

both within and outside paradigms of power or 

territory, when brutality finds its expression 

through the desperate acts of personal sovereignty 

as in the case of suicide bombings? 

EXILED FROM AGENCY 

Here in our academic and activist circles, we 

too are susceptible to the seductive act of 

oversimplifying or essentializing others’ 

experiences, so it is necessary to talk about what

these identities mean to the refugees who embody 

them, rather than the political forces or the 

international gaze that manipulates the spaces they 

occupy. As the continuum of violence consists of 

interwoven strands of brutality and exploitation, so 

to does a historical continuum weave together hope 

and human survival, with the body housing the 

potential for both. In her work in the early 1990s 

with the Hutu refugees in a camp in Tanzania, 

Malkki bore witness to the narrative authority of 

the Hutu peoples, whose refugee status had a direct 

effect on one’s becoming more powerful as a Hutu. 

“Refugee-ness” was seen as the intentional refusal 

to put down roots where one did not belong. She 

speaks of this “historicizing condition” (2004:135) 

as a possible positive dimension of the collective 

exile. 


WORKS CITED 

The incorporation and recognition of such 

narrative authority on the part of refugees does not 

mean lessening theoretical orientations, or 

undermining the resources offered to us by human 

rights treatises and conventions. The denial of 

rights for those who are considered without a home 

nation, and the physical and symbolic brutality 

committed against others as a result, or in the name 

of displacement, are both part and parcel of cycles 

of violence presently occurring and gathering 

momentum. In order to take actions on behalf of 

human rights, we need to augment our 

understanding of humanism and violence. I argue 

towards the approach used by Malkki, which takes 

into account legal resources for human suffering, 

as well as abuses of power, historic agency, and 

political and social memory. 

Malkki, Liisa H. 

2004 Purity and Exile:Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in 

Tanzania. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 


Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Philippe Borgois, eds. 

2004 Introduction: Making Sense of Violence. In Violence in War and Peace. Pp. 1-28. Malden, MA: 

Blackwell Publishing. 

Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights 

2004 In Liberty’s Shadow: U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers in the Era of Homeland Security. 

Electronic document, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/lch19/, accessed April 16, 2004. 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center 

Nd Cambodian Refugees. Electronic document, http://www.searac.org/cambref.html, accessed 


Chomsky, Noam 

2003 Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. 


1976a International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

1976b International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

155


The Consequences of Sexual Violence in Sudan 

MELINDA CORDASCO 

Abstract 

Women suffer the worst from atrocities associated with international and civil conflicts. Rape, 

congruent with the mechanics of war, is seldom mentioned in the media and rarely discussed during trials 

of war criminals. The consequences of rape are devastating: not only does it destroy the individuals’ 

wellbeing, but induces also the stigmatization of the victim within her own community. Focusing 

specifically on the epidemic of genocide in which the Nuba and Dinka Peoples in the Darfur region of 

Sudan are embroiled, I discuss how rape is used as a form of social and political control in times of war, 

and explore the consequences of sexual violence for the afflicted communities. I argue that sexual violence 

against any human being is a crime against humanity, and a direct violation of the 1948 United Nations 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

INTRODUCTION 

Since the government of the National Islamic 

Front (NIF) took over Sudan in 1989, the country 

has been torn apart by war. The goal of the NIF has 

been to enforce Islamic beliefs and practices 

throughout a country that is only partially Muslim. 

The Dinka and Nuba peoples from the Darfur 

region of southern Sudan, the majority of whom 

are Christians, are those who suffer the most from 

atrocities perpetrated by the NIF (Hale 2002:1). 

The death toll is estimated at 300,000 and about 2.4 

million people are identified as homeless or 

refugee. This is undoubtedly a large-scale genocide 

that deserves immediate international attention, as 

it blatantly violates the Geneva Convention’s 

Article 6 on genocide (International Humanitarian 

Law 2005). 

Women and children suffer the most from this 

war and are victims of some of the most heinous 

acts of violence. While their husbands, sons, and 

fathers are dying in combat, women and children 

are left to defend themselves in their villages, 

which are continuously raided, destroyed, and 

pillaged, and the people murdered, raped, and or 

exiled. Rape and torture, as a means of political 

and social control, has brutally devastating affects 

not only on the body, but on the psyche as well. 

Under the United Nations Declaration on the 

Elimination of Violence Against Women of 1993, 

rape is declared a crime against humanity. 



“Transnational Gender Violence.” Melinda is currently a 

Peace Corps Health Volunteer serving in Mongolia. Her 

current projects focus on HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention. 

She graduated from SFSU in 2006. 

156 

THE VIOLENCE OF RAPE, THE SHAME OF 

VICTIMHOOD 

In “The Mindful Body” (1987), Medical 

anthropologists Scheper-Hughes and Lock speak of 

the body in three dimensions: the individual, social, 

and body politic. The body politic is used in 

congruence with politically motivated violence that 

inflicts torture upon individuals to enforce social 

and political control (23-29). Rape is an instrument 

of war, and in times of genocide, military coups, 

and political upheaval, rape is used as a means to 

induce social reform. Rape generates fear that 

spreads through the assaulted group, imposing 

upon people feelings of defeat and powerlessness, 

and prohibiting victims from fully engaging and 

enacting their normal cultural repertoire. Not only 

does rape produce social stigmatism; it also 

compromises the health and natural productivity of 

women, and disrupts the very fabric of their lives. 

According to Amnesty International (AI), most of 

the women who have survived the many attacks in 

Darfur are victims of rape and sexual slavery 

(2004). 

The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed 

militia group supported by them are the main 

perpetrators of this massive genocide. There have 

been numerous cases of the Janjaweed militia 

raiding villages and murdering its civilians by the 

hundreds. Most of the women refugees in Chad are 

victims of torture and rape (AI 2004). Rape is used 

as a form of moral and physical humiliation, and 

becomes the tool by which the perpetrators 

promote the gene pool of the oppressor. Murder of 

pregnant women is another means used to eradicate 

“bad blood” (AI 2004), and is deployed with other 

forms of torture to extract information on rebel 

whereabouts. Women who struggle and fight 

against such abuses are beaten or murdered. Young 

girls and women are forced into militia camps as


sexual slaves, and reports have been made that 

their legs are broken to prevent escape (AI 2004). 

Soldiers of the Janjaweed are reported to have 

gang-raped young girls in front of family and 

neighbors, and forced them to watch people of their 

communities executed. Public rapes instill 

humiliation in the victim as well as the civilian 

witnesses, particularly of the male relatives of the 

victims. Sudanese women in these cultures are then 

deemed unfit to marry or remain a wife and are 

disowned by male relatives, especially their 

husbands. Most women are thus ostracized from 

their communities and often remain ashamedly 

silent about their abuse. Many Sudanese refugees 

in Sudan and Chad have remarked that only nonmarried 

girls and women are allowed the liberty to 

speak about being raped because they are not 

perceived as being “unfaithful” to their husbands 

through their confessions. 

If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, her 

case is greatly complicated because the Sudanese 

people believe that a woman can only get pregnant 

if the sex is consensual (AI 2004). One refugee 

woman was reported saying, “Women will not tell 

you easily if they have been raped. In our culture, it 

is a shame. Women hide this in their hearts so that 

men don’t hear about it” (AI 2004). In one case, a 

woman tells of how she was systematically raped 

for 6 days in a militia camp, after which her 

husband disowned her (AI 2004). Women who do 

not get pregnant as a result of the rapes are often 

physically branded as a means of identification. 

One woman and her sisters were captured while 

fleeing from their village during an attack. All of 

them were raped, and she was the only one left 

alive and allowed to go free. Before she was 

released, however, they burned her leg to serve as 

public testimony to her sexual abuse. Young girls 

who have not been married have a severely limited 

chance to do so after they are raped. Sudanese 

women have remarked that if a raped woman does 

marry, she becomes the second or third wife and 

does not get the same benefits or treatment from 

the husband. Most raped women do not get the 

chance to marry at all, and they are referred to as 

“a piece of spoiled meat” (Martin 2004). In a 

country where women are not treated as equals to 

men, sexual violence and its social consequences 

puts them at greater risk of living in poverty and 

isolation. 

Women who become somehow physically 

impaired as a result of sexual violence against 

them, often do not seek medical attention because 

they fear that their husbands will consider them 

unfit to have children, and deem them “bad 

reproducers” (AI 2004). Many raped women do not 

157 

flee to the refugee camps in Chad for the very 

reason that they do not want to be seen by family 

members and friends. Instead, they remain in the 

Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps near the 

border between Chad and Sudan. Laws in Sudan 

strictly forbid women from going to hospitals and 

consulting doctors without first obtaining a referral 

from the police (United Nations News Centre 

2005). Doctors and health officials who try to treat 

rape victims are threatened, arrested and forced to 

stop treatment (Martin 2004). 

Seeking medical attention is violently 

discouraged since the government is largely 

responsible for the rapes. However, health care 

workers have been known to enter the camps at 

night to perform emergency abortions, issue the 

“morning after” pill to women who are mostly 

unaware of this option, and treat rape victims. 

Though many clinics in Sudan supply the pill, there 

are no guarantees that it will be made available to 

individual women for specific concerns (Martin 

2004). 

It is important that during peace talks in 

Sudan, a case is made to change those law articles 

that preclude women from receiving medical care 

without being stigmatized or abandoned, and 

secure the rights and protection for health care 

workers who now perform their duties with the 

constant threat of arrest or harassment. Addressing 

the attitudes of the nation’s men and policy makers 

may give these women an opportunity to speak out 

and document their ordeals and hasten international 

awareness of, and mobilization against, the sexual 

torture of Sudanese women. 

SEXUAL PLUNDER, POLITICAL 

OCCUPATION 

Sexual slavery and forced prostitution are 

common in areas of military conflict, and in 

refugee camps themselves. The original 

conceptualization of rape is as a reward for fighting 

soldiers (Pilch 2002). Many young girls and 

women are abducted while they are trying to flee 

attacked areas and are forced to stay in Janjaweed 

camps (Amnesty International 2004). One case 

documented by Amnesty International (2004) 

involved a girl who was recaptured when she tried 

to escape from the camp, and had her legs broken 

to prevent her from running away again. A few 

women who were interviewed reported hearing 

members of the Janjaweed say, “You blacks…have 

spoilt the country! We are here to burn you…we 

will kill your husbands and sons and we will sleep 

with you! You will be our wives!” (AI 2004). 

Taking ownership of the enemy’s women through 

abduction, torture, and rape is considered a reward


and a “trophy” of one group’s victory over another. 

Rape is also symbolic of dominance; detaining 

women in camps and publicly raping them, 

reinforces the militia’s dominance over the people 

(Pilch 2002). Many women and girls abducted 

have never been found. 

Within refugee and IDP camps, persistent 

raping is a common occurrence. Women are scared 

to leave because Janjaweed militias patrol the 

borders of these camps. Garsila is a district in 

Sudan where many thousands of Internally 

Displaced Persons live; in the town itself there is a 

Janjaweed camp. The Chad government will not 

allow many of these IDPs into the country, while 

telling the local and international populace that 

peace talks are taking place. When civilians try to 

escape from violence, they are gunned down by the 

militia; when women leave at night to collect 

firewood, they are brutally attacked. Accounts told 

by numerous women detail how the militiamen 

sneak into the camps at night and abduct girls and 

women and forcibly rape them, but public officials 

have done nothing to stop these crimes from 

happening (AI 2004). The United Nations urged 

the Sudanese government to protect peoples placed 

in the IDP camps and in response, officials gave 

UN sanctions for Janjaweed militiamen to carry 

defensive weapons to “protect” the borders of the 

IDP camps. These are the same people who have 

been murdering, raping and torturing the thousands 

of Sudanese now living in these camps (Wortman 

2004). In Chad, women are afraid to leave the 

camps to go back to Sudan because they fear for 

the security of their children, scarcity of food, 

isolation and rape. Although women are now being 

escorted by African Union troops in some areas, 

they still feel that this is not enough to ensure them 

safety (UN News Centre 2005). 

Pregnant women have not escaped the horrors 

of rape and murder either. Numerous accounts 

have been told of women who were raped and lost 

their unborn child, women who were raped and 

then murdered, women who had their bellies slit 

while still alive, and women who were forcibly 

impregnated in a symbolic “dilution” of their 

culture. This is a vicious kind of ethnic cleansing; 

children born of rape are socially stigmatized, as 

they are perceived from the moment of their birth 

as the progeny of traitors and murderers. One 

Janjaweed militiaman justified the murder of a 

pregnant woman by reporting that the unborn baby 

has been the child of an enemy (UN News Centre 

2005). Many murders of children have been 

recorded, and even young children have been the 

victims of sexual mutilation and torture, a direct 

violation of the Geneva Conventions on the Rights 

158 

of the Child (AI 2004). Children are often murder 

victims for the express purpose of ethnic cleansing. 

SEEKING JUSTICE 

Peace talks have recently begun in Sudan. 

Current government officials and former members 

of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement 

(SPLM) have decided to draft a constitution that 

will ostensibly unite the country by distributing 

power and wealth equally. However, discussions of 

the current conflict in the western Darfur region 

did not take place (Wortman 2003). Although some 

of the conflict has died down, the country remains 

in terrible turmoil. Recently, the United Nations 

decided to send 10,000 peacekeeping troops into 

the Darfur region to help control the conflict, but 

they are unsure as to where to send them since 

some areas are still more dangerous than others. 

Currently, the African Union has 2,200 

peacekeepers in Sudan and has agreed to send 

5,500 more (Lacey 2005). 

There is also the matter of sending war 

criminals to the International Criminal Court at The 

Hague in Holland, which both Sudan and the 

United States are against. The ICC is, “the world’s 

first permanent and independent criminal court for 

judging war crimes,” (Simons 2005:1). Both 

countries want the criminals tried in Sudan. This is 

partially due to the fact that the United States 

maintains ties with some Sudanese officials who 

are supplying anti-terrorism information to the U.S. 

Trying these Sudanese officials at the ICC could 

possibly disrupt the United States’ anti-terrorism 

investigations (Silverstein 2005). 

It would be unfair, of course, to say that the 

United States is collaborating completely with 

Sudan. Former Secretary of State Colin Powel 

declared the war in Sudan a terrible genocide and 

the United Sates has taken measures to help, 

including allowing refugees into the United States 

and proposing measures for rebuilding the country 

(Wortman 2004). The UN is still investigating 

crimes that happened during the Rwandan 

genocide, the war in Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone, 

and the ICC is launching a major investigation of 

Sudanese war criminals. The Sudanese 

government, however, is not going to turn its 

people over to the UN easily, and does not want 

international criminals tried on standards that are 

not their own. 

So far, investigators have compiled a list of 51 

officers and civilians who face war crimes 

convictions. However, the ICC can only conduct 

trials if the Sudanese government is unwilling or 

unable to hold national trials. The Sudanese 

government is doing what it can to stay out of the


ICC process and is conducting its own 

investigations. The United States will have no 

involvement with the ICC and withdrew from the 

1998 Rome Treaty in May 2002 (Simons 2005:1- 

2). If the ICC is successful, this will be the first 

case of genocide and human rights violations 

presented before the courts and hopefully, the 

vehicle by which these criminals will be charged 

with crimes of sexual violence against women. 

THE QUESTION OF A LEGITIMATE WAR, 

OR CAN VIOLENCE BE VALIDATED? 

A key debate lately within the UN is whether 

or not what is happening in Darfur is genocide. 

Obviously, people who are not locally involved in 

the war – those living in America, France, and 

Japan, for instance –undoubtedly agree that it is. 

The problem is that countries such as Saudi Arabia, 

Iran, Indonesia, and other Islamic nations do not 

believe these are acts of genocide. Were the United 

Nations to agree upon calling the violence 

genocide, it is likely to offend many Islamic 

governments. To this end, there have been talks 

about changing the definition of terrorism and what 

constitutes a terrorist act. This is a complex 

discussion, since terrorism can apply to almost any 

type of violence. 

Terrorism involves using unlawful violence 

motivated by political, religious, or ideological 

beliefs to intimidate or coerce a government or 

people to change (Burgess 2003). The problem is 

determining what constitutes a “legitimate” target 

for terrorist groups. An example of this is the 

United States bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 

during WWII. The Japanese might consider this an 

act of terrorism, whereas the U.S. sees it as an act 

of defense. Many terrorists groups mask their 

actions as defense by saying they had no other 

choice but to act with violence (Burgess 2003). The 

Janjaweed could potentially argue this point since 

the war started because of Sudanese Muslim 

pastoralists encroaching upon black African 

Sudanese agriculturists (Amnesty International 

2004). Pastoralists and agriculturists often fight 

with one another over resources, since the two 

subsistence patterns cannot coexist. The Islamic 

Sudanese targeted civilians and have often been 

quoted as wanting to rid Sudan of the black 

Africans living mostly in the Darfur region. This 

war has gone beyond fighting for resources and 

now is about fighting other ethnic groups. The 

Janjaweed’s main targets are not combatants, but 

people who have no means of protection – 

civilians. If the definition of terrorism is broadened 

and genocide ruled out in Sudan, then most likely 

Sudanese criminals will be treated as terrorists. 

159 

OPPRESSION OF THE BODY, ABSENCE OF 

THE VOICE 

Amnesty International, the United Nations, 

and other humanitarian groups have said that the 

conflict in Sudan is one of the worst acts against 

humanity (AI 2004). Violation of the Nuba and 

Dinka women, as well as other non-Islamic groups 

in Sudan, is a direct violation of the United 

Nations’ Declaration on the Elimination of 

Violence Against Women (2005). The Geneva 

Convention’s Articles 7 and 8 state that “rape, 

sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced 

pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form 

of sexual violence of comparable gravity” is a 

violation of humans rights and prohibits persons 

from leading healthy, enjoyable lives free from 

harm (Humanitarian Principles Training 2005). 

Unfortunately, Sudan is not a signatory of the UN 

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against 

Women. It is, however, a participant of the African 

Charter, which closely resembles the Geneva 

Conventions. 

Rape is often overlooked during the trials of 

war criminals, and it wasn’t until after the 

Rwandan Genocide that international courts began 

looking into sexual violence (Pilch 2002). 

Currently, women in Sudan have been urging that 

peace talks include female government officials. 

Although Sudan has declared that women are 

“equal” to men, there is a lot of internal 

discrimination, especially in the political arena. 

Only a small percentage of women comprise 

government ministries and the judiciary cabinet. 

The power-sharing agreement in Sudan for the 

transitioning government only applies to political 

parties and not civil-society organizations made up 

mostly of women (IRIN 2005). Sixty-five percent 

of people living in southern Sudan are women who 

have been the most marginalized since the war. 

Women now want to be included in all 

commissions and activities implemented by the 

peace agreements. They want to ensure the health 

and safety of women and let the past stay in the 

past instead of persist in their futures (IRIN 2005). 

As Mary Cirillo Bang, a Sudanese woman’s 

advocate for the New Sudan Women’s Federation 

has said, “When two elephants are fighting, the 

grass suffers…women and children are the grass” 

(IRIN 2005). Although women were not the only 

ones who suffered in the war, they are now the 

living scars of conflict. Their voices must be heard 

if the Sudanese government is to be challenged. 

The UN, along with the rest of the world, must 

declare that rape will not be tolerated in times of 

war or peace, and seek the punishment of an 

offender under the laws of humanity.


WORKS CITED 

Aljazeera.Net 

2005 Sudan: Constitution Talks Begin. Electronic document, 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C72ADBA3-2254-423B-A917-A19C6C0D9A2F.htm, accessed 

May 2, 2005. 


2004 Darfur: Rape as a Weapon of War. Electronic document, 

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540762004, accessed April 22, 2005. 

Burgess, Mark 

2003 Terrorism: The Problems of Definition. CDI: Center for Defense Information. Electronic 

document, http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1564, accessed May 12, 2005. 

Humanitarian Principles Training 

2004 International Humanitarian Law. Electronic document, 

http://coe-dmha.org/Unicef/HPT_Session4Reading4_1.htm, accessed April 29, 2005. 

Hale, Sondra 

2002 Cultural Assault a Form of Genocide. Electronic document, 

http://www.crimesofwar.org/sudan-mag/sudan-hale.html, accessed April 17, 2005. 

IRIN News.org 

2005 Sudan: Women Demand Greater Inclusion in Southern Peace Process. Electronic document, 

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=47149&SelectRegion=East_Africa, accessed May 17, 

2005. 

Lacey, Marc 

2006 Darfur Violence Wanes, but Disruption Persists. International Herald Tribune. Electronic 

document, http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/01/news/darfur.php, accessed May 2, 2005. 

Leggat, Alec 

2002 Eastern Sudan – A Personal Perspective on Awareness of HIV/AIDS. Ockendon International. 

Electronic document, http://www.ockenden.org.uk/index.asp?id=1033#TOP, accessed May 17, 2005. 

Martin, Sarah and Mamie Mutchler 

2004 Sudan: For Raped Women in Darfur, Access to Reproductive Health Services Limited. Refugees 

International. Electronic document, 

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4260, accessed May 15, 2005. 

Pilch, Frances T. 

2002 Rape as Genocide: The Legal Response to Sexual Violence. Electronic document, 

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/pif01/pif01.pdf, accessed April 22, 2005. 

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Margaret M. Lock 

1987 The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology. Medical 

Anthropology Quarterly 1(1):6-41. 

Silverstein, Ken 

2005 Official Pariah Sudan Valuable to America’s War on Terrorism. Los Angeles 

Times. Electronic document, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg 

sudan29apr29,1,2464174.story, accessed May 2, 2005. 

Simons, Marlise 

2005 Sudan Poses First Big Trial For World Criminal Court. The New York Times. Electronic 

document, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/international/africa/29darfur.html?pagewanted=1, 



2002 FWCW Platform for Action: Violence Against Women. Electronic document, 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/violence.htm, accessed April 19, 2005. 

United Nations News Centre 

2005 Darfur Women Tell UN Refugee Chief of Their Terror of Janjaweed Militia Attacks. Electronic 

document, http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=14019&Cr=Sudan&Cr1, accessed 

April 29, 2005. 

UN Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs (OCHA) 

2002 Plus News Special on HIV/AIDS in Southern Sudan. Electronic document, 

http://www.plusnews.org/webspecials/PNsudan/default.asp, accessed May 17, 2005. 

Wortman, Joshua 

2002 Devastatingly Obvious: Genocide in Sudan Continues Unabashed. Electronic document, 

http://psy.ucsd.edu/~jwortman/sudan.htm, accessed May 14, 2005. 

160


Institutionalized Racism: 

The Prison Industrial Complex in the United States 

LINDSAY CLARK 

Abstract 

This essay examines the various forms of violence committed against poor people of color in the U.S. 

prison system. The structural violence enacted in the historical enslavement of blacks and the Jim Crow 

segregation laws persist today in the context of the prison complex system. There are presently over two 

million people behind bars in the United States – the largest incarcerated population in the world – and 

68% are ethnic minorities. Symbolic violence is evident as well in the misrecognition by the public of the 

prison as a functioning system of “justice and rehabilitation.” I argue that the displacement, 

disenfranchisement and disappearance of prisoners are all part of the institutionalized violence perpetrated 

by the U.S. judicial and criminal systems, which allows for the ongoing subjugation of these individuals 

and the maintenance of an endless supply of cheap labor that benefits private corporations. These entities 

profit by millions of dollars from the exploitation of prisoner communities, comprised mainly of people 

from particular ethnic communities, and especially people of color. This system of injustice and social 

control is in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and must be addressed and dismantled if we 

are to envision a society in which segregation and inequality become obsolete. 

INTRODUCTION 

The United States has the highest number of 

incarcerated persons per capita in the world 

(Materra et al. 2003). According to the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, as of June 30 th , 2004, the U.S. 

incarceration rate was 726 per 100,000 residents. In 

total, there are 2,171,066 people behind U.S. prison 

walls and jail bars today. Despite the fact that 

crime has decreased by 20 percent, the number of 

those incarcerated has conversely increased by 50 

percent, a shift that is traceable to the advent of the 

“war” on crime and drugs declared by the U.S. 

government roughly thirty years ago (Materra et al. 

2003). Nearly seventy percent of these inmates are 

people of color, all of whom are being displaced, 

disenfranchised, and essentially disappeared from 

society (Street 2001). Furthermore, disguised by 

motives of fiscal savings, the government has, 

since 1984, contracted out complete operations of 

prisons and jails to private corporations such as the 

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) who, 

like any industry, is solely concerned with the 

maximization of profits (Greene 2001). Through 

the exploitation of extremely cheap prison labor, 

which disturbingly resembles slavery's forced 

confinement for profit, these corporations make 

millions of dollars. The CCA made a whopping 

$962 million in revenue during 2003 (Materra et al. 

2003). 


Rights Summit in 2005, as part of the panel entitled “The Prison 

Industry Today.” 

161 

The United States prison system is clearly 

tainted, and to appropriately address the various 

forms of violence that are involved in this 

institutionalized oppression of poor people of 

color, I will present my findings on the prison 

industrial complex to illuminate this inquiry. I hope 

to bring awareness to those who have 

misrecognized the prison system as an entity that 

operates justly and for the “safety” of society. In 

reality, the prison system operates unjustly and is 

in violation of numerous precepts that outline the 

fundamental rights of every individual put forth in 

the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human 

Rights. 

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE 

Structural violence, as defined by 

anthropologist Philippe Bourgois, is “chronic, 

historically entrenched political-economic 

oppression and social inequality” (2004:426). In 

recalling the United States’ history in relation to 

people of color, structural violence evolved 

through a number of human rights violations: from 

chattel slavery to the Jim Crow segregation laws, 

then to the poverty-stricken ghettos and finally, to 

the displacement from society behind prison walls 

(Wacquant 2004:318). Moreover, as Paul Farmer 

states, “the ‘class oppressed’ – the socioeconomically 

poor – are the infrastructural 

expression of the process of oppression” 

(2004:288). 

With the lack of better jobs and better 

education, those trying to survive in the urban 

ghettos often turn to drug use or sales, and a life of

crime. Hence, since the war on crime and drugs 

began in 1980, the prison population has more than 

tripled. This resulted from the stiffer drug 

sentences, such as mandatory minimum sentencing 

and the Three Strikes law. The U.S. Department of 

Justice reports that a “majority of California 

inmates have been sentenced [under the Three 

Strikes law] for non-violent crimes” (n.d.). 

According to the Prison Activist Resource Center 

(2004), violent crimes like rape, murder, 

manslaughter and kidnapping do not even make the 

top ten charges of those entering California 

prisons; instead, the top three charges are for 

possession of a controlled substance, possession of 

a controlled substance for sale, and robbery 

(Goldberg 1998). 

As “institutions of forced confinement,” 

anthropologist Loic Wacquant explains, “the ghetto 

is a manner of ‘social prison’ while the prison 

functions as a ‘judicial ghetto.’ Both are entrusted 

with enclosing a stigmatized population so as to 

neutralize the material and/or symbolic threat that 

it poses for the broader society from which it has 

been extruded” (2004:318). There is a revolving 

cycle in place where those in the ghetto go to jail 

and, if released, return to the ghetto only to be 

incarcerated again. Because more money was spent 

on the building of new prisons than on the building 

of new schools during the same phase (Street 

2001), this cycle of poverty is sustained. Since 

1984, twenty new prisons were built in California 

while only one new school was added to the 

California State University System (Davis 1998). 

Angela Davis (1998) strongly believes that the 

focus of state policy is changing from social 

welfare to social control. Davis further explains 

how people of color are socially defined as 

criminal and deviant and that “surveillance is thus 

focused on communities of color, immigrants, the 

unemployed, undereducated, the homeless, and in 

general on those who have diminishing claim to 

social resources...a vicious cycle of punishment 

which only further impoverishes those whose 

impoverishment is supposedly ‘solved’ by 

imprisonment” (1998). 

Now that this system was securely in place, 

the idea of profit-gaining arose naturally within the 

capitalist society of the prison system. Set up as a 

fiscal approach to solving the dilemma of funding 

for the increasing prison population, the 

government found alternatives to spending without 

cutting into the budget for public services. 

Disturbingly, the privatization of prisons was the 

“solution” to this dilemma – to the exclusion of 

other methods such as ex-carcerating, de- 


162 

carcerating 1 , rehabilitation or education. 

PRIVATIZED PRISONS AND THE PROFIT 

OF EXPLOITATION 

The Corrections Corporations of America 

(CCA) is the largest U.S. private prison company. 

It owns nearly 55,000 beds in 68 facilities all over 

the world: in the U.S., Puerto Rico, the United 

Kingdom, and Australia. The CCA recently 

identified California as its “new frontier.” In 1996- 

1997, the CCA's net profits grew from 30.9 million 

to 53.9 million (Davis 1998). Wackenhut 

Corrections Corporation (WCC) is the second 

largest U.S. prison company and has over 30,000 

beds and 46 facilities throughout the world. A 

circuit-board assembling company called Lockhart 

Technologies, Inc. (LTI) shut down their factories 

and set up shop in a prison near Austin, Texas. 

LTI violated the law when they did not consult 

local businesses and unions before becoming 

members in the prison industry. Joe Gunn, a 

Federal Law Chief Information Officer, states that 

what LTI does is “absolute indentured slavery” and 

that Wackenhut “puts people to work under 

conditions that we criticize China for” (Elrich 

1995). 

There are numerous disturbing social 

consequences to the privatization of prisons. 

Unemployment increases in the free world as a 

result of this cheap labor. When LTI shut down 

their operations only to reopen them in the prison 

industry, they layed off 150 of their employees and 

made a new factory in the prison in Austin, Texas. 

Due to inside connections with the prison, LTI only 

has to pay one dollar per year rent, and now 

employs the prisoners at extremely low wages 

(Prison Activist Resource Center 2004). Every job 

that prisoners are forced to perform, free laborers 

can no longer compete for. Prisoners do data entry 

for Chevron, make telephone reservations for 

TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit 

boards, limousines, waterbeds, and lingerie for 

Victoria's Secret, all for essentially “free labor” 

(Erlich 1995). Motorola, IBM, Compaq, Texas 

Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Boeing 

also make use of the cheap prison labor (Lafer 

2001). Inmates inspect jars and glass bottles used 

by Revlon and graduation caps and gowns are also 

made by them. Nordstrom department stores sell 

jeans labeled “Prison Blues” and sells jackets and 

1 For greater detail about these alternative strategies, see Knopp 

and Regier’s 1995 treatise, entitled Instead of Prisons: A 

Guidebook for Abolitionists, published by Faculty Press in 

Brooklyn, N.Y.

t-shirts that were made by inmates (Erlich 1995). 

Their advertising slogan is “made on the inside to 

be worn on the outside” (Davis 1998). 

Inmates are stripped of their labor rights. They 

are forced to work forty hours a week, as 

implemented through legislation, and if they fail to 

do so they are subject to extended sentences. There 

is no option to unionize or protest within the prison 

walls. “Prison employers are excused from 

minimum wage and prevailing wage laws, they pay 

no health insurance, no unemployment insurance, 

no payroll or social security taxes, and no worker’s 

compensation” (Lafer 2001:122). It is cheap and 

essentially free labor, reminiscent of the type 

prevalent during slavery. The inmates are also 

subject to other, hidden forms of structural 

violence within the prison walls such as exposure 

to diseases (predominantly tuberculosis and HIV), 

and inadequate food and shelter, among other 

things. It is also evident from numerous reports that 

the private prisons are much more hazardous than 

government-run prisons. In private penitentiaries, 

the desire for profit is facilitated through the 

guards' extremely low wages. Furthermore, the 

guards are not trained as thoroughly, and there is 

consequently more violence and abuse directed 

against prisoners (Greene 2001). Also, more 

prisoners have escaped under private prisons’ poor 

and insufficient surveillance. Furthermore, murders 

have occurred more in private prisons than in 

public prisons (Greene 2001). How can a private 

prison function humanely when it is only 

concerned with the maximization of profits created 

by the exploitation of prison labor? 

SYMBOLIC AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE 

Another form of violence that feeds this 

everyday oppression of poor people of color is 

symbolic violence. Symbolic violence, as defined 

by Pierre Bourdieu (2004), is the surrendering of 

the dominated to the dominating, and the 

acceptance of the social paradigm of inequality and 

class hierarchy as embodied law. Prisoners begin 

to “behave” like prisoners, and to internalize the 

imposed oppression until they can no longer 

identify themselves outside of this framework. As 

Bourgois states, “this takes the form 

of…celebrating marginalization as a badge of pride 

– even if it is ultimately self-destructive” 

(2004:304). Hence, the straight line from poverty 

to imprisonment is sustained. 

Ultimately, what is prominently contributing 

to this institutionalized racism is communal 

violence, which is, in this case, society's 

misrecognition of the prison system as something 

that is protecting the country’s citizens justly and 


163 

rightly. The specific representation of people of 

color in the media, along with those societal norms 

that have come to represent the dictate that we are 

not safe, have aided in the placement of this 

population behind prison walls. This situation has 

allowed for the passing of harsh legislation that 

incarcerates people who are in need of assistance, 

not punishment; more spending on prisons than on 

education; and the privatization of prisons, which, 

as we have seen, is clearly the exploitation of 

prisoners for profit. The public has chosen to 

ignore the huge racial disparities that exist behind 

the prison walls and has chosen also to overlook 

the statistical data that show that prisoners are 

highly exposed to HIV and tuberculosis infection, 

as well as rape, malnutrition, and physical abuse 

(Street 2001; Wright 1997). Historically, 

communal violence has existed in the form of 

community lynchings of African Americans in the 

United States, for example, and was extremely 

amplified in the mass genocide of European Jews 

that occurred in Nazi Germany. Primo Levi, a 

Holocaust survivor, describes the gray zone in 

which an individual becomes complicit in his own 

oppression, and victims and bystanders do 

everything in their power to survive – even if it 

means to collaborate with the oppressor (2004). 

Levi states that “the harsher the oppression, the 

more widespread among the oppressed is the 

willingness, with all its infinite nuances and 

motivations, to collaborate” (2004:85). Bourgois 

reminds us that it is exactly this everyday violence 

that “blinds [us] to the racism, economic 

exploitation, and iatrogenic public policy that sets 

the stage for [the] gray zone” (2004:307). 

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF 


On December 10, 1948, in direct response to 

the horrors of World War II, the General Assembly 

of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These 

rights protect all members of the human family and 

are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in 

the world. These rights are meant to protect the 

people of color whom the United States of America 

has oppressed since this country's birth. 

To recall just a few of the numerous articles 

that were conceived to protect our fellow humans 

from the multifaceted forms of violence that 

individuals endure in the prison industrial complex 

in the U.S., for example, are the following: 

Article 1: All human beings are born free 

and equal in dignity and rights. 

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all rights

and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, 

without distinction of any kind, such as 

race, color, sex, language, religion, 

political or other opinion, national or 

social origin, property, birth, or other 

status. 

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, 

liberty, and security of person. 

Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery 

or servitude; slavery and the slave trade 

shall be prohibited in all their forms. 

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to 

torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment. 

It is important to make sure these rights are well 

known and, most importantly, enforced. A 

critically introspective approach to this 

overwhelmingly malfunctioning system is 

expressed best by Noam Chomsky: 


WORKS CITED 

To a considerable extent these conditions 

result from U.S. government policies that 

we have supported or at least tolerated. In 

our society, which has unparalleled 

resources and advantages, there is a 

scandalous failure to meet elementary 

human needs. Beyond that, we tolerate 

modes of hierarchy and oppression, based 

on race, sex, the wage system that 

compels people to rent themselves to the 

owners of the economy to survive, and 

other conditions that should be intolerable 

to a free and humane person (1981:240). 

What can young people do about such rights 

violations? Everything. None of these situations 

result from immutable physical laws, but are rather 

the consequences of human decisions in human 

institutions. The decisions and the institutions can 

be modified, perhaps extensively, if enough people 

commit themselves to being courageous and honest 

in the search for justice and freedom. 

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic Wacquant 

2004 Symbolic Violence. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe 



2004 US Inner- City Apartheid: The Contours of Structural and Interpersonal Violence. In Violence 

in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 301-307. Malden, MA: 

Blackwell Publishing. 

Chomsky, Noam 

1981 Radical Priorities. Carlos Otero, ed. Pp. 240-278. Canada: Ak Press. 

Davis, Angela 

1998 Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex. Electronic document, 

http://home.ican.net/~edoth/lawprisonrace.html, accessed November 10, 2004. 

Erlich, Reese 

1995 Prison Labor: Workin’ for the Man. Electronic document, http://www- 

unix.oit.umass.edu/kastor/private/prison-labor.html, accessed November 11, 2004. 

Farmer, Paul 

2004 On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below. In Violence in War and Peace. 

Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 281-289. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Goldberg, Eve and Linda Evans 

2004 On Cultural Anesthesia: From Desert Storm to Rodney King. In Violence in War and Peace. 

Nancy Scheper- Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp. 207-216. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Greene, Judith 

2001 Bailing Out Private Jails. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. Tara Herivel 

and Paul Wright, eds. Pp.138-147. New York: Taylor and Francis Books. 

Lafer, Gordon 

2001 The Politics of Prison Labor. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. Tara 

Herivel and Paul Wright, eds. Pp.120-128. New York: Taylor and Francis Books. 

Levi, Primo 

2004 The Gray Zone. In Violence in War and Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, 

eds. Pp. 83-90. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

164


Prison Activist Resource Center 

Nd Electronic document, http://prisonactivist.org, accessed November 12, 2005. 

Materra, Philip, Mafruzi Khan and Stephen Nathan 

2002 Corrections Corporation of America: A Critical Look at Its First Twenty Years. Electronic 

document, http://www.soros.org, accessed October 8, 2005. 

Street, Paul 

2001 Color Blind. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. Tara Herivel and Paul 

Wright, eds. Pp.30-40. New York: Taylor and Francis Books. 


1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Nd Electronic document, http://www.usdoj.gov/index.html, accessed October 15, 2005. 

Wacquant, Loic 

2004 The New “Peculiar Institution:” On the Prison as Surrogate Ghetto. In Violence in War and 

Peace. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, eds. Pp.318-323. Malden, MA: Blackwell 


Wright, Paul 

1997 Making Slave labor Fly. In Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. Tara Herivel and 

Paul Wright, eds. Pp.112-119. New York: Taylor and Francis Books. 

165


Forces that Kill: Structural Violence in Mexico 

NIKKI HUMES 

Abstract 

This paper explores the ways in which structural violence gives rise to physical violence, and other 

such conditions, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. For over ten years, Ciudad Juarez has been a haven for rapists 

and murderers. Since 1993, the bodies of 370 slain women have been found, according to official estimates, 

and a substantial number of women remain missing. Despite these alarming figures, authorities remain 

indifferent to women who survive and report the attacks. Investigations occur too little and too late, when 

they are conducted at all, and the perpetrators of these crimes continue to do so with impunity. These 

atrocities directly violate the human rights precepts outlined in the 1995 Inter-American Convention for the 

Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women, and continue to be usurped despite 

public pressure. I argue that structural violence is the root of the physical abuse and murder of women in 

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Furthermore, unless these underlying causes of human rights violations are 

exposed and addressed, the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of women will continue indefinitely. 

DECEIT AND DENIAL 

For over ten years, Ciudad Juarez in 

Chihuahua State, Mexico, has been a haven for 

rapists and murderers. Since 1993, the bodies of 

370 slain women have been found according to 

estimates by authorities, and women’s groups in 

Mexico claim another 400 women are still missing, 

though authorities allege the number to be closer to 

70 (Human Rights Watch 1997). This discrepancy 

in numbers is indicative of the denial by Mexican 

officials that serious human rights violations have 

been occurring in this state for over a decade. In 

many cases, women are kidnapped, physically and 

emotionally humiliated, tortured, and subjected to 

horrible sexual violence for several days before 

they are murdered and dumped in abandoned areas 

(Amnesty International 2003). Police and other 

authorities continue to maintain such a perverse 

attitude of indifference that sometimes help is not 

even sent when there is knowledge of an attack, 

and often no investigation is launched after the 

fact. In order to protect the reputations of police 

and government officials from international 

incrimination, so-called “suspects” have been 

allegedly tortured into confession so that blame can 

be assigned and the authorities appear competent at 

combating this alarming situation. The motive of 

the authorities is clearly to protect their own 

reputations and not the safety of citizens (AI 2003). 

Although these women’s human rights have 

been violated for over 10 years, some claim that 

none of the real killers have been brought to 

justice, and the police and other authorities 

continue to remain indifferent to reports of these 


Rights Summit in 2004, as part of the panel entitled “Violence 

and Sexual Discrimination.” 

166 

horrific crimes. The precarious nature of these 

crimes is exacerbated by poverty, impunity of 

perpetrators, ubiquity of domestic violence and 

gender inequality, and state-sponsored violence 

(HRW 1997), all of which are examples of 

structural violence. I argue that structural violence 

is responsible for the physical violence enacted 

against women in Ciudad Juarez. Furthermore, 

unless the conditions that give rise to these human 

rights violations are addressed, the kidnapping, 

rape, torture, and murder of women in Chihuahua 

State will continue indefinitely, as has been the 

case for over a decade. 

ROOTS OF ATROCITY 

I use the term structural violence as it is 

defined by medical anthropologist Paul Farmer: the 

“social and economic inequities that determine 

who will be at risk for assaults and who will be 

shielded from them” (2003:17). For the poor in 

Mexico, violence is a commonplace experience; 

socio-economic status greatly determines an 

individual’s proximity and susceptibility to 

violence, especially physical violence (Olavarrieta 

and Sotelo 1996). Poverty in Mexico forces young 

women to work in low-paying jobs at maquilas, 

United States and European-owned industrial 

plants that pay less than $5 a day (Karzarova 

2004). It is these very women who are at greater 

risk of being kidnapped and murdered as they walk 

home from these jobs because they are vulnerable 

in a variety of ways (AI 2003). Police frequently 

maintain an attitude of indifference, or blame the 

victim in those rare instances when women who 

survive an attack report these atrocities. According 

to a report in The Nation, “not a single perpetrator

has been brought to justice for these murders” 

(Karzarova 2004:A13). 

The 1994 Inter-American Commission on 

Human Rights (IACHR) reports that 

the denial of an effective response both 

springs from and feeds back into the 

perception that violence against women – 

most illustratively domestic violence – is 

not a serious crime. The lack of an 

effective official response is part and 

parcel of the larger context of 

discrimination. Addressing the killings 

necessarily requires addressing the larger 

problems of violence and discrimination 

based on gender through, first and 

foremost, prompt and effective access to 

justice (AI 2003:3). 

But the only “justice” to be found is in tortured 

confessions (Katzarova 2004). Also contributing to 

the structural violence is the atmosphere of fear 

created by state-sponsored persecution against 

citizens of all genders. Human Rights Watch 

documented “assassinations, abductions, threats, 

and expulsions” (1997:1), spurred by religious and 

political differences carried out by both 

government officials and private citizens, as well 

as the government’s “willful negligence” of this 

situation (HRW 1997:1). 

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 

On November 12, 1998, Mexico ratified the 

Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, 

Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against 


WORKS CITED 

Women (AI 2003). Article 2 of the document 

includes in its definition of violence domestic and 

community violence, as well as violence 

perpetrated by the state. The 1998 Convention 

seeks to protect against physical, sexual, and 

psychological violence committed in the domestic 

unit or within “any other interpersonal relationship, 

whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared 

the same residence with the woman,” as well as 

violence that “occurs in the community and is 

perpetuated by any person, including, among 

others, rape, sexual abuse, torture, trafficking in 

persons, forced prostitution, kidnapping, and 

sexual harassment in the workplace” (IACHR 

1994:2). Article 3 protects the right to “be free 

from violence in both the public and private 

spheres” (IACHR 1994:2). Article 4 attempts to 

secure for women the right not to be tortured, the 

right to personal security, and the right to have her 

life respected. It also ensures the right of equal 

protection under the law, the right to have the 

courts promptly respond with legal representation 

in the event of rights violations, and the right to 

have her dignity as a human being respected 

(IACHR 1994). These rights are in clear violation 

in Chihuahua State. 

Furthermore, in Article 7 of the document, the 

duties of the state to “condemn all forms of 

violence against women and agree to pursue, by all 

appropriate means and without delay, policies to 

prevent, punish and eradicate such violence” 

(IACHR 1994:3) are clearly outlined. Mexico is 

behaving as if the Inter-American Convention for 

the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of 

Violence Against Women does not exist. 


2003 Mexico’s Intolerable Killings: Ten Years of Abductions and Murders in Ciudad Juarez and 

Chihuahua; Summary Report and Appeals Cases. Electronic document, 

http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAMR410262003, accessed February 21, 2004. 

Farmer, Paul 

2003 Pathologies of Power. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 


1997 Implausible Deniability: State Responsibility for Rural Violence in Mexico. New York: Human 

Rights Watch. 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 

1994 Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against 

Women. Electronic document, http://www.chdh.oas.org/Basicos/basic13.htm, accessed February 19, 

2004. 

Karzarova, Mariana 

2004 Letter From Juarez. The Nation, March 29:A13. 

Olavarrieta, Claudia Diaz, and Julio Sotelo 

1995 Domestic Violence in Mexico: Letter From Mexico City. Journal of the American Medical 

Association 275(24):1937-1939. 

167


Symbolic Violence and the Internet: New Technologies Against Women 

RICHIE CRUZ 

Abstract 

By definition, using the internet is an isolating experience. No form of online social networking can 

ever fully bridge the gap between individual internet users. This perceived anonymity could lead women to 

present themselves in ways that they never would in their “regular” lives. But the ubiquity of the internet 

and the potentially infinite lifespan of anything posted online means that women may lose their ability to 

define their own identity and reaffirm their humanity in the eyes of those who only know them from what 

they have posted on the internet. This can lead to situations that reinforce sexist stereotypes and violate the 

spirit of Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 

which emphasizes the importance of modifying social and cultural practices that reinforce discrimination, 

violence, and notions of the superiority of one sex over the other. 

INTRODUCTION 

As the internet becomes an increasingly 

ubiquitous part of our reality, more and more 

people have come to realize that what they do on 

the internet can affect their “real” lives. Women in 

particular are finding that images posted on the 

internet are reaching a much wider audience than 

the traditional mediums of television and 

magazines. The public viewing and interpretation 

of these images can have lasting consequences for 

all women. Sexually explicit pictures of women 

posted on the internet have the potential to 

compound powerful stereotypes that damage and 

subjugate women for many years to come. A recent 

San Francisco Chronicle article lays out the 

problems succinctly: “college-age women have 

entered wet T-shirt contests and posed for adult 

magazine pictorial spreads such as Playboy’s 

Women of the Ivy League for years. But now, 

because of widespread social networking 

technology and an abundance of cheap online 

storage, those images will be passed around a lot 

longer than a copy of Playboy” (Garofoli 207:A1). 

Suggestive images of women that would have 

faded from memory over time now have a near 

infinite lifespan. 

VIRTUAL OPPRESSION, REAL DANGER 

The internet can be a liberating channel for 

expression. Unfortunately the kinds of images 

being distributed online are fostering an 

environment that curtails women’s choices to use 

the internet and interact with other internet users as 

equals. The prevalence of sexually explicit images 

of women on the internet also encourages a view of 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “Images of 

Women in the Media.” 

168 

the internet as a male-dominated enterprise where 

women are expected to accept the eroticization of 

their bodies if they want to participate in the online 

world. 

These negative stereotypes have real life 

consequences. Internet blogger Kathy Sierra 

recently found herself the center of an internet 

storm that began with the creation of a website 

ostensibly meant to illustrate the anonymous site 

creator’s disagreement with some of her stated 

positions and beliefs. The author of the website did 

not, however, post legitimate critiques of Sierra’s 

blogs; instead, the site presented “a digitally altered 

photo of Sierra being strangled in women’s panties 

and included graphic and sexually violent 

comments” (Frost 2007:A1). What makes this new 

form of online sexual harassment so frightening is 

the public nature of the persecution, combined with 

the ability of the website creator to remain 

anonymous. Furthermore, the unrestricted 

accessibility of the internet makes an already 

dehumanizing experience worse for the victim, and 

the ability of the harasser to remain anonymous 

makes it impossible for the victim to respond to 

such harassment, or the perpetrator to be held 

accountable. 

Another blogger who goes by the name Violet 

Blue, offers her opinion of this incident in terms 

that show the pervasiveness of symbolic violence, 

the form and legitimacy of which is embedded in 

the modes of action and unquestioned behaviors of 

individuals within society at large, on the internet: 

“Sierra’s haters… are doing this not because 

they’re immature. They’re doing this because they 

want women out of their worlds…When someone 

goes [so] far [as] to make death imagery and 

maintain a 24/7 hate blog, we’re not talking about a 

lack of social skills, we’re talking about a desire to 

destroy” (Blue 2007).

This case is an example of how social violence 

is perpetuated by both direct action and the 

inaction of those who do nothing to condemn it; to 

do nothing amounts to tacit approval, regardless of 

one’s personal feelings. As Bourgois writes, this 

“…would be colluding with the sexist status quo… 

It becomes a public secret that enforces an 

important dimension of the oppression of women 

in everyday life” (Bourgois 2007:344). It is easy 

for people to disapprove of the harassment that 

Kathy Sierra endured. Yet how many people do not 

think to complain when their e-mail is bombarded 

with junk mail containing sexually explicit 

messages or images, or they are besieged by popup 

advertisements for adult-oriented websites? 

Randomly targeted sexually explicit messages and 

images are obviously different from individually 

targeted online sexual harassment, but they are 

linked in their mutual reinforcement of the sexist 

status quo that unapologetically condones the 

exploitation and dehumanization of women. In 

Kathy Sierra’s case, the offending website was 

taken down immediately, and many internet users, 

including Violet Blue, sprung to her defense. Yet 

Sierra has recently stated that she has cancelled all 

of her speaking engagements and never knows if 

she will ever post another blog again (Blue 2007). 

The fact that sexually explicit imagery is also 

being used to intimidate women to stay off the 

internet altogether is another consequence of such 

violence, and violates the spirit of Article 5 of the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which 

emphasizes the importance of modifying social and 

cultural practices that reinforce discrimination, 

violence, and notions of the superiority of one sex 


WORKS CITED 

over the other. Once the United States ratifies 

CEDAW, women in this country will be afforded 

the rights and freedoms they are entitled to by 

international law. 

RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY 

This situation, however, is being challenged. 

That both women and those that would 

discriminate against them find the internet a 

liberating environment is not a coincidence. As a 

virtual territory with few borders, the internet has 

allowed unprecedented numbers of people to 

communicate with each other and share ideas. The 

large size of the internet community has meant that 

many people with opposing viewpoints have been 

able to find a forum for critical inquiry. 

Unfortunately, this is also true for those seeking to 

challenge women who demand to be freed from 

exploitation and discrimination. 

Many individual bloggers and internet users 

are standing up to support women who are 

harassed online and intimidated to stay off the 

internet. They have already succeeded in 

disqualifying one website filled with sexist and 

sadistic imagery that was meant to terrorize online 

blogger Kathy Sierra. That advocates for human 

rights and protestors against such violations were 

able to connect with one other and mutually 

strengthen their voices and their complaints is due 

to the democratic nature of the internet and a 

common desire to ensure that the protection of 

human rights is as valid an issue on the internet as 

in the real world. This was clearly a step towards 

disabling the potential power of the internet as a 

new tool for sexual harassment. 

Blue, Violet 

2007 When a Man Hates a Woman: The Ugly Side of Sex and The Ugly Side of Sex and The Web. 

SFGate, March 29. 


2006 The Everyday Violence of Gang Rape. In Violence In War And Peace: An Anthology. Nancy 


Frost, Dan 

2007 The Attack on Kathy Sierra. SFGate, March 27. Bad Behavior on the Blogosphere: Vitrioloic 

Comments Aimed at Tech Writer Make Some Worry About Downsides of Anonymity. San Francisco 

Chronicle, March 29:A1. 

169


Religion, Martyrdom and the Basij 

AMIR ARMAN 

Abstract 

After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, martyrdom and jihad were portrayed in the new republic as a 

higher goal, the exalted standard to which members of the populace should aspire. Through an appeal to the 

sense of shared identity among the people of Iran, the regime chose a specifically religious voice to address 

the public. The state apparatus presented itself as a specific manifestation of religious doctrine to endorse 

the “rules of the land,” a tactic the government still utilizes in Iran’s post-war era. This mobilization 

continues to be the driving force for innumerable young people – typically from the poorer rural and urban 

classes – to enlist in units of a paramilitary force known as Basijist squads, whose members act as the 

unofficial enforcers of the desires of the regime. By examining the role of the Basij in Iranian culture and 

its adherence to Islamic ideology, we can better appreciate both the historical correspondence between the 

processes of nation- and identity-building, and the continued relevance of this affinity in contemporary 

times. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Qur’an states that “…those who are slain 

by Allah's way are not dead, but alive" (Ali 2005: 

3,16). Although it is not entirely explicit in its 

meaning, this statement has been interpreted to 

imply that those who are slain as the result of a 

religious war will receive automatic ascension into 

the gates of heaven. This issue is a problematic one, 

especially in light of the question, who determines 

whether something is holy or not, and on what 

basis is this determination made? The problem of 

interpretation and the role of the interpreter of 

religious texts are fundamental questions in 

understanding contemporary Islam and the part it 

has played in the concept of martyrdom. 

The problem of interpretation of religious texts 

is nothing new; Christianity has been struggling 

with it for over two millennia. Within Islam, 

however, this problem arose at the very beginnings 

of the faith, and missing any type of centralized 

theological establishment, it struggles with these 

issues still today. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IMAMS 

The Shi'ite and Sunni sects represent a 

fundamental division within Islam. This divide can 

be traced to the time shortly after the prophet 

Muhammad’s death. Ali was the cousin and the 

son-in-law of the Prophet, and was expected upon 

the Prophet’s death to take control of the caliphate. 

The first caliphate of the Sunni sect, however, was 

a man by the name of Abū Bakr, who was able to 

ascend to this position while Muhammad's family 

was preoccupied with his burial (Momen, 1985:18). 


Rights Summit in 2007, as part of the panel entitled “Current 

Topics in Human Rights.” 

170 

Scholars believe that this was the result of internal 

clan rivalries during this period, and an attempt to 

maintain a separation between the ruling family 

and the religious leadership (Momen 1985:19). Ali 

would eventually rise to become the fourth 

caliphate in 656 AD, twenty years after the death 

of the prophet, and his rule would be subverted by 

his assassination in 661. He was buried in Najaf, 

Iraq. A similar fate would befall his two sons, 

Imams Hassan and Hussein. Hassan, the 2 nd Imam, 

was allegedly assassinated by his wife in 669, and 

his brother, the 3 rd Imam would die on the 

battlefield in Karbala, Iraq in 680 AD (Momen 

1985: 25-30) The succession of the 12 Imams 

continued unabated until approximately 941 AD, 

when the presumed child of the 11 th Imam 

disappeared shortly after his death. After the death 

of the 11 th Imam, there were a series of four agents 

who were reportedly in contact with him and acting 

upon his orders until 940. It is believed that the 12 th 

Imam, who is also known as the Mahdi, will 

reappear shortly before Judgment Day, and “…lead 

the forces of righteousness against the forces of 

evil in one final apocalyptic battle in which the 

enemies of the Imam will be defeated” (Momen 

1985:166). 

Two significant events during the rule of the 

12 Imams, which took place between 660 and 874 

AD, stand out in contemporary Shi’ite cosmology. 

The first of these is the death of the 3 rd Imam, 

Hussein, in 680 AD. The importance of this event 

is attested to by the rituals that occur during the 

month of Muharram to mark the Battle of Karbala, 

in which Hussein attempted to overthrow the caliph 

with a small band of his followers. This is one of 

the holiest months in the Shi’ite calendar, in which

a wide variety of celebrations occur, 

commemorating Hussein’s revolt. 

The month of Muharram peaks on the 10 th , a 

day known as Ashura, which marks the death of 

Imam Hussein. On this day, public processions 

take place in which participants attempt to 

physically inscribe the suffering of Hussein in a 

variety of physical acts (Momen 1985:240-241; 

Varzi 2006:51). This ritualized mourning in the 

name of Hussein is an attempt at redemptive 

suffering by the participants, in which they can 

simultaneously atone for their sins and come closer 

to the lives of the Imams (Ayoub 1978:Chapter 5). 

“In time with each step they strike their heads with 

their jagged swords. Blood flows and their shirts 

become scarlet” (Canetti 1973:153). 

Another function that can be attributed to this 

month can be found in Trigger’s discussion of 

archaeologist Grahame Clark’s later work in which 

he paid attention to the ways in which “the 

integrity and cohesion of the group [is] reinforced 

by distinctive symbols and patterns of behavior,” 

and that individuals “signal their identity by 

conforming to or violating social norms” (Trigger 

2006:360). The importance of identifying with 

Hussein is exemplified by Elias Canetti, who 

quotes an Indian Muslim as saying, “To weep for 

Husain [sic] is the prize of our life and our soul; 

otherwise we would be the most ungrateful of 

creatures. Even in Paradise we shall mourn for 

Husain…” (1973:147-148). The results of group 

activities lead not only to a confirmation of the 

identity of participants, but also to an improvement 

in the cohesiveness of the group. This 

amplification of the sense of cohesiveness can be 

especially important during turbulent times, as can 

be seen through an examination of the Iran-Iraq 

war. 

AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI AND THE IRAN- 

IRAQ CONFLICT 

Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini was born in 1900 

in the town of Khomein, 180 miles south of Tehran. 

In 1921, he began his studies in the Shi’i seminary 

in Arak, Iran, and in 1922 would follow his mentor 

to the main seminary of Shi’i education in Qom, 

Iran. Khomeini would be exiled in 1964 for 

denouncing the shah and the U.S. He would spend 

the next 14 years in Najaf, Iraq, home to the shrine 

of Imam Ali. He would later also be exiled from 

Iraq, and stay briefly in France before returning 

home to Iran in 1979 after the shah had fled the 

country, and the Iranian revolution would replace 

the monarchy of the shah with the theocracy of the 

ayatollah. 


171 

During the initial aftermath of the revolution, 

the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein launched an 

invasion of Iranian oilfields under the pretext of 

quashing an attempt to assassinate the Iraqi foreign 

minister, Tariq Aziz, by Iranians. The ayatollah 

was able to prepare the populace for war through 

his usage of a rhetoric combining both a nationalist 

and a religious sentiment (Savory 1982). This 

sentiment could not portray the Iraqi invaders as 

merely pawns of their nation, because it would 

directly contradict the teachings of the Qur’an, 

which forbids the killing of a Muslim by another 

Muslim. Instead, the ayatollah depicted the Iraqi 

invaders as agents of the West and urged all good 

Muslims to resist. Shortly after the beginning of the 

war the ayatollah proclaimed, “It is not a question 

of a fight between one government and another; is 

a question of an invasion by an Iraqi non-Muslim 

Ba’thist against an Islamic, and this is a rebellion 

by blasphemy against Islam” (Chubin 1988:ii; 

emphasis mine). 

The depiction of the Iraqi invaders as agents of 

the West allowed the ayatollah to issue a fatwā, or 

religious edict, which instructed Muslims to not 

only resist the invasion and oppression from the 

West, but also allowed them ascension to heaven if 

they lost their lives during the conflict. The 

juxtaposition of martyrdom and religious ideology 

in discourse surrounding the conflict enabled the 

regime to mobilize a larger portion of the populace, 

and also allowed the ayatollah to solidify his 

leadership over the country (Varzi 2006:44-72). 

The struggle was painted in terms of a jihad 1 , with 

various members of the clergy inspiring the nation 

to take up arms. Although the war could have 

ended as early as 1982 after the liberation of 

Iranian towns captured by Iraq, it would drag on 

for another six years and cost a countless number 

of more lives (Varzi 2006:54). 

Martyrdom and jihad were portrayed in the 

new republic as a higher goal, the exalted standard 

to which members of the populace should aspire, 

and the media within the new republic was 

obediently organized around this theme. The 

regime mobilized media production on the front 

lines of the Iran-Iraq war, and the material 

produced was used to hypnotize the youth of Iran 

into believing in the greatness of the war and the 

“war effort” (Varzi 2006). This mobilization led to 

innumerable young people enlisting in Basijist 

squads that employ human wave attack tactics 

1 Jihad, literally translated, means struggle, but has taken on the 

meaning of a struggle associated specifically with Islamic 

doctrine.

eminiscent of Japanese banzai attacks during 

World War II. 

The Basij played an integral role in the war 

effort. Revolutionary zeal had led to a purging of 

the ranks of the formal military. Furthermore, in 

order to balance the power of the military, and 

prevent any attempts at a military coup, in 

November of 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini ordered 

the creation of the Basij as a voluntary paramilitary 

force that would recruit people from age 12 to 72, 

typically from the poorer rural and urban classes 

(Zabih 1988:183). The members of Basij squads 

followed the ideology of Shi’ism to their graves. 

They were propelled forward by the religious 

ideologies of Hussein, “liberating” his birthplace. 

These fighting forces would play pivotal roles in 

several of Iran’s victorious battles, since the 

country was forbidden from purchasing weapons 

from abroad during the initial period of the war. 

What the country lacked in weapons, however, it 

made up in manpower, but the cost was 

extraordinarily high, with casualty estimates of up 

to 50% (Zabih 1988:187). It is as a result of these 

high casualty figures and the religious doctrine of 

the Basij that martyrdom, and specifically the 

martyrdom of Hussein, not only unites the Basijists, 

but also lends them a consistent identity. 

Varzi states, “martyrdom is nothing without 

remembrance and the cultural industry which keeps 

the martyr alive after death, because what is 

promised is eternal glory” (2006:56). The act of 

remembrance continues and still inspires countless 

individuals to this day within contemporary Iran. In 

Behesht Zahara, there are several acres of 

graveyards dedicated to the fallen martyrs and their 

images. The Imam Khomeini would hold weekly 

prayers here in remembrance of the casualties of 

war. The shrine and mosque, which are both 

located around his grave, lie within walking 

distance from the final resting places of the martyrs 

of the war between Iran and Iraq. 

The role of the Basij forces in Iranian ideology 

did not end with war. The contemporary Basijists 

are composed of both men and women, and act as 

the unofficial enforcers of the desires of the regime. 

An example of this is the suppression of popular 

protests in Iran in 1999 and 2003 by Basij groups 

(Küntzel 2006:15). The current enrollment in the 

Basij cannot be attributed merely to religious 

fervor, because there are social and economic 

factors at work as well. Some members enlist in 

order to gain entrance into more prestigious 

universities then their grades would have allowed, 

and others become involved in the Basij in order to 

access economic incentives that are otherwise 

inaccessible to this portion of the population 


172 

(Küntzel 2006:16-17). This system – the exchange 

of loyalty for social mobility between the 

government and the Basij – allows us to more fully 

comprehend the continued existence of the 

organization as a whole, as well as the mindset of 

individual members of the Basij who still desire to 

become martyrs. 

FATWĀS AND RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN 

ISLAM 

A fatwā is a religious edict issued by a mufti, 

or scholar, invested with the capacity to make 

judgments on Islamic law. In the case of the Iran- 

Iraq war, the judgment was based on the question 

of whether or not the killing of Muslims by other 

Muslims is allowed by the Islamic faith. The 

ayatollah Khomeini was able to circumvent this 

section of the Qur’an, which in fact forbids this 

sort of violence, through his depiction of the Iraqi 

people, and his vow to his followers that they 

would still be granted entrance into heaven. 

The ayatollah was allowed this major privilege 

for several reasons. Firstly, he was granted 

authenticity as a religious scholar not only because 

of his traditional educational experience, but also 

because of his extensive publications on Islamic 

law. Furthermore, his issuance of a fatwā was 

legitimized by his popularity as a leader that had 

been successful in toppling the unpopular shah of 

Iran, and whose staunch resistance to the shah’s 

policies of Westernization he maintained while in 

exile in Iraq and France. 

Khomeini’s entitlement to issue fatwās was 

rooted in the two factors necessary for anyone who 

wishes to exercise such authority within Islam. The 

first of these is the establishment of one’s self as a 

religious scholar, and the second is the 

organization of a popular following. The reason 

that the latter becomes a necessity is attributable to 

the lack of a centralized religious structure in Islam; 

one can still utilize the imagery of martyrdom and 

jihad even if one is not a religious scholar, but the 

right to issue fatwās is not granted simply because 

one may be adept at stirring the masses in one’s 

favor, however sturdily this may ensure political 

clout. In contemporary Iraq for example, Moqtada 

al-Sadr has built a formidable militia, the Mehdi 

army, 2 but does not claim to have the ability to 

issue fatwās, because he lacks the training of a 

religious cleric. He has, however, been able to 

develop a Shi’i militia, which has proven to be 

more then capable in resisting the U.S.-led 

occupation of Iran. 

2 th 

This organization derives its name from the 12 Imam who 

has yet to return.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 

The importance of the notion of martyrdom 

and the enormous moral authority exerted by the 

Islamic religion within the context of the Iran-Iraq 

war can be gleaned from the successful 

mobilization of a large number of people in a short 

period of time in order to defend the country from 

invasion by a foreign power. The easiest means by 

which this was accomplished was through an 

appeal to the sense of shared identity among the 

people of Iran. Since over 90% of the country is 

Muslim, the regime chose a specifically religious 

voice in order to appeal to the public. The 

government still utilizes this tactic in Iran’s postwar 

era, in which the state apparatus presents itself 

as a specific manifestation of religious doctrine to 

endorse the “rules of the land.” 

The concepts of martyrdom and jihad are 

intimately intermingled with the problems of 

religious authority and the interpretation of 

religious texts. In Iraq, as we have seen, these 

specific rhetorical elements arose as a means to 

elicit public response to the invasion of the country 

by a foreign power. This ideology, however, 


WORKS CITED 

persists to this day. Today, Iran has 40,000 

members in a special squad of the Revolutionary 

Guard known as Martyr Seekers (Küntzel 2006). 

The group was spotted at a military parade wearing 

vests of explosives and holding the detonators in 

their hands; Iran seems poised to use them if their 

nuclear installations are attacked. This shows that 

ideologies espousing the holiness of martyrdom 

and jihad are never far from the minds of some of 

Iran’s citizens. The strength of this ideology can be 

seen as well in efforts to organize the media 

infrastructure in Iran around these goals, at the 

behest of the central government. 

The religious ideology of the country has a 

varying degree of appeal for the Iranian masses 

generally, and in the context of the Iran-Iraq war 

specifically. As a result of the role of the Basij in 

Iranian culture, adherence to this Islamic ideology 

allowed the country as a whole to overcome many 

of the obstacles created as a result of its postrevolutionary 

isolation. The continued post-war 

usage of the Basij has allowed the current regime 

to disrupt or prevent any manifestations of dissent 

to its policies and also to maintain its power base. 

Ali, Yusuf, trans. 

2005 The Holy Quar’an. Faithpoint Press. 

Ayoub, Mahmoud 

1978 Redemptive Suffering in Islam: A Study of the Devotional Aspects of ‘Ashura’ in Twelver 

Shi'ism. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. 

Canetti, Elias 

1988 Crowds and Power. Carol Stewart, trans. London: Victor Gollanez Press. 

Chubin, Shahram, and Charles Tripp 

1988 Iran and Iraq at War. London: I.B Tauris Publishers. 

Gieling, Saskia 

1999 Religion and War in Revolutionary Iran. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers. 

Küntzel, Matthias 

2006a Ahmadinejad’s Demons: A Child of the Revolution Takes Over. The New Republic, April 24. 

2006b Iranian Suicide Squads Ready to Hit US and British Targets. Agence France-Presse, April 16. 

Israeli, Raphael 

2003 Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology. Portland: Frank Cass. 

Moin, Baqer 

1999 Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers. 

Momen, Moojan 

1985 An Introduction to Shi’i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi’ism. New Haven: Yale 


Savory, Roger 

1982 Khmayni’s Islamic Revolutionary Movement. In Iran-Iraq and the Gulf War. Robert Spencer, ed. 

University of Toronto: Center for International Studies, University of Toronto Press. 

Trigger, Bruce 

2006 A History of Anthropological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Varzi, Roxanne 

2006 Warring Souls: Youth, Media, and Martyrdom in Post-Revolutionary Iran. Durham: Duke 


Winters, Jonah 

1997 Dying for God: Martyrdom in Shi’i and Babi Religions. Masters Thesis, University of Toronto. 

Zabih, Sepehr 

1988 The Iranian Military in Revolution and War. New York: Routledge. 

173


174

Prayer 

EVA LANGMAN 

Wooden beads 

round her invisible mouth 

Memory sharp and taut, 

laughing at her goal to surrender 

She wakes me intermittently – 

tells me she’s found her children 

but they’re cold 

and they’re hungry 

And their eyes are dull 

like diamonds in the rough 

That there are cracks in the pavement 

where their fingers smuggle seeds 

Like little deities to adorn 

in fabric and flour 

And sometimes no flour at all 

Her ankles fat from walking 

Kilometers in her head 

What can I know about these milestones 

Except that they’re mine without my asking 

Flowers, 

forbidden truths – 

songs sold on the market block like the summer’s harvest 

And sometimes no harvest at all 

My human sister 

Escapes the plague 

but buries her life in her hands – 

no longer to clutch her children 

or beseech the gods for fire 

strength to keep her going 

Don’t matter if it’s borrowed 

or remote 

She creeps into my sleep and enfolds me 

Like grain 

like soil 

my guts dense like relics from the ancestral hearth 

– there’s something stunted -- 

something rude inside 

Lips poised to recite 

a living song to the dawn 

And sometimes no dawn at all 

175

"And I told them not to dig for uranium, for if they did, the 

children would die. They didn't listen, they didn't listen, they 

didn't listen to me. And I told them if the children die, there 

would be no keepers of the land. They didn't listen. And I told 

them if they destroy the sky, machines would come and soon 

destroy the land. They didn't listen... And I told them if they 

destroy the land, man would have to move into the sea. They 

didn't listen... And I told them if they destroy the sea -- they 

didn't listen..." 

- From Floyd Red Crow Westerman’s song "They Didn't Listen." 

Recited at his testimony in 1992 at the World Uranium Hearings 

in Salzburg, Austria.

HUMAN RIGHTS in GLOBAL LIGHT - San Francisco State University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?