This section is primarily for the use of AAA mem- bers, although contributions from others may be printed if they are considered of value. Corre- spondents are urged to limit length: the Editor re- serves the right to select and to edit letters. All let- ters must be cieariy marked for Anthropology Newsletter Correspondence, be typed double- spaced, not exceed 500 words in length and con- sist of an original and one copy. Letters published reflect the views of the correspondents; their pub- lication does not sign@ endorsement by the An- thropology Newsletter or the American Anthropo- logical Association.

Old Saw During the last annual meeting, we again

heard the old saw repeated time after time ’that anthropology was flying apart at the seams. Usually this statement is made in lam- I entation, sometimes even despair. Never once did we hear anybody say that it was high time anthropologists made a reasonable effort to create syntheses of what people are in fact doing to see whether anthropologists could redefine the center or whether it in fact needs redefinition.

Will anybody interested in such a synthesis please write to one or both of us. If the re- sponse merits it, we wiIl suggest an invited session at the next AAA meeting in order to discuss the issue of a new synthesis within anthropology.

Paul Bohannan PO Box 877

La Vereda # I3 707 E Palace Ave Santa Fe, NM 87501

Navaj o-Hopi : G ri ticism As the AAA Panel on the Navajo-Hopi

Land Dispute gave short shrift to Hopi per- spectives in their latest report (January 1989 AN), so have they given shdi-t shrift to the in- sightful observation of bias made by Peter

pril 1989 AN). The response of eptember 1989 AN)--including

references to the presence, absence or re- placement of personnel-begs the questibn of bias. The panel response states: “Since Navajo relocatees outnumber Hopi by a ratio of 100 to 1, the reports tend to deal exten- sively with that relocation.” Are we to as- sume, then, that relative proportion deter- mines value? Because there are 200,000 Na- vajos and 10,OOO Hopis, are we to value, sup port and circulate a Navajo perspective accordingly. say, 20 to l?

The bias noted by Whiteley is the absence of Hopi perspective, which heeds to be ex- plained. Why, for example, did the panel find it significant to mention in their report that Navajo occupancy preceded US control, yet not mention that Hopi occupancy preceded Navajo arrival by. some centuries? Hopi prior

as relentless Navajo quent Hopi dispossess

lar. Where they have said, “a special court decided that one part of the EOA belonged exclusively to the Hopi,” one could also say that the Navajos acquired joint and equal rights’to nearly 2 million acres of the Hopi Reservation, diminishing by three-quarters the Hopis’ jurisdiction. These lands, desig- nated Joint Use Area (JUA), were to be shared by the two tribes. What followed, ac- cording to the panel’s report, was “the tribes’ inability to find a way to share surface rights.” This wording does not connote the same truth, however, as the following, from the 1972 Arizona Federal District Court Finding of Fact:

Hopis were denied the right to use or possess any of the surface of the JUA (Joint Use Area); Hopi livestock were termed trespassing and ordered removed by BIA officials, driven from the JUA and mutilated by Navajos; Hopi use of the JUA was less than 1% due to the harassment, mistreatment, verbal abuse and threats of Navajos; and The JUA was overstocked by Navajos to 400% of its carrying capacity, and over- grazed such that 80% of the range was in poor condition.

Lastly, the panel notes that the situation of Navajo relocatees is “tragic.’’ Has not dis- possession been tragic for the Hopi? And can that perspective be summarily dismissed?

The AAA panel represents the institution of anthropology to the larger society, exper-

are circulated among %devant rnembek 6f Congress. ” All anthropologists, especially those in such powerful positions, must strug- gle with the biases implicit in their work. Whatever the perspective of the panel, it must be justified-to the AAA from whom the panel derives its influence, and to those less powerful over whom the influence is wielded, both Navajo apd Hopi.

Anne Lieberman Hunter College, CUNY

Navajo-Hopi: Response In response to Anne L i e b a n ’ s letter,

the description of conflicts in value-neutral terms is probably impossible. The inclusion of all the facts that anyone might consider rel- evant is certainly impossible. The Panel’s ac-

avajo-Hopi conflict was as ob- jective as we could make it, and we do not feel obliged to explain why we wrote as we did. Even so, as Aberle noted in another ex- change with Whiteley, in such situation!, “. . . public adversarial activities are esp- cially important as a way of trying to arrive at the truth’’ (Man 24 [ 1989]:341). For that ma- son we welcome the publication of Ms Lie- beman’s letter. .

David Aberle Benjamin Culby

Fred Eggan

Having survived another set of meetings, I have a few comments and thoughts that might

Almost every day I sat in on 4 to 6 sentations, While, inevitably,

began to sound like gib- *

berish. Why is there so little training pro- vided in the performance aspect of papers? It would seem to me worthwhile to provide workshops on how to present a paper orally. Often, I felt as if I just sat through a three- hour lecture given in Chinese, intelligible perhaps to some, but not most of the audi- ence.

Second point: one would assume that an- thropologists would be more sensitive and aware of organizational flaws that obstruct communication. One reason many of us come is to meet with people of similar inter- ests, to become a member of those smaller networks of scholars who comprise our par- ticular field(s) oT interest. Yet, the hodge- podge whirlygig atmosphere constrains most of us to meet with those we already know. I would guess that most of the informal, casual groups were formed of people who were al- ready friends or acquaintances. The atmos- phere was reminiscent of going Christmas shopping at Macy’s on December 24th. Most people do not have the desire nor “pushi- ness” to intrude on those they don’t know. As a result, those of us who.are marginal in the profession tend to feel even more margin- alized, given these conditions. Very depress- ing. To alleviate this I would suggest dinners

or “nightly parties” bakd on categories of panel headings-eg, a “deconstruction,” “refugee,” “psychoanalytic,” “medical,” or what. have you.

Third point: there are many people who end up alone much of the time. This creates a lot of personal stress. A message service fo- cusing on people who want to meet and dis- cuss certain topics might alleviate this situa- tion a bit. For example, people could simply go to this genera1 message board, where there would be such messages as “People who want to discuss the current crisis in Sri Lanka, or new perspectives on the body, or today’s panel on X meet at 5 in the lobby.” The incorporation of these and other sug-

gestions might truly make the anthro meet- ings meetings. In the presentation of awards, one of the speakers described those present as members of a tribe. If this is so, then the tribe, or its leaders, have socio-moral obli- gations to all its members. Social solidarity does not emerge out of fragmented or per- sonal interests but out of a common collective

’ moral identity. If we are to take the tribe anal- ogy seriously, let’s also take those aspects which comprise a tribe seriously.

Victor C de Munck

AAB Task Force on

By Delmos Jones

The Executive Committee of the American Anthropological Association approved the Task Force on Poverty and Homelessness at its November meeting in Washington, DC. The task force, op- erating in a provisional fashion, orga- nized two sessions at the meeting, “Cul- ture and Poverty Reconsidered, ’ ’ an in- vited session ofthe American Ethnolog- ical Society, and “Causes and Consequences of Homelessness , ” co- sponsored by the Society for Urban An- thropology. A goal is to publish papers from these two sessions as soon as pos- sible. A volume is presently in the works. There may be space for addi- tional papers. Anyone who has been working in the area of homelessness and, poverty who has a paper they want to be considered can send it to us €or consid- eration. Papers must be received before

The task force also held an organiza- tional meeting on Saturday, which ap- proximately 25 people attended. Mem- bership in the task force is open, Anthro- pologists inside and- outside academia who are interested in the problems of poverty and homelessness &e invited to join. -

The Task Force outlined its mission d objectives as follows:

of anthropologists currently producing

names and addresses of the individuals and institutions responsible for the pol- icy decisions and administration of the programs in which these products can be appropriately addressed.

Objective 3. To insure that the rnate- rials forwarded to policy and decision *

. makers are in a form meaningful to them and suitable for their use.

Objective 4. To organize sessions at AAA meetings and other conferences.

At the organizing meeting these gods were modified to include making a list of

. private advocacy organizations in order to determine from them the kinds of re-’ search problems t‘hey think are needed to influence policy. The task force’s ulti- mate goal is to develop working relation- ships between anthropoJogists and some of these organizations. These activities are not considered to be exhaustive, and since we are organized in a committee structure we invife other tasks that peo- ple would like to carry out. Those wish- ing to become members of the Task Force should send material to Task Force, c/o PhI) Prog Anth, CUNY Grad- uate Program, 33 W 42d St, New York, NY 10036; bitnet: DJJ@CUNYVMS 1. Please include the following informa- tion: name, inst%ution, address, phone

topics, indicate whether you have for-

you would like to play in