Luckily, other commenters with better developed political, ethical, and moral consciences necessary to sustain determined opposition came and said virtually all of the same things I have been saying on this blog. Otherwise I am afraid that Golub missed the big picture, though he did an excellent job of pinning “Dee” down repeatedly for her continual lack of substantiation for any of her counter claims and allegations. I raised that in my very first encounter with “Dee” over a month ago, and by now I had had enough to proceed to my own conclusions.

Have I been polite? I hope that I have not been so too often, it would be a terrible way to put collegial lipstick on a militarist pig.

At what point do you guys criticize your own? It seems that the counterinsurgency manual’s plagiarism didn’t phase you, AAA condemnations for unethical practices in Human Terrain didn’t matter, now we learn of these corrupt practices, so what will it take?

We know the military doesn’t care, but what about the AAA? We need some motions as the business meeting to publicly sort out what anthropology does and doesn’t stand for.

Let me start by answering your very perceptive comment this way: this is a fundamentally political struggle, and a fundamentally public one. One has to grasp this first before deciding what to do as an anthropologist, in public, in a political conflict. I tend to think of politics in political terms, that is, in terms of strategies and tactics, in terms of positionality, intentionality, and consequences. Anthropology bloggers need to remind themselves that these blogs have no walls — they are in public now, not sequestered within a private, departmental setting where their statements, or silence, will have little consequence beyond the walls of their respective institutions. Knowing that, you would think, would lead them to understand themselves in a different light, and to have a heightened self-consciousness of their social positions.

I think there are at least five positions that I see marked out in a public debate such as this one, where anthropology bloggers are concerned (by the way, I loved “parasitic bloggerati”…it reminds me of Panday’s “parasitic oligarchy”). The first is a position of fear, or apprehension: I am young, I have a lot at stake, I have no tenure, or as a student my supervisor will hate me if I say the wrong thing, this could mark me forever, things change, I better leave my options open, I should stay silent. The second position is that of spectator, who sits back and watches things unfold as if they were being played out for his/her amusement and entertainment. The third is the one whose favourite position, embodied by a messenger on the bloodied side of the argument, effects a tactical retreat into the shadows, looking to snipe in more abstract terms in the future, from the sidelines, in terms of “objectivity”, etc. The fourth is the apolitical intellectual, who thinks, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that one can be scientific and detached from political beings in political contexts in political conflict, a terrible mismatch that produces literally unbelievable results, as in not credible. The fifth, and perhaps the one I like the least of all, is what I am calling the “12th hour, 1st minute, middle messiah” — the one who decides to make an entry only après-coup. This is the person who waits for the battle to have taken its course, the sea parted by the combatants leaving a nice, clean and open platform, to step in and say, “Here I am, the calm and polite voice of reason, the synthesis, the mapper of the third way, you can all disarm now and collectively breathe a sigh of academic relief as I return you to normalcy.” That is a cynical exploiter who profits from the work of others, who has a side, and pretends to be “more” objective.

On the whole, given that anthropology bloggers have by and large remained silent, watching this struggle unfold, I am not accusing them of anything, knowing the varied positions above, but they must be reminded one of the most basic realities and outcomes of public, political struggles, and that is: their silence is damning.

Keep in mind that McFate repeated over and over that my blog was NOT (her capitals) the model that should be followed, the way to debate, etc., etc. She wanted this silenced and wanted to instruct others on the proper terms for engaging in critique, naturally in a way that would favour her most. I would have been chilled to see her feeling at home on this blog, I would take it as an indictment.

Finally, and my apologies for this off the cuff essay here: messenger + message. In public politics, leadership, charisma, image, and role modeling matter, and the military and “patriotic” media know that. This whole ugly story began with all of us being lectured at that we were safe, comfortable academics (McFate’s words), lounging in our Ivory Towers of social irresponsibility and self-indulgence, and by our inaction we were basically making life easier for the enemies of the Whole Universe As We White Western Christians Know It. I could be itsy bitsy and say, “now that’s a personal attack, that’s slander.” But I didn’t. My response was, “Well if this is the new role model for us to follow, let’s have a closer look.” And the issues are not disconnected either, that is, spying and the Human Terrain System. In both cases McFate’s applied anthropology manifested contempt for the “locals,” for activists or insurgents fighting to defend their countries. In both cases there is a position of political support for corporate power, for maintaining the status quo. In both cases there is an attempt to suppress and subvert dissent. This is police state/ imperial anthropology, which she and her sponsors tried to sell by, very foolishly, fatally, using her as the champion.

Those who don’t understand this, need to hurry and catch up.

I also like the observation made by Iqra’i: “DO NOT: design Pentagon-funded anthro-warrior schemes that make the anthropological establishment leery, then decide that the perfect anthropologist to present the public face of these schemes is the daughter-in-law (and former support staffer!) of a former gun-lobby double agent. (h/t Open Anthropology)”

A diligent attempt was made to fuse messenger with message by those who believed in these activities, in this “applied anthropology,” and when their actions met with criticism the response was to demonize the critic in the hope of distracting from what was being criticized. I don’t think it worked.

Thanks again and I will be adding your blogs to my lists on the side here.

http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/2008/07/beware-of-true-believers-around-you.html

Our blog is mostly progressive politics, defense issues and Veterans issues, and we have seen multiple “pings” on our site from people looking for stories on Montgomery McFate, as I am sure you will after this excellent post.

Let’s just say that the level of interest in the activities of these people has set of warning bells everywhere, and I hope more people research and write about what they have been up to and will link back to your work here and cite what appears to be some pretty credible evidence of some serious ethical breaches and unprofessional behavior.

Thank you again,

Warren Street