David Graeber is the subject of the cover story in the latest issue of the Bloomberg Businessweek magazine where he is is profiled as one of the founding activist of the Occupy Wall Street movement:

David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year: promote his book, learn to drive, and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well, the second has proven challenging, and the third is looking up.

Graeber is a 50-year-old anthropologist—among the brightest, some argue, of his generation—who made his name with innovative theories on exchange and value, exploring phenomena such as Iroquois wampum and the Kwakiutl potlatch. An American, he teaches at Goldsmiths, University of London. He’s also an anarchist and radical organizer, a veteran of many of the major left-wing demonstrations of the past decade: Quebec City and Genoa, the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia and New York, the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002, the London tuition protests earlier this year. This summer, Graeber was a key member of a small band of activists who quietly planned, then noisily carried out, the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, providing the focal point for what has grown into an amorphous global movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

Click here to read the rest:

David Graeber, the Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street

Meet the anthropologist, activist, and anarchist who helped transform a hapless rally into a global protest movement

By Drake Bennett

In addition, Graeber is discussed in other media outlets:

AlJazeera - America’s growing anti-intellectualism

MainStreet – Meet the Man Behind Occupy Wall Street

The Chronicle of Higher Education - Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe

The Globe and Mail - A key to unlock the door of debtor’s prison

The Guardian - Occupy: the intellectual high ground

David Gareber’s image is licensed to David Graeber under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike

Sean Carey writes at anthropologyworks.com about the attribution of the UK Riots to “outsiders:”

But how true is the “outsider” hypothesis in accounting for riots? In the UK in the early 1980s, people often thought that “outsiders” were responsible for disorders simply because a large crowd would gather when there was an incident which then developed into a riot. Commentators put two and two together and reasoned that the rioters could not all have been local. But research I was involved in strongly suggested that the people who were present on the streets at the time rarely came from outside the area, especially on the first night of disorder.

Read the rest at anthropologyworks.com

Sean Carey also writes at the newstatesman.com about the relations between the riots and the consumption of goods. He quotes the late British anthropologist Professor Sir Edmund Leach:

Every society must bring the aggressive instincts of its individual members under control. This can never be achieved simply by outright repression or by moral precepts, but only by sublimation, that is by providing legitimate outlets for dangerous feelings.

Click here to read the rest

Maia Green comments on the recent events at Savage Minds: ”

Perhaps this week’s turmoil in the UK offers some scope for anthropology’s core strengths of empathy and interpretation.

Read more

Madawi Al Rasheed, a professor of social anthropology at Kings College in London, spoke about Saudi Arabia to Elizabeth Jackson, an ABC Australia’s correspondent.

Saudi Arabia tries to project itself as a stabilizer, as a force that would stabilize the region, but this means that they interfere in a very big way in other countries’ affairs.

…So the double standard whereby the American administration could support change and democracy in other parts of the Arab world such as for example in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and even commit itself to military action in a place like Libya, whereas in Bahrain, where we have a pro-democracy movement that started as a peaceful movement, we have complete silence over that situation which, given the impression, given the clear message to the people in the region that democracy is a selective process.

Click here for the rest of the interview

Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Middle East

Gabriele Marranci, an anthropologist based at the National University of Singapore, writes  at his blog on the revolts in Arab Countries and on how anthropologists have helped to perpetuate the myth of a fundamentalist Arab-Muslim mind:

Although we need to acknowledge that each revolt finds its raison d’être in local contexts and issues, we have also to recognize that Arab youth in the region want a change: they wish to end the long post-colonial period of time marked by dictators at the service of western economic and geopolitical interests…

…What is happening in the Middle East today, and even taking into consideration the local aspects of the revolt, the tribal interests and the economic factors, shows a very different reality from a monolithic Muslim mind controlled by the symbolic dimension of theology. Muslim Arabs are not, in other words, homo theologicus. The revolts–marked by the young age of those whom started it–show that many Arab Muslim youths, after losing faith in the US in the 1980s, have also lost their hope in the traditional Islamic movements.  Moreover, the violent methodology of Al-Qaeda has totally alienated the majority of Muslims.

Press here to read  From anthropology to politics: the myth of the fundamentalist Arab Muslim mind

Daniel Martin Varisco, Professor of Anthropology at Hofstra University writes at CNN about the uprising in Yemen:

While the world focuses on bombing raids in Libya, a different scenario has been unfolding in Yemen, which would be the first country outside of North Africa in this recent era of uprisings to lose its long-term strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh…

…Pundits, like me, have trusted conventional wisdom over the sheer willpower of ordinary people to overthrow repression. The Middle East is emerging from the cocoon of dictatorial fatalism, and no current regime can avoid the impact, even those that survive.

Our global war on terror, announced after the tragedy of 9/11, gave dictators in the region an extra life. All of them claimed to be the bulwark against the threat of Islamic rule. And both the Bush and Obama administrations took the bait. We poured out millions of dollars in military aid to help Saleh fight al Qaeda. But no one seemed to realize that doling out weapons to dictators was like adding gasoline to a fire.

Press here to read the rest

“The Libyan Revolution is Dead” declares Maximilian Forte in his Zero Anthropology Blog.

…this is an autopsy, identifying the weapons used, and the criminals responsible for killing the Libyan revolution. This is no longer a Libyan story–that chapter is now closed. My autopsy is divided into several broad categories of actors: the humanitarians, the rebels, the international organizations, the mass media, and the Americans. Finally, what we should be watching in the coming days, weeks, months, and years

Press here to read the rest of  The Libyan Revolution is Dead: Notes for an Autopsy

In addition, William Beeman, an  anthropology professor at University of Minnesota,  speaks to Salon.com about the political context of the 1986 Lockerbie bombing and Operation El Dorado Canyon.

Philip Carl Salzman, a McGill University professor of anthropology tells CNN, “Libyans have a strong loyalty to tribe…A tribe provides welfare in times of need…they have a collective responsibility.” However, Khalil Ali Al-Musmari, a retired professor of anthropology and sociology in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, says “the foreign media have often crudely misrepresented the nature of tribal power in the country, by talking about tribal leaders as though they still commanded the same obedience they did in ancient times.” Read more here

A PressTV interview with Professor William Beeman, Chairman of Anthropology department of University of Minnesota

“The US led the regularization of relations with Colonel Gaddafi, after he had given up his nuclear program, which in my opinion was non-existent anyway. But the US issued a declaration saying this is a new era of friendship, legitimizing him. So this is very embarrassing for the US to now have the population rise up against him and call for his ouster.”

An American professor says that the UN should send peacekeeping forces to Libya to monitor the situation, which would make US military intervention in Libya unnecessary.

To shed more light on the matter, Press TV conducted an interview with Chairman of the Anthropology Department of University of Minnesota, Professor William Beeman.

Press TV: Muammar Gaddafi seems to be cornered. Tripoli is more and more being surrounded by protesters. Where is there for Gaddafi to go? What can he do?

William Beeman: Well, it’s very unclear where Colonel Gaddafi could now find refuge. He’s really become a pariah, even in the Middle Eastern world. I think people think that his stance has been quite irrational. What has also been very odd is to hear his son Seif, talking about the fact that they have everything under control and that this is just an aberration, and that nothing is happening.

I think that the world has seen that the population in Libya is absolutely revolting against the government. Frankly I think that this may end with him dying. He may be arrested or killed, so it is a very difficult situation for him and I really do believe that he has lost his sense of respect from the matter.

Usually the leaders of the Arab world find refuge in Saudi Arabia, but I’m not even sure if the Saudis will be willing to take him as a guest, given the fact that he has so many people calling for his ouster and his regime.

Press TV: US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has said that exile is an option for Gaddafi. What does she mean by this?

William Beeman: Maybe Hillary Clinton knows something that I don’t know. The United States might have been trying to find someplace where he could actually go into exile. I’m not sure where that would be though. This is a very difficult situation. We’ve had some terrible leaders in the world who have eventually found exile, as I suggested Saudi Arabia is often the place of choice. You think of Idi Amin and other people who are really awful people who had awful regimes [but] were able to find refuge there.

If the United States was trying to broker a place for him to go into exile, that’s probably a very deep secret. We probably aren’t going to be able to find out about that through normal channels, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the US were to do something like that in order to try to stop the violence that’s going on in Libya. The US has some responsibility to bear for this. The US led the regularization of relations with Colonel Gaddafi, after he had given up his nuclear program, which in my opinion was non-existent anyway. But the US issued a declaration saying this is a new era of friendship, legitimizing him. So this is very embarrassing for the US to now have the population rise up against him and call for his ouster.

Press TV: Recently, the US military has decided to deploy its naval and air forces near Libya, saying that it is considering a number of contingency plans to be able to provide options, if the decision is to intervene. Do you think there will be a military intervention as opposed to what Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN recently said that it is pretty premature to decide on the military option?

William Beeman: I think this is a terrible mistake, and the US has thus far refrained from interfering in the internal affairs of countries. This reinforces the idea that the US is serving as a world policeman. We tried this in Somalia and were completely repudiated by the population; I don’t think the Libyan people want the US forces at all on the ground. They have a history of colonial domination from Italy that dates back some years ago to the time of WWII, and the US trying to move and impose order is not likely to be successful. I think it is a really bad mistake.

The US and other nations might act in consorts to solve the problem, but in the Arab world today we have rioting going on everywhere. There aren’t any respected officials who could actually help in this regards. So it might mean a coalition of perhaps European powers who could ease Gaddafi out of power and help established some kind of legitimate regime at this time.

Press TV: Now how much is there thought of a civil war or regime survival in Libya?

William Beeman: The regular military in Libya has essentially abandoned Colonel Gaddafi. He has a small group of mercenaries, paid soldiers who come from outside the country, who are defending him and defending the capital. The population is relatively uniformed. I think if there were to be a civil war, the only thing that I can think of would be people who were supporting Colonel Gaddafi and maybe supporting a secular regime and people who were inclined to a religious regime.

Press TV: How do you see the political structures for the orderly transition of power if Gaddafi leaves? If Gaddafi leaves, who will take power? We have tribes, Islamic groups, the army, and the liberals who are willing to lead the country?

William Beeman: That’s correct, and right now Libya doesn’t even have a constitution, so there’s a lot of work that needs to be done, if Libya is to transit to a more normal day of affairs in its government. Gaddafi is essentially ruled by a decree, frankly as a kind of tribal leader. He is in fact the head of the Gaddafi Tribe in Libya. And the country is being run like a tribal confederation. It is possible that someone from another tribal group could step in and take over the military. Eventually the people of Libya need a stable government with stable government documents of some kind that gives them rights as citizens. This is something that’s going to take a long time. Right now there doesn’t appear to be any alternative leaders to Colonel Gaddafi.

We can’t identify a single soul who is at the head of the opposition movement to the government. It seems to be a spontaneous and very widespread, massive revolt.

Press TV: Where does Libya stand when it comes to international diplomacy? How isolated is Libya?

William Beeman: Libya was very isolated up until the US and European powers tried to bring it out of its isolation when it renounced its nuclear program, which I say was non-existent anyway, not a big deal for them to renounce it. They were quite used to operating in isolation selling their oil through back channels on the world market. The isolation stopped once they began to be recognized by the world as a member of the international community. This though is a young or recent lack of isolation that they’ve had and so it is possible that Libya could slip back into isolation.

Certainly If the Libyans end up having a kind of internal revolution that is unorderly, they may suffer the fate of Somalia, which is isolated from the world not because it is full of bad people or bad leaders, but because there is total chaos in the country; there is nothing that resembles civil society and so Libya must be able to restore order in the country and try to get on the road to establishing a civil society.

Press TV: What do you think is next for Libya?

Beeman: It seems to me the next step is for Gaddafi and his family his sons to give up the country and leave and until that done we will see continued rioting and misery. Right now we are seeing food shortage throughout country and industry is at a complete standstill and so it is turning into an economic nightmare as well as a political and civil one.

Press TV: The UN has called for concrete action. What concrete actions can the UN do?

Beeman: Well I would prefer this to the US doing anything on its own unilaterally. The UN has the power to send in a peacekeeping force and I think that is absolutely warranted in this case and it would be very reasonable action. It would also remove the onus from the US of having to send in military forces unilaterally and I think the idea of a UN peacekeeping force being used in exactly these sorts of conditions where there’s been civil conflict that hasn’t been able to be contained. This would be an important step to try to bring order to the country right now.

Press TV: The US and its western allies condemn the Libyan regime anti-government protests, but a look back on relations between Gaddafi and western nations, analysts say, the condemnation may just be lip service?

Beeman: I quite agree with you, the Libyans have a very important natural resource and that is sweet crude oil, low sulfur oil, which is very easy to refine and used for diesel fuel. And the oil that they have for refining is close to Europe, so it’s a wonderful resource and geographical location. It doesn’t count for a large proportion of the supply of the world’s oil, about 2%, but nevertheless it is still very important and the industrial powers don’t want to risk cutting off that supply.

So they’ve condemned the crackdown, but they also wasn’t to be ready to jump if in some way the Gaddafi’s are able to retain power; they don’t want to be on their bad side – it’s a matter of fence-sitting on the part of the great powers; they’re not willing to actually take action to back up their condemnation.

Press TV: You mentioned earlier that many of these dictators fleeing and taking refuge in Saudi Arabia – wouldn’t this destroy the image of Saudi Arabia and perhaps risk uprisings there?

Beeman: Well you notice that the king of Saudi Arabia has just last week announced that he is dedicating USD 36 billion essentially as a giveaway to his people in order to try to stem any kind of revolt that might take place in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the only significant country in the Middle East that hasn’t really had a popular uprising yet and I think the King of Saudi Arabia is very worried that the calls for the ouster of rulers in the Middle East may spread to there. So if he takes Colonel Gaddafi in at this sensitive point he risks inflaming his own population and I think that’s got to be in the back of his mind.

Press TV: Let’s talk about the tribes in Libya. What role does these tribes play and how significant is the role in managing the status quo?

Beeman: Tribes are very important in Libya and you have to understand that Libya like many other nations in the Middle East is not a natural nation, it was created by colonial powers. Libya was ruled as a colony for decades in the middle of the 20th century. If you take a look at the southern borders of Libya you see that they are just straight lines where someone just drew a line on the map and declared that to be Libya and this encompassed a whole lot of tribes who had an independent existence of their own.

There was a King – King Idris for some time (1950s) who ruled as a nominal ruler, but didn’t have much control over tribal groups in the far reaching areas.

So like many of these artificial nations, Libya is a very fragmented place and the only way it has been kept together was through brute force or paramilitary rule. Colonel Gaddafi being the head of one of those very large tribes and also a military man was able to consolidate power. I should point out that Saudi Arabia has exactly the same structure.

It’s called Saudi Arabia because the Saud tribe eventually conquered all of their rivals for power and was able to establish a dynasty. So again these are large tribal groups with important leaders who have pacts with other tribes either explicit or tacit that cement alliances. Libya has never been a normal nation state.

Therefore, trying to put together something out of this very irregular governmental structure is going to be difficult.

Paul Stoller in BigGovernment.com:  ”If my many years living as a field anthropologist in sub-Saharan Africa are applicable, most senior diplomats appear to be far removed from the realities of the street…. With some exceptions, I would suggest, most of our senior diplomats and political officials do not know the street.”

Saba Mahmood in The Nation: The Architects of the Egyptian Revolution

“So what are the factors that birthed this historic expression of synergy and resistance?”

Maximilian Forte in Aljazeera: The Clinton Doctrine

“What kind of friend to Egyptians has the US been? How credible is its record of supporting democracy in Egypt? Does Obama believe the US will not be called to account?”