This document summarizes Ellen Messer's paper "Anthropologists in a World with and without Human Rights" which examines anthropologists' theoretical and practical contributions to the struggle for human rights. It discusses how anthropologists have historically supported or opposed human rights frameworks and institutions based on their stances. The document also outlines how anthropologists have worked to advance human rights at the regional level across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and addressed various issues such as discrimination, genocide, and economic injustice. Finally, it notes that anthropologists recognize human rights must be culturally adopted by communities and their research seeks to grow this understanding across cultures.

1. Ellen Messer's "Anthropologists in a World with and without Human Rights"
Humans are the formers of their cultures and the products of them as well. Naturally,
anthropological researches and struggles for human rights are interrelated parts of cultural
studies. Therefore, an Ellen Messer's paper published in Exotic No More is worthy of
consideration within a culture course.
Messer's "Anthropologists in a World with and without Human Rights" exposes
anthropologists' theoretical and practical contributions to the ongoing struggle for human
rights. It also clarifies the contradiction between human rights principles and practices.
The paper opens with some clear evidence of persistent and multiple violations of human
rights by governments even those which have signed human rights conventions. Such
evidence is Zapatista rebellion originated in response to state-sponsored violence against
peasants demanding their rights. Further cases of violations, resistance, plus
anthropologists and other activists' contributions to this field are detailed in four major
sections.
Human Rights Development and Anthropology
This section reviews the historical phasing of human rights compared to a background of
developing theoretical and practical work of anthropologists. It finds out whether their
stances are accordingly supportive of or opposed to governments or institutions.
For instance, the American Anthropological Association's Executive Board officially
rejected in 1947 the notion of universal human rights as ethnocentrically Western. They
were not very satisfied with the umbrella document of The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights UDHR adopted in 1948. Instead, they championed protection of indigenous people
and emphasized that different people have different concepts of rights.
Over the interim of decades (1948-88), the chronology of binding UN treaties is divided
into four generations of human rights paralleled both changing economic developments and
anthropologists roles.
In the 1950s and 1960s, on one hand, the main human rights emphasis
centered on reinforcing civil political rights through enhancing economic
development. Afterwards, anthropologists went further and introduced
nutrition and public health programs.
On the other hand, they defended respect for cultural diversity, indigenous
knowledge against international conventions obligations of sharing Western
technology benefits with the developing world.
 Sawsan Fawzy Mohammad Ali  European Cultures
 1st
Presentation  Dr Mona Ibrahim
 14-11-2011  Session( 2)

2. Over the 1970s, economic-social- cultural rights received more attention as
development rhetoric shifted to growth-with-equity. Experts recognized that
extra efforts should be put in to meet the basic needs of people especially
the poor. Conferences were held for this purpose like the World Food
Conference in 1974. During this period, anthropologists of medicine and
nutrition further linked human rights to development goals, plans and
practice. They also contributed ethnographic and political economic
insights to official UN discussions about genocide and discrimination
against women such as the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1951, the UN Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women in 1979.
This generation of struggle demonstrated three principles: the interrelation
between civil-political and economic-social-cultural rights, the need to
consider collective as well as individual rights, and the linkages of human
rights to development process.
These three concerns grew together in the 1980s. Third World leaders
introduce the rights to development to their people. Over this period,
anthropologists spoke out against the human rights abuse of political
dictators.
For instance, they organized in Africa and Latin America debates on the
use and the abuse of the US and European aids. They publicized the
Ethiopian famine as not strictly a natural disaster, but mainly a man-made
political one. In Central America, they opposed the US policies in countries
such as El-Salvador that restricted economic opportunities for the poor and
supplied military elite with arms.
The 1990s have seen an increasing number of formulations by states as
well as UN development summits. Anthropologists were then at the
forefront documenting abuses in Central America, Africa, and Asia
protesting against discrimination and economic injustice in the US, Europe,
Japan, and Australia. Furthermore, they suggested ways to expand human
rights concepts worldwide. They considerably supported most of
indigenous rights in Latin America.
In short, anthropology activists' work paralleled UN generations of human rights
supporting and opposing to them accordingly.

3. Regional Cultural Relativism and Universals
Anthropologists introduced regional perspectives to support human rights all over the
world.
In Africa, their debates defended individual identity against the collective
one meant by African leaders to brutally sacrifice individual rights in the
state—building process. They confronted the challenge of understanding
the local standards of full humans, full social adulthood and community
membership.
Moreover, they had other issues to tackle such as discriminatory legacy of
apartheid, slavery, genocide, involuntary genital surgery performed on
women, and religious clashes.
Similar issues arose in Asia. For instance, gender distinctions plus
improving the lives of women and children were handled by anthropologists
along with NGOs and international agencies such as UNICEF.
In India, the question was reconciling different cultural and religious
languages of duties and obligations with universal human rights notions.
In Latin America, the focus of human rights activists' work was to protect
the rights of local collectivities struggling for autonomy and survival.
Central American anthropologists were the most personally involved
sometimes at the cost of their lives.
In a word, anthropologists struggled for human rights all over the world attempting to
meet regional needs.
Institutional Involvements
Anthropology contributions to institutional work are fulfilling two counterbalanced roles.
The first is to support theoretically and practically coordination among local, international,
official institutions and NGOs, and to facilitate the connecting of the UN initiatives to
grassroots communities.
The second is to monitor and criticize institutional performance and document abuses.
For instance, in the 1980s, anthropologists spoke out against the negative nutritional health
impacts of programs implemented by the World Bank and the IMF.
Partly in response, the World Bank began to hire anthropologists to help evaluate factors
of project success, especially in respecting human rights.
In other words, activities of anthropologists are built on and consistent with international
and institutional principles but limited by them.

4. Between Action and Theory
This section explores how anthropologists advocating human rights move from action to
theory.
The most important point anthropologists get is that human rights are culturally relative.
They recognized that in order to be effective, rights must be adopted by communities that
already have their own notions of rights and persons. Therefore, their research across
cultures and communities is growing.
This presentation is a chronological and regional exposition of anthropologists'
theoretical and practical work on human rights. It suggests that unless the application is
actually fair, human rights struggle will remain trapped in a vicious circle; the more violations
there are, the more theories are introduced, and consequently, the more people are abused.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN A VICIOUS CIRCLE
UNFAIR
APPLICATION
MORE
VIOLATIONS
MORE
THEORIES