Effects Of Warfare Research Articles

The Colonial Medicine of Settler States: Comparing Histories of Indigenous Health

The history of Indigenous health connects inextricably with matters of geography and colonisation. 'Indigenous' usually connotes a place, often figured as marginal or isolated or developmental - as somewhere else.1 More pertinently, Indigenous status implies - or rather, is predicated upon - a history of colonisation and dispossession, with consequent resistance and adaptation to invaders and settlers. The term marks the contrast between original inhabitants and colonisers. The effort to identify some special Indigenous essence or type ultimately is futile since the status emerges out of political subordination under settler colonialism.2 The history of Indigenous health thus demands sensitivity to the impact of both colonialism and the incipient white nation-state. Moreover, it requires a critical awareness of the dark sides of contact, 'civilisation,' and 'development,' as well as an appreciation of the multiple implications of the related processes of assimilation, integration, and self-determination.3 Since first contact with European invaders, Indigenous people on the whole have been sicker and died younger than non-Indigenous inhabitants of the same colony or state.4 These health disparities have lessened significantly in North America and New Zealand, but remain severe across Australia.5 During the late-twentieth century, some historians attempted to explain the initial colonial impact on Indigenous societies in biological terms. Thus infectious diseases swelled the 'ranks of death,' as Indigenous people suffered 'virgin-soil' epidemics, the natural result of 'ecological imperialism.'6 As most of these historians later conceded, such biological analysis tended to discount the unnatural effects of warfare, dispossession, and demoralisation on health and social organisation.7 Biological explanations of contemporary health disparities are largely out of fashion - the

Mangrove Forests: One of the World's Threatened Major Tropical Environments

he mass media and scientific press have widely reported losses of tropical environments, such as fellingof rain forests and bleaching of coral reefs.This well-meritedattention has created a worldwide constituency that supportsconservation and restoration efforts in both of these threat-ened ecosystems. The remarkable degree of public aware-ness and support has been manifested in benefit rock concertsat Carnegie Hall and in the designation of ice cream flavorsafter rain forest products. Mangrove forests are another im-portant tropical environment,but these have received muchless publicity.Concern about the magnitude of losses of man-grove forests has been voiced mainly in the specialized liter-ature (Saenger et al. 1983, Spalding et al. 1997).Mangrove trees grow ubiquitously as a relatively narrowfringe between land and sea, between latitudes 25°N and30°S.They form forests of salt-tolerant species,with complexfood webs and ecosystem dynamics (Macnae 1968,Lugo andSnedaker 1974, Tomlinson 1986).Destruction of mangrove forests is occurring globally.Global changes such as an increased sea level may affect man-groves (Ellison 1993,Field 1995),although accretion rates inmangrove forests may be large enough to compensate for thepresent-day rise in sea level (Field 1995).More important,itis human alterations created by conversion of mangroves tomariculture,agriculture,and urbanization,as well as forestryuses and the effects of warfare, that have led to the remark-able recent losses of mangrove habitats (Saenger et al. 1983,Fortes 1988, Marshall 1994, Primavera 1995, Twilley 1998).New data on the magnitude of mangrove area and changesin it have become more readily available, especially with theadvent of satellite imagery and the Internet. Moreover, in-formation about the function of mangrove swamps, theirimportance in the sustainability of the coastal zone, and theeffects of human uses of mangrove forests is growing. Somepublished regional assessments have viewed anthropogenicthreats to mangrove forests with alarm (Ong 1982,Fortes 1988,Ellison and Farnsworth 1996),but reviews at the global scaleare dated (Linden and Jernelov 1980, Saenger et al. 1983).We collated and revised published information to reviewthe status of mangrove swamps worldwide.To assess the sta-tus of this major coastal environment, we compiled and ex-amined available data to quantify the extent of mangroveforest areas in different parts of the world,the losses of man-grove forest area recorded during recent decades, and therelative contributions by various human activities to theselosses.We first assessed current mangrove forest area in tropicalcountries of the world.It is difficult to judge the quality of thesedata in the published literature, because in many cases themethods used to obtain them were insufficiently described andthe associated uncertainty was not indicated. Much infor-mation based on satellite imagery is summarized in the

Strategic framework in environmental management: war and its aftermath

Strategic approaches to environmental management have in some parts of the world received an additional dimension: warfare and its aftermath. Warfare means not only loss of human life, loss of amenities, and diversion of materials and goods from regular use to logistic support for combatants, but also the disruption of the established administrative and legal system, designed to protect the environment. The paper advances two hypotheses: (i) that the acute damaging effects of war have their counterparts in environmental management malpractice, and (ii) that the aftermath leads to an ambiguous rearrangement of social, economic and environmental management priorities. An analysis is given of the additional cumulative effects of environmental loading as a consequence of warfare, and highlights the importance of the interface between the sciences and society in such specific circumstances. Transition from the centrally planned economies in the emerging states and societies of Central and Eastern Europe requires conceptual understanding of the time scales necessary and available. Within the time available there will be difficult management choices to be made, condensed into the problem of rearrangement of priorities within a legal system, harmonized with limited possibilities and needs on one side, and the requirements of contemporary environmental management principles and practices in the market economies of the western world.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Cross-Cultural Aspects

This paper discusses the cross-cultural aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The history of the concept is traced, and the early work on traumatic stress is reviewed. The occurrence of traumatic stress reactions, including the syndrome of PTSD, in different settings and different cultures is then discussed. Reactions to natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes, and man-made disasters such as industrial accidents, have been reported from diverse cultures, and these are selectively reviewed. The effects of warfare and related events are also discussed. It is clear that psychological stress reactions to traumatic events occur in diverse societies and cultures. The influence of cultural factors on the manifestation of these reactions, and how they might be relevant to the treatment of PTSD and other stress reactions, are commented on.

Prospects for United States Ratification of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, concluded in Geneva in 1977, is the most important treaty codifying and developing international humanitarian law since the adoption of the four Conventions themselves; and it is the first such treaty since 1907 to deal with methods and means of warfare and the protection of the civilian population from the effects of warfare. As such, its contributions to the law were long overdue and, on the whole, are both positive from the humanitarian point of view and practicable from the military point of view. Moreover, it offers the prospect of improved compliance with international humanitarian law, which would greatly benefit the victims of war and would bring the law in action closer to the law in the books. Yet, in January 1987, the President of the United States informed the Senate that he would not submit the Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, calling it “fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed.” It is apparent that President Reagan’s decision resulted from misguided advice that exaggerated certain flaws in the Protocol, ignored the statements of understanding that would have remedied them, and misconstrued a humanitarian and antiterrorist instrument as one that could give aid and comfort to “terrorists.”

"Ol I Skulim Mipela": Contemporary Warfare in the Papua New Guinea Eastern Highlands

Anthropological research has made significant contributions to our general understanding of how warfare has affected human societies. Careful ethnographic accounts of intergroup violence from a number of culture areas have been used to develop ecological and social-structural theories of war (e.g., Vayda 1976; Koch 1974). Most anthropological research, however, has focused on the effects of warfare in tribal societies, with far less attention devoted to the internal wars prevalent within many nation-states during the post-World War II era. The growing emphasis in political anthropology toward understanding political action within regional as well as local contexts should lead to increased anthropological concern for these contemporary conflicts. This paper argues that anthropologists can continue to contribute to the growth of knowledge on warfare through the observation and comparison of intergroup conflicts at a variety of societal levels. The Papua New Guinea Highlands have been one of the important areas for the development of anthropological thinking on war (e.g., Vayda 1971; Koch 1974; Meggitt 1977; Sillitoe 1977). Because in the Highlands anthropologists often conducted research with peoples who had recently experienced traditional intergroup conflict, the ethnography of the region has added immensely to our information on tribal warfare. Pacification of the Highlands by the Australian government, however, led to cessation of fighting between the 1930s and 1950s. The subject of this paper is the resurgence in intergroup violence that has occurred there since the 1970s, and, in particular, the variation in the prevalence of this fighthing within the Highlands region. My focus is on the pattern of involvement of Eastern Highlands peoples in the current Highlands fighting. Although all districts in the Eastern Highlands Province have now reported outbreaks of intergroup violence, this fighting only became serious in the late 1970s, and is still relatively inconsequential when compared with the fighting of the more western Highland provinces. I suggest here that the minor and late involvement of Eastern Highlanders in intergroup fighting resulted from a combination of diffusion and divisiveness: the western Highland example encouraged a resort to violence, while intergroup divisions discouraged its extensive use. Although reports in the national press and government records indicate that beginning in 1979 Eastern Highland intergroup hostilities became both more frequent and more widespread, little detailed information on intergroup fighting for the various districts of the Eastern Highlands has yet been published.' I therefore rely primarily on my own research in the Kainantu District of that province between 1977-79, and especially upon evidence from the Agarabi people with whom I lived.2 A comparison with the more western Highland provinces is possible because studies of contemporary warfare have been published for Enga Province (Meggitt 1977; Gordon 1983), Simbu Province (Brown 1982 a, b; Podolefsky 1984), and Western Highlands Province (Strathern 1977).3 In the first section I provide a brief overview of the research on contemporary Highlands warfare. In the next section, I describe the changing pattern of Agarabi intergroup conflicts from the pre-colonial period to the 1970s. The following section explores three instances of Agarabi intergroup disputes that highlight the pressures that have encouraged intergroup violence, but that also highlight the constraints that have limited its extent. Finally, I conclude by comparing the fighting found in the Eastern Highlands with that experienced elsewhere in the Highland

ἐλάχɩστον … ἐν τοῖς ἄρσεσι κλέος: Thucydides, Women, and the Limits of Rational Analysis

The comparative infrequency of references to women in Thucydides' history has often been remarked upon, and explained as due in part to the choice of warfare as his theme, and in part to the success of the Greek republics in excluding women from the political arena. As Pericles says in his funeral speech, women ought to give their menfolk the least possible cause to have to take note of them (2.45.2). But the exclusion of women from the subject-matter of historical discourse is peculiarly Thucydidean. Powell'sLexicontells us that Thucydides' contemporary Herodotus uses γ⋯νηs 373 times, while the number of references to women/wives, mothers, priestesses etc. in Thucydides is less than fifty. This does not mean of course that Thucydides has no interest in, or sympathy for, women: frequently he mentions them as the passive objects of military circumstances precisely in order to underline the tragic effects of warfare. But some of the references to women are decidedly curious. There is a clear example in the account of the unsuccessful Theban attack on Plataea in 431 B.C., with which active hostilities began. Thucydides tells us that some of the Thebans who were locked into the town escaped by breaking open a deserted gate without being noticed (2.4.4). Why does he gratuitously mention that it was a women – presumably a Plataean – who gave her enemies an axe: γυναικ⋯ς δο⋯σης π⋯λɛκυν Clearly, it is an overimplification to say that Thucydides ignores women.

Interracial Warfare and Population Decline among the New England Indians

A study of the documentary sources makes it possible to arrive at an approximate assessment of the demographic damage suffered by the native population during the Indian wars of the seventeenth century in New England. There were three periods of intense military effort, the Pequot War, 1634, the Dutch War, 1643, and King Philip's War, 1675-1676. The number of Indians killed on the field of battle is estimated as 2,950, or close to eight percent of the total population loss suffered by the tribes concerned during the period from 1620 to 1750. If those who died of wounds are added the casualties become 3,745, or eleven percent of the population decline. Indirect losses were incurred through capture and slavery, exposure and starvation during periods of active operations, and the permanent removal of refugees. These factors are calculated to account for 6,000 persons during King Philip's War alone, and bring the total to 9,745. This is roughly one quarter of the 36,000 Indians who, according to Mooney (1928), inhabited New England and southeastern New York, and who were effectively extinct by 1 750. The destruction of the other three quarters must be ascribed to disease and to social causes. The tremendous decline in numbers suffered by the North American Indians in the early days of European colonization may be ascribed to a number of factors. Among these is disease introduced by the whites, which accounted certainly for more than half the population loss. Also of outstanding significance was warfare, which, apart from battle casualties. contributed to profound social and economic disruption. The effect of warfare has usually been discussed in very general terms. and where specific cases are mentioned, there has been little attempt to analyze them in terms of the number of persons involved. It is therefore of interest to examine the role of warfare in the fortunes of the native population in a limited region and during a restricted period. For this purpose ETHNOHISTORY 20/1 (Winter 1973) This content downloaded from 157.55.39.124 on Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:11:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Global War and the Study of History

have indicated in this paper our notion that time studies in themselves are inadequate and fail to explain the nature of the relationship between the two variables. Thus, we have presented brief outlines of three possible approaches to studying the relationship between war and mental disorder. First, we indicated the possibility of studying the influence of war in producing a differential mental disease rate within different population segments or categories. Secondly, it was suggested that the influence of war conditions might be studied in relation to different personality orientations and to those persons who display contrasting adjustments in a society at peace. Finally, the possibility was suggested that war be studied as a function of contrasting cultural motifs viewing its effects in. terms of the mental maladjustments of the persons in these different cultures. In view of the changing character of modern warfare and in view of the institution of warfare within many cultures, it does seem desirable that we should have some careful empirical studies which might to a limited extent gauge its social consequences to the individual members of a society. Such studies should, in the long time view, be more instrumental in undermining war, as a cultural agency for settling intergroup disputes than all of the existing controversy, providing of course, that certain effects of warfare can be demonstrated as more damaging to a given people than the waging of a war itself.

Anthropological Aspects of the Origins of War

A STUDY of the origin of war and its various manifestations from an anthropological point of view, by J. R. Swanton, of the Bureau of American Ethnology, which has been issued by the Smithsonian Institution in the War Background Studies series (No. 12), indicates the impossibility of separating the consideration of wars between tribes or nations from disturbances internal to them. Reviewing the various motives which lead to war and comparing warfare in simple and in advanced societies, Mr. Swanton emphasizes the relations between motives governing the individual and those which result in collective hostilities. These and further considerations of group controls, international relations, the effect of warfare upon trade and the place of the military establishment in the national life, lead to the conclusion that war is an expression of man's antisocial tendencies; and just as individual and collective crimes have to be controlled within the State by men trained and equipped to meet them, so the destructive threat represented by foreign armed forces when used for aggression must be countered by armed forces prepared to meet them. Between many nations there is a constantly increasing tendency to settle differences by peaceful means, and if these areas of law and of good feeling continue to spread, the preservation of order will pass more and more to the police, or to armed forces acting in that capacity. Consideration of the origins of war and attitudes towards it among different people shows that collective pugnacity is an acquired trait–cultural not biological. Fear and not hatred is the underlying if not the dominant motive, and when this fear can be allayed, belligerency will disappear with it. There is no mystery about the force required to terminate warfare. All that is needed is the will to do so.

Some Biological Considerations About War

The basic biological principle underlying belligerent behavior is the will to live, which is a characteristic of all living things. This characteristic has played an important role in the evolution of individual and collective human behavior. The stimuli leading to belligerent behavior arise from three sorts of situations: namely, (a) predation, (b) invasion of territory, and (c) courtship, mating, and reproduction, These stimuli lead to essentially the same types of response in birds and mammals as they do in man, indicating the evolutionary background lying behind war as a form of human social behavior. The propaganda element in modern warfare has definite psychobiological effects. The alleged harmful genetic effects of warfare upon large population aggregates have been greatly overrated. Other adverse biological consequences of modern warfare may be temporality severe but do not last long. The fundamental biological problem that war presents is the problem of the evolution of new patterns of socialit...