"Must not their languages be savage and barbarous like them?" Philology, Indian removal, and race science

This article highlights the federal government's role as a collector and arbiter of scientific knowledge of "the Indian," in projects directed by Lewis Cass, Albert Gallatin, and Henry R. Schoolcraft; examines the linguistic precursor to biological essentialism; demonstrates white philologists' reliance on Native tutors, some of whom also entered scientific and policy debates; and suggests why the federal government began moving toward English-only instruction even as biological notions of race gained ascendance. During the removal debates, Indian languages focused the attention of men of letters, statesmen, and the broader public. Peter S. Du Ponceau and Cass argued over the grammatical character of the "American languages," with the former praising them and the latter attacking those tongues and the "philanthropic" philology. At stake was the future of Indian affairs and inquirers explored Native languages for evidence of Indians' intellectual and moral capacity to be assimilated into U.S. society. In denying that language corresponded to social condition, Du Ponceau suggested that all Indians spoke according to a uniform, unchanging, and unique "plan of ideas." He and other participants in the debate, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Schoolcraft, began to define, linguistically, a distinct and fixed "Indian mind." Scholars of the early republic and antebellum era who wish to study scientific definitions of race must come to terms with linguistic ideas, which requires confronting the intercultural encounters, intellectual exchanges, and institutions through which they emerged.     

Three geographers in an archive: positions, predilections and passing comment on transient lives

Despite the existence of research conducted by geographers eschewing or professing religious faith, the influence of researchers and their methods have yet to receive critical attention within the study of religion. The experience of three geographers working on a three-year research project suggests that it is vital to reflect upon the inter-subjective relationships and methodologies used to reconstruct the religious past. How do different subject positions influence our selections from historical records? We also consider whether the spatialities of putatively 'religious' archives, whether formally or informally constituted, make a difference to the construction of historiographical knowledge. In attempting to answer these questions, the paper argues that developing an awareness of different types of positionality, vis-à-vis religious faith and practice, combined with reflexivity, vis-à-vis methodology, can enrich the interpretative reconstruction of the religious past.     

Monkey business: human–animal conflicts in urban Singapore

Ongoing human–long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) conflicts in Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Singapore, have seen native macaques significantly affected, as residential development encroaches into animals' habitat, destroying important wildlife corridors. The search for a more humane treatment of these transgressive animals can be seen as an attempt to extend and include non-human animals within humanistic notions of ethics and care, in the process destabilizing the assumed divide between human/animal. Yet, a feasible solution is difficult to reach as National Parks Board (NParks), the state agency overseeing the conservation of reserves and wildlife, has to negotiate constantly between their goal of maintaining biodiversity and appeasing the complaining residents. The paper seek to understand urban–wilderness conflicts between human–macaque, showing that the divide between tamed/wild is multi-sited, ambiguous and constantly shifting. In this regard, we are especially interested in the role of intermediaries in initiating actions to ‘make discursive as well as material space’ for macaques in the reserve. Intermediaries, here referring to NParks and animal activists, are actors who do not reside near the reserve thus having no frequent encounters with wildlife, yet are enrolled as mitigators during instances of human–animal conflicts.     

Is technology the enemy of culture?

This article examines how changes in technology affect the strategies various national governments have adopted to protect their respective cultures. The focus is primarily on national policies toward film and television. National quota systems that limit the import of American entertainment products will soon be made impossible to enforce, thanks to new digital and satellite technologies. Economic incentives will still make American products attractive to proliferating private television channels, but narrow‐casting and cable distribution will offer new opportunities for locally produced shows and movies. Increasingly, those countries that wish to continue to protect their cultures from the homogenizing trends of global markets dominated by American films and television programs, will need to move away from quotas and toward subsidies. Moreover, they will have an interest in promoting technologies that are favorable to the promotion of national culture. Financial instruments that reduce risk to local producers may also be appropriate.