Front and back cover caption, volume 21 issue 4 Front cover The photo on the front cover, taken from the World Monuments Fund (WMF) website, shows house in Hilinawalö Mazingö, South Nias, Indonesia which was recently included on the WMF's List of 100 most endangered sites. Built in the 19th century, the house withstood the massive earthquake of 28 March 2005 that reduced the port towns of Nias to rubble and made over 150,000 people homeless. Constructed without nails, its complex structure can absorb tremors where modern concrete houses collapse. However, the hardwoods needed to replace columns and panels damaged by fire, rain and insects are no longer available, since Nias has been stripped of primary forest. Urgent conservation work is needed if the stone-paved villages and traditional architecture of Nias are to survive further destruction. In order to house the homeless, reconstruction planners are now studying the possibility of reviving traditional designs using cheaper, renewable materials. South Nias, whose plight was barely reported in the aftermath of the earthquake, received no government attention until ten days after the disaster. In his article on pp. 5-7 of this issue, Andrew Beatty reflects on the lack of development in Nias since he began fieldwork there in 1986 and considers the context of the recovery operation, showing how selective reporting, narrowly focused on stereotypical human interest stories, has failed to address local conditions, allowing corruption and inefficiency to thrive. Local knowledge is key to the success of aid. But only better reporting of regional power structures and stakeholders, combined with greater scrutiny of official dealings, will help to ensure that aid reaches those most in need. Back cover POLICY AND RACE The back cover reproduces questions from recent censuses conducted in England and Wales (above) and the USA (below). The former asks the respondent to state 'your ethnic group'; the latter seeks information on a 'person's race'. Statistics from the responses to these questions are given on page 4 of this issue. The British census question on ethnic origin, first introduced in 1991, is unusual in the European context. The 2001 census introduced a new 'mixed' category, as well as the term 'British' as a qualifier (to permit identification as British Black or British Asian), and a 'white' category subdivided into British, Irish and others. It also included a question on religion for the first time in more than a century, in response to the concerns of those for whom ethnic affiliation relates closely to religion (e.g. South Asian Muslims). In the US, the census of 2000 offered individuals, for the first time, the opportunity to identify themselves as belonging to more than one racial category (previously people of mixed descent were asked to choose a single racial category or to respond as 'some other race'). Most countries conduct regular censuses of their populations. In 1995 the United Nations Assembly passed a resolution calling on all its member countries to compile census data by 2004. However, a census depends on the consent of the population. Germany has not taken a full census since 1987, after postponing its scheduled 1983 census because of public concern over the proposed use of census returns to update local population registers; the Netherlands has not had a census since 1971, when high rates of refusal rendered returns unreliable. In common with a number of other countries, including Denmark, these two have turned to alternative data sources, particularly population and housing registers as well as sample surveys, for population statistics. The discourse of governance and perceptions of social category are powerfully influenced by the terms officially sanctioned by governments for the classification of citizens. The US census identifies its use of race as 'sociopolitical constructs' that are not 'scientific or anthropological in nature' (quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68186.htm). Race is surely one of the most potent and elusive of concepts anthropology is trying to make sense of, whether as a scientific or as a cultural category. In this issue of AT, Michael Banton contends that contributors to recent debate have not distinguished sufficiently between scientific classifications and the categories current in the English language of everyday life. In their review of the recent 'Anthropology and Genomics' conference, Simpson and Konrad point out how issues of race and policy arise in this dynamic field. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY continues to offer a forum for topical debate on issues of public concern, and welcomes further contributions on these questions.
View source
