Search

Street protests and the occupation of public spaces have once again become common forms of political engagement throughout the United States. Newer grassroots groups like #BLM and POP, and establishment activist organizations like the NAACP, have organized public demonstrations around fatal police shootings in multiple cities, while also mobilizing a new generation of political actors. This piece explores the way multiple activist organizations coalesce and clash around a recent fatal police shooting in a rural New Jersey prison town. In juxtaposing a mother's pursuit of justice with larger forms of protest, I problematize the capacity of establishment activism to disrupt local order and bring about broader political change, and I theorize the regimes of value (legally) defining Black life in Clip-town specifically, and in the US more broadly. This engaged ethnography thus shows what happens when activists align with politicians and police to enforce order, rather than with families and grassroots groups seeking justice. From this perspective, police violence, especially targeted against Black men, appears not simply as incidental but as key to the mechanics of local order. A fresh culture of rioting conjured by forces of the prematurely Black dead demands closer attention to local politics and policing when addressing criminal justice reform. [Keywords: Street protests, activism, police violence, engaged ethnography, race and racism in the US] [Palavras-chave: Protestos de Rua, ativismo, violencia policial, etnografia engajada, raca e racismo nos EUA], 'are you saying there are no good police officers?' --Professor Anonymous, AES, April 2016 (1) 'but because he did not question the basis of such a society ... his proposed [...]

In this article the author responds to commentaries on his research into the history of economic anthropology. Issues raised which he addresses include the use of psychology as a leitmotiv for ethnological inquiry and the history of ethnological economics, his decision to end his paper in 1945 and not include economic anthropoligical research since then, and the charges that he chastises latter-day anthropology and economics for their estrangement.

This article provides a response to criticism of the author's paper questioning the existence of an historical German school of economics. Issues addressed include historical studies of political economics and scholary research in this feild, and reasons for his amalgamation of schools of traditional economic theories.

An assessment is presented on the emergence and development of economic anthropology as a field of research. It is posited that the field's viability would be enhanced through interdisciplinary participation of scholars from the two subjects of study that comprise the field.

The theory that the German Historical School of Economics (GHSE) does not deserve that name because it was neither German, nor historical, nor a school is advocated. Historical is not well chosen because it displaces other terms, such as evolutionary, which might describe the GHSE better. There is certainly pedagogical value in classifying the GHSE as part of a larger movement of evolutionary economics.