The New York Review of Books - 07.11.2019

46 The New York Review

LETTERS

THE FIRST CONCENTRATION
CAMPS

To the Editors:

In her interesting review of Daniel Okrent’s
The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics, and
the Law That Kept Two Generations of
Jews, Italians, and Other European Immi-
grants Out of America [NYR, September
26], Sarah Churchwell writes that “the term
‘concentration camps’...was previously
used to describe the camps set up during
the Boer War for forcibly displaced Af-
ricans whose rights the state did not wish
to recognize. Their high concentration of
people within small enclosures led to their
name: an estimated 115,000 Africans were
interned in sixty-six camps, some 20,000
to 50,000 of whom are estimated to have
died.... The term ‘concentration camps’
was also used as early as 1897 by the Ameri-
can press to describe the internment camps,
with their ‘concentration of misery,’ forc-
ibly established in Cuba in the run-up to the
Spanish-American War for civilians labeled
reconcentrados.”
Those reconcentrados were in fact in-
terned or “concentrated” in camps, to
which they gave their name, created by
the Spanish Army in Cuba under Gen-
eral Valeriano Weyler while suppressing
the patriotic rebellion of 1895 (witnessed
and reported on by the twenty-one-year-
old Lieutenant Winston Churchill) that
adumbrated the Spanish-American War.
Five years later, during the Boer War, the
name “concentration camp” was borrowed
by the British Army and used in the same
sense, to describe the camps in which they
likewise “concentrated” civilians: not Af-
ricans but Afrikaners or Boers, the “white
tribe” against whom that abominable war
was fought. The horrors of these concentra-
tion camps, with their very high mortality
of women and children, were exposed by
an Englishwoman, Emily Hobhouse, de-
nounced as “methods of barbarism” by Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the leader
of the Liberal Party, and not forgotten by
Europeans, including Hitler, who later bor-
rowed the name “concentration camp” in
cruel mockery.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Bath, England

Sarah Churchwell replies:

A number of readers have pointed out that
the framing of my statement about the Af-
rican victims of concentration camps in the
Anglo-Boer War has given rise to confu-
sion, and some have raised questions about
the numbers of victims I gave. Several have
agreed with Mr. Wheatcroft in stating that
the victims of those camps were “not Af-
ricans but Afrikaners or Boers, the ‘white
tribe’ against whom that abominable war
was fought.” Precisely because I do not
claim expertise in the Anglo-Boer War, I
referred to multiple sources for my claims,
and those sources do not agree that (black)
Africans were not also victims of the camps.
They include Stowell Kessler’s 1999 The
Black Concentration Camps of the Anglo-
Boer War, Christopher Saunders and
Nicholas Southey’s Historical Dictionary
of South Africa (which declared it “likely
that almost as many Africans died in such
camps as Boers”), and several essays by
Frans johan Pretorius, emeritus professor of
history at the University of Pretoria and the
author or editor of eight books on the Boer
War, including an essay concerning the his-
toriographical “debate on white and black
concentration camps in the Anglo-Boer
War of 1899–1902.”
As for the total number of victims, it was
repeatedly cited by these sources, including
an essay in South African History Online by
Professor Pretorius, who wrote earlier this
year, “It’s well established that 28,000 white
people and 20,000 black people died in vari-

ous camps in South Africa. Between July

1901 and February 1902 the rate was, on av-

erage, 247 per 1000 per annum in the white

camps. It reached a high of 344 per 1000 per

annum in October 1901 and a low of 69 per

1000 per annum in February 1902.” I agree,

however, that the claim about the number

of “Africans” who died in those camps

was too abbreviated, to the point of being

misleading, and should—especially given

the context—have made explicit that these

victims were both white Boers (Afrikaners)

and black native Africans.

I am grateful for the opportunity to offer

these clarifications, while noting the irony

that the issue arose because I suggested

Mr. Okrent might have offered a concise

and accurate history of the origin of con-

centration camps. That is clearly easier said

than done, and I am happy to withdraw the

advice.

CRISIS IN THE AMAZON

To the Editors:

As Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro stood

before the United Nations in late Septem-

ber downplaying media reports of increas-

ing forest fires under his administration and

denouncing world-renowned indigenous

leaders such as Raoni Metuktire and Sônia

Guajajara, who he claimed were being ma-

nipulated by foreign interests, the Brazilian

Amazon continued to burn. Enormous fires

have broken out in different parts of it as

deforestation has reached levels not seen

for more than a decade, with an area of for-

est the size of Hong Kong cut down in the

month of August alone.

Since taking office in January, President

Bolsonaro has used his powers to under-

mine the cultural, territorial, and human

rights of indigenous peoples that are guar-

anteed in the Brazilian Constitution. His

public statements have contributed to a

climate of lawlessness and impunity, and

to a tacit understanding that legislation

protecting indigenous territories and other

areas will not be enforced. Over the past

year, indigenous lands in Brazil have seen

a surge in invasion by illegal loggers, gold

miners, and land speculators, and there

has been an alarming increase in aggres-

sion against indigenous peoples. In early

September, Maxciel Pereira dos Santos, a

contractor for FUNAI, Brazil’s federal in-

digenous protection agency, who had over

a decade of experience protecting isolated

indigenous peoples of the Javari Valley,

was murdered execution-style on a busy

street in the town of Tabatinga. A little

more than a week later, men associated

with illegal loggers and hunters staged an

armed attack on a FUNAI guard post in the

region.

Scientists such as ourselves have docu-

mented how the traditional knowledge

and management strategies of Amazonian

indigenous peoples have contributed to

safeguarding global biodiversity and cli-

mate stability. To an outsider, these territo-

ries may seem “uninhabited” or “unused,”

but in fact the vast expanses of intact for-

ests that constitute indigenous lands are

essential to their sustenance. Indigenous

peoples occupy and use their land in ways

that take advantage of hundreds of species

of plants and animals while preserving the

place of other organisms in the eco system;

in many cases, landscapes have been en-

riched with useful plants and groves of

fruit and nut trees such as the Brazil nut

and the açai palm. Villages and communi-

ties are surrounded by gardens that pro-

duce staple foods, old gardens in various

stages of regeneration, and rivers, forests,

and mountains, all of which provide a rich

and dispersed base of resources—such as

fish, game, fruits, garden lands, and the raw

materials for adornments, canoes, houses,

and so on—that have sustained indigenous

peoples’ way of life for centuries or millen-

nia, dating back to precolonial times when

indigenous populations were much larger.

These lands may also constitute sacred

spaces, places of mythical origin, or sites of

ancestral history.

Since 1988, the Brazilian Constitution has

recognized the central importance of indig-

enous lands for these peoples’ continuing

existence and has guaranteed a legal pro-

cess for demarcating them for indigenous

peoples to inhabit and use. Once they are

demarcated and signed into law, indigenous

lands become inalienable assets of the Bra-

zilian state.

A recent unanimous Supreme Court de-

cision in Brazil overturned the Bolsonaro

administration’s attempt to remove the

legal responsibility for indigenous land de-

marcation from FUNAI and give it to the

Agriculture Ministry, which is controlled

by the ranching lobby. Despite this victory,

the ongoing and wide-ranging initiatives to

weaken environmental, indigenous, and sci-

entific institutions remain deeply troubling.

Moreover, expressions of hatred and ag-

gression, widely disseminated in the media,

have further encouraged illegal invasions as

well as violent actions against indigenous

peoples in different parts of our country,

including the Wajãpi of Amapá state, the

Awá-Guajá of Maranhão, the Kayapó,

Munduruku and Apyterewa-Parakanã of

Pará, the Karipuna and Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau

of Rondônia, and the Yanomami of Ro-

raima and Amazonas states. The current

administration’s actions of dismantling and

defunding FUNAI only increase the risk of

further violence to these people.

Ranching and mining lobbies have pro-

moted a false dichotomy between indige-

nous peoples’ rights and economic growth.

There are currently large areas of aban-

doned farm- and pastureland that could be

put to productive use without having to cut

down a single acre of indigenous lands. Fur-

thermore, the destruction of forest cover

to serve the agricultural industry is short-

sighted and ultimately self-defeating, since

well-established scientific evidence points

to the necessity of the Amazon rainforest in

creating an “aerial river” that delivers rain-

fall to the rich agricultural lands of south-

ern Brazil. Scientists fear that deforestation

in the Amazon could soon upset rain pat-

terns throughout Brazil and further desta-

bilize the global climate.

Bolsonaro insists that development in

the Amazon is a question of Brazilian sov-

ereignty, and that foreign interests should

not intervene. Yet Brazilian indigenous

representatives and environmentalists are

calling for nothing more or less than the en-

forcement of existing laws and the protec-

tion of indigenous rights as enshrined in the

Constitution and in multiple international

agreements to which Brazil is a signatory.

International treaties and economic ac-

cords should include provisions to guaran-

tee these constitutional, human, cultural,

and territorial rights of indigenous peoples.

The struggle for land remains a peren-

nial source of political mobilization for in-

digenous peoples, as backlogs of land de-

marcation claims remain unresolved, and

many other issues related to their rights re-

main unfulfilled. Anthropologists, cultural

heritage professionals, and other research-

ers have been crucial allies of indigenous

peoples in these struggles. Moreover, in-

digenous leaders and intellectuals today

increasingly speak in their own names,

defend their own interests, elect their own

political leaders, and have an ever-greater

role in protecting their cultural and terri-

torial heritage. While there are a plurality

of indigenous voices in contemporary Bra-

zil, including a small number who favor the

opening up of indigenous lands to mining

and other outside interests, to date all of

the historically recognized, broadly rep-

resentative indigenous organizations that

have expressed their views on the Bol-

sonaro administration have condemned

its assaults on indigenous territories and

rights.

As scientists working in Brazilian re-

search institutions and universities, we are

deeply concerned about these grave threats

to indigenous peoples’ territory, heritage,

and well-being, which are inextricably

connected to the well-being of Amazonia,

global biodiversity, and climate stability.

Adriana Queiroz Testa, anthropologist;

Alexandre Clistenes, biologist; Aline da

Cruz, linguist; Ana Rosa Guimarães

Bastos Proença, tourism researcher; Ana

Vilacy Galúcio, linguist; Bruna Franchetto,

linguist; Caio Ferrari de Castro Melo,

lawyer; Camila Loureiro Dias, historian;

Carmen Lúcia Reis Rodrigues, linguist;

Carlos Fausto, anthropologist;

Carlos Zimpel, archaeologist; Claude de

Paulo Moraes, archaeologist; Claudia

Lopez, anthropologist; Cristiane Barreto,

archaeologist; Cristina Adams, human

ecologist; Décio Guzmán, historian;

Denny Moore, linguist; Edithe Pereira,

archaeologist; Eduardo S. Brondizio,

anthropologist; Eduardo Góes Neves,

archaeologist; Eduardo Nunes, anthropologist;

Eduardo Ribeiro, linguist; Fabíola Andréa

Silva, archaeologist; Felipe Milanez, political

ecologist; Gabriel Soares, anthropologist;

Gabriela Prestes Carneiro, archaeologist;

Geraldo Andrello, anthropologist;

Gessiane Picanço, linguist; Glenn H.

Shepard Jr., anthropologist; Hein van

der Voort, linguist; Helena Pinto Lima,

archaeologist; Ian Packer, anthropologist;

Ima Guimarães Vieira, botanist; Isabela

Galarda Varassin, botanist; Julia Otero,

anthropologist; Juliano Franco Moraes,

ecologist; Kristine Stenzel, linguist; Lucila

de Jesus Mello Gonçalves, psychologist;

Lucia Hussak van Velthem, anthropologist;

Lúcia Sá, professor of Brazilian studies;

Márcio Meira, anthropologist and former

FUNAI president; Marcos Magalhães,

archaeologist; Marcos Vital, biologist;

Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, anthropologist;

Maria Candida Barros, linguist; Maria

Carolina Loureiro Fernandes, social scientist;

Marília Fernanda Pereira de Freitas,

linguist; Marinus Hoogmoed, zoologist;

Mark Harris, anthropologist; Marta

Amoroso, anthropologist; Myrtle Shock,

archaeologist; Nelson Sanjad, historian;

Orlando Calheiros, anthropologist and

photographer; Nicole Soares-Pinto, social

scientist; Regina Oliveira, biologist;

Renato Sztutman, anthropologist; Ricardo

Ventura Santos, anthropologist;

Rita Natalio, artist, anthropologist, and

member of the Indigenous Forum of Lisbon;

Roberto Araujo, anthropologist;

Roberto Ventura Santos, geologist;

Ruth Monserrat, linguist; Sidney da Silva

Facundes, linguist; Sylvia Caiuby Novaes,

anthropologist; Teresa Avila Pires,

zoologist; Tiago Gomes dos Santos, zoologist

QUERY

To the Editors:

For a biography of the novelist E. L. Docto-

row (1931–2015) to be published by Scrib-

ner, I would be glad and grateful to hear

from any of his former students, publishing

colleagues or friends, or anyone with remi-

niscences or with whom he corresponded.

Bruce Weber

625 Uhl Lane

Orient, NY 11957

917-359-0700

[email protected]

Letters to the Editor: [email protected]. All other

correspondence: The New York Review of Books, 435

Hudson Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10014-3994;

[email protected]. Please include a mailing address

with all correspondence. We accept no responsibility

for unsolicited manuscripts.

Subscription Services: nybooks.com/customer-service

or The New York Review of Books, P.O. Box 9310, Big

Sandy, TX, 75755-9310, or e-mail [email protected].

In the US, call toll-free 800-354-0050. Outside the US,

call 903-636-1101. Subscription rates: US, one year

$89.95; in Canada, $95; elsewhere, $115.

Advertising: To inquire please call 212-757-8070, or

fax 212-333-5374.

Copyright © 2019, NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

Nothing in this publication may be reproduced with-

out the permission of the publisher. The cover date of

the next issue will be November 21, 2019.