Ae.2005.32.4.526 [619007]

COMMENTARYIn May 2005, Initiative Schwarze Menschen in Deutschland (ISD) andNorbert Finzsch, professor of history and provost of the University ofCologne, Germany, condemned plans by the zoo in Augsburg,Germany, to hold an ‘‘African Village’’ event and called for publicprotest (Finzsch 2005; ISD 2005). In response, Dr. Barbara Jantschke,the zoo director, stated that there was no cause for alarm because therewould be no display of Africans in a village but only handicrafts andcultural performances. Therefore, the four-day event would promote ‘‘tol-erance.’’ The Augsburg Zoo was ‘‘exactly the right place to procure theatmosphere of exoticism’’ (author interview with Jantschke, June 11, 2005).1Many Germans, including scholars, also saw the African event in theAugsburg Zoo as unproblematic or as an expression, although perhaps abit misguided, of multiculturism. In contrast, Finzsch asked, how can it bethat, 60 years after the repudiation of Nazism, ‘‘people of color are still seenas exotic objects (of desire), as basically dehumanized entities within therealm of animals’’ (2005)? Finzsch’s question and the debate about theAugsburg Zoo’s ‘‘African Village’’ that ensued in Germany are directlyrelevant to Matti Bunzl’s discussion of Islamophobia and anti-Semitismin Europe (this issue) and whether or not there is a contemporary processof racialization that should inform discussion of these topics.In beginning my comments on Bunzl’s piece with a reference to thefuror over events in the Augsburg Zoo, I want to make it clear that dis-playing African culture in a zoo currently is not confined to Germany. In thepast few years, zoos in Perth, Australia; Luton, England; and Cleveland,Ohio, have all used ‘‘African’’ cultural performances to market themselves(Glick Schiller et al. 2005). In 2001, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationestablished a ‘‘Kikuyu’’ village in the Seattle, Washington, zoo. The foun-dation’s publicity statement promised that the display would ‘‘immersevisitors in a representation of a rural village in East Africa….This attractive,exotic scene will draw visitors into the village where they will get their firstviews of giraffe, zebra and other species living on the zoo’s award-winningAfrican Savanna’’ (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2001).NINA GLICK SCHILLERUniversity of New Hampshire and Max Planck Institute for Social AnthropologyRacialized nations, evangelizing Christianity,police states, and imperial power:Missing in action in Bunzl’s new Europe
AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST,V o l .3 2 ,N o .4 ,p p .5 2 6 – 5 3 2 ,I S S N0 0 9 4 – 0 4 9 6 ,e l e c t r o n i cISSN 1548-1425.A2005 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content throughthe University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

In point of fact, these exhibits and their promotionalmaterial bring into the 21st century a racialized view ofcultural difference that many people believed had longbeen discredited as a product of colonial, Nazi, and U.S.eugenic ‘‘science.’’ It is urgent to note just what is hap-pening in Europe and elsewhere around the question ofrace. On the one hand, the crimes of Nazism are con-demned; on the other hand, other kinds of discriminationbased on essentialized cultural difference often go un-noticed in ways that reintroduce and normalize processesof racialization. Because humans were not displayed incages, defenders of the African Village in the Augsburg Zoofelt comfortable with presentations of African ‘‘culture,’’perceived as a static and essential expression of a parti-cular people that fit well in a ‘‘natural’’ setting such as azoo. This culture seemed naturally linked to the ‘‘African’’exhibitors, most of whom were actually German citizens ofAfrican origin. Defenders saw multicultural ‘‘tolerance’’ ofdifference as the opposite of Nazi- orVo¨lkerschauen-typeracism, which allowed them to disregard the revitalizationand reinstatement of categories that link perceived phys-ical difference with concepts of cultural foreignness.By failing to connect the growing attacks on Muslimsto the persistence and revival of ideas of essential racialdifference that continue to be part and parcel of both anti-Semitism and Zionism in Europe, Bunzl’s portrait of con-temporary Europe and its Islamophobia denies analysts theconceptual tools to understand much of what is happeningin Europe and globally. In this commentary, I wish to makesome of these connections. By bringing to the pages ofAmerican Ethnologistdebates about anti-Semitism, Zion-ism, and the new anti-Islamic crusade, Bunzl certainlyraises issues that are worth discussing together. And heis rightly alarmed at the growing anti-Islamic fervor inEurope and its relationship to the project of solidifying aEuropean identity by portraying Islam as a dangerousOther. Islamophobia does have its particularities and isnot just antiforeign sentiment, as recent developments inthe Netherlands are making clear.Bunzl’s arguments, however, ignore important devel-opments in Europe that have global resonance and thatmust be addressed. Despite his best efforts, he falls intothe logic of the highly emotive and dichotomized debatebetween those who see anti-Semites behind every tree andthose who have been cast as ‘‘deniers’’ because they de-nounce Israel’s war against the Palestinians and see bothanti-Semitism and anti-Islamic attacks as forms of racial-ized violence. That something is amiss is indicated byBunzl’s adoption of the termdeniers. He labels as deniersthose who fail to recognize ‘‘the radical historical trans-formations in the status and function of European anti-Semitism’’ and who argue that ‘‘Jews and Muslims…havea common enemy in a right-wing Christian fundamental-ism.’’ In taking this stance, he downplays the currentmovement to revive a Christian identity in Europe, whichextends beyond Christian fundamentalism and has echoeswithin the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.2Forms ofChristian identity mixed with an essentialized nationalismand its racialized logic of blood and belonging are aliveand well in Europe, even as a pan-European identitygrows. All of these intersecting modes of belonging mustbe understood within the context of a generalized sense ofinsecurity that accompanies the institution of neoliberal‘‘reforms.’’ All contribute to the legitimization of old andnew instruments of state repression in the name of theneed to safeguard ‘‘national security.’’Missing from Bunzl’s discussion of Islamophobia isthe so-called War on Terror that is being used to dramat-ically increase the ability of the state to control and spy onits citizenry.3And the Islam that is feared is an embodiedone. It is increasingly codified as a dual legal system thatdenies citizen rights to those racialized as outside of theculturally–racially homogenous nation on the groundsthat such persons may in the future be linked to someform of terrorist or antidemocratic activities (Eckert 2005;Schiffauer 2005). Therefore, this campaign against Islamicbodies is part and parcel of the current resurrection inmany European states of nation-state building projectsconstructed on the basis of racialized concepts of cultur-ally homogenous nations—whose cultural commonality issignaled by physical appearance. Bunzl is also silent aboutdevelopments in the new states of central Europe (some inand some out of the European Union) with their own ver-sions of nationalism and often newly revived nation-statebuilding projects complete with rabid nationalists. Hisreading of history minimizes the continuing role of con-cepts of ‘‘race’’ and ‘‘nation’’ within the individual Euro-pean nation-states.Furthermore, Bunzl bases his arguments about thedemise of anti-Semitism and the rise of Islamophobia onan analysis of E.U. documents and public stances of theleadership of the Freedom Party of Austria. Both of thesesources, although providing important data on the pro-motion of a political project, may be far removed fromhow Muslims, Jews, or migrants are perceived and treatedwithin local contexts. To fill in all that Bunzl leaves out ofhis portrayal of contemporary Europe requires analysis ofthe various contemporary nation-state building projects inEurope, the state-specific forms of the attacks on the rightof asylum, asylum seekers, and foreigners, and the ways inwhich fundamental rights are being legally altered andpolice powers built in specific states. To have an informeddiscussion of contemporary issues of racialization and na-tionalism also requires systematic ethnographies of whatpeople in various European states and their cities and ruralareas actually say and do on a day-to-day basis. In thisbrief commentary, I draw on insights from comparativefieldwork I have conducted on the relationship betweenMissing in action in Bunzl’s new EuropenAmerican Ethnologist
527

small-scale cities and their new migrants in eastern Ger-many and in the New England region of the United States(Glick Schiller in press). In both localities, I have beenworking in born-again Christian church organizations,which are politically significant in the United States andare growing but still marginal in Germany. My critiqueconsiders four points.Point oneAlthough I agree with Bunzl that concepts change and arenot timeless, I maintain that it is also important to under-stand that concepts of racialized difference can persist andare sometimes reinvigorated. Bunzl notes that ideologieschange and are transformed. His firm stand against a po-sition that explains the world in terms of ‘‘age-old’’ preju-dice is certainly welcome at a time when wars in theBalkans and Africa are explained by the press and politi-cians as products of hatreds that have existed from ‘‘timeimmemorial.’’ His argument for the historicizing of anti-Semitism counters a widespread belief in the immutabilityand eternity of anti-Semitism that is advanced by manyJews as a justification for Zionism. Rebutting this positionis certainly helpful. Bunzl is operating, however, within ateleological view of history that obscures more than itilluminates. The conceptual weakness of his analysis issignaled by his statement that ‘‘the modern form of anti-Semitism has run its historical course.’’ Although I agreewith Bunzl that concepts change and are not timeless,I maintain that it is also important to understand thatconcepts of racialized difference can persist and are some-times reinvigorated. The concept of ‘‘race’’ is not onlymodern but also continues to remain deeply embeddedwithin the concept of the Jewish people. A form of racial-ized thinking underlies European acceptance of the Zion-ist project in Israel in ways that pave the way for otherprocesses of racialization.Bunzl’s argument that the racialized anti-Semitismthat produced the Holocaust is moribund is linked to hisEurocentric reading of history and his belief that with therise of the European Union, Europe has entered a post-national stage. Bunzl is certainly right that, in the 19thcentury, as nationalism developed, anti-Semitism changed.Jews came to be described as members of a foreign racerather than a despised religion.4Bunzl maintains that thiskind of essentialism has disappeared in regard to Jews.European leaders have made openness to Jews and sup-port of Israel markers of a transformed Europe. But onecould just as well argue that racialized difference hasbecome the bedrock of the citizenship laws of the stateof Israel and of European support for Israel. Especiallybecause, as Bunzl reminds readers, in Europe, organizationagainst anti-Semitism and support from Israel are con-stantly linked.Through its right of return, the State of Israel legit-imates the ideological links between biology and nation.Israeli law defines national belonging by descent andregards Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens even thoughthey were born in Israel. It is a biologically based logic thatallows a person newly arrived from Brooklyn, New York, toclaim the West Bank as his or her ‘‘homeland’’ and defendit with arms while denying the rights of Palestinians bornin that territory, including the right of self-defense. It is aracially based logic that, in Ariel Sharon’s view, justifies thecollective punishment of Palestinians by imprisoning themin massive, walled ghettos (Kelly 2005). Bunzl, in fact, ac-knowledges that the modern concept of ‘‘nation’’ does haveroots in ideas about biologically inherited difference andthat Zionism shares this understanding of nation, statingthat this ‘‘rich tradition, of which Zionism itself is a part’’exists in Europe. In a strange rhetorical move, he is willingto identify in contemporary Europe only one instance ofthis kind of race–nation equation, an ideology that hecalls ‘‘anti-Semitic Zionism.’’ Anti-Semitic Zionism, Bunzlsays, can ‘‘often be found among Europe’s more centristRight.’’ He then dismisses the significance of a race–nationbasis of support for Israel as ‘‘completely marginal.’’His position has several problems. First of all, thecenter Right is far from marginal in many Europeancountries. Second, the understanding of Jewishness thatis widespread in Europe equates atonement for the brutalmurder of the Jewish citizens of many European stateswith support of a Jewish state. By this logic the murderedJews were just Jews; they were never also German, French,or Polish. It is this logic that links together the Europeanbasis of support for Israel and the foundational ideas ofIsrael as a state based on an understanding of the Jews as asingle people linked by descent. And, finally, Bunzl fails tonotice that, rather than being an outdated ideology whosetime has come and gone, the racial roots of the concept of‘‘nation’’ are growing in the wake of contemporary migra-tions and dissemination of concepts of ‘‘diaspora.’’ Israel,as a state that claims the support of a diaspora who inheritmembership together with ancestral claims to land, is cur-rently serving as a model for other transnational nation-statebuilding projects around the world. Growing numbers ofstates and political movements encourage long-distancenationalism of their diasporas on the basis of ‘‘blood’’ tiesto a ‘‘homeland’’ (Glick Schiller 2005a, 2005b).Point twoThe Islamophobia that Bunzl sees as replacing ideas aboutrace is, in fact, a variant of race thinking. This becomesapparent when one listens to influential members of theEuropean press, politicians, and social scientists describeIslamic residents of Europe as so radically different thatthey are unassimilable. Why else assume that theseAmerican EthnologistnVolume 32 Number 4 November 2005
528

‘‘frightening’’ Others lack the capacity for change? Whyelse assume that the line of demarcation that allows oneto detect this threatening difference is where one’s ances-tors were born? The anti-Islamic rhetoric that is growingin force in Europe is simultaneously a discourse aboutreligion and a racialized discourse about culture. Somedebate has occurred within anthropology about whetheranti-immigrant rhetoric that speaks of an unassimilablecultural other, whether the targets are Turks in Europe orHispanics in the United States, is a racist attack (Stolcke1995). The very concept of ‘‘immutable difference,’’ how-ever, builds on a historical view of cultural difference as aproduct of biological essence. The assumption that theIslamic population can be recognized and denied rightsand legal protections guaranteed to other citizens is acentral part of the antiterrorist laws that have been insti-tuted in various European states.The European Union and its rhetoric do not mark theend of the moment of nationalism on either the Europeanor the world stage but the intersection of national, regional,and global forces. Although the current moment is markedby the restructuring of global capitalism, the world contin-ues to be divided up into nation-states, although ones ofvery unequal power and degrees of autonomy. The anti-immigrant sentiment that is so widespread in every state inEurope is one way that national identities are being main-tained within a broader European identity context. Bunzl’sportrayal of Austrian nationalism as only European identitywrit small, without reference to the growth of nationalistrhetoric in all states of the expanded European Union, ispuzzling. His insistence that nationalism has seen its daykeeps him from noting that it is by delineating themselvesfrom foreigners that people in each European state displaytheir nationalism. Not only are anti-Semitism of the modernsort, Zionism, the 19th-century science of race, and nation-alism blood brothers but their lineage also continues toproduce new offspring.In 2001, I attended a museum exhibit in the Germancity of Leipzig that had two floors of exhibits, one on theJews of Leipzig and one on migration. The exhibit showedclearly how well-meaning German efforts to teach toler-ance and multiculturalism can combine with efforts toeducate about the Holocaust in ways that perpetuate theconcept of Germany as a country based on German ethnicdescent. The exhibit on the Jewish residents of Leipzigwho had been murdered under the Nazi regime was a pow-erful one. The participation of local Jewish citizens in theintellectual, social, political, and economic life of Leipzigwas made clear. Here was a portrait of a schoolboy withhis teammates; there was a photograph of city businessleaders. The massive crime of the Holocaust became in-dividuals with names, addresses, families, and aspirationsthat were part and parcel of the city of Leipzig. It was clearthat the victims were German in their habitus and identity.The second floor told a totally different story as it cele-brated the colorful cultures of foreigners who had migratedinto Germany and described the pain of the Germans whohad migrated from Germany. The Germans who had leftGermany in the 19th century were still portrayed as Ger-mans. And among the foreigners, each in their distinctlynon-German dress, was an exhibit about Jews. The Jewishculture on display was that of Orthodox Jewry, with bothwomen and men dressed in clothing that marked themas culturally and exotically different. The Germanness ofLeipzig’s Jews, documented on the floor below, was no-where to be seen.Point threeChristianity was not vanquished as a category of iden-tity by the growth of nation-states but came hand in handwith the penetration of capitalism, modernity, and nation-alism. And that heritage has not been abandoned in thecore states of the European Union or in its newest mem-bers. Most people in Europe may not be very religious, butenough of a constituency equates civilization, Europe, andChristianity that the issue of acknowledging Christian-ity within the E.U. constitution was hotly debated ratherthan readily dismissed as an outdated and discredited idea(Castle 2003). France may have outlawed the head scarfin schools in the interest of constituting unmarked homo-genous citizenry, but wearing a ‘‘small cross’’ to school isnot seen as a representation of difference. Those who wantto keep Muslims out of Europe include defenders of aChristian Europe. These forces denounced the E.U. con-stitution because it did not privilege Christianity, althoughsometimes these critics made reference to a Christian ‘‘com-munity that shares a Judeo-Christian heritage as its funda-mental values’’ (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance2003). Despite this rhetoric, many of the voices for a ChristianEurope endorse the doctrine that acceptance of Jesus is theonly true path to God.Bunzl as well as much of organized Judaism, which hasembraced the born-again Christians who hold power in theUnited States, are misreading how much contemporaryChristian rhetoric can be exclusionary and the long-termpolitical implications of this intolerance. Even those whospeak of openness to other religions, as did Pope John PaulII, insist that the Christian faith ‘‘represents the presentand the future of Europe’’ (Catholic World News 2004).I have been doing fieldwork in ‘‘born-again’’ Christianchurches in the United States and Germany. These congre-gations can be strongly antiracist and, in Germany, anti-Nazi. German youth have explained to me that the reasonwhy there is so much cancer in Germany is because, by fol-lowing Hitler and killing millions of Jews, their ancestorsmade a pact with the devil. The only way to get free ofthe curse that continues through the generations is toMissing in action in Bunzl’s new EuropenAmerican Ethnologist
529

apologize to the Jews, support the state of Israel, and ac-cept Jesus. Of course, part of accepting Jesus is supportinga commitment to converting all Jews. Members of thesechurches, both in the United States and in Germany, tellme that the present moment is ‘‘end time,’’ that Armaged-don is approaching, and that waging spiritual warfare is es-sential because only two possibilities exist: Either oneaccepts Jesus into one’s life or one is on the side of the devil.Admittedly, only a small number of people now acceptthis form of Christianity in Europe, although their num-bers are growing. Mainstream Christians see members ofthe ‘‘free churches’’ as fanatical, but state security agenciesdo not categorize, label, spy on, or deny citizenship to mem-bers of such organizations the way they do members ofMuslim organizations, who, because of their religious val-ues alone, are declared a threat to the constitution.5Germanlaw differentiates between good and bad Muslim organi-zations, but it does not distinguish between good and badChristian organizations. Meanwhile, the German main-stream official churches are becoming active in buildingtheir own spiritual movement. Over 100,00 people registeredfor the biannual Evangelical Church Day (EvangelischerKirchentag) of the Lutheran Church held in Hanover in2005, and over a million people were reported to have vis-ited the five-day event (NDR 2005). Gerhard Schroederand other politicians came courting ‘‘Christian’’ support.Although some activities resembled festival-style enter-tainment, many participants interviewed by the press em-braced a more public Christian identity and spirituality. Aspart of the concluding activities, an organizer stated, ‘‘Inorder to implement Christian values in the everyday life,the churches would have to become more political’’ (NDR2005). Even politically progressive ideas such as endingpoverty have a different resonance when people talk aboutthem as ‘‘Christian values,’’ especially at a time when a sim-ilar discourse about Christians participating actively in gov-ernment is becoming dominant in the United States.Most people in Germany pay taxes that go to churchesand faith-based organizations that provide various kinds ofsocial services. German intellectuals often send their chil-dren to private schools run by church organizations. Atheisteastern Germans report having been rejected for jobs inwestern German hospitals because they were not Christian.Implicit support for Christianity, which shocks eastern Ger-mans, is taken for granted in western Germany.Moreover, many millions in the United States and inmany other countries of the world have already turned fromother forms of Christianity to what in the United States iscalled ‘‘evangelical’’ Christianity, which is as ‘‘fundamen-talist’’ in its insistence on excluding all other sets of beliefsas any Islamic organization given that label. It is a basictenet of their faith that evangelicals must win others totheir beliefs. In May 2005, theWashington Postreportedthat one-third of the student body of the U.S. Air ForceAcademy is now evangelical Christian and that activeproselytizing combined with anti-Semitism seems to be abasic part of cadet education (Reid 2005; see also Mount2005). An Air Force chaplain ‘‘reportedly told newly ar-rived freshmen last summer…anyone not born again‘will burn in the fires of hell’ ’’ (Reid 2005: A04).The global ‘‘born-again’’ movement, with bases in justabout every nation-state, is connected by website links,common texts, and traveling preachers. This networkreaches into the center of power in the United States,including the presidency. These organizations and web-sites preach support for the war in Iraq and portray theUnited States as the savior nation. Islam is often portrayedas the enemy. At a prayer breakfast in New Hampshireattended by the Democratic mayor of the city of Man-chester, I heard the Christian crusades against the Muslimsevoked as a model for today. Spiritual warfare, military war-fare, the War on Terror, and anti-Muslim crusades are allpart of a global fundamentalist Christian campaign. Bunzlmentions the desire of those on the U.S. religious right totransform the United States into a fundamentalist Chris-tian state. Their clearly stated goals are much broader. Theywant to convert the entire world and so end all other re-ligions. Or, rather, they cast all other sets of beliefs as re-ligions and maintain that what they believe is not religionbut the truth.Point fourEqually puzzling as Bunzl’s silence about contemporaryEuropean nationalism and his downplaying of the signif-icance of Christian identity is his bounded view of Europe.What is happening at the level of localities, nation-states,and Europe as a whole cannot be separated from theglobal economy and its political fault lines. To talk aboutEurope and Islamophobia without talking about moreglobal forces is to miss the triangulation and contentionof U.S. and European interests over sources of oil in theMiddle East, Africa, and central Asia. Recently, discussionsof globalization have revived and updated scholars’ under-standing of imperialism (Harvey 2003; Johnson 2004; Mann2003; Panich 2000; Reyna 2005). As states throughout theworld loosen state control of economies in the name ofneoliberal ‘‘reform,’’ the need increases for those withvested interests in legitimating state institutions to revivevarious ideologies of belonging. The May 2005 French de-bates over the E.U. constitution, in which both sides eval-uated the constitution in terms of what position would bebest for the French nation, is a case in point.ConclusionIn the 1970s and 1980s, the European antiracist movementstruggled over whether one could denounce racism as anAmerican EthnologistnVolume 32 Number 4 November 2005
530

ideology and educate people to be against racism withoutraising broader questions about capitalism and its em-bodied structures of power. These questions have a con-temporary relevance, and Bunzl’s dismissal of efforts tolink Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, fundamental-ist Christianity, and critiques of capitalism is misplaced.Neither is Bunzl correct to take comfort in the manypeople in Europe who speak about cultural differencerather than race, given the zooification of African culturethat Augsburg, Seattle, and increasing numbers of otherU.S. and European zoos are promoting in the name of tol-erance. Europe must be viewed in global context, one thatcontains the revitalization of imperialist projects and themissionary and race-constructing trajectories that have his-torically accompanied such projects. At least that has beenmy conclusion, as I have sat in New Hampshire withMuslim friends from the Gulf states and watched their cabletelevision stations with them. Month after month, these sta-tions have broadcast images kept off of U.S. television net-works (although, in 2005, one of the channels my friendswere watching was censored and abruptly disappeared). Ihave felt the pain of families whose children, fathers, ormothers are dead for no other reason than that they live inthe occupied territories of Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan, andI have wondered how to build a strong oppositional move-ment that says these deaths are unacceptable and thatmilitary occupation is not the answer. In my concerns, Imerge my multiple intersecting identities of woman, Jew,atheist, American, anthropologist, mother, granddaughterof immigrants, and political leftist. How can we denounceIslamophobia without analyzing the racialization of Mus-lims, the revitalization of concepts of nation as race, the con-temporary global inequalities wrought by neoliberal regimes,and the stifling of dissent in the guise of a ‘‘War on Terror’’?We cannot.[race, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianity, Europe,religion, Germany, War on Terror, Zionism]Notes1. Jantschke stated this in a letter to a Swiss citizen, and thisletter was widely circulated by Finzsch and acknowledged byJantschke when I interviewed her.2. Bunzl uses the termChristian fundamentalismin referenceto evangelizing Christians who declare that only those who are‘‘born-again’’ by accepting Jesus as their savior will escape thefires of hell. I continue his usage in this commentary.3. Bunzl mentions the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) as an example of how Europepromotes ‘‘the unconditional struggle against anti-Semitism aswell as…Israel’s right to exist.’’ Documents of the OSCE HighCommissioner on National Minorities actually state that racismis growing in Europe and link it to the growth of extreme nation-alism (xenophobia), intolerance, anti-Semitism, and Islamo-phobia. At the ‘‘Rome Ministerial meeting in 1993 OSCE ForeignMinisters issued a Declaration on Aggressive Nationalism, Racism,Chauvinism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism’’ in which ‘‘theyagreed that the OSCE should do more to combat these threats’’(Ekeus 2003:5). The OSCE actually illustrates the complexity ofthe intertwined links that connect justifications for increasedpolice powers; ideologies of tolerance for Jews, Muslims, andChristians; and efforts to focus global public apprehension onlyon ‘‘Islamic extremists.’’ It is not a European organization but‘‘the world’s largest regional security organization whose 55 par-ticipating States span the geographical area from Vancouver toVladivostok’’ (OSCE 2005).4. Although, beginning with the Inquisition, there was somesuspicion about the validity of conversion and discourse aboutdescent and identity that would develop as a theory of race.5. Members of certain Muslim organizations have been deniednaturalization or been denaturalized on the grounds that they arethreats to the liberal democratic constitution of Germany, eventhough state security agencies acknowledged that the organiza-tions are nonviolent and concerned only with religion (Schiffauer2005). The only ‘‘church’’ that is under official surveillance is theChurch of Scientology, which is not a form of Christianity.References citedBill and Melinda Gates Foundation2001Zoo Unveils African Village Murals. Electronic docu-ment, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/PacificNorthwest/Announcements/Announce-354.htm, accessed June 1, 2005.Castle, Stephen2003Tussle over God Threatens to Delay EU Constitution.Independent, February 28. Electronic document, http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article120698.ece, accessedJune 1, 2005.Catholic World News2004Christian Europe in Service to Humanity, Electronic docu-ment, http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=29454, accessed June 1, 2005.Eckert, Julia2005Introduction: The Social Life of Anti-Terrorism Laws.Paper presented at the Social Life of Anti-Terrorism Laws con-ference, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany, May 26–27.Ekeus, Rolf2003Combatting Extremism: Preventing and Fighting Racism,Xenophobia and Discrimination. Speech by the OSCE HighCommissioner on National Minorities at the Conference onRacism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, Vienna, September 4.Electronic document, http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/2003/09/613_en.pdf, accessed June 1, 2005.Finzsch, Norman2005Letter to colleagues. Electronic document, http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=7537&grp=18&cat=104,accessed June 30.Glick Schiller, Nina2005aBlood and Belonging: Long-Distance Nationalism and theWorld Beyond.InComplexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture.Susan McKinnon and Sydel Silverman, eds. Pp. 289–312.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.2005bLong Distance Nationalism.InEncyclopedia of Diaspo-ras: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, vol. 1.Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, and Ian Skoggard, eds.Pp. 570–580. New York: Kluwer Academic–Plenum, in con-junction with the Human Relations Area Files, Yale University.Missing in action in Bunzl’s new EuropenAmerican Ethnologist
531

In pressTransnational Social Fields and Imperialism: Bringinga Theory of Power to Transnational Studies. AnthropologicalTheory 5(4).Glick Schiller, Nina, Data Dea, and Markus Hoehne2005African Culture and the Zoo in the 21st Century: The‘‘African Village’’ in the Augsburg Zoo and Its Wider Implica-tions. Electronic document, http://www.eth.mpg.de/events/current/pdf/1120750934-01.pdf, accessed August 10, 2005.Harvey, David2003The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Initiative Schwarze Menschen in Deutschland (ISD)2005Afrikaner im Zoo/Wir protestieren! Electronic document,http://www.isdonline.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=145, accessed June 30.Johnson, Chalmers2004The Sorrows of Empire. New York: Metropolitan Books.Kelly, Tobias2005Fighting ‘‘Terror’’ in the Israeli Occupied West-Bank:Citizenship, Suspicion, and the Impossibility of Separation.Paper presented at the Social Life of Anti-Terrorism Lawsconference, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology,Halle/Saale, Germany, May 26–27.Mann, Michael2003Incoherent Empire. London: Verso.Mount, Mike2005Air Force Probes Religious Bias Charges at Academy: CadetComplaints Are Rising at Colorado School, Officials Say. CNNWashington Bureau, May 5. Electronic document, http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/airforce.religion/, accessed May 28.NDR2005Evangelischer Kirchentag 2005 in Hannover. Electronic doc-ument, http://www1.ndr.de/ndr_pages_std/0,2570,OID1074206,00.html, accessed May 30.Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance2003Do ‘‘God’’ and ‘‘Christianity’’ Have a Place in the Euro-pean Union Constitution? Electronic document, http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_eu.htm, accessed June 29, 2005.Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)2005The Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.Electronic document, http://www.osce.org, accessed May 29.Panich, Leo2000The New Imperial State. New Left Review 11(1): 5–20.Reid T. R.2005Air Force Removes Chaplain from Post: Officer DecriedEvangelicals’ Influence. Washington Post, May 1: A04.Reyna, Stephen2005American Imperialism? The Current Runs Swiftly. Focaal:European Journal of Anthropology 45:129–151.Schiffauer, Werner2005Suspect Subjects: Muslim Migrants and the State SecurityAgencies in Germany. Paper presented at the Social Life ofAnti-Terrorism Laws conference, Max Planck Institute forSocial Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany, May 26–27.Stolcke, Verena1995Talking Culture: New Boundaries, New Rhetorics andExclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology 36(1):1–24.Nina Glick SchillerDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of New HampshireDurham, NH 03824ngs@cisunix.unh.eduschiller@eth.mpg.deAmerican EthnologistnVolume 32 Number 4 November 2005
532