Customer Reviews

Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

This book alleges scandalous, hideous misdeeds on the part of distinguished scientists such as Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel. But all of the book's main accusations have been thoroughly refuted, and the only genuine scandal here is the way the author, Patrick Tierney, has fabricated and distorted reality in order to sell some books. The anthropological reputation of Chagnon remains intact, unlike those of anthropologists who have endorsed this dishonest, tabloid-calibre book. The book's egregious distortions and errors were first discovered in the manuscript, and I was expecting them to be corrected in the final version, but nope, they all appear to be there. How deeply disturbing that a book such as this could be published by a respectable publisher, endorsed by anthropologists, and even be nominated for a National Book Award.

If Tierney was just honestly presenting evidence of wrongdoing, that would be fine. Never mind that it would trash the reputations of the developers of the measles vaccine (Enders, Katz), the world's most important pioneering geneticist (Neel), and the world's greatest scientific anthropologist (Chagnon), and cause their friends and families to suffer. Such evidence would deserve an audience nonetheless. But this is not what Tierney does. He distorts his printed sources, omits evidence in these sources that refutes his accusations, and invents material that isn't actually there (there are currently many web sites which document this dishonesty in a point-by-point manner, although Amazon asks that reviewers not include URLs in their reviews). And that's just the sources that CAN be fact-checked - who knows the extent to which he misrepresents his uncheckable sources on which his accusations depend (mission records, interviews, audio tapes, etc.). In fact, several of Tierney's interviewees have already come forward and said that Tierney does not quote them faithfully.

On the positive side, Tierney's got a smooth narrative style, and the book might make a nice novel. So read it if you want - just consider it fiction.

American Anthropology Association El Dorado Task Force Preliminary Report:

"We regard [Darkness in El Dorado] with profound ambivalence, finding the book deeply flawed, but nevertheless highlighting ethical issues that we must confront."

Visit the American Anthropology Association web site for the complete report.

This review is by Dr. Kim Hill, one of the world's foremost authorities on Native tropical South Americans.

After reading the Tierney book I was concerned about a variety of issues, from the truth of specific allegations to the motives behind publishing the myriad of obviously false allegations, and from the ethics of specific fieldwork activities described to the overall impact the book would have on the health and welfare of indigenous peoples. The book is complex and brings up many important issues that have not been well discussed in anthropology. However, unfortunately, the book is also full of false and misleading information, half-truths and deception by omission. As such it constitutes unethical journalism. It does not honestly examine the true causes of the current precarious situation of the Yanomamo and other native South Americans. Specifically, while embellishing a longstanding vendetta and self righteous ideological witch hunt against two prominent anthropologists, Jim Neel and Napoleon Chagnon, and including many highly detailed accounts of their alleged misdeeds, it remains curiously silent on the roll of the Venezuelan/Brazilian governments in failing to provide healthcare assistance and territorial protection to the Yanomamo. The book also ignores entirely, the numerous easily revealed misdeeds of several missionaries and anthropologists who constitute its main source of information against its scientific targets thus rapidly revealing a blatant and powerful bias against only a few individuals in recent Yanomamo history. Finally, it attempts to confuse the reader into believing that some Yanomamo opinions which have been coached for years by bitter enemies of Chagnon and Neel are somehow now independent assessments and representative of the Yanomamo people as a whole.

I make the following observations:

First the book is blatantly anti-science, anti-sociobiology, and anti- a specific view of warfare: the theory that warfare is important in human history and is sometimes related to mate competition. However, the book goes beyond taking a position against certain ideas, it attempts to demonize any who would dare hold ideas contrary to those of the author and his collaborators (some of whom are unfortunately anthropologists who have dishonestly represented their activities in conjunction with this book). It suggests that those who engage in scientific research with native populations are generally evil and uncaring (unlike the engaged "activist" author and his collaborators), that any engagement in general scientific research (rather than pure help) is criminal (p.43), and that sociobiologists are the wickedest of all scientists uniquely capable of anything including sacrificing the lives of their study subjects to prove their theories (p.17). Tierney on the other hand, sees himself as the ally of certain "survival groups, missionaries, and Marxist anthropologists who had opted to help Indians rather than just study them" (p. XXIII). Here his agenda is laid bare. Scientists can't possibly both study and help Indians, therefore they are evil. Only survival groups, missionaries and left leaning anthropologists really care about Indians, all others should be denounced and be punished. Because Tierney knows that he will have a difficult time convincing many readers that dedicated scientists who work in Indian lands and often provide free medical care and a variety of other types of assistance, and who often research topics designed to advance the welfare of all humans on the planet, are instead evil and serve only some military-capitalist-industrial complex and seek to gain secret support for hidden Nazi-like eugenics theories, he engages in a massive exercise of embellishment and deceit-- that exercise is this book.

An overriding theme of the book is that anybody who believes that the Yanomamo engage frequently in coalitionary violence is an evil person (because the author engages in the naturalistic fallacy believing that anything which is factual in nature must therefore also be moral or acceptable, or "natural" and that certain scientific findings imply the inability to legislate away competition, p. 14). Even more evil still are those that accept that warfare was common AND entertain the idea that some violent conflicts may represent mate competition between males. The theory of sexual selection is ridiculed in this book (despite the fact that it is virtually accepted as a biological "fact" among modern biologists), and those who would believe that male traits associated with success in male-male competition are favored by natural selection are deemed equivalent to Nazis (never mind the fact that there is no other likely explanation, for example, about why Yanomamo men are larger than women in the first place). Chagnon and Neel are portrayed as genocidal maniacs because of their scientific positions on some of the above themes. The book goes beyond ideological persecution to pure academic McCarthyism (and ironically asserts that Chagnon must be a McCarthy sympathizer because he was raised in rural Michigan, p. 40).

Second, the book is full of false information. It incorrectly ascribes a measles epidemic to the vaccination program by Neel and Chagnon, and then speculates on how this epidemic was intentionally caused in order to test an incoherently presented theory that never was advocated by either Neel or Chagnon. The carelessness of this accusation and the ease with which it has been shown false since pre-publication copies of the book were released, quickly informs the reader about the malicious nature of this entire work. The book claims that certain film scenes were faked when in fact there is an overwhelming body of evidence that they were spontaneous and indeed not even fully understood by the filmmakers. It asserts that Chagnon caused high levels of conflict and warfare through his gift giving and alliance arranging activities, but bases this assertion on a bizarre theory of Yanomamo warfare which claims that steel tools are the ONLY cause of lethal conflict among the Yanomamo. That theory is so incongruent with what is known about primitive warfare worldwide that I refused to waste my time reviewing the book in which it was developed (Ferguson 1995) even after being given a free copy by a prominent anthropological journal....

This book makes very serious charges of unethical and unscientific conduct by a number of scientists and government entities. Based on reading the evidence cited in the book, however, it was hard for me to tell how solid these charges are. If you like a good mystery, this book will probably appeal to you as an opportunity to figure out what went on with the Yanomami people in South America from 1964 on.

Contact with primitive people has many special responsibilities associated with it. In some cases, those who are being studied can be exposed to dangerous illnesses. In other cases, the social structure can be influenced in ways that are harmful to individuals. On the other hand, what aspects of modern science and technology, if any, should be withheld? This book raises all of those questions in very fundamental ways. Apparently, those who were involved disagree about both what was done, and its appropriateness.

The charge of unscientific research is that what has been reported about the violence of the Yanomami is inaccurate. Mr. Tierney argues that the data behind the findings are either missing, wrong, or mischaracterized. Filmed evidence is claimed to have been "staged" in exchange for gifts, or incited by inflammatory behavior by the scientists (like firing off weapons to intimidate, dressing as a shaman, and staging feasts).

Charges of U.S. government misconduct relate to obtaining specimens from Yanomami for a control group as part of Atomic Energy Commission studies of the effect of radiation on human beings. Apparently, this sampling was going on in large numbers while the initial anthropological studies were being undertaken. That research, if it took place as described here, seems like a very strange thing for anthropologists to be doing.

Clearly, the Yanomami suffered from severe outbreaks of disease (measles and other complications) at about the same time that the anthropological contacts occurred. Arguments are made that measles vaccine was misapplied by the anthropologists, which made disease and death worse. Apparently, this charge is very controversial. I do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion, but I would certainly be interested in what a disinterested third party would have to say on the subject.

One anthropologist is accused of having abused children in the process of his research.

Where should these accusations go from here? They clearly need to be resolved somehow. If they are true, serious misconduct seems to have taken place. If they are not true, serious harm to the individuals charged has occurred. In either case, I hope that this book will not be the end of the examination and discussion.

Regardless of what turns out to be the case in each aspect of the charges, I do hope that standards will be set and observed that all people will agree to and follow for working with privitive peoples.

It is hard for me to imagine that some of these factual issues can ever be resolved. A lot of time has passed, and the evidence is often buried (as in the case of the many dead Yanomami). What people say today may or may not be correct.

On the other hand, it seems like the Yanomami continue to be at risk from people who want to commercially exploit them or the land they inhabit. The South American governments have a duty here that is fairly undeveloped as a subject in the book.

Perhaps one way to advance our understanding would be if Mr. Tierney, Professor Chagnon (one of those accused by Mr. Tierney), and an independent, objective advocate for the Yanomami could write a side-by-side book in which they address one another's points of view at the same time. The answers might still not be clear, but at least the issues would be clarified. Hopefully, some guidance might emerge about what future practices should be in the area where the Yanomami live.

If we allow the appearance of injustice, we open the door to actual injustice. This book suggests that an injustice has been done in one direction or the other (and possibly both directions, on different charges). I look forward to learning more about the subject.

I rated the book as 3 stars because I could not form my own opinion from the text about the validity of most of the charges. The allegations certainly piqued my interest, but it was hard for me to imagine that the anthropologists were as callous and ruthless as they are charged as having been. Also, the arguments were repetitive and circuitous, which made them hard to follow in many cases.

I suggest that you follow up on this issue by asking those you know who are informed on these matters what they think of the controversy. Both public health people and anthropologists should have useful views.

May all live long and prosper . . . with justice and caring for all!

As a layman I cannot comment on the soundness of the allegations in the book, though at face value they present a riveting indictment on the fact that 500 years after Columbus the clash between imported and local mores and cultures is as sad as ever. To bring the spotlight on this subject merits a reading of the book, regardless of the controversy that surrounds it.
What is very significant is that in all the reviews I have read I still have not found a mention as to what the current Yanomami associations think about the way research has been carried out among their people for many decades, and what guidelines the Yanomami themselves would implement. The Yanomami are not children, nor are they stupid, and they have a voice. It is a pity all these academics, critics, reviewers et al have placed their priority on listening to themselves first and foremost, while ignoring the opinion of the subjects of all this alleged unethical and disturbing activity. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

I wonder how many readers and reviewers are aware that this book has caused profound controversy, not because of its allegations, but because of its woeful, irresponsible, demonstrable inaccuracy. Most of it, certainly the worst accusations, are simply not true, and have been so demonstrated. Nevertheless, in the erroneous belief that where there's smoke, there's fire, people continue to read and also praise the book, and have no notion of its malignancy, believing that accusations as huge as these must have at least a little truth in them. That they don't will make this book a first in fraudulence, but that may not happen for a long, long time. Until then, the reputations of the three men it accuses will be damaged and the world will be gravely misinformed. Many websites are at present discussing this book--the American Anthropological Association must know most of them, and could surely guide interested persons to them. I strongly advise readers to inform themselves about this book before buying it, or even worse, before believing it.

This book is an extended description of alleged unethical and exploitative behavior by two scientists, James Neel and Napoleon Chagnon. The book has received a lot of public attention, and many of Tierney's allegations, such as the one about Dr. James Neel conducting a deliberate mass murder using measles vaccine, have been criticized publicly. I'm not really knowledgeable about those things, so I'll stick to my own conclusions here.

Anyone who has read Chagnon's book, "The Fierce People" or seen the movie "The Axe Fight", both of which are discussed at length in "Darkness in El Dorado", will see right away that Tierney is a liar. He quotes Chagnon out of context repeatedly, to his own advantage, and makes up events that are false. Descriptions of "The Axe Fight" are inaccurate, for example. In addition, Tierney seems to fabricate references. For example, no movie with the title "The Emerald Rainforest" is listed in any book or database.

There is an irony in the book. Tierney's own attitude toward the Yanomamo seems to be exactly the kind of patronizing view that he accuses Chagnon of. One of Tierney's major complaints is Chagnon's overeager distribution of wealth among the Yanomamo, which he claims resulted in increased murder rates. But Chagonon was just responding to the requests of adults that he viewed as equals. Tierney claims to know what is best for the Yanomamo --- coddle them by deciding what is best for them, rather than letting them make decisions for themselves. This kind of bigotry is insidious, and no less harmful to endangered minorities than out-and-out discrimination. Tierney only gets away with his racist rhetoric by appealing to the commonly held stereotype of the naive, noble savage. If Tierney were to make the same implications about African Americans in Chicago being able to take care of themselves as he does about the Yanomamo he would get ridden out of town on a rail.

Through cleverly worded inuendo, this book pretends to expose serious ethical abuses of scientists, anthropologists and journalists in the Amazon. Yet a careful reading shows that none of the allegations are supported by data. While it is very important that all of us who work with people pay scrupulous attention to ethical issues - in this country and overseas - to create havoc with half truths and statements quoted out of context as Tierney has done is unconscionable. The reviewers who praised this book need to first investigate the allegations and not necessarily believe everything they read.

The promotional material for this book says it "is an epic, compelling work, sure to shake the very foundations of American anthropology." I found it epic only in the grandiosity of its deceit and compelling only in the manner of a highway accident--it's horrible, yet perversely draws our attention. I hope this book *does* shake the very foundations of American anthropology--the academic endorsement of this work is an embarrassment, and ought to indicate that something has gone sadly awry. As someone with an affinity for progressive political causes, I shudder to think that anthropologists and editors might have in mind the same issues I hold dear when they allow themselves to ignore the gross inaccuracies and willful misuse of sources endemic to this book.

The myriad of problems with this work have been detailed by sources more knowledgable than I (see references in other reviews). But seriously, how many readers will be aware of these sources, wade through *all* of this information, or even happen across a newspaper article? So, my real concern is: if we lay people can't trust Norton, the New Yorker, or the New York Times Book Review, who can we trust?

There are numerous factual errors that have been refuted in numerous places and unfortunately the author takes potshots and makes false accusations and individuals who are dead and unable to refute his charges. If you want to read this fine, just remember that even though it's in print doesn't make it true or accurate.