Anthropologists as Activists

In the articles for Tuesday, it seems like the authors' potential biases lurk much more prominently. Turner brings video cameras to villages and emphasizes the Kayapo-ness of the videos Tamok and others produce. "Representation, far from being an exclusively Western project foisted on the Kayapo through the influence of Western media, is as Kayapo as manioc meat pie" (84). But as an avowed videographer, who obviously already believes in the medium enough to bring cameras with him in the first place, can Turner really make such a determination with any sort of impartiality? As an anthropologist, doesn't he have to believe that he is not some sort of cultural imperialist, that he is not imposing problematic new methods of self-representation on the Kayapo? Similarly, Prins has a clear role in political activism and the use of video technology among the Mi'kmaqs. In both these cases, it seems like the anthropologists assume--indeed must assume--the virtues of video use by the indigenous groups with which they work. They take for granted that such technology coheres with the Kayapo and Mi'kmaqs needs and world view because they are its purveyors and supporters.