Analysis of International Relations Series: Anthropology and Intercultural Aspects of Humanitarian Action
Foreword
In the realm of International Relations, where conflict, displacement, and natural disasters shape our ever-changing landscape, a nuanced understanding of humanitarian action is paramount. In the series "Analysis of International Relations," the reader will embark on a journey to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of humanitarianism.
From delving into introductory notions and concepts to dissecting ethical considerations and legal frameworks, this series offers a nuanced understanding of humanitarian interventions. Each article examines key aspects such as the historical evolution of interventions, the role of anthropology in shaping humanitarian practices, and the diverse typologies of approaches to intervention, including sovereigntist, pacifist, and human rights-based perspectives.
Furthermore, readers will grapple with the ethical dilemmas inherent in humanitarian interventions, exploring questions of impartiality, consent, and the unintended consequences of aid. The legal frameworks underpinning interventions, as well as the roles of international organizations like the United Nations and NATO, are scrutinized to evaluate their effectiveness and challenges in coordinating and implementing humanitarian efforts.
Historical case studies, including pivotal moments in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo, provide valuable insights into the successes, failures, and lessons learned from past interventions, shedding light on their impact on international relations. Moreover, readers will confront present and future trends and challenges in humanitarian interventions, from the implications of new technologies to the complexities of climate change and the rise of non-state actors.
Ultimately, this series aims to equip readers with the analytical skills necessary to navigate the complexities of humanitarian interventions within the broader context of international relations. As we explore the intricacies of global humanitarian action, may these insights inspire thoughtful reflection on the importance of compassion, solidarity, justice, and collective action in the face of adversity.
This series is divided into eight articles, including:
6. Anthropology and Intercultural Aspects of Humanitarian Action
7. Historical Case Studies of Humanitarian Interventions 8. Present and Future Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Interventions
Anthropology and Intercultural Aspects of Humanitarian Action
Humanitarian work often occurs in diverse cultural contexts, making intercultural understanding essential to ensuring that actions are both appropriate and effective. Anthropology plays a significant role in this by offering critical insights into the social worlds, practices, and effects of humanitarian interventions. These anthropological insights enhance the effectiveness and sensitivity of humanitarian efforts, which aim to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity during and after crises. By examining the complex, often unintended consequences of these actions, the subjectivities they produce, and their political implications, anthropology helps to ensure that humanitarian interventions go beyond immediate aid delivery to address deeper, context-specific needs.
Anthropology in Context
Anthropology studies "human beings in aspects ranging from the biology and evolutionary history of Homo sapiens to the features of society and culture that decisively distinguish humans from other animal species" (Östör et al., 2024).
According to Lashaw, Vannier, and Sampson (2017), anthropology distinguishes itself from other social sciences through three primary approaches: focusing on less powerful or marginalized groups, emphasizing the informal aspects of life, and employing an immersive research method. Each of these approaches offers unique benefits for humanitarian interventions.
Focus on Less Powerful Groups
Anthropologists often concentrate on marginalized or less powerful groups, such as social minorities and remote communities. This focus is vital for humanitarian interventions because it ensures that the needs and perspectives of these often-overlooked populations are not ignored (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017). By highlighting the experiences of those who are usually underrepresented, anthropologists can help design aid strategies that address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of these groups. This inclusive approach helps prevent interventions from favoring the interests of more powerful stakeholders and ensures that aid is equitably distributed (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017).
Humanitarian interventions are marked by extensive global networks and circuits that connect a variety of actors. These circuits involve the movement of people—such as displaced persons and aid workers—as well as the circulation of resources, including money, goods, and also images and narratives about suffering (Feldman, 2015). Anthropologists examine these humanitarian circuits to understand their impact on crisis responses, the relationships among different actors, and the broader social effects of these global networks. By studying how these circuits operate, they reveal how the flow of resources and information influences humanitarian efforts and shapes public and institutional reactions to crises (Feldman, 2015). These circuits can produce a range of outcomes, some of which can be unpredictable or problematic. For example, the circulation of emotionally charged images, such as those from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, can generate disproportionate levels of public attention and donations. This intense media coverage led to what some critics have termed a "category mistake," where resources were allocated inefficiently due to the situation being interpreted through the lens of more familiar conflicts rather than based on actual needs (Feldman, 2015). This example highlights how humanitarian circuits can amplify certain crises while neglecting others. The allocation of resources is influenced more by emotional and media-driven responses rather than the actual needs on the ground, leading to potential inefficiencies and misallocations (Feldman, 2015).
Emphasis on Informal Aspects of Life
Anthropology places significant importance on the informal aspects of daily life, such as unwritten rules, routines, and personal interactions (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017). In the context of humanitarian interventions, this focus is crucial for understanding how people navigate their daily lives and respond to crises. By examining these informal aspects, anthropologists can provide insights into how aid can be delivered in ways that align with existing social practices and networks. This understanding helps to ensure that interventions are not only effective but also culturally appropriate and responsive to the real-world conditions of the communities served (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017).
Immersive Research Method
The anthropological method of ethnographic fieldwork involves living among and closely interacting with the people studied (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017). This immersive approach is particularly valuable for humanitarian interventions as it provides a deep, nuanced understanding of the community’s needs and challenges. By embedding themselves within the community, anthropologists can gain insights into both overt and subtle issues that may not be captured through other research methods. This comprehensive understanding allows humanitarian organizations to tailor their interventions more precisely to the community's evolving needs and dynamics (Lashaw, Vannier, & Sampson, 2017).
In this sense, the concept of "humanitarian space" is crucial for grasping how humanitarian actions are organized and perceived. Coined in the 1990s, this term encompasses both physical spaces—such as refugee camps and clinics—and conceptual spaces, which are defined by the principles guiding humanitarian work, including neutrality, impartiality, and independence (Feldman, 2015). Anthropologists study these humanitarian spaces to understand their operation and impact on aid recipients and the global community. These spaces are not merely locations where aid is distributed; they also influence public perceptions of those living within them. For example, humanitarian spaces can create distinctions between individuals deemed "worthy" of aid and those considered politically or socially problematic. This divide can reinforce stereotypes and limit opportunities for addressing the root causes of suffering (Feldman, 2015). By analyzing humanitarian spaces, anthropologists uncover how these interventions might unintentionally contribute to the fragmentation of social and political life. The way these spaces are organized and perceived can affect how aid recipients are viewed and treated, potentially perpetuating inequalities and hindering more comprehensive solutions to underlying issues (Feldman, 2015).
Therefore, anthropology’s distinct focus on marginalized groups, informal life aspects, and immersive fieldwork enriches humanitarian interventions by ensuring they are equitable, culturally sensitive, and deeply informed by the lived experiences of the communities they aim to support.
Cultural Relativism and Universalism
Cultural relativism and universalism are fundamental concepts in anthropology that are particularly relevant when examining humanitarian interventions. These concepts highlight the tension between respecting cultural diversity and applying universal standards. The primary challenge in humanitarian interventions is to strike a balance between respecting cultural relativism and adhering to universal principles. Cultural relativism asserts that beliefs, values, and practices should be understood within the context of an individual’s own culture rather than judged by external standards (Donnelly, 1984). This perspective suggests that if a culture believes a practice or belief is morally right, then it is valid within that cultural framework, with no universal standard to challenge it. Conversely, radical universalism argues that culture should not impact the determination of what is right or wrong, asserting that universal moral rules or rights apply to everyone, regardless of cultural differences (Donnelly, 1984).
International law, which originated in Europe, presents a paradox: it was developed based on European ideas but was intended to be applied universally. This universalist approach was rooted in the belief that all humans are rational beings, a notion that overlooked significant cultural and legal differences globally (Jouannet, 2007). The resulting system, while claiming universality, was essentially a product of Western thought and was used to justify European imperialism. It served as a tool for European powers to impose their legal and economic systems on other regions, often under the guise of spreading universal values such as religion or civilization (Jouannet, 2007). Although there has been some progress in recognizing non-Western states under international law, many scholars continued to uphold the idea that "civilized" European nations were superior. This mindset both justified colonialism and laid the groundwork for its eventual decline. International law has always harbored an inherent contradiction that persists today, linked to both the negative aspects of European colonialism and the successes of international law. On one hand, European colonialism used international law to expand its control, leading to severe human, cultural, and political consequences. On the other hand, the abstract and formal nature of international law, which focuses on general principles rather than specific cultural practices, enabled it to be accepted by many non-European cultures (Jouannet, 2007).
The formal and abstract nature of international law has allowed it to facilitate coexistence and cooperation among diverse countries. This formalism provides a framework for different political entities to work together despite their differences. Since 1945, international law has undergone significant changes, becoming more inclusive and universal. However, there are ongoing concerns that international law might still serve the interests of powerful countries, potentially leading to new forms of imperialism. The concern is that a law intended to be non-colonial and non-discriminatory can still be perceived as a tool for dominance. Reasons for this suspicion include the potential for powerful countries to manipulate the law for their interests and the presence of neo-colonial practices, such as resource control or policy influence. Globalization adds complexity to this issue, as it can either promote global harmony or lead to domination by powerful entities. Balancing universal values, such as human rights, with the risks of cultural domination remains a significant challenge in the contemporary world (Jouannet, 2007).
The tension between cultural relativism and universalism is evident in the way international law and humanitarian principles are applied. Cultural relativism and universalism can be seen as two ends of a spectrum, with moderate positions recognizing the need for universal principles while allowing for cultural variations in their interpretation and implementation (Donnelly, 1984). The substance of human rights might vary across cultures, and even if a right is universally acknowledged, its interpretation and implementation can differ widely (Donnelly, 1984). Historically, many traditional societies did not recognize universal human rights, often defining people by social status or group membership rather than as equal individuals (Donnelly, 1984). Despite this, there is a near-global consensus on certain actions, such as torture, being unacceptable, which suggests a form of global moral consensus that transcends radical cultural relativism (Donnelly, 1984). This consensus reflects the need for some universal human rights to protect individuals from abuses of power, especially in modern, rapidly changing societies. To challenge the universality of a widely accepted human right, one must demonstrate that the right is not necessary in a particular society, conflicts with that society’s values, or that there are alternative protections in place (Donnelly, 1984). Such challenges are difficult to meet, and exceptions to universal human rights are generally minor and consistent with core principles outlined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Donnelly, 1984). Basic rights such as life, liberty, security, and protection from inhumane treatment are nearly universally necessary, while rights related to freedom of conscience, speech, and association are more culturally specific but address common threats to individual dignity in modern contexts (Donnelly, 1984).
Culture in Humanitarian Interventions
Humanitarian interventions, designed to address crises and conflicts, often operate in culturally diverse settings where understanding and navigating cultural dynamics is crucial. The effectiveness of these interventions depends not only on their strategic execution but also on their sensitivity to the cultural contexts in which they occur. The significance of culture in humanitarian interventions, therefore, cannot be overstated.
Cultural Contexts, Power Relations, and Peacekeeping
Culture is dynamic and constantly evolving, shaped by the interactions between people and their environments. Therefore, how interventions are perceived and accepted is deeply influenced by these cultural contexts. Rubinstein (2005) emphasizes that actions considered normal within one culture may be interpreted entirely differently in another. For interventions to be effective and respectful, they must navigate these cultural practices, understanding that what might be seen as humanitarian work in one context could be perceived as an attack on tradition in another (Rubinstein, 2005). Moreover, peacekeeping is not merely a military or diplomatic endeavor but also a cultural practice that involves meaningful activities and symbols. Rubinstein (2005) discusses how symbols like badges and flags play a crucial role in unifying diverse mission members and conveying messages to local populations. These symbols and rituals are essential for maintaining the legitimacy and effectiveness of peacekeeping missions.
The complexity of modern peacekeeping missions, which now include a range of activities such as enforcing peace and delivering aid, has sometimes led to a departure from these cultural foundations, creating confusion about the mission’s goals and legitimacy (Rubinstein, 2005). Anthropologists play a crucial role in examining the relationship between humanitarian interventions and governance. Bornstein (2020) explores the concept of "mobile sovereignty," where humanitarian organizations assume roles similar to those of states in managing crises. When a government is weak, absent, or failing, a governance vacuum can occur. Humanitarian organizations may step in to fill this gap, taking on responsibilities like managing aid distribution or enforcing rules, which can affect how local governance operates and how power is distributed. The actions of humanitarian organizations can influence local governance by altering power dynamics, creating dependencies, or reshaping political relationships. On a global scale, these interventions might affect international relations or highlight issues in global governance systems. By analyzing these dynamics, anthropologists can help reveal how humanitarian efforts may influence local governance structures and the broader political landscape, providing insights into the power relations and governance challenges that arise in crises (Bornstein, 2020).
As anthropologists delve into the political dimensions of humanitarian interventions, they explore how these actions can have significant political effects both locally and globally. Humanitarianism is not just about providing relief; it is deeply intertwined with power dynamics and political agendas. The creation and management of humanitarian spaces, for example, can influence the political agency of the people within them, often limiting their capacity to engage in political advocacy or resist the conditions imposed on them (Feldman, 2015). Moreover, the very language and practices of humanitarianism have been critiqued for their colonial roots and the way they can perpetuate unequal power relations. The notion of "white men saving brown women from brown men," as articulated by Gayatri Spivak, highlights the problematic legacy of colonialism embedded within certain humanitarian discourses (Feldman, 2015). These critiques reveal how humanitarianism can sometimes serve as a tool for maintaining global power imbalances, even as it aims to alleviate suffering. In some cases, humanitarian interventions are explicitly tied to political and military agendas, as seen in the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were partially justified using the language of humanitarianism. This blending of humanitarianism with political objectives complicates the notion of neutrality that is supposed to define humanitarian action, making it a subject of scrutiny and debate within anthropological circles (Feldman, 2015).
From Othering to Empathy?
Historically, anthropology has been criticized for its tendency to "other" the people it studies, presenting them as fundamentally different or exotic. This perspective has often reinforced stereotypes and led to a simplified understanding of complex cultural realities. Rubinstein (2005) warns against treating cultures as static and homogeneous, a common issue in humanitarian interventions. For instance, in peacekeeping missions, if soldiers view all Somali teenagers as looters based on a generalized stereotype, they may act in ways that exacerbate rather than alleviate conflict. This oversimplification undermines the effectiveness of interventions and can worsen the very issues they aim to resolve (Rubinstein, 2005). More recent anthropological shifts have moved away from "othering" towards a focus on empathy and shared human experiences, especially in the context of suffering. Webb Keane (2005) highlights this change, noting that contemporary anthropologists emphasize understanding the commonalities in human suffering rather than solely focusing on cultural differences. This empathetic approach is essential in humanitarian contexts where the goal is to connect with and alleviate the suffering of affected individuals. By focusing on shared human experiences, humanitarian workers can foster a deeper connection with those they aim to help, making their interventions more culturally sensitive and effective (Keane, 2005).
Fassin (2011) argues that humanitarianism often operates under a moral logic that prioritizes saving lives over addressing underlying causes of suffering, such as poverty or conflict. This moral imperative can lead to interventions that are more about alleviating immediate suffering than about fostering long-term change or addressing deeper injustices (Fassin, 2011). For example, one key subject position in humanitarianism is that of the "victim." Anthropologists like Liisa Malkki have shown that humanitarian practices often depoliticize and dehistoricize the refugee category, reducing complex human experiences to mere symbols of suffering (Feldman, 2015). This process, while facilitating the efficient delivery of aid, can silence the voices of refugees and obscure their agency and political struggles. The representation of refugees as "bare humanity" or pure victims can limit their ability to advocate for themselves and engage with the broader political world, ultimately shaping their lived realities in restrictive ways (Feldman, 2015).
Joel Robbins (2013) critiques the modern anthropological focus on the "suffering subject," which he terms the "suffering slot." Robbins argues that while highlighting shared human vulnerabilities has been beneficial, it risks overshadowing the critical potential of understanding cultural differences. This critique is relevant to humanitarian interventions, where understanding the cultural and social frameworks that influence suffering is crucial for effective response (Robbins, 2013). Robbins’s critique complements Rubinstein’s (2005) concerns about oversimplification in peacekeeping. If humanitarian workers focus exclusively on shared suffering without considering the cultural and social contexts that contribute to that suffering, they may miss key factors that could inform more nuanced and effective interventions. For example, failing to understand local power dynamics or historical grievances can lead to ineffective or even counterproductive actions. Rubinstein (2005) argues that peacekeeping missions must align with cultural inversions—reversing traditional military practices to promote peace. This alignment requires a nuanced understanding of cultural contexts, which Robbins (2013) suggests is necessary for avoiding the pitfalls of focusing solely on suffering. The integration of empathy and an understanding of shared human experiences into anthropological and humanitarian work represents a significant advancement in addressing crises. However, as Robbins (2013) highlights, this should not come at the expense of recognizing and analyzing cultural differences. A balanced approach that combines empathy with a critical understanding of cultural contexts is essential for the success of humanitarian interventions.
Colonial Legacies and Global Practices
In their 2012 work, Frederick Cooper and Jane Burbank introduce the concept of the "Empire Effect," which refers to the influence of historical patterns of empire and colonialism on contemporary global interventions. This concept is pivotal for understanding how modern humanitarian actions and international policies might perpetuate existing power imbalances rather than addressing them equitably. The "Empire Effect" highlights how historical legacies of colonialism continue to shape current global practices. According to Cooper and Burbank (2012), despite the formal end of colonialism, the power dynamics and intervention strategies established during the colonial era persist in contemporary global interventions. For example, the influence of the global North over the global South often mirrors colonial attitudes, where powerful nations or organizations impose solutions without fully considering local contexts and needs (Cooper & Burbank, 2012). Moreover, these interventions can sometimes reinforce rather than challenge existing power imbalances. Humanitarian aid and international governance structures may prioritize the interests of more powerful countries or organizations, thus failing to address the underlying issues faced by the communities they aim to help (Cooper & Burbank, 2012).
This perpetuation of inequality can be seen in how aid is distributed and how international policies are framed, often reflecting the interests of donor nations more than the needs of the recipients. The cultural and structural legacies of the empire further influence how these interventions are designed and implemented. Cooper and Burbank (2012) argue that interventions may carry forward the colonial mindset of bringing "civilization" or "progress" to less developed regions, frequently ignoring local contexts and historical complexities. This approach can result in solutions that are not fully aligned with the needs and perspectives of the affected populations. Finally, the "Empire Effect" underscores the importance of addressing equity and representation in global interventions. To avoid perpetuating historical inequalities, it is crucial to critically examine and redesign these interventions to ensure they are more genuinely collaborative and responsive to the needs of those most affected (Cooper & Burbank, 2012).
Nevertheless, anthropologists also play a crucial role in understanding how societies deal with the aftermath of violence and conflict. They study the various mechanisms that communities and governments use to address and recover from the damage caused by violent events. Key mechanisms often include truth commissions and reparations (Bornstein, 2020). Bornstein (2020) highlights that these processes do not exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by, and in turn influence, the broader legal and political frameworks of a society. For instance, the establishment and functioning of truth commissions and reparations programs are often shaped by the political climate, legal systems, and power dynamics within a country. In many post-conflict societies, both indigenous and state justice systems coexist or interact in addressing justice and reconciliation. Anthropologists examine how these systems work individually and together. A notable example is the "Gacaca courts" in Rwanda. After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda implemented Gacaca courts as part of its transitional justice process. These courts blend traditional practices with modern legal approaches. They allow community members to participate in the justice process, aiming to promote reconciliation and social healing while also addressing the legal aspects of the genocide (Bornstein, 2020).
Conclusion
Anthropologists are particularly suited to critique and analyze the complexities and challenges in humanitarian interventions. By examining the social worlds, spaces, circuits, and political dimensions of humanitarianism, their research uncovers the complexities of aid delivery, the power dynamics among various actors, and the often-conflicting motivations behind humanitarian actions (Feldman, 2015). As seen in many cases, humanitarian interventions, despite their well-intentioned goals, can have unintended negative consequences. For instance, aid can inadvertently reinforce dependency among recipients or create new forms of inequality. By focusing on the lived experiences of both aid recipients and providers, anthropologists offer a comprehensive view of the ethical dilemmas and practical challenges inherent in humanitarian contexts. This approach helps in understanding the real impacts of humanitarian efforts and the issues that may arise from them (Feldman, 2015). Anthropologists emphasize the importance of considering the broader social, political, and historical contexts in which humanitarian interventions occur. Their work challenges us to rethink the assumptions underlying humanitarian action and to consider the broader implications of efforts to "do good" in a world marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances (Feldman, 2015).
The forthcoming article "Historical Case Studies of Humanitarian Interventions" will offer a comprehensive analysis of pivotal humanitarian crises throughout history. By examining specific case studies, such as the interventions during the Rwandan Genocide and the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the article aims to illuminate the successes, challenges, and unintended consequences of these efforts. It will provide a critical evaluation of how historical precedents have shaped contemporary humanitarian strategies, helping to understand how past interventions inform current practices and influence future humanitarian responses.
Bibliographical References
Bornstein, E. (2020). Humanitarian Interventions.
Burbank, J., & Cooper, F. (2012). The empire effect. Public Culture, 24(2), 239-247.
Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Hum. Rts. Q., 6, 400.
Fassin, D. (2011). Humanitarian reason: a moral history of the present. Univ of California Press.
Feldman, I. (2015). Anthropology and humanitarianism in the Middle East. In A Companion to the Anthropology of the Middle East (pp. 262-281).
Jouannet, E. (2007). Universalism and Imperialism: The true-false paradox of international law? European Journal of International Law, 18(3), 379-407.
Keane, W. (2005). Ethical Life: Its Natural and Social Histories. Princeton University Press.
Lashaw, A., Vannier, C., & Sampson, S. (Eds.). (2017). Cultures of Doing Good: Anthropologists and NGOs. University of Alabama Press.
Östör, Á., Aronoff, M. J., Horowitz, M. M., Schildkrout, E., Spencer, J. R., Hopkins, N. S., Seeger, A., Smith, E. A., Hannerz, U., Keyes, C. F., Jeganathan, P., Nicholas, R. W., Hanchett, S. L., Tuttle, R. H., Fernandez, J. W., Lomnitz, C., Esterik, P. V., Varenne, H., Robotham, D. K., Leslie, C. M., Hill, J. H., Delaney, C. L., Paul, R. A., Kolata, A. L., Ghannam, F., Kuper, A. J., & Feeley-Harnik, G. (2024, June 21). Anthropology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropology
Robbins, J. (2013). Beyond the suffering subject: Toward an anthropology of the good. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(3), 447-462.
Rubinstein, R. A. (2005). Intervention and culture: An anthropological approach to peace operations. Security Dialogue, 36(4), 527-544.
Visual Sources
Cover Photo: Portinari, C. (1952). War [Oil painting]. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/war/UgGumMaDAmT8Nw
Figure 1: Schmertzler, A. (n.d.). Occupy Politics [Acrylic on canvas]. Courtesy of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. Oregon Live. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/s_roundup_geolocation_apps_pol.html
Figure 2: Portinari, C. (1934). The Evicted [Oil painting]. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-evicted/TgEJLghZ4CiwIw
Figure 3: Kalema, T. (n.d.). Untitled [Acrylic on canvas]. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/27/africa/congo-drc-53-echoes-of-zaire-exhibition/index.html
Figure 4: Blythe, D. G. (ca. 1860). Justice [Oil on canvas]. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/justice-david-gilmour-blythe-1815%E2%80%931865/7gFFc59IUL1RBw
Figure 5: Monkman, K. (2016). The Scream [Acrylic on canvas]. Canadian Art. https://canadianart.ca/features/kent-monkman-critiques-canada-150/
Figure 6: Portinari, C. (1956). Discovery of the Land [Oil painting]. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/discovery-of-the-land/bAFcq7FjSTxTdw
Figure 7: Portinari, C. (1935). Settlers Carrying Coffee [Oil painting]. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/settlers-carrying-coffee/3gHYQSFtIwkA4g
Figure 8: Picasso, P. (1950). Massacre in Korea [Oil on plywood]. Widewalls. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/political-art/massacre-in-korea
4o
Thanks for sharing this valuable information. Very appreciated! URL