• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Uncontacted Tribes Of The Amazon

What do we do?

  • Contact them to explain the outside world and then allow them to make up their minds

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Intervene and try to modernize their lifestyles

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Do everything possible to keep them isolated

    Votes: 19 86.4%

  • Total voters
    22
spiritdoctor said:
The Amazon natives need to be introduced to flushing toilets for their own good? That just sounds so 19th century colonialist

But I never said that the Amazonians should "be introduced to flush toilets for their own good" or anybody else's.

The question I actually asked was whether they should be denied all choice in the matter.

What in Hell is "colonialist" about suggesting that the "colonists" deserve a FULL VOTE in all matters pertaining to them? That's the POLAR OPPOSITE of colonialism, at least as I understand it.
 
I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but I still hold to the view that it's ANIMALS who are kept in zoos and wild game parks, NOT our fellow humans.

Animals in the zoo get no vote either.
 
Re: tribes

goth13girl666 said:
i never said they wer not part of mankind....

You wrote that the Amazonians were "untouched and unspoiled by mankind." But thanks for the clarification.
 
These natives are living a life style (if that phase can be used) the equips them to live in the environment that they live in, no doubt their civilisation has taken generations to develop and accumulate the knowledge needed to be successful in their terms.The trappings of our life style (becoming increasingy homogenous) would not suit their environment. It would be necessary to modify the environment (with all the potential damage) in order to maintain even the simplest and most basic of our settlements.

What trappings of our civilisation would attract them? What if they wanted the bad things (guns for example) or the trivial things (our fashion items).
What ever we did in making contact with our overwhelming technology (most of which would not make any sense or be sustanable in their environment) we would run this risk of destroying what might be a fragile social structure.

History shows that the civilisations of the west have a lamentable track record when it comes to our contact with others peoples. We assume that we have got more to offer them than they can offer us, this leads to the inevitable creation of the native underdog.
 
tilly50 said:
What trappings of our civilisation would attract them?

Who's talking about trapping of civilisation? We're not trying to sell them stuff, just make contact.
But I think a lot of them might be interested in ideas like women being equal to men rather than being property. Or having rules about not killing people.



tilly50 said:
What if they wanted the bad things (guns for example) or the trivial things (our fashion items) ?


So you're happy to make that decision for them rather than giving them any say in the matter?

In terms of material goods, if you go out to Amazon and places you find that there are certain "western" goods (...usually made in China...) that are highly prized - metal machetes and axes, fishing lines, plastic bowls and buckets, cheap clothes. And yes, some junk jewelry.

Guns are indeed popular - it's a hell of a lot easier getting the pot full if you have a rifle than a bow. Or do we decide it's 'better' for them to carry on the hard way?
 
We have rules about not killing people but people still get killed. How do you know if these people have laws about murder or not? It may be that the sexes are equal in this particular society. The fact that we have had no contact with these people means that we know nothing about their culture.

As for guns, well any good hunter will be able to trap/snare or kill game with arrows/throwing stick/spear without alerting other game with the noise if they should miss. I was thinking rather of the types of gun that are less to do with hunting than warfare.

If someone made contact with these people they would display whatever trappings of our society they had with them, simply by having them there. It has nothing to do with trade, which implies a two way transaction. These people would be afraid of strangers (a natural reaction) but curious too. If anyone decided to approach them they would have to be very careful not to impose any of the attitudes that our culture is "better" in any way. They would have to proceed with an awareness of possible cultural tabboos they may have. You cannot just give people our medicines, cultural values or anything else for that matter and expect them to be grateful, take them up eagerly and realise the "errors of their ways"
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
wembley8 said:
...

Which is a strong argument for a legitimate contact. Otherwise loggers with guns can just roll up and say 'we are your news chiefs' and they will have no defense at all.
'Legitimate contact', What would that be, exactly? There is no such thing. You just made that up.

Would that be something along the same lines as the 'Liberation of Iraq'?

You seem to be obsessed with Iraq - you've managed to bring it up twice now in this thread.

Legitimate means by a group which is accountable, rather than loggers, miners or TV crews. Of course, you may completely mistrust all forms of authority...but in that case, who does get to make the decision about contact/non-contact?
 
tilly50 said:
As for guns, well any good hunter will be able to trap/snare or kill game with arrows/throwing stick/spear without alerting other game with the noise if they should miss. I was thinking rather of the types of gun that are less to do with hunting than warfare.

Given their choice, they seem to pick single-shot shotguns (as an addition to bows, not necessarily a substitute). But you seem to want to make the choice for them.

tilly50 said:
If anyone decided to approach them they would have to be very careful not to impose any of the attitudes that our culture is "better" in any way.

Or worse?

In 'Into The Heart', Ken Good does not intervene to stop a gang rape, though by his account he could easily have done so. He's an anthropologist, not a policeman. But this idea that we should allow any form of abuse to continue simply because it's 'traditional' seems naive to me.
 
spiritdoctor said:
This is an article about some pacific tribes people visiting Britain. They had their reservations about our culture

I saw this. I've also been to Tanna so I know just how wildly misleading it is!

This are not untouched people - this is a place with pickup trucks, satellite phones and the rest. And the majority of folk are various Christian sects, not 'Kastam' (as well as the John Frum gang).
 
wembley8 said:
So you're happy to make that decision for them rather than giving them any say in the matter?

That's precisely the problem I have.

In terms of material goods, if you go out to Amazon and places you find that there are certain "western" goods (...usually made in China...) that are highly prized - metal machetes and axes, fishing lines, plastic bowls and buckets, cheap clothes. And yes, some junk jewelry.

And if you excavate in China from the time of Christ and the following centuries you find Roman trade goods. But this doesn't mean that Roman civilization and culture replaced Chinese.

Guns are indeed popular - it's a hell of a lot easier getting the pot full if you have a rifle than a bow. Or do we decide it's 'better' for them to carry on the hard way?

But only the Great White Fathers are allowed to possess and use firearms!
 
spiritdoctor said:
This is an article about some pacific tribes people visiting Britain. They had their reservations about our culture.

I've got news for you....so have I!
 
OldTimeRadio said:
...

And if you excavate in China from the time of Christ and the following centuries you find Roman trade goods. But this doesn't mean that Roman civilization and culture replaced Chinese.

...
Chinese culture, at that period, was probably more sophisticated than Roman culture, in almost every way.
 
wembley8 said:
...

You seem to be obsessed with Iraq - you've managed to bring it up twice now in this thread.

Legitimate means by a group which is accountable, rather than loggers, miners or TV crews. Of course, you may completely mistrust all forms of authority...but in that case, who does get to make the decision about contact/non-contact?
What legitimacy, which group, what authority, do you mean? Who are these paragons who can decide the fate of these tribes?

I genuinely would like to know what you are on about. Or, is this some fantasy of benign intervention, which does not actually exist in reality? Is it all poppycock?

I mention Iraq, because our Governments told us that Iraq was invaded for the Iraqi people's own good, with every claim for legitimacy. A perfectly reasonable comparison, why does it bug you?
 
And if you excavate in China from the time of Christ and the following centuries you find Roman trade goods. But this doesn't mean that Roman civilization and culture replaced Chinese.


No, but ancient China and Rome were not at wildly different stages of technological and cultural development. Also, trade and contact between such societies was time consuming and fraught with danger. The Amazonian tribespeople, if we made contact, would find themselves up against a hugely different world which was almost instantaneously accessible.

A lot of this debate is academic TBH. The main reason I think we should leave the tribe alone is a historical one. Every time that modern man has come up against an ancient tribal culture we have destroyed it and created massive social problems at best and genocide at worst. Nothing I have seen from any of the pro-contact posters suggests to me this time would be any different.
 
Quake42 said:
...

A lot of this debate is academic TBH. The main reason I think we should leave the tribe alone is a historical one. Every time that modern man has come up against an ancient tribal culture we have destroyed it and created massive social problems at best and genocide at worst. Nothing I have seen from any of the pro-contact posters suggests to me this time would be any different.
Quake42 is quite correct, the lessons from history are quite clear, this is not really anything to do with 'primitive' peoples getting equal rights, cctv police surveillance, flushing toilets, or soft toilet paper and everything to do with contamination and genocide, cultural, or actual.
 
Death in the Amazon
The forced invasion of 'uncontacted' tribes is racist - and dangerous for indigenous peoples
Jay Griffiths The Guardian, Tuesday June 10 2008

The message could hardly be clearer: leave us alone. In photographs taken from a low-flying plane, men from an uncontacted group deep in the Amazon forests, body-painted in red and black, draw their bows and arrows to shoot at the intruders in anger and fear. Another tribe living in voluntary isolation is being hunted out of existence.

There was massive public interest when these images were released by the Brazilian government last week, revealing an enormous curiosity about tribal people. And many indigenous people want non-indigenous people to listen to their ecological warnings and their philosophies. But, in sharp contrast, those living in voluntary isolation, the so-called uncontacted tribes, wish no such thing. They want nothing to do with the dominant culture, and they communicate this clearly to "contacted" tribes nearby, begging their help to be left alone.

The risks are well known: uncontacted people have died in their millions from diseases brought by outsiders, whole tribes wiped out. In the Amazon, indigenous campaigners vigorously oppose people going into the territories of the voluntarily isolated. But now, as well as the loggers and miners, there will be dozens of missionaries, television companies and adventurers determined to ignore their message.

Go and talk to Tarzan, I was told, when I was in the Peruvian Amazon, at the invitation of indigenous activists there. (They had asked me to go with them as a witness when they were throwing illegal gold-miners off their lands.) Tarzan, I was told, has a tale to tell about forced contact. A Harakmbut man in his nineties, he is old enough to remember the day in 1952 when his world ended. He is gentle and thoughtful, but still angry.

Missionaries came in a plane which, said Tarzan, "we thought was a huge and frightening eagle. We fled to the hills". The missionaries set up a mission station and a school. "No one wanted to go to school, and anyway after the missionaries came, our children died." After the missionaries' arrival, an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 people died of the illnesses they had brought. The missionaries said they wanted people to know their God, but Tarzan didn't see it that way: "Now we know money." Further, thanks to the missionaries, he says: "Now we know we lack money, which we hadn't known we lacked before."

Astonishingly, this is still happening. Earlier this year a British film crew went to the Peruvian Amazon to find tribal people for a reality TV programme. The crew were accused of visiting an isolated community, bringing a disease that left four people dead.

In the Peruvian Amazon, I met an evangelical missionary who was hunting out uncontacted tribes, claiming he would ease the way for oil workers. The links between missionaries and the other extractive industries are well documented. He spoke of making a "responsible contact", but was risking bringing death. Which of the 10 commandments encourages that?

Anthropologists, activists and many in the media know how to report on indigenous issues with respect; but there is still a profound racism against indigenous people in our culture. The forced invasion of uncontacted peoples is the arrowhead of this racism, and it extends far beyond the irresponsibility of individuals, into whole institutions.

The publishing industry promotes the adventurer, the churches fund the missionary, the corporations send the loggers and miners, the TV company commissions the film crew. In a just world, all should be liable for attempted murder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... /10/brazil
 
How is it racist? People try to interfere,help, or break up isolated white tribes.
Although they are labeled differently as cults.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
What legitimacy, which group, what authority, do you mean? Who are these paragons who can decide the fate of these tribes?

I've already defined what I mean by a legitimate group. Which authority would you like to be in charge of it? I'd go for someone other than loggers, missionaries or TV crews who currently tend to be leading the show.
 
Quake42 said:
A lot of this debate is academic TBH. The main reason I think we should leave the tribe alone is a historical one. Every time that modern man has come up against an ancient tribal culture we have destroyed it and created massive social problems at best and genocide at worst. Nothing I have seen from any of the pro-contact posters suggests to me this time would be any different.

Perhaps modern woman might be better than modern man...

Do you think that the problem is the difference in cultures rather than the basic racism at work after contact? In the past contacted people have been treated as slaves or a resource to be exploited (or conversion fodder at best); that surely is the real problem.

(Btw don't I recall you saying some uncomplimentary things about Islam and a desire for them to change their ways? That doesn't fit with a non-intervensiont stance).
 
(Btw don't I recall you saying some uncomplimentary things about Islam and a desire for them to change their ways? That doesn't fit with a non-intervensiont stance).

Well, I disagree profoundly with those "liberals" who believe that it is acceptable for Muslim communities in the UK and Europe to force their women into forced marriages, practise FGM and blow up commuters because they disagree with a democratic government's foreign policy. I don't think it is reasonable for particular religious or ethnic groups who choose to live in Westen societies to then insist on living entirely apart from those societies and their values.

I'm not sure how my views on that is at all relevant to what we are discussing here. The tribespeople have not attempted to contact their developed neighbours. Indeed, if the article Rynner posted is to be believed, they have made it clear to other tribes that they want nothing to do with us. They are remaining secluded in their own territory. Why can't we just leave them alone?
 
tribes

i agree with what Quake42 said leaving them alone is like preserving history we interfer and everything goes to pot, literally,

interfering with the trible will do more harm than good, why cant we just leave well alone?

it seems as though everytime we discover something new instaed of saying its in the best interests to leave well alone especially with things like this, butr oh no we cant do that can we all we ever want to do is stick our noses into something that does not concern us we hardly ever stop and think we seem to always go in head first,

the thing some people are forgetting is that these tribe's people are people not objects we can interfer with or take over they have rights and fellings just like the rest of us
 
Prime Directives

Greetings,

Source of quotes

Prime Directive, which is also known as Starfleet General Order One, is one of the founding principles of the Federation. In summary, it states that no Starfleet personnel shall ever interfere in the development of a less technologically advanced civilization, and if interference was made accidentally, then all attempts must be made to minimize or reverse the damage. All ships and personnel are expendable if necessary to uphold the directive.

Administration of this rule is most difficult, and Kirk was accused of violating it many times, and Picard have violated it at least once.

The actual wording of General Order One was never revealed on screen, though here's a version by FASA.

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world who society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Originally published in Star Trek: The Next Generation First Year Sourcebook, published by FASA, ISBN 0-931787-38-6 (out of print).


Here is another version from the Role-Playing Game "Prime Directive", from Task Force Games.

Insofar as we, the members of the United Federation of Planets, do recognize and respect the vital role that each and all of our separate peoples has played in the building of our union, and insofar as that union is then the product of our differences as much of the acknowledgement of our failings as the recognition of our potentials, we do so resolve, as a United Federation of individual Planets strong both in spirit and the desire to live free, never to lose sight of those principles which, by fate or providence, have served to establish this Federation as a meeting of equals.

We shall foster within the bounds of our common influence the inescapable belief that all life is possessed of the inalienable right to flourish on its own terms and in its own time and place.

Therefore, we devote our energies to the establishment and fostering of such a state in equal measure throughout the Known Galaxy, and dedicate our Star Fleet to the preservation and protection of that state; that state being an insular program of non-interaction and non-interference with those cultures whose development of self and whose singular right to self determination would be unduly burdened or damaged by the interaction with, or even the knowledge of, more technologically advanced races, even those races whose motives and intentions are unimpeachable and altruistic, even unto the destruction of the culture by lack of action, it being non the more justifiable to crush the special essence of a new culture in the process of saving it.

We shall do all within our power to leave the development of any and all cultures entirely to their own devices, to let them flourish or fail as their differing gifts allow, and to prevent any and all who would deprive them of this, their most basic right, from performing self-serving and selfish actions at the expense of the innocents, until such time as they, themselves, come forward, as equals, and mindful of their place within the greater whole.

We stand unified in our avowed proclamation of this as our first and foremost principle, our PRIME DIRECTIVE.

PEACE!
=^..^=217
 
Those such as Wembley8 who believe that poor treatment of indigenous peoples is a thing of the past might be interested in this article on the treatment of indigenous Canadian children as recently as the 1990s...

Canada apology for native schools

The government says the apology will be respectful and sincere
Canada is to apologise for forcing more than 100,000 aboriginal children to attend state-funded Christian boarding schools aimed at assimilating them.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make the apology in parliament in Ottawa, in front of hundreds of ex-schoolchildren.

The schools operated from the late 19th Century until the 1990s, although most of them shut in the 1970s.

Accounts of physical and sexual abuse at the institutions, known as residential schools, have also emerged.

The churches that ran the schools apologised in the 1980s and 1990s.

Australia apologised for a similar policy in February.

'Reconciliation process'

Mr Harper said aboriginal Canadians had been waiting "a very long time" for an apology.

"There are thousands of hearts and minds that will be at different stages of acceptance, but I hope that we will begin the process of healing and reconciliation," he said.


Schools' legacy of suffering

'They wanted to brainwash us'

The head of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, said it was important that Canada acknowledge what had happened.

"All kinds of abuse was inflicted on innocent children. There are thousands of these stories, all of them true," he said.

Mr Fontaine was one of the first former schoolchildren to go public with his experiences of physical and sexual abuse at residential school.

A sincere and complete apology could go a long way in repairing the relationship between aboriginals and the Canadian government, he said.

However, some aboriginal leaders have expressed concern that they have not been consulted on the wording of the apology.

Settlement deal

The federal government acknowledged 10 years ago that physical and sexual abuse in the schools was rampant.

CANADA'S ABORIGINALS
Made up of Indians, known as First Nations people, Metis and Inuit
Population 1.2 million out of total 33 million Canadians
48% of aboriginals are under 25 years old (31% for non-aboriginals)
Unemployment rate for 25-64 year olds almost three times the national rate
34% do not complete secondary school (15% for non-aboriginals)
Suicide rate among young aboriginals almost twice the national average
Sources: StatsCan, Aboriginal Health Organisation

Many schoolchildren recall being beaten for speaking their languages, and losing touch with their parents and culture.

The legacy of the system has been cited by aboriginals as the root cause of epidemic rates of alcoholism and drug addiction among their people.

The apology is part of a C$2bn ($1.9bn; £990m) deal between the government, churches and the surviving former schoolchildren.

Under the agreement, they have begun receiving financial compensation for their suffering.

A truth and reconciliation commission has also been set up, which will be granted access to government and church records.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7447811.stm
 
Quake42 said:
Those such as Wembley8 who believe that poor treatment of indigenous peoples is a thing of the past

!!!

I wish.

Unfortunately maltreatment of indigenous people is the general rule. My point was that it doesn't have to be like that. Racism is something that is up to us to deal with - it's not like some natural catastrophe we can't stop.

Viva Eva Morales...
 
If your going to have compulsory education laws you cant very well say some people are exempt, can you?
 
If your going to have compulsory education laws you cant very well say some people are exempt, can you?

Well unless I missed something I don't recall white Canadians being taken from their families at the age of five and placed in institutions where they were beaten for speaking English or French. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

Unfortunately maltreatment of indigenous people is the general rule. My point was that it doesn't have to be like that.

Perhaps not, but I don't see any reason why it should be different in this case. On a practical level, something like exposure to disease is difficult to protect against.

In your case, you seem to have decided that we need to force contact on this Amazonian tribe on the grounds that an entirely different tribe has been observed treating women poorly. TBH I am not sure that this differs terribly from the attitude of 19th and early 20th century missionaries, who in their minds were well meaning.
 
Certain of my relatives were sent to institutions from an early age, all sorts of untoward things happened to them, they were educated, often meaninglessly, and yes, they had to speak properly.

However they are not going to seek compensation, they were privelidged.

I never went to boarding school, this branch of my family were not the rich one, and my mother would not have let me go even if I had wanted to...You could say she was in the wrong

Education of natives is a difficult matter, they are often widely scattered in remote areas. Nowadays we have better communications...and literate natives to be teachers.

(The tale of the Japanese Govt and the Ainu Language I will save for another evening.)

High unemployment rates may be due to living in places where there is no jobs.

(I have a canadian friend who wants a trapping licence, he cant get it as he is not a native. No doubt the government could issue him one, but it would upset certain people important in their areas.)
 
Kondoru said:
(I have a canadian friend who wants a trapping licence, he cant get it as he is not a native. No doubt the government could issue him one, but it would upset certain people important in their areas.)

What Province? There is no ethnic restriction on having a trapping license in any province I know of - he might be living in an area where the trapping rights have already been assigned to someone else - In general, First Nations don't need fishing or hunting licenses - for example in British Columbia :

While status Indians are exempt from trapping licence requirements in British Columbia, many have obtained licences to ensure they have exclusive rights to their trapping areas.

http://www.nafaforestry.org/roycom/roycom3.php

Also, while it is true that no one has been beaten by a school for speaking English, in Quebec it is illegal for most children to go to English language schools - this is a form of racism that we don't want to address because we are frightened of the province separating. First Nations run their own schools in Canada so they can learn their own languages.
 
Kondoru said:
Certain of my relatives were sent to institutions from an early age, all sorts of untoward things happened to them, they were educated, often meaninglessly, and yes, they had to speak properly.

However they are not going to seek compensation, they were privelidged.

...
Presumably, your relatives were sent to these 'institutions,' i.e. boarding school, by their parents. They weren't forced to attend punitive institutions, designed to rip their parent culture from them, by the State.

Do you see the difference? :confused:
 
What if their culture was out of date and no use?

(like my relatives latin and bible studies....but then a lot of things are illogical)
 
Back
Top