• 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
It just seems disrespectful to me to cultures, beliefs, traditions that have been handed down for thousands of years to just assume they would want to ditch everything they have ever known - for what?

Even if you gave them a decision in some way - I don't know how you would do it - realistically how informed could that decision be?
 
Re: tribes

OldTimeRadio said:
...

And while I'm all in favor of keeping loggers and miners out, exactly how are you going to manage to keep missionaries away? They regard it as their iron-clad, no-doubt-about-it-whatsoever DUTY to contact these people. We know from long history that even the most fiendish tortures won't dissuade them. Prison sentences won't. You can execute them, in great numbers, but for every one you kill a dozen more will show up to take their place. We know that from history, too.

So even if we effectively ban all governmental and commercial contact you're NOT going to keep out the Holy Joes. All that takes is a Piper Cub and guys in parachutes.
Which more, or less, seems to prove my point about even apparently benign meddling, ultimately leading to the threat of the death of both the tribal peoples and their cultures.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/south-american-history/uncontacted-native-tribe.htm/printable

How could a tribe remain undiscovered in the Amazon in the 21st century?

How Stuff Works. by Candace Gibson

...

José Carlos dos Reis Meirelles, tribal expert at FUNAI (Brazil's National Indian Foundation), said that the purpose of releasing the photos was to show disbelievers that there really are uncontacted tribes living in the world today and that the ranching, logging and oil industries are a threat to them. While the Amazon rainforest means big business in terms of valuable woods (like mahogany and cedar) and oil (about 75 percent of Peru's rainforest is thought to hold reserves), it's also one of the last sacred spaces for people who wish to remain sheltered from the rest of the world [source: Guardian].

Survival International explains that these tribes make a deliberate decision to stay uncontacted. The impression that many tribespeople have of outsiders isn't very favorable: Loggers, ranchers and oil prospectors raze their land and homes, forcing them to retreat deeper into the forest. And even outsiders that come in peace, like missionaries, threaten tribes with chicken pox, influenza and the common cold. While a bad bout of the flu may keep us in bed for a week, it could mean death for someone who doesn't have our reinforced immune systems. Miriam Ross, a Survival International spokeswoman, explains that first contact with a tribe typically results in half the group dying within a few months.

...
 
Re: tribes

wembley8 said:
....believing that people with white skin are ghosts or demons

You mean we're not? Ohhhh.....

Wouldn't it be much more reliable just to ask, through an intermediary who they're already in contact with if you prefer?

I don't think that would work. It would be too much like saying these people are entitled to have a vote to or to express an opinion. <g>
 
spiritdoctor said:
Even if you gave them a decision in some way - I don't know how you would do it - realistically how informed could that decision be?

So because WE don't know how to "give" (o! most bountiful us!) THEM a decision they must be denied all right to make their own decisions and preserved as some kind of a zoo holding.

That we can only conceive of choice as something which the Great White Fathers "give" to the natives is the crux of the problem.

And if we GWFs don't approve of any opinion they offer it is a mis-informed opinion anyway and can be ignored. Informed opinions can obviously originate only with us.
 
I don't know why you regard leaving tribes to live their traditional aboriginal lives as a 'zoo'. I call it respecting their culture.

To me you are the one with the great white father attitude because you advocate replacing their culture with ours and seem to be regarding our culture as better and superior than theirs.

I was pointing out that in order to give the natives a choice about our culture they would have to be informed about it and that means they would have to have been contacted anyway. You are not telling me how you are going to get around the logistics of that. You are just reading whatever you want to into something - (which seem to be about white supremacy for some reason) and then ranting about it without regard to logical argument. At least other people are providing reasoned arguments for their opinions

These are your attitudes and you are just projecting them onto other people and I am glad they are coming out.

Why are you just automatically assuming I am white anyway - not everyone on the board is.
 
spiritdoctor said:
To me you are the one with the great white father attitude because you advocate replacing their culture with ours and seem to be regarding our culture as better and superior than theirs.

I never said our culture is superior to theirs. Maybe theirs is better than ours. I merely hate to see fellow human beings denied all choice in their future. And that is an ANTI-Colonialist outlook.

You are just reading whatever you want to into something - (which seem to be about white supremacy for some reason) and then ranting about it without regard to logical argument.

I am very sorry that you see free choice as illogical.

As far as "white supremacy" goes, I have to inform you that at least 90 percent of my political heroes are Afro-American Conservatives, and that has been the case for many years. I will be happy to supply you with a list, but chief among them is the noted free-market economist Prof. Walter Williams.

Put your absolutely baseless slander that I am somehow a white supremacist up against that.

Why are you just automatically assuming I am white anyway - not everyone on the board is.

I should certainly hope that not every Fortean and Paranormalist is White! "Great White Fathers" is an attitude, NOT a race.
 
Although, at least on an immediate and visceral level, I side with the non-interventionists I'm having problems trying to work out how advocating that the people in question not be involved in a decision which will dictate their future is any less of an adherence to the old colonial attitude of "we know best" than deciding that they need bibles, bogs and bullets forced upon them whether they like it or not*. I don't think it 's going to change my mind - but I'd probably have to think twice about any accusations I might be tempted to start chucking around.

(*And OTR, just to be clear - I'm not suggesting for one second that this is what you're advocating).
 
The way the world's going, with more and more countries being sucked into the EU (and Eurovision!), this tribe doesn't stand much chance of success with its "I want be alone" policy.

Still, after they've been hoovered up by some bigger political union, they can always wait a few years, and then go for devolution! 8)

I doubt that our ramblings and posturings on this MB will have any effect on events at all

- as the Bhuddists say, shit happens....
 
rynner said:
....this tribe doesn't stand much chance of success with its "I want be alone" policy.

But we're not being allowed to know if they actually have that policy!

We are deciding FOR them that they do!

That's why I keep harping on the "Great White Father" approach, which is - again - an attitude rather than a race.
 
Spookdaddy said:
(And OTR, just to be clear - I'm not suggesting for one second that this is what you're advocating).

No, I understand.

And if it can be established that these people want to live in utter isolation from the rest of the human race that's precisely how they should be allowed to live.

However, even if all contact is legally proscribed they're still going to be exposed to the Bible. When you have individuals who are willing to face hell, hangings and high water to bring their God these people, how are you going to stop them? The firing squad? That would become a recruitment tool in every evangelical church in North America.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
rynner said:
....this tribe doesn't stand much chance of success with its "I want be alone" policy.

But we're not being allowed to know if they actually have that policy!

We are deciding FOR them that they do!

That's why I keep harping on the "Great White Father" approach, which is - again - an attitude rather than a race.
I think the point of the issue is more about what our policy is going to be than what the tribe's policy is. In the end, it boils down to the fact that nobody can control what other people do, but we can control what we do - and we can decide that we will have a non-interventionist policy because we believe that intervening will do more harm than not intervening. So we're not really deciding FOR the tribe, we're deciding what OUR attitude will be. If some of "us" disagree with that decision, then fine - roll on the debate ;) - but I don't think anyone could be accused of deciding FOR the tribe, since the tribe still have complete autonomy over the policy (if any) which they adopt.

Um, did that make any sense...? :? :D
 
Zoffre said:
Um, did that make any sense...? :? :D

Why, yes, it makes a great deal of sense. And while I may not entirely agree with it, it is still an extremely articulate statement.
 
Zoffre said:
Um, did that make any sense...? :? :D

Yes, totally - I'm just not sure I entirely agree. Actually I suppose in one sense I do agree - it's just that, if in some other reality, I was flying over these people and I had two big red buttons in front of me with INTERVENE and IGNORE written on them, and that I chose to push the latter, I'd never be able to entirely shift the suspicion that I had acted from a viewpoint which, when boiled down to its basic constituents, was almost identical to the one which might inspire someone else to push the former.

I would, I think, push the ignore button - but I'm not sure I'd feel so securely dug-in on the high moral ground that I could get too self righteous about it.

...does that make any sense?
 
Spookdaddy said:
Zoffre said:
Um, did that make any sense...? :? :D
I would, I think, push the ignore button - but I'm not sure I'd feel so securely dug-in on the high moral ground that I could get too self righteous about it.

...does that make any sense?
Yes, I see what you mean - the fact that you would be actively taking a decision to do nothing is still a decision based upon a certain viewpoint.
 
But mightn't there be room for several buttons between INTERVENE and IGNORE, at least if intervention is understood as full-scale mingling and meddling and medical and social experimentations?

After all, the natives will most likely have seen your "giant bird in the sky" and that's already intervention of a sort, even if it wasn't intended that way.
 
Although this is a different story, on a different continent, I thought I'd chuck it in here as it seems to relate to the ongoing debate:

Aborigines threaten to shut Uluru

Aboriginal leaders have threatened to ban tourists from one of Australia's top landmarks in protest at what they describe as racist government policies.

The warning over Uluru comes one year since police and soldiers were sent into indigenous settlements to try to tackle high rates of child sex abuse.

Bans on alcohol and pornography were introduced along with strict controls on how welfare payments were spent.

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he remained committed to the initiative.

Addressing an Australian Labor Party conference in Queensland, Mr Rudd said the government's priority was to improve the lives of indigenous people.

"Progress has been made in the last 12 months, but much remains to be done to meet our targets to close the gap on indigenous life opportunities," he said.

'Racist legislation'

The so-called "intervention" in the Northern Territory was introduced by former Prime Minster John Howard's conservative government.

Chronic disadvantage had led to Aboriginal life expectancy being 17 years below that of other Australians.

In response to a damning report about widespread child abuse, troops, police officers and medical teams were sent to more than 70 indigenous communities.

But 12 months after the intervention began, tribal leaders from Central Australia have threatened to ban tourists from climbing Uluru, also known as Ayers Rock.

Vince Forrester, an elder from the Mutitjulu people, who are the rock's traditional custodians, told a rally in Sydney that the government's actions had been a disaster.

He insisted that Aboriginal men had been portrayed as violent alcoholics who beat women and abuse children.

"We've got to take some affirmative action to stop this racist piece of legislation.

"We're going to throw a big rock on top of the tourist industry... we will close the climb and no one will climb Uluru ever again, no one," he told the meeting.

The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says that critics of the policy say that young Aborigines are still vulnerable to sexual assault despite the intervention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 467093.stm
 
Pardon what may be simply my Colonial ignorance, but are Australian "aborigines" actually a race, as such?

What I remember from my schooldays is that they "are Caucasians, the very darkest members of the White Race."

Or maybe this just illustrates the dangers of speaking of "race" in the first place.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Pardon what may be simply my Colonial ignorance, but are Australian "aborigines" actually a race, as such?

What I remember from my schooldays is that they "are Caucasians, the very darkest members of the White Race."

Or maybe this just illustrates the dangers of speaking of "race" in the first place.
Those text books would probably be considered as rather 'dodgy' these days, or at least, as very 'speculative.'

The ancestors of the Australian, 'aboriginal' peoples seem to have crossed over to Australia some 40,000 years ago. maybe even earlier, when New Guinea was still connected to Australia. Their 'racial group' is identified as, that of 'Black Asians.'
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Who-Are-the-Australian-Aborigines-75323.shtml

... they were the main inhabitants of India, Indochina, Indonesia, New Guinea, Melanesia, and perhaps even eastern China. They make the most primitive form of this race, later types being represented by Papuans or Melanesians.

...
So, their collective roots are quite old and they have one of the oldest, previously undisturbed (until the 18th century), cultures on the planet.
 
Back to the Amazon...

Secret of the 'lost' tribe that wasn't
Tribal guardian admits the Amazon Indians' existence was already known, but he hoped the publicity would lift the threat of logging
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor The Observer, Sunday June 22,

Warriors from the Amazon basin tribe, above, paint their bodies red and fire arrows to ward off the plane carrying José Carlos Meirelles, who says that he released the picture in order to highlight the plight of indigenous people in the jungle

They are the amazing pictures that were beamed around the globe: a handful of warriors from an 'undiscovered tribe' in the rainforest on the Brazilian-Peruvian border brandishing bows and arrows at the aircraft that photographed them.

Or so the story was told and sold. But it has now emerged that, far from being unknown, the tribe's existence has been noted since 1910 and the mission to photograph them was undertaken in order to prove that 'uncontacted' tribes still existed in an area endangered by the menace of the logging industry.

The disclosures have been made by the man behind the pictures, José Carlos Meirelles, 61, one of the handful of sertanistas – experts on indigenous tribes – working for the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, Funai, which is dedicated to searching out remote tribes and protecting them.

In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.

Meirelles admitted that the tribe was first known about almost a century ago and that the apparently chance encounter that produced the now famous images was no accident. 'When we think we might have found an isolated tribe,' he told al-Jazeera, 'a sertanista like me walks in the forest for two or three years to gather evidence and we mark it in our [global positioning system]. We then map the territory the Indians occupy and we draw that protected territory without making contact with them. And finally we set up a small outpost where we can monitor their protection.'

But in this case Meirelles appears, controversially, to have gone out to seek and find the uncontacted tribe in an area where it was known to be living.

According to his account, the Brazilian state of Acre offered him the use of an aircraft for three days. 'I had years of GPS co-ordinates,' he said. Meirelles had another clue to the tribe's precise location. 'A friend of mine sent me some Google Earth co-ordinates and maps that showed a strange clearing in the middle of the forest and asked me what that was,' he said. 'I saw the co-ordinates and realised that it was close to the area I had been exploring with my son – so I needed to fly over it.'

For two days, Meirelles says, he flew a 150km-radius route over the border region with Peru and saw huts that belonged to isolated tribes. But he did not see people. 'When the women hear the plane above, they run into the forest, thinking it's a big bird,' he said. 'This is such a remote area, planes don't fly over it.'

What he was looking for was not only proof of life, but firm evidence that the tribes in this area were flourishing – proof in his view that the policy of no contact and protection was working. On the last day, with only a couple hours of flight time remaining, Meirelles spotted a large community.

'When I saw them painted red, I was satisfied, I was happy,' he said. 'Because painted red means they are ready for war, which to me says they are happy and healthy defending their territory.'

Survival International, the organisation that released the pictures along with Funai, conceded yesterday that Funai had known about this nomadic tribe for around two decades. It defended the disturbance of the tribe saying that, since the images had been released, it had forced neighbouring Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives, as a result of the international media attention. Activist and former Funai president Sydney Possuelo agreed that – amid threats to their environment and doubt over the existence of such tribes – it was necessary to publish them.

But the revelation that the existence of the tribe was already established will provoke awkward questions over why a decision was made to try to photograph them – a form of contact in itself – in order to make a political point.

Meirelles, one of only five or so genuine sertanistas, has no regrets, arguing that the pictures and video released to the world were powerful and indisputable evidence to those who say isolated tribes no longer exist. 'Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists – now we have the pictures.'

But he is determined to keep the tribe's location secret – even under torture, he says. 'They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/amazon
 
Warriors from the Amazon basin tribe....fire arrows to ward off the plane....

I have a question. Isn't it just as likely that they were firing at the "giant bird" in the high hopes of bringing it down and getting it chopped up and into the stew pots as quickly as possible?
 
'Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists – now we have the pictures.'


Oh well, if he's got actual pictures we'll have to believe him :)

Obviously not used to dealing with Forteans. And dressing people up as uncontacted natives has been done before now.
 
wembley8 said:
...

Obviously not used to dealing with Forteans. And dressing people up as uncontacted natives has been done before now.
Perhaps, you could point to the allegation that people were 'dressed up'?

In fact, there doesn't seem to be any question that these are genuine tribes people, who avoid contact with outside influences. The only points to quibble over, appear to be, whether they were previously 'unknown and when they were actually, 'discovered.' :?
 
There were not only "pictures" of the Tasaday but up-close sound films.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In fact, there doesn't seem to be any question that these are genuine tribes people

Agreed. But it makes me smile the idea that having photographs 'proves' it. Especially when they are supplied by someone with an agenda.

But again, we do have the idea that they were disturbed (by the plane photographer) 'for their own good,' which is no better than deliberately not contacting them 'for their own good.'
 
Years ago I read a biographical sketch of a young Amazonian Indian who was brought out to "civilization" (note the quotes!) in his teen-aged years and who ended his life, many decades later, as professor of New Testament Greek at a Rio de Janeiro theological seminary.
 
This may clarify things a touch, as it would appear that the tribe has been known since 1910
Last month a photograph released by advocacy group Survival International showed painted tribesmen in a remote Amazon village brandishing bows. They were said to have never had contact with the outside world.

Some media misreported the tribe as "lost" and previously unknown. This week the affair was incorrectly labeled a hoax by other news outlets. Finally, Survival International countered yesterday that it's no hoax. The group was not lost or unknown, it had just been "uncontacted."

While there is some dispute about the accuracy of labels such as "lost" or "undiscovered" being applied to the tribe (it was first known in 1910), a nearly identical claim made international news about 35 years ago.

On the July 16, 1971, NBC Nightly News, David Brinkley announced a stunning discovery:

"The outside world, after maybe a thousand years, has discovered a small tribe of people living in a remote jungle in the Philippines. Until now, the outside world didn't know they existed... and they didn't know the outside world existed. Their way of living is approximately that of the Stone Age."

Noble savages

The tribe was called the Tasaday, and they were touted as "noble savages," a peaceful tribe in harmonious co-existence with their environment. They lived in caves, and their technology had never advanced beyond axes and digging tools. The tribe was so gentle and peace-loving that their language had no words for "war" or "enemy."

The Tasaday became shy, reluctant worldwide celebrities.

They were the cover story in "National Geographic" magazine, as well as a popular book by John Nance called "The Gentle Tasaday: A Stone Age People in the Philippine Rain Forest." The Tasaday were visited by officials and celebrities, including Charles Lindbergh, who wrote the foreword to Nance's book. They were the subject of documentaries, TV specials, and dozens of magazine articles.

However ...

After a few years, the self-appointed spokesman and protector of the Tasaday, Philippine politician Manuel Elizalde, built a wall to protect the Tasaday from outsiders and exploitation. Armed guards were stationed to keep out reporters and curious onlookers; only a handpicked very few were allowed to visit the "lost tribe."

But some who did manage to get in started having doubts about the Tasaday.

One linguist noted that the tribe had words such as "roof," which would likely be unknown to the cave-dwelling Tasaday. Some reporters heard rumors that the Tasaday tribesmen were actually ordinary citizens from nearby villages.

Though there was some skepticism, the truth about the "lost tribe" of the Tasaday was not revealed until 1986, when Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were removed from power.

With tight secrecy and government restrictions gone, a Swiss reporter visited the Tasaday and found that members of the tribe were living not in caves but in houses typical for the area. T-shirts and jeans had replaced loincloths on the members of the Tasaday, and they admitted that it had all been a hoax.

Elizalde had convinced local villagers to pretend to live in caves, in return for promises of money and aid. In fact, the local villagers who pretended to be Tasaday got little in return. Elizalde, the architect of the Tasaday hoax, skipped town in the early 1980s with a reported $35 million and a harem of teenage girls. He died at the age of 60 in 1997, ending the saga of another "lost tribe."

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... -hoax.html
 
tribes

rynner wrote:


[/quote]
In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.

i think that whathe said is true i partly agree with him that we should protect these tribes and let them carry on living how they have been doing for centuries, i think the best way to do that is not to interfere and leave them be.

its clear from the incident with the plane they dont want us to poke our noses into the business and why should they these tribes have proved they are more than capable.

Warriors from the Amazon basin tribe, above, paint their bodies red and fire arrows to ward off the plane carrying José Carlos Meirelles,
 
When this story first broke I remarked here and other places that I'd given years before at the Tasaday office.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Years ago I read a biographical sketch of a young Amazonian Indian who was brought out to "civilization" (note the quotes!) in his teen-aged years and who ended his life, many decades later, as professor of New Testament Greek at a Rio de Janeiro theological seminary.

Does this not prove a strong enough point as to why these tribes are better off left alone to carry on living how they want rather than be made to have changes made they dont want
 
Back
Top