If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
socialist government wants to deny
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
newly discovered tribe of orange people access to capitalism.
Sauce
I think they having their human rights infringed.
If they had guns they could have shot that plane down.
Sauce
I think they having their human rights infringed.
If they had guns they could have shot that plane down.
0
Comments
You could argue it is to be given the choice. if you keep a baby in a room and never let it out, it might grow up to be a content adult because it knows nothing else, but I think few people would find that acceptable.
But that's not a valid comparison at all, these people have been living in a large area of rainforest and by the looks of things they are reasonably healthy. Why should we poke our nose in where its clearly not wanted?
:yes:
They should be left alone!
'Progress can kill' is one of Survival International's campaigns... I've been aware of their work for a while and I think their work is extremely valuable.
The racism that still dominates discussion of indigenous peoples is shocking and very sad.
i'm not suggesting we all wander down, but how can you tell it's not wanted? if I'd never seen a helicopter before and one swooped down I might be pretty panicicy as well.
I'm unconvinced by the idea of the 'noble savage' and how we deliberately keep people away from modern medecines, drugs, entertainment because it'll destroy there way of life. It won't if they don't want these things, but if they do want these things it should be offered to them - not kept away because people who have these things have a romantic view of hunter-gatherer societies.
Are you suggesting that there's any reason that we would actually offer these people things like drugs, other than us wanting something that they have? They'll be left to their devices until we want to cut down the trees around their home or use their resources, and then all of a sudden, it'll be a n honourable humanitarian mission with modern drugs. We're not denying them capitalism, they just obviously have nothing that we could legally make a profit from yet. And don't pretend there would be any other motivation for us "reaching out" to these people.
(Using "we" to refer to the capitalist, developed world).
Let's not pretend there's anything noble about leaving them alone and that civilisation is some great evil. When given the choice people have tended to plump for civilisation - it's why we're not all still living in caves and dieing before we're 30.
We are planning to leave them alone - so that we can cluck about how nice it is that there are still idegenous people who stick to the old ways. And we'll be able to do that on the internet, sipping our cappucinos and with a nice packet of asprin in the drawer beside us.
Fine, if that's there decision. But we are deliberately not giving them that choice, but just assuming what they want.
Double moccacino actually...
But the way I see it, we are probably best not to directly intervene and shove ourselves in their faces. When civilisation meets indigenous people history dictates that nearly always the 'natives' have their culture and population destroyed to some extent.
It was even used as a compelling reason to fear Aliens, if they're anything like us they will destroy us if we meet them. Human cultures thus far have struggled to live in any kind of peace side by side for any period of time. We can only hope this changes in the future...
The news article suggests they haven't been - though if they have and decided they didn't want to be contacted again fair enough (as long as the last contact was Spanish Conquisatodors or something). and any contact needs to be carefully managed, but that doesn't mean we should just assume that given the choice they'll want to remain hidden
Why can't the process of uncontacted tribes meeting modern civilisation - be one entirely directed by the tribes themselves? i.e. We leave them alone until they make contact.
I find it difficult to believe that for the most part uncontacted tribes are in complete ignorance of the outside world. (Indeed, many are only too aware of miners, loggers and cattle ranchers who've stole their land...)
As has been mentioned, contacting tribes like that has usually in the past led to them all dying of our common diseases that they have no immunity to.
Theyre alright as they are
theyre not in a room. Theyre in a beautiful rainforest. Theyre much much less in captivity than the rest of "civilisation"
That's only the good tip of the ice berg though. Look at the native american indians. They were carted off into reservations that were incompatible with their way of life (you can really be nomadic if you're fixed in one area :yeees:) and then alcoholism became a big problem, generally their whole culture was raped for everything it was worth then they were left to rot by the US establishment.
This is the same countless times whenever explorers have met strange new peoples it always tends to boil into a conflict for domination.
How are they supposed to make contact?
Asa you say many of the so-called uncontacted tribes aren't uncontacted, many are starting to benefit from controlled contact with the outside world.
Not if you have controlled contact they don't...
Its beautiful if you're a tourist I agree. it's less beautiful if you're dying in child-birth from alck of modern drugs or you die before you are thirty from a broken leg.
Let's not pretend that it's somehow liberating to live in a tribal society without access to the many great things civilisation has brought us...
It doesn't mean you have to do that now (and the american indians weren't exactly peaceful nomadic tribes full of civilised thoughts eg how the Apaches treated adulterous woman would give concerns to Jerry Falwell)
And do we really think South America would be better of under the Aztecs and their perchant for human sacrifice?
It's easy to preach that we were doing it for their good but surely they have a right to self determination? History has shown us that when cultures clash they don't seem to get along well with one soon becoming submissive and one dominant.
And as FG says, it's not very nice to knowingly leave them to suffer from problems that the civilised world has managed to solve.
Fine - if we give them the choice. perhaps their culture will go, and perhaps that would be because once they see things like mobiles, medicine, cinema they decide that the romance of living in a jungle without santitation is overated.
But you are right the history of mankind is the victory of civilisation. Very seldom is it because that civilisation committed genocide (otherwise the only people in this world would be the Babylonians) and normally because the benefits civilisation offered were more than was offered by being a hunter-gatherer
no·mad
n.
1. A member of a group of people who have no fixed home and move according to the seasons from place to place in search of food, water, and grazing land.
2. A person with no fixed residence who roams about; a wanderer.
No mention of this 'peace' you invoke to excuse the genocide and cultural expropriation of Native Americans. Straw man argument - and your position denied.
Define 'civilised' thoughts, in view of the genocide - I repeat, genocide - that led to the creation of the 'civilised' United States. Far easier, isn't it, to bring up an irrelevant point about inter-gender relations, to appeal to the "Hey, it's wrong to cut off parts of women's noses!" crowd - namely, everyone. Because that excuses killing them, and screwing the remaining ones over for ever, huh? Yawn.
I agree. In Papau New Guinea, for example, these tribes are all too aware of the outside world. Indeed, many of them have chosen to live in more modern communities set up by Christian missionaries. But many have stuck to their traditional way of life. I don't see a problem with that.
Well it might be an interesting study to compare how many people were killed and tortured in the names of the respective myths of the Central Americans and Europe in the 14th to 16th centuries. I suspect that whatever the results, we wouldn't be able to call either of them civilised. Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition went on for far longer than the whole of the Aztec civilisation. Maybe you should look at the record of the culture that replaced the Aztecs before you claim that it was in any way beneficial for them to replace the barbaric practices of the Aztecs with the barbaric practices of the Europeans.
I'd imagine loggers planning on going anywhere near mysterious and "cannibalistic" tribal people are usually armed.
Some 'uncontacted' tribes are in contact with other tribes which are in 'contact' with outside modern civilisation. And whilst this might not be true of this tribe - I personally suspect most 'uncontacted' tribes are not quite as ignorant of modern civilisation as we might think...
And many 'contacted' tribes have had their lives ruined by loggers, miners and ranchers - and their needs ignored by governments.
I see where you're coming from but I think the difficulty of managing 'controlled contact' mean that 'modern civilisation' should proceed with extreme caution...
I do find it fascinating that in the 21st century there are countries which have experienced colonisation, globalisation and modernisation yet are home to uncontacted tribes who could just as well be living a thousand years ago. And the reason to protect such peoples isn't to preserve their backwardness as some kind of living museum of pre-modernity - it's about protecting people who are easy victims; they don't have lawyers, they don't have political clout - so their land is stolen and their human rights are violated.