New primative tribe discovered in the Amazon
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24528
Printed Date: 05-Jun-2024 at 20:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: New primative tribe discovered in the Amazon
Posted By: Guests
Subject: New primative tribe discovered in the Amazon
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 16:11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080529/sc_nm/brazil_tribe_dc - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080529/sc_nm/brazil_tribe_dc
The question arises, how do we go around civilising them? Adults would be difficult, children easier; the younger they are. An immunisation programme will also be needed.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 16:14
|
I read that too this morning. Amazing that there exists tribes like that in the modern era. Now the concern is to leave their habitat alone.
Sparten maybe you'd want to tidy up the weird lettering in your post.
Sincerely,
the penmanship police. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 20:52
|
Done.
I think that while these tribes and their way of life is fascinating to me as a history buff, who is interested in human social evolution, we cannot let people live in such extreme primative conditions practically. Either you shield them from the outside world, which would be essentially denying them a chance at a better life in many ways, (there diet, health, and living standards can be increased at no real expense or effort), or you allow them that chance, then their traditional life is doomed, our culture is at a minimum agricultural, hunter-gatherers are obsolete.
------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:15
|
I saw this a couple days ago and thought it was quite fascinating. It is hard to believe that there are still peoples who have managed to preserve their way of life untouched by the modern world. Does anyone know to which Amerindian peoples this tribe belongs? Are we seeing a pristine picture of what the Spanish conquistadores saw upon landing in the New World? Or, did this tribe manage to escape contact with the conquistadores, assuming it existed in the 16th century?
Here is a picture that shows the tribesmen actually firing arrows at the circling plane:
 ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:18
|
The pre-contact Americans had settled and civlised socities as well, so I think the Spanish saw a lot more advanced people.
I repeat, they need to be civilised. Now. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:22
Well yes, obviously, with Tenochtitlan and other large cities. But if they came into contact with some "less-civilized" people living in small villages, is this what they looked like?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:32
|
The difference was not as great to the spanish as it is to us. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:40
Yes, I realize that. But I am not asking about perceptions of modernity (or lack thereof) of 16th century Spaniards and 21st century observers. My question has to do with historical objectivity. Here we have a picture of what is purported to be an Amazonian tribe untouched by modernity. Therefore, is this the same view of Amerindians villagers (not city dwellers) that the Spanish saw? Or, if they had no contact with the Spanish (it seems like they have not), are we seeing a pre-European contact civilization, as if it was preserved in a time capsule?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 21:41
|
More than a pre-contact civilisation, you are seeing 10,000 BC. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 22:05
| Why do they need to be civilized? It seems to me that their way of life has worked very well for them so far. Why should the greater outside world force these people to change their way of life? |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 22:16
| Just imagine being one of them and suddenly seeing something like a plane, or imagine being brought to NYC or something... |
Posted By: Travis Congleton
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 22:39
|
Are we actually civilized enough to introduce to them what 'civilized' really is?
My opinion is; no, we are not.
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 22:53
|
I still think this discovery presents us with an oppportunity to talk about whether or not the study of history can have a "scientific" aspect to it, that it does not have to be just the subjective musings of pompous academics in ivory towers.
Here we have an example, possibly, of actual objective truth in front of us to which both historical and anthropological accounts of Amerindians and other aboriginal peoples can be measured. Why should we debate about whether or not they need to be "civilized" by our standards? The historical implications and meaning are much more interesting.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 30-May-2008 at 23:01
|
The problem is civilization wouldn't do them any good. Would we provide them money for evver? No. They would become poor farmers like millions like them, living impoverished in ghettos, ending up drinking and gambling. Better leave them be. The might live 40 years or less but they are content at least |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 01:17
|
This is amazing. How many other people have these guys ever seen? Unfortunately these people are now under threat. Where it is curious scientists or illegal loggers both will bring about the destruction of their community. Even if 1 person goes in to learn from them, they too, will learn from him and their society changed. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:23
Absolutely agree. The problem is humanitarian rather than scientific.
Brazilians have estimated that there are still perhaps 300 or a thousand uncontacted natives in the Amazon. Some contacted tribes have been kept isolated and protected by the army, to prevent "civilized" people to reach there. Fortunatelly, the Brazilian army in the Amazon has a large component of Amerindians and Cablocos (mestizos) rather than other peoples, so they sympatize with them.
Now, once people is contacted you have to rush. People must be vaccinated, and they have to receive all kind of help, to prevent they fall in the long list of victims of the so called "civilization". Fortunatelly these days the states are less brutish than in the past.
Risks are always present, including for those who will protect the Indians. They could easily be killed by them in an ambush, and in that case no laws apply.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:27
Well, Spaniards met all kind of people with different degrees of culture. However, nor the Spaniards or Portuguese manage to enter very deep in the jungle in ancient times, simply because they were killed on the spot.
If these people shot at the plane, perhaps they have previous experiences with westerners. Not long ago Indians in Brazil were killed from chopters.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:29
This is what Amazonian Indians looked like. You can't simply extrapolate the experience of some people from the Amazon to very far away places like Mexico, Peru, Canada or Chile. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:32
Not really either. What you see there is a culture addapted to the life in the Amazon. 10.000 years ago people was crossing the Bering strait and probably had a culture a lot more similar to modern Inuits than anything else. Now, addapting to the Amazon is not a small achievement given that westerners survivors of plane accidents usually can't survive a week there. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:41
Were there not some journeys down the Amazon by explorers in the 16th-17th centuries? I don't know how close this tribe is to the river but it says they are identified as an "Amazonian tribe."
But I am guessing that they do not have any kind of written or pictographic records that extend back 400-500 years. Perhaps they have some kind of oral tradition that preserves what contact they may have had with Westerners?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:54
|
Somehow I don't think "westerners" is the right word to be using. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 06:57
|
Spaniards, although send some explorers into the Amazon, at the end gave up, and that's why the Portuguese captured half South America for themselves. The conquest of Portuguese was very cruel in comparison. They developed as the largest slavist society of all the Americas and they captured hundred of thousand of Indigenous people for this purpose, besides bringing millions from theirs colonies of Africa as well. For that reason, I am afraid Brazilians are a lot more informed about the experience in the Amazon than a Hispanic like myself. As far as I know there isn't pictorial records of these event, however I am pretty sure records exist, although I ignore them.------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 07:00
Westerner is how Latin Americans call themselves. After all, Iberian cultures are western, and modern Latin America is 99% westerner, with some flavouring  ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 07:08
I used the term "Westerners" so I did not have to type Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Sorry, but I meant no disrespect.
What? I was talking about Amerindian records of the contact. Why would you ignore those or the European accounts, for that matter? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 07:39
You are looking at it through a rose coloured medium. The fact is that they have a life which is chracterised by disease, by quirks of nature, by risk from wild animals, lots of perils from pests. At the very minimum civilisation allows them to reduce the risks from these. The children of that tribe have as much right to an education as anyone elses kids. They should be given the oppurtunity of flying that plane, not be condemened to see their fathers and elder brothers take aim; with a bow and arrow.
Progress cannot be stopped. Change is the only thing that is inevitable. Better it be done resposnibly by people who actually care for their welfare, than by settlers or loggers, in that case if the natives are lucky, disease will wipe them all out, if they will be thrown of the land and spend the next ten generations adjusting; painfully.
Who are we to decide that they should live in prehistoric squalor.
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 10:21
|
Who are we to decide that they shouldn't? Forget about teaching them how to fly a plane. They need to be protected against other people first. The only type of education that we can provide them that will be of any benefit is how to keep us away.
I'm afraid you are looking at it through a rose coloured medium too. If you try to teach them those skills, chances are you'll wipe them out. Through disease, cultural imperialism, and lack of self esteem. Really the only useful skill we may be able to teach them is how to fight against us. Very similar sentiments were expressed by the early English settlers in Australia. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Precisely. If Latin American countries are western. Aren't these tribal people, also technically western? If not, then we are using western in a cultural sense, and as far as these people are concerned the differences between world-culture and their culture is far more than the differences between world-cultures. Don't get too fussed about this, just being nit-picky. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 12:39
| These people have to be left alone and protected./ its i never any good to try and 'teach' anyone if (1) they don't seek or need it, and (2) contact will kill the majority with what are basic diseases, like the flu, we normally carry. They don't have a choice or a chance and Peru/Brazil should just fence that part off and do them the favour. Including from those darn missionaries who have already spread diseases and ruined other, not so fortunate, tribes. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:04
|
Leo, thats only a temporary meausre and you know it. How long can you stop civilisation, from there, a generation. Two generations maybe.
Eventually loggers and settlers are going to reach them and if their guns don't get them, their diseases will.
I am not saying, that they should be moved to Rio immidietly. But that now the modern world has reached them or will soon it is better that they be integrated into it slowly, by a responsible entity like a government or better an international body like the UN, who can help equip them to face it, rather then hope to "preserve traditional life" because it ain't gonna happen and its not sustainable. Once these people contact the civilised world, then rightly or wrongly, fortunatly or unfortunatly, the death warrent for their way of life has been signed. It should not also be one for them. ------------- |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:11
|
İ just watched ''Bury my heart at wounded knee'', i think they dont need to be civilized... ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:13
| It's likes ome tribes in Africa I read about. They were leaving isolated condacting small ceremonial wars between each other. When they discovered our more lethal weapons they eliminated each other and now too few are left. |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:32
Agreed. Leave them alone  ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 13:34
|
A typical kind of social romantic. Let the jungle-fighter enjoy and participate to the modern comfort. Health insurance, fast food and free elections are necessary for the development of the civilisation. Adidas, the BBC, trousers and a good education ist hat what the wild rain-forrest dwarfs need. And if it doesn't work, who cares about 500 red and black painted savages. The progress is unstoppable. And while we are at it, the rest of latin-america has to be flattened, so that we can plant enough stuff for our biofuel... ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 15:09
|
Of course. You are so right. Let them stay in the jungle, with a life expectancy of 30, dieing of god knows what diseases, with hygine levels from 10,000 AD, let them have no chance of a better life. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 16:31
|
Hmm they seem pretty healthy to me in that photograph so why interfere with their way of life as long as their confined area is not under threat yet? If you try to integrate them within the crumbling gates of our western civilization then you going to end up killing them in more insidious ways. Many natives who have experienced similar cultural "infections" are suffering from skyrocketing suicide rates, alcoholism, apathy etc. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 17:26
|
Hello to you all So if these peoples were cannibals, a good chance they are, do we leave them eating people up saying "its their way of life?". Enough political correctness, give them real civilization and if they don't want most of its products, like millions of their bretheren still living in the amazon, they have the choice to live as they wish.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 17:30
|
Ignorance is bliss eh? Looks like I am in a minority here, but I stick to my views for reasons elucidated above.
These uncontacted tribes show that civilisation is not an inevitable result of human existance. Pinguin says that they are merely adapted to the rainforest. That they undoubtedly are, but civilisation has arisen in far worse areas for humans, the mid east, the south of India, mountains of Greece. Made me think that civilsation might be an oddity, albeit one that was so successful that everyone who came into contact with it had to "convert" or die. Dose give some food for thought, imagine if the earliest civilised man had arisen in some remote cornor of the world like mesopotamia..................errrr in fact, forget it.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 18:42
I meant that I don't know if such records exist. I haven't found them as yet, although I will search for them ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 18:50
Not really. With modern medicine you can save most of them. It is not the diseases what are really dangerous but the corrosive impact of western culture.
Have you ever seen "The gods must be crazy"?
I know the experience of a German adventurer friend of mine that came to South America to live and fight for the natives. Well, he told me that once he went to the jungle with a Coke T-Shirt, and how it become a symbol of prestige between natives!
Afterwards, natives realize they are poors between the poors. Frustration will start and with that will come alcohol, prostitution and violence. The young will migrate to the cities to increase the ranks of the working poors, and will forget about languages and jungles. Some will remain at home but will have to buy guns to kill the mass of Brazilian poors that flood the jungle searching for resources.
Yeap. Western civilization is the problem. Allow me a bad word to classify it. Western civilization is a piece of sh--!
------------- |
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 20:45
Nitpicking on disease thing little bit here. I do agree that modernization along with advanced medicine, diet, hygiene increases life expectancy. No argument there.
But in many underdeveloped regions in the world, it is the precisely the urbanization that is integral part of the modernization that is one of the main cause of the large epidemics. I think Jared Diamond might agree with that assessment.
A large population living in close quarters are more susceptible to epidemics as whole than a population living in somewhat isolated tribal villages. A treatable disease by modern medicine could decimate a 'uncivilized' village but it would have harder time moving on to next villages. Unless it's hosted by the animals they hunt of course. In urban setting, airborne and waterborne diseases are lot harder to contain. Maybe that more true in Africa and SE Asia or Subcontinent. But I would assume that is true in South America too.
And somebody pointed out they looked pretty healthy judging by the picture(?). I would assume hunting some wild boar with bows are lot better exercises than sitting in a office and eating McDonald's. OK, that was bit sinister comment. But I don't think longer life expectancy necessarily translates into better health. Well, least not in here in U.S. Much of modern medicine is designed toward keeping sick people live longer not necessarily enhancing the healthier life. More profits for the industry I guess.
But in general, I do think modern medicine has much benefits and modernization for the Globe is inevitable regardless. That's why I said it's just Little nitpicking.
I wanna post a video on indigenous cultures. It's from the guy who wrote 'The Serpent and the Rainbow and Light at the Edge of the World' which became a movie. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/69 - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/69
Talking about 'getting by' with nothing! A $h!t Knife!
 Take care Sparten. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:01
disseases spread with contact, so as far as they are isolated there is no problem. As soon as that happens natives must be provided of medicine, help and guns, so they can shot those loggers and settlers when they try to reach them. That's the only way other natives deffend themselves from the outside world.
By the way, the South Americans states, the armies and some non-government agencies provide help to natives that have already had the misfortune to be touched by "civilization".
An example of "rescue" that I live very much it is the "apprentice of shaman" program, developed to help indigenous communities to preserve the knowledge of shamans, preserving the identity of the tribe and the knowledge of the medicinal powers of plants at the same time. It is interesting that this program helps indigenous people to feel useful in the modern world making integration easier. This is the work of Mark Plotkin
http://www.naturalezafoundation.org/health_bshaman.htm - http://www.naturalezafoundation.org/health_bshaman.htm
http://www.mariri.net/rainforest-blog/?p=14 - http://www.mariri.net/rainforest-blog/?p=14
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1211-conservation_award.html - http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1211-conservation_award.html
Pictures:
     ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:08
I might be opening a can of worms here but do you think really all people want to live 100 years, in full health, with perfect hygiene, etc.? Yes, you could argue, even if they don't want to, we can give them the opportunity, we'll let them choose. But if we give them this opportunity, we'll destroy their culture forever and we'll take another opportunity from them: that to live as they lived until now.
And if the morality and the desire to do good is so high in some, why don't you improve the standards of living of millions of people who are aware of the modern civilization but still do not enjoy high life expectancies, still die of curable diseases, and have low hygiene levels?
Like it was already said, if you decide to "rescue" these people, you might just add few hundreds unhappy people in the "low class" of our society.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:08
How are you so sure they are cannibals? That's amazing.
There are 700.000 recognized Indian in Brazil, most of them of recent contact, because Brazil don't recognize but Natives that speak the language and preserve the culture almost intact as Indians. There are at least 40 millions of Indigenous descends in Brazil and most of the White population has at least drops of Indigenous ancestry.
In here we are talking about no more than 300 or 500 individuals. The last that are still free from "civilization", so far.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:15
That's a good question. My answer is simple. Nope, they are not Latin Americans... as yet.
They are Amerindian people that were living peacefully and alone in a territory that, although claimed by a Latin American country, in the practise was outside its rule.
Uncontacted Indians aren't Latinos at all. When they are incorporated to "civilization", and they forget theirs tribal dances and native games and replaced them by samba and the t-shirt of the Brazilian soccer national team, then they become Latinos.
In any case, in Latin America there is a large number of Indigenous groups that are westernized. They preserve traditions, languages and heritages, but they are undeniable westernized already. They are Latinos, of course, part of an ethnic minority.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-May-2008 at 21:54
|
More pictures on Amazonian Indians integrating to the so called "civilization".
Here, learning to use a notebook
 Here, already accostummed to western clothes and cameras
 Painting tourists
 Indigenous schools in Amazons
   (from Argentina)
 (From Venezuela)
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 02:09
Have you ever considered that their medicine may be far better than ours? What diseases can they cure that we can't? If a undicovered amazonian plant, when eaten, reverses cancer growth they may know about it. I will promise you one thing, if they are 'civilised' their life expectancy will half. Modern medicine will not improve their health more than radical lifestyle and diet change will harm it. One of the biggest problems with Aboriginal health is that their metabolisms have not evolved on a starch-milk-meat diet. When their diets swap from native food to western food, their bodies can't cope and develop huge health problems. It is not as simple as just teaching them a bit and have join society. We should look at this as an opportunity to learn from them. Not the other way around. There is actually very little we can offer them that will improve their lives. We should learn as much as we can from them before civilisation encroaches and destroys them & their knowledge.
God knows how you came to that conclusion.
Yes, while were at it I'd assume by this statement you would also agree to a Brazillian invasion of Saudi Arabia too? I mean you have never had the chance to have a carnaval Rio style. Or perhaps a Danish one? Enough political correctness, give them real freedom of speech, and if they don't want its freedom, like millions of their brethern they can migrate to Iran. Can't you see that you just said the same thing about this tribe, as I said about Saudi Arabia? We're just going to charge in and overwhelm their culture are we?
Incidentally some of the best places for human habitation. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 08:29
|
Cannibal holocaust
Anyway it doesn't matter, the only way to know if they don't want civilization is to go and ask them not make assumptions from the ivory tower many people live in. These aren't savages for people to come and see, and they will come and see them no doubt like tourists go on safaris, these are people with a primary culture and their isolation, definitely because they were weak against other tribes, is a danger to them. Who knows, if tomorrow one of the new world diseases reaches them they will all die like thousands before. assuming they don't want to use civilisation is absurd. Look how many indiginous peoples around the world who volunterily contacted civilization and decided not to use it, very few peoples indeed.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 09:42
|
Agreed. Send a contacted Amazonian Amerindian to meet them so he can teach them about the threat (& benefits) from us, and so we can learn what they have to offer us. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 11:13
|
Like they would understand anything. Look I would much rather that they become civilised now, and risk losing their dnaces, warpaint and what not (and who says they have to lose that?) than be protected, only for some enterprising logger or settler (or maybe both) with little money but lots of ammo to come and claim their land........for good, and make them lose both their culture and then their lives.
By the way Omar, if an amazonian plant can cure cancer thats great. Perhaps they do have better medicine than us, but not very likely.
If they can have a better tommorrow why not. And please lets keep our jaded sick-of-modern-life, lets reconnect-with-nature theorys to one side. Back in the 1950's the government of Pakistan opened up several districts of Makran, people living a bronze age existance (much more advanced than the subjects of this thread by the way), they were given medicine, vaccinations, access to clean drinking water, schools, roads, modern transport. Still the poorest area of Pakistan. But the people who lived through the change agree it was the best thing that ever happened to them. People very rarely decide against progress of they can help it and never for long. And we want to deny them the benfits of civilisation; and benefits far outweigh the vices and dangers, since their way of life looks quaint to us and in-tune-with-nature, from our computer screens and airconditioned rooms, and we want to "protect" that? Talk about conciet!
As it is history has shown that protected natives don't tend to last very long. The Solomon Islanders in WWII were brought into the modern world by the US Army, after 50,000 had died (more than 2/3rd the population).
The S Arabia-Denmark theory is also off. Both nations are settles civilised nations in the classical sense (bedoins, roma maybe not settled). The question is one of culture there. Here we have civilised man on one hand and uncivilsed man on the other. Civilisation is unquestionably better than savagery. ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 11:47
What savagery? Because they do not have all the technology the "civilization" has? Savages are the soccer "funs"(hooligans) for example not those primitive tribes... First resolve and civilize the savages in the civilized world (as are those madmen of soccer "funs"-not everyone is, but many are), and then talk about civilizing the "savages" ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:11
I am afraid it does matter. The fact is that you associate cannibalism to any people that has very basic technology is shocking.
Cannibalism existed probably between the Caribs of the Caribbeans, if we are going to believe Columbus. It was a permanent condition in New Guinea, on which stopped not long ago. It was also very common in societies suffering from environmental break down, like in the Polynesian people of Easter Island. Among westerners cannibalism has also existed in situation of emergency, like the german soldiers sourounded by the russians in WWII, or the case of uruguayan plane that crashed in the andes in the 70s.
In any case, being cannibals or not, they deserve respect and protection.
The answer is they want it. That's very easy to see. Once they get in contact with the "civilized" people, theirs consummer instinct awake. Our moral principles of the value of money, the importance of luxury, the necessity to have servant to our service, the ambition, the need to succeed, all awake suddenly in them and they are quite soon incorporated to the rat race.
I agree on that. Civilization is inevitable. Let's minimize the shock, though. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:20
I agree with Illirac.
First, it is very sad Sparten still used the term savage", used for so long time as an excuse to exterminate Native Americans.
Second, what you mean by civilizations are inquestionably better?
Nazi Germany was a Western Civilization! It was very advanced technologically, with the best science available... all used for mass destruction. Wasn't it savage? Wasn't savage for them to exterminate million of people in concentration camps, and in the hollocaust? Wasn't savage for Europe to exterminate 50 million people to fix phylosophical differences?
Tell me about savages!
More than anything, uncontacted Natives and innocent people, that have its own culture and that has lived in isolation. In case of contact it is the duty of the most powerful culture (ours) to protect the weak. That's the way to show ours civilization is not savage anymore
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 14:38
There is a small point in here. The fact that they are isolated from the westerners don't mean they are isolated from other Indian tribes!
As the matter of fact 800.000 Amazonian Indians in Brazil are addopted to that society and live between two worlds already. Between those tribes you will find almost everything this "new people" has, like the way of painting, the dress, the house making, botany and traditions. That's already preserved and being preserver by the Brazilian state and several ONGs. The indigenous movements in Brazil also exist and are getting more power each day.
So, let's not be concern about losing a theoretical heritage, but about saving people.
Please, explain me in what way they were much more advanced? How many read and write, instance? Did they know the toilet? Did they have clocks?
That's true. But the transition has to be well directed. Otherwise you will end up in far west towns like there are many in the Amazons.
Some civilized people, like Hitler, behaved worst than any "savage".
More civilized people has died in wars, than all the victims of the "savages" of the world.
Religion, and particularly "foundamentalism" is a lot risky than any shamanistic belief. In fact, killings in name of religion are part of our "civilized" way of living.
Social differences so huge like we see today are only possible thanks to civilization. That way, a few priviledged people have everything they want in life, and armies of servants in theirs service, while some other people has to find food in garbage cans. What a great civilization we have!
Only civilized people has to be kept on alcohol and drugs permanently so they forget theirs condition.
I love civilization
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 15:06
|
This superiority complex really needs to be adressed. In my opinion, these people arn't bloodthirsty, ignorant, stupid savages living in 10.000 BC. They are an advanced society, adapted for living in the worlds largest rainforest, who have managed to survive in an environment for centuries or even millenias where the so-called "advanced civillised" humans can't suvive for a week!
Instead of jumping on our moral high horse claiming its our duty to civillise them, lets take a more objective look.
Some of the arguments were regarding life expectancy, well just look at parts of sub-saharan Africa in which it is below 50-40 years including some developed/developing countries like South Africa.
We are advanced in our living conditions, however, put in the middle of the Amazon rainforest and its us who would be the primitives! In comparison, the same would be true if we stuck somebody from this tribe in New York, thus trying to change their way of life actually would make an advanced peoples, primitive.
These people are no primitives. They infact have alot to teach us, they co-exist with nature and have acquired the secrets of the plants, animals and trees in the forest. Many medical advances are due to ingrediants found in the natural world, some of which have been found in the big rainforests. We don't even know what else lies there, what amazing cures and finds there are.
We could learn a thing or two about living, respected and learning from nature from these guys.
What would be the great benefit to these people about so called civillising? they would be duped into thinking big cities are paved with gold, the young would move to cities, the old would stay in the forest, the young experiencing a culture-shock and realising they are actually the most impovrished people will turn to drugs, alcohol, crime, prostitution, live in ghettos and contribute to an already big gang problem. The great knowledge of the forest will be lost, their languages will be lost.
They would be the biggest loosers and add to the misery of society for the urban poor and rich alike with their social problems. Remember, not everybody in our societies is living a privaledged life, not everybody has time to write on AE, in Inner city london its claimed 30% of people live below the poverty line, now this is London, in the big cities of Brazil its even worse, these people will end up in the favalles.
They will be taught how to sell drugs, extort money, rob and lead a life of crime and no opportunities, they won't like some seem to think be Harvard educated doctros, professors and scientists living in nice appartments with the latest technologies.
Currently they have a succesful way of life, are some of the most advanced people in the world when it comes to jungle dwelling and knowledge of nature and have a unique society.
Why do you think their lives are so terrible because they don't watch Oprah, eat fried chicken and chips and get plastered on a friday...
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 15:31
|
Some examples about how Amazonian Indians and theirs allies are fighting for theirs rights to theirs lands using modern technologies,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077244/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077244/
   And Peru,
http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Projects/Peru/perublog/uploaded_images/GPS1-765404.jpg">
  10 million acres charted by consulting elders’ tales as well as GPS receiversBy Alan Boyle
MSNBC Jan. 23, 2003 - Ten million acres of the Amazon rain forest have been charted in detail for the first time with the help of breechcloth-clad Indians toting GPS receivers, as part of an innovative effort to back up their land claims. The mapping project, unveiled Thursday at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, brought together four tribes of the northeast Amazon as well as the Brazilian government’s Indian agency, the nongovernmental PPTAL initiative to map indigenous lands and the Virginia-based Amazon Conservation Team. The regions that were demarcated, the Tumucumaque Indigenous Park and the Rio Paru d’Este Indigenous Land, amount to a territory as big as the Netherlands. They’re just west of the world’s largest tropical park, and are occupied by the Apalia, Wayana, Tirio and Kaxuyana tribes. Before the two-year project began, the only comprehensive maps of the Indian reserves were based on satellite and aerial photos, showing rivers and mountains but little else, said Vasco van Roosmalen, the Amazon Conservation Team’s Brazil program director and field director for the project. “The Tumucumaque has 2,000 indigenous names that have never been recorded,” he told MSNBC.com. But the map, festooned with symbols to mark hunting trails and holy places, is more than just a curio. “The white men have the Bible and other books to teach their kids about their ancestors. We now have our map to teach our children our history,” Apalai chief Joao Arana was quoted as saying in an Amazon Conservation Team report on the project.
“Based on their map, the four tribes of this reservation will be able to better organize and develop their resources,” Rubens Antonio Barbosa, Brazil’s ambassador to the United States, said in a statement. “And they have prepared it wisely; the location of the widely coveted medicinal plants they know so much about — many of which have been illegally taken abroad from the Amazon rain forest — is not revealed in the map.” Van Roosmalen said the map proves that the four tribes occupy the entire territory, which will help in the political fight against gold miners seeking to gain a foothold in Indian-controlled lands. It could also help build the case for economic development in the region. “In terms of management and politics, the map is very important,” he said. The map also served as an exercise in community-building. Before the project, the tribes tended to keep to themselves in separate territories within the Tumucumaque region. “When they came together to do this map, they saw that this was really one area,” van Roosmalen said.
“The whole methodology is getting the knowledge that they have in their heads and getting that on paper,” van Roosmalen said. “They would go out into the villages with a blank, large sheet of paper ... then they would sit down with the elders, the hunters, the fishermen, filling in the legend and constructing the map.” The resulting maps were digitally cross-checked with data from other tribes as well as satellite imagery and past mapmaking attempts. It was a “very inexpensive project,” costing less than $1 million, van Roosmalen said. Financial support was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The Tumucumaque project was inspired by a smaller-scale effort to map Tirio territory across the border in Suriname — and in turn, the Amazon Conservation Team hopes the latest results will set the stage for more ambitious plans to map 100 million acres of indigenous reserves in other parts of the Amazon. Ethnobotanist Mark Plotkin, president of the Amazon Conservation Team, said such reserves are often the crown jewels of biodiversity in the Amazon. He noted that the Tumucumaque region harbors the headwaters of several major rivers that feed the Amazon. “When the Indians say that the headwaters of a great river is sacred, and when the government of Brazil says they must protect their watersheds, they are essentially speaking the same language,” he said. “We all have a stake in perpetuating these resources. The map is a win-win situation for everyone concerned.” © 2008 MSNBC Interactive ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 17:33
|
The above example that pinguin gave is what I am talking about. Let modern technologys help them. If they want to keep their old way of life after they have been civilised all power to them, its their choice. But keeping them in savagery is downright unacceptable.
On the term savage/savagery, I am amazed (or maybe I should not be) at the pious chest thumping "horror he called them savage" which is very convinient since you can attack the person not the argument. It is also ignorant, savage is the opposite of civilised, which is exactly what they are, uncivilised. So when you say uncivilised, it means the same thing as savagery. They are savages of that there is no doubt. They are not "bad people" whatever that means in this context, not Nazis. Uncivilised? Definatly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savage - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savage
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:10
|
I dont' agree. Savage has the connotation of evil, cruel, bad, rotten, etc. Even the term "uncivilized" is more appropiated, givien that "civilized" only means a member of an urban society. So, in some sense, farmers aren't "civilized", and also aren't hooligans that deserve the name "savage". The term "primitive" perhaps is more appropiated, because it shows the difference in TECHNOLOGY between simpler and more complex societies. However, the term "primitive" also has the connotation of backwards in the genetical darwinist sense. It is therefore a term of racist sides.
Even terms like "stone age", "bronze age" and "iron age" people are obsolete because they don't show reality. In fact, in Africa there were tribal people that were in the Iron age at contact, while in the Americas there were very advanced civilizations, like the Mayas, who where in the stone age, with writing and advanced math. Even more, others living in the Bronze age, like the Incas, were analphabets! And when one realize Teotihuacan build its civilization saling obsidiane, one start to think those metalurgic terms don't mean a thing.
Personally I preffer terms more descriptive, than the so load names of "savage" and "primitive". They are member of "simpler cultures", or better, of tribal societies or tribal communities.
Tribal people is the right term, I believe, to distinguish of people that belong to more complex societies.
With respect to savages, perhaps thugs, hooligans and above all, Nazis, deserve the name better. These are soccer hooligans, for instace.
 There Maras from El Salvador are a lot more savage than any tribal people. These are real savages, and not the innocent tribal peoples.
 And these "civilized" savages dominated Europe for a decade.
 Even more, not all tribal people act the same. Most were very peaceful people, but also there existed brutish groups, like the ancient Jibaros who were headhunters (now reformed).
 But most tribal peoples weren't headhunters or cannibals, and they weren't savages. Don't confuse the groups.
And if you mean "member of a preliterate society", then most human beings belonging to the human civilizations up to 1950 were "savages". What a curious definition. Even more curious given the fact that still today, although most learn how to read and write, most has already forgotten. Not many people read books these days and a lot less write it. From all practical terms, the members of our civilization are still savages, aren't they?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:17
|
Reductio Ad Hitlerum strikes again. It is the Nazis crimes that condemn them. They are condemned for what they did, not what they are. Savage is a completely appropriate word to use in the circumstances. They are savages. They are not Nazis.
By the way, civilised dose not mean urbanised, true, urbanisation is a feature of civilisation, but civilised people are not necessarily urban.
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:24
|
Savage is an archaic term with pejorative connotations. The theory, civillised is good, non-civillised is not, in my opinion is out of date and a simplistic way of thinking.
Civillisation, ie socities which practice agriculture and have settlements and cities are ofcourse an example of human development. However, it is a development based on factors of the environment, civillisation does well where it can be supported, however, a lifestyle based upon consumption and a disregard of nature would fail in extreme regions, like desserts with no major rivers or rainforests as large as the Amazon.
These peoples of the Amazons are advanced in their environment, they do not need us to meddle in their affairs telling them they are savages and their way of life in unacceptable. To some they may appear backwards, however, I would like to see them live in the rainforest for a few months and then make such a statement.
The tribe have adapted to their environment brilliantly.
I don't see how their quality of live will be improved by fooling them about how great our civillisation is and letting them move to urban ghetto's where they will become a broken improvrished people.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:25
You better study the topic and find out. I am afraid you aren't using the right definitions.
Nazis, hooligans, al-qaeda and maras are savages. Those Amazonians indians are just tribal peoples that have a simple culture.
Civilization only mean a culture of cities.
If you mean "civilization" is something sacred, or a "more advanced" stage of human development. Think once again. Get informed that after the Holocaust, Hiroshima and the savages of WW II people really has changed its way of thinking about OUR rotten global civilization.
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:33
|
I'd go one step further in that I don't think their culture is simple. IMHO they are one of the most advanced human socities regarding their environment, they have adapted to living in a harsh jungle environment and have a vast knowledge of natures uses which could benefit our modern medicene today. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 18:42
I believe you are right in there.
I mean "simple" in technological terms only, and also in the number of individuals theirs societies have.
As any anthropologist know, tribal people are far from simple in terms of language, legends, cosmology or knowledge. And your example is very true. Most of the civilizations of the Old World, took the earth for theirs own benefit, based in the teachings of Abrahamic religions, because in Genesis was said the man was the head of creation.... so they exploit earth up to exaustion and we are in a real danger of surviving now. At the same time tribal people of the Americas knew since the beginning that the land is "sacred" and that our duty is to protect it, because our very survival depends on it. It ask myself, who knew better. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 20:00
|
I am sure Pinguin will be joing the "superior" natives in the Amazon any day now.
------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 20:42
|
they don't look homo sapien to me or is it the bad quality of the pictures? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 22:22
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 22:34
He won't because he was raised in a urban based tradition just like the most of us here. However, these people have not been raised in that and are far removed from that way of life. I think its highy irresponsible of us to assume this self righteousness. We are in two different realities here. And no they would not necessarily a year from now be sitting and posting on their laptop and in a comfortable revolving office chair in an air conditioned room. Most likely due to their reality they would end up in government subsidized ghettoes as usual what happens to farmers and has happened to tribal groups in the US. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 22:57
Publish your picture, and let's us jugde you. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 22:58
I don't know why you are not able to accept you are wrong. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 23:11
Absolutely.
In any case, if my plane crashed in the Amazon, I preffer to be helped by friendly Indians rather to be left alone to my own skills to survive there. And I agree that the destinity of "contacted" Indians is usually really miserable, at least for the first generation that contact our so called "civilization".
With respect to my origins, I was born in a poor neighbourhood of a large city in our beloved civilization. There I saw crime and poverty since childhood. I progress yes, but it haven't been easy. During my teen and early adult life I lived under a military gorilla dictatorship. Later I enjoy ethnic discrimination in a developed country. I have been part of the rat race and I have seen how people is able to reach the bottom in order to acquire more status. I also have seen that the "image" is more important than the person in our society, and that money is the supreme value. A society where prestige and vice go side by side.
Please don't be hypocrital. Our society is very far from ideal, and don't come with the tale of the developed and poor countries, please. Our society lost its north long time ago. So bad still some people left will have to get integrated to it.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 23:22
I agree. There is no way to escape "civilization" now.
At least they will have TVs pretty soon, where they will enjoy the wonder of civilization like MTV, the sports channels or seen some porn channel that teach them about the values of our society. ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 23:37
|
The benefits or or disadvantages of civilization aside,
What makes the Brazilian government think that these people are truly uncontated? They undoubtably very isolated, but the claim that they have had no contact the the outside world seems unlikley. They could easily have indirect contact through trade with other groups of less isolated indians etc. They could also be members of a known tribe that are simply on an extended hunting trip. Does anybody remember all the claims about the newly discovered "uncontacted" Tasaday tribe that turned out to be a hoax?
And perhaps the Amazonian indians could share with us their values which evidently includes small scale genocidal warfare on each other. I doubt that there are many fundamental differences between us and them. We just express our more base instincts on a larger scale.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 23:47
|
You are right. Indirect contact is likely to had happened already. Now, if you see them shooting at a plane, it is probably because they saw planes before. It is probably somebody else shot them from a plane some time ago, as it used to happens in the 60s, so they actually know the kind of people that fly in planes. As far as I know, there is a single group of uncontacted people kept in isolation the Amazon, and protected by the army.------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2008 at 23:58
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 00:05
|
^
Good point, the fact that they were not in awe of the "chariot of the gods" seems to show prior contact.
In regards to the uncontacted group, The Indian government also protects a very isolated group on one of the Addaman Islands. Lets assume that both groups are truly uncontacted. Would they not be suffering from severe inbreeding? This would impact their ability to survive in the long term as stresses from declining social skills, mental capacity, mental illness etc. multiply. If they are to be saved as a functioning micro society, they may need genetic contact with other less isolated tribes.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 00:42
Our own natives *generally speaking* went from independant and healthy stone age hunter/gathering life to a welfare dependant and self-destructive life. Some communities are doing better than others, let alone differences in individual, so i am talking in very general terms. The shock of moving from stone age to industrial is huge, we had moved on in terms of many centuries and by drip feed trade, that is, mostly by choice as well as by conquest.
These guys only get years to adapt, things that are foreign to them generally kill them before they can make the changes. Disease will kill the majority, alcahol and drugs will screw most of the survivors, they will move to some dirty slum on the outskirts of a nearby town and if they are lucky maybe get a very low paying or no paying rural workhand job. Ironically any employer is most probably using their (or another victim tribes) land in the first place. If the government is rich enough for welfare then the final nail in the coffin is hammered- dependency. Culture , language, land rights and knowledge (think medicine) is lost, no compensation here and who can put a $$ value on that. But any successful indiviual is show cased on how it can work, a mirror of his/hers sponser.
This pattern exist not only in Australia but also in America. So 'civilising' them is certainly going to kill most, screw the rest and deliver profits to foreigners. .
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 01:27
|
Well, in Hispanic America the transition was different, although it happened a lot time earlier. Assimilation was the norm, although suffering was always present.
Unlike what happened in other latitudes, in Latin America there are not clear cut barriers between indigenous and non-indigenous people these days.
With respect of casualties because of illness, they are much exagerated this days, particularly with the help of modern medicine. What it is inevitable, though, is the destruction of the cultures and the migration to the cities what will impact them the most.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 01:33
|
Cultural Ethnocentrism vs Cultural Relativism I am definitely a relativist in this instance. They are not savages, not from their perspective and that's what matters. Analogy: In economic, technological, political and social terms, Islamic countries are decades if not centuries behind the most advanced western countries.The Islamic lifestyle is primitive, intolerant and destructive [from an ethnocentric western perspective]. Therefore legalised porn, promiscuity, McDonald's, homosexual rights and the western concept of democracy should be imposed on Islamic lands (in some of which sorcery is an exercised capital offense!). I can stomach that about as much as I can stomach some of the suggestions as to what should be done with these "primitive savages". It makes me sick. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 01:48
|
What it is interesting in this case, though, is that the "uncontacted" natives are perhaps less than the 0,05% of the Brazilian Indigenous people. For the most part the transition is happening right now or already happen.
Today the Indigenous genetics in Brazil is very large. Many of those Indians and mestizo peoples are counted under the "non-white" label (so many afroamericans believe they are blacks
 ). It has been calculated that at least 1/3 of that country's genetics is Amerindian.------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 04:35
First, Thanks Leo.
Yes I agree. We have been used to this type of life and even then when you move from one type of setting to another you have to get used to it. Albeit that is still a very miniscule change because urbanity has been exposed to almost all factors of the modern urban society through one medium or another. We have an example in the move of farmers to cities in the late 19th though the mid 20th century with many basically creating the "proletariat," the urban poor who have no skills and no way out of it either. To assume that they would have such a great life is asinine. We have large factors of the "civilized' world living off worse than this miniscule group of people. Why? Because they are the poor first off and they are mentally accostumed to an ideal that is unattainable, on the other hand this group does not have the same capitalistic mentality and their system of wealth does not demote them into poverty for not having a mansion or comfortable living. Up to their own standards they are adapted quite well to a harsh enviroment and live quite well. To move them into a ghetto they would live quite bad and have no capability to have the a/c and laptop. Especially in the first one or two generations.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 04:56
|
Well, let's consider the case of those who won't abandon the jungle to go to the cities.
They will have to become farmers and manage theirs resources. In that case the situation all over the Americas is similar. How to "modernize" indigenous peoples without breaking theirs lifestyles or theirs sense of community.
Some indigenous groups have been very sucessful in making the transition. One case like are the Otavalos of Ecuador, that passed from being tribal people to manufacturers of indigenous textiles. For some reason they are born traders so they have managed to suceed in our complex world.
Pictures of them.
    Now, the help of the state is decisive to addopt indigenous people to theirs new situation. Some countries seem to be more concerned than others, though. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 05:23
|
State help, like in the cases Pinguin shows can be positive or by a body like the UN.
And I must say that peoples opinion of the natives is very low. Why on eath are they certain to become alcoholics and ghetto dwellers when they leave savegery? I am sure that they have as many intelligent individuals as any people and as the examples that Pinguin has shown, if given the oppurtunity they can make the best of themselves.
Analogy:
Faulty analogy. They are technologically behind yes. They are not uncivilised. The natives in the jungle; are savages; uncivilised people.
And I am also getting sick. Civilisation is much, much more than free porn, McDonalds, alcohol and ghettos.
When I talk of introducing them to civilisation, I am talking (as I have mentioned a dozen times) about education, medicine, teaching them how to defend their homes from the inevitable threaths from outsiders. Yet some other members seems hell bent on thinking that they should remain the way they are, since they will get alcohol! Or McDonalds! Or free porn! ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 05:39
| Sparten, civilization has its own set of dangers. What gives us (civilization) the right to say our dangers are better? Who are we to decide that they are to live in "civilized" squalor? Civilized society is not immune to disease, quirks of nature, risks from wild animals, and perils from pests. Civilization often lacks education opportunities for all. Why do you see them as condemned to seeing their fathers and brothers taking aim with a bow and arrow? Wouldn't civilizing them condemn them to a worse fate? Their world would be turned upside down and that culture shock would be even worse then leaving them alone. What gives us the right to say that our culture is best and that they should be living in our culture? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 05:53
|
Its not about culture. Its about civilisation. They are not civilised.So such analogys are false. The fact is, contact is made. Soon they will have settlers and loggers after them and they'll have no chance. Much better that the learn the benefits of civilisation and be able to defend themselves and their lands. What you are doing is condeming them. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 06:01
I don't know why you insist to use the racist level of "savage" in here, but anyways. I would answer what it matters.
I don't believe our oppinion of the natives is very low. What is low, though, is the oppinion we have about westerners that will approach those natives to corrupt them, if they got the chance. The rascals that are the bottom of our society will reach them to sale destiled alcohol, and saling cheap goods. Given a change, those brutes (I mean the westerners) will bring prostitution, violence and drugs as well.
Just go to visit at night one of the guettos of your city and you'll realize the kind of people we are.
Of course that can be avoided, but for that it is necesary the compromise of good people that help natives to make the transition in peace, and that teach them how to avoid the rascals. Fortunately, there are many of those good people that has fought and is fighting for the rights and protection of tribal people, sometimes paying theirs efforts with theirs own life.
Perhaps you are "civilized", Spartan, but it this topic I am afraid you are quite ignorant.
If you knew the complexity of the cultural heritage of tribal people you wouldn't talk like that, in a way that gives the impression you are proud of civilization. Post-modern people, like myself, rather than proud are ashamed of that social system called "civilization". Besides, if you visit the bottom of your "civilization" you will realize there is not much to be proud about it.
And I am not talking about easter, southern or western civilizations, but about them all!
Of course it is more. It also includes machine guns, atomic bombs, polution, carpet bombing, HIV and historical cases like the guillotine, autos of faith and roman gladiators.... It also includes an amazing appetite for money, that convert our forest in ashes, our whales in sushi and our oil in polutants!
Perhaps you mean renacensce art and ancient science as well, but that's only entertainment for the powerful that common people hardly see! Or classical music, perhaps, but that also a creation to please a few rich that used to own bonds on slave plantations.
Yes, something good can be done for them if the states and ONGs work with them. There are many good-intended people that is already helping.
What is curious, though, is that those "primitive" people somehow awakes us to the reality that our "civilization" is very far from being a heavens and rather looks more like a hell. Just image a society where the individual is nothing more than a toothed well in an inmense machinery of billion of people. Billions that only worry about alcohol, MacDonalls, football, and new cars! Billions that live accompanied but always alone.
The Biblical myth of the "expulsion of the Paradise" reflects very well the impact of the tribal people that is forced to addopt to "civilization". Sad, isn't?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 06:14
Of course they aren't civilized. They don't live in cities.
They aren't idiots, though. Perhaps the idiots are ourselves that live in cities and pay taxes.
I don't know if you are aware, but the Brazilian army has started to shot loggers and gold miners. At last the Brazilian state is taking the side of the good guys.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 07:07
If the Brazilian Army is doing that, more power to them.
I am from a tribal society myself. So I trust I know a little more about it that you.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 11:54
|
Well, why do western politician's keep referring to the civilised world (themselves) vs their presumably uncivilised adversaries (in the Muslim world). My analogy is not faulty, it's down to perspective because the Islamic world is uncivilised through certain lenses because it doesn't have the 'qualities' of western civilisation that I mentioned. Besides, people like you have no right to impose yourselves on these tribes and if you think you do then you have the same decrepit mentality as British colonialists who felt the same way about Indians. Now you're going to no doubt say that India is a lot better off for having been colonised? Moghul India was the richest state on the planet before it became an udder for colonial milking and would probably have achieved a higher state of civilisation had it not been colonised since it was a thriving international trade hub. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 11:57
Why did you have to repeat it, I read it the first time around... are you playing devil's advocate? Craving a reaction? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 13:20
Correction, Mughal India was bankrupt and out of control with wars, thanks to Aurengzeb. Shah Jahan's time, yes maybe.
By the way, Pakistan ceased to be a part of Mughal India in 1736, when Nadir Shah showed up. Under the Sikhs and Afghans the place prospered even developed Industry, the British wars destroyed all that and all the agriculture, which would not recover till the 1960's. And this place was the Frontier of the Raj, no British ever thought they were civilising this place. Madras, Bengal? Maybe. I don't really care about them.
Ok back to topic. I have never said that they can't live their way of life if they choose, merely that contact with civilisation is inevitable and since contact is usually disasterous for the savage, it is better that they get the benefits as soon as possible. Like Medicine, hygine, education, use of technology to improve their lot, like the way the natives in Pinguins links have done. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 15:03
|
Spartan why should they be "civillised"? they have adapted to their environment and live an advanced form of Jungle dwelling. We could barely survive a month in the Amazon alone, a similar situation would occur by removing them from their homes. In my opinion this is something we should respect, instead of thinking we are superior to them, we should realise that they are sucessful Jungle dwellers who could teach us a thing or two about the world's largest rainforest which we unfortunately are busy destroying!
There is an old Turkic proverb and I think many other cultures have a similar one
"Bülbülü altın kafese koymuşlar illede vatanım demiş"
"They put the Nightingale in a golden cage but it still said, whatever they put me in I want my motherland"
You can put this tribe in the most pretigeous environment of Western civillisation and still they may not be happy as its not their motherland.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 15:42
|
Not many people are ever happy at Harvad. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 15:46
I don't know why you insist in using the racist terminology of "savage". I don't want to call it bigotry, but I am starting to suspect it.
Natives aren't savage. They are innocent people living in the blessing of Mother Earth. Civilized people already drank the poison in the rotten apple. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 16:00
|
There are many definitions of savage and almost all of them are derogatory... sparten, you are exhibiting a classic case of cultural ethnocentricism, though I suspect you know what you're doing so I will play along: At least they don't kidnap people and tape their decapitation - that is more savage than anything these people are. Civility starts at home, I take it you're an ardent lobbyist for the capture and taming of savage Islamist tribes of the middle east and Pakistan? Afterall, their warped concept of existence is a threat to our modern and civil existence... in stark contrast to these reclusive Amazonian tribes. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 16:07
Bah, you can surely find as many scumbags among them as among any other population. It's interesting you accuse people of using the word savage but still buys the 'Noble Savage' myth. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 16:46
|
Suspect whatever you want Pinguin.
A big difference when you are "taming" (a word by the way I never used) a tribe which is busy casuing a ruckus, and when you are introducing with utmost care a people previously steeped in savagery to civilisation (or aspects of it) for their own good, so they can equip themselves for the modern world. Like it or not, civilisation is at their door, and they have zero-point nada chance of survival if they are introduced to it by the business end of an Ak-47, and the germs of the shooter. If they are given vaccinations, have their hygine improved, their children given an education, they have a far better chance of survival eventually. If you think that is racist, well then too bad, better to be racist and them all be alive, then to be "culturally sensitive" and dead. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:07
Absolutely agree. Muslim-centrism is the term?
Even more, I bet those "primitive" people of the Amazon treat theirs women and children with a lot more love than in places like Afganistan. The way those barbarians of Central Asia treat theirs women is really shameful, besides keeping them all day long under a gurka. And what about cutting the hands of robbers? or whipping people in the public square like it happen in Saudi Arabia?
(And I am not mention sex explotation in the west, or capital punishment and torture in our societies! No need to)
Look who is talking about "savages".
Natives of the Amazon could be ignorants -in our terms- but they are more human than many "civilized" people I know.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:20
The reason why some of the violence is not video taped for propaganda terror purposes is because they tribes lack technology, not because all tribal members are inherently opposed to the idea. Leaving a rival's mutilated corpse on a jungle trail while taking his head as a trophy accomplishes the same thing as the video tapes.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:31
I bet your references come from that "excelent" documentary called "Apocalipto"
First, Jibaros were a single group among Amazonian Indians that had that bad manner of cutting heads for using as trophy. I am not concern if you call them specifically "savages", no matter they are reformed by now, but you should be aware that the large majorities of Amazonians weren't Jibaros.
Second, the easy way to kill an enemy in the Amazon is with curare. And the enemy is not even mutilated in the process.
Fights among Indigenous tribes happened, of course. But you should refrain to believe everything is said by bad intended "civilized" people.
------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:34
First of all, "our" civilization is the same as theirs. We have houses, they have them as well. We adapted at regions, they as well. We have weapons, so they have (even if old ones, not in use- still in use to make films. ). Probably they have some form of religion as we have. They have for sure an organized society just as we do, in a different manner perhaps, but still they have it. So why are they savages? Only because they use "technology" that we do not use anymore? Weapons are weapons - can kill. Houses are houses - to live in. So why are they savages and we are not? So for you the whole of Europe was savage during medieval times because Rome before them had aqueducts and other "stuff" that the medieval guy did not have? ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:41
I think they are quite immune to some disease(mithridatism-? some sort of), they are educated in everything they should be, there is no use in knowing about gravity or about Yi-Sun-Sin or that they have HCL in their stomach if they have a good life, which probably they have. And again they are enough adapted to the region to survive as someone already stated. ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2008 at 17:43
My whole point is that savage and civilised are relative concepts... My idea of savage is not these untainted tribes whereas yours seems to be. Well, these people have zero actual and potential effect on my life and I will not express a will of unilateral imposition of what I deem to be proper ways of living on them.
I did use the word taming, because it is a solution to savagery. To this I answer that their habitat should be effectively policed and I am not against the previous idea posited that contact be made by people they may be a little more used to in order that they are warned of certain dangers that they may face. ------------- |