Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Dec 15th, 2017: Passenger pigeon

Recent Images

Dec 14th, 2017: War and Pieced
Dec 13th, 2017: I Ain’t Scared of no Straw
Dec 12th, 2017: Sierra Railway No. 3
Dec 11th, 2017: Halszka
Dec 10th, 2017: Tuturumuri School
Dec 9th, 2017: Stretchers
Dec 8th, 2017: Wounded Warrior

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Clodfobble  Friday May 30 11:38 AM

May 30, 2008: Uncontacted Indigenous People



This story has made the rounds all over a variety of sites. These tribal people are a group living along the border between Brazil and Peru, and are known as an "uncontacted tribe." As in, these people are completely unaware of the existence of millions of other people living modern lives on the planet. With the exception of the occasional airplane they see flying overhead, of course, which they usually shoot a few arrows at just to be sure.



I don't know about you, but that blows my mind, that there are people still so completely (and deliberately) isolated from the rest of humanity. Makes me wonder what's truly humane. If a child were locked in a basement his whole life, but given basic life necessities, it would still likely be called abuse. The director of Survival International, Stephen Corry, had this to say:

"The world needs to wake up to this, and ensure that their territory is protected in accordance with international law. Otherwise, they will soon be made extinct." So this culture of people is considered a separate species now? Are we benevolently protecting their way of life (without their input as to whether they would want that,) or arrogantly treating them like animals?



TheMercenary  Friday May 30 11:40 AM

The rest of the story:
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=17381



xoxoxoBruce  Friday May 30 11:51 AM

Here is the threat.

Quote:
Cattle ranching is the main culprit in deforestation, accounting for some 70%. Amid rising overseas demand for beef, cattle numbers in the Amazon have more than doubled to 57m since 1990.



kerosene  Friday May 30 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
I don't know about you, but that blows my mind, that there are people still so completely (and deliberately) isolated from the rest of humanity. Makes me wonder what's truly humane. If a child were locked in a basement his whole life, but given basic life necessities, it would still likely be called abuse.
Clod, are you suggesting that you think civilization needs to be incorporated into these peoples' way of life? Do you believe that allowing these people to live the way they do is abusive? Maybe you are saying the opposite....?


Clodfobble  Friday May 30 12:16 PM

I don't know. I think it's arrogant to think we know what's best for them, either way. To deliberately refuse to contact them might be just as inappropriate as forcing them to use modern plumbing. Lots of tribes have successfully kept their culture even after encountering people from Western cultures. Some have chosen to incorporate modern things into their lives, some haven't.



kerosene  Friday May 30 12:25 PM

I think you are probably right. For some people, there must be a "I know what's best for them" mentality that takes over, so I guess I figure someone is going to come along and screw things up for them.



xoxoxoBruce  Friday May 30 12:28 PM

But we must make sure everyone, even in the remotest Amazon, has a chance to see Sex in the City.



TheMercenary  Friday May 30 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
I don't know. I think it's arrogant to think we know what's best for them, either way. To deliberately refuse to contact them might be just as inappropriate as forcing them to use modern plumbing. Lots of tribes have successfully kept their culture even after encountering people from Western cultures. Some have chosen to incorporate modern things into their lives, some haven't.
How did that work out for the Aztecs and Mayan cultures?


corydodt  Friday May 30 12:51 PM

millions of modern people? Really? That sure is a lot. :P



corydodt  Friday May 30 12:53 PM

Here's my point of view: they will be contactd, one way or another. Eventually, the modern world will catch up to them, no matter how hard we try. Space on the planet is finite, after all.

Would you rather them learn about the existence of modern man when a bulldozer takes out their lean-tos, or should they have a head start?



Clodfobble  Friday May 30 01:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by corydodt
millions of modern people? Really? That sure is a lot. :P
Well strictly speaking, there are a whole lot of people on the planet whose lives are pretty similar to these tribes. Those are some nice thatched huts they have there!


Sundae  Friday May 30 02:12 PM

I think, given their remote location and the conditions their culture has evolved to live in, they would lose more than they gained by contact.

I have no doubt it will happen at some point, but for the time being ignorance is bliss. Or if not bliss, then at least a continuation of a centuries long way of living, which has at least worked well enough to ensure survival.



TheMercenary  Friday May 30 03:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae Girl View Post
I think, given their remote location and the conditions their culture has evolved to live in, they would lose more than they gained by contact.

I have no doubt it will happen at some point, but for the time being ignorance is bliss. Or if not bliss, then at least a continuation of a centuries long way of living, which has at least worked well enough to ensure survival.
Yea, I mean they have gotten along without anyone for so many years it is beyond me why anyone would think they have to go in there and screw things up for them. Leave them alone.


nephtes  Friday May 30 03:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
Lots of tribes have successfully kept their culture even after encountering people from Western cultures.
Really? I readily admit that it could be my own ignorance, but I can think of lots and lots of counterexamples (virtually everywhere European nations ever colonized, say) and not very many cases of what you're describing.

Mind sharing with the class?


Diaphone Jim  Friday May 30 03:29 PM

I read about these folks in this morning's paper and thought about them for an hour or two, did a little research, including looking back over a book called "Yanomamo, the Fierce People," by Napoleon Chagnon, left over on my shelf from grad studies in 1968.
Then here they are on IOTD!
A couple of thoughts: The threat to the tribes along the Peru-Brazil border comes almost all from Peru. Brazil has done some good things with newly contacted tribes, including a hands off policy.
A quote today from a Brazilian official implementing that policy says it well: "While we are getting arrows in the face, it is fine. When they become well-behaved, they are finished."



lumberjim  Friday May 30 03:54 PM

The Prime Directive

The Sub Prime Directive



Clodfobble  Friday May 30 05:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by nephtes
Really? I readily admit that it could be my own ignorance, but I can think of lots and lots of counterexamples (virtually everywhere European nations ever colonized, say) and not very many cases of what you're describing.
Obviously colonization would overwhelm any tribe, especially since that was usually one of the main goals. Who is colonizing these days? The kind of contact we're talking about is researchers going in to talk to them, to learn their language and their culture. There are hundreds of contacted tribes still in existence today, both alongside these uncontacted ones in Brazil and Peru, as well as all across Africa and Central and South America.

I think deliberately hiding from them and keeping them in isolation lowers them to the level of a scientific experiment. They are humans, and our greatest strength as a species is sharing knowledge with each other. They might have a cure for cancer, for all we know. The policy should be leave them alone if they want to be left alone.


Chinditz  Friday May 30 05:42 PM

Why is there a guy in a gorillasuit in both pictures?



HungLikeJesus  Friday May 30 06:12 PM

Those poor, poor people. They don't even have a Mal-Wart. How much longer can they survive?



Oafed  Friday May 30 07:40 PM

Is it just me or is their skin color VERY red or VERY black? Too bad we don't have some close-ups! We should secretly study them or something



xoxoxoBruce  Friday May 30 11:26 PM

The red ones seem to be the ones shooting arrows at the chopper. I wonder if they color their designated bowmen brightly, like nature puts bright colors on poisonous critters?



DucksNuts  Saturday May 31 07:54 AM

That looks exactly like my sims game!!

Im not convinced its legit



freshnesschronic  Saturday May 31 08:10 AM

I would have no idea what the hell to do concerning this.
Just, wow.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday May 31 01:12 PM

We could test 'em.



Griff  Saturday May 31 02:01 PM

Damn tax evaders.



spudcon  Saturday May 31 06:10 PM

The archers and the guy in the gorilla suit are trying to scare the chopper away from the tribe's big ball of aluminum foil.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday May 31 10:47 PM

That's Frank's foil.



Oafed  Sunday Jun 1 02:10 AM

Nope! Not Frank!

Dude Bruce - that is totally not "Frank". It's some savage chick.




Cicero  Sunday Jun 1 03:21 AM

LJ that must have been one of your best posts eva!!!

lol! That rocked!!!



spudcon  Sunday Jun 1 06:36 AM

Well, whoever or whatever he/she is, he/she's using a hula hoop.



Elspode  Sunday Jun 1 12:54 PM

I think it makes sense to leave these people in their original state. I mean, we want to leave unlogged forests and shit, right? Why not leave a culture that sprang from that hopefully virginal arboreta?

There's a theory that goes something along the lines of "How will we know how shit is supposed to work if we fuck with it before we've learned everything about it?" I think leaving these people relatively unsullied falls under that heading.

Besides, they've now got some bitchin' new tales to tell around the fire about how Og chased off the flying monster with his mighty bow and magickal incantations. I mean, its not like they've got scriptwriters standing by to go on strike like we do...



tombstone  Sunday Jun 1 01:37 PM

Point one: Seems to me all discussions about what is "best" for them are moot, if coming into contact with us is going to kill off 50% of them due to lack of immunity to our diseases.
Point two: Seems to me that showing their pictures and pinpointing their locations--"Here they are! Let them alone!"--is tantamount to screaming "Don't think of feathers!" Doomed, either way.



Imigo Jones  Sunday Jun 1 04:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
The archers and the guy in the gorilla suit are trying to scare the chopper away from the tribe's big ball of aluminum foil.
Maybe the opposite, spudcon.
1. Tribespeople hear "giant silver wasp" approaching and spring into action according to time-proven plan.
2. Hot "savage chick" parades out into a clearing, attracting attention of chopper pilot.
3. Chick removes blouse and brassiere, drawing chopper in.
4. Archers pop out and bring chopper down.
5. Sheet metal and other chopper parts added to big ball.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jun 1 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombstone View Post
snip~ Point two: Seems to me that showing their pictures and pinpointing their locations--"Here they are! Let them alone!"--is tantamount to screaming "Don't think of feathers!" Doomed, either way.
The pictures are necessary to prove to the government they are in fact there, so the government will make laws to protect their turf from loggers and farmers. Also, they are not revealing exactly where this tribe is.


tombstone  Sunday Jun 1 07:02 PM

I wish I could concur. Unfortunately, the Brazilian government took the pictures, and allowed as to how this tribe is on the boarder with Peru and threated with Peru's logging. I can't feel optimistic for them.



Sundae  Sunday Jun 1 07:42 PM

Tombstone has a good point Bruce. Also, given that the governments of both countries have little to no control in the logging areas of the rainforest at present (hence the call for other countries to refuse the import of hardwoods) it seems likely the tribe will be assimilated into generator dependency within the next ten years. How else will they keep their Cocoa-Cola cold?



spudcon  Sunday Jun 1 08:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imigo Jones View Post
Maybe the opposite, spudcon.
1. Tribespeople hear "giant silver wasp" approaching and spring into action according to time-proven plan.
2. Hot "savage chick" parades out into a clearing, attracting attention of chopper pilot.
3. Chick removes blouse and brassiere, drawing chopper in.
4. Archers pop out and bring chopper down.
5. Sheet metal and other chopper parts added to big ball.
I think you may have stumbled onto the truth, Imigo. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world is protecting them, when it's the poachers and land grabbers who need protection!


Easy  Sunday Jun 1 08:48 PM

Clearly the best course of action is to make them into a reality TV show.

Drop a Coke bottle containing a camera into their village and see if they go all "Gods must be crazy".



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jun 1 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae Girl View Post
Tombstone has a good point Bruce. Also, given that the governments of both countries have little to no control in the logging areas of the rainforest at present (hence the call for other countries to refuse the import of hardwoods) it seems likely the tribe will be assimilated into generator dependency within the next ten years. How else will they keep their Cocoa-Cola cold?
It's their only chance. If the governments of Peru and Brazil do nothing, these people are definitely fucked, in the next ten years. The only way they might do something, is making the governments, and the World, aware of these tribes.


Oafed  Monday Jun 2 09:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
The only way they might do something, is making the governments, and the World, aware of these tribes.
Hence the need to get some rangers or seals to go hide a bunch of cameras and turn them into a international reality show!


smoothmoniker  Monday Jun 2 11:15 AM

What's their infant mortality rate? How many of them die of starvation when local food is scarce and traded food is unavailable? How many die of diseases long since cured by modern medicine?

Every one of those deaths are people sacrificed to the idea of cultural purity. What's the preventable death count that we're willing to force on them by refusing contact?

These people aren't a science experiment in post-colonialism white European guilt. The are people, and have a right to shared benefits of human advancement.



spudcon  Monday Jun 2 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
What's their infant mortality rate? How many of them die of starvation when local food is scarce and traded food is unavailable? How many die of diseases long since cured by modern medicine?

Every one of those deaths are people sacrificed to the idea of cultural purity. What's the preventable death count that we're willing to force on them by refusing contact?

These people aren't a science experiment in post-colonialism white European guilt. The are people, and have a right to shared benefits of human advancement.
If you go in there, you'll probably be their food.


HungLikeJesus  Monday Jun 2 11:34 AM

Why should we be obligated to contact them? It's their turn to call.



Clodfobble  Monday Jun 2 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon
If you go in there, you'll probably be their food.
Wait, I thought we were avoiding them for their own good. Now you tell me it's actually for our own good?


Shawnee123  Monday Jun 2 12:01 PM

I say leave them the hell alone. We don't know shit about what's "best" for them. So many people on here sound like we'd be doing them a big damn favor by bestowing ourselves on them.



jinx  Monday Jun 2 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
Every one of those deaths are people sacrificed to the idea of cultural purity. What's the preventable death count that we're willing to force on them by refusing contact?
How many advanced humans slip/fall/die in their showers everyday? Car crashes? Mall shootings?
Maybe these people should come save us!


HungLikeJesus  Monday Jun 2 12:06 PM

Too late. I've already sent that one an e-mail.



smoothmoniker  Monday Jun 2 12:29 PM

I don't understand this kind of reasoning. If someone in this tribe gets cut, and the cut gets a bacterial infection, would that person be better off with or without penicillin? If you think without, then you and I are using a sense of the word "better" that is simply unfathomable to me.

Communication, progress, advancement of knowledge, trade, these are the normal practices of human society, and you'd better have a damn good reason for preventing them. The prevention of them costs lives - not theoretical, notional lives, actual people who die because we did not share with them knowledge that would have saved them.

Why is the act of forced cultural isolation in Myanmar a moral outrage, while in this case it's some higher "enlightened" obligation to withhold from these people the incalculable benefits of participation in human society.



TheMercenary  Monday Jun 2 12:41 PM

Why not just drop a cell phone and ask them all these questions? Oh and lets drop in a few IPods. Steve Jobs wants to control them.



classicman  Monday Jun 2 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus View Post
Why should we be obligated to contact them? It's their turn to call.
For goodness sakes, Just have our people call their people . . .


spudcon  Monday Jun 2 02:45 PM

They will probably live their lives to the fullest, as long as their chief forces them to wear seat belts and helmets. And as long as every member pays the Tribal Witch Doctor General one buffalo for Universal Health Insurance.



Undertoad  Monday Jun 2 11:29 PM

The sooner we contact them, the sooner we can get their money.



SPUCK  Tuesday Jun 3 05:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
They will probably live their lives to the fullest

18 years...


Now I ask. What would they do if they actually stuck an arrow into the tail rotor.. Four tons of aluminum, steel, plastic, cameras, radios, seats, carbon fiber, and 100 gallons of gasoline crashes down on them and ignites in the middle of their village..


Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 08:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUCK View Post
Now I ask. What would they do if they actually stuck an arrow into the tail rotor.. Four tons of aluminum, steel, plastic, cameras, radios, seats, carbon fiber, and 100 gallons of gasoline crashes down on them and ignites in the middle of their village..
They know nothing about that: I wonder what the heck they made of the giant flying bug buzzing above them?

Have we learned nothing from the sleestacks?


DanaC  Tuesday Jun 3 08:59 AM

Quote:
What's their infant mortality rate? How many of them die of starvation when local food is scarce and traded food is unavailable? How many die of diseases long since cured by modern medicine?
How many of them starve in the midst of plenty? How many of them are unable to access medical care that their fellows take for granted? How many of them work in backbreaking poverty to ensure the more powerful of them live in luxury? How many of them face rape and violence on a day-to-day basis due to the breakdown of their social structures?

Not all that the modern world offers is beneficial. What's the infant mortality rate in the Sudan, in Zimbabwe, in Mogadishu? What's the life expectancy in the shanty towns of Rio? How much modern medicine is available in Bangladesh?

Modern civilisation relies upon inequity. The market as we understand it cannot bring the benefits of prosperity to all, there is always a loser. This is the case even in wealthy nations. What's the life expectancy of a black boy in the projects? What's the infant mortality rate in the poorest parts of europe?

They will not be sharing in many of our advances, but for all we know they may not be sharing in some of our less savoury civilised practices either. There was a tribe contacted for the first time about tqwenty years ago (can't recall its name now). They were a collectivist society to a large extent. If there was plenty nobody starved. If there was scarcity, all hurt. Their culture has been fundamentally altered by modern contact. A new elite has become separated off from the rest and a new group of poor who have not succeeded under the new system. They have become fragmented and their young are leaving in droves to do menial work in the nearest cities. They still have only minmal access to modern medicine because of their geographic distance and relative poverty. But they do have t-shirts.


smoothmoniker  Tuesday Jun 3 10:35 AM

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the whole of human society.

I am saying that there are benefits to be gained from connection with the rest of society, benefits that a slight of geography has denied these people. It's incredibly condescending to choose for them, that they ought to be preserved in their present state, without those benefits.

Dana, you're worried that if they are exposed to new ideas, and offered a choice, they might make the wrong choice. You're withholding the option to choose because you have decided that they are better off without the choice.



Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 10:42 AM

Oh for god's sake, next thing you know we'll be hearing from those who need to get in there and shove a bible into these people's hands lest they burn in hell forever for not knowing teh LAWD.

I'm amazed at the arrogance of people who believe we have anything to offer them that they need. They've been existing there for hundreds of years...but let's get in there and show 'em how a can opener works. "Hey y'all, I betcha you get a load of this here can opener you'll want to live just like us."

Sad, really, how egocentric we are.

The people who are colored brightly are thought to have donned the pigment after the first fly-over, after which they were ready when the giant bug thing came back.

Logging is a threat, and that should be looked into. It's not the 2 acre lot behind your McMansion, folks, it's the freaking Amazon forest.



HungLikeJesus  Tuesday Jun 3 10:47 AM

It's just like the aliens that keep visiting our planet. I think we're better off without them.



DanaC  Tuesday Jun 3 10:49 AM

Quote:
Dana, you're worried that if they are exposed to new ideas, and offered a choice, they might make the wrong choice. You're withholding the option to choose because you have decided that they are better off without the choice.
Not at all. I do not believe that they will necessarily be better off having been contacted. Nor do I believe they will necessarily be worse off. I am simply suggesting that it is not a given that entrance into the 'modern world' is an automatically positive step.

In terms of making choices for them. No, I don't believe I know better than them, nor do I believe that they are incapable of making choices. But the choice to reveal the modern world to them is ours and if we exercise it we make a choice on their behalf: we make them aware of our world. If they have not chosen to venture out as explorers and 'discover' this world for themselves, what right have we to take that world to them? What right have we to remove their choice in that regard? Granted they may have made that choice with no knoweldge of what is out here.....what right have we to enforce such knowledge? Once the knowledge is there, it is there.


Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 10:58 AM

Well said, DanaC. Your analogy regarding explorers venturing out makes sense. What some others are speaking of is, to me, imposing ourselves on a culture that we have no right to impose upon. We take away their choice; whether or not we believe it is an un-informed choice is completely irrelevant.

Then again, they'd like some can openers.



DanaC  Tuesday Jun 3 11:08 AM

I can see arguments for and arguments against making contact with these people. Like most questions regarding humanity it isn't an easy one to answer. I don't know whether the best thing is to contact or not. I just know that it isn't as simple as bringing the benefits of civilisation to those who are potentially trapped in a less enjoyable way of life. Sure, they may suffer more in terms of infant bereavement than we do, but they may also suffer significantly less mental illness, depression and social isolation than many of our peoples do.

There is no easy answer to this. They are people, and shouldn't be treated like some beautiful but endangered rhinos. Protection zones to prevent contact? Not so sure of that. Sounds a bit like turning them into a protected species. Actively seeking to contact them? Profoundly dangerous in terms of potential negative effects. We could potentially wipe them out with disease or fracture their society by dint of our very presence.

Or, they could be freed from damaging and frightening superstitions, brought a longer life. Mothers could be freed from the grief of burying half their babies. Injuries would not necessarily cripple but be better healed and less likely to infect with anti-biotic treatments. For all we know they are an unhappy society just waiting for some kind of catalyst for change.....



smoothmoniker  Tuesday Jun 3 11:11 AM

Ok, put away that innate liberal cultural self-loathing for a second, and think about the best, the absolute best that modern society has to offer.

Medicine that can prevent death. Knowledge of how the physical world works. Gender equality (which both history and anthropology have shown us is something developed and chosen, not something indigenous to any culture).

We DO have something to offer them, and they are better things than they currently have. I don't buy the myth of the "noble savage", and this insane idea that all of human advancement has been an ever-increasing regression from the perfect unspoilt natural state.



Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 11:12 AM

Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream. However, this notion only opens up the "let's study and see what we can learn" can of worms.

Best if we had never known of them, I think.

I don't buy the myth that our evolvement is the be-all end-all basket of goodies you make it out to be, moniker.

But kudos on the knee-jerk "damn liberal" argument. That's effective. We have evolved, haven't we? Let me slink away in shame for disagreeing. Yawn.

Nice.



smoothmoniker  Tuesday Jun 3 11:12 AM

Sorry, I didn't see your last post, Dana, before I wrote mine. I was responding to the earlier sentiments.



HungLikeJesus  Tuesday Jun 3 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
...

Medicine that can prevent death. ...
Medicine can't prevent death, just delay it.


Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
Sorry, I didn't see your last post, Dana, before I wrote mine. I was responding to the earlier sentiments.
He was responding to me, lest anyone think he needed to attack someone decidedly not on the diplomatic fence.


Undertoad  Tuesday Jun 3 11:18 AM

In "caveman" times, one's life expectancy would be about 25 years.

By 1850, in modern cultures, if you made it past infancy and childhood, you could expect to see age 45.

Two generations into the industrial revolution, heading into WW2, having achieved refrigeration, telecommunication, and solved many infectious diseases, life expectancy reached 60.

If you were born in 2008 in first/second-world countries, you can expect to see 78. That's 2-3 years longer than it was in 1990.

Do we have it better? Fuck yes we have it better. Do we know more than they do and should we share it? Fuck yes we should, and their grandchildren will thank us for it. Do they want a can opener? Fuck yes they want a can opener. As it is they have to shoot their food with bows and arrows, and smoke it or otherwise preserve so it will remain edible long enough so half the tribe doesn't starve. The utter and obvious "magic" of getting a big serving of non-rotting, nutritious food not covered in bugs would be the best gift anyone could possibly give them. A can opener would solve some of their biggest problems in life. To not give them one, as well as cans, a cheap way to preserve and store food for long periods, is heartless and inhumane.

The advancement of humanity is a wonderful thing. Don't go taking it for granted, and don't say it doesn't mean anything only because all the benefits aren't spread to every single person on the earth. We create problems yes, but we solve two problems for every one we create. To think otherwise would be to usher in a new dark age.



Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 11:20 AM

Amazed at the arrogance here. Just amazed.

Life expectancy of a "caveman" can hardly be compared to the lives of these people who can also have evolved physically, just not in ways we know of. You can't make that assumption.



Ibby  Tuesday Jun 3 11:22 AM

Fucking hell

thank you tony. you said it a hell of a lot better than i could.


I'm for preserving cultural diversity as much as any other bleeding-heart liberal out there, but it isnt OUR job to preserve THEIR culture. It's THEIRS. and it would be cruel and wrong to deprive them the chance to take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer.



HungLikeJesus  Tuesday Jun 3 11:25 AM

The real question is this: Who is happier, they or we*?

Based on a lot of posts I see on the Cellar, I would say that they are.



*them or us?



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Jun 3 11:27 AM

How can they, " take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer", when they have no money? Do we make them slaves or pets?



Ibby  Tuesday Jun 3 11:27 AM

i can see no reason not to give THEM the option of sticking with their current state or changing. I think its pretty fucking arrogant of us to make that decision for them.



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Jun 3 11:31 AM

It's not a fair option without giving them the knowledge of the consequences, also.



DanaC  Tuesday Jun 3 11:34 AM

Quote:
Medicine that can prevent death. Knowledge of how the physical world works. Gender equality (which both history and anthropology have shown us is something developed and chosen, not something indigenous to any culture).
Just because the modern world can offer life-saving medicine does not mean it is available to all who inhabit that world. It is not even available to all who inhabit Brazil and Peru. What on earth makes you think that this group of people will go from having no aspects of the modern world in their lives to having the best that the modern world can offer? That's a huge assumption to make. The risks inherent in wreaking sudden and profound change upon a society are great indeed to be taking on their behalf, based upon an assumption that could well prove false. Are we introducing life-saving medicines and a more fulfilling life, or are we introducing a new conception of poverty and unease?

Noble savage? Doesn't exist and never has. But who's to say they're savages? And for all of our progress how arrogant to say we are better. The city dwellar looks at the rural villager and thinks how strange and uncomfortable to know everybody and have everyone know your business, how strange and how small their world. The villager looks at the city dwellar and thinks how cold to be so anonymous, to have nobody looking out for you, nobody knowing you but your immediate family, no roots beyond your front door. Neither way is more or less civilised than the other and both are very different. We are looking from afar at these people, we only know our own world, how can we possibly know how it compares to theirs. Mathematical formulas of disease and morbidity cannot give us that answer. We don't know what their cultural understanding of the world is, what art they pass from generation to generation.

There is no consensus on the gender question, in the fields of history or anthropology. There are enough anomolies to throw doubt on most theses and there are enough patterns to add weight. We do not know how these people construct gender. It has been constructed differently at different times in different places and cultures have historically had a knack of constructing gender, or allowing enough flexibility in the model, to effectively respond to their needs. Again there are anomalies, most particularly when there are competing needs. If there is a social need for girl babies, but an economic need for boys, we can end up with cultures breaking the fine balance in births that allows them continue.

We don't know anything about these people. There is enough variance amongst the known patterns of development exhibited by 'primitive' cultures that we really can't make too many assumptions.


Undertoad  Tuesday Jun 3 11:46 AM

OK then, modest proposal time. Obviously we can't just preserve them in some sort of aquarium-like Truman Show; they will be contacted somehow, perhaps they will migrate right into civilization;

So, we send an emissary to explain we're from a tribe next door and sorry about those helicopters;

And then, we'll just say, oh hey, we come in peace and all that... we've figured something out that we'd like to tell you about. It's called a yoke. What we did, we figured out that if you put a bar of wood across two animals' shoulders, they can do a third more work. Do you have any inventions that you can share with our tribe?

And if they like the yoke idea, they will share with us one of their things. Maybe they've found a berry that cures headaches, or a secret to relaxation in the nighttime, or the names of particular Gods that they worship. And we will take their idea/invention/thinking and put it on the web, so that we all can share in what they've done.

And then the next day, we share another thing. (Cans, probably.) Until they don't want to share any more.

Fair enough?



DanaC  Tuesday Jun 3 11:51 AM

*chuckles* nice idea.



spudcon  Tuesday Jun 3 01:51 PM

How do any of us know what their culture has knowledge of or not? We've only seen a couple of pictures. Despite all of our previous encounters with primitive civilizations, we definitely do not know about this one. They may have infant mortality rates better than ours.



Clodfobble  Tuesday Jun 3 02:25 PM

That's right, they might. Someone should go ask them about that.



Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 02:28 PM

Yeah.



Shawnee123  Tuesday Jun 3 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123
Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
How do any of us know what their culture has knowledge of or not? We've only seen a couple of pictures. Despite all of our previous encounters with primitive civilizations, we definitely do not know about this one. They may have infant mortality rates better than ours.
Quote:
That's right, they might. Someone should go ask them about that
Yeah.


Sundae  Tuesday Jun 3 03:02 PM

I'd love to know how we could possibly improve their infant mortality rate given their remote location and lack of anything resembling money.

I know that's already been said, but worth reiterating for those who believe that not initiating contact makes us King Herod.



spudcon  Tuesday Jun 3 03:29 PM

I don't know what the answer is, I just think we're presumptuous to think we know about their life spans, medicines etc.



Flint  Tuesday Jun 3 03:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
I don't know about you, but that blows my mind, that there are people still so completely (and deliberately) isolated from the rest of humanity.
This is a departure from the ongoing coversation...but I wonder if it isn't accidental that we've never seen them before, and they aim their arrows at us when we show up.

Maybe their ancestors encountered Europeans, long ago, and barely survived the encounter, only to hide deep, deep within the jungle and teach their children and their children's children: "BE VERY AFRAID OF THE WHITE INVADER. HE WILL ENSLAVE YOU, STEAL YOUR LAND, RAPE YOUR WOMEN, AND YOU WILL DROP DEAD FROM HORRIBLE ILLNESS."

That might be a really convincing precedent for them not to trust outsiders; possibly difficult to overcome long enough to teach them about canned food...


SPUCK  Wednesday Jun 4 05:29 AM

Maybe we could just give them some blankets.







classicman  Wednesday Jun 4 09:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUCK View Post
Maybe we could just give them some blankets.

or a PS3


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Jun 4 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUCK View Post
Maybe we could just give them some blankets.




With smallpox.


TheMercenary  Wednesday Jun 4 11:54 AM

Dude that was so wrong.




SPUCK  Thursday Jun 5 05:52 AM

Bruce got it.



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 10:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream. However, this notion only opens up the "let's study and see what we can learn" can of worms.

No idea of infant mortality? Are you seriously saying they work less and have a better mortality, infant and lifespan, then we have? Do you think for a MOMENT that out of a thousand plus different cultures and tribes they somehow are different and found the fountain of youth and are living in some utopia of perfect health?

Give me back your damn bible. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not a thousand years old, dinosaur bones were not planted by god, magic doesn't work, and Xenu is not the reason you have a bunch of thetans causing the bad in your life.

It is called empirical evidence. I will agree that in history a more civilized country has been defeated by a more barbaric one, but I can not believe you really believe that civilization does not promote a better way of living.

And civilization is not created equal. There are different levels to it. We live better than the those in ramshackle "2nd World" countries. They live better than those in "3rd World" countries, and they live better than those in the mud huts in the middle of deepest Africa.

No, we are not all equal, but those of us at the top live better and those at the bottom are climbing that ladder right behind us.

Arrogance you call it? I call it read your damn history books and understand the meaning of empirical evidence. This is not a question of faith and morality, it is another example of the faithful trying to say, "Quake in the face god for his wrath shall strike down the mighty."

Well fuck your god.


DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 12:00 PM

What the fuck has God got to do with it?



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 5 12:15 PM

Coign is railing against an argument nobody made.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
No idea of infant mortality? Are you seriously saying they work less and have a better mortality, infant and lifespan, then we have? Do you think for a MOMENT that out of a thousand plus different cultures and tribes they somehow are different and found the fountain of youth and are living in some utopia of perfect health?

Give me back your damn bible. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not a thousand years old, dinosaur bones were not planted by god, magic doesn't work, and Xenu is not the reason you have a bunch of thetans causing the bad in your life.

It is called empirical evidence. I will agree that in history a more civilized country has been defeated by a more barbaric one, but I can not believe you really believe that civilization does not promote a better way of living.

And civilization is not created equal. There are different levels to it. We live better than the those in ramshackle "2nd World" countries. They live better than those in "3rd World" countries, and they live better than those in the mud huts in the middle of deepest Africa.

No, we are not all equal, but those of us at the top live better and those at the bottom are climbing that ladder right behind us.

Arrogance you call it? I call it read your damn history books and understand the meaning of empirical evidence. This is not a question of faith and morality, it is another example of the faithful trying to say, "Quake in the face god for his wrath shall strike down the mighty."

Well fuck your god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Coign is railing against an argument nobody made.
lol yeah...who's he talking to? What a maroon...what an ignoranamous.

Hey dickweed, all I said was how do we know what their infant mortality rate is...they're UNCONTACTED.

Did you see this part of my post?
Quote:
Oh for god's sake, next thing you know we'll be hearing from those who need to get in there and shove a bible into these people's hands lest they burn in hell forever for not knowing teh LAWD.
You can fuck my god all you want, but I'm not sure who you'll fuck because I'm not a big believer...but I think it will calm you down a bit! Now pull your pink panties out of your ass and your post out of your tail.

cuckoo cuckoo


DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 12:51 PM

Quote:
Are you seriously saying they work less and have a better mortality, infant and lifespan, then we have?
Work less? On what are you basing your assumption that they work less?


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 12:53 PM

I think he's contacted them. Crap, there goes the whole "uncontacted" mystique.



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 12:57 PM

lol



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:05 PM

My argument is based on you making the assumption that they have better health plan and are overall happier based on NOTHING! That is called faith.

I base my argument that their life would be better by introducing civilization on historical FACTS. That is called science.

That is why I brought a god into it. It is not the American God I specify, or Yahweh, or Xenu, or what ever magical power you think makes them healthier then me. I mention all of them because each one is an example of YOUR type arrogance.

I don't care if you use the term higher power, god, or pixie dust. You making an assumption that contradicts greater empirical evidence means you have FAITH not reasoning to backup your argument.

The work less comment was because I use it as one (and only one) of my goal posts in a happiness measurement. And historically if they are hunter/gathers as these pictures indicate to me then they work a shitload. If you have to work 160 hours a week to feed your tribe you are not spending free time in the pursuit of happiness.

Yet you call those who use reasoning to say that we should contact them and introduce civilization to them arrogant? No we are not arrogant, we are civilized, and realize that magic does not make a person healthy.



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 03:12 PM

Quote:
My argument is based on you making the assumption that they work less, have better health plan, and are overall happier based on NOTHING!. That is called faith.
Mate...what the fuck are you talking about? Who suggested they work less? Who made that assumption? I know I didn't. Nor did I make any assumptions regarding their 'health plan.' Nor did I make the assumption that they are happier. What I did posit is that we cannot make the assumption that their lives are hard, brutish and short with no evidence on which to base such an assumption. We shold not assume that they are unhappier than we are. Nor should we assume that the potential benefits of civilisation would a) automatically render them happier or b) automatically become available to them through being contacted.

You are making huge assumptions about these people and the effects contact would have and then accusing anybody who raises potential problems with that model of acting on blind faith, whilst attributing to them assumptions which they have not made.


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:14 PM

Where the fuck did I make any assumption that "they have better health plan?" Where the fuck did I make any assumption?

All I did was pose that, since we know nothing about them, PERHAPS they have a lower infant mortality rate than we could know. We don't know! How is it, if you're so civilized and advanced, you are still such a neanderthal?

PERHAPS. It's Engrish. Speak it.

Listen fuckwad, you're getting on my last nerve. Use me as your little hopping post for whatever cause you're trying to advance...but try to be accurate about what I said. And don't make assumptions about what I might think of as my faith. You know less about me than you do the forest-dwellars.
Or stick a cock in your mouth, a healthy one please.

Did I remember to say Fuck You? Oh, sorry. Fuck you.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
My argument is based on you making the assumption that they have better health plan and are overall happier based on NOTHING! That is called faith.

I base my argument that their life would be better by introducing civilization on historical FACTS. That is called science.

That is why I brought a god into it. It is not the American God I specify, or Yahweh, or Xenu, or what ever magical power you think makes them healthier then me. I mention all of them because each one is an example of YOUR type arrogance.

I don't care if you use the term higher power, god, or pixie dust. You making an assumption that contradicts greater empirical evidence means you have FAITH not reasoning to backup your argument.

The work less comment was because I use it as one (and only one) of my goal posts in a happiness measurement. And historically if they are hunter/gathers as these pictures indicate to me then they work a shitload. If you have to work 160 hours a week to feed your tribe you are not spending free time in the pursuit of happiness.

Yet you call those who use reasoning to say that we should contact them and introduce civilization to them arrogant? No we are not arrogant, we are civilized, and realize that magic does not make a person healthy.




Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
Mate...what the fuck are you talking about? Who suggested they work less? Who made that assumption? I know I didn't. Nor did I make any assumptions regarding their 'health plan.' Nor did I make the assumption that they are happier. What I did posit is that we cannot make the assumption that their lives are hard, brutish and short with no evidence on which to base such an assumption. We should not assume that they are unhappier than we are. Nor should we assume that the potential benefits of civilization would a) automatically render them happier or b) automatically become available to them through being contacted.

You are making huge assumptions about these people and the effects contact would have and then accusing anybody who raises potential problems with that model of acting on blind faith, whilst attributing to them assumptions which they have not made.
Sorry I was editing my message as you posted this one. I base my assumption that they work more on the FACT that I see them in the picture as a hunter/gather society which in EVERY case meant more work.

My HUGE assumptions is based on thousands of case histories. What are your HUGE assumptions based on?

I assume that to start them on the road to civilization WILL make their life better. Why do you want to keep them working, sick, and ignorant? Because history tells me that is what they are.


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:20 PM

NEITHER OF US MADE ANY ASSUMPTIONS YOU ASSUMPTION MAKING ASSHAT.

What a loser.



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
All I did was expostulate that, since we KNOW nothing about them
What do you know? I mean really know? Even if you drop an apple to the ground do you KNOW it will fall down EVERY time you do it?

This is the basis of the FACT that EVERYTHING is a theory and is the base argument for creationism. Because it is a theory it could be eventually proven wrong. Therefore maybe magic does exist.

I tend to believe that the apple (without any further extenuating circumstances) will fall to the ground. And you know what? I bet you I will be right.

Using what has been shown in the past I am willing to bet these people are hungry, sick, and unhappy. And you know what? Since I believe the apple will hit the ground, I bet you I will be right.


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:23 PM

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, what apple? I'm too stupid to get the apple thing. Do you eat it?

Oh, and HUH?



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
NEITHER OF US MADE ANY ASSUMPTIONS YOU ASSUMPTION MAKING ASSHAT.

What a loser.
You are making the assumption that us contacting them will be bad. I am making the assumption that contacting them will be good.

The rest of it is just us backing up our argument. I use "what we know" as my basis for argument and you use "what you don't know" as the basis for your argument.

Faith vs. Science again at war.


DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 03:25 PM

Quote:
I assume that to start them on the road to civilization WILL make their life better. Why do you want to keep them working, sick, and ignorant? Because history tells me that is what they are.
First off, as I have already said in earlier posts: given their isolation and lack of material wealth the chances of them being able to partake in much that civilisation has to offer are actually quite slim. Secondly, because they are hunter gatherers and therefore have to work a great deal, does not mean they will automatically be happier. They will almost certainly concieve of work differently to the way you or I do as they are operating from a different (in fact profoundly alien) mentalite. Consequently the perceived burden of work will be different. It is unlikely that they will spend eight to ten hours a day doing the same thing every day, that is something they may consider burdensome in the same way I would consider having to find water burdensome.

You are pulling out historical agreement where none exists. It is the nature of historians to argue and find flaws with each others' theses. How detailed are your case studies? Are they from archaeological studies, in which case they are blurred by the lack of detailed records and the vast swathes of blank and unlit terrirtory. Are they from recently observed cultures, in which case the observation is through modern eyes.

We. Do. Not. Know. How. Happy. They. Are.

In what way am I making 'HUGE assumptions' by stating that we do not know enough about these uncontacted people to make assumptions about them?


Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, what apple? I'm too stupid to get the apple thing. Do you eat it?

Oh, and HUH?
Newton's apple? You didn't get the implied physics argument there? How do we know physics will work the same every time?

I'm sorry, were you not taught science in school?

What analogy would you like me to use?


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
You are making the assumption that us contacting them will be bad. I am making the assumption that contacting them will be good.

The rest of it is just us backing up our argument. I tend to you what we know as my basis for argument and you use what you don't know as the basis for your argument.

Faith vs. Science again at war.
Huh? Dude, you're blinding me with science.

You're making the assumption that I made any assumption. What do you not get?

You're also making an assumption that I'm an uneducated moron waving a bible around. You are not actually reading anything you are responding to, just picking out bits and pieces so you can babble on about what a grand scientist you are.

Well Dr Franken-steeeen, you obviously don't know me. I'm the last person to hide behind religion, or anything else.

kthxbai


DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 03:36 PM

Quote:
First `face-to-face' contacts are estimated to lead to the death of between a third and half of the population within the first five years (Hill and Hurtado 1996), sometimes more.
From

The dilemma of contact: voluntary isolation and the impacts of gas exploitation on health and rights in the Kugapakori Nahua Reserve, Peruvian Amazon

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._4_045005.html

Quote:
Most of the women and children had fled into the forest, he said, and those that were left had painted their bodies, taken up arms and appeared to be on a "war footing".

Experts believe that the hostile response is a clear indication that they understand that contact with the outside world spells danger. Across the border in Peru, similar tribes are being driven from their lands by aggressive oil and mining interests and illegal loggers.

Peru's President, Alan Garcia, has openly questioned the existence of uncontacted tribes. Meanwhile, evidence of the destruction of the forest has been piling up down river in the Brazilian state of Acre, where barrels of Peruvian petrol have washed up along with debris from logging operations. "What is happening in this region [of Peru] is a monumental crime against the natural world, the tribes, the fauna, and is further testimony to the complete irrationality with which we, the 'civilised' ones, treat the world," said Mr Meirelles.

After a decades-long political battle, indigenous groups now have their land rights protected under Brazilian law. The London-based charity Survival International is leading calls for Peru to act in accordance with international law and protect the tribes on its territory.

Survival's Fiona Watson, who recently returned from the region, said that Indians fleeing over the border into Brazil could be driven into conflict with uncontacted tribes already living there. "It is clear from this photograph that they want to be left alone," she said.

Encounters with the outside world are typically fatal for these tribes, who have no defences against the common cold and other commonplace diseases. "The groups are often fragments of much larger tribes that were overrun in the past and have died from disease or at the barrel of a gun," said Miss Watson.

The experience of the Akunsu tribe in neighbouring Rondonia, contacted a little over a decade ago, is not unusual. Today, only six members of the tribe survive. All relatives, they cannot marry and the group is expected to die out within a generation.
From the Independant article about the tribe in this thread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...774.html?r=RSS


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 03:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
Newton's apple? You didn't get the implied physics argument there? How do we know physics will work the same every time?

I'm sorry, were you not taught science in school?

What analogy would you like me to use?
Sarcasm. Heard of it?

Here's an analogy you can use:


Newton beat the living fuck out of Coign because Coign was such an unprecedented asshole. This led the way to further research into assholiness and the subsequent smack-down of t-dub wannabe trolls everywhere. Science IS good.


Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Huh? Dude, you're blinding me with science.

You're making the assumption that I made any assumption. What do you not get?

You're also making an assumption that I'm an uneducated moron waving a bible around. You are not actually reading anything you are responding to, just picking out bits and pieces so you can babble on about what a grand scientist you are.

Well Dr Franken-steeeen, you obviously don't know me. I'm the last person to hide behind religion, or anything else.

kthxbai

Have you read any of your own posts in this thread?

Someone says that they have a low mortality rate. You reply that they can't know that.

Why not? Why can't that person know that if he hasn't read and been taught and learned that primitive tribes have lower lifespans and higher mortality rates than a more civilized culture?

Because he hasn't been there? Because he hasn't contacted the tribe? But there have been a hundered tribes discovered before and a hundred times it has been the case. But that past history doesn't mean that he knows what the lifestyle is like about these people?

And I'm sorry you are not making any assumptions. You are just telling him he is wrong.

Isn't that an assumption?

And it isn't the first time you have said, "You can't say that cause you don't know."

Why not?

What gives you the power to say he is wrong?

Do you have ANY basis to point to the fact that he is wrong?


Coign  Thursday Jun 5 03:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Sarcasm. Heard of it?

Here's an analogy you can use:


Newton beat the living fuck out of Coign because Coign was such an unprecedented asshole. This led the way to further research into assholiness and the subsequent smack-down of t-dub wannabe trolls everywhere. Science IS good.
I apologize for calling you a bible-thumper in my original post. I just hate it when people use what they DON'T KNOW as their basis argument.

It smacks of religion and gets me riled up and I tend to lash out a bit harder than I normally would.

Go ahead and call me an asshole. I deserve that. A number of my comments were.

But don't call me wrong unless you KNOW something I don't.


HungLikeJesus  Thursday Jun 5 03:59 PM

Why is it that if the indigenous people are spending their days hunting and fishing, that's work, but if we spend our days hunting and fishing, that's vacation?

Ah, perspective.



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 03:59 PM

Quote:
Why not? Why can't that person know that if he hasn't read and been taught and learned that primitive tribes have lower lifespans and higher mortality rates than a more civilized culture?
Who taught you that ? Are you comparing the health and lifespan of 'primitive' tribes with your average New Yorker, or with a more appropriate group, like the poor farming communities that subsist across much of the world (so called 'third world')?

If you are suggesting that they have a lower lifespan than we do then you may have a point, but what is on offer is not our lifestyle, but a few little forays into modernity. If you are suggesting that the poorest 'modern' community is healthier and longer lived than 'primitive' hunter gatherers then you are wrong.

Compare the health and lifespan of settled subsistence farmers with primitive hunter gatherers and you will almost certainly find that the hunter gatherers are healthier, live longer, are more resistant to disease, work less and have a healthier and more nutritious diet.



Quote:
Though contemporary gatherer-hunters eat more meat than their prehistoric forbears, vegetable foods still constitute the main stay of their diet in tropical and subtropical region (Lee 1968a, Yellen and Lee 1976). Both the Kalahari San and the Hazda of East Africa, where game is more abundant than in the Kalahari, rely on gathering for eighty percent of their sustenance (Tanaka 1980). The !Kung branch of the San search for more than a hundred different kinds of plants (Thomas 1968) and exhibit no nutritional deficiency (Truswell and Hansen 1976). This is similar to the healthful, varied diet of Australian foragers (Fisher 1982, Flood 1983). The overall diet of gatherers is better than that of cultivators, starvation is very rare, and their health status generally superior, with much less chronic disease (Lee and Devore 1968a, Ackerman 1990).
From

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/futureprim.html


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coign View Post
I apologize for calling you a bible-thumper in my original post. I just hate it when people use what they DON'T KNOW as their basis argument.

It smacks of religion and gets me riled up and I tend to lash out a bit harder than I normally would.

Go ahead and call me an asshole. I deserve that. A number of my comments were.

But don't call me wrong unless you KNOW something I don't.

Whatever. T-dub.


classicman  Thursday Jun 5 04:02 PM

Coign meet tw, whats that you are tw? in that case nevermind



classicman  Thursday Jun 5 04:02 PM

lol - great minds think alike



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:04 PM

:hugs:




DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 04:06 PM

Quote:
Because he hasn't been there? Because he hasn't contacted the tribe? But there have been a hundered tribes discovered before and a hundred times it has been the case. But that past history doesn't mean that he knows what the lifestyle is like about these people?
If you check the record of such contact you'll find it mainly went pretty badly for the contacted tribes. On the whole they did not march forward into the white heat of technology....

Also, if you think that anthropology has in any way reached a consensus on most of this stuff you are sadly mistaken. There have been near fist fights and decades long feuds over subtle distinctions of societal development in these tribes. There have also been new generations of observers who have brought wholly different techniques and observations to tribes who we previously thought we understood.


[eta] if you went to a convention of those anthropologists who've documented the first contacts you are talking about and tried to tell them any assumptions could be made on the grounds of what they already knew, you'd be laughed out of the building. Just a thought.


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:08 PM

A hundred, coign? Cite?

I never quoted any actual "statistics" if that's what we can call your arbitrary "hundred." Some science guy.



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 04:19 PM

I am sorry. Maybe I am a little slow. You compare me to and/or say I am President Bush.

Your basis for this is that (I'm assuming here because I don't really understand your insult) you are saying Bush promotes taking things on faith and on the contrary I am trying to promote educating yourself and look at things from a reasoning point of view?

Let me break this down even further to really point out the complete dichotomy of this insult.

Lets say taking things on faith is white and taking things on past scientific basis is black.

You insult me by calling my black attiude is the complete opposite and is white?

Then you pat yourself on the back and give high fives to all your friends for an awesome insult.

You know I can't even be insulted by that. I am just really confused as your elation over your clever retort.

You would have hurt my feelings more if you would have called me a poopy-head.

And since this argument has dissolved down into insults that don't even make slightest sort of sense I bid you good day and will stop posting in this thread.



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 04:22 PM

Hooray!

Actually Coign nobody compared you to Bush.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:22 PM

I said you were President Bush?

You are seriously demented. Don't start anything you can't take. And yes, at the risk of sounding like a troglodyte, you started it.

Take your balls and go home.



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 04:39 PM

Sorry, I said I will quit posting but Dana, unlike Shawnee, is bringing up interesting arguments and ones I can talk about and discuss.

While posting and reading more about this tribe I did come across this article and did want to discuss the ramifications behind it.

Quote:
Brazil's National Indian Foundation believes there may be as many as 68 "uncontacted" groups around Brazil, although only 24 have been officially confirmed.

Anthropologists say almost all of these tribes know about western civilization and have sporadic contact with prospectors, rubber tappers and loggers, but choose to turn their backs on civilization, usually because they have been attacked.

"It's a choice they made to remain isolated or maintain only occasional contacts, but these tribes usually obtain some modern goods through trading with other Indians," said Bernardo Beronde, an anthropologist who works in the region.

Brazilian officials once tried to contact such groups. Now they try to protectively isolate them.

The four tribes monitored by Meirelles include perhaps 500 people who roam over an area of about 1.6 million acres (630,000 hectares).

He said that over the 20 years he has been working in the area, the number of "malocas," or grass-roofed huts, has doubled, suggesting that the policy of isolation is working and that populations are growing.

Remaining isolated, however, gets more complicated by the day.

Loggers are closing in on the Indians' homeland — Brazil's environmental protection agency said Friday it had shut down 28 illegal sawmills in Acre state, where these tribes are located. And logging on the Peruvian border has sent many Indians fleeing into Brazil, Meirelles said.

"On the Brazilian side we don't have logging yet, but I'd like to emphasize the 'yet,'" he said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...OgH_wD9105MUG0

I quoted what I felt was pertinent and will agree with Dana that "past" first encounters have a 50% chance of killing off the tribe.

But I think we are all working from partial knowledge here. Which nation is doing the contacting? Have steps been taken to insure a first contact is not going to wipe them out due to a common cold? (Easily prevented in a controlled situation, don't let sick people make contact.) Is it a nation at all making the contact or is it illegal loggers and undesirables that have no interest in the tribe in the first place?

That I don't know. But I am arguing that you need to make that contact. You need to give those people a choice. Give them as much information as they are willing to listen to.

I am all for letting a civilization turned down society and eventually doom themselves if they choose. But we are not the people to say, "Well they would just be better off without us." I say we can not make that life-altering decision for them.

And lastly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
Also, if you think that anthropology has in any way reached a consensus on most of this stuff you are sadly mistaken. There have been near fist fights and decades long feuds over subtle distinctions of societal development in these tribes. There have also been new generations of observers who have brought wholly different techniques and observations to tribes who we previously thought we understood.
You are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
[eta] if you went to a convention of those anthropologists who've documented the first contacts you are talking about and tried to tell them any assumptions could be made on the grounds of what they already knew, you'd be laughed out of the building. Just a thought.
You are wrong. That is why anthropology is a science and psychiatry is an art. You CAN make assumptions in science. They are called theories and until disproven they are the way the world works. But you call it a theory because science CAN be disproven and no one debates against that.

Psychiatry on the other hand is an art. There are more exceptions than there are rules.

And although I do hate responding to Shawnee, I actually was shooting for a "low" number when I said hundreds. In this modern day, as the article above states, there thought to be as many as 64 currently uncontacted tribes. And my hundreds were to include tribes since we started gathering information on the unknown neighbor over the hill.


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:40 PM

I'm not going to respond to coign, except...poopyhead!



Coign  Thursday Jun 5 04:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Whatever. T-dub.
Well then what the hell is a T-Dub?

I thought it meant The Dubba as in the President Bush. Insults mean nothing if your target does not understand what the hell you are saying.

Or as it was put to me eariler.

SPEAK ENGRISH!


Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 04:44 PM

Poopyhead!



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 04:58 PM

Quote:
You are wrong. That is why anthropology is a science and psychiatry is an art. You CAN make assumptions in science. They are called theories and until disproven they are the way the world works. But you call it a theory because science CAN be disproven and no one debates against that.
Except the assumptions you are talking about don't relate to accepted truths in the scientific world, they relate to highly disputed areas. Anthorpology may be a science but it's a social science. It is not the same as chemistry and impirical evidence is much more difficult to come by for many areas of the field. How do you gather empirical evidence about people's attitude to sex, for example? How do you gather empirical evidence about people's happiness? What evidence you can gather is passed through two human filters: the subject and the observer. Unless you are measuring the raw data of birth rates and disease frequency then you are dealing with an evidence type that is difficult, some would argue impossible, to quantify in as reliable way as one can quantify the dimensions of an atom.

Anthropology and history share many characteristics. There is a good deal of crossover. The use of the word theory in physics may denote a solid assumption. The use of 'theory' in social sciences bears more resemblance to it's use in the humanities. Much less about assumption and more about conjecture and hypothesis.


Coign  Thursday Jun 5 05:19 PM

So let's put this in quantifiable knowns and use a short-term view of the situation.

Do we attempt contact in a controlled friendly manner and attempt to warn or possibly relocate them, or do we allow loggers to decide that they should just shoot them on sight because they are a hostile force in a land they want to illegally log in the middle of a location that does not have a law enforcement?



DanaC  Thursday Jun 5 05:33 PM

According to that article I posted earlier, they are exhibiting behaviours that in geographically close tribes means a 'war footing'. This suggests they are telling us they don't want us to contact them.

As I said earlier in the thread, I do not know if the right answer is to contact them or not. Even in a 'controlled' manner, contact can bring hidden dangers to those contacted. One of the lessons that can be learned from history on this score, is to expect things not to go as planned.



Shawnee123  Thursday Jun 5 05:48 PM

Aha! I get it now. Coign works for the logging industry. I'm really not being facetious.



Aliantha  Thursday Jun 5 06:21 PM

Quote:
I am saying that there are benefits to be gained from connection with the rest of society, benefits that a slight of geography has denied these people. It's incredibly condescending to choose for them, that they ought to be preserved in their present state, without those benefits.
Choosing to contact them is taking away their right to live their life as they see fit. They are a group of people who've learned to live under difficult circumstances. They're obviously able to make important decisions and one of them must be to keep to themselves for whatever reason. They'd only have to travel a few hundred miles to find other civilizations, but they haven't. That's a choice they made as a people. What gives us the right to take away that choice?

Bringing modernism to indigenous people under the guise of 'it's for their own good' or 'they'd be better off' or 'save their heathen souls' even, is not a good enough reason to disturb a culture.

With regard to cultures that've been introduced to modern society there are many who try to hold onto their traditional way of life, but it just doesn't seem to happen. In all cases, once a tribe is contacted by the outside world, their culture is forever tainted. It's like opening pandoras box. Once it's done it's done and you can't close it again.

Haven't we learned by now that indigenous cultures historically do not thank us for bothering them...taking their land...interrupting their lives?


spudcon  Thursday Jun 5 09:00 PM

I think Coign was mistaking everyone else for my post below.(Health care, etc.) I think it was prophetic of me to point out the mindset of those who want to civilize these folks, because they know what's better for the natives. They don't need someone taking care of them, anymore than we need someone telling us what's best for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
They will probably live their lives to the fullest, as long as their chief forces them to wear seat belts and helmets. And as long as every member pays the Tribal Witch Doctor General one buffalo for Universal Health Insurance.
__________________
We laugh at honor but are shocked to find traitors in our midst. -- C.S. Lewis


spudcon  Thursday Jun 5 09:01 PM

P.S. poopyhead.



Cicero  Thursday Jun 5 10:17 PM

They will thank us some day for robbing them of their heritage and stealing all of their valuable resources...oh wait......no.

Really. It's not what we could do for them, it's what they can do for us, isn't it? Is not having that Nike t-shirt really going to kill them, and rob them of everyone else's poor decision to look like an idiot?

They won't be dying in a car accident any time soon....

Imagine the guilt of pulling them out of the jungle only for them to die in a train wreck a month later. Wouldn't you suck then?



spudcon  Thursday Jun 5 10:28 PM

Can't argue with that, Cic.



Undertoad  Friday Jun 6 08:45 AM

Imagine the guilt of not contacting them and having them die of dysentery or simple infection. That's the 99.9999% more likely scenario.

Oh you've written off that guilt for cultural preservation! Good for you.



DanaC  Friday Jun 6 08:48 AM

The record on contacting such tribes suggests that the dangers of wiping them out in a handful of years is higher than the risk of them simply dying out uncontacted. The very fact that they've successfully avoided the modern world without dying out of dyssentry or simple infections suggests that they're doing fine without us.



Undertoad  Friday Jun 6 09:08 AM

I'm noticing that only things that affect the entire tribe are meaningful in these arguments; and if individuals die of dysentery, inevitable where there's lack of clean water supply, or of infection, inevitable without antibiotics, they are irrelevant.



Flint  Friday Jun 6 09:52 AM

And I wonder what their philosophical interpretation of someone dying from dysntery is, considering that if it's as likely as you say it must be (assuming they don't have their own medicinal practices) they might just deal with it as a fact of life. People are born, people die. We're assuming that they are as incapable of dealing with this reality as we are.

You can't assume that they place a value on the chronological span of an individual human life in the same way we do; and you can't say they would be wrong for doing that. You can't apply your own moral constructs as a justification for taking action in order to standardize their SOPs.



smoothmoniker  Friday Jun 6 10:33 AM

The moral weight of a preventable death is in no way contingent on the social group's ability to "deal with it as a fact of life."



Undertoad  Friday Jun 6 10:40 AM

If it's the needs of the tribe that are important, our tribe's need to assimilate them outweighs their tribe's need to preserve their culture.



Coign  Friday Jun 6 10:58 AM

What I don't get is why everyone against contacting them seems to makes the argument that they don't need a Starbucks or Nikes.

I am not talking about introducing an LCD TV and Paris Hilton. I am suggesting we try and teach them about the dangers they face. Let them know that they will most likely not be able to live there forever because loggers are coming and they may not survive that conflict.

Oh and by the way, this technique is called washing and keeping clean. It means you can be healthier.

If Og never shared the wheel with his neighbor because he was looking out for cultural preservation where would we be today? I put by vote behind enlightenment. I would not want a culture that keeps me ignorant.

I try to stop thinking of us all as separate cultures. Human culture conflict is why we have a war in the middle east. (Not the US's war, I am talking between the local tribes already there that the US, for good or for ill, is trying to stamp out.)

Culture is pleasant when it is in a museum, it is bad when you think someone is trying to take it from you and need to kill over it. Or in this case troll over it.

I have traveled to Brazil twice, and once western Europe and once Eastern Europe. I would be just as happy living in most of the places I have been. No two democratic nations have ever gone to war with each other. (Officially anyways. There have been some "topples.")

I repeat, culture is nice when it can be appreciated. It is hell when it is all you are.



Sundae  Friday Jun 6 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
I'm noticing that only things that affect the entire tribe are meaningful in these arguments; and if individuals die of dysentery, inevitable where there's lack of clean water supply, or of infection, inevitable without antibiotics, they are irrelevant.
If individuals are dying of dysentry or infection they they just join the bottom of a very long list of people globally who do so every day. It's likely this tribe has access to cleaner water than the children who scavange for a living on the rubbish heaps of Peru.


Flint  Friday Jun 6 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
The moral weight of a preventable death is in no way contingent on the social group's ability to "deal with it as a fact of life."
This is true...if assuming a philosophical view of death as a "bad" thing. The temptation is to assume that everyone shares your worldview. And worse, if they don't, that you can say their view is "wrong" and yours is "right". I suppose you could say that this you are invoking something immutable; but I could also say "No, you aren't." Then we'd have a disagreement. The resolution to the disagreement isn't to just say you're "right" and I'm "wrong".


spudcon  Friday Jun 6 11:42 AM

If we could drop a hologram in their midst, and speak to them in Og language, and just show them what they're missing without editorializing, then they could make their own decisions. I don't see any of those things happening in the immediate future, so empirical evidence says they're screwed.



jinx  Friday Jun 6 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
I'm noticing that only things that affect the entire tribe are meaningful in these arguments; and if individuals die of dysentery, inevitable where there's lack of clean water supply, or of infection, inevitable without antibiotics, they are irrelevant.
Inevitable? They don't have access to charcoal for their dysentery? No antibiotics at all? What about honey? Carob powder? Garlic?

Isn't it inevitable that half to most will die when they are contacted by foreigners?


smoothmoniker  Friday Jun 6 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
This is true...if assuming a philosophical view of death as a "bad" thing.
If we can't agree that a preventable death is a bad thing, then I'm reasonably certain that we have no meaningful common ground from which to discuss anything of importance.

In which case, OMG, can you BELIEVE that David C won American Idol! LOL


Sundae  Friday Jun 6 12:48 PM

How is it preventable Smooth?



Flint  Friday Jun 6 01:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
If we can't agree that a preventable death is a bad thing, then I'm reasonably certain that we have no meaningful common ground from which to discuss anything of importance.
You're so certain that your position is the correct one that you're not stopping to think about what I'm saying.

Is every preventable death the absolute right thing under every circumstance? Take a minute to ponder that.

What about a life unnaturally prolonged by life support machines or massive doses of toxic medications? What if the person is braindead? Then you have a QUALITY OF LIFE issue.

There is a trade-off to save that life. It isn't 100% right all the time; it isn't beyond discussion.

A "preventable death" means one thing to you, but it opens a big can of philosophical worms. Firstly, you can't prevent death. It's a part of life; there's a death for every birth. This is the natural order. You can DELAY death, but by what means? You will always bring about a set of related consequences.

The question is whether the trade-off is worth it, and you can only answer that question for yourself. You aren't a spokesperson for UNIVERSAL moral constructs.


TheMercenary  Friday Jun 6 02:14 PM




Sundae  Friday Jun 6 02:56 PM

Interestingly, it seems to be the forum's liberals who advocate - or at least suggest - leaving them alone. No-one has yet addressed the issue that they are in a remote location, with no money and nothing viable to trade, so how will the modern world benefit them? Oh of course, they suck off the Government teat. It's odd to hear those with more right wing views than me espouse that. Trouble is, both Brazil & Peru's teats are pretty hard to locate. If they ever had any milk it is long gone. If these people become a citizen of either of these countries they could have a far more dangerous life. And in my mind, that means they are probably - of course I can't say for sure - better off not being contacted.

Where would they end up otherwise - in Peruvian "society"? Unlikely. And this is not a country with a safety net for those at the bottom of the heap. In this "civilisation" people starve, people die, people work 12 hour days. And yes, I donate money to try to help this situation. I'm not impervious to pointless death.

From The Independent in 2006 - credit Johann Hari.
I doubt much has changed.

It's a long article which I found very interesting when I read it last year. I've only included some highlights here but if they interest you I urge you to read the rest.

Quote:
I - The Lives of the Rubbish-Children
Thirty-five miles north of Lima, Peru's dusty, lusty capital city, the rubbish of nine million people is dumped in a vast valley. I stand at its entrance watching the trucks arrive and leave, trying not to breathe in the stench of everyday household waste as it gently rots. A constant black writhe of flies covers every moist surface. Skinny dogs wander around with proprietorial confidence, snarling at fat English strangers. (OK, me.) And the children who live in these great glaciers of rubbish are silently picking through it, as they do all day, every day, searching for something to sell.

"Señor, it is not safe to enter the dump," I am advised. This is, notoriously, where Peru's criminals come when they want to get lost, a no man's land beyond the remit of the police. But on the inside it is strangely silent, as children sift and crawl with stern concentration. My guide wants me to meet Adelina, one of the child workers who lives and toils here. We walk through a maze of rubbish - I try not to look at the bloated black rats I have been warned about - until we come to a space fenced off with large rusting metal sheets and other cobbled-together trash. I bang on the metal and wait. Eventually a sheet is pulled back, and the sound of oinking emerges from behind a little girl.

Adelina is eight but from her small frame it's hard to believe it. She has dried scraps of something around her mouth and a soiled dress that I am later told is her best, the one she dressed up in specially to meet the gringo journalist. I step in, on to a crunchy carpet of rubbish. There are old rubber ducks black with dirt, detergent containers, hair curlers, rotting food, broken bottles coating the floor. The pen is filled with little pigs and geese and chickens, with the "house" - another few steel sheets - at the back.

Her mother is out. She is always out. She leaves at six o'clock in the morning to work in the next dump down - it's too busy here - and doesn't get back until after Adelina is asleep. The child explains that her own job is to peel the bottle labels off and put them in a sack. They, too, can be used. As for her father, he left long ago. "I see him sometimes but he doesn't want me to talk to him." There is no running water here. They have to buy it in expensive barrels from a water man who comes once a week. It stands in the corner, open, with a thick film of dirt and dead insects on its surface. There is no sewage system either. They throw their faeces out in the rubbish, where other children slip in it. I ask her how often she eats. "Twice a day," she says, unconvincingly, adding, "I don't like to eat every much anyway." She quickly changes the subject by trying to pick up a filthy-white goose from her Noah's Ark for me to stroke.

Adelina has never left this rubbish dump. Its walls are the walls of her consciousness. Three children have already died here this year by falling into the trash. Even more have been pricked by hypodermic needles - somebody thinks they were chucked out by the hospital - and cut on broken bottles. The children, it seems, are as disposable as the trash they pick through.

Families began to settle here in the mid-1980s, as they ran from the civil war in the highlands of Peru, where a deranged Maoist insurgency had risen up to create a "pure" Communist state in Peru and the government suppressed it with extreme violence. The poverty-sunk refugees, wandering in search of a livelihood, discovered that there was a market for delving into the rubbish and finding something - anything - to sell on to be recycled. Now the business is highly refined, with every part of a Coke bottle - the lid, the label, and the bottle itself - being stripped into separate piles by gangs of children and sold to different trash dealers. A sack of bottle lids can now fetch the glorious sum of 3p. A few years ago there were complaints about the families living here by the national media. They were considered a "national embarrassment" to Peru, so instead of being dumped in one immense pile, the rubbish is now placed into walled perimeters. The river of trash was dammed, but this dissuaded nobody. The families soon burrowed into these compounds, where I watch them now.

These children are being poisoned every time they breathe in. The dump is next to an informal lead factory, which belches out sickly fumes that are the only relief from the smell of rot. Sport Relief, a British charity, paid for blood tests on a random sample of children here, and found them to have four times the safe amount of lead in their blood. The epidemic of headaches, nosebleeds, fevers and drastic weight loss (from an already low starting point) among the kids suddenly became clear. Sebastiano, an 11-year-old boy I find playing marbles, tells me what this means. Every morning when he wakes up, his throat is burning and his chest is tight. "I just have to wait until it goes away," he says. "I feel angry because I can't play with my friend. You can't do anything until it passes." With that, he picks up his marbles and scampers off.

I see some children stuffing rubbish into a sack, but their father tells me not to speak to them. He doesn't mind, he explains politely, but his wife is around, and she's a crack addict and might stab a stranger talking to her kids.

In their little shack nearby, I find Francisca Rodriguez and Rogelio Marquez - a couple both aged 60 - reminiscing about the good old days when the dump was less crowded. "We are founders of this community," Francisca says. "When we came here [in the 1980s], everything was just rubbish." But those halcyon days are gone. So many people have crowded into the dump, she says, that prices for collected items have been driven down. Francisca and Rogelio worry about providing for the two children they have unofficially "adopted", nine-year-old Tajo, whose mother abandoned him, and 11-year-old Felipe, whose parents died. "I hope we live a few more years to provide for them, because we have no family to take them if we die," she says. At 60, they have already beaten the life expectancy for this rubbish-city.

At the back of their "house" there is a great pile of rotting rubbish that they have selected as valuable - plastic bottles, cardboard, paper. The children flick through some of the celebrity magazines that have been thrown from the rich world into theirs. Before I leave, Francisca excitedly shows me the best things they have found over the years. She brings out a murky set of scales, discarded, most likely, by some old grocer's shop. "We would never sell this," she says. "It is an antique."



jinx  Friday Jun 6 08:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae Girl View Post
Interestingly, it seems to be the forum's liberals who advocate - or at least suggest - leaving them alone. No-one has yet addressed the issue that they are in a remote location, with no money and nothing viable to trade, so how will the modern world benefit them? Oh of course, they suck off the Government teat. It's odd to hear those with more right wing views than me espouse that.
Hey, don't lump me in with the god damn liberal hippy freaks on this board. I'm currently registered republican I'll have you know...



Cicero  Friday Jun 6 09:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx View Post
Hey, don't lump me in with the god damn liberal hippy freaks on this board. I'm currently registered republican I'll have you know...
A "rippy" if, you will...


I don't know who I'm being "lumped" in with, but suffice it to say if I have no party affiliation, no one can claim it for me.

My party does not currently exist.


You should interrupt their lives with modern medicine. They aren't safe!! lol!!! They could die. Ludicrous!

They should contract one of our diseases so we can cure it, for their safety? Is this sound logic? We should cure them of "the bloody flux"? Do they even have that? Do they have the plague? The black death? This is a revisit to the time once again we came to "help savages". They don't know what they are doing until we give them small pox or something. We should give them whiskey too, fuck it. Maybe some narcotics to cure their "savageitis".
:p

They don't look like they've been paying any taxes. Assholes. Put them in jail.


HungLikeJesus  Friday Jun 6 11:51 PM

I wonder if the American Indians are better off since they were "contacted" by Europeans. And what about the Australian Aborigines?



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 7 12:08 AM

Just because "we" haven't contacted them, doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been in contact with neighboring tribes or that they are unaware there are people of different colors/cultures out there. Maybe they don't give a shit.

If they are threatened by loggers, I don't see the value of warning them, warn the damn loggers to leave them alone.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 12:09 AM

They weren't contacted, they were colonized. Nobody has suggested that we do that here. But, if that's the straw man you'd like to set on fire, by all means, go right ahead.



dar512  Saturday Jun 7 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
My party does not currently exist.
Cicero. Cicero. Party of one. Cicero. Your platform is ready.


DanaC  Saturday Jun 7 05:49 AM

Quote:
We should give them whiskey too, fuck it. Maybe some narcotics to cure their "savageitis".
*chuckles* savageitis, i like that.


smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
You're so certain that your position is the correct one that you're not stopping to think about what I'm saying.
Likewise, I'm sure.

Quote:
Is every preventable death the absolute right thing under every circumstance? Take a minute to ponder that.
It is perfectly reasonable to say "Pain is bad" and to also say "Pain, in some circumstances, is preferable to the alternative." My father is recovering from a painful surgery. The pain is bad. The pain is also preferable to the option of not having the surgery, and dying of cancer in 6 months. That doesn't make pain good, or neutral, it places it in a context where its value is outweighed by other competing factors.

Preventable death is bad. There may be some circumstances where it is preferable to the alternative, where competing factors make it morally allowable, or even the morally preferable option.

Quote:
What about a life unnaturally prolonged by life support machines or massive doses of toxic medications? What if the person is braindead? Then you have a QUALITY OF LIFE issue.

There is a trade-off to save that life. It isn't 100% right all the time; it isn't beyond discussion.
While I appreciate the bold, I think you'll find that the discussion in these circumstances centers around whether the competing factors outweigh the inherent "badness" of the preventable death.

The exception is the braindead case, where the discussion is over whether simple organ-sustainment counts as life.

Quote:
A "preventable death" means one thing to you, but it opens a big can of philosophical worms. Firstly, you can't prevent death. It's a part of life; there's a death for every birth. This is the natural order. You can DELAY death, but by what means? You will always bring about a set of related consequences.
Good god, has language lost all purpose? "Preventable Death" means a loss of life that could have been kept from happening. If you'd like to suggest an alternate meaning, please do so. Until then, let's assume that language works by lining up letters in a certain order to indicate a specific idea, like "prevent" or "death".

Quote:
The question is whether the trade-off is worth it, and you can only answer that question for yourself. You aren't a spokesperson for UNIVERSAL moral constructs.
Well, I was, until UNIVERSAL moral constructs started bouncing their checks, and I had to go look for another gig. Damn hippies.

But, like I said, if we can't agree on the bare minimum that preventable death is "A Bad Thing," keeping in mind the clarifications given above, then I think we have no possibility of meaningful conversation about anything else.

Did you hear that Lindsey Lohan slept with Bobby Brown's son? OMG! That Brown family is out to ruin every good thing in hollywood LOL!!!!1!


Flint  Saturday Jun 7 12:22 PM

You like to hear the sound of your keyboard going clickety-clickety-clack, don't you?

Of course, there's nothing pig-headedly arrogant about making decisions you know nothing about for people you know nothing about.



Undertoad  Saturday Jun 7 12:23 PM

Well that response is a fine substitute for thinking.



Flint  Saturday Jun 7 12:27 PM

And going around in completely disconnected circles was getting us...where?

I get his point. He's right because he's right, and his rightness is a rightness that doesn't have to be explained or examined.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 12:38 PM

yes, that's basically exactly what I said. I certainly didn't clarify and defend a substantive idea with direct bearing on the conversation about infant mortality and modern medicine.



Sundae  Saturday Jun 7 12:42 PM

Neither did you explain how people with no money get modern medicine on the borders of countries that can't provide their existing citizens with life saving medicines or clean water.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 01:02 PM

"Ma'am, your babies keep dying because you shit upstream from where you drink."

Just one example of how a modern medical idea might help save lives, without the need for money or evil pharmaceuticals. We can brainstorm some others, if you like.



Sundae  Saturday Jun 7 01:03 PM

Oh sorry. I thought they were uncontacted, not stupid.



jinx  Saturday Jun 7 01:07 PM

If they're that stupid, and their babies keep dying - how is it that they exist at all?



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 01:08 PM

Yeah, it only took 30,000 years of human development, the sharing of ideas from hundreds of cultures, and countless deaths to discover that fecal traces could cause dysentery. Don't assume that it's obvious because its already part of our common understanding of the world. There are still people in the world who discount the connection, and die because of it.

But, this isolated group probably figured it out all on their own. Of course WE DONT KNOW THAT, BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE WITH THEM.



Sundae  Saturday Jun 7 01:16 PM

Animals don't shit where they eat. These people live closer to nature than Europens have for a millennia.

But of course we don't know whether their babies are dying of dysentry, because we're not risking them catching diseases they are not immune to.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 01:31 PM

You realize how much that makes you sound like a game warden?

Clodfobble's initial post is right on target. It is the right of human beings to share in human knowledge - you think they forfeit that right by virtue of their cultural fragility. That's the kind of argument you make about an endangered species, not human beings.



Undertoad  Saturday Jun 7 01:32 PM

We do know. 1 in 4 babies around the world who die, die from lack of clean water. Half the hosiptal beds in the world are occupied by people who drank bad water.



Flint  Saturday Jun 7 01:36 PM

Wherever there is an overwhelming temptation to make assumptions based on cultural perspective...
. . . ...I feel an intellectual obligation to present a devil's advocate.

And besides, haven't you people ever heard of the PRIME DIRECTIVE before ??? . . . Case closed.



jinx  Saturday Jun 7 01:36 PM

Right - their formula - introduced to them by the modern world - is being mixed with dirty water. I doubt these folks baby's face that danger, as nursing babies don't need water.



Flint  Saturday Jun 7 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx View Post
Right - their formula - introduced to them by the modern world - is being mixed with dirty water. I doubt these folks baby's face that danger, as nursing babies don't need water.
Wait, you mean that introducing a people to an alien system they aren't familiar with would leave them unprepared to deal with the consequences?

Preposterous on it's face!


xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 7 01:39 PM

It is also the right of human beings to avoid others, and not be imposed on by anyone. They are perfectly capable of making contact with other people, if they wish.
There is apparently many tribes that don't want to make contact, and some who have, that don't want to again.

Besides, if you bring all them high falutin ideas, how they gonna keep them wimmin in line?



DanaC  Saturday Jun 7 02:00 PM

It's been said already but it's worth repeating: their behaviour appears indicative of a conscious attempt to avoid contact. Why would we take away their conscious decision to remain aloof ? Because we know they know little about us? If only they knew more about us they'd realise how silly they're being?

In that picture they were doing all but setting up the 'Keep Out' signs.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 7 02:38 PM

In their language, red paint and arrows are, a keep out sign.



Flint  Saturday Jun 7 03:08 PM

Man hasn't thrived due to being stronger or fatser than our competitors; our strength is adaptability.

We've been able to adapt to vastly diverse settings, crafting unique skills for each set of challenges.

These people have their own set of adaptations. There's no guarantee that we can introduce any adaptations to them that will be useful to their environment. What we will introduce them to is a new set of things to adapt to.

I can think of alot of examples where the things that a people had to adapt to overwhelmed them; and even the new skills we showed them only served to undermine their existing adaptations to their environment, making them less able to survive.

Our adaptations aren't what they need to survive where they are. They've got that part figured out. All we can do is show them how to be more like us. The unexamined assumption that bothers me is that the more like us you are, the better off you are.



Undertoad  Saturday Jun 7 03:43 PM

Quote:
The unexamined assumption that bothers me is that the more like us you are, the better off you are.
Reg: They bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had. And not just from us! From our fathers, and from our father's fathers.

Loretta: And from our father's father's fathers.

Reg: Yeah.

Loretta: And from our father's father's father's fathers.

Reg: Yeah, all right Stan, don't delay with the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

Revolutionary I: The aqueduct?

Reg: What?

Revolutionary I: The aqueduct.

Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah, they did give us that, ah, that's true, yeah.

Revolutionary II: And the sanitation.

Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.

Reg: Yeah, all right, I'll grant you the aqueduct and sanitation, the two things the Romans have done.

Matthias: And the roads.

Reg: Oh, yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads...

Revolutionary III: Irrigation.

Revolutionary I: Medicine.

Revolutionary IV: Education.

Reg: Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough.

Revolutionary V: And the wine.

All revolutionaries except Reg: Oh, yeah! Right!

Rogers: Yeah! Yeah, that's something we'd really miss Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

Revolutionary VI: Public bathes.

Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

Rogers: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it; they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

All revolutionaries except Reg: Hahaha...all right...

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Revolutionary I: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace! Shut up!


Flint  Saturday Jun 7 03:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
... what have the Romans ever done for us?



jinx  Saturday Jun 7 04:02 PM

I would love for someone to answer the question that SG asked several times already, about how you plan to supply the tribe with all these modern wonders - and why the people living closest to them, who were contacted hundreds of years ago are still going without them.

To me, the original question seemed to be not "do we contact them and give them everything we think they should have" - but "do we contact them by taking what we want (logs) from them and leaving them to suffer the consequence of our meeting".



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 05:59 PM

I don't plan to supply them with anything apart from the knowledge that there is a wider world of human advancement, and they have the right to participate in it.

Once they know that, if they still intend to live in isolation, then I have no problem with that. They're entitled to that privacy, and to the undisturbed continuation of their current way of life. As it stands right now, we're depriving them of the freedom to make that choice. We are insisting that they remain ignorant of the state of modern human society.

I'm not proposing that we do to them, or for them, anything. Maybe that's the point of confusion here.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 06:03 PM

By the way, I'm also opposed to infringing on their territory for commercial logging. I'm not arguing in favor of that. My point is very, very limited. I'm arguing that preserving the culture of an indigenous people by withholding all contact is cruelty, perpetuated by post-colonial guilt and cultural self-loathing on the part of western society.



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday Jun 7 06:21 PM

Show them Oprah, then tell them they can't afford a HD converter. (US joke)

Quote:
I'm not proposing that we do to them, or for them, anything.
And this will prevent unnecessary deaths? Wouldn't that take doing something to them, or are you saying if they make the right choice they can do that themselves?


jinx  Saturday Jun 7 07:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker View Post
My point is very, very limited.
It's also all theory and philosophy and not based on the reality of the situation at all - but you want to make snarky remarks about watching Idol to anyone who disagrees with you. Nice job.



Clodfobble  Saturday Jun 7 07:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx
It's also all theory and philosophy and not based on the reality of the situation at all
Why is a small team of experienced researchers going out to talk to them not a possible reality?


jinx  Saturday Jun 7 08:14 PM

There are a lot of possible realities. The possibility that a small group of researchers will go to talk with them, and offer them all the information, but none of the materials, that they need to catch up with 'us' - is, I think, slim. A fantasy scenario really.



smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 08:17 PM

Yes, by all means, let's limit our discussion to things that can actually be accomplished by a bunch of nerds typing away in an online forum.

Theory and philosophy is all we do here. That and hilarious penis jokes.



DanaC  Saturday Jun 7 08:20 PM

I'm guessing, given the war paint and general 'go away' tone in that photo, that said small group might not be welcomed with open arms.



jinx  Saturday Jun 7 08:22 PM

In that case SM, I think they should be contacted by a small group of Hooters waitresses and Chipendales with a bunch of winning lottery tickets.



Aliantha  Saturday Jun 7 08:23 PM

They might end up dead even. What then? Does the tribe member get charged with murder? It's almost laughable. In fact, I did lol at that thought.

Just leave them alone.



Clodfobble  Saturday Jun 7 09:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
I'm guessing, given the war paint and general 'go away' tone in that photo, that said small group might not be welcomed with open arms.
Are the researchers going to come dressed as large airplanes? Those tribes don't even realize that there are people inside the huge loud flying creature.


smoothmoniker  Saturday Jun 7 09:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
Are the researchers going to come dressed as large airplanes?
That would be awesome.


lumberjim  Saturday Jun 7 10:42 PM

there are a lot of assumptions being made about what these people know. How do you know they haven't communicated with us long ago and decided that we're bad news......a more likely scenario in my mind....

And how can you expect to communicate all the potential benefits and repercussions of their exposure to modern society in a meaningful enough way for their choice to be made clearly and properly. Hubris! They've survived as long as they have in isolation because they know how to. They have the right to their privacy. If they want to meet us, they'd come to us....we're not THAT far away from them.

just because you CAN help someone, doesn't mean they want your help. Don't we have better shit to do, anyway?



Flint  Saturday Jun 7 10:50 PM

We're weighing all the benefits we have to offer on one hand, and on the other: ??? (nothing). We don't know anything about them, so naturally we assume that they need our fancy bullshit. What I'm arguing against is that we have some kind of moral obligation to interfere with them, presumably because they are unable to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, if they have any kind of oral history of contact with Europeans, then I'd say there is about a 99.999999999% chance that they are avoiding us on purpose. . . . And I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass.



Cicero  Sunday Jun 8 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
Are the researchers going to come dressed as large airplanes? Those tribes don't even realize that there are people inside the huge loud flying creature.
Or is that part of the sensationalization of this whole subject? I bet they have heard of these things by only a few degrees of separation. When helipcopters are flying above my house and take photos, I hold my stick high in the air and wave it too. It's called, fuck off, prying modern world.

C'mon guys! The photos are taken out of helicopters and you can see people on them. Someone already said it. They are a rural tribe who get information late, but not that late.

If they are evading loggers and on the run, they want nothing to do with it, and they aren't stupid.

When they want contact with us, we will know it, possibly by the spear in our ribcages.

They have seen and are running from what we do already, because we are scary sob's. It's not because we have "metal monsters". It's because we are destroying their shit and they know we are more sophisticated. They have every good and noble reason not to contact us. I can't say the same for us.

The babies dying are from larger populations in third world countries that have already been colonized (contacted). Which is how you could get a statistic in the first place. We don't have census or stats from the uncontacted. They don't vote, go to our hospitals, or talk to aid workers. So your world stats do not apply to the uncontacted.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jun 22 12:48 PM

.



spudcon  Monday Jun 23 12:08 AM

See, we learned from them long ago. Piercings, tattoos, half naked people, looks like the latest attempt at reviving Woodstock. And you guys called them primitive.



Undertoad  Monday Jun 23 12:21 AM

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

Quote:
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.



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Jun 23 01:14 AM

From UT's Guardian link;

Quote:
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.
The "undiscovered tribe" link is to the original Guardian story, and I don't see undiscovered used in that story. It calls them uncontacted, numerous times.

I was under the impression, from the gitgo, he knew they were there, but took the pictures because the government needed proof, in order to act.


classicman  Tuesday Jun 24 10:19 AM

Just an update -

Quote:
The Not-So-Lost Tribe
by Mike Krumboltz

June 23, 2008 06:09:40 PM

Even in an age when cynical sleuths can hyper-analyze stories for truth and accuracy, the occasional hoax still slips through the cracks. Such was the case with a so-called "lost Amazon tribe."

A few months ago, mainstream news outlets (including, ahem, Yahoo!) reported that a photographer had found a lost tribe of warriors near the Brazilian-Peruvian border. Photos of the tribe backed up his claim.

As it turns out, the story is only half true. The men in the photo are members of a tribe, but it certainly ain't "lost." In fact, as the photographer, José Carlos Meirelles, recently explained, authorities have known about this particular tribe since 1910. The photographer and the agency that released the pictures wanted to make it seem like they were members of a lost tribe in order to call attention to the dangers the logging industry may have on the group.

The photographer recently came clean, and news outlets, perhaps embarrassed at having been taken for a ride, have been slow to pick up the story. Now, the word is starting to spread and articles in the Buzz are picking up steam. Expect a lot more brutal truth in the coming days.



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Jun 24 10:41 AM

Uh, see posts 198 and 199.



classicman  Tuesday Jun 24 11:29 AM

oops & now 200 - oh well



dar512  Monday Jul 7 10:32 AM

They were only lost because the driver was new and refused to stop and ask for directions:
.
.



HungLikeJesus  Monday Jul 7 11:08 AM

Why does that guy in the front have a table leg?



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Jul 7 11:10 AM

It's all he needs.



Shawnee123  Monday Jul 7 11:16 AM

Bunch of those damn supposed "uncontacted" indigenous peoples were wandering around in my back yard yesterday. Damned if I was gonna contact them!



Flint  Monday Jul 7 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
Bunch of those damn supposed "uncontacted" indigenous peoples were wandering around in my back yard yesterday. Damned if I was gonna contact them!
I'd contact their ass, with my boot.


Shawnee123  Monday Jul 7 11:22 AM

And get whacked by King Goolie-Ga-Ga of the Table Leg Gods?



HungLikeJesus  Monday Jul 7 12:14 PM

Field trip!



lookout123  Monday Jul 7 02:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus View Post
Why does that guy in the front have a table leg?
That's actually his penis-gourd.

It is their version of a guy driving a super lifted quad cab truck with a booming system to the office each day.


HungLikeJesus  Tuesday Feb 10 01:49 AM

Amazon Indians accused of cannibalizing farmer

From here:

Quote:
(CNN) -- A city official in the remote Brazilian Amazon village of Envira told CNN that five members of the Kulina tribe are on the run after being accused of murdering, butchering and eating a farmer in a ritual act of cannibalism.

The village's chief of staff, Maronilton da Silva Clementino, said Kulina tribesmen took the life of Ocelio Alves de Carvalho, 19, last week on the outskirts of Envira, which is in the far western part of Brazil that bumps up against Peru.

Portal Amazonia newspaper reported that the Indians escaped after being held for a few hours in the city's police station.
...
According to FUNAI, about 2,500 Kulina live in Brazil's Acre state, which borders with Peru, where 450 Kulina live. This remote jungle corridor is known for its isolated tribes.

The Kulina are classified as an "isolated" tribe but some have contact with the non-indian population.

The Kulina are also known for their complex language. FUNAI studies show that Kulina women speak a completely different language from the men.
...

Things are the same all over.


xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Feb 10 02:06 AM




Scriveyn  Tuesday Feb 10 02:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus View Post
Things are the same all over.
Aye, same over here

Quote:
...five members of the Kulina tribe are on the run after being accused of murdering, butchering and eating a farmer in a ritual act of cannibalism...
Aptly named - or is our word culinary derived from the Indian tribe's name?


monster  Thursday Mar 24 04:29 PM

here's some video footage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12360013



infinite monkey  Thursday Mar 24 04:36 PM

Dude, they have motorcycles? Oh wait. Commercial.

Seriously, why can't we leave those people alone? I'm sure I bitched about it in here somewhere.



monster  Thursday Mar 24 05:17 PM

They had to get footage in order to persuade the logging companies that they existed and needed to be left alone. That's what I understood from the story anyway.



infinite monkey  Thursday Mar 24 06:44 PM

Sorry, I didn't read it. I was just being a smartass.

They are really interesting. I was thinking as I luxuriated (is that a word?) in my bath, that maybe I should go live with them. Wouldn't I be an oddity. Then I thought about what they must eat and stuff, and all the spiders.



Slight  Saturday Mar 26 04:22 AM

Higher res without adverts or William Hurt



Spexxvet  Saturday Mar 26 08:53 AM

A map of where they are, from Slight's link.

http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/where

They obviously saw the plane. Is that considered contact? Do they now worship the giant noisy bird god who doesn't need to flap his wings?



SPUCK  Sunday Mar 27 06:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Do they now worship the giant noisy bird god who doesn't need to flap his wings?
No.. They're in their huts starving to death as they cower from the angry dragon.


infinite monkey  Monday Mar 28 08:36 AM

I think we make a lot of assumptions about uncontacted indigenous people. It's not the episode of Gilligan's Island where the native guy runs amok and Wrong Way Feldman crashes into them.

They probably don't just worship EVERYTHING.



Undertoad  Tuesday Aug 20 10:02 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...cho-piro-tribe

Peru: alarm over appearance of isolated Mashco-Piro tribe

Authorities perplexed as more than 100 members of clan that has almost no contact with outsiders threaten to cross river

Quote:
Members of an indigenous tribe that has long lived in voluntary isolation in Peru's south-eastern Amazon have attempted to make contact with outsiders for a second time since 2011, leading to a tense standoff at a river hamlet.

Authorities are unsure what provoked the three-day encounter but say the Mashco-Piro may be upset by illegal logging in their territory as well as drug smugglers who pass through. Oil and gas exploration also affects the region.

More than 100 members of the Mashco-Piro clan appeared across the Las Piedras river from the remote community of Monte Salvado in the Tambopata region of Madre de Dios state from 24 June said Klaus Quicque, president of the regional Fenamad indigenous federation.

They asked for bananas, rope and machetes from the local Yine people but were dissuaded from crossing the river by Fenamad rangers posted at the settlement, said Quicque, who directed them to a banana patch on their side of the river.



Undertoad  Friday Aug 30 10:22 PM

Video of our heroes and their breasts.




Undertoad  Friday Aug 30 10:25 PM

We scared 'em. They should be scared, they go around the jungle all nekkid.




Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.