Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

uncontacted tribe in Brazil

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

I'm sure most of you have already seen this, but I find it fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm

I've done a little looking into it, and it seems that the proper term is really "isolated," since most tribes referred to as "uncontacted" have actually had contact with the outside world, but choose to reject it and remain isolated. This raises all sorts of interesing questions though. Are there actually bands of people who are not even aware of the existence of larger civilizations? I haven't found an answer to that question, though every "uncontacted" tribe I've found online seems to have had very limited contact in the past.

The other question is: why have these societies had so little progress over the millenia? For this tribe in the Amazon, I'm sure the local geography is primarily the answer. But, modern isolated tribes notwithstanding, why did the Native Americans have such little development before the arrival of the Europeans? I think a popular answer to this question is a play on the adage "necessity is the mother of invention." Since the Native Americans were spread out over such a huge continent, they never reached a population density where advancements of this sort became truly necessary.

When you think about it, this makes perfect since. Modern science and technology began in the Middle East, where there was so little livable land, that populations probably would become dense rather quickly, thus necessating social and technological progress. And Europe was certainly far more densely populated than pre-Columbian America.

On another note, I find some of the things in the articles about this tribe to be very patronizing. They call for protecting their territory, which is fine. But then they go on to suggest that they should be protected from all contact with the outside world. Anytime you read something from advocates of indigenous rights, it's almost kind of comical how much they look down on them and seem to regard isolated tribes as mere amusements that need to be protected amusements' sake. One article even says that they are threatened with "extinction," as though they were members of a very rare non-human species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find it disturbing that these savage tribes still exist. What are we saving them from? Modern medicine? Industrial processes that would eliminate their need of subsistence farming? Education? Knowledge?

The misguided notions of the noble savage espoused by the granola munching ecoists and media would quickly disappear were they to actually experience what it is like to have a child die from a simple fever, or get gangrene from an insect bite and loose a limb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...they choose to be isolated. Most of them know about the existence of larger civilization but choose not to be a part of it. Would you suggest we kidnap them and force them to live in modern society?

Did they choose? I saw nothing in the article that suggested that these people were ever made aware of the wider world and rejected it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know specifically about this tribe but, based on my internet research, most groups have chosen to remain isolated and do not welcome outsiders. Even so, I would imagine this tribe would react in the same way. You really think that if someone went in there to bring them to modern civilization, that they would just follow him? Nevermind the fact that we have no way of communicating with these people to tell them what luxuries are offered by modern life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know specifically about this tribe but, based on my internet research, most groups have chosen to remain isolated and do not welcome outsiders. Even so, I would imagine this tribe would react in the same way. You really think that if someone went in there to bring them to modern civilization, that they would just follow him? Nevermind the fact that we have no way of communicating with these people to tell them what luxuries are offered by modern life.

But the advocates seem to think that these people should be artificially cut off from the rest of the world. That they should not be allowed to know, or more correctly that we should not be allowed to encroach on their territory and way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I agree. That's a point I addressed in my last paragraph. I completely agree that they shouldn't be intentionally cut off from the outside world. I personally think that some sort of effort should be made to communicate with them and let them know what kind of life modern society offers. They would probably reject it and would also probably be rather hostile to anyone who tries to contact them, but I would definitely support such an effort. I just think that their territory should be protected from encroachment and that they should be free to continue living there, as they would almost certainly choose to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there actually bands of people who are not even aware of the existence of larger civilizations?
No; the closest that you'll get is folks like this who have avoided civilized people fairly successfully, like the Sentinelese. They all see planes and ships, and they do have contact with other savages who pass on rumors.
The other question is: why have these societies had so little progress over the millenia?
They haven't wanted to. They're basically happy living the primitive life, and they haven't been very directly faced with the advantages of shoes and cold beer. I think it is true that most of these primitives are doomed, that when they move to the city, they end up alcoholics, drug-addicts or otherwise miserable, so from their perspective, why should they commit suicide? The basic fact is that they don't see themselves as being in any important way different from jaguars and monkeys, which thrive best in the jungle.
One article even says that they are threatened with "extinction," as though they were members of a very rare non-human species.
That's a pretty common way to look at it. The preservationists make an analogy between "species" and "culture", so what they mean is that their culture is threatened with extinction. It is probably an accurate assessment, but I think that is not the business of government to decide. That was basically the principle behind the SA apartheid regime's Bantustans, that Tswanas would be kept in Bophutatswana, a couple of Sotho clans make us Qwaqwa, and so on. Of course, this particular news event is all about publicity and politics, and I don't know what the real issue is but presumably the intent is to establish a tribal reservation in that location.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The preservationists make an analogy between "species" and "culture", so what they mean is that their culture is threatened with extinction. It is probably an accurate assessment, but I think that is not the business of government to decide.

I'd like to add: So what?

Cultures great and small go "extinct" simply by changing. Colonial American culture is extinct, Roman imperial culture is extinct, Southern slave culture is extinct, German Nazi culture is extinct. But there's more. We don't live the same way we did 20 years go. Life, by which I mean certain aspects of the culture, have changed. We fly more often and more cheaply (in both senses of the word), we watch less TV, there are more movies available, we have cell phones, we have the internet, etc.

Surely some aspects of a cultue are valuable. And when these are lost the entire world can suffer. Consider what happened when Rome collapsed. But mostly no one really notices or cares.

So if the members of a tribal group somewhere in the jungle want to subsist in a semi-savage state, that's their problem. if they don't want to, that's their problem as well. And if some of our leisure classes want to preserve such cultures, let them take pictures, make movies, record languages, document life styles and ceremonies, etc., using their own money and their own time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add: So what?

....

Surely some aspects of a cultue are valuable.

...

So if the members of a tribal group somewhere in the jungle want to subsist in a semi-savage state, that's their problem. if they don't want to, that's their problem as well.

To be concrete, there is considerable scientific value in comparing a wide variety of languages, which relates to understanding the details of human cognition, especially a detailed understanding the difference between "the nature of human cognition" versus "the nature of free will". These guys are of some use because they're providing new and relatively uncontaminated new data. I'd pay them money to let me study their langauge. Problem is, they don't care about pay or my interests; so that's my problem. The paternalist preservationists have in mind subjugating these folks to some amorphous "greater good" which they see as having few signs of mankind, hence they intend to prevent me by force from negotiating with this tribe for language lessons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it disturbing that these savage tribes still exist. What are we saving them from? Modern medicine? Industrial processes that would eliminate their need of subsistence farming? Education? Knowledge?

They might be saving us from ourselves. It's not entirely unrealistic to be concerned with the possibility of a global catastrophe which wipes out industrial civilization. Just as biodiversity offers protection against environmental change, cultural diversity in the form of isolated tribes is an insurance policy for such a scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might be saving us from ourselves. It's not entirely unrealistic to be concerned with the possibility of a global catastrophe which wipes out industrial civilization. Just as biodiversity offers protection against environmental change, cultural diversity in the form of isolated tribes is an insurance policy for such a scenario.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that these tribes could act as a new Adam and Eve, should civilization be wiped out. Is this what you're saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is true that most of these primitives are doomed, that when they move to the city, they end up alcoholics, drug-addicts or otherwise miserable, so from their perspective, why should they commit suicide? The basic fact is that they don't see themselves as being in any important way different from jaguars and monkeys, which thrive best in the jungle.That's a pretty common way to look at it.

That might be true for many members of those tribes but not for all. Primitive cultures are hardly what we would call "free", such tribes are structured by rank and not based on individual rights. Some members - if faced with the choice - would rather choose modern civilization - with all its dangers and possibilities - than to live on in such a tribe. I would be pretty pissed if I found out decades later that I and my tribe was specifically "protected" from outside influence, just in order to preserve the culture of my tribe, basically robbing me of my possibilities I could have achieved.

The preservationists make an analogy between "species" and "culture", so what they mean is that their culture is threatened with extinction. It is probably an accurate assessment, but I think that is not the business of government to decide.

Well, what they want to do is to put them in some sort of zoo for their amusement and as an argument for some of their positions. They argue that that's the natural state of human life and that the rest of the society has to be transformed into a similar state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that these tribes could act as a new Adam and Eve, should civilization be wiped out. Is this what you're saying?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One article even says that they are threatened with "extinction," as though they were members of a very rare non-human species.

_44701421_pixw.jpg

They are non-human, they are... RED PEOPLE! :huh: Or maybe they are.... COMMIES!

Joking aside, I agree they should be left alone if they choose too. And that they are valuable as a source of scientific study. For instance, a lot of these tribes have these folktales and lore, which you might ask "Why are these savage's stories important" well, a lot of them are so old they take into account species that have been extinct for years, like the Giant Sloths and Dire Wolves. These stories can give us insights into how early man lives, and these people live like early man lived. Other things, like mutations and such could be valuable as well. Imagine if a plague began to wipe out much of the human race, except these primitive people were immune because they haven't breed with anyone but themselves for generations upon generations.

There are plenty of reasons why we should just leave these people alone and let them have there property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be true for many members of those tribes but not for all. Primitive cultures are hardly what we would call "free", such tribes are structured by rank and not based on individual rights.
True, except that one right which as far as I know is universally respected amongst the primitives is the right of exit. (I am referring to the actual low-end stone age primitives -- not e.g. the slave-state primitivism of Burma, Mauritania or the Iron Curtain). Within the tribe, they are not being forced to comply, and if Otxiti wants to leave for cooler pastures, I bet he can -- until he hits the government border that requires his to remain primitive.
Well, what they want to do is to put them in some sort of zoo for their amusement and as an argument for some of their positions.
Yeah, that's right. Especially "argument for some of their positions". The fundamental point is to use this as a way of destroying capitalism. One of the well-documented reasons for their actions is that usually, the primitives actually become viable capitalists. My main quibble is that they think, mistakenly, that I actually care whether they use the red paste as face decoration and stick feathers in their hair, so they do all sorts of completely irrelevant and unnecessary things because they are afraid of "offending" me. But whatever. I'd rather have them freely drop the traditional cultural paraphenalia than have then become living, coerced zoo animals as the preservationists have in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

I find it difficult to imagine a scenario whereby every single person in the civilized world is killed. Why would these tribes be necessary to perpetuate the human race when the survivors of the nuclear holocaust could just do it? Survivors would do it much more efficiently since there would be some residual knowledge on topics of science and politics.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to imagine a scenario whereby every single person in the civilized world is killed. Why would these tribes be necessary to perpetuate the human race when the survivors of the nuclear holocaust could just do it? Survivors would do it much more efficiently since there would be some residual knowledge on topics of science and politics.

I'm finding it hard to imagine a tribe that didn't have the drive to expand conquer, thrive and invent could preserve humanity in any really meaningful way.

Perhaps these tribes are just societal anachronisms that should be forced to confront modern society (as it naturally expands) so that the strong/adaptable will survive and thrive.

As for the rest? Who cares, I don't shed any tears for my teenage friends who have wasted their lives on drugs, criminality and sloth why should these savages be insulated from human progress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps these tribes are just societal anachronisms that should be forced to confront modern society...

It's my understanding they would probably just die of disease, including the common cold. That has been a common occurrence when these types of tribes were confronted in the past. Why not just let them be? When/if society grows into their territory, they will be forced to confront it sooner or later anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding they would probably just die of disease, including the common cold. That has been a common occurrence when these types of tribes were confronted in the past.

It could be argued that a visitor that has a cold would be responsible and would have to pay for medical care in such a case.

Why not just let them be? When/if society grows into their territory, they will be forced to confront it sooner or later anyway.

I guess the question is not whether to force them into modern civilization or not but whether to forbid outsiders to make contact or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that it would be hard to pay for their medical care since they would probably refuse modern treatment. (Is there even treatment available for the common cold? Although it doesn't kill us, there is no cure that I'm aware of.) In addition, if the common cold kills all or some of the tribe members, what good is money to the survivors?

Making a law to keep men from making peaceful contact with one another is simply ridiculous. (Although it would be appreciated when it comes to unruly neighbors, I suppose.) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be argued that a visitor that has a cold would be responsible and would have to pay for medical care in such a case.
This is actually the one credible consideration in support of forbidding outsiders from making contact. It is analogous to the problem of a person with a virulent disease such as Ebola or smallpox walking around freely, infecting and killing people right and left, saying "Fine, send me the doctor's bill", especially when the fact of being a carrier of a disease dangerous to some is not self-evident. It is unlikely that a visitor who introduced such a disease could actually be held responsible, since to do so you would have to prove that it was specifically that person who caused the deaths, and that is probably impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding they would probably just die of disease, including the common cold. That has been a common occurrence when these types of tribes were confronted in the past. Why not just let them be? When/if society grows into their territory, they will be forced to confront it sooner or later anyway.

Kelly, that's what I meant when I said "should be forced to confront modern society (as it naturally expands)" **emphasis added. To limit human expansion and utilization of the planet just because some stone age tribe happens to squat on a particular piece of land is nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...