uncontacted tribe in Brazil

[Capitalism Forever]

I was hoping you might substantiate your view by coming up with an eloquent response to the "How long would you last in a jungle?" part. Care to try?

No? Too bad, it might have made me change my mind on you being a liberal progressive...

[Capitalism Forever]

You think they are inferior? You try living in the jungle and lets see how long you last?

Since the tribe is uncontacted, we don't know what exactly their life expectancy is, but it is not a stretch to assume that it's around on par with that of prehistoric cavemen: 20-30 years. Western civilization has allowed men to survive in environments ranging from north of the Arctic Circle to the barren deserts of the U.S. Southwest for lifespans of 80 years and more. If we were to settle the Amazon jungle, we'd build cities there with running water, electricity, and all the amenities modern civilization has made possible, and I am quite confident that we'd enjoy a life expectancy far greater than that of the savages.

[adrock3215]

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.

As it turns out, this whole uncontacted tribe thing was a hoax.

[The Wrath]

No? Too bad, it might have made me change my mind on you being a liberal progressive...

Just now found this post. Not sure what you expect me to say to that. If I were plopped down in the middle of the Amazon, I probably wouldn't last long. Neither would most people who were raised in this country. If that makes me a liberal progressive, so be it.

It is not my life goal to aspire to the label of "Objectivist," nor is it my goal to avoid being labeled with other political tags. If other people want to erroneously label me a religious fundamentalist or a left-wing nutjob, let them. If my views are taken in their totality, no reasonable person with a basic familiarity of political ideology would call me a liberal progressive.

The fact that I think counter-environmentalists are just as fanatical as those they seek to debunk and the fact that I think the word "savage" is a worn relic of the 19th century does not make me a liberal progressive...the "savage" bit, in particular, since hardly anyone (including right-wing psychos like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson) would still use that word. I suspect you would not label them as "liberal progressives."

In conclusion: MAKE LOVE NOT WAR, OMG NO BUSH BLOOD 4 OIL, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, REPUBLICANS ARE NAZIS, FREE PALESTINE, THE ONLY BUSH I TRUST IS MY OWN, CORPORATE GREED, GLOBALIZATION, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, SOCIAL JUSTICE, NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR, FREE MUMIA ABU JAMAL

[Capitalism Forever]

Just now found this post. Not sure what you expect me to say to that.

Perhaps if I give you a couple more weeks, you'll also find my post immediately below it. I was curious if you would come up with something like that on your own in defense of the value of Western civilization against such a specious remark.

the "savage" bit, in particular, since hardly anyone (including right-wing psychos like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson) would still use that word.

It'd be interesting to know why you think Ann Coulter would not use it. I mean, she hasn't been using it, but that is because she does not talk much about people living in tribes in Brazil. She hasn't been using the word "camshaft" either, but that is because car engines are not her area of focus.

I think counter-environmentalists are just as fanatical as those they seek to debunk

Thank you for letting us know that.

[The Wrath]

Perhaps if I give you a couple more weeks, you'll also find my post immediately below it. I was curious if you would come up with something like that on your own in defense of the value of Western civilization against such a specious remark.

I said I thought that Western civilization is superior, and I stand by it. Given the kind of forum this is and the fact that I have now posted here for a number of years, I didn't think it was necessary to go into the reasons why. But, since you insist, here it is:

Cultural relativists will disagree with the notion that there is any objective measure of the value of a society. These people also tend to be very left-wing and, as a consequence, are usually the first ones to support wealth redistribution measures that are meant to provide all people in this country with health care, decent sums of money, access to education, etc., whether they deserve it or not.

If you take the cultural relativists' own criteria for what would make us a more moral society and apply it to primitive tribes, then their argument that there is no objective measure of cultural value becomes self-contradictory. By their own standards, the fact that even the poor in our country exceed primitive tribes in all of these categories makes us a more moral society.

As I am not a cultural relativist, I and people who think like me are perfectly willing to accept criteria like life expectancy, average quality of medical care, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, etc. as reasonable criteria for measuring a society's value. I think these criteria are self-evident if, for no other reason, because not to accept them is to accept the notion that short life-spans and high infant mortality rates are just as good as long-life spans and low infant mortality rates. While there are undoubtedly some people who will argue this, it isn't even worth my time to consider such arguments, because I am concerned solely with whether or not people are able to acheive happiness...and short life-spans are not conducive to happiness.

It'd be interesting to know why you think Ann Coulter would not use it. I mean, she hasn't been using it, but that is because she does not talk much about people living in tribes in Brazil. She hasn't been using the word "camshaft" either, but that is because car engines are not her area of focus.

The point isn't just about Ann Coulter. The point is that you virtually never hear that word anymore, from anyone. If Ann Coulter did say it, she would probably be deliberately trying to offend someone, as she does quite often. The word has fallen into disrepute. Part of that is due to the efforts of cultural relativists, no doubt, but I actually agree with the relativists in this case, even if I don't agree with the reasoning they used to come to that conclusion.

To me, the word is morally laden. I don't think it's fair to call the individual members of these tribes by a name that is morally derrogatory, because I fully admit that, had I been born into their situation, I would probably live just like they do. I don't delude myself into thinking that I would chop down all the nearby trees and give my village enough room to become a technological society. I think "primitive" is a much more accurate word, because it is an objective word that describes their lack of science, technology, and social organization.

Thank you for letting us know that.

Anytime.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Moose

[mrocktor]

The thread is way off topic but the whole thing has finally been proved to be a sham. The tribe is known since 1910 and is not isolated. A political move to gain sympathy for the pressure groups that are trying to transform roughly one third of a state's area into an indian reserve (not subject to Brazillian law) - removing the "invaders": men who have lived and put the land to productive use since the beggining of the last century.

The whole thing is as good an of an anti-mind, anti-man mentality at work as one could imagine.

[The Wrath]

That is a bit of a disappointment, but I still find the topic interesting. Even if they have been known since 1908, it's still fascinating to think about the fact that there are still primitive tribes like this in existence.

[DavidOdden]

Even if they have been known since 1908, it's still fascinating to think about the fact that there are still primitive tribes like this in existence.

There are lots of them in New Guinea, Micronesia, Africa, India, South America, North America.

[JASKN]

North America.

Ahhhhahahaha.