3 ms·

> That was the “introduction in the Suruwaha’s symbolic universe of a possible resolution to a problem, in their lives, by means other than those under their co

by hrktb 8y ago

> That was the “introduction in the Suruwaha’s symbolic universe of a possible resolution to a problem, in their lives, by means other than those under their control by traditional practices.” There is the general point about how indegenous tribes are handled. As I understand from the article, they are set as communities that are independant from national and international laws, can keep their traditions and set their own rules. But then there is all the “protection” layer where external influence is also shun, and people need government authorization to live with them. I am confused/bothered as it looks like these tribes are treated like children (“we won’t let people taint you”) and grown ups (“do what you want at your own risks”) at the same time. If they decide of their own rules, why shouldn’t they also decide by themselves what traditions to keep, what not to keep, and how they want to elvolve ?

wodenokoto 8y ago
It's very easy to reconcile the child/adult treatment: If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society. If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights. You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major player internally,but these tribes do not wield power like China does, and would be powerless against Brazilian authorities. A good question, however, is who gets to make that deciSoon to include or exclude these tribes from modern society.
- dullgiulio 8y ago
  The other big question is the role of the individual in these societies. If we are not relativistic about ethics we might think that being born in a society doesn't have to determine the way you live forever. This is a big can of worms. The simpler solution we know of is the Paradox of Tolerance, and regarding tolerance itself as more important than, for example, preserving tradition.
- hrktb 8y ago
  > If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world From what I get, they don't want that. In a sense I am fine with their reclusion, what's bugging me is the enforcement of a status quo in regard to their tradition. Even without external influence, it should evolve, and rules should naturally adapt to their environment. I mean, even their current tradition didn't fall fully formed from the sky, and some of the reasoning behind it is explained clearly (for instance population control). They must have started from a pragmatic point of view to build these traditions, and it seems the thinking process behind these just vanished or got "vanished" by people with an agenda going beyond preserving culture. I am thinking about the mormons, who aren't as secluse, but also think by themselves about what they want to ingest and what they won't embrace. Nobody's there saying "you don't have the right to go see mormons and tell them things, it would disturb them".

by hrktb 8y ago

wodenokoto 8y ago

It's very easy to reconcile the child/adult treatment: If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society. If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights. You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major player internally,but these tribes do not wield power like China does, and would be powerless against Brazilian authorities. A good question, however, is who gets to make that deciSoon to include or exclude these tribes from modern society.

dullgiulio 8y ago
The other big question is the role of the individual in these societies. If we are not relativistic about ethics we might think that being born in a society doesn't have to determine the way you live forever. This is a big can of worms. The simpler solution we know of is the Paradox of Tolerance, and regarding tolerance itself as more important than, for example, preserving tradition.
hrktb 8y ago
> If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world From what I get, they don't want that. In a sense I am fine with their reclusion, what's bugging me is the enforcement of a status quo in regard to their tradition. Even without external influence, it should evolve, and rules should naturally adapt to their environment. I mean, even their current tradition didn't fall fully formed from the sky, and some of the reasoning behind it is explained clearly (for instance population control). They must have started from a pragmatic point of view to build these traditions, and it seems the thinking process behind these just vanished or got "vanished" by people with an agenda going beyond preserving culture. I am thinking about the mormons, who aren't as secluse, but also think by themselves about what they want to ingest and what they won't embrace. Nobody's there saying "you don't have the right to go see mormons and tell them things, it would disturb them".