7 ms·

Mission to find never-contacted Amazon tribe to stop “catastrophic” jungle war

38 points by bkohlmann 8y ago

mutt2016 8y ago
Shake hands. Kill tribe with common cold.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
  The article states the government tries exactly to prevent this from happening since the isolated tribe is about to have contact with a non-isolate tribe: > Anthropologists now fear that, as well as the prospect of both tribes launching deadly attacks on each other, the potential of contact between the Matis and the other, as yet still isolated Korubo tribe, as well as the desire expressed by the breakaway tribe to reestablish contact with their relatives, could lead to a breakout of disease which could bring the ancient tribe to extinction.
jnbiche 8y ago
I don't understand why such uncontacted tribes live outside of national and international laws. If you murder someone, whether from another tribe, or a non-native person, you should be arrested and tried for murder. Why do they get an exception? Serious question -- it seems ethically dubious to me to both refuse to hold them to legal standards, thereby treating them as having the moral awareness of chimpanzees.
- gboudrias 8y ago
  Because they can't be under anyone's jurisdiction if they haven't been contacted? It would be like aliens arresting us for breaking galactic laws when we didn't even know there were aliens. If you're asking why they've never been contacted: we know that doing so would be irreversible, and anything we could learn from observing them would be tainted with our own culture as it inevitably seeps through. Even if this wasn't the case, morality is not universal and we have no basis on which to judge them.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    > People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. > There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
- chillacy 8y ago
  > thereby treating them as having the moral awareness of chimpanzees Is one of your premises that morality is something that has an objective scale and ours is better developed than theirs? Non-agrarian societies around the world tend to have cultures/religions more similar to each other than to ours, in part because it's more advantageous to how they live their lives. As an example: a lot of hunter-gatherer cultures have a way of committing what we'd consider infanticide. Agrarian cultures would tend to frown on that since "all humans have a soul", but the reality of moving around with limited food means that you have to find some way of controlling population. Another example: the way we treat livestock might be appalling to hunter-gatherers since "animals have souls too". But farmers need to raise and slaughter herd animals to survive. > uncontacted tribes live outside of national and international laws Also consider that maybe they have their own laws that you and I are in violation of, who's laws should we follow?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Yes, ours is better developed. (Mine, maybe not yours.) Murdering people is in fact wrong no matter what family you or they grow up in.
    - jmts 8y ago
      Murder is wrong because murder has a specific definition, and the society that we live in has defined that as wrong. A soldier killing a soldier is allowed during wartime (generally). We have judged that differently. There are a number of reasons why you might kill a person. Some are allowed, and some aren't. It is a fact that your society has a law prohibiting civilians committing murder. Whether the killing of a person is "right" or "wrong" by law is a moral judgement - not a fact - depending on who did it, how they did it, when it was done, and how your culture combines those factors. These tribes likely have similar beliefs, they just might be different to yours. Assuming yours is are the 'correct' ones, is arrogant.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        You're over-educated, unable to plainly say you don't believe there is such a thing as morality.
- lurquer 8y ago
  As a practical matter, they are inaccessible. Nobody lives out there. There is nobody to arrest them. The ones that aren't remotely located are assimilated. In short, to View this as a 'zoo' or something similar to Star Trek-Ian Prime Directive stuff (where we observe but don't interfere) isn't entirely accurate: these places where they live cannot be reached... the rainforest is HUGE and difficult to traverse.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
  I say it would be unfair to the tribe members to try them for something that violates our sense of right and wrong. They have never been part of the nation that occupies their territory, did not grow up with its values, never consented to be part of it. It would be like aliens monitoring Earth and trying inhabitants for violating intergalactic space law while none of the inhabitants are even aware they are part of it.
- lanewinfield 8y ago
  If they're uncontacted, why SHOULD they?! Imagine you get into a time machine and go back 10000 years. Do you try them in modern court? I wouldn't think so. I would try thinking of these people as in a time warp. They are uncontacted, after all—they're not murdering Paulistanos, they're murdering others in their time warp.
- narrator 8y ago
  The stone age natives of North Sentinel Island have no resistance to disease and large numbers of them died the last time they had contact with the outside world. Thus, they have adopted the custom of killing anyone who comes on their little island and the Indian government leaves them alone. The alternative to them killing anyone who comes on their island out of curiosity or whatever would be the genocide of their tribe. The Brazillian government is probably going to kill a whole bunch of the tribe they are trying to save by making contact with them simply through the diseases they will bring.
  - empath75 8y ago
    I suspect that most of these uncontacted tribes are remnants of ancient Amazonian civilizations who were already wiped out by contact with Europeans, so they probably have more resistance than you would expect.
  - KMag 8y ago
    Do you have any citation for large numbers of North Sentinelese dying from disease due to contact? It's certainly a valid fear, but I'm not sure it has ever occurred. I'm aware that an old couple and four children were kidnapped by the British Navy in the 19th century and the old couple quickly became ill and died. The children were returned to the island.
    - narrator 8y ago
      https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/sentinelese https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/sentinelese
      - KMag 8y ago
        This citation admits that it's pure conjecture how many North Sentinelese died due to outside diseases. Neighboring tribes on neighboring islands suffered heavy losses, but you specifically claimed that large numbers of natives of North Sentinel Island died. As far as I can tell, it's highly speculative third-order conjecture that (1) large numbers of them died due to diseases acquired through contact (2) they have a belief that quarantine will protect them (likely despite not having a germ theory of disease) and (3) this is their reasoning for killing outsiders. Medieval Europe was significantly more advanced, and they had all kinds of strange ideas about the cause of diseases and plagues that prevented them from mounting effective quarantines. We can't expect them to have the same feelings we do about killing outsiders, and I think it's a stretch to project our understanding and values on them and then to back out a reasonable Western-style justification for their actions. I think it's much better to admit that we know very little about their system of moral reasoning and give them the benefit of the doubt that their killing of outsiders under the specific circumstances they found themselves in is moral within their moral framework.
- randomcommentt 8y ago
  > As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    Your analogy seems more like an argument against moral relativism that for it. Specifically, if murder is always wrong, then your hypothetical aliens are committing a moral transgression. If moral relativism is all we have, then it should be fine to destroy us and our planet by their own standards.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Moral relativism is simply accepting that there's no value system that is rooted in immutable laws of nature - it's all cultural. It doesn't mean that you can't prefer one value system to the other, and make judgments accordingly.
- trentlott 8y ago
  How and why are nations established? Do they not get to have their own territory, or do they have less right to sovereignty than the US or Argentina?
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  In some USA states, a punishment for murder is execution. In some other jurisdictions, execution itself is murder. The question is whose legal standards. They will have their own law, in their own jurisdiction. Human communities spontaneously develop language, trade and law. You can even verify this in the microcosm of your own communities, with jargon and customs. And how does their "catastrophic" war compare to the wars of "civilization"?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > And how does their "catastrophic" war compare to the wars of "civilization"? In terms of deaths per capita, many small hunter-gatherer societies are more violent than our worst wars. It just doesn't look quite so horrifying because the societies themselves are so small, the absolute numbers to us don't even rise to the level of "war". On top of that, the conflict tends to be more of a constant state of affairs that's always in the background, rather than lengthy periods of peace interrupted by an explosion of violence.
jmts 8y ago
The dynamics of this situation are weird. Leave them uncontacted for however long out of principle, monitor them from above, commit to preserving their culture, but then intervene and try to manufacture a truce between tribes (thereby interfering with their culture) because we want to keep them around. "Hey guys, uh, you know, we were pretty happy to just let you do whatever, but we've been watching you for a while and you've started taking risks. We're not real fond of risks. Would you prefer not taking risks for us please? It would make us feel much better about letting you do whatever you like if you didn't take any risks."
- caiobegotti 8y ago
  The prime directive lover in me tends to agree with such logic (I am also a brazilian born/raised in the Amazon) but try to extrapolate that scenario to some extraterrestrial "overlords" telling us the same thing in a pre-nuclear winter situation. I would rather stick to their plan than risk my own ass. Of course, I know, that's a reductio ad absurdum type of argument but still...
  - jmts 8y ago
    Ironically, I wouldn't mind if aliens came down and told us we were being stupid some time soon... We would still have to listen, however.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      Would we? If we're foolish enough to get to the point of self-destruction in the first place...
    - exoesquitur 8y ago
      I feel like they are late....
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Right. We're treating them like zoo animals. What kind of existence is that?
jmts 8y ago
Which nation should they belong to? They likely consider themselves to be their own 'nation', and have for a long time. Simply because Brazil is now a thing, does not necessarily mean that Brazil should own these people and that these people should consider themselves to be a part of Brazil and be subject to its laws. There are arguments either way. You assume that these people have no 'law' of their own. Though I cannot say either, it is entirely possible that distinguish between the ways a person is killed and they are punished accordingly. Simply because it is not your law doesn't mean they don't have their own. The article states these tribes are rivals. They may consider themselves at war. Soldiers are not tried for killing other soldiers (within reason) in wartime, so why should rival tribesmen be tried for killing other tribesmen when they are at war?
- nl 8y ago
  Well the logic is that just choosing not to be part of a country is insufficient. Otherwise separatist movements would be extremely successful.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    A separatist movement that predates the state?
  - Retric 8y ago
    I can draw a map and say this is my country. But, if I don’t ever mention it to the people living there then de facto that land is not part of my country.
    - frutiger 8y ago
      You also need to convince an army to agree with you.
  - delinka 8y ago
    “Choosing not” and “not choosing (by being unaware that some outside entity has claimed your region as its subject)” are not the same.
gregwebs 8y ago
If you find this story intriguing, the book "Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamo Shaman's Story" is an amazing journey into a similar culture of cyclical violence between neighboring tribes.
new_guy 8y ago
This is a horribly cynical interpretation but the new Brazilian President has said he wants to open the Amazon to logging and he doesn't care much about the indigenous people[0] Of course if he tries anything the international community etc will protest, but if this 'rescue mission' (read: death squad with plausible deniability) can't stop the 'catastrophic jungle war' in time then the tribes kill each other off, there's no outcry and the logging begins. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes-brazil-genocide-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes...
- soneca 8y ago
  These tribes of dozens of individuals are not what prevents logging for happening. The mission will use boats and an helicopter on a long trip just to reach the place. What would be the economic viability to estabilish a commercial operation there? The indigenous people that prevents some of the logging in some places are much larger ones with total contact with the rest of society for centuries that live in much more accessible areas
  - new_guy 8y ago
    It's not without historical precedent. Look at the Congo under King Leopold for one example. Everyone is in the accessible areas, not as many in the harder to reach places that makes it extremely economically viable for them to set up shop there. Like I said it's a cynical interpretation and I hope I'm wrong, but this is literally history repeating itself.
aaron695 8y ago
"The Matis, known as the ‘cat people’ because of the ‘whiskers’ they attach to their faces, are notoriously violent but instead of clubs use bows and arrows or long blowguns with poisoned-tipped darts to kill their enemies." "The Korubo are also known as the ‘clubber Indians’ because of the shoulder-height wooden clubs they use for killing their enemies by breaking open their skulls." These are horrific human beings on par with ISIS, but we find them quaint as our little pets in a zoo to be watched and studied. Hunter Gatherers are humanity at its absolute worse, they deserve the chance to move on with civilization. These zoos are what future people will judge us for.

38 points by bkohlmann 8y ago

mutt2016 8y ago

Shake hands. Kill tribe with common cold.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
The article states the government tries exactly to prevent this from happening since the isolated tribe is about to have contact with a non-isolate tribe: > Anthropologists now fear that, as well as the prospect of both tribes launching deadly attacks on each other, the potential of contact between the Matis and the other, as yet still isolated Korubo tribe, as well as the desire expressed by the breakaway tribe to reestablish contact with their relatives, could lead to a breakout of disease which could bring the ancient tribe to extinction.

jnbiche 8y ago

I don't understand why such uncontacted tribes live outside of national and international laws. If you murder someone, whether from another tribe, or a non-native person, you should be arrested and tried for murder. Why do they get an exception? Serious question -- it seems ethically dubious to me to both refuse to hold them to legal standards, thereby treating them as having the moral awareness of chimpanzees.

gboudrias 8y ago
Because they can't be under anyone's jurisdiction if they haven't been contacted? It would be like aliens arresting us for breaking galactic laws when we didn't even know there were aliens. If you're asking why they've never been contacted: we know that doing so would be irreversible, and anything we could learn from observing them would be tainted with our own culture as it inevitably seeps through. Even if this wasn't the case, morality is not universal and we have no basis on which to judge them.
- chillacy 8y ago
  > People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. > There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
chillacy 8y ago
> thereby treating them as having the moral awareness of chimpanzees Is one of your premises that morality is something that has an objective scale and ours is better developed than theirs? Non-agrarian societies around the world tend to have cultures/religions more similar to each other than to ours, in part because it's more advantageous to how they live their lives. As an example: a lot of hunter-gatherer cultures have a way of committing what we'd consider infanticide. Agrarian cultures would tend to frown on that since "all humans have a soul", but the reality of moving around with limited food means that you have to find some way of controlling population. Another example: the way we treat livestock might be appalling to hunter-gatherers since "animals have souls too". But farmers need to raise and slaughter herd animals to survive. > uncontacted tribes live outside of national and international laws Also consider that maybe they have their own laws that you and I are in violation of, who's laws should we follow?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Yes, ours is better developed. (Mine, maybe not yours.) Murdering people is in fact wrong no matter what family you or they grow up in.
  - jmts 8y ago
    Murder is wrong because murder has a specific definition, and the society that we live in has defined that as wrong. A soldier killing a soldier is allowed during wartime (generally). We have judged that differently. There are a number of reasons why you might kill a person. Some are allowed, and some aren't. It is a fact that your society has a law prohibiting civilians committing murder. Whether the killing of a person is "right" or "wrong" by law is a moral judgement - not a fact - depending on who did it, how they did it, when it was done, and how your culture combines those factors. These tribes likely have similar beliefs, they just might be different to yours. Assuming yours is are the 'correct' ones, is arrogant.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      You're over-educated, unable to plainly say you don't believe there is such a thing as morality.
lurquer 8y ago
As a practical matter, they are inaccessible. Nobody lives out there. There is nobody to arrest them. The ones that aren't remotely located are assimilated. In short, to View this as a 'zoo' or something similar to Star Trek-Ian Prime Directive stuff (where we observe but don't interfere) isn't entirely accurate: these places where they live cannot be reached... the rainforest is HUGE and difficult to traverse.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
I say it would be unfair to the tribe members to try them for something that violates our sense of right and wrong. They have never been part of the nation that occupies their territory, did not grow up with its values, never consented to be part of it. It would be like aliens monitoring Earth and trying inhabitants for violating intergalactic space law while none of the inhabitants are even aware they are part of it.
lanewinfield 8y ago
If they're uncontacted, why SHOULD they?! Imagine you get into a time machine and go back 10000 years. Do you try them in modern court? I wouldn't think so. I would try thinking of these people as in a time warp. They are uncontacted, after all—they're not murdering Paulistanos, they're murdering others in their time warp.
narrator 8y ago
The stone age natives of North Sentinel Island have no resistance to disease and large numbers of them died the last time they had contact with the outside world. Thus, they have adopted the custom of killing anyone who comes on their little island and the Indian government leaves them alone. The alternative to them killing anyone who comes on their island out of curiosity or whatever would be the genocide of their tribe. The Brazillian government is probably going to kill a whole bunch of the tribe they are trying to save by making contact with them simply through the diseases they will bring.
- empath75 8y ago
  I suspect that most of these uncontacted tribes are remnants of ancient Amazonian civilizations who were already wiped out by contact with Europeans, so they probably have more resistance than you would expect.
- KMag 8y ago
  Do you have any citation for large numbers of North Sentinelese dying from disease due to contact? It's certainly a valid fear, but I'm not sure it has ever occurred. I'm aware that an old couple and four children were kidnapped by the British Navy in the 19th century and the old couple quickly became ill and died. The children were returned to the island.
  - narrator 8y ago
    https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/sentinelese https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/sentinelese
    - KMag 8y ago
      This citation admits that it's pure conjecture how many North Sentinelese died due to outside diseases. Neighboring tribes on neighboring islands suffered heavy losses, but you specifically claimed that large numbers of natives of North Sentinel Island died. As far as I can tell, it's highly speculative third-order conjecture that (1) large numbers of them died due to diseases acquired through contact (2) they have a belief that quarantine will protect them (likely despite not having a germ theory of disease) and (3) this is their reasoning for killing outsiders. Medieval Europe was significantly more advanced, and they had all kinds of strange ideas about the cause of diseases and plagues that prevented them from mounting effective quarantines. We can't expect them to have the same feelings we do about killing outsiders, and I think it's a stretch to project our understanding and values on them and then to back out a reasonable Western-style justification for their actions. I think it's much better to admit that we know very little about their system of moral reasoning and give them the benefit of the doubt that their killing of outsiders under the specific circumstances they found themselves in is moral within their moral framework.
randomcommentt 8y ago
> As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
- jnbiche 8y ago
  Your analogy seems more like an argument against moral relativism that for it. Specifically, if murder is always wrong, then your hypothetical aliens are committing a moral transgression. If moral relativism is all we have, then it should be fine to destroy us and our planet by their own standards.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Moral relativism is simply accepting that there's no value system that is rooted in immutable laws of nature - it's all cultural. It doesn't mean that you can't prefer one value system to the other, and make judgments accordingly.
trentlott 8y ago
How and why are nations established? Do they not get to have their own territory, or do they have less right to sovereignty than the US or Argentina?
hyperpallium 8y ago
In some USA states, a punishment for murder is execution. In some other jurisdictions, execution itself is murder. The question is whose legal standards. They will have their own law, in their own jurisdiction. Human communities spontaneously develop language, trade and law. You can even verify this in the microcosm of your own communities, with jargon and customs. And how does their "catastrophic" war compare to the wars of "civilization"?
- int_19h 8y ago
  > And how does their "catastrophic" war compare to the wars of "civilization"? In terms of deaths per capita, many small hunter-gatherer societies are more violent than our worst wars. It just doesn't look quite so horrifying because the societies themselves are so small, the absolute numbers to us don't even rise to the level of "war". On top of that, the conflict tends to be more of a constant state of affairs that's always in the background, rather than lengthy periods of peace interrupted by an explosion of violence.

jmts 8y ago

The dynamics of this situation are weird. Leave them uncontacted for however long out of principle, monitor them from above, commit to preserving their culture, but then intervene and try to manufacture a truce between tribes (thereby interfering with their culture) because we want to keep them around. "Hey guys, uh, you know, we were pretty happy to just let you do whatever, but we've been watching you for a while and you've started taking risks. We're not real fond of risks. Would you prefer not taking risks for us please? It would make us feel much better about letting you do whatever you like if you didn't take any risks."

caiobegotti 8y ago
The prime directive lover in me tends to agree with such logic (I am also a brazilian born/raised in the Amazon) but try to extrapolate that scenario to some extraterrestrial "overlords" telling us the same thing in a pre-nuclear winter situation. I would rather stick to their plan than risk my own ass. Of course, I know, that's a reductio ad absurdum type of argument but still...
- jmts 8y ago
  Ironically, I wouldn't mind if aliens came down and told us we were being stupid some time soon... We would still have to listen, however.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Would we? If we're foolish enough to get to the point of self-destruction in the first place...
  - exoesquitur 8y ago
    I feel like they are late....
quotemstr 8y ago
Right. We're treating them like zoo animals. What kind of existence is that?

jmts 8y ago

Which nation should they belong to? They likely consider themselves to be their own 'nation', and have for a long time. Simply because Brazil is now a thing, does not necessarily mean that Brazil should own these people and that these people should consider themselves to be a part of Brazil and be subject to its laws. There are arguments either way. You assume that these people have no 'law' of their own. Though I cannot say either, it is entirely possible that distinguish between the ways a person is killed and they are punished accordingly. Simply because it is not your law doesn't mean they don't have their own. The article states these tribes are rivals. They may consider themselves at war. Soldiers are not tried for killing other soldiers (within reason) in wartime, so why should rival tribesmen be tried for killing other tribesmen when they are at war?

nl 8y ago
Well the logic is that just choosing not to be part of a country is insufficient. Otherwise separatist movements would be extremely successful.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  A separatist movement that predates the state?
- Retric 8y ago
  I can draw a map and say this is my country. But, if I don’t ever mention it to the people living there then de facto that land is not part of my country.
  - frutiger 8y ago
    You also need to convince an army to agree with you.
- delinka 8y ago
  “Choosing not” and “not choosing (by being unaware that some outside entity has claimed your region as its subject)” are not the same.

gregwebs 8y ago

If you find this story intriguing, the book "Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamo Shaman's Story" is an amazing journey into a similar culture of cyclical violence between neighboring tribes.

new_guy 8y ago

This is a horribly cynical interpretation but the new Brazilian President has said he wants to open the Amazon to logging and he doesn't care much about the indigenous people[0] Of course if he tries anything the international community etc will protest, but if this 'rescue mission' (read: death squad with plausible deniability) can't stop the 'catastrophic jungle war' in time then the tribes kill each other off, there's no outcry and the logging begins. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes-brazil-genocide-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes...

soneca 8y ago
These tribes of dozens of individuals are not what prevents logging for happening. The mission will use boats and an helicopter on a long trip just to reach the place. What would be the economic viability to estabilish a commercial operation there? The indigenous people that prevents some of the logging in some places are much larger ones with total contact with the rest of society for centuries that live in much more accessible areas
- new_guy 8y ago
  It's not without historical precedent. Look at the Congo under King Leopold for one example. Everyone is in the accessible areas, not as many in the harder to reach places that makes it extremely economically viable for them to set up shop there. Like I said it's a cynical interpretation and I hope I'm wrong, but this is literally history repeating itself.

aaron695 8y ago

"The Matis, known as the ‘cat people’ because of the ‘whiskers’ they attach to their faces, are notoriously violent but instead of clubs use bows and arrows or long blowguns with poisoned-tipped darts to kill their enemies." "The Korubo are also known as the ‘clubber Indians’ because of the shoulder-height wooden clubs they use for killing their enemies by breaking open their skulls." These are horrific human beings on par with ISIS, but we find them quaint as our little pets in a zoo to be watched and studied. Hunter Gatherers are humanity at its absolute worse, they deserve the chance to move on with civilization. These zoos are what future people will judge us for.