3 ms·

How does your perspective differ from the perspective of the missionaries who attempted to bring "salvation" to indigenous peoples around the world? How does y

How does your perspective differ from the perspective of the missionaries who attempted to bring "salvation" to indigenous peoples around the world? How does your perspective differ from the perspectives that led to the imposition of the Residential Schools? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indi... Also, nothing I wrote says anything about providing them with access, it says something about destroying their culture and identity. So don't be too quick to make assumptions about what I believe or don't believe about medicine and education.

rubashov 16y ago
What about the missionaries who stopped indigenous peoples' crazy blood soaked ways and widespread human sacrifice rituals? The Aztecs in particular were quite psycho. With the daily stories of decapitated bodies and mass slayings in connection with the drug cartels in Mexico, sometimes a wonder about the cultural link back to the Aztec ways.
- raganwald 16y ago
  IIRC, the Spaniards stopped the Aztecs with smallpox and the measles. http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html But let's not quibble a minor point like that. The question I raised was simply how our perspective today differs from their perspective back in colonial times, with an eye to considering the possibility that we are fallible and that what we sincerely believe is in someone else's best interests may not be in their best interests. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't contact or help them, I'm saying we should be careful, because it may be that what we think is good for them today turns out to be bad for them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act, but isn't it worth thinking carefully before making choices?
- Naga 16y ago
  The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double the Aztecs were.
  - deadmansshoes 16y ago
    Yes but those executions weren't a ridiculous attempt to appease some "sun god" - many of the those executed in England were witches. As to the comment above - are you suggesting the Spanish deliberately spread diseases? It seems a little unfair to accuse the Spanish invaders of bio-warfare.
    - yesbabyyes 16y ago
      Excuse me - it might be that I'm tipsy but did you just call appeasing gods ridiculous while presenting the execution of witches as something less ridiculous?
      - Helianthus16 16y ago
        yes, he did. it's a little absurd, but I believe his main point is still valid. the inquisition &etc were as much about cultural conformity and control than about espousing a culture of violence. while ridiculous the question is not to compare ridiculousness levels but to compare the _reasons_ that people were doing the ridiculous things they did. killing people for the express and explicit purpose of killing people is bad mojo.
        ErrantX 16y ago
        I don't think either example can be held above the other as the better example. Both were ultimately born out of superstition. Both were used as a form of control by one group over another (more so witch hunting & inquisition). They shouldn't have done it... ..at least by our standards today. It is always difficult to judge historical people because we are, even from an early age, in possession of more facts than they were.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      > are you suggesting the Spanish deliberately spread diseases? It seems a little unfair to accuse the Spanish invaders of bio-warfare. You're actually right, there's little evidence or even mention of biological warfare until much later, and truly only in the North American field. However, bio-warfare likely dates back at least three-thousand years, so it would be hard to tell. Furthermore the Spanish didn't really need biological warfare, "for with fifty men one could keep the whole population in subjection and make them do whatever one wanted." However, given that the Spanish had some of the harshest policies on forced labor, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't want to use biological warfare. The encomienda system offered protection to tribe members in exchange for tribute through labour, this didn't effect tribes like the Incas where they had a system like this long established, but for the Arawak it is thought to be why they ended up with large populations on the south american mainland. I think the Spanish deliberately chose not to spread disease so as to make the most profit, which is easy to see considering Spain basically took on the policy of strip-mining south America to send every ounce of gold they found back to Spain. Given that most native populations at the time had nothing more than bronze-age technology, they couldn't even take a stand against the Spanish. The Spanish in their war with the Incas managed to kill easily ten times their amount of men, but there's few reports of Spanish casualties in their fights against thousands of natives. In many battles they achieved 400:1 ratios of Indian:Spanish deaths in battle. Consider that at the Battle of Thermopylae the Spartans only managed 10:1, despite the home-turf advantage, better tactics, land advantage and far superior training as they were fighting against a largely conscripted army. Considering the Spanish achieved a 40-fold increase in advantage, it shows how unbelievably powerful steel armour, muskets and cannon were. Not to mention the Spanish made extensive use of horses.
xenophanes 16y ago
I readily acknowledge we may agree more than it first appears given the particular emphasis we each chose. But I do think there is substantive disagreement here within the realm of non-violent (and, dare I say it: civilized) ways to approach the matter. The very idea of having a way that "we" deal with "uncontacted tribes" is collectivist on both ends. Individuals should do whatever they want without violating anyone's rights. Your way of phrasing the situation has systematic collectivist bias that implies things like withholding access to some individuals in their tribe if a tribal leader doesn't want us. And it implies central planning/organization (what "we" do). When you don't let any individual who wants to interact with them, without violating their rights, do as he pleases, then you are restricting access. When you divide the world into different countries, tribes, etc, and restrict the free flow of people, information, trade, etc, worldwide across all borders, then you are restricting access. When you draw a sharp distinction between aliens and human, that is species prejudice. Making a big deal out of what collective group people are from is the real nationalism, xenophobia, racism, or whatever. I see all people as individual people and that's it.
- raganwald 16y ago
  I suspect we still agree on the principles. The only thing I am advocating is thinking things through. For example, it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do? Nothing, and let people figure it out for themselves? Put up signs? Or restrict the area to anthropologists who have training in the matter? I don't personally know what to do about that. I said I'd like to treat them as I'd like to be treated. Personally, I'm glad I have access to the Internet.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Fair enough.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    ...it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do? Ship in a bunch of doctors, and introduce them to disease under medically controlled circumstances. We can't isolate them forever to avoid an epidemic, but we can try to mitigate the impact when it occurs.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
javajones 16y ago
These people will be contacted by the modern world one way or another. I choose to help them not treat them like animals to be set on display at a zoo. Let them be the decision makers in their own destiny. Like the guy said, loggers will come in and kill them. We can at least give them the ability to speak for themselves. And that unfortunately means someone is going to have to make contact with them.
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  You make a lot of sense. Whether they should be contacted or not is irrelevant. They will be. Besides, while we pretend they're invisible, they'll be defending themselves from the worst in our society. They have human rights, but theirs haven't teeth until they're in communication with a world ready to honor them. The real issue is how can we safely open a dialog.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

rubashov 16y ago

What about the missionaries who stopped indigenous peoples' crazy blood soaked ways and widespread human sacrifice rituals? The Aztecs in particular were quite psycho. With the daily stories of decapitated bodies and mass slayings in connection with the drug cartels in Mexico, sometimes a wonder about the cultural link back to the Aztec ways.

raganwald 16y ago
IIRC, the Spaniards stopped the Aztecs with smallpox and the measles. http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html But let's not quibble a minor point like that. The question I raised was simply how our perspective today differs from their perspective back in colonial times, with an eye to considering the possibility that we are fallible and that what we sincerely believe is in someone else's best interests may not be in their best interests. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't contact or help them, I'm saying we should be careful, because it may be that what we think is good for them today turns out to be bad for them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act, but isn't it worth thinking carefully before making choices?
Naga 16y ago
The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double the Aztecs were.
- deadmansshoes 16y ago
  Yes but those executions weren't a ridiculous attempt to appease some "sun god" - many of the those executed in England were witches. As to the comment above - are you suggesting the Spanish deliberately spread diseases? It seems a little unfair to accuse the Spanish invaders of bio-warfare.
  - yesbabyyes 16y ago
    Excuse me - it might be that I'm tipsy but did you just call appeasing gods ridiculous while presenting the execution of witches as something less ridiculous?
    - Helianthus16 16y ago
      yes, he did. it's a little absurd, but I believe his main point is still valid. the inquisition &etc were as much about cultural conformity and control than about espousing a culture of violence. while ridiculous the question is not to compare ridiculousness levels but to compare the _reasons_ that people were doing the ridiculous things they did. killing people for the express and explicit purpose of killing people is bad mojo.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        I don't think either example can be held above the other as the better example. Both were ultimately born out of superstition. Both were used as a form of control by one group over another (more so witch hunting & inquisition). They shouldn't have done it... ..at least by our standards today. It is always difficult to judge historical people because we are, even from an early age, in possession of more facts than they were.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    > are you suggesting the Spanish deliberately spread diseases? It seems a little unfair to accuse the Spanish invaders of bio-warfare. You're actually right, there's little evidence or even mention of biological warfare until much later, and truly only in the North American field. However, bio-warfare likely dates back at least three-thousand years, so it would be hard to tell. Furthermore the Spanish didn't really need biological warfare, "for with fifty men one could keep the whole population in subjection and make them do whatever one wanted." However, given that the Spanish had some of the harshest policies on forced labor, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't want to use biological warfare. The encomienda system offered protection to tribe members in exchange for tribute through labour, this didn't effect tribes like the Incas where they had a system like this long established, but for the Arawak it is thought to be why they ended up with large populations on the south american mainland. I think the Spanish deliberately chose not to spread disease so as to make the most profit, which is easy to see considering Spain basically took on the policy of strip-mining south America to send every ounce of gold they found back to Spain. Given that most native populations at the time had nothing more than bronze-age technology, they couldn't even take a stand against the Spanish. The Spanish in their war with the Incas managed to kill easily ten times their amount of men, but there's few reports of Spanish casualties in their fights against thousands of natives. In many battles they achieved 400:1 ratios of Indian:Spanish deaths in battle. Consider that at the Battle of Thermopylae the Spartans only managed 10:1, despite the home-turf advantage, better tactics, land advantage and far superior training as they were fighting against a largely conscripted army. Considering the Spanish achieved a 40-fold increase in advantage, it shows how unbelievably powerful steel armour, muskets and cannon were. Not to mention the Spanish made extensive use of horses.

xenophanes 16y ago

I readily acknowledge we may agree more than it first appears given the particular emphasis we each chose. But I do think there is substantive disagreement here within the realm of non-violent (and, dare I say it: civilized) ways to approach the matter. The very idea of having a way that "we" deal with "uncontacted tribes" is collectivist on both ends. Individuals should do whatever they want without violating anyone's rights. Your way of phrasing the situation has systematic collectivist bias that implies things like withholding access to some individuals in their tribe if a tribal leader doesn't want us. And it implies central planning/organization (what "we" do). When you don't let any individual who wants to interact with them, without violating their rights, do as he pleases, then you are restricting access. When you divide the world into different countries, tribes, etc, and restrict the free flow of people, information, trade, etc, worldwide across all borders, then you are restricting access. When you draw a sharp distinction between aliens and human, that is species prejudice. Making a big deal out of what collective group people are from is the real nationalism, xenophobia, racism, or whatever. I see all people as individual people and that's it.

raganwald 16y ago
I suspect we still agree on the principles. The only thing I am advocating is thinking things through. For example, it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do? Nothing, and let people figure it out for themselves? Put up signs? Or restrict the area to anthropologists who have training in the matter? I don't personally know what to do about that. I said I'd like to treat them as I'd like to be treated. Personally, I'm glad I have access to the Internet.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Fair enough.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  ...it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do? Ship in a bunch of doctors, and introduce them to disease under medically controlled circumstances. We can't isolate them forever to avoid an epidemic, but we can try to mitigate the impact when it occurs.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

javajones 16y ago

These people will be contacted by the modern world one way or another. I choose to help them not treat them like animals to be set on display at a zoo. Let them be the decision makers in their own destiny. Like the guy said, loggers will come in and kill them. We can at least give them the ability to speak for themselves. And that unfortunately means someone is going to have to make contact with them.

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
You make a lot of sense. Whether they should be contacted or not is irrelevant. They will be. Besides, while we pretend they're invisible, they'll be defending themselves from the worst in our society. They have human rights, but theirs haven't teeth until they're in communication with a world ready to honor them. The real issue is how can we safely open a dialog.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]