 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:37:05 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Andrew Baker
E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com
I wonder if the desire to keep them isolated stems from noble savage nonsense. It seems odd that they talk about these people as if they are cheethas or inanimate objects that need to be part of scenery. |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:49:12 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: steven
Diana, you say that these noncontacted tribes live within the government's territory. Assuming that these tribes existed before the government did, wouldn't that call into question the government's legitimate claim to the territory? |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 6:30:47 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: C. August
E-mail: titanic.deckchairs(at)gmail.com
URL: http://titanicdeckchairs.blogspot.com
I think the "noble savage nonsense" is exactly what's going on, and is the the same thing as what Diana mentioned when she said that the "primitive tribe unsullied by contact with the outside world is an intrinsic value." It's cultural relativism, with the contradictory twist that an implicit value judgment is being made; any culture, preferably primitive, tribalistic and concrete-bound (or mystical) is better than modern civilization.
As Diana mentioned, the actual resolution to the issue is a tough one, because rather than dealing with a capitalist society and individual rights-respecting government confronting a previously unknown tribe in unclaimed land, we're dealing with the corrupt and nearly anarchistic government of Brazil. In the former, clear lines could be drawn, the complex legal question of individual rights (for all parties) and property rights could be addressed, and some resolution could be found. As Monica and I discussed in the comments on her blog, many of these issues revolve around the individuals in the tribe, and how they assimilate or don't, how they claim their property rights or don't(*), and whether they react with violence. I see many parallels to the interactions between the history of expanding American civilization and various Indian tribes.
But in Brazil, I have no idea how they *should* sort it out. I have limited knowledge of Brazil's government, but I'm guessing their respect and enforcement of property rights is spotty at best, even for the regular citizens there. Who knows what will happen with this or other tribes? My guess is that it will be awful and bloody on all sides.
------------------------
*Question: While individual rights--including the right to property--are inalienable, what happens when someone refuses to or lacks the understanding to claim those rights? In otherwise unclaimed territory, does some notion of "squatter's rights" come into play, whether or not the people in question understand what that means? As long as they are peaceful, of course.
Steven asked whether the tribe pre-dates the Brazilian government, wondering, "wouldn't that call into question the government's legitimate claim to the territory?" Is the thought here that the tribe somehow might have it's own "nation within a nation"? This sounds much like the seeming absurdity of Indians in this country having mini "independent nations" in the US. In terms of US history, when a tribe patently rejects the notion that property rights even exist, and then commits violence against legitimate citizens, should they be given a sovereign nation? Or should they be given a choice of assimilation or annihilation? I haven't done enough thinking and reading on the topic to have a certain answer, but from what I know, the second option is the correct one. |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 8:29:11 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
URL: http://heroicdreams.wordpress.com
What really shocks me is that, from the perspective of the primitive tribe, other people decide that the primitives do not only have a "right", but that they have a _duty_ to remain primitive, i.e. that all the comforts and benefits of a civilized life (e.g. knowledge of superior medical treatment), which these primitives might be willing to earn after all, are withheld from them on no other premise than that a primitive lifestyle, with all its hardships and inherent shortness, should be preserved because it is their "culture" und thus of intrinsiv value. This is awful, and people who proclaim such a duty are the real barbarians. |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 8:47:37 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Bruno R.
I'm Brazilian, so I thought I could give some useful information on this topic.
First of all, most Amazon territory within Brazil is owned by the government. There are, however, private property on the fringes of the Amazon (by the way, when you hear about 'deforestation', keep in mind a sense of proportion. The Amazon is HUGE, and the deforestation area is insignicantly small. Not that I care).
Second, the Brazilian goverment has a long history of contacting tribes and even a specific agency (FUNAI) to do so. From the beginning of the republic, the government's goal was to isolate the indians, not to integrate them into the 'white' society. With time, however, most indians now wear clothes and use domestic appliances, but remain extremely poor.
Most importantly, this new tribe 'discovery' was made in a period of intense conflicts in the Amazon region between farmers, indians and the 'landless' (MST, or 'Landless Workers Movement', a huge, violent terrorist-socialist organization). Indians blame farmers, farmers blame indians, MST blames everyone. The government is preparing to institute exactly what C. August mentioned above: nations with a nation. There are plans to give enourmous areas of the Amazon to different indian 'nations', so they can live their primitive ways as they please (I doubt you could take from them their precious cattle, satellite TV's and GPS).
This 'discovery' seems to me as pure propaganda. |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 9:37:12 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Don't you people know anything?? It's the Starfleet's General Order #1, "The Prime Directive" of "The Federation of Planets". Captain Picard has sworn to uphold it, and so must you.
Several Star Trek episodes have brought forth the contradictions the PD raises, though without really challenging the PD itself. Some Star Trek fans have equated the Prime Directive with the idea that God does not significantly interfere with us mere mortals, because his interference would cause catastrophic turmoil. Such turmoil arose in a Star Trek episode in which Capt. Kirk and a landing party visited a primitive culture (the "Tellarides") that was not 'ready' for the modern technology (warp speed being the minimum standard) of the Federation. That turmoil lead to the institution of the PD. Imagine the turmoil if God became as well known as a U.S. President? Officially women would again be chattel, but I suspect they would revolt and deny God, because the real God is a woman!
More seriously, I rather agree with Andrew Baker: unlike modern Man, primitive men live more like animals as a part of Nature, and are therefore worthy of the same kind of preservation as cheetahs. The same people who see modern Man's control of Nature as arrogant, are practicing an arrogance of their own in asserting that they should have so greater a say in the lives of the primitives.
Those primitive tribes are also an ideal of Environmentalists' desire (for everyone else) to live with so tiny a carbon footprint. How could we dare to disturb _that_?!! |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 11:45:58 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Nit: I don't recall an episode with "Tellarides" although there were "Tellarites" once--but I think they were already members of the UFP. Furthermore I am pretty sure the Prime Directive was there throughout the whole series. (Or if not there the whole time, it was never made explicit that it was introduced because of something Kirk, et. al., did--it would have been retroactively introduced background--"It was here all along we just didn't mention it 'til now.") Kirk, et. al., did bend it a lot though! |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 13:46:49 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Joost Bonsen points out on his blog post on the Brazilian tribe issue:
http://maximizingprogress.blogspot.com/2008/05/prime-directive-firs ...
"Of course Captain Kirk violated the Prime Directive every time it suited him, certainly whenever he encountered galactically-hot alien babes!-)"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/poletti/sets/72157602965392887/ |
|
| Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 14:28:48 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Cheerwino
"Of course Captain Kirk violated the Prime Directive every time it suited him, certainly whenever he encountered galactically-hot alien babes!-)"
How else is one to ascertain if they are "friendly"?!
Alas, I do not see any such alien babes in the Brazil tribe photos. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 6:40:06 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Indigenous Peoples researcher
E-mail: flashgordonweb(at)gmail.com
URL: http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com
These tribes have known and been in contact with "outsiders" for close to 20 years despite what the media hype has been reporting. Anthropologists have worked with these tribes, and loggers and others have continued to encroach in their territory. The reason the news was released now is to prevent further encroachment. I personally respect their decision not to jump headlong into the "modern" world. Their technology is just as "good" as ours - different - but no worse or better. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 14:53:56 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Wendy
I was just discussing this on another board, and of course there are those who say that we are not to judge whether our culture or their culture is superior. The question that those who are pro-leave-savages-alone need to be asked is "by what standard is their culture good?" |
|
| Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 6:23:20 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: A-non-emous
One point of Diana's I don't grasp. If rights belong only to individuals, then what does "I can understand a government wishing to protect the rights of primitive peoples living within its territory" mean? |
|
| Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 6:44:30 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
A-non-emous wrote: "One point of Diana's I don't grasp. If rights belong only to individuals, then what does "I can understand a government wishing to protect the rights of primitive peoples living within its territory" mean?"
That would mean that government protecting the rights of those individual primitive people, including their right not to assimilate, if they so choose. It doesn't mean protecting the tribe as a whole from dissolution or intrusion. It doesn't mean allowing tribe members to brutalize women or own slaves, even if that's traditional, as that violates others' rights.
(Perhaps I should have written "people" instead of "peoples"? I didn't intend anything collectivist by the plural. In fact, plural is often standard. So to speak of protecting the rights of Americans doesn't mean some collective right of American society but just protecting the rights of individual Americans.) |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
