View Full Version : Rare uncontacted tribe photographed in Amazon
blackstone
30th May 2008, 14:10
Rare uncontacted tribe photographed in Amazon
RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - Amazon Indians from one of the world's last uncontacted tribes have been photographed from the air, with striking images released on Thursday showing them painted bright red and brandishing bows and arrows.
The photographs of the tribe near the border between Brazil and Peru are rare evidence that such groups exist. A Brazilian official involved in the expedition said many of them are in increasing danger from illegal logging.
"What is happening in this region is a monumental crime against the natural world, the tribes, the fauna and is further testimony to the complete irrationality with which we, the 'civilized' ones, treat the world," Jose Carlos Meirelles was quoted as saying in a statement by the Survival International group.
One of the pictures, which can be seen on Survival International's Web site (http://www.survival-international.org), shows two Indian men covered in bright red pigment poised to fire arrows at the aircraft while another Indian looks on.
Another photo shows about 15 Indians near thatched huts, some of them also preparing to fire arrows at the aircraft.
"The world needs to wake up to this, and ensure that their territory is protected in accordance with international law. Otherwise, they will soon be made extinct," said Stephen Corry, the director of Survival International, which supports tribal people around the world.
Of more than 100 uncontacted tribes worldwide, more than half live in either Brazil or Peru, Survival International says. It says all are in grave danger of being forced off their land, killed and ravaged by new diseases.
(Reporting by Stuart Grudgings; editing by Sandra Maler)
Go here for the pictures
http://www.survival-international.org
What should be done? Should they EVER be contacted? Should they be absorbed into the technological age or contacted and left alone?
Jazzratt
30th May 2008, 15:24
I think they should be treated like human beings, not as part of the pituresque scenery. Attempts at contact should be made (with due caution paid to the fact they won't have the same disease immunities, ect) but I really don't think they should be made in the immediate future, when the world is an insane capitalist mess. In the longer-term future, if we have a more rational society I think attempts should be made to contact these people and bring them into global society.
Bilan
30th May 2008, 15:25
It's hard question. But I have no doubt that some are content with their lifestyle, so why should it be altered?
But perhaps the opportunity should be presented to them...
R3V0LUTI0N(A)RY
30th May 2008, 15:57
Just read this in a local paper, sounds intresting. I don't think they should be contacted yet, besides theyre not a large mass of people, only a few huts (what I read) and they've made it so far. Leave them alone.
BIG BROTHER
30th May 2008, 16:09
I say leave them alone for now. Especially because as someone mentioned before we don't know if they can resist the diseases we carry.
Demogorgon
30th May 2008, 16:26
The point about diseases is a good one. If we blunder in and contact them without thinking it through, we could well end up wiping them out with the diseases that we are immune to.
Perhaps some form of contact should be made, but trying to get them to assimilate with capitalist society is a bad idea. They would just end up right at the bottom of the Brazilian social scale and end up worse off than they were in the first place.
mykittyhasaboner
30th May 2008, 16:54
they have their bows pointed at the aircraft these photos were taken on. leave them alone....:lol:
Kwisatz Haderach
30th May 2008, 16:56
"Welcome to the modern world! Everything you thought you knew about the universe is wrong. Everything your people ever achieved is completely worthless, as we can do it better and faster. Those of you who manage to survive the diseases we carry and the various intoxicating substances we will get you addicted to, can come work for us in our cities. As you are unfamiliar with the concepts of money or private property as we understand them, we will make you sell your tribe's wealth to us for a pittance, then throw you at the bottom of our social hierarchy and make you work in terrible factories all day long. If your religion has a concept of an underworld full of evil spirits that torture people - well, it's a bit like that. In fact, you know those gods in your mythology? Yeah, we're kinda like them, so please treat us as such."
...bad idea.
Organic Revolution
30th May 2008, 20:03
Why should we go contact them? They have their right to live where they choose, and if they choose to live in the Amazon with no contact, more power to them.. Its strange, are y'all folks afraid of un-homogenized culture or what?
"Welcome to the modern world! Everything you thought you knew about the universe is wrong. Everything your people ever achieved is completely worthless, as we can do it better and faster. Those of you who manage to survive the diseases we carry and the various intoxicating substances we will get you addicted to, can come work for us in our cities. As you are unfamiliar with the concepts of money or private property as we understand them, we will make you sell your tribe's wealth to us for a pittance, then throw you at the bottom of our social hierarchy and make you work in terrible factories all day long. If your religion has a concept of an underworld full of evil spirits that torture people - well, it's a bit like that. In fact, you know those gods in your mythology? Yeah, we're kinda like them, so please treat us as such."
...bad idea.
Yeah. Let's fetishize pre-agricultural society!!! Woot!
Seriously, they should eventually be contacted but their rights (to privacy and to control of their lands and such) should be protected.
They have their right to live where they choose, and if they choose to live in the Amazon with no contact, more power to them.. Its strange, are y'all folks afraid of un-homogenized culture or what?
It's not a choice right now. It's simply a fact. These people have lived there for thousands of years. The only way that they have a choice is if they are given the options.
Really, there seems to be a lot of "noble savage" bs here. Pre-agricultural societies were not heavenly. They aren't living in a pristine paradise. We can probably learn from them and try and understand their culture.
Of course, the only way in which this could be positive is if their right to sovereignty and such is respected and all work there is done discreetly and respectfully.
RoterAnarchie
30th May 2008, 21:04
they should be left alone and protected from outside influences!!
they live in paradise, away from kapitalist exploiters and other harm
lombas
30th May 2008, 22:15
I am really interested in how their religion is influenced by this event.
they should be left alone and protected from outside influences!!
they live in paradise, away from kapitalist exploiters and other harm
:lol: Talk about fetishism.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 22:26
:lol: Talk about fetishism.
Just how you fetishise over Lenin......irony.
Just how you fetishise over Lenin......irony.
Wow you're stupid.
Where, once have I fetishised Lenin? Or are you just running your mouth off again?
It amazes me that some people can talk so much and say so little.
spartan
30th May 2008, 22:31
It would be intresting to know what they were thinking as the plane flew over them.
They obviously didnt like it as they are aiming their bows at it (Perhaps they thought it was some sort of bird?)
Anyway i say leave them as we have no right to go forcing people out of one lifestyle and into another.
The fact is they have been living this life and dont know of any other way to live, so forcing them into the brutallity of the modern world seems a tad bit unfair and typical of the "we know best" attitude that the people who killed the native Americans had in 19th century America.
Should we at least make contact with them?
Perhaps as a way of learning about their lifestyle, which might give us insight into how we used to live thousands of years ago, yes. But other than that i say leave them be and dont go fucking with whats not yours to fuck with (Except Capitalist property of course.)
Voice_of_Reason
30th May 2008, 22:35
I say we leave them alone, or you know we could do what we usually do and put them in a zoo or something. They are probably a lot happier than they would be if we introduced them to our world.
spartan
30th May 2008, 22:37
I say we leave them alone, or you know we could do what we usually do and put them in a zoo or something. They are probably a lot happier than they would be if we introduced them to our world.
They dont know anything different so it stands to reason that they would be a lot happier if left well alone.
I say we leave them alone, or you know we could do what we usually do and put them in a zoo or something. They are probably a lot happier than they would be if we introduced them to our world.
This argument has been made half a dozen times in this thread and no one has yet substantiated it.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 22:42
Wow you're stupid.
Where, once have I fetishised Lenin? Or are you just running your mouth off again?
It amazes me that some people can talk so much and say so little.
No, but your condemnation of anyone who dismisses the USSR as being at some point a workers state or whatever as a reactionary is stupid.
blackstone
30th May 2008, 22:45
I am really interested in how their religion is influenced by this event.
So am I. That plane has probably spurred many community meetings and gossip within the tribe.
BIG BROTHER
30th May 2008, 23:20
Well the fact is that even though a lot of us think they shouldn't be contacted, sooner or later they will be, hopefully the Peru and Brazilian goverment at least just to look good to the outside world, make sure that they will be protected from people trying to take advantage of them.
Don't Change Your Name
31st May 2008, 00:15
Yes, it would be interesting to see how this affects their worldview. But to see that "we" must contact "them", which is the hard part. As far as I know, when hunter-gatherers societies and the like get into contact with the "good stuff" of "civilization" (whatever the fuck that means) the like it, although they don't seem to be willing to take their part and helping the system that makes it to get it (go figure). So I guess that facing the choice they might prefer their current lifestyle, since it might require them less labor and they are used to it. In fact, if they were to integrate "modern" societies, they will probably lose in many ways: they will get discriminated, they will have to relearn everything (which will take time and generations), they will be unemployed and poor and maybe without access to land or housing, they could get easily manipulated or even end up enslaved without the government even finding out, they might fall into a life of alcoholism, drug addictions and crimes, women might have to become prostitutes, etc. We see this kind of things today.
Zurdito
31st May 2008, 00:23
"Welcome to the modern world! Everything you thought you knew about the universe is wrong. Everything your people ever achieved is completely worthless, as we can do it better and faster. Those of you who manage to survive the diseases we carry and the various intoxicating substances we will get you addicted to, can come work for us in our cities. As you are unfamiliar with the concepts of money or private property as we understand them, we will make you sell your tribe's wealth to us for a pittance, then throw you at the bottom of our social hierarchy and make you work in terrible factories all day long. If your religion has a concept of an underworld full of evil spirits that torture people - well, it's a bit like that. In fact, you know those gods in your mythology? Yeah, we're kinda like them, so please treat us as such."
...bad idea.
great post.
sadly this is exactly what will happen. people are talking about "we" here. "We" do not choose. The bourgeois Brazilian state will fuck these guys over, jsut watch.
Also just a small semantic point but still: can we not talk about "rare" "tribes". Firstly "rare" makes them sound like plants of animals - they aren't "rare" they are human beings, and we are everywhere.
Secondly, the term "tribe" is actually a western projection onto these people. If you study the history of "tribes" in the Americas contacted by westerners, they never previously had the concept of being a "tribe", which in our language connotes some kind of "nationhood". In nearly all these cases, the community's word for themselves - Jibaro/Yanomami etc. - simply meant "people", and then was reinvented by their conquerors to re-define them as some kind of seperate "ethnic" entity with its own structures and leaders which could be used to negotiate with the state, and eventually for tribal eladers to act as vassals for bourgeois rule and to police their own communities, demanding loyalty and legitimacy based on an externally imposed notion of "national" or "tribal" common interest.
Niccolò Rossi
31st May 2008, 00:24
Wow this is amazing and those photo's are brilliant. As lombas and blackstone have said I'd love to know the effects that the tribes encounter with a helicopter has done for their religion (eg. the cargo cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) of the pacific islands).
In response to the question on whether contact should be made I say it should. We aught to study these people and their rare living conditions extensively and scientifically. However, any such study must be taken with the utmost precautions to ensure safety for both parties.
After such an extensive study has been carried out, the members of the tribe aught to be offered the chance to intergrate into modern society. There is no need to idealise their pre-agricultural society as some primitive communist utopia. The modern world has much to offer, but we must tred lightly.
However, the comments made by Zurdito and Edric O must be taken into account. It is highly likely that these people will be exploited ruthlessly by the Brazilian bourgeoisie. This is why I stress the importance of a methodological and steady course of action, whether such a plan for action can be carried through to fruition is another story, but one that must be pressed for.
Kwisatz Haderach
31st May 2008, 14:37
Yeah. Let's fetishize pre-agricultural society!!! Woot!
Seriously, they should eventually be contacted but their rights (to privacy and to control of their lands and such) should be protected.
Pre-agricultural society sucks. However, there is good reason to believe that being at the bottom of the social hierarchy in present-day capitalist Brazil sucks even more. Especially for people with low immunities to our diseases and no understanding of how our society works. That is why this tribe should be left alone.
It would be better, of course, if we could gradually introduce them to an industrial socialist or communist society. However, that is not an option at the moment. Leave them alone until some time after the revolution.
sadly this is exactly what will happen. people are talking about "we" here. "We" do not choose. The bourgeois Brazilian state will fuck these guys over, jsut watch.
Actually, the Brazilian government has a policy of not contacting uncontacted First Nations people. So, no. You have no idea what's going on.
Zurdito
31st May 2008, 16:49
Actually, the Brazilian government has a policy of not contacting uncontacted First Nations people. So, no. You have no idea what's going on.
watch it long term.
5 years time they'll still be living as they are now?
10 years time?
When there's no Amazon left?
Give it time.
When there's no Amazon left?
That's what will get them. The illegal logging. Not the Brazilian state.
Zurdito
31st May 2008, 17:10
That's what will get them. The illegal logging. Not the Brazilian state.
yes, "illegal".:rolleyes:
is this some kind of third-worldist defence of the Brazilian state as a positive force or something? Or are you just being keen on details...apologies if it's the second.
because if it's the second...you are aware that the Brazilian governemnt is one of the most pro-imperialist in the region?
yes, "illegal".:rolleyes:
is this some kind of third-worldist defence of the Brazilian state as a positive force or something? Or are you just being keen on details...apologies if it's the second.
No. It's the second. The Brazilian state is reactionary of course and I'm not a third-worldist. But we shouldn't just go around blaming the state for things it actually doesn't do. That just makes us look like idiots and conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "the state".
And yes. There is illegal logging that the state does not condone and does try and restrict. However, states in the third world are not nearly as omnipotent as states in the first world. If there was a crime deep in the woods in the US like widespread illegal logging. It would be relatively simple to stop it and arrest those involved. Third World states simply aren't as powerful.
i think since they aren't practicing capitalism, they should be left alone until they need or ask for help.
Zurdito
31st May 2008, 17:36
No. It's the second. The Brazilian state is reactionary of course and I'm not a third-worldist. But we shouldn't just go around blaming the state for things it actually doesn't do. That just makes us look like idiots and conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "the state".
And yes. There is illegal logging that the state does not condone and does try and restrict. However, states in the third world are not nearly as omnipotent as states in the first world. If there was a crime deep in the woods in the US like widespread illegal logging. It would be relatively simple to stop it and arrest those involved. Third World states simply aren't as powerful.
Well no I don't think it's a question of conspiracy theories, seeing as a state is the collective expression of the decisions of a bourgeoisie as a whole, and it is ultimately state control over a territory which allows for capital accumulation to be plausible long-term.
yes I know about the difference between third-world and imperialist states, however, the Brazilian state is pretty strong as third world states go, Brazil exports a fair amount of capital within Latin America and the Brazilian security services get involved reasonably heavily in the region, such as sending specialist units to fight FARC, etc. we can in any country that "the state" is as strong as the bourgeosie is, and well, the Brazilian bourgeosie is hardly the same as the Ecuadorian or Paraguayan bourgeoisie or something. Brazilian consortiums are even buying up Argentine companies FFS and Argentina is something of a regional power in itself. :lol:
So honestly, while you may be right that the hands-on dirty work relating to the subjugation of communities like this particular one will be more done by individual capitalits and less by the state as a whole - and if I was inaccurate there then I apologise - can we be clear that the overall policies which subjugate indigenous communities in all of Latin America are impossible to seperate from the need to have a state to establish control over frontier areas and non-assimilated communities...regardless of official policywhich particular politicians - as distinct from the unelected state apparatus - may promise.
and yes I'm aware that this has become a bit drawn out over a small point. ;)
shorelinetrance
31st May 2008, 18:58
some of you have shown me your true colors, you guys expound freedom and liberty?
but only if you live in our society?
really cute guys.
just leave them alone.
Bear MacMillan
31st May 2008, 19:10
What I'm most scared of is not if they will become wage slaves for the Brazilian government, but if they'll become some sort of tourist attraction and watched like animals in a zoo.
some of you have shown me your true colors, you guys expound freedom and liberty?
but only if you live in our society?
really cute guys.
just leave them alone.
Either make a sensible argument dealing substantially with a previous posters argument or shut up and quit trolling.
Digitalism
31st May 2008, 20:31
they should be left alone, that's all there is to it.
they should be left alone, that's all there is to it.
No, that's not "all there is to it".
Try again. This time, I suggest you make an argument.
shorelinetrance
31st May 2008, 23:51
i hope the people who try and contact them get slaughtered and their hearts ate in the name of the sun god. :D:D
but in all seriousness, if someone came into my home and told me how to live, i wouldn't like it, and would kindly tell them to leave me alone.
and the photo of them aiming weapons at the airplane is obviously confirmation of the fact that they would rather be left alone for the moment.
gla22
1st June 2008, 00:15
The sad thing is that"their' land is probably already owned by some group of people even though they've been living there in the same way for thousands of years.
spartan
1st June 2008, 00:44
and the photo of them aiming weapons at the airplane is obviously confirmation of the fact that they would rather be left alone for the moment.
That or maybe they were freaked out by this large flying thing (Plane) which i am presuming they have never seen before seeing how they are an uncontacted tribe.
Call me a bit of a romantic but the idea that in this modern world a people can still be living lives that are completely unchanged for thousands of years, and who have had no contact with people in the modern age and with modern technology, just makes me feel that not everything in this world has been tainted with the shit that we have to put up with in our lives.
sonicbluetm
1st June 2008, 01:45
I have something interesting to share regarding this topic. I was watching BBC World's coverage of this event and here is how they commented on it:
They said that outside contact is likely to wipe out the entire tribe because of diseases that we carry, which they hadn't developed immunities to. Nevertheless we must carefully integrate them into the global society.
This just blew my mind. Why "must" we do this? They just passed that opinion off as if it were obvious and couldn't be argued against. Would it be impossible for us to try to preserve their way of life; to simply stay away? How hard is that? I think this is typical of the mainstream world media. They think of themselves as so ubiquitous and all-encompassing that the thought that a group of people may stay out of their sphere of influence is simply unacceptable, and in fact, it eats away at their psyche. What a sick state of mind.
It reminds me of a worldwide version of manifest destiny, "Our culture must touch the life of every last human being on this planet, or else they must die of smallpox or some such."
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 01:58
It's hard question. But I have no doubt that some are content with their lifestyle, so why should it be altered?
What an extremely patronising thing to say. What makes you think that it's so unlikely that these people may actually not be content about living in utter backwardness and poverty?
-----
As others have pointed, these are human beings, not some rare species of animal or plant to be subjected to conservation for future generations of observers.
They should be contacted and be provided the full means and support to be assimilated into Brazilian society at large immediately.
BIG BROTHER
1st June 2008, 02:06
No. It's the second. The Brazilian state is reactionary of course and I'm not a third-worldist. But we shouldn't just go around blaming the state for things it actually doesn't do. That just makes us look like idiots and conspiracy theorists who blame everything on "the state".
And yes. There is illegal logging that the state does not condone and does try and restrict. However, states in the third world are not nearly as omnipotent as states in the first world. If there was a crime deep in the woods in the US like widespread illegal logging. It would be relatively simple to stop it and arrest those involved. Third World states simply aren't as powerful.
comming from a nation like Mexico, I'll say drosera is right on this one. "our" goverments can't really handle everything like they do in countries like the U.S.
Pirate Utopian
1st June 2008, 02:07
How can they live without pizza, rock & roll and leather jackets?1?!!
Would be funny if it turns out just to some roleplaying goofballs.
Anyway, some people in this thread are acting like some luddites "technology will make them alcoholic whores!".
We can just give people there the option to live in the modern world and not force it on them.
spartan
1st June 2008, 02:26
What makes you think that it's so unlikely that these people may actually not be content about living in utter backwardness and poverty?
The fact that they dont know of any other way to live?
These uncontacted tribes arent "backward" or "living in poverty" as they have survived with their way of life for thousands of years without any outside help. Just because they dont live like we do doesnt mean that their lifestyle and culture is somehow bad or wrong.
This "we know best" attitiude is not right when talking about these people as it leads to wrong and often dangerous assumptions (Such as their lifestyle apparently being "backwards" and there suppossed "living in poverty", which were often the excuses that the US gave for their destruction and genocide of the native Americans and their lifestyle).
I dont know about you but every tribe that has "successfully adapted" to modern life usually have huge problems with alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, prostitution and domestic violence against women.
sonicbluetm
1st June 2008, 02:32
The cultural anthropology definition of "poverty" the way the word is commonly understood is: people who live differently from you or people who LIVED differently from you and made an attempt to live like you but are unable to adapt to this new way of life and so are forced to live in what you refer to as "poverty".
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 03:00
These uncontacted tribes arent "backward" or "living in poverty"
Yes, they're living in poverty. They, along with everyone else in this world, should have, at the bare minimum, full access to the best living conditions that 21st century society currently has to offer. They should not be made to live the way that they have been forced to live for the past 'thousands of years', as you put it.
I dont know about you but every tribe that has "successfully adapted" to modern life usually have huge problems with alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, prostitution and domestic violence against women.
Another incredibly patronising attitude. The idea that these people are like some wide-eyed innocent children who can't possibly deal with the big bad world that's out there...
This is a snobby and prejudiced Western middle class attitude which is in no way shared by the people of the developing world. They want the best that the world has to offer. Middle class Westerners tell them that they should be content with backwardness and poverty. Not only that - they're told that they should celebrate their poverty! This is alien to the aspirations of people in the 'third world' - who desire genuine progress.
Also, championing the supposed interests of 'aboriginal' and 'indigineous' people has historically been part of an imperialist strategy. Ever since British conservatives set up the Aborigines' Protection Society (APS) in 1837, Westerners have been telling the rest of the world that they should be happy with their lot.
sonicbluetm
1st June 2008, 03:13
^ quit making yourself out to be such a victim of debate, jeez. You misunderstand poverty. Sorry for patronising you.
spartan
1st June 2008, 04:51
Yes, they're living in poverty. They, along with everyone else in this world, should have, at the bare minimum, full access to the best living conditions that 21st century society currently has to offer. They should not be made to live the way that they have been forced to live for the past 'thousands of years', as you put it.
Who the hell are forcing them to live the way they do?
You see this tribe has had absolutely NO CONTACT with the modern world, so suddenly forcing them out of one lifestyle, which is the only one they have known and are familiar with for thousands of years, into another completely alien one shows me that you are the one who wants to force people to live a certain way.
Another incredibly patronising attitude. The idea that these people are like some wide-eyed innocent children who can't possibly deal with the big bad world that's out there...
This is a snobby and prejudiced Western middle class attitude which is in no way shared by the people of the developing world. They want the best that the world has to offer. Middle class Westerners tell them that they should be content with backwardness and poverty. Not only that - they're told that they should celebrate their poverty! This is alien to the aspirations of people in the 'third world' - who desire genuine progress.
They arent living in poverty!
They are obviously living some sort of hunter-gatherer existence which has created self-sufficient communities as otherwise they would have all died out thousands of years ago if they really lived in poverty dont you think?
And you are the one who is being patronising as you think that these peoples way of life is "backwards" (Good old fashioned colonial terminology there comrade).
The fact is just because they dont have access to modern things like medicines and computers that doesnt mean that they are automatically living in poverty.
They dont know any different!
Now if you said that we should give them the choice between there lifestyle and our modern one then i would agree with you, but forcing them against their wishes is something that makes me feel uncomfortable especially when they arent hurting anyone with the way they live (Though i am sure that you will say that they are hurting themselves).
Whatever happened to personal autonomy amongst the left?
RoterAnarchie
1st June 2008, 06:59
I have something interesting to share regarding this topic. I was watching BBC World's coverage of this event and here is how they commented on it:
They said that outside contact is likely to wipe out the entire tribe because of diseases that we carry, which they hadn't developed immunities to. Nevertheless we must carefully integrate them into the global society.
This just blew my mind. Why "must" we do this? They just passed that opinion off as if it were obvious and couldn't be argued against. Would it be impossible for us to try to preserve their way of life; to simply stay away? How hard is that? I think this is typical of the mainstream world media. They think of themselves as so ubiquitous and all-encompassing that the thought that a group of people may stay out of their sphere of influence is simply unacceptable, and in fact, it eats away at their psyche. What a sick state of mind.
It reminds me of a worldwide version of manifest destiny, "Our culture must touch the life of every last human being on this planet, or else they must die of smallpox or some such."
Damn imperialist media!
I dream of such a society, and now the imperialists plan to destroy it?
We should protest this!!
Base-Line
1st June 2008, 09:11
They should just be left alone. They have survived this long and people say they look strong and heathy. Just let them be, they are doing fine without us.
Hiero
1st June 2008, 10:03
Who is this "we"?
Maybe "they" need to contact "us".
Yes, they're living in poverty. They, along with everyone else in this world, should have, at the bare minimum, full access to the best living conditions that 21st century society currently has to offer. They should not be made to live the way that they have been forced to live for the past 'thousands of years', as you put it.
I wouldn't say they are living in poverty. The probally have a better living standard then majority of the world, simply adding technology doesn't make a better life.
This is a snobby and prejudiced Western middle class attitude which is in no way shared by the people of the developing world. They want the best that the world has to offer. Middle class Westerners tell them that they should be content with backwardness and poverty. Not only that - they're told that they should celebrate their poverty! This is alien to the aspirations of people in the 'third world' - who desire genuine progress.
Well your taking the other snobbish attitude, that they need to be "brought in". Indigenous people can and have been adobting modern technology and using it quite efficiently in their own cultural setting. "Bringing" people into the modern world is not as simple as given and teaching them how to use modern technology. There are usually alot of strings attached, for instance how to use technology correctly, which is nothing more then a different cultural approach to technology. This is either enforcing technology on other nations to force them to explioat material resourcs for the capitalist state, or enforcing western cultural standards on housing, clothing, cleanliness etc
Just because "we" are more advanced technological, doesn't mean "we" know how to use it to benifit humans efficiently. For instance the "we" is really capitalist, the capitalist control technology. They use it specifically to exploit people and resources. When people say "we" need to bring them in, unless your volunteering to go organise a modern collective, you mean to bring them into the capitalist system. This involves making them wage slaves.
The only communist position I can see is to promote and not deny their own agency. As I asked, why can't "they" contact "us"? Infact if we look in the same region the "Amazon", the Kayapo use modern technology to resist being incorporated in the modern state.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 16:01
Who the hell are forcing them to live the way they do?
Natural conditions, especially a lack of technological development, have been forcing these people to live the way that they do.
You see this tribe has had absolutely NO CONTACT with the modern world, so suddenly forcing them out of one lifestyle, which is the only one they have known and are familiar with for thousands of years, into another completely alien one shows me that you are the one who wants to force people to live a certain way.
I never said anything about forcing them to do anything. I said that they should be given the option, the means and the support to assimilate into Brazilian society. You, on the other hand, were romanticising their backward and poverty-stricken way of life. ('Call me a bit of a romantic but the idea that in this modern world a people can still be living lives that are completely unchanged for thousands of years, and who have had no contact with people in the modern age and with modern technology, just makes me feel that not everything in this world has been tainted with the shit that we have to put up with in our lives.')
I wouldn't say they are living in poverty. The probally have a better living standard then majority of the world
That is a highly contentious statement to say the least.
I find it highly interesting that people here are refusing to admit the poverty of these people. Why is this? Why is poverty seen as wrong in one situation (say, in the shanty towns of Africa) and seen as not wrong, and indeed romanticised, in other situations?
These people do live in poverty. We need to apply the universal measures of human living standards and compare them accordingly to living conditions which are not poverty-stricken in capitalist society. What kind of life expectancy do they have? What is the rate of child mortality? What kind of access do they have to good health care? What is the rate of literacy?
Why should these universal notions of poverty not apply to these people? Aren't they human also? Sounds pretty racist to me.
The only communist position I can see is to promote and not deny their own agency. As I asked, why can't "they" contact "us"?
Like i said, they should be given the means and support to contact wider Brazilian society and to assimilate themselves into it. This is the communist position in regards to all peoples - full access to assimilation. Unfortunately, ruling classes have historically denied this access to the certain groups which they think should not assimilate for whatever reason.
RoterAnarchie
1st June 2008, 16:52
your very universal measures of human living standards are IMPERIALISTIC!!!
what's the difference between your materialistic imperialism and the US 'installing democraty' ?
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 17:08
your very universal measures of human living standards are IMPERIALISTIC!!!
Lol. So a high child mortality rate, a low life expectancy, a lack of access to high quality health care and a lack of literacy are not OK for us Westerners, but perfectly fine for the aboriginal people of Brazil?
what's the difference between your materialistic imperialism and the US 'installing democraty' ?
What's the similarity (that is between my views and imperialist views)?
As i have already pointed out, it is in fact imperialists themselves who have historically violently opposed development in the 'third world'. And, by the same token, it has been radicals and revolutionaries in the 'third world' who have historically violently demanded development and progress.
RoterAnarchie
1st June 2008, 17:11
there is only one standard for living: HAPPINESS!!
all the rest is imperialistic!
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 17:34
there is only one standard for living: HAPPINESS!!
The despicable implication being that these aboriginals of Brazil are happy with their poverty...
And 'happiness' cannot be measured objectively or absolutely. Whether your children die before the age of one or whether you have good access to healthcare, education, etc., can be.
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 17:44
What an extremely patronising thing to say. What makes you think that it's so unlikely that these people may actually not be content about living in utter backwardness and poverty?
-----
As others have pointed, these are human beings, not some rare species of animal or plant to be subjected to conservation for future generations of observers.
They should be contacted and be provided the full means and support to be assimilated into Brazilian society at large immediately.
If you integrate them into Brazilian society "immediately" most of them will die of diseases they never had the chance to build up immunities to.
Moreover, what do you suggest for the ones who survive? Living in crime-ridden slums working terrible jobs if they can get jobs at all?
This isn't a case of romanticising their lives, which are hardly what one would describe as well off, but blundering in and trying to make them change their lives "for their own good" will not improve matters for them.
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 17:46
The despicable implication being that these aboriginals of Brazil are happy with their poverty...
And 'happiness' cannot be measured objectively or absolutely. Whether your children die before the age of one or whether you have good access to healthcare, education, etc., can be.
What makes you think that the Brazilian state will be able to provide them with that? I hate to break it to you, but they will not be able to afford private healthcare or education.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 17:59
Moreover, what do you suggest for the ones who survive? Living in crime-ridden slums working terrible jobs if they can get jobs at all?
So it's better that they stay in their primitive state in the jungle?
Your line of logic is like telling a woman that she's better off staying in the house; because if she goes out into society, all that faces her is low-paid work and sexual harrassment.
What we should be saying instead is: you can't change society until you play an active part in it.
This isn't a case of romanticising their lives, which are hardly what one would describe as well off, but blundering in and trying to make them change their lives "for their own good" will not improve matters for them.
I didn't say anything about 'making them' do anything. I said that the opportunities should be provided.
What makes you think that the Brazilian state will be able to provide them with that? I hate to break it to you, but they will not be able to afford private healthcare or education.
What makes you think any state would provide anything for anyone if we don't demand it?
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 18:21
So it's better that they stay in their primitive state in the jungle?
Your line of logic is like telling a woman that she's better off staying in the house; because if she goes out into society, all that faces her is low-paid work and sexual harrassment.
What we should be saying instead is: you can't change society until you play an active part in it.
When you have factored in that most of them will simply die of disease if brought into the cities, then yes it is probably better in the jungles.
That notwithstanding, I think you are being naive. Do you think there will be great benefits provided for them from contact? The fact is that they won't join urban society either way. Do you think people living in their state will be able to learn Portuguese, learn how to read and write, how to operate all the applications of the modern world and so on within a generation?
Even such tribes that are in full contact with modern society usually simply lean the language for external communication and otherwise content themselves to mostly live as they previously did. The difference being that their land is steadily decreased as their leaders are bought off.
I didn't say anything about 'making them' do anything. I said that the opportunities should be provided.
Sure, but how do you propose to provide them? Contact cannot possibly be made between the Brazilian elite and the tribe as equals. To do it properly, it would take a long time of establishing friendly contacts, learning one another's language and then beginning discussions a bit at a time.
You presumably want to simply blunder in, show them some nice modern toys and tell them they can have them if they sign over their land.
What makes you think any state would provide anything for anyone if we don't demand it?
And that has what to do with what I wrote? The fact is that the Brazilian state does attempt to provide healthcare and education, it just can't afford to do so properly. If this tribe were to be "integrated" into Brazilian society they would be getting the very worst in both. Which when they will be very prone to illness will not exactly improve their life expectancy.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 18:32
When you have factored in that most of them will simply die of disease if brought into the cities
Where did you get this from?
That notwithstanding, I think you are being naive. Do you think there will be great benefits provided for them from contact?
Yes, at least in the long term.
The fact is that they won't join urban society either way. Do you think people living in their state will be able to learn Portuguese, learn how to read and write, how to operate all the applications of the modern world and so on within a generation?
Of course. Especially their children.
You presumably want to simply blunder in, show them some nice modern toys and tell them they can have them if they sign over their land.
Look, the Brazilian state should at the bare minimum provide ALL people in Brazil with decent housing, health care and education. I'm sure this is a basic demand from leftwingers in Brazil.
All that's being said here is that such rights should also be extended to these people in question.
RoterAnarchie
1st June 2008, 18:36
The despicable implication being that these aboriginals of Brazil are happy with their poverty...
And 'happiness' cannot be measured objectively or absolutely. Whether your children die before the age of one or whether you have good access to healthcare, education, etc., can be.
In history, we see two reasons for immigration:
boredom or wealth: mankind explores because of its hunger for knowledge
unhappiness: they seek other places hoping it will be beter there
since that tribe has not taken the effort to hike a few days (and thus find the modern world by accident) it would mean they're not that miserable!
btw, is all that cannot be measured objectively or absolutely irrelevant??
in dutch we have a nuance "welzijn" en "welvaart"
where the second means "wealth" (materialistic view on happiness i guess)
the first isn't that measurable, it's somewhat influenced by wealth, or comparized wealth, but not nearly completely
LOVE and FREEDOM and NATURE are very important things for people to be happy
and those cannot be measured!
you also don't know anything about the tribe's religion, you have NO idea how they feel or what they'd want
conclusion: we should leave them alone
note: I don't understand how these imperialists can call themselves leftists...
edit:
"integration/assimilation is cultural genocide"
you would destroy a entire culture in one generation? :confused:
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 18:54
Where did you get this from?
Do you understand how diseases work? There are a whole bunch of them swirling about the world that do not affect us because we have built up immunity to them. Very isolated people will only build up immunity to the local diseases. If brought into contact with the wider world they will be hit with a whole barrage of diseases they have no immunity to. It has happened again and again whenever people have come into contact with diseases they previously had no contact with. That is how the vast majority of Native Americans were wiped out for instance.
Yes, at least in the long term.
Of course. Especially their children.
The children could, yes. But only if they were raised by Brazilians. Their parents won't be able to teach them the language or the skills needed in the modern world for instance. Are you suggesting the kids be taken from their parents?
As for the adults, it will be nearly impossible. How would they learn the language for instance? Nobody speaks their language after all, teaching is out of the question. And odds are that it has utterly different structure from Portuguese, likely it will use different sounds, making things different further.
Look, the Brazilian state should at the bare minimum provide ALL people in Brazil with decent housing, health care and education. I'm sure this is a basic demand from leftwingers in Brazil.
All that's being said here is that such rights should also be extended to these people in question.It should do, but it doesn't. And moreover it probably can't at present.
Anyway, whatever the truth of the matter, these facts won't change if this tribe were to be integrated.
I am not saying no contact should be made. But it must not be contact that disadvantages them, and that is the tricky bit. There is a reason the Brazilian Government doesn't contact such tribes anymore. It always goes disastrously wrong when they do.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 19:11
Do you understand how diseases work? There are a whole bunch of them swirling about the world that do not affect us because we have built up immunity to them. Very isolated people will only build up immunity to the local diseases. If brought into contact with the wider world they will be hit with a whole barrage of diseases they have no immunity to.
Then they would need extra medical care and attention. Telling them to stay in the jungle and not come into contact with the wider world isn't an alternative.
The children could, yes. But only if they were raised by Brazilians. Their parents won't be able to teach them the language or the skills needed in the modern world for instance. Are you suggesting the kids be taken from their parents?
Lol what the hell is this? They will learn the language in the same way that everyone else learns a new language.
As for the adults, it will be nearly impossible. How would they learn the language for instance? Nobody speaks their language after all, teaching is out of the question. And odds are that it has utterly different structure from Portuguese, likely it will use different sounds, making things different further.
Well, the experiences of millions of immigrants makes this argument laughable. People are more than capable of adapting to new environments and learning new languages.
And how is your argument against them moving at all different from arguing against immigration on the grounds that the immigrants may find it challenging to adapt to their new surroundings. Well, they can adapt and they do.
It should do, but it doesn't. And moreover it probably can't at present.
Of course it can, if it's made to - which is what radicals fight for. Demanding decent housing, health care and education for all is a most basic leftwing demand.
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 19:28
Then they would need extra medical care and attention. Telling them to stay in the jungle and not come into contact with the wider world isn't an alternative.
Where is this medical care going to come from? They would get it at first yes, but the state would soon lose interest. States are not charities. They don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts
Lol what the hell is this? They will learn the language in the same way that everyone else learns a new language.
There are essentially two ways to learn a language. Through being taught or through being raised by those who speak it. Who is going to teach Portuguese when no Portuguese speaker will speak their language
Well, the experiences of millions of immigrants makes this argument laughable. People are more than capable of adapting to new environments and learning new languages.
Said millions of immigrants have the advantage of there being people speaking their language who can teach them the new one. Also adult immigrants will tend to only learn a new language fluently if they either have prior experience to it (which is why English speaking countries are often considered good places to go) or if their language is similar in structure, usually part of the same language family. These people will not have that advantage. It is likely that those over the age of twelve or so will not be able to learn Portuguese unless they happen to be particularly skilled in languages
And how is your argument against them moving at all different from arguing against immigration on the grounds that the immigrants may find it challenging to adapt to their new surroundings. Well, they can adapt and they do.
But new immigrants know what they are getting into, have people who know their own culture who can help them adapt and are not being asked to effectively jump six thousand years into the future.
I am not saying they should not be allowed to move into Brazilian society, but that they should not be pushed in. I am not against contact being made, so long as it is on their terms.
You know perfectly well though the kind of contact the Brazilian bourgeoisie would make. They would get them to sign over their land for a pittance and then leave them in a lurch.
Of course it can, if it's made to - which is what radicals fight for. Demanding decent housing, health care and education for all is a most basic leftwing demand.
Naturally, though Brazil on its own could not do that at present because much of its wealth is siphoned off by foreign corporations.
At any rate though, if these people enter into Brazilian society, they will be entering into Brazil as it is, not Brazil as it should be.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 19:47
Where is this medical care going to come from? They would get it at first yes, but the state would soon lose interest. States are not charities. They don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts
So you're no longer arguing that coming into contact with the wider world will inevitably mean that 'most of them will simply die of disease'. You know admit that any health problems that arise will be the result of a lack of proper medical services.
This means that we should be demanding proper medical services, rather than demanding that the people in question stay put in the jungle.
There are essentially two ways to learn a language. Through being taught or through being raised by those who speak it. Who is going to teach Portuguese when no Portuguese speaker will speak their language
You don't need to be able to speak their language to teach them your language. If that was the precondition for learning a new language, there would not be a single person in this world who could speak more than one language.
Said millions of immigrants have the advantage of there being people speaking their language who can teach them the new one. Also adult immigrants will tend to only learn a new language fluently if they either have prior experience to it (which is why English speaking countries are often considered good places to go) or if their language is similar in structure, usually part of the same language family.
Not at all. Most children of immigrants in Britain learn English in English schools with English teachers who do not know a single word of the mother tongues of their students.
But new immigrants know what they are getting into, have people who know their own culture who can help them adapt
Not necessarily the case.
I am not saying they should not be allowed to move into Brazilian society, but that they should not be pushed in.
Of course they shouldn't. They should be given the opportunities to assimilate themselves into Brazilian society. At a most basic level, these opportunities should include the right to decent housing, health care and education.
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 19:59
So you're no longer arguing that coming into contact with the wider world will inevitably mean that 'most of them will simply die of disease'. You know admit that any health problems that arise will be the result of a lack of proper medical services.
This means that we should be demanding proper medical services, rather than demanding that the people in question stay put in the jungle.
Even with decent medical care, many would die. But anyway you are looking at the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is. You know that if contacted they won't get the medical attention needed but want to go ahead anyway. Why?
You don't need to be able to speak their language to teach them your language. If that was the precondition for learning a new language, there would not be a single person in this world who could speak more than one language.
Pretty much all children and a few adults can of course learn a language in such a way, but there are few adults with that talent. Are you just going to bargain on this tribe having significant number of adults with the talent?
Not at all. Most children of immigrants in Britain learn English in English schools with English teachers who do not know a single word of the mother tongues of their students.
That is because they are kids and because the teachers spend several hours a day with them. How are you going to have teachers spending several hours a day with them given their location without removing them from their parents?
Of course they shouldn't. They should be given the opportunities to assimilate themselves into Brazilian society. At a most basic level, these opportunities should include the right to decent housing, health care and education.
And there are upwards of another hundred million other Brazilian's who could do with that too. If the Brazilian state can't or won't provide their people with these things, what makes you think it will suddenly do so for these people. You can talk about pushing for it all you want, but the fact is, at present such rights do not exist in Brazil and the Brazil these people would have to live in is the current one, not the one you want to see.
Bear MacMillan
1st June 2008, 20:16
Of course they shouldn't. They should be given the opportunities to assimilate themselves into Brazilian society. At a most basic level, these opportunities should include the right to decent housing, health care and education.
In Canada, we used to have boarding schools set up by the government to try to erase Native cultures and languages. This was because the white men in Ottawa thought the Natives should be given the "opportunities" to assimilate themselves, because they thought their way of life was "savage", but it failed, and now the Natives are segregated in reservations which have conditions similar to "3rd world" countries, all inside of a "1st world" country. Trying to give them the "opportunities" to assimilate themselves will probably end the same way.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 20:25
Even with decent medical care, many would die.
Proof?
But anyway you are looking at the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is. You know that if contacted they won't get the medical attention needed but want to go ahead anyway.
They would be closer to getting it if they and the rest of the people of Brazil demanded it, rather than telling people to hide away in the jungle.
Again, compare it to immigration. Should we tell aspiring immigrants into Britain to stay away because they might face certain hardships when they get here?
No, we don't say this. Instead, we call for an open door policy and we make demands on the state to introduce greater rights for immigrants. That's what radical politics for change is about.
Pretty much all children and a few adults can of course learn a language in such a way, but there are few adults with that talent. Are you just going to bargain on this tribe having significant number of adults with the talent?
What does this mean? Hundreds of thousands of people have immigrated into Britain with no knowledge of English.
That is because they are kids and because the teachers spend several hours a day with them. How are you going to have teachers spending several hours a day with them given their location without removing them from their parents?
Why would you have to remove them from their parents? Where are you getting these things from?
Children learn a new language very straightforwardly if exposed to it daily (in a matter of months). For adults, it's a bit more challenging, but by no means as difficult as you make out. And it certainly hasn't been viewed as an insurmountable barrier by the hundreds of millions of people who have historically emigrated to new countires to aspire to a better life.
And there are upwards of another hundred million other Brazilian's who could do with that too. If the Brazilian state can't or won't provide their people with these things, what makes you think it will suddenly do so for these people. You can talk about pushing for it all you want, but the fact is, at present such rights do not exist in Brazil and the Brazil these people would have to live in is the current one, not the one you want to see.
This is an incredibly conservative view of society - the idea that we should accept the present situation as practically unchangeable.
What's the point of being a 'radical' or a 'revolutionary' is you're not going to make serious demands for change?
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 20:44
In Canada, we used to have boarding schools set up by the government to try to erase Native cultures and languages. This was because the white men in Ottawa thought the Natives should be given the "opportunities" to assimilate themselves, because they thought their way of life was "savage", but it failed, and now the Natives are segregated in reservations which have conditions similar to "3rd world" countries, all inside of a "1st world" country. Trying to give them the "opportunities" to assimilate themselves will probably end the same way.
I merely suggested that they should be provided with basic rights to decent housing, health care and education so that they can relieve themselves of the poverty in which they currently live. If you reject this, what alternative do you propose?
Demogorgon
1st June 2008, 21:16
Proof?
Even the best medical attention cannot always save people when they get particularly nasty diseases. And if they get more than one at the same time, there is severe trouble indeed. Even with all the advances in medical science, treatment for a disease is still no match for immunity.
They would be closer to getting it if they and the rest of the people of Brazil demanded it, rather than telling people to hide away in the jungle.
Again, compare it to immigration. Should we tell aspiring immigrants into Britain to stay away because they might face certain hardships when they get here?
No, we don't say this. Instead, we call for an open door policy and we make demands on the state to introduce greater rights for immigrants. That's what radical politics for change is about.
Yes, but this doesn't compare to immigration for the reasons I already mentioned. Besides chances are these people would not assimilate into Brazilian society anyway. Most of these tribes tend to remain where they are, simply trading with the rest of society.
What does this mean? Hundreds of thousands of people have immigrated into Britain with no knowledge of English.
Yes, and the vast majority have either been taught the language or else have not become fluent. Very often with immigrant families, the older generations never master English.
Why would you have to remove them from their parents? Where are you getting these things from?Are there going to be lots of Portuguese speakers going out to where the tribe lives to teach the children? Hardly. In order to learn the language, the children would have to leave their parents. Don't imagine that the adults will simply up-sticks and move to a completely new life happily. People tend not to do that.
The truth is that even amongst the tribes in South America that have been known of since colonial times that have survived, there will usually not be more than a few people in the tribe who speak Western languages. The rest will have either chosen not to learn them or else will have found it too difficult to be worth the trouble. What makes you think these people will be any different?
Children learn a new language very straightforwardly if exposed to it daily (in a matter of months). For adults, it's a bit more challenging, but by no means as difficult as you make out. And it certainly hasn't been viewed as an insurmountable barrier by the hundreds of millions of people who have historically emigrated to new countires to aspire to a better life.
Well as I have said, these people have had people to translate for them while they learn, but also crucially these people have chosen actively to move and to learn the language. The fact is that many, perhaps most, people, find it too daunting to make such changes. I have no reason to imagine that these people are any different from anyone else, most of them, particularly the older ones, will want to seek with what they know. Brazilian culture and language will be utterly alien to them and it is a natural reaction to say "thanks, but no thanks" to offers to go and join something like that. The equivalent for us would be aliens landing on our front lawn and asking us if we wanted to go and live in outer space with them.
This is an incredibly conservative view of society - the idea that we should accept the present situation as practically unchangeable.
What's the point of being a 'radical' or a 'revolutionary' is you're not going to make serious demands for change?
Of course the current situation is changeable and we should seek to change it. However you said these people should be integrated immediately. Do you think massive societal change will happen in Brazil in the course of the next couple of weeks?
Zurdito
1st June 2008, 21:19
I merely suggested that they should be provided with basic rights to decent housing, health care and education so that they can relieve themselves of the poverty in which they currently live
Obviously a socialist society would extend these things to all, especially "remote" communities, and we wouldn't let romantic fetishisation of more "honest" way of life get in the way of our drive to rapidly raise living standards for all, and to integrate all workers across the globe ever more.
However, do you actually think that the current Brazilian state is going to do this? What are you proposing, to place that demand on the Brazilian state whilst militantly opposing any moves towards exploitation? I support that btw. However, I don't support some deterministic and programmatic "left-cover" for the exploitation under capitalism of this community.
So I am not going to come up with a declaration saying we must "leave them in peace", because, that's not going to be possible long term, and not desirable in itself. However, before you keep declaring about their "poverty" - do you actually know anything about their living standards? I don't. But why assume without evidence that they are necessarilly worse off than quite a large part of the Brazilian population currently is - the strata of society which they would almost certainly join if integrated into the current status quo. Are you aware that the average indigenous person in modern day Guatemala had a higher calorie intake daily before the conquest than they do today, for example?
And please, I'm not in the mood for you shouting how I am a patronising anti-progress romantic, as I haven't said that isolating or artificially "preserving" these people is desirable. And neither do I want to hear quotes from Marx about primitive socieites, as these do not relate to the recent discovery of such societies by a fully developed bourgeois state in the imperialist epoch. Rather, he was talking about the gradual death of those societies as historically necessarry in order for humanity to develop its productive capacities.
Vanguard1917
1st June 2008, 22:17
However, do you actually think that the current Brazilian state is going to do this? What are you proposing, to place that demand on the Brazilian state whilst militantly opposing any moves towards exploitation? I support that btw.
That's good. :)
And please, I'm not in the mood for you shouting how I am a patronising anti-progress romantic, as I haven't said that isolating or artificially "preserving" these people is desirable. And neither do I want to hear quotes from Marx about primitive socieites
Fair enough. I shall therefore leave this thread with a quote from the Peruvian socialist Jose Carlos Mariategui:
'The Indian is in no way inferior to the mestizo in his abilities to assimilate progressive techniques of modern production.'
Nakidana
1st June 2008, 23:23
I think they should be contacted, but not invaded. That is, they should be allowed to keep the land where they live. Modern technology should be offered to them, maybe in exchange for a tour of the village or whatever interesting items they might have.
My point is, they should be treated as equals. Like two friendly nations would treat one another.
Zurdito
2nd June 2008, 03:04
Fair enough. I shall therefore leave this thread with a quote from the Peruvian socialist Jose Carlos Mariategui:
'The Indian is in no way inferior to the mestizo in his abilities to assimilate progressive techniques of modern production.'
This is true V1917, but maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was actually wondering whether you support demanding that the state defend this community's land rights from the encroachment of capital into the Amazon, or whether you would support their "proletarianisation".
I apologise if I came across over-aggressive in the OP, it was kind of a pre-emptive defence. ;) I think you've broadly held the better position in this thread, but it's important to not support just any assimilation.
The reason for my quote about not wanting to hear Marx quotes is because there is a difference between Marx's understanding of the historic demise of certain modes of production as dialectically contributing to the modern world and therefore as part of the process which led to the creation of a world where socialism could be implemented, and between trying to argue that he thoguht the collapse of such societies was positive for those people at that time and that he believed that all parts of the process should were supportable simply because the overall process was progressive. I mean, there's the common argument that Marx supported the British in India...he didn't. That's the only point I'm trying to make, that as communists in the 21st century we have to not only observe what is historicaly progressive but also fight for justice for all the opressed and poor in every interaction, and that incudes resisting the subordination of this community before capitalism, whilst fighting for them to be offered the benefits of the modern world.
To those who want to "leave them alone", btw, I would ask you, quite apart from the other agruments, a quite pragmatic question: if you propose just ignoring them now, then aren't you jsut arguing to leave them completely unprepared for the eventual expansion of capitalism into their territories, which looks very likely at the current rate? Isn't it better to place specific demands for their incorporation into Brazilian societies inw ays which improve the material basis of their lives and empower them to deal with any future interaction with modernity - which is hardly unlikely now, is it?
Nakidana
2nd June 2008, 10:10
This is true V1917, but maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was actually wondering whether you support demanding that the state defend this community's land rights from the encroachment of capital into the Amazon, or whether you would support their "proletarianisation".
I apologise if I came across over-aggressive in the OP, it was kind of a pre-emptive defence. ;) I think you've broadly held the better position in this thread, but it's important to not support just any assimilation.
The reason for my quote about not wanting to hear Marx quotes is because there is a difference between Marx's understanding of the historic demise of certain modes of production as dialectically contributing to the modern world and therefore as part of the process which led to the creation of a world where socialism could be implemented, and between trying to argue that he thoguht the collapse of such societies was positive for those people at that time and that he believed that all parts of the process should were supportable simply because the overall process was progressive. I mean, there's the common argument that Marx supported the British in India...he didn't. That's the only point I'm trying to make, that as communists in the 21st century we have to not only observe what is historicaly progressive but also fight for justice for all the opressed and poor in every interaction, and that incudes resisting the subordination of this community before capitalism, whilst fighting for them to be offered the benefits of the modern world.
To those who want to "leave them alone", btw, I would ask you, quite apart from the other agruments, a quite pragmatic question: if you propose just ignoring them now, then aren't you jsut arguing to leave them completely unprepared for the eventual expansion of capitalism into their territories, which looks very likely at the current rate? Isn't it better to place specific demands for their incorporation into Brazilian societies inw ays which improve the material basis of their lives and empower them to deal with any future interaction with modernity - which is hardly unlikely now, is it?
I think offers, not demands, should be put forward.
RoterAnarchie
2nd June 2008, 11:22
We should build a huge fence around it, so nobody can get in and ruin them. (rape, theft, buying of their ground, ...)
Kropotesta
2nd June 2008, 11:26
We should build a huge fence around it, so nobody can get in and ruin them. (rape, theft, buying of their ground, ...)
and no one can get out......
Anyways from what I saw, the tribe are pretty deep in the rainforest, so it'd take some sorta surivial and tracking expert to beable to find them o foot.
Hiero
2nd June 2008, 13:26
Like i said, they should be given the means and support to contact wider Brazilian society and to assimilate themselves into it. This is the communist position in regards to all peoples - full access to assimilation. Unfortunately, ruling classes have historically denied this access to the certain groups which they think should not assimilate for whatever reason.
No, Communists support full national determination.
Tell me what benevolent state is going kindly bring them in? In all of colonialist history, assimilation does not improve the lives of indigenous people. It actually results in genocide.
You miss my points that I made. Technology is not neutral and neither is the state. Where indigenous people have gained access to modern technology, they infact use it as a means of resistance against colonialism and incorporation into the modern state.
I think there needs to be dual position. Indigenous people should have full access to the benifits of the settler state (technology, education, healthcare), but have complete autonomy to use the benifits to define their own people's place in the modern world.
What your promoting, has never worked. Assimilation means adopting the settler's norms and practices in regards to the use of technology. This idea is based on the belief that use of technology is netural, which I don't think it is. It has class character and national character. If this was the case, that technology use is netural, we would find a standard across industrialised countries. We don't, we find for isntance different health problems, and this is in relation to nation's cultural use of technology.
Nakidana
2nd June 2008, 13:47
A second thought, the villagers did try to attack the plane. I guess that's a declaration of war, and the Brazilian government should order an airstrike and cluster bomb them back to the bone-age.
:lol:
BIG BROTHER
2nd June 2008, 16:01
A second thought, the villagers did try to attack the plane. I guess that's a declaration of war, and the Brazilian government should order an airstrike and cluster bomb them back to the bone-age.
:lol:
lol, they area treat to national security and surely have ties with osama bin laden!:laugh:
RoterAnarchie
2nd June 2008, 16:28
lol, they area treat to national security and surely have ties with osama bin laden!:laugh:
Just wait untill they find out there's oil underneith that settlement;)
welshboy
3rd June 2008, 10:05
They're just a bunch of US Primmos hiding from the green scare:laugh:
On a slightly more serious note, the article I read about this said that the tribe were already known about and that the fly over was an attempt to prove that they exist in an effort to protect their land. The fly over was performed by the Brazilian state btw for this purpose.
As for contacting them. I think that they should definitely be the subject of anthropological research and a decent amount of land alloted to them for their way of life to continue. At least until after the revolution and the modern world being a much nicer place to live in. :D
BTW I am in no way defending the Brazilian state just pointing out that on occasion the odd state can appear to do something right.
BIG BROTHER
3rd June 2008, 16:15
that's good to hear.
Digitalism
3rd June 2008, 18:48
No, that's not "all there is to it".
Try again. This time, I suggest you make an argument.
I don't need to make an arguement.
I don't need to make an arguement.
Okay. Then you are simply a troll and an idiot who I can only assume has less than half of a functioning mind.
Harrycombs
6th June 2008, 00:00
How do you know that these people aren't content with their lifestyle? There are quite a few philosophies about being content without material goods.
Also, for those who say that we should just leave them alone, these people need to know that there is another world out their, and that if they wish, they could join it. If they are content with how they are living, then we should just leave them alone. This is a choice they need to make.
I suggest you guys read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In it, an Indian from America (it takes place in the future, and was written in the 1930s), is brought into modern society. He hates it. He doesn't under stand it and thinks that people are immoral. He hates the modern outlook on life and in the end of the book, kills himself .
Of course, this new world has become somewhat fascist, but it still relates to this topic.
How do you know that these people aren't content with their lifestyle? There are quite a few philosophies about being content without material goods.
The point is we don't know either way. And we can't make that judgement for them!
Also, for those who say that we should just leave them alone, these people need to know that there is another world out their, and that if they wish, they could join it. If they are content with how they are living, then we should just leave them alone. This is a choice they need to make.
I agree with you 100%.
I suggest you guys read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In it, an Indian from America (it takes place in the future, and was written in the 1930s), is brought into modern society. He hates it. He doesn't under stand it and thinks that people are immoral. He hates the modern outlook on life and in the end of the book, [SIZE=1][COLOR=Silver]kills himself [COLOR=Black][SIZE=2].
Great book.
spartan
10th June 2008, 04:51
Pretty good article on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/brazil
Mod-ist
10th June 2008, 21:46
After reading that article, my opinion has changed about whether we should make contact with them. They do have their rights, and we must respect them. After reading Tarzan's account of events, we must not make contact with them until The society in which we live has made the system a lot fairer to those at the bottom of the social spectrum. If we make contact now, then they'll just be shoved on the street and discriminated against, whilst being arrested several times for begging. They won't have the foggiest whats going on, and will almost certainly resort to volence, if they haven't died already from the pollution in which we've adapted to. Leave them be, I say.
RedAnarchist
22nd June 2008, 04:23
Just going to bump this. Apparently, the tribe weren't uncontacted, but were described as such to help prevent logging in the Amazon.
They are the amazing pictures that were beamed around the globe: a handful of warriors from an 'undiscovered tribe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/30/brazil.conservation)' in the rainforest on the Brazilian-Peruvian border brandishing bows and arrows at the aircraft that photographed them.
Or so the story was told and sold. But it has now emerged that, far from being unknown, the tribe's existence has been noted since 1910 and the mission to photograph them was undertaken in order to prove that 'uncontacted' tribes still existed in an area endangered by the menace of the logging industry.
The disclosures have been made by the man behind the pictures, José Carlos Meirelles, 61, one of the handful of sertanistas – experts on indigenous tribes – working for the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, Funai, which is dedicated to searching out remote tribes and protecting them.
In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/amazon
blackstone
24th June 2008, 14:00
Bamboozled!
BIG BROTHER
24th June 2008, 23:02
haha i can't believe we all fell for it
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.