What is the logic behind it being wrong to meddle in "uncontacted" tribes

Surprisingly there are still a few groups out there who have managed to be nearly uninfluenced by the modern world around them. Some people praise this as some sort of a great cause, to keep these people "pure" whatever that means.

My question, what is the basis of this idea?

I recently watched a video of a Jarawa man looking in awe at a bus full of Indian tourists. The look of wonder and amazement in his eyes was something I've never seen from a person in the "modern" world. Some people would pass laws to make it so that no outsiders could ever contact this tribe. How is that right?

How is it right to dictate to a population of people who they are allowed to interact with? Who is anybody to deny these "uncontacted" peoples their right to explore and experience new things? They don't deserve to be treated like children and have choice made for them, they deserve to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

I personally put a very large value on personal choice and freedoms. It seems in our goal to protect these people we are oppressing them. Some don't want contact with outsiders, and it's pretty obvious when this is the case. Easy, leave them alone. But to legally block people from contacting a tribe who is interested in interacting with you seems like a great wrong. I'm not talking specifically about the Jarawas, I was just using them as an example.

To me it a shows a type of mentality that these "conservationists" have, which is that these ancient tribes are no different than a bald eagle or any other endangered animal. That they can be controlled and contained like a wild animal. But they aren't another species, they are OUR species. They are fellow humans. If they want to contact the modern world and touch base with fellow humans outside their extremely small circle, that is their engrained right as a person, to explore and learn new things.

When the culture of western nations is destroyed by incoming immigrants, everyone calls it a good thing. They bash the natives for not wanting outsiders changing their culture and way of life. There is absolutely no respect shown for anything western in this way. It's all seen as bad, and somehow lesser than any other culture.

Yet some people FORCE these ancient tribal cultures to remain as they are by blocking any and all access to the outside world. Does that not seem like a double standard? Changing of culture, infusion of new ethnicity, etc are all praised as a great thing when it's non-western culture influencing the west. But when the western world, or the modern world in general tries to infuse these same things into other cultures (or even if it just happens by accident) it's seen as a huge negative.

I understand the goal is to protect these people, but what are you protecting them from? Instead of trying to lock and hide them away, put that effort into REALLY helping them. If they are interested in the outside world, help them, don't hinder them in the name of protecting them. It's along the lines of the abstinence only train of thought. It's rejecting reality for a rosey idealistic situation that doesn't and never will exists, and ultimately hurts far, far more than it helps.

Usually these types of cultures end up getting taken advantage of, scattered to the wind, and their people's oppressed by the nation's government. This WILL happen if your only means of protecting them is trying to lock them away from prying eyes. Instead, help them grow strong so they won't be abused and taken advantage of. Forcing them to stay in their current state only makes it more likely their culture and people will ultimately be destroyed forever, and that is not something I'd like to see.

reply to post by James1982

I recently watched a video of a Jarawa man looking in awe at a bus full of Indian tourists. The look of wonder and amazement in his eyes was something I've never seen from a person in the "modern" world. Some people would pass laws to make it so that no outsiders could ever contact this tribe. How is that right?

How is it right to dictate to a population of people who they are allowed to interact with? Who is anybody to deny these "uncontacted" peoples their right to explore and experience new things? They don't deserve to be treated like children and have choice made for them, they deserve to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

I personally put a very large value on personal choice and freedoms. It seems in our goal to protect these people we are oppressing them. Some don't want contact with outsiders, and it's pretty obvious when this is the case. Easy, leave them alone. But to legally block people from contacting a tribe who is interested in interacting with you seems like a great wrong. I'm not talking specifically about the Jarawas, I was just using them as an example.

I think you've answered your own question in these last three paragraphs. If the Jarawas know or have seen outside people then they know about them. If they send an expedition to meet modern people, sure, I support interacting with them I guess.

Blocking people from actively seeking them out though is simply protecting them from exploitation.

It's not like we have a good track record with indigenous cultures. And that's on a global scale. The Bedouins, Aboriginals, Tibetans… etc, etc, etc…

Humankind as a whole has made an effort to completely screw over the least advanced cultures on this planet.

We should blow their minds and give them the most epic laser light show ever conceived by modern man, carpet bomb them with plasma screens and ps4, complete with cellphones with contracts. Ho Ho Ho tribal kiddies.

All joking aside;

I feel torn I suppose we should at least say hi, but they worry they will die from contact with us due to our funky urban diseases. Yet, don't you think we should at least inform them about Fukushima? Just maybe let them know, "Yeaaaah... well we kinda been destroying the whole planet. There a massive sized island of plastic in the ocean now, ohh plastic? its great, you just use it and throw it away!" They always say they are uncontacted but surely they are at bare minimum aware of the locals. It's not like they're Sasquatch people.

I'd say keep them tax free as long as possible, I bet the concept of rent would be absurd to them.

The problem typically lies with the historical precedent that seems to happen over and over where the newly contacted peoples are exploited one way or another.

There's the old "here's some shiny things if you let us turn your home into a parking lot, neverminding that you don't know what a parking lot is and would disagree if you did."

There's the old "Have you heard about Jesus" exploitation where indigenous traditions are irrevocably destroyed and oral traditions and mythologies forgotten soon after they've been convinced that their tribal elders are worshipping Satan and have to be burned at the stake for not converting to the new god.

There's also the "Let's give them shiny things in trade for their women who we'll put to work as prostitutes", exploitation.

There's also the tradition of cheap slave labor, especially when it comes to teaching them how to cultivate and watch after certain rather profitable illegal plants.

All in all, contact restriction is to prevent exploitation.
It's also to preserve a people's traditions, just like preserving other rarified resources, and historical sites.

reply to post by boncho



Humans do have a horrible track record with these types of things, which is why we need to change how we deal with the situation. We always either give zero care to them and just take total advantage, or do the opposite and try to completely ignore them. There is a middle ground where you can give them their own freedom and choices, but still offer a helping hand to those who wish to understand the outside world.

In the past when we were ALL this way, different tribes and cultures would pass each others paths all the time. This is, quite literally, the story of the human race. To deny them the ability to interact with outsiders, change, and evolve, isn't natural at all, it's completely the opposite of how things would have been if they were truly "left alone"

It's really out of the norm for a society to live within a vacuum, ideas, cultural aspects, etc get passed on and changed over time. This happens to ALL peoples are cultures, why should they be any different?

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Excellent points, but those issues can be solved.

There is no danger of traditions and oral histories getting lost to time, if even a few of their people were capable of writing everything down. Instead of extreme isolation, show the world their culture, their people, their language, traditions, etc. It will be documented and in the group collective, available as long as possible, instead of being instantly wiped out at the whim of government or corporations.

The ideas, cultural influences, and histories that survive today are still around BECAUSE those cultures were exposed. If you want to truly destroy a culture from history, isolate it, because that makes it all the easier to destroy in one fell swoop.

I know this sounds similar to how the native American tribes were treated, in that they were shipped off to reeducation camps and treated like animals. But that's not what I'm suggesting. Exposure is not the same thing as exploitation. The natives had their land stolen, and were shipped off basically to prisons. That's totally different than respecting their right to control their lands and way of life, while offering them means to protect themselves even better.

In the view of the modern world these people are backwards and dumb. Backwards and dumb people are easy to abuse and take advantage of. Give them strength and power by teaching the willing how to wield power in today's world, so that they may better protect that culture they hold dear.

And as far as the preservation of traditions and culture aspect, isn't that a hypocritical stance for the modern world to have? All other cultures get influenced by others and change over time, why should they be any different? The destruction of various western cultures is praised as multiculturalism and advancement, yet destruction of their culture is a tragedy? I

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

If only Spain had such a law way back when...*sigh*

leave them alone..i dont believe in the history of mankind have primitive people benefited from unwanted or unexpected contact..i say unwanted because if they didnt seek out contact they probably were happy as is. if they seek out to meet new cultures that is different

reply to post by James1982

It's really out of the norm for a society to live within a vacuum, ideas, cultural aspects, etc get passed on and changed over time. This happens to ALL peoples are cultures, why should they be any different?

Idonno, ask the Mormons, or the Amish. Or the Amish Mormons.

reply to post by James1982


While I agree with a majority of previous posters, some people just do not want to be contacted.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by James1982


unless they are on an island - with no maritime technology - the idea of absolute isolated " uncontacted " tribes is an utter myth .

such indigenous societies - know full well that they are not the only people on the planet - they have chosen to limit their interactions with other societies

They don't want us to talk to these people because we may find out how easy and stressfree life could be. Tptb are trying to keep us in the dark to the truth. Wouldn't it be great if all I had to do was hunt and fish all day and share my food with others who did the same. I doubt if those people work half as much as we do and they still enjoy life most times.

Hi folks here are some new diseases you are completely uprepared for. Pretty much all these groups are aware of an outside world and if the wanted contact they would have made. The ones that remain uncontacted all seem to be very hostile to any attempts.

reply to post by James1982


Well I have never heard it this way before. The way I heard it is that outside contact with isolated tribes leads to negative effects. Like the decline of the American indians.

In Brazil, some native tribes do not want contact with outsiders.

I didn't read any following replies, but..


Wow, this OP actually got me thinking. That's a rarity here on ATS for me. Good job, man...



I never really thought of it that way before.
I'm sure I have, but probably not for a long time, and for some reason it didn't stick.

Who are we to say they're happier in their villages than they would be if we exposed them to technology... eh, a reply probably explains it... oh well, not gonna go back and read now.


How do I flag a thread!!!

Just as with endangered animals, there should be a concentrated effort to preserve what we have left of purely 'animalistic' humans, left to live as they have in the wild for millenia.

To study them from afar, for years to come, we can learn so much about our species.

What they don't know about the advanced world, with all the technological problems it faces, won't hurt them.

reply to post by James1982


Well, part of the problem with thinking that we simply need to approach it differently and that is people are people. While one can make as many rules in terms of protecting a tribe from outsider exploitation, that tribe will still be at risk for exploitation. Not everybody is an angel and to this day, we have issues with dealing with the tribes in the US still. Take a look at what is going on with Navajo water rights. Issues with coal and uranium mining where the tribe's trust basically was breached. Our own government was "holding" millions to billions of dollars "in trust" for the tribes while many of the tribes actually struggle with poverty. Every 4 years some politician would come along promising to fix it and they never did. This trust money is money that you or I would have traditionally received without government intervention such as royalty payments for oil, coal, and etc.

How did this happen? Because the government opted to take all the tribal lands and put them in their hands "in trust" for the tribes. One has no idea what that really means until you actually live on a reservation here for a few years. What I saw was the tribes having to beg for land to build deeply needed housing from the BIA and getting refused and being forced to buy privately held land on the reservation to develop said housing. They can't develop jack on tribal lands without the BIA's approval and that is very hard to obtain. There's a tremendous amount of bureaucratic red tape involved there at the federal level. Now, imagine that you have a few thousand acres of land and the federal government took all rights over that land from you. Let's say that they discovered oil there but said, "oh we'll hold that in trust for you" and you never saw hardly any of that money. How would you feel?

This is how we deal with indigenous tribes here in the US at the federal level--that entity that we're traditionally supposed to trust and they have acted so poorly that they might as well be thieves. You expect the rest of the world to behave when it comes to those uncontacted tribes who would be completely ignorant of our ways?

James1982How is it right to dictate to a population of people who they are allowed to interact with? Who is anybody to deny these "uncontacted" peoples their right to explore and experience new things? They don't deserve to be treated like children and have choice made for them, they deserve to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

I personally put a very large value on personal choice and freedoms. It seems in our goal to protect these people we are oppressing them. Some don't want contact with outsiders, and it's pretty obvious when this is the case. Easy, leave them alone. But to legally block people from contacting a tribe who is interested in interacting with you seems like a great wrong. I'm not talking specifically about the Jarawas, I was just using them as an example.

Please show me where tribes that WANT contact are prohibited from having it.

AliceBleachWhite

The problem typically lies with the historical precedent that seems to happen over and over where the newly contacted peoples are exploited one way or another.

There's the old "here's some shiny things if you let us turn your home into a parking lot, neverminding that you don't know what a parking lot is and would disagree if you did."

There's the old "Have you heard about Jesus" exploitation where indigenous traditions are irrevocably destroyed and oral traditions and mythologies forgotten soon after they've been convinced that their tribal elders are worshipping Satan and have to be burned at the stake for not converting to the new god.

There's also the "Let's give them shiny things in trade for their women who we'll put to work as prostitutes", exploitation.

There's also the tradition of cheap slave labor, especially when it comes to teaching them how to cultivate and watch after certain rather profitable illegal plants.

All in all, contact restriction is to prevent exploitation.
It's also to preserve a people's traditions, just like preserving other rarified resources, and historical sites.

i agree with isolation, but not for your reasons.

leave them alone. period.

prime directive.

Unrealised
Just as with endangered animals, there should be a concentrated effort to preserve what we have left of purely 'animalistic' humans, left to live as they have in the wild for millenia.

To study them from afar, for years to come, we can learn so much about our species.

What they don't know about the advanced world, with all the technological problems it faces, won't hurt them.

how many languages have been lost?