Comments on: Lessons in Macro Photography

By: Neena

Neena — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:22:56 +0000

Hello,
I do not think any action is without its pros or cons. I think whichever action you choose, it will have cons. The best course of action seems to be apparent only to history. I think you have to choose one way and hopefully you do not cause too much harm.
Anyway, my initial argument with Shreesh wasn’t with completely uncontacted tribes but with people like the Maya, who have already, unfortunately, been decimated by the greed and the religious zealotry of the Spanish invadors. These people live in modern culture, but seem to lack education, thus keeping them backward. As they get educated, however, their children probably would want to seek their fortunes in big cities and would lose their traditions (which include the purification ceremonies). On the other hand, education would give them the tools to fight for their rights in a way that the world understands cause they have to deal with it.

By: Vinay

Vinay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:14:19 +0000

Shreesh, I have made some of those points myself. Like I said, I think there are good points on both sides. Maybe the solution is also in between. Somehow interact with them and exchange information but do not try to override their customs and values. Not sure how.

By: madhuri

madhuri — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:50:44 +0000

Vinay, thanks

Neena, i understand what you say, but i dont know if it is worth the risk for the tribes, it is for the tribes to decide.
What is the difference between civilizing an isolated tribe and invading a strange land? You could say Eurpoean pioneers were just trying to civilize native Indians in America, no? i am yet to see/hear a case of civilizing where there was no hidden agenda or greed involved. If you were a tribal chief and had to pick between the lesser of two evils, female child circumcision or your women being raped by outsiders, what would you choose?

By: Shreesh

Shreesh — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:47:40 +0000

Madhuri,

In talks with my grandparents the British had a very similar attitude towards the Indians while they were ruling as Amundsen did towards the Inuit.

Neena and Vinay,
When we impose our moral framework on another group, be it Iraq or the Great Andamese, there is an implicit position that ours is superior. I would be the first to admit that female circumcision is repugnant but how many items in our society are equally as repugnant? The death penalty, indiscriminant incarceration, environmental destruction in the name of greed, the list goes on.

In the Star Trek series the “Prime Directive” was that of non-interference and in many episodes dramatic tension was provided by an Alien society practicing immoral customs. Usually this led to Kirk breaking the prime directive

I don’t know whether the Onge or Great Andamese practiced excessively cruel behaviour, but what I do know is that contact with us wiped most of them out, just as contact with the Spaniards wiped out most of the Maya.

I advocate the preservation of diversity. This means that people will do things that we do not approve of.

By: Vinay

Vinay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:24:49 +0000

Neena, what I mean is, true we are convinced of our values. But they are not, and it will invariably take them a long time to get convinced. Meanwhile, how do you handle the issue of say, circumcision? Do we impose our laws on them? How do we do that? By force?

By: Neena

Neena — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:20:51 +0000

There’s always going to be resistance to change from traditional values – whether it is from the immediate fear of annihilation as with the uncontacted tribes or a subtler fear of losing their values as with tribes such as the Maasai. The question is what we should do about it – leave them alone or not. When atrocities are committed it is difficult to stay unmoved – animal scientists find it difficult to stay removed when they observe brutal behavior among animals – with humans involved it is bound to be even more difficult. We saw a 10 year old girl who had been circumcised in Africa – in a unhygenic hut with animals – with no anesthetic, of course.

By: Vinay

Vinay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:49:26 +0000

Madhuri, good post!

By: madhuri

madhuri — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:42:11 +0000

Well, i dont think they shot arrows to because they want to refuse our “help”. i think they are aggressive because of fear of unknown. If an alien spaceship tries to land in US, Bush wont be standing there to welcome them with flower garlands, he’d aim his choice weapons at them!
Besides, western society is not really known to be polite visitors. Case in point, the Inuit tribes in Alaska. When Amundsen apparently to cross Northwest Passage, he and his team spent years with a certain eskimo tribe. They learnt cold weather survival tips from the tribe to help their mission, but all along the stay they sent the point across it is not ok to anger them in any way since they are the masters. Quoting Amundsen from “my life as an explorer” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arctic/amundsen.html)
_______
As soon as the Eskimos began settling down around us, I was
confronted with a situation that the commander of every expedition has to meet on any exploration that brings white men and savages into contact in the wilds. To all savages, the civilized white man has some of the attributes of the gods. His deadly and mysterious weapons, his devices for producing instant fire and light, his wealth of equipment and variety of food seem to these untutored minds to stamp him with divine origin. This superstitious fear is the strongest safeguard of the explorer. So long as it persists, one man like myself with six followers would be safe among 200 Eskimos, for example.

But one thing, more surely than anything else, can dissipate this godly elevation. The white man may even be brutal with the savage and still retain his respect, for ruthless power is also in their minds an attribute of divinity. But the moment the white man yields to his baser passions and takes liberties with the savages’ women, he falls in their eyes to the level of mere man and puts himself at their mercy. I therefore took the first opportunity to have a most serious talk with my companions and urge them not to yield to this kind of temptation.
___________

By: Vinay

Vinay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:36:37 +0000

Neena, I agree.. But I think the issues are around how many of our values can we transmit to them morally. It is a complete change in value system that needs to happen before the atrocities of some practices become visible to the natives. Until then, should we impose our values? Dunno, it’s tough.

By: Vinay

Vinay — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:31:05 +0000

Shreesh, but they’re gonna shoot arrows anyway, because they will not understand our intention. They’ll react like a tiger does when the ranger is trying to give it a malaria shot or something. Also, the actions of the civilized are going to affect them anyway, even if it is not protracted explicitly. For example, global warming, or even the logging issue from the article. So, a time may come when we may need to redress..
I do not know anything about the track record of contact in the post colonial world, so I am not sure whether it is automatically bad..