Register to reply

Future of remote tribes/others

by rootX
Tags: future, remote, tribes or others
Share this thread:
russ_watters
#19
Mar14-09, 06:36 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
Heck, I'll take this a step further: if we are to believe our own Constitution, it is morally wrong for us to not intervene and modernize these cultures in certain ways because some of these cultures have practices that are illegal/morally wrong. I live in a state (Pennsylvania) where this sort of thing is common. We have the Amish, and the Pennsylvania German, but we also have a number of fundamentalist religions. A common belief of these religions is rejection of parts of modern religion that subvert faith. That includes forsaking medical treatment. Now for an adult to choose not to see a doctor if they have cancer is allowed. But it is not acceptable to not provide medical treatment for your kids. People get arrested for this in Philadelphia about once a year and there have been a number of prominent cases. The law is clear.

Now for unconnected tribes in the jungle in Brazil, the logic seems to be 'out of sight, out of mind'. But this view/practice is a contradiction and Brazil cannot rightly be called a moral, lawful country if it does not enforce its laws evenly and protect its people evenly.
russ_watters
#20
Mar14-09, 06:38 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Hmm..so you think it is okay that Lapplander children were forbidden to speak their tongue in the playground in the breaks, during the meals and so on?
There are places where it is ok and places where it isn't - in recess is ok, in class is not.
That's what they were forbidden, they wouldn't have dared to speak it in class..
Well then I don't see how this example is relevant to the OP. I have not seen anyone argue that people shouldn't be allowed to speak whatever language they want to each other in private. If that's what happened, then it's wrong. But if that's the example, then it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
russ_watters
#21
Mar14-09, 06:41 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
But, the government shouldn't be taking kids away from parents and forcing them to learn English culture (if you are also talking about past or forgetting these practices):

It doesn't happen now for good.
As with arildno, you are offering an example outside of my argument, so it really isn't relevant here - unless adherence to the other culture was actually harming them, as in the medical treatment example I gave or with the child rape/incest/polygamy issue of certain mormon cults.
rootX
#22
Mar14-09, 06:46 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,294
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Heck, I'll take this a step further: if we are to believe our own Constitution, it is morally wrong for us to not intervene and modernize these cultures in certain ways because some of these cultures have practices that are illegal/morally wrong. I live in a state (Pennsylvania) where this sort of thing is common. We have the Amish, and the Pennsylvania German, but we also have a number of fundamentalist religions. A common belief of these religions is rejection of parts of modern religion that subvert faith. That includes forsaking medical treatment. Now for an adult to choose not to see a doctor if they have cancer is allowed. But it is not acceptable to not provide medical treatment for your kids. People get arrested for this in Philadelphia about once a year and there have been a number of prominent cases. The law is clear.

Now for unconnected tribes in the jungle in Brazil, the logic seems to be 'out of sight, out of mind'. But this view/practice is a contradiction and Brazil cannot rightly be called a moral, lawful country if it does not enforce its laws evenly and protect its people evenly.
Yes that's what I was also thinking in OP. Now that due to over population, it is very hard to stay unconnected and most times they live at places that can be utilized for industrial purposes. They aren't even powerful to preserve their culture, land, or language etc. I don't have any strong opinion about if it is right for some activists go and protect them or if it is ethical/morally right to protect them.

I agree: Many of their practices are wrong w.r.t. our laws or ethics.
russ_watters
#23
Mar14-09, 06:57 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
I agree: Many of their practices are wrong w.r.t. our laws or ethics.
Incidentally, I went looking for whether or not Brazil was a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and found this instead: the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...genous_Peoples

I was shocked! I had never heard of it. This represents a clear contradiction to the UN's purpose and it's own Declaration of Human Rights. In particular:
Australia's Mal Brough, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, referring to the provision regarding the upholding of indigenous peoples' customary legal systems, said that, "There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world."
There were four "no" votes: the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. For the rest of the world, this represents nothing less than politically correct moral cowardace.
russ_watters
#24
Mar14-09, 07:01 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
One thing I like about the Amish is the honesty in the practice of their culture. They actually require their children, upon reaching adulthood, to spend a certain amount of time living integrated with society so that they can make the choice themselves, and with open eyes. Now obviously, when you know little else but your own culture it is difficult to reject it, but at least they are presented with the choice.
Evo
#25
Mar14-09, 10:45 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,558
I watch the team of "Mark & Olly" on tv. Their goal is to seek out and become accepted by tribes that "choose" to stick with their old ways and to document them.

These tribes are well aware of modern culture and they have chosen to stick with older traditions. Younger members that wish to move to more modern areas are allowed. Mark & Olly are simply documenting them for history.

Certainly modern medicine could help these people. At the same time if they wish to live on their own lands and follow the ways they know, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, are we "right" in pushing our ways onto them?

Mark & Olly are often disturbed that they aren't in a position to bring in modern advances to help these people.

Obviously, I like Mark & Olly.
rootX
#26
Mar14-09, 11:11 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,294
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
I watch the team of "Mark & Olly" on tv. Their goal is to seek out and become accepted by tribes that "choose" to stick with their old ways and to document them.

These tribes are well aware of modern culture and they have chosen to stick with older traditions. Younger members that wish to move to more modern areas are allowed. Mark & Olly are simply documenting them for history.

Certainly modern medicine could help these people. At the same time if they wish to live on their own lands and follow the ways they know, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, are we "right" in pushing our ways onto them?

Mark & Olly are often disturbed that they aren't in a position to bring in modern advances to help these people.

Obviously, I like Mark & Olly.
I was talking about Michael Palin earlier
http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/static-187 (videos, pictures, and the book on his Himalayas)

He's too good in bringing the unique life styles of those people like in this video
http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/popup...him_071_a_high
(it's not complete)
arildno
#27
Mar15-09, 04:29 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
There are places where it is ok and places where it isn't - in recess is ok, in class is not. ..Well then I don't see how this example is relevant to the OP. I have not seen anyone argue that people shouldn't be allowed to speak whatever language they want to each other in private. If that's what happened, then it's wrong. But if that's the example, then it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Well, it was relevant to the premise I set up, but unfortunately rather elliptically:
1. Insofar as speaking a particular tongue does not infringe upon other peoples' rights, then we have a moral duty to let them speak it. "Letting", however, does not mean in any way mean "support" or "encourage", but just passive acceptance.
This is nothing but an application of the general principle that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't step upon other peoples' rights

2. Since I, at the time of writing, didn't think of any examples in which speaking a particular tongue would constitute the infringement upon others' rights (for example, as you pointed out, the right of another student not to be distracted in class), I used the absolute "in no way", which I withdraw now.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Should we contact uncontacted tribes? Social Sciences 18
Uncontacted tribes Social Sciences 35
Remote Sensing Advanced Physics Homework 3
Remote Sensing Earth 0
DVD player remote=PC remote, possible? Computers 1