Will Remote Tribes Sustain Their Cultures Amid Modern Pressures?

[rootX]

I know about some in South America, Australia, Middle East, Asia, and North America.

It looks like in most cases, they are coming under extreme pressure to integrate into developed societies (e.g. Australia and N.A) and also are subject to discrimination (Australia for sure) and low life styles.

If they and their culture should be left alone or if their culture will/should survive?


P.S. I was reading about Australians last month and now came across these Papuans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7942026.stm

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting topic since I happened to be listening last night to an interview with Dr. Gregory Anderson of the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages.

Mission Statement
Minority languages are being increasingly replaced by various politically, economically, or socio-culturally dominant ones. Every two weeks the last fluent speaker of a language passes on and with him/her goes literally hundreds of generations of traditional knowledge encoded in these ancestral tongues. Nearly half of the world’s languages are likely to vanish in the next 100 years.

The mission of the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages is to promote the documentation, maintenance, preservation, and revitalization of endangered languages worldwide through linguist-aided, community-driven multi-media language documentation projects.

http://www.livingtongues.org/

Their concern is that "half of the world’s languages are likely to vanish in the next 100 years. Minority languages are being increasingly replaced by various politically, economically, or socio-culturally dominant (or more aggressive) ones."

language Hotspots Project

language Hotspots was conceived and developed by Dr. Greg Anderson and Dr. David Harrison at the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. It is a radically new way to look at the distribution of global linguistic diversity, to assess the threat of extinction, and to prioritize research. We define hotspots as concentrated regions of the world having the highest level of linguistic diversity (see below), the highest levels of endangerment, and the least-studied languages. Rather than simply counting languages, Hotspots take into account the number of language families (which we call "genetic units") represented in an area to calculate linguistic diversity. Click here for more on language Hotspots and our Expeditions and the Expedition Team.

language Hotspots are areas that are urgently in need of action and should be the areas of highest priority in planning future research projects and channeling funding streams. language Hotspots represent areas where we find a concentration of three logically independent factors, a high average level of endangerment, a high degree of linguistic diversity (calculated on the level of language family not individual language) and a low average level of prior documentation.

Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages has identified roughly twenty such language Hotspots and has begun pilot expeditions to two Hotspots in 2007 (Central South America and Northern Australia) with ones planned for a further three Hotspots for 2008. . . .

http://www.livingtongues.org/hotspots.html#NGmagmap

 

[Phrak]

If they are not kept isolated and primative, think of the enormous amount of knowledge that will be lost. Whole civilizations lost forever. Think of the mounds of research grants lost from exploitation.

 

[arildno]

Individuals have the right to survive, cultures have not.

(unless the culture is upheld by individuals wanting to keep that culture "alive", and that culture does not include oppressive treatments of individuals.)

 

[Phrak]

What's a right?

 

[Astronuc]

What's a right?

Well one could debate or argue such a point indefinitely.

Some examples of right (rights) from Merriam Webster's online dictionary.

1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3: something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>
4: the cause of truth or justice

A right in the context given by arildno would be some inherent entitlement granted by some authority. Said authority is often described as a supernatural entity, e.g. a god, or some secular authority, e.g. government.

Ultimately one's right comes down to mutual agreement and consent, i.e. a matter of choice.


Many people observe the right of others to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

[Phrak]

It's a word casually thrown about. Depending on the mode of the author, it could be legal, metaphysical, or ethical.

 

[rootX]

(unless the culture is upheld by individuals wanting to keep that culture "alive", and that culture does not include oppressive treatments of individuals.)

Comes to think of Taliban. Most primitive cultures/tribes are extremely outdated with respect to western culture. But, can we compare cultures and call some oppressive...?

There was a middle aged British traveler (a tv show) who traveled all different cultures. I only saw his journey to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Himalayas and Tibet. He was really good at blending in different people and so was able to provide a view that made all outdated cultures look beautiful and unique as such.

 

[Astronuc]

Comes to think of Taliban. Most primitive cultures/tribes are extremely outdated with respect to western culture. But, can we compare cultures and call some oppressive...?

There was a middle aged British traveler (a tv show) who traveled all different cultures. I only saw his journey to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Himalayas and Tibet. He was really good at blending in different people and so was able to provide a view that made all outdated cultures look beautiful and unique as such.

So what if primitive tribes/cultures are outdated compared to the west. They exist, and they certainly have the right to exist as they wish. Why should they change their ways, or have changed imposed upon them.

Or do aggressive individuals/groups assume a right to impose upon others, as in 'might makes right'? That is the main issue in human conflict.

I've always assumed might incurs the obligation to protect those not as strong.


Taliban is not a monolithic group. There are clan and tribal relationships that supercede the Taliban.

As far as I can tell, those in the Taliban (or anyone) who exert violence and cruelty are misguided and mentally deficient.

 

[arildno]

A culture is not outdated as long as there exist individuals willing to uphold it.

People from other cultures have no business to classify a culture as "outdated". But they are, as it happens, qualified to determine whether oppression of individuals occurs within a particular culture.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps 'outdated' is a subjective judgement.

Perhaps - if a community cannot provide for itself, then it is outdated.

 

[Phrak]

So far I've been instructed as to what my businesss is, and, I am aparently subject to an obviously personal view of 'cultural rights'. Is this what passes for social 'science'?

 

[russ_watters]

They exist, and they certainly have the right to exist as they wish.

Why/based on what? People throw around statements that things are rights all the time, without basis. I'd like to hear an actual argument for this.

Why should they change their ways, or have changed imposed upon them.

Population growth makes contact unavoidable. It isn't even a question of having change imposed on them - you can fence them off into a little wilderness preserve if you want, but they'll still know the outside world exists and ultimately the choice will be theirs.

Or do aggressive individuals/groups assume a right to impose upon others, as in 'might makes right'? That is the main issue in human conflict.

The world has moved beyond "might makes right" to "right makes right". We have a set of laws now that are universal. I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue, though...

I've always assumed might incurs the obligation to protect those not as strong.

Protect them from what, exactly? Protect them from modern life? I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. In the US, we have the Amish, but living in an isolated culture is their choice, not something the government must actively protect for them. It is not a right and not something the government must provide them.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting topic since I happened to be listening last night to an interview with Dr. Gregory Anderson of the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages.

http://www.livingtongues.org/

Their concern is that "half of the world’s languages are likely to vanish in the next 100 years. Minority languages are being increasingly replaced by various politically, economically, or socio-culturally dominant (or more aggressive) ones."
http://www.livingtongues.org/hotspots.html#NGmagmap

They have their opinions, but on what basis should we care about dying languages? My grandfather (deceased last year) learned one of those dying languages at home when he should have been learning English. As a result, he did poorly in school and didn't advance past 8th grade (they didn't have ESL classes back then). He resented it for the rest of his life.

Where is the virtue in their pursuit? Why should we care? More importantly, why should we be compelled to actively protect something that has no tangeable value and in reality often harms those who hare forced to continue with the culture? IMO this and the subject in the OP are misguided attempts to force people to live in the past - to force people to be living museum pieces.

 

[arildno]

Since speaking a particular language in no way can be regarded as an infringement upon other people's rights, we have the moral duty to let the speakers speak the language of their choice.
(Violations of that duty have not been uncommon, for example here in Norway up till the 1950's, where Lapplander children were forbidden to speak their tongue at school, under threat of the cane)

However, in no way are others morally obliged to contribute any of their wealth for the preservation of any particular language.

 

[russ_watters]

Since speaking a particular language in no way can be regarded as an infringement upon other people's rights, we have the moral duty to let the speakers speak the language of their choice.
(Violations of that duty have not been uncommon, for example here in Norway up till the 1950's, where Lapplander children were forbidden to speak their tongue at school, under threat of the cane)

Your example disproves your premise: speaking a particular language is not a right and we do not have a moral duty to protect it. The government of the US is required to "promote the general welfare", not actively support every specific desire of every individual. In particular, speaking languages in school other than the one official language is a detrement to the general welfare of the other students (by making it harder for them to learn) and the public who must pay to support the practice. It most certainly is not a right.

 

[arildno]

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?

That's what they were forbidden, they wouldn't have dared to speak it in class..

 

[rootX]

Your example disproves your premise: speaking a particular language is not a right and we do not have a moral duty to protect it. The government of the US is required to "promote the general welfare", not actively support every specific desire of every individual. In particular, speaking languages in school other than the one official language is a detrement to the general welfare of the other students (by making it harder for them to learn) and the public who must pay to support the practice. It most certainly is not a right.

It's good if everyone speaks one language and shares same values - lot less problems!

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):

Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, read an official apology from the Canadian government for the policy of taking Native children from their parents and sending them to boarding schools meant to Christianize and de-Indianize them. Aside from the effects on Native communities of having their young people taken away and taught to reject all things Indian, many former students have reported physical and sexual abuse at the schools (which were similar to Indian boarding schools in the U.S.). These two clips are about 12 minutes in total:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/13/canada-apologizes-for-indian-boarding-schools/

It doesn't happen now for good.

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_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]

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]

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]

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.php?name=him_071_a_high
(it's not complete)

 

[arildno]

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.