Lost Tribe Feared Wiped Out By Drug Traffickers

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Very distressing news. This is an Amazonian tribe which lives in isolation, and whose existence was revealed in the media in the last couple years. They made quite a media stir after being deemed a "Lost Tribe" which had never had contact with the outside world, though that wasn't quite correct. They are classified as "uncontacted" by the Brazilian government, but what they mean by that is that the tribe lives in isolation and avoids contact with outsiders. They had in fact had fleeting contact with frontiersmen, and the government was previously aware of their existence.

The Brazilian government set up a guard station to prevent people from entering the tribal land. The tribe is located by a river known to be along a drug trafficking route. Drug traffickers attacked and wiped out the guard station, and now there is no sign of the tribe, though a rucksack from one of the traffickers was found that had been struck by an arrow, so they know there was some kind of violent encounter between tribesmen and traffickers.

Hopefully there was only a brief skirmish and the tribesmen were able to flee deeper into the jungle, but right now they just don't know.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09...g-traffickers/

It's possible we'll never know what happened to these people. The Amazon is so dense that a small tribe can disappear into it, where they could either have been wiped out by the traffickers in a place where their bodies wouldn't be found (or if not completely wiped out, whittled down to such small numbers that they would no longer have a viable population), or successfully hidden themselves away. These people could simply vanish and their fate will remain unknown.

[tesscaline]

I read about this this morning, and yes, very distressing.

[Puppycow]

It's kind of sad, but it also seems like an evolutionary inevitability in a way.

Throughout human history tribes have been wiped out by their stronger neighbors until eventually only one tribe remains in a particular area. Choosing to remain in the stone age and isolated is an evolutionary dead-end. Joining the mainstream society they would lose their unique culture but increase their chances of survival.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It's kind of sad, but it also seems like an evolutionary inevitability in a way.

Throughout human history tribes have been wiped out by their stronger neighbors until eventually only one tribe remains in a particular area. Choosing to remain in the stone age and isolated is an evolutionary dead-end. Joining the mainstream society they would lose their unique culture but increase their chances of survival.

That may be the case, but these isolated tribes offer us great research opportunity into anthropology in ways that we wouldn't have otherwise. They are a resource for the scientific community. As well as them being human beings, deserving of respect and the right to live their lives without drug traffickers attempting to wipe them out for no good reason.

It's more than just "kind of sad" that this sort of thing happens now -- it's tragic. A monumental loss of both life (possibly anyway), and knowledge.

[LTC8K6]

That looks like the uncontacted tribe that turned out to be a hoax to me. Pics look similar.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

That may be the case, but these isolated tribes offer us great research opportunity into anthropology in ways that we wouldn't have otherwise. They are a resource for the scientific community. As well as them being human beings, deserving of respect and the right to live their lives without drug traffickers attempting to wipe them out for no good reason.

Questionable ethics in the hilited part. Particularly in light of the sentence that follows.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

That may be the case, but these isolated tribes offer us great research opportunity into anthropology in ways that we wouldn't have otherwise. They are a resource for the scientific community. As well as them being human beings, deserving of respect and the right to live their lives without drug traffickers attempting to wipe them out for no good reason.

It's more than just "kind of sad" that this sort of thing happens now -- it's tragic. A monumental loss of both life (possibly anyway), and knowledge.

.
I'm reading John Keegan's "History of Warfare", where he describes how 4 such peoples around the world conduct battles. The bunch in South America have been studied for years; the Yanomamo, have a code of conduct for intervillage battles, running from ferocious display to actual contact and death. They are taught early on to be fierce, and violent towards women.
What an infusion of drugs might do to an excessively violent situation can't be good.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Questionable ethics in the hilited part. Particularly in light of the sentence that follows.

I have no need to defend myself to you. If you want to try and impugn someone's "ethics" you're gonna need a hell of a lot more than just a one off sentence in a single paragraph post on a vague subject to do it -- especially when that paragraph was telling someone how "kind of sad" was an understatement about the thing that was happening. If you want to call someone out for "questionable ethics", I'd suggest looking at the person who thinks that an entire tribe (possibly) being wiped out by drug traffickers is only "kind of sad".

For crying out loud...

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
I'm reading John Keegan's "History of Warfare", where he describes how 4 such peoples around the world conduct battles. The bunch in South America have been studied for years; the Yanomamo, have a code of conduct for intervillage battles, running from ferocious display to actual contact and death. They are taught early on to be fierce, and violent towards women.
What an infusion of drugs might do to an excessively violent situation can't be good.

I don't think you're talking about the same tribe mentioned in the article on CNN. The article on CNN is about a "recently discovered" and "uncontacted" tribe, and the peoples you're speaking of have been studied for years.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That looks like the uncontacted tribe that turned out to be a hoax to me. Pics look similar.

That was a hoax?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

I have no need to defend myself to you. If you want to try and impugn someone's "ethics" you're gonna need a hell of a lot more than just a one off sentence in a single paragraph post on a vague subject to do it

The impression I got from your statment was the this tribe needs to be kept isolated and untouched, so scientists can study human beings as they would a wild animal.

Originally Posted by tesscaline

-- especially when that paragraph was telling someone how "kind of sad" was an understatement about the thing that was happening. If you want to call someone out for "questionable ethics", I'd suggest looking at the person who thinks that an entire tribe (possibly) being wiped out by drug traffickers is only "kind of sad".

For crying out loud...

Perhaps if this tribe had been contacted and engaged they could have contacted Brazilian police rather than take on drug dealers with bows and arrows.

We seem to have a concerted effort to prevent not only this tribe from ever entering modern human society, but to keep them unaware they even have the choice.

[Pardalis]

IIRC the prime directive doesn't apply to human societies.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That looks like the uncontacted tribe that turned out to be a hoax to me. Pics look similar.

This was not a hoax.

What happened is that, as I stated in the opening, tribes which do not have contact with the outside world and live in isolation are listed by the Brazilian government as "uncontacted." This tribe was known to exist by the Brazilian government, and had had a few brief contacts with frontiersmen in the Amazon over the tears, but as they live avoiding contact, are not studied at all, and as nothing is known about them except that they exist, they are classified as "uncontacted". A couple years ago, the Brazilian government released the first pictures captured of the group.

The media, upon hearing the group listed as "uncontacted" largely interpreted this as meaning they were a brand new tribe who were only just discovered when the released photographs were taken, and also to mean they had never had any contact with the outside world and were not aware of its existence.

So the media misrepresented the status of this tribe, but that doesn't make the tribe a hoax. The tribe is a real tribe which does live in isolation and is protected by the Brazilian government (though they unfortunately were not able to stop this raid) and the pictures are genuine.

The fact that many people still believe the tribe to be a hoax is an example of how skeptics are sometimes not self skeptical. I've seen several skeptics websites or comments on news sites which state "oh this tribe wasn't real, those pictures were a hoax." But obviously people stating that didn't research the claim about whether or not this was actually a hoax. They just read someone somewhere say it was a hoax and accepted that as fact.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The impression I got from your statment was the this tribe needs to be kept isolated and untouched, so scientists can study human beings as they would a wild animal.

I don't know why you would get that impression, as I said nothing of the sort.

Quote:

Perhaps if this tribe had been contacted and engaged they could have contacted Brazilian police rather than take on drug dealers with bows and arrows.

Are you not reading the article? The Brazilian gov't had guards for the tribal lands. Those guards were killed. We're also talking about remote Amazonian jungle. "Calling the police" doesn't really work when you're in the middle of the jungle.

Quote:

We seem to have a concerted effort to prevent not only this tribe from ever entering modern human society, but to keep them unaware they even have the choice.

Really? Is that what you're getting from this? I'd like to see some evidence of that going on.

I don't know why you're reading into what's been said about this tribe the things that you've been reading in, but it gives the impression that you've got some weird bias about anthropological study, and the respect of the rights and privacy of indigenous peoples. What that bias is, I dunno. But you're leaping to the worst possible conclusions with no evidence whatsoever to support those conclusions.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

The impression I got from your statment was the this tribe needs to be kept isolated and untouched, so scientists can study human beings as they would a wild animal.


Perhaps if this tribe had been contacted and engaged they could have contacted Brazilian police rather than take on drug dealers with bows and arrows.

We seem to have a concerted effort to prevent not only this tribe from ever entering modern human society, but to keep them unaware they even have the choice.

These things are typically left up to the tribe - as they should be. There are many tribes in the Amazon forest which have been contacted by outsiders, which showed themselves as friendly, and allowed government officials, anthropologists, scientists, etc, to come and study them, trade with them, interact with them, etc. In some cases, the tribe does in fact chose to enter modern society. In other cases, the tribe choses to remain in the Amazon but allows outsiders to come study them. In many (perhaps most) cases, some members of the tribe chose to stay in the jungle, some chose to enter modern society. A very typical situation is that the older people want to stay and the younger people want to leave, and eventually the tribe in the jungle dies out because too many young people leave to sustain a viable population. Also, many tribes were wiped out after being contacted by scientists/anthropologists/government officials/etc because they contracted diseases they did not have immunity to. That's an enormous problem with study of Amazon tribes.

However, there are cases of indigenous people all over the world, and particularly in the Amazon, which have had contact with outsiders but state in no uncertain terms they want to be left alone. Often this is done violently - they aggressively attack anyone who comes into their territory. Many Amazon explorers, even in the past century, have been killed trying to make friendly contact with hostile tribes. If a tribe either tells whatever explorer/frontiersman/scientist who finds them to tell anyone else to stay the heck away...and especially if they simply are consistantly hostile to anyone who comes close, then people stay the heck away, and typically a protected area is set up around them to prevent people from going in - in order to protect the tribe from harmful outsiders (whether its because those outsiders are carrying diseases, or looking to steal their land, attack them, etc), and to prevent outsiders from getting themselves killed or riling up hostile natives.

A case like this wouldn't really be a scientific loss because the tribe had no interest in engaging with scientists to begin with, or anyone else with that matter (though of course this could have changed over time). You can't force a people to be your friend, Wildcat. You also have to understand a deep mistrust of outsiders by many Amazonian tribesmen who are aware of them. Percy Fawcett and other explorers sent into the Amazon by their governments reported seeing widespread slavery, torture, crucifiction, and murder of Amazonian indigenous populations by rubber barons and others harvesting Amazonian resources for financial gain, and this was early 1900s. Many tribes pushed further into the jungle due to this and have yet to come out, and have no desire to come out. Also, many Amazonian tribes are wary of outsiders not just because of encroachment by oppressive members modern society, but a history of hostile engagement with other Amazonian tribes which makes them very insular.

But in general, no, indigenous people are not museums, and I don't think that's what Tescaline was trying to say, only that in general, indigeous groups can be a wealth of anthropological and scientific information, particularly if they maintain their traditional way of life. It's up to them if they want to modernize or not. A good example of this are the Sherpas of Nepal. Before they were introduced to modern society by mountain climbers looking for people to carry their crap up the Himalayas, they lived a very simplistic, primitive lifestyle. Now, they have largely modernized, and some older climbers who still remember their old, simple way of life bemoan this as a "loss." But it was the Sherpas decision. They wanted to modernize, and they weren't going to keep from doing that because some white people thought their old way of life was quaint.

But some indigenous people chose not to do this. They chose not to modernize. Or they chose not to even allow engagement with outsiders which would give them the opportunity to modernize. And that is their choice, even if it leads to their ultimate demise. They have the right of self determination, and governments are not just going to keep sending an endless stream of diplomats in to get killed (or be forced to kill indigenous people in self defense) in an attempt to convince them otherwise.

One last thing to remember is that many of these tribes around the world are located in places where the modern society around them is impoverished and unstable. National Geographic had a great article awhile back about an African tribe which lived in a country that had tried to convince them to join modern sociey. The tribe had a lot of contact with outsiders. They traded, allowed anthropologists to study them, etc. They knew all about modern society and had no interest in it. Basically, their reasoning was (paraphrasing here) "we're hunter gatherers. We travel to where food is and never face starvation. We work a relatively small number hours a week to take care of all our needs. We have hundreds of miles of territory to roam around in and serve as our home. Why the heck would we trade that to be an impoverished factory worker or miner or farmer working 15 hours a day, never have enough to eat, live in some crappy shack in a polluted, overcrowded community festering with disease and with a huge crime rate?" Even though some indigenous people (like the Sherpas) see a great increase in quality of life after modernization, to others it is disastrous. When I was in college I did a project in Mexico and Guatemala studying Mayans who had previously lived in relative isolation, in self sustainable communities, who had then chosen to modernize. Overwhlemingly, quality of life plummeted after they did this. In one area in Mexico, malnutrition rates had gone from close to 0% to something like 80%.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

I don't think you're talking about the same tribe mentioned in the article on CNN. The article on CNN is about a "recently discovered" and "uncontacted" tribe, and the peoples you're speaking of have been studied for years.

.
Yes, it's not the same tribe, but similar, if smaller.
Anthropologists study these situations and find mostly similarities around the world.
Their "pristine" societies are typically quite violent, until "civilization" arrives and destroys them.

[DC]

sad

[tesscaline]

Thank you, SC, for understanding what my point was

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

Thank you, SC, for understanding what my point was

I knew what you were trying to say. And you also made a point that I missed, that the Brazilian government, though the tribe had not asked them, had in fact put up armed guards in order to protect them. The guard station was attacked and detroyed by the traffickers. So Wildcat's point about, "if they'd been part of modern society they'd have modern protection" is moot, because they did have such protection. It just wasn't enough.

As far as calling the police, it's pretty unlikely that there was a nearby police station in the wilds of the Amazon that could have responded in time to be of assistance. I also think you'd need to call in the army, not the cops, to deal with drug traffickers of this nature.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

I knew what you were trying to say. And you also made a point that I missed, that the Brazilian government, though the tribe had not asked them, had in fact put up armed guards in order to protect them. The guard station was attacked and detroyed by the traddickers. So Wildcat's point about, "if they'd been part of modern soceity they'd have modern protection" is moot, because they did have such protection.

Indeed.

And it should also be pointed out that putting up a guard station to protect the tribe from drug traffickers is not the same as "trying to keep them isolated and separate from modern society". These are peoples who did not wish to interact with modern society, least of all drug traffickers with no respect for human life. The Brazilian government was acting in accordance with those wishes.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

Indeed.

And it should also be pointed out that putting up a guard station to protect the tribe from drug traffickers is not the same as "trying to keep them isolated and separate from modern society". These are peoples who did not wish to interact with modern society, least of all drug traffickers with no respect for human life. The Brazilian government was acting in accordance with those wishes.

But modern society found them, didn't it? And the protection Brazil offered was clearly inadequate.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But modern society found them, didn't it? And the protection Brazil offered was clearly inadequate.

So what's your point? Protection is often inadequate in populated areas as well. There's a huge problem in Mexico, Central, and South America with trafficking operations outpowering and outnumbering the local authorities. And this can be the case in major urban centers, like for instance Rio de Janero in Brazil, where criminals still have control over some of the poorer areas despite increased government efforts to dispell them. In some places, the authorities are so corrupt that they are the ones you have to worry most about.

What would you have had the Brazilian government done differently? Forcibly kidnapped these people and forcibly made them integrate into modern society (resulting in who knows how many casualties in the process), where they also could have been killed by drug traffickers?

Heck, being in the most modern society isn't a guarantee of police protection. When I lived in a poor black neighborhood a quarter mile from the police station in a city in Florida, and an intruder entered my home, and I called the police to let them know an intruder was in my home, they showed up 7 hours later (luckily the intruder had been scared off by my male room mate).

I have a lot of problems with the Brazilian government, but not forcing people to join modern society against their will is not one of them.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

If you want to call someone out for "questionable ethics", I'd suggest looking at the person who thinks that an entire tribe (possibly) being wiped out by drug traffickers is only "kind of sad".

For crying out loud...

I didn't choose my words very well, but what I was trying to say is that, to put it in perspective, 150,000 people in the world die every day. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy to loved ones, but I don't place more value on these particular lives than any other family that might be wiped out by drug trafficers. But I concede that it is a tragedy, and not 'kind of sad.'

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It's kind of sad, but it also seems like an evolutionary inevitability in a way.

Throughout human history tribes have been wiped out by their stronger neighbors until eventually only one tribe remains in a particular area. Choosing to remain in the stone age and isolated is an evolutionary dead-end. Joining the mainstream society they would lose their unique culture but increase their chances of survival.

I'm hardly the scientist round here, but isn't survival of the fittest a bit more than whether you kill your neighbour or he kills you?

[trvlr2]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

That may be the case, but these isolated tribes offer us great research opportunity into anthropology in ways that we wouldn't have otherwise. They are a resource for the scientific community. As well as them being human beings, deserving of respect and the right to live their lives without drug traffickers attempting to wipe them out for no good reason.

It's more than just "kind of sad" that this sort of thing happens now -- it's tragic. A monumental loss of both life (possibly anyway), and knowledge.

Sort of agree.
But , how do you study folks who do not wish to be studied?
Tranq dart and radio collar?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

That was a hoax?

Yep.

The photographer admitted it.

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/06/fa...azon-tribe.php

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I'm hardly the scientist round here, but isn't survival of the fittest a bit more than whether you kill your neighbour or he kills you?

Sure, there are lots of factors that go into fitness, but intraspecies violence is one factor.

[Puppycow]

BTW: one more reason to legalize drugs.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I'm hardly the scientist round here, but isn't survival of the fittest a bit more than whether you kill your neighbour or he kills you?

Oh absolutely. It also has a lot to do with whether you successfully mate before dying or not.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by tesscaline

I have no need to defend myself to you. If you want to try and impugn someone's "ethics" you're gonna need a hell of a lot more than just a one off sentence in a single paragraph post on a vague subject to do it -- especially when that paragraph was telling someone how "kind of sad" was an understatement about the thing that was happening. If you want to call someone out for "questionable ethics", I'd suggest looking at the person who thinks that an entire tribe (possibly) being wiped out by drug traffickers is only "kind of sad".

For crying out loud...

Actually, I understand where WildCat was coming from as your statement about a tribe being a useful resource for the scientific community also raised my eyebrows a bit.

Puppycow's statement about it being simply a case of natural selection also did too but in both cases a charitable interpretation shows that neither statement is necessarily bad.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Yep.

The photographer admitted it.

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/06/fa...azon-tribe.php

He's not saying it's a hoax though, he's just saying the tribe has been contacted before. The tribe seems real.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I didn't choose my words very well, but what I was trying to say is that, to put it in perspective, 150,000 people in the world die every day. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy to loved ones, but I don't place more value on these particular lives than any other family that might be wiped out by drug trafficers. But I concede that it is a tragedy, and not 'kind of sad.'

I apologize for painting your statement the way I did, as honestly I understood where you were coming from and didn't really take it quite as badly as I seemed to. I don't really see what you said as being "questionable ethics". I just found it funny that I was being called out for "questionable ethics" when what I said wasn't any more "cold hearted" than what you did.

----

On that matter:

I think my statements have been grossly misinterpreted because of some ignorance both about uncontacted peoples and how "study" of such peoples occur. I was not talking about treating anyone like an animal. That's simply not the sort of "scientific research" that you do in anthropological situations. To assume that it is, is sensationalist and overdramatic at best.

This is not the 1800's. Anthropological study of other peoples is (generally speaking -- there are always exceptions to the rule that the scientific community does not condone) carried out with the utmost of respect and concern for those peoples well-being and beliefs.

Saying that a tribe is a "scientific resource" may sound like a cold thing, but what's wrong with putting it that way? These are people with a rich culture that goes back millennia. They have language, and social structure, and agriculture, and religion, and even medicines. Why should we tip toe around the fact that they have knowledge that we don't? Why should it be "questionable ethics" to acknowledge that they are a source of information that has yet to be explored? Saying that they are an informational resource is not saying that their persons should be disrespected, or that they should be hog tied and experimented upon without their consent. It's just making the valid point that these peoples have information that modern society could learn from -- if those peoples at some point became willing to share it.

And sometimes they do become willing to share it. There have been instances of these uncontacted tribes making contact. And we (society, anthropologists, other scientists, governments, whoever) have learned a great deal from those instances.

As long as these tribal peoples remain unmolested by drug traffickers, illegal loggers, illegal oil industry, and poachers, that treasure trove of information and human heritage remains protected. And I don't think that it's "questionable ethics" to keep that in mind when thinking about the wider reaching effects of this sort of incident. That's all I'm doing, by the way -- thinking about the wider reaching effects of this incident.

Even without the potential loss of knowledge, this would have been a tragic event. With it... Well, it's just as tragic, but over a number of other areas besides just that of loss of life and increase in human suffering.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about uncontacted peoples like the one being discussed in this thread can use http://www.survivalinternational.org/ as a resource. Survival International also runs http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/ which has footage and images of the tribe in question -- some filmed by BBC.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

He's not saying it's a hoax though, he's just saying the tribe has been contacted before. The tribe seems real.

The tribe is real.

The pictures are real.

The "hoax" part was the idea that the tribe was completely undiscovered prior to when those pictures were taken. That's the only part of it that was a hoax. And it was sensationalized to draw attention to the plight of uncontacted tribes who were being threatened by illegal logging operations.