Previously uncontacted tribe photographed

[luiz]

I agree with that but people shouldn't be lured away either.

I agree, it should be up to them integrate or not.

That does seem unjust. I would oppose it. Besides, as great as free-money and benefits sounds it can become somewhat of a curse.

Indeed, and it is a curse. Some (not all) indian communities became so addicted to government-provided food and services that they gave up all sorts of work, and when for whatever reason the government aid fails to arrive on time they starve. Many kids have died in some tribes because of this.

You're use of the word savages makes me or lqtm (laugh quietly to myself) at least.

Ah, common. They are a stone-age people. Some of them couldn't even light fires for themselves when they were encoutered, and some had a language so primitive that long-standing linguistic theories had to be revised. Some brazilian indians could only count up to two, after that they used a word equivalent to "many". They were in fact savages.

Well, it depends if their ancestral homes even exist anymore. If they don't maybe they do deserve some compensation.

I favour compensation for people harmed in their lifetimes, but not for the descendants of people harmed many generations ago.

 

[LucyDuke]

Ah, common. They are a stone-age people. Some of them couldn't even light fires for themselves when they were encoutered, and some had a language so primitive that long-standing linguistic theories had to be revised. Some brazilian indians could only count up to two, after that they used a word equivalent to "many". They were in fact savages.

False. There's no such thing as a "primitive language".

 

[aelf]

yes, they live a rather sucky live compared to us, but just look at the past at what happens when a government tries to "improve" the situation: utter failure and those indians become professional drunks and die off diseases.

Also, some other fellow countrymen could go baaaw over the affirmitive action they receive, so for the sake of the poeple like Luiz, just leave them alone.

They would else be wiped out anyway.

Well, I sort of agree, but I find your superior tone rather sickening.

We don't advocate trying to bring them into mainstream society only because we are cynical about the way it has been done or achieved, which produces demonstrably bad results. In principle, I think it's rather cruel to let them be deluded and live their lives without even knowing that something else exists beyond their community while keeping them under observation to make sure of this. Are they animals or something? If they want to keep their way of life, let them. But don't isolate them on purpose forever. If they might die of diseases, immunise them. And I'm sure there are also cases where similar natives have integrated into modern society quite well.

And privilleging people because of their race is not a right thing to do. Sure, cut disadvantaged people some slack. I'm all for that. But holding on to discrimination laws to the point of absurdity is daft.

Maybe you talk about these things this way because you live in a developed country. But you only need to look into own history to see what you have done and how ridiculous you sound talking this way.

 

[philippe]

Well, I sort of agree, but I find your superior tone rather sickening.

We don't advocate trying to bring them into mainstream society only because we are cynical about the way it has been done or achieved, which produces demonstrably bad results. In principle, I think it's rather cruel to let them be deluded and live their lives without even knowing that something else exists beyond their community while keeping them under observation to make sure of this. Are they animals or something? If they want to keep their way of life, let them. But don't isolate them on purpose forever. If they might die of diseases, immunise them. And I'm sure there are also cases where similar natives have integrated into modern society quite well.

And privilleging people because of their race is not a right thing to do. Sure, cut disadvantaged people some slack. I'm all for that. But holding on to discrimination laws to the point of absurdity is daft.

Maybe you talk about these things this way because you live in a developed country. But you only need to look into own history to see what you have done and how ridiculous you sound talking this way.

i say let them, and don't make contact with them with regulations until they have the intend to do so.

There have been tribes in the past who went out of the jungle. Some fared well, many others didn't. Anyhow contact is inevitable and it will probably be off deforestation, so I say don't take the first step ourselves, let them decide.

What's the suckyness in their life? Often malnutrition and high death rate due to various causes. and i think the problem will only be worse when we try to interfere, becuase even with all our good intentions (?) we would probably make it worse for them. And what when they get in contact with us? make them a tourist attraction? really, the matters on how to take steps in this issue are to be thought out delicatelly, for now, just let them, although one protip: Let them get in touch with tobacco.

and really, where is this "superior" tone? I am not winner you know

and this line:
Also, some other fellow countrymen could go baaaw over the affirmitive action they receive, so for the sake of the poeple like Luiz, just leave them alone.

is in response to someone nagging about affirmitive action, like he thinks tribalistic societys can adapt a lifestyle they maintained over thousands of years instantly and they shouldn't receive any "integration" help. Actually i don't see the need for integration. If the tribes themselve do, by all means we can help them. But really, when they get in touch with the "civilised world" without any regulations, sneaky merchants will get them hooked on alcohol or something else, it's a winning formula for the merchants

 

[aelf]

i say let them, and don't make contact with them with regulations until they have the intend to do so.

There have been tribes in the past who went out of the jungle. Some fared well, many others didn't. Anyhow contact is inevitable and it will probably be off deforestation, so I say don't take the first step ourselves, let them decide.

What's the suckyness in their life? Often malnutrition and high death rate due to various causes. and i think the problem will only be worse when we try to interfere, becuase even with all our good intentions (?) we would probably make it worse for them. And what when they get in contact with us? make them a tourist attraction? really, the matters on how to take steps in this issue are to be thought out delicatelly, for now, just let them, although one protip: Let them get in touch with tobacco.

I say starting low-level contacts would be good. Let them know there is civilization. They might just want to embrace it. The only problem is how to prevent them from killing the messengers

Some American Indian tribes fared well trading and having contact with Europeans. Too bad the latter were ultimately more interested in taking away their land by force.

and really, where is this "superior" tone? I am not winner you know

It's just the way you phrased it and the words you used.

 

[luiz]

False. There's no such thing as a "primitive language".

Yes there is. I am no linguist, but I know that more "sophisticated" languages have traits such as sentence subordination, past and future verbal forms, and tools to express abstract/mathematical thinking.

It is a known fact that the language of some brazilian indians did not have those traits, and that many liguistic theories had to be revised because of that.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

False. There's no such thing as a "primitive language".

Well, what do you call a non-written one?

 

[Imrahil91]

What if the Earth is an undiscovered planet for the United Galaxies (like a UN for a possible alien society), and we are like the uncontacted tribe for them?
And now aliens are discussing if they should just blow up the earth because humans are killing and hating each other.
I'd prefere to be contacted, so we could choose what to do.

 

[bhsup]

What if the Earth is an undiscovered planet for the United Galaxies (like a UN for a possible alien society), and we are like the uncontacted tribe for them?
And now aliens are discussing if they should just blow up the earth because humans are killing and hating each other.
I'd prefere to be contacted, so we could choose what to do.

Don't worry, they'll contact us before Gort blows us to hell.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

What if the Earth is an undiscovered planet for the United Galaxies (like a UN for a possible alien society), and we are like the uncontacted tribe for them?
And now aliens are discussing if they should just blow up the earth because humans are killing and hating each other.
I'd prefere to be contacted, so we could choose what to do.

You haven't played Half-Life 2, have you?

 

[LucyDuke]

Yes there is. I am no linguist, but I know that more "sophisticated" languages have traits such as sentence subordination, past and future verbal forms, and tools to express abstract/mathematical thinking.

It is a known fact that the language of some brazilian indians did not have those traits, and that many liguistic theories had to be revised because of that.

I'm no linguist, either. () But David Crystal is.

There are, however, several widely held misconceptions about languages which stem from a failure to recognize this view. The most important of these is the idea that there are such things as 'primitive languages' - languages with simple grammar, a few sounds, and a vocabulary of only a few hundred words, whose speakers have to compensate for their language's deficiencies through gestures. Speakers of 'primitive' languages have often been though to exist, and there has been a great deal of speculation about where they might live, and what their problems might be. If they relied on gestures, how would they be able to communicate at night? Without abstract terms, how could they possibly develop moral or religions beliefs? In the 19th century, such questions were common, and it was widely thought that it was only a matter of time before explorers would discover a genuinely primitive language.

The fact of the matter is that every culture which has been investigated, no matter how 'primitive' it may be in cultural terms, turns out to have a fully developed language, with a complexity comparable to those of the so-called 'civilized' nations. Anthropologically speaking, the human race can be said to have evolved from primitive to civilized states, but there is no sign of language having gone through the same kind of evolution (§48). There are no 'bronze age' or 'stone age' languages, nor have any language types been discovered which correlate with recognized anthropological groups (pastoral, nomadic, etc.). All languages have a complex grammar: there may be relative simplicity in one respect (e.g. no word-endings), but there seems always to be relative complexity in another (e.g. word-position). People sometimes think of languages such as English as 'having little grammar', because there are few word endings. But this is once again (§1) the unfortunate influence of Latin, which makes us think of complexity in terms of the inflectional system of that language.

David Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, second edition. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Page 6, chapter 2: The Equality of Language, 'Primitive Languages'

Bold is mine. Any typos are mine.

The point is, if these guys have a primitive language, it's the first one ever to be discovered! So I'm gonna go with "nope, they don't, 'cause there's no such thing."

 

[holy king]

i'm no linguist either, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Grammar#Criticism

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I've quoted.

Unless you mean that it's possible that these folks' language is completely unlike any we've ever encountered. I certainly wouldn't disagree that it's possible, I just don't find it considerably likely.

 

[Norseone]

So someone explain to me again way it's bad if someone makes contact with him? And then living in ignorance is a good thing?

if we meet them we start a mass die off due to disease

 

[luiz]

I'm no linguist, either. () But David Crystal is.



David Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, second edition. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Page 6, chapter 2: The Equality of Language, 'Primitive Languages'

Bold is mine. Any typos are mine.

The point is, if these guys have a primitive language, it's the first one ever to be discovered! So I'm gonna go with "nope, they don't, 'cause there's no such thing."

I'd like to know what his criteria is to define a "complex language". Because as I said, there have in fact been discovered tribes with no past or future verbal forms, and where plural is limited to "two" and "many". That's a primitive language under any objective standard IMO.

 

[pau17]

I'd like to know what his criteria is to define a "complex language". Because as I said, there have in fact been discovered tribes with no past or future verbal forms, and where plural is limited to "two" and "many". That's a primitive language under any objective standard IMO.

Yet they might have words or concepts of nature that are not clearly translatable into our languages. The language they use reflects what they need to use it for. If they don't have certain things in their language, then they probably didn't need it. Technically speaking, they are still cognitively identical to us in terms of the ability to learn and use a language.

And a "future tense," depending on how you define it, doesn't exist in some other languages. A future tense is not necessarily the same as expressing some action in the future. I am sure these tribes have a way of saying "The sun will come up tomorrow," even if it is something like "at a time that is not now, the large ball of fire in the sky appears again." These people might have different ways of thinking about time and that might make our idea of a "future tense" for them not pertinent in analyzing their language.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

Why do we assume they are less advanced than we are? They could be the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Ironic thought what if they have some monster disease that can wipe out humanity that they've built up imunity to. (I know not very likely, as a disease that can spread that fast would need a suitable population to stay alive.)

 

[bigdog5994]

what if they move away to never be seen again because they got scared of that airplane that flew over

 

[Winner]

I assume that you are speaking of the Aztecs, I do not think this native tribe to at the cultural level of the Aztecs, who going by history seems to be quite advanced. Therefore I think your argument that tribes at this cultural level are pretty violent and comparison with the Aztecs were quite misguided.

Aztecs were just a separate example of Latin American civilization, this tribe is clearly not civilized. I mentioned examples of behaviour of tribes on this level of development (stone age), namely New Guinea and Andaman islands, where they often behave very aggressively, territorially and savagely.