Latin America
Related: About this forumScientists must let world's most isolated tribes make own decisions
Scientists must let world's most isolated tribes make own decisions
Call to initiate controlled contact with indigenous peoples in the Amazon would violate their rights and threaten their lives
David Hill
Tuesday 7 July 2015 20.35 EDT
Usually the indigenous peoples living in the remotest Amazon only draw international media attention if certain kinds of photos or film footage emerge, as in mid-2014, or they raid a village or, tragically, kill someone, as happened on 1 May. Many media reports misinform as much as inform: factual errors, no context and all kinds of sensationalism. Lost tribe! First contact!
This time its a series of articles in the US journal Science - and in particular the editorial by two US anthropologists - that has sparked interest. The gist of the editorial is that governments, above all Brazils and Perus, should u-turn on their leave them alone strategies and initiate controlled contact with isolated indigenous societies across lowland South America - sometimes erroneously called uncontacted - who have limited to no contact with the outside world. They must do this, argue Kim Hill, from Arizona State University, and Robert Walker, from the University of Missouri, only after conceiving a well-organized plan requiring a qualified team of cultural translators and health care professionals that is committed to staying on site for more than a year.
What is Hill & Walkers reasoning? Mainly because of what they call the isolated populations intermittent hostile and sporadic interaction with the outside world, because of their vulnerability to diseases and epidemics compounded by demographic variability and inbreeding, because their territories are being invaded by miners, loggers, and hunters, because governments cant protect them, and because it is unlikely they would choose isolation if they had full information. Their conclusion is that isolated populations are not viable in the long term and that controlled contact with isolated peoples is a better option than a no-contact policy or uncontrolled, accidental contact.
Let me make clear the momentousness of what Hill & Walker are proposing and just how high the stakes are here: indigenous peoples in the Amazon who suddenly come into sustained contact with outsiders are at immense risk. It is common, following the transmission of diseases, for many of them to die. This can happen in the first few weeks and months, or it can continue for years. Just a few examples from Peru - which this article will focus on - in recent decades are the Matsigenka-Nanti (between 30%-50% have died since contact in the 1970s), the Nahua (almost 50% in the 1980s) and the Chitonahua (approximately 25% since the 1990s).
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/jul/07/scientists-worlds-most-isolated-tribes-decisions
Anthropology:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12292174#post1
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)those that "appear" in need, we leave trails of destruction, that's why..
jwirr
(39,215 posts)deal with other cultures. They have survived all these years - maybe they will actually be able to teach us how to survive the mess that is coming. If we leave them alone.