This conversation is closed.

Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?

I think this is extremely uncivilized and inhumaneness that we still allow primitive tribes to exist in in the 21 century. Do we not help them under the pretext that '' they are happy that way'' ? But this would be the same as saying lets give candies to a baby and allow him to eat sugar as much as he likes because he is happy that way ? Or, lets allow babies to run around naked in the cold because he is happy that way ? Of course he is feeling happy, a uneducated baby doesn't care about illness and stuff like that. It is our responsibility to protect and educate our children right ? I see the same thing with the tribes. We should bring them to our cities and educate them, and if after that they still want to go back to the jungle and hunt fish, then it would be their freedom or choice. But i guarantee you they would not go back to the jungle, as they will be educated. It is our obligation as humans to bring them our of the primitive environment they are living in, and educate them, help them learn and become civilized, and only then they would have more tools of making decisions. I can't believe we are allowing primitive tribes to still exists.. This is like giving a birth a child and then leave it in the jungle and watch him grow because he LOOKS happy. What the hell ? This extremely inhumaneness act and should rethink our actions immediately.

  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: If I read your question and comments Tisho I get the impression that you don't respect the autonomy of other persons and even doesn't bother to put your own view over that of someone else.

    Parents need to help their children to adapt to the culture they grow up into. People from so called primitive culture aren't children and need to be respected to follow their own way of life.

    In answer of one of your remarks I can affirm that a number of tribal people from different places have visited the modern world and even studied there but chose nevertheless to live with their tribe afterwards.
    Other examples are children that go to schools and because of it are unable to carry on their traditional life. Older members of the group are suffering from lack of support because the younger generation is missing.

    Tribes that are condemned to civilization because their culture or living space is distorted from outsiders end up often as alcohol abusers within cities. This is because they lost their culture and aren't able or allowed to fully participate within a culture that’s strange to them.

    Inuit in the North and Aboriginals in the South were given some money to live by but that isn't life, that’s a vegetational state. There are no solutions to the problem than natural adaptation over generations and everyone that thinks he or she can organize the life of someone else is fully without respect for life as a whole.
    • Mar 21 2012: I do respect the autonomy of a person.
      I disagree with you. Parents help their children in order for them to develop properly. This has nothing to do with culture. As a matter of fact, i think there is no such thing as ''culture''. We all want the same things, don't we ? We all want to be healthy, to have money, we want access to all the necessities of life. It is our values that are different. But our values are shaped by our environment. When a person is exposed to a certain environment, his values changes accordingly to that environment. There is no such thing is culture. We all want the same things. It is all about the environment we are being exposed too.
      People from the primitive tribes are not children on the outside, but if you compare the level of intelligent of one of our children and one primitive adult, the children would have more knowledge than the primitive adult. They are not capable of solving problems. They are being exposed to a primitive environment and therefore their minds and values have adopted to that environment.
      You gave me some examples of how a primitive person goes to a city and he doesn't like it and wants go to back to the jungle. That is a typical respond from a person who's value system is shaped by the jungle environment. Of course he wouldn't like it now. Because his values are shaped by the environment he has been living in - jungle. But if he is to be educated and expose to our goods and technologies, i am sure his value system will change.
      I am not suggesting that we have to control their lives, i am saying we must be obligated to educate them and expose them to our goods and technologies and all the necessities of life. And if after that they still want to go back to the jungle and hunt fish then it would be their own intellectual decision.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: We are obliged to let those people at peace that live like they did for centuries or more.

        Your view on culture is a bit strange to me. Culture is the way people live and the way they express themselves. Culture always is shaped by the environment adapted to live from the energy source of some particular area and asks for a lot of knowledge.
        Anthropologists have tried to reconstruct all knowledge necessary to live from the wild in Europe at the stone age. It’s incredible all knowledge you need to survive, to know what to eat, how to prepare, how to catch, shelter, safety. To know this all you have to be really intelligent and learn hard for many years.

        I think your view on so called primitive people is very primitive.
        In my country a lot of people would like to live that way again and some really do. They dispose themselves of house with mortgage, stressing work and all electronic gadgets. They start to live by and from nature alone.
        • Mar 21 2012: I think we are obligated to help them. We should show them the advantages of our technologies and knowledge. It will only bring them more benefits and make their lives easier. Just like it is making our lives easier. It will only benefit them. The problem is the perception. Obviously they don't have enough knowledge to even understand that this will benefit them, make their lives easier and give them advantages and satisfy all their necessities of life. I think we are obligated to show them the real potential of the human life and not treat them like some monkeys in the jungles. They are humans just like us, only uneducated and shaped by the environment.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: so here is what we do: from now on, you study libertarian philosophy and austrian economics for one year. during that period, you spend all your free time on studying, you have one our off per week. arguing is not an option. you do it, or i beat you up. after one year, if you still want to put people on trucks using force, you can continue to pursue this goal, it will be your own intellectual decision.
        • Mar 21 2012: I don't understand how your answer apply to my question and statement. I am not promoting democracy i am promoting humanism. They are free people just like us, they have the freedom to do whatever they wish to do. But how could they wish for something different than a bigger fish, in such a primitive environment ? How could they have dreams ? They are living in a primitive environment and their values are being shaped by the environment. They don't know about the possibilities of the humans, they don't know about the advantages they have as humans, they can never satisfy their necessities of life. How could this be a ''good'' and ''happy'' life ? All we need to do is show them the advantages and they will change their values and they will want more. Because all humans want to develop more.
  • Mar 20 2012: you question is not whether or not we should give primitive tribes the chance of becoming something else you're asking "Why do we allow " and that is fascism.

    We should allow any way of life chosen by anyone as long as it doesn't involve messing with others.

    "This is like giving a birth a child and then leave it in the jungle and watch him grow because he LOOKS happy. What the hell ? This extremely inhumaneness act and should rethink our actions immediately." we didn't give birth to that child, that child gave birth to us.
    • Mar 21 2012: This is just a way of interpreting of the language. My question is why do we not bring primitive tribes to our cities and educate them and give them equal chance of developing and exposing them to our technologies and advantages.
      • Mar 21 2012: you have to be careful on how you do that, it is not simple... but yes
        • Mar 21 2012: I know it will not be easy, but i can't believe we are still allowing this to happen.. If we all take measures and actions we can help them be part of the civilization.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2012: Tisho, this is a pretty ignorant and also arrogant view of things.
    How can you know what makes anybody happy ? Bringing people who used to live with and in nature for their whole life into our high tech cities would certainly do more harm than good. Assuming they would be happy with such a change is a real stretch of imagination. Did it ever occur to you that such people might actually think that you are a representative of some primitive tribe ? Perhaps they find it completely incomprehensible that somebody could spend hours sitting on a couch slurping some cans of beer and watching TV instead of being surrounded by nature, hunting, fishing, enjoying the odors, sounds and views of the jungle.
    • Mar 19 2012: I don't know what makes anybody happy, but i know living in a constant fear of being eaten by a bear or bitten by a scorpion or a snake, hunting fish to survive, dying by a primitive decease that can be easily cured, is not a happy life. If a 12 year old child tells you '' im in love forever ! '' would you believe him ? Of course not, because he doesn't know what love is, its a primitive way of thinking. We used to live in the wild nature too, and then we slowly developed, and now we are on the right track. And we should help those who couldn't developed. Why do you think educating and giving knowledge and information about our surrounding to people will bring more harm than good ? Do you think it would be bad if we educate people and give them a start point in life ? It would be a chance to develop. Of course at first it would be a pain, thats for sure. But once they start learning about the reality and the environment and life and everything, life will become much easier. There is no basis to think that primitive tribes would think that i am representative of a primitive tribe. When it gets dark, i turn on my electricity that i build. When i got hungry, i cook food with my machines that i build. When i have problem, i solve it with my knowledge and information, and if i don't have enough, i can always get what i need. We go to space, we learn how to solve problems, we are developing with every day. I think it is very uncivilized for us to leave all the tribes and poor people and not help them. We are all humans and we should develop together. We should provide equal education to everybody in the world. Happiness would mean to have access to all the necessities in life you need. In the jungle, when you can't have something, you just learn to live without it and adopt to a such an environment. This is not happiness.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: You don't know about the wishes people in a primitive tribe might have. You can't look at it from your perspective and assume you know what the desire.
        It's like catching a bird and putting it into a golden cage, assuming that now it must be happier because it hasn't any predators to fear nor does it have to worry about food and water.
        You can give people choices (and even that has to be done carefully), but then everybody has to decide on his own.
        • Mar 20 2012: Are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are? I.e. they are aware that 'we' have cures for a lot of diseases that would otherwise kill them?

          Becuase I find the thought that 'we' decide that 'they just shouldn't be interfered with because the tribe is so cultural and amazing' repulsing. As if they're some different breed that just couldn't cut it with todays world. Yet you talk about a cage, what do you mean that they are in now?
        • Mar 21 2012: Like i said before, i don't and im not claiming that i know what people wish for. I am saying that their wishes are limited by their environment. They cannot improve, they cannot develop. They do not know what necessity is. They do not have any access to any necessities in life. They are being exposed to a primitive environment and therefore their wishes is also shaped by the environment.
          Like you said, we must give them a choice. We must educate them and then if they still want to go back to the jungle its their own choice. But first i think its our obligation as humans to show them the all the goods and possibilities of life. That is why i think.
      • Mar 20 2012: isn't nature the right track? taking into account that it is our way of life that endangered the environment and not theirs shouldn't we accept the fact that NOT DAMAGING YOUR HOME (the world) is a better track than damaging it?
        • Mar 21 2012: Im not sure how is this related to my question ? Please clarify your answer. In what way you think nature is the right track ? Right track for what ? It is true that our corporations and government are polluting the environment but that have nothing to do with my question.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: Pontus, as a matter of fact "civilization" actually brought a lot of diseases to primitive tribes that eventually became even extinct because of those diseases.
        Another example of the "good!" influence of civilization is what alcohol did to native American tribes.
        Who are we to tell anybody how they should live ?? Those tribes, wherever they might be are not locked up. They have choices. Actually they probably have more choices than, let's say, people of Cuba, North Korea or Iran just to name a few.
        • Mar 20 2012: Everything has pros and cons, but I think it's a great advantage to be aware of all of them and then make a decision. And are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?

          I'm not talking about telling anyone how to live, but to introduce the changes we've made over the years to reach the society we have now. With pros and cons. Then they have the information available and can make an educated decision how they would like to relate to it.

          And what's the point in mentioning a bunch of third-worldish countries?
        • Mar 21 2012: Yes, and the reason they couldn't cure them selves is because they don't have the tools and knowledge to do it. We have the medicine and technology to cure our selves from diseases, and it is our obligation to use our technology to help them.
          Who are we NOT to tell them how should they live ? We are not going to tell them, rather we should SHOW them. Teach them. Give them knowledge. And then they should decide on their own what to do, just like everyone of as is doing.
          What choices do they have now ? They don't even know that we can go to space. They don't even know that the earth is not flat. Please tell me what choices exactly do you think they have ? Their choices are shaped by their environment. What kind of choices would you have in a jungle ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Tisho, if you'd never heard of the existence of cell phones, would you miss them ? Just because some things are indispensable for us (because we got used to them), doesn't mean others also need them.
        As a matter of fact, there are very few needs. Most things we think we need are actually things we want.
        What would be the point of introducing our way of living to people that are apparently living at least as happy as we do, following their way of living ?
        Do you think they miss something not knowing that we can go to the moon ? Do you think the care whether the earth is flat or not ? Their knowledge is reduced to the habitat they occupy.
        About diseases: as I said in another post, many diseases we know are actually unknown to indigenous people and only when they got in touch with civilization, these diseases caused havoc, because they had no immune system for them. It seems native tribes are in general healthier than our societies.
        Again, don't look at things from your perspective. You can't understand their way of life as much as you can't understand the life of mountain gorillas, lions or elephants. (unless you spend time living with them)
        Beside, assuming they are leading a happy life, why would you want to change they way they live ?
        • Mar 21 2012: The cell phone is not a necessity of life. It is only a benefit and advantage. Necessities of life would be all the things we need to survive and live a good life. A life without scarcity. A enjoyable life with all the benefits and advantages. Like for example, electricity, machines, energy, food, knowledge on how to solve a problem, information etc. All those things are unknown to them. You said it yourself - '' Their knowledge is reduced to the habitat they occupy. '' ! Exactly my point. Their values are shaped by the environment. They don't have access to the goods of life. They don't even know there is such ''access'' they don't even know there are such ''goods'' of life. I am talking about all the basics human needs and goods that we make possible to access because of our technologies and knowledge. They should have that too. If they see the feel the benefits and advantages i am sure they would want more.
          About the diseases, i am not a doctor and i don't have much knowledge of medicine, but i do know that the source of all the diseases are the viruses, and i do know that most viruses are in the jungles and such an environments. I can only assume a lot of the people living in the jungles die from a primitive diseases which we can easily cure.
          I don't think they are living a happy life. A life of scarcity and lack of access to all the necessities and goods of life is not a happy life. Would you be happy living in the cold without electricity and food ?
        • Mar 22 2012: If you learn about cellphones and can access them, you can make the decission if you'd like to have long-distance wireless communication or not. It's true that we need very little, food, water and heat, then we can sit in our own shit all life.

          The probelm is if you engage in prohibiting people from learning. You are using a position where you can observe them, but they can't observe you. Then you make decisions for them about their life. You are forcing them into a specific life. More to that later.

          Happiness is something we adapt to, I think there was a ted-talk a while ago about it. People who become paralyzed or loses a leg or something horrible like that are sad for some time, then they go back to their normal happiness.

          That people before 1800 didn't know about quantum mechanics, does this mean we should avoid it to preserve happiness? Of course not. Does it mean that we should hide it from others because we decide that they should be happier without it? Of course not, that would be silly. Yet you want people to play God in a similar fascion when it comes to tribes.

          When it comes to medicine, if you fall and land unfortunately, you can break your scaphoideum (or if it's the area of the hand) and that's both bad and dangerous. If you look at the amount of competence required to treat it (secretary, nurse, doctor, x-ray engineer, medical transport personel, etc.), it comes down to quite a lot of knowledge that we need, perhaps to survive. And that's all free from decease. Something that some countries considers rights. You are denying them the knowledge about the help available, such as medical treatment.

          I bet kleptomaniacs are happy sometimes, doesn't mean I want to waive it off as "that's just their way of living".

          But I guess it still comes down to; are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?
      • Mar 21 2012: read your own stuff " We used to live in the wild nature too, and then we slowly developed, and now we are on the right track." that's what I mean by the right track... however if you still fail to see the connection then I think it is impossible for me to show it to you
        • Mar 21 2012: Yes, by that i meant that we are on the track of development. We are developing with every single day. We advance our technologies so fast that it would take all day reading news and you still wouldn't see all whats new today. All those technologies that benefit as and make our lives easier. Technologies that we make with our knowledge to eliminate the scarcity and bring us access to everything we need. I think this is the right track. And i think allowing primitive tribes to still exist is not right and we should feel obligated to give them our advantages and benefits of our technologies and development. There isn't a living creature that would choose to live in a scarcity without access to the necessities of his life, rather than have access to all the necessities and goods and benefits of life.
  • Mar 21 2012: It is interesting that many people in civilized world are very unhappy. They work long hours, are stressed and consume alcohol, drugs etc.

    I don't think happiness depends on whether you live in a city or not but how do you view life and how do you handle your experiences.

    Tribes typically build strong family relationships and live from day to day not worrying about careers, mortgages, fashion etc. They consider death as a normal thing that is part of their lives.

    I think that we can carefully approach them to see whether they are interested in learning new skills or getting tools. Some tribes are starting to use cell phones and tools to make their life easier. But that should be only their choice.

    The only time I think intervention is needed is when children are forced to undergo certain barbaric procedures like female circumcision or child marriages.
    • Mar 22 2012: I disagree. Happiness would be the access to all the necessities and goods of life that you need and want. The more a person study and learn the more his desires and necessities grow. And if he has access to all of them he is happy. If he doesn't have access to his necessities he is sad and not happy. It has nothing to do with point of view.
      No matter how we approach them, their values are shaped by the environment, and they would never see the benefit and advantage of studying and learning and developing. If they could see it, they would want to, but they can't. Thats why we should show it to them and make them feel it. That way they will want more. All the people in the world want the same thing - to live a happy life, without scarcity with access to any necessity one have. It is our environment that shape our values. So we must get them out of a such an environment and expose them to the benefits and advantages of our technologies.
      • Mar 22 2012: "Happiness would be the access to all the necessities and goods of life that you need and want."

        Yes people need shelter and food and tribes usually has those except when civilization takes it away from them as it happened in North America and it is happening in Africa.

        Wants are not needed for a happy life. Look at some of the rich and famous people that had everything they wanted and they commit suicide. They had lots of stuff but were missing good family and friends.

        "The more a person study and learn the more his desires and necessities grow."

        Actually I think it is quite opposite. As you learn more about the world and life you will realize how important is to have good relationships and more stuff will not make you happy in the long run.

        You realize that having more stuff means that you need to spend more money to replace it, maintain it and you have to insure it, lock it and upgrade it. The more stuff you have the more energy and money you need. It is also bad for environment to accumulate so much stuff.

        I suggest that you read from these websites: and other essays and other essays
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: Well for the record,

    most of the organic (a term used by Murray Bookchin) primitive societies are the most peaceful societies in the world. Their values are amazing. Their respect for the environment is usually second to none....before you think its a great thing to rid the world of primitive societies, you should think about many of the contributions they've made in the history of this world...without these societies, modernity would not exist how we know it....

    are there downsides to societies that are not modernized (by our standards)? of course but that is because modern societies are taking the resources from these "primitive societies"...

    I could go on all day about how valuable these societies are but here are a few things to consider (and I'm really hungry at the moment to type out more)
    • Mar 21 2012: How did you come to the conclusion that primitive tribes are the most peaceful societies in the world ?
      Also, how exactly and what contributions did they made in the history of the world ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: For starters:

        Howard Zinn's "A history of the United States"

        Murray Bookchin's "Ecology of Freedom"

        Peter Kroptkins "Mutual Aid"
        • Mar 21 2012: Well, i don't have time nor the opportunity to search find get and read those books, but i would love to hear exactly how did anybody came to the conclusion that the primitive tribes are the most peaceful societies in the world, and how did they contribute to the history of the world.
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: Well then if you don't then there is not much I can say to you because it seems you've already have your mind made up on what you think about such societies.

        these guys were experts in their respective fields so I could not express it any better than they can but for starters maybe you should go on Google or Wikipedia.

        there is one thing I can say: "they were the original affluent society" --Micheal Bell
    • thumb
      Mar 25 2012: Orlando, Europe was made of tribes, violent and in war for centuries. Meddle east still have tribes on war. Same for Africa. The tribes in Brazil were cannibal and in constant war before the Europeans arrival. Today tribes in Brazil are most often in the Amazon, though some indian reserves still exist in the south. In the Amazon, tribes use alcohol and marijuana way before the Europeans, so, drugs are a native problem. Children born without good health are killed in the first day. Average life expectation is under 40. Children die from diarrhea and easy to cure infections. You may believe Howard Zinn, Murray Bookchin and Peter Kroptkin but the world that I know is quite different.
      • thumb
        Mar 25 2012: Hi Pedro,

        Thanks for your response but I must make you aware of the fact that I am well aware of how many tribes practiced human sacrifce. I am well aware that some tribes practed slavery. I am well aware of the fact that many tribes were cannibles. I would be a mistake to persume that I am romanticsing these tribes that Iw as talking about in my book.

        Secondly some native american tribes were actually living quite well and for a long time. It was not until when the Europeans came that their lifespan began to decrease.

        Third, Zinn, Bookchin and Kroptkin are ver well respected in their fields so to state they they are lying about their works is quite flabbergasting.

        I never argued that these tribes were perfect. They can't be because they are humans just like the rest of us but the perception that you have of them is the justification that many people use to invade them.

        So not "all" tribes are bad. Some are good and quite capable of maximizing their overall well-being. Some aren't so lucky
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: Who defines primitiveness ?
    Who has given someone the right to decide whether someone or some people are primitive or not ?
    Being colononized once , that time invador imperialist used to think people of my part to be primitive.....and we used to think they are ....
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: You wave education as a magic wand. Could you live in their world. Education in this case is relative. You worry about snakes, and wild animals presenting a danger to them. So lets bring them to our world where a fast moving chevy can run over you, fast foods that kill over time, stress, muggers, robbers, killers, enept politicians that want to dominate your life, and the beat goes on. I like where I am but that is not for everyone. Theirs is a simple uncomplicated life and who are we to mess it up. Take a look around we have not handled our environment very well. So lets not screw it up for them. Bob.
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: you mean, take them to cities and educate them against their will?
    • Mar 21 2012: Yes, exactly. Just like my mother forced me to learn English against my will. Just like your mother forced you to eat your vegetables against your will. Just like everybody's parents force their children to learn and educate against their will, we should bring the primitive tribes and give them education and knowledge against their will.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: i don't like your worldview at all. but here is my recommendation: how about i put you in a detention camp, and force you to learn some subject i decide?
        • Mar 21 2012: I don't understand your statement. Why do you claim you know my worldview ? I never said anything about my worldview, please read my question again. Also, i don't understand the point and the meaning of your example. I am not saying we have to force them to study mathematics or any certain subject, i am saying we must be obligated to give them that chance and opportunity and possibility and advantage. Right now they know nothing about the advantages of life and our technologies. If only they could feel the advantages and benefits they will find what interests them in some certain subject.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: do you understand your own opinion?


        "give them education and knowledge against their will"


        " I am not saying we have to force them to study"

        • Mar 22 2012: Why you are being so aggressive ? First, when i said ''give them education and knowledge against their will'' this doesn't mean to beat them with sticks until they start studying. You are interpreting my words the way you feel please with. Any action we take in direction of showing them our advantages and benefits will be against their will, because they will not want it until they see it. There must be many ways of doing that. Using violence is not a civilize way of doing things.
          Also, your second statement is very unfair because you only copy 1 part of the context and not the full text. In your response i said '' I am not saying we have to force them to study MATHEMATICS or any certain subject .... etc.''
          Obviously you are not willing to even consider thinking about what i have said so far.
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: Quite simple, because they have their human rights and freedom of doing what they choose to.
    • Mar 21 2012: Ok, then how come we force our children to go to school and learn and read books ? Even though they refuse to do it and say they do not want to do it, we still force them to do it ? Isn't that against our children's human rights and freedom ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: That is two totally different situation, children needs to learn things because they can't survive if adults dont teach them, forcing another culture to adapt into a different lifestyle is like saying to muslim to learn to wear bikini.... thats what cause conflicts...
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: We can let them know there are other cultures out there, but we can never force them to learn our things, If they decide to and wants to they can go to new places to learn.. i will find a video for you to see, about culture difference, a group of people from tribes from Africa spent a month in the US, and afterwards... they really dislike the way it is, and decided to go home.
        I will find it and show you, that is the reason why there are different perspective and view point in the world, we think ours is good, but in other's eyes might not be as good as we think. Thats why we have to respect each others, but also open to learn.
        • Mar 21 2012: They will never arrive at such a decision simple because their values are being shaped by the environment they are living in. They will never change as it is the environment that shape their lives. As for the video that you gave me, please refer to the statements i made above.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: that position is a complete non-sequitor and has nothing to do with the original question that you asked...

        look at it this way.....what if someone came to your home and forced you out because they believed that under your house was a pile of diamonds. Would you be ok with that?

        What, if instead of forcing you out they decided to just bring their things and command you and your family to start digging for diamonds, while they decided to live under the same roof without your consent. Would you be ok with this?

        In case your wondering where I'm going with this put this in relation to what happened to the natives since Columbus.
        • Mar 21 2012: I am sorry i can't understand your answer. What you are giving as an examples has nothing to do with my question and statements. Please read my question and statements once again.
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: It has everything to do with what your talking about

        and I have read everything you mentioned yesterday and the reasons you give is almost exactly the justification that the explores, the church and the pilgrims gave...

        I do not mean to be strident but if you don't know enough about history, then there is no way you'll understand what I'm trying to say to you.
  • thumb
    Mar 25 2012: Give primitive tribes access to health and education is humanist.
    Forcing them to adapt to our culture is colonialism, dictatorship, or something like that.

    "Our Culture" is what after all? You mean US culture, China culture, Muslim, Catholicism, Buddhism... what would be the right culture to teach? I mean, the starting point to destroy the original question is how to judge what the correct reference is for "culture". Said that, I like the question, I like the controversy that it can generate.

    I think it is wrong to keep tribes isolated from the world. I think they should have access to medication and all the knowledge we have to improve health and to extend life. In some reserves in US and south Brazil, tribes live in reserves but have access to cities, doctors and so forth, and have the chance to choose where to live. In other places, like north Brazil and Africa, tribes are isolated inside forest reserves, which makes access to doctors and goods very difficult. North Africa, Middle East and Asia have tribes living in mixed environments. A lot of TV news showing starvation and poverty are about tribes living in poverty.

    Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist? (1) Because we are not smart enough to eliminate poverty (assuming primitive means poverty); (2) Because nobody holds the right to impose others to change (assuming primitive means "thinking different"); and (3) There is no such thing as "primitive" as of todays' interpretation of culture (assuming there is no "good culture" or "bad culture").
  • thumb
    Mar 25 2012: I think, in terms of science, we have a lot to offer the Tribal people of the world.

    However, In educating the Tribal people in the ways of science, we would change their culture beyond all recognition.

    This would have to be based on the assumption that this change would result in a positive outcome for them as a society.

    The problem, as I see it is: It would always be an assumption. If this assumption proved to be wrong, it would not be a change we could revert.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2012: What is primitive and what is this thing called socialized? I would recommend a film on this topic it is called the gods are crazy. Also obligation they never asked for anyone help. If they really wanted to change their lifestyle they could just leave
    Also what makes a person uneducated most tribes-people know numerous skills the so called civilized educated person does not such as: agriculture, tracking, survival techniques and herbal remedies..

    To they say they are uneducated is horribly wrong better would be to say they are lacking in some knowledge's as are you and any person on this site. These tribes have survived for this long meaning their system is not to bad and if they get out of their system it should manufactured internally.

    If anything those tribes could the so called civilized world primitive due to its lack of symbiosis with nature and the counter-productive way their societies are run.

    Free from counter-product ideas of self, property and crime not too bad for so called primitive people.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2012: I would suggest you go live with the last known true wild tribe of man,they are somewhere in brazil i think,that way you will see their way of life.They might find that what you offer might not be what they want.

    Trust me i'm of an ethnic race that was fast modernized and we adapted just fine but we lost our genetic purity(it's not what you think) what came with modern man was disease where we had none before,though i would not go back to that way of life there is a part of us that wish the impact of modernization didn't change the land aswel,Alcohol is a big problem,drugs.400 years does not change a people completely,there is a yearning for something,i don't know what it is but we all feel it,personally i think it's coded somehow.

    So before one has thoughts of rescuing the last remnants of man,you better go ask them first and try not to let the logical man that is you have too much preference over the rest of you.

    My people were very lucky in that we actually had a treaty offered where is the rest of the empire had to put up with the british which was a ploy to secure the country before the other world leading powers tried their hands at it.What if we had been an american state? look what happened to the Hawaiian queen.
  • Mar 22 2012: i think i understand what you mean now
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: I think it is quite judgemental to think just bringing them to the cities then they won't want to go back, i personally grew up in Hong Kong and London, the two largest cities in the world. And to be honest, i am quite sick of the cities. Many people now adays escape to the wild just to catch a breathe.

    Having Cars, Hotwater or Computer doesnt necessary means its better.

    Eating nature food, dont have to worry about politics, poverty, dont have to worry about tax, competition, economic downturn. Food additives, getting shot, getting robbed.....

    There are good and bad on both sides, it might not even do good to them if you force them into our society.
    • Mar 21 2012: Yes, and would you rather move to the jungle without clothes, electricity and all the goods that you are using today ? Just you and the nature. If you are hungry go hunt a fish. If you are cold, cover yourself up with some plants. How about that ? Would you rather choose that kind of life or go back to London ? You said it your self - '' escape to the wild just to catch a breathe ''. And when you catch a breathe you go back to the civilization don't you ? What bad sides do you see in bringing the primitive tribes to our cities and help them learn ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: There was a girl, from a small town that became a transfer student in Hong Kong, the overwhelming bombardment of 7million people buzzing activity, pressure of works and competition driven her to kill herself within a few months of arriving in HK.
        After i had been living in the different countries... i dislike cities now.
        Living primitive is their way of life, I don't understand what is the obsession of us forcing our others to become like us.... they are the way they are....... If they really want to see new things or such.. they would go venture themselves...
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: and i dont understand why we think that just bringing them to our society then they learn... if we go to their society we also learn.........

        And yes there are a huge society of Amish out there.... no electricity, make everything themselves... you can check out the reason why Amish live the way they are
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2012: This may sound strange but not interfering with a way of life that has served them a lot longer than what we are used to ensures that if we stuff things up there's a good probability that they will carry on the human race as they will have the basic skills that we have forgotten but that depends on if the planet doesn't change too drastically from whatever it's going through.

    Also they are the clean genetic stock that one needs to keep in store if we decide to all adopt a enhanced human form that is basically the same in everyway leaving us open to a one cause extinction,we're bad for maximising single species above all else i.e The rotteweiler,the honeybee,The potato(apparently theres only four types the americans are growing these days).

    These points are vague speculations of my mind but to me they are valid.

    Modernizing a tribe of people that follow an ancient path that has served them well has negative blow backs,you should study the american indian and the ausralian aborigine and see if they adapted well to fast modernization.
  • Mar 19 2012: It kind of makes sense to introduce them to the advantages made by society. I'm really interested in if there's some expertice on the subject!

    But I can also see the issue with if they are introduced, will they be pushed with a shoehorn into the the lowest income-bracket and then "left there" in poverty? I mean if they won't be able to take advantage of an education system and get into working and earning a stable, good salary, maybe it's a bit better to live without economic pressure? If you can't also access the benefits like healthcare, schools, travel, "the community", what good is walking on a paved road for you, if you previously survived quite fine?
    • Mar 19 2012: I don't know what kind of challenges they will be facing in the distant future. Perhaps, it wouldn't be that different from the ones we are facing as well. I think the most important think is to provide an equal education and access to knowledge and information to all of them. They can choose their own life, once they are educated, i think.