wtf?

[ratcreature]

Okay, the phrasing in this BBC article is really awful. It talks about the Andaman islands, and an isolated indigenous tribe. And it has this sentence (paraphrasing an argument for creating some sort of buffer zone between the tribal area and the rest of the island): "[...] the Jarawas should be totally isolated from human habitation and no commercial activity be allowed near their habitat." Seriously, that article talks about these people like giant pandas, as if they weren't humans as well.

Comments

[parhelion]

I used to hear talk like that back in New Mexico all the time. You know, non-native Americans saying things like "Oh, television antennas shouldn't be allowed in the pueblos. Television is so corrosive to their culture and the antennas look terrible." Because Fates Forfend any member of an indigenous culture should chose what aspects of their own culture they wish to retain, rather than an outsider choosing the delights of Nativeland for them.

(Sorry. This is a personal sore point; I hope it didn't come out as a rant.)

[ratcreature]

I think the issue there is different because they refused any contact until the 1990s with violence, and even though now some younger tribes people have some contact, I can see the position that development close might not be right and that outsiders ought to stay away entirely until they decide differently (though at this point it seems rather a bit late, as at least from the article it seems that things have changed). But to let people alone who want to live in isolation on their own land without building roads or tourism resorts there (I mean seriously they've been there for 60000 years apparently, since the first migration out of Africa), is not the same creating a nature preserve, even if the practical actions would be similar. So to frame it in terms of "habitat" is already unfortunate at the very least, but the way the sentence puts the Jarawas as opposite to "human habitation" without even inserting an "other" is just offensive, when theirs has been a human habitation for millenia.

[parhelion]

Yup. I agree. A lot of the problem seems to lie in remembering that folks have agency, even when you're sure you know what needs to happen to them, and keeping that agency right up front. It would have read very differently if the article had used the appropriate variant of "(some part of) the (whomever) believe they should be guarded from (outside problem) and no(other outside problem) should be allowed near their (preferred term for where they live)."