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.

[lanning]

Wow. Yeah, that's blatantly offensive. I'm not surprised, though -- it looks like British attitudes toward the indigenous people of the Andamans hasn't changed much since Conan Doyle's day.

[sholio]

*boggles* WTF. You know, what bothered me the most about the article (besides, like you said, talking about a group of human beings like they're freaking animals in a zoo) is that no one seems to have even thought of ASKING them what they want. The government doesn't seem to have established diplomatic communications with them or anything of that sort. It's nice that the government isn't simply running amuck over them (and wow, how depressing is it that it's pleasing and impressive when a government doesn't do that?) but they are obviously interested in learning about the outside world -- asking for cell phones and schools -- and it's morally disgusting to let them die of easily preventable diseases under the guise of "keeping them pure" (or at least not to give them the OPTION of having access to hospitals and antibiotics and vaccinations, god! -- some people avoid such things on moral or religious grounds and they might choose likewise, but there's a difference between that and not giving them a CHOICE).

[ratcreature]

Yeah. It's one example in a long line of writings casting some people as not quite as human as the rest of us, what with the "human habitation" vs. the "Jarawa habitat".

[ratcreature]

I think the running amuck happened earlier already. IIRC they used to live elsewhere on that island before the British settled there in 1800 and then they were decimated by disease and retreated to where they are now, and avoided contact until recently.

[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)."

[dragovianknight.livejournal.com]

Oh, but it's so terribly exciting to be able to observe the primitives in their natural habitat! :P

[ratcreature]

Yeah. It seems that's why the contested tourism resort is there in the first place, that recently with that new road, you can encounter the Jarawas.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Then again, the Jarawas didn't seem to want any contact until recently, and the Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) definitely don't. Contact with "civilised" people doesn't seem to have provided them with anything good or useful so far.

[ratcreature]

I don't find the measure of a buffer zone offensive in itself. I can see the position that development close might not be right and that outsiders ought to stay away. But to let people alone who want to live in isolation on their own land without building roads or tourism resorts on their land (or nearby and encroaching constantly) is not the same creating a nature preserve, even if the practical actions would be similar. So I object that the article talks about "human habitation" vs. the "Jarawa habitat". Clearly theirs has been a human habitation for millenia too.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that the language is disturbing, and the too-little-too-late idea that the buffer zone should be put in place *after* the "humans" have already interfered with Jarawa society is coming from a similar attitude - that the Jarawa are somehow not human, or their society is not real.

I think I went straight to "leave them the hell alone!" because I'd just been reading about Australian Christians in PNG, who bribe Highland tribes with processed sugar and think it's great that they're saving souls (while destroying traditional diets, and bringing progress in the shape of roads, young people going to the cities, and AIDS). It's disgusting.