I can absolutely guarantee it is not.
Well, they’re not travelling to his homeland and trying to convert his people to their religion against their will. They just want to be left alone. So they *are *better.
No, it’s currently believed their ancestors came from Africa fifty thousand years ago, and their language is unrelated even to nearby languages, much less anything from another continent.
No, their language is not related to Xhosa.
It could be as simple as Xhosa sounding so different from languages they have heard before, like English or the languages of their neighbors, that they stopped to listen.
Their closest relatives MIGHT be Australian aborigines.
Current evidence seems to indicate that they were part of one of the initial migrations of H. sapiens out of Africa, a group that migrated and settled along coastal areas from African across the shores of what is now India on into the southern margins of Asia and down to New Guinea and Australia 50,000 years ago (roughly). Of course, it’s very hard to state this definitely because it was so long ago, written records weren’t invented yet, and considerable portions of the relevant land areas are now under the oceans (the sea level was lower back then)
It’s impossible to know how long they’ve been isolated from other people, but it could be a very long time. Most likely, they aren’t closely related to anyone.
Thank you for that. I have heard there were laws, but not details. That was very helpful.
We mock bad behavior to show our contempt for that behavior. His death is just the inevitable consequence of his poor choices. Reveling in his death is a bit much, but laughing at the result is sometimes the only way to relieve the tension.
It is possible to be sorry they get wiped out by a disease that modern medicine could prevent or cure while still thinking them unfortunate they didn’t want help they didn’t know about. We can laugh at whatever silly religious beliefs they have while mourning their [hypothetical] demise.
Fair enough, we’re assholes, too. It’s assholes all around.
I’ve read this entire thread. I don’t think anybody is ‘reveling’ in his death. It’s just that there’s very little, if any, sympathy shown toward his demise.
He was targeted by arrows, then left, then returned. Jesus.
Nobody’s mocking this dead fool because of the relative merits of one culture over another. The point is that they weren’t seeking to impose their culture on him, were they? Nor were they exposing his community to potential genocide.
This dead fool is worthy of the contempt he’s being shown because the part of his own culture that he wanted to bring to them (at great risk to them) was not even anything of value like tools or medicine. It was his own pathetic and useless superstitions.
Religious beliefs generally don’t attract mockery and derision if they are simply cultural traditions that are treated as mythical, or as part of some process of personal meditation on the mysteries of the universe. People attract mockery and derision when they treat their superstitious myths as truth claims, and most especially when religious fools have such arrogance about their own stupid beliefs that they are driven to proselytize their preposterous truth claims to others; or, worse, to impose those beliefs on others.
Yup, he deserves a similar reaction to someone who jumped off a tall building in the belief that his God would let him fly, and narrowly missed killing innocent people when he hit the crowded sidewalk below.
The only route to sympathy would be if somebody wants to make the case that his religious beliefs constitute mental illness.
Threw himself off a building aiming at innocent people, in the expectation that his god would save him, claiming it was somehow for the benefit of said innocent people, then having luckily landed on a ledge without injury the first time he tried it, went back and tried again…
I wish there was some way that group who a) encouraged him on this and b) is trying to get his killers prosecuted could get charged for it. Conspiring to cause death by idiocy.
I think this sentence was the point of his visit.
I think we was shot in the ass the first time? Perhaps he felt compelled to follow the biblical imperative to turn the other cheek.
Those attempting to draw attention to their cause by framing this as Christian persecution deserve mockery in my opinion.
Being pedantic for a minute, it would be more accurate to say they are not closely related or that we don’t know how they might be related. It is likely that all extant language are related at some level even if we can’t figure out the exact relationships. My understanding is that very little contact has been made with the Sentinalese, and from what little contrast there has been, there was no ability to classify their language in relation to other languages. And that would include the languages of other Andaman Islanders. But it’s not like there has been an extensive scholarly effort to figure it out.
But yeah, if anyone thinks they speak some kind of African language or even a language that would be somewhat mutually intelligible with an African language, they’re nuts.
They’re Andaman Islanders, and likely related to other Andaman Islanders. The Sentinal Islands are a subset of the Andaman Islands and it’s unlikely that the Sentinalese have been isolated from the other Andaman Islanders for the entirety of their time on those islands. Superficially, at least, they don’t look much different from other Andaman Islanders.
And someone thought of that one really early in the game…
In the end Christians are *not *actually called upon to be recklessly foolhardy to prove a point.
Then Mr. Chau evidently did not know his Bible as well as you do.
When all is said and done, I admire missionaries for their dedication, but wish they would apply it to something more useful. If they start getting obnoxiously zealous, then any admiration is quickly replaced by an overwhelming desire for their immediate removal. Every religion has its religious nuts, but Christianity tends to have the more aggressive variety - topped only by the Muslims. <sigh>
Somewhere I have a digital cartoon of two young missionaries on the doorstep, saying “Can we tell you about hedonism?” I like that.
I really enjoyed learning about asceticism, so they kicked me out.
Cite? For the “likely”, I mean, I’m aware of the theory, but AFAIK, it’s by no means dominant, and Ruhlen and his ilk are considered fringe.
To be honest, I don’t have a problem with most missionaries. I’m not even unduly bothered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses appearing at my door.
This guy was technically a missionary, but he appears to have only a tangential relationship with a rather fringey operation.
I do have a problem with fundamentalism, both on scientific and theological grounds.
I wasn’t so much thinking of Joseph Greenberg and the like who claim to have actually determined the relationships, but the idea that language probably didn’t evolve multiple times, independently. We can’t know for sure, but the most parsimonious explanation is that language evolved once. So no, no cite. But I think it is the most reasonable assumption.
And, btw, I’m not counting invented languages like Klingon. I’m thinking of languages that are actually spoken as first languages by living populations.