You seem to be entirely unaware of cases in the US where people have killed people they believed to be trespassing or a threat to them and been acquitted of wrongdoing.
While the missionary was not threatening the Sentinelese, as a matter of fact he was potentially a deadly threat to them because of disease, even if they didn’t know that.
Stand your ground laws would apply, if they were in Florida.
Not that they are likely to have an understanding of germ theory, but he and his germs presence on the island represented a real threat to him.
Plus, they had non-fatally driven him off once before, so he knew he wasn’t welcome.
The Sentineli are related to the Onge and Jarawa, and know how to build canoes just fine, but for obvious reasons not much is known about Sentinelese history. They migrated from Little Andaman Island, but who can say when, or whether it was deliberate.
Yup. To take a roughly equivalent situation, if somebody infected with Ebola and spewing blood were intent on approaching me, despite clear warnings to stay away, I think I would be justified in shooting them in self defense.
As you say, it’s extremely unlikely that the islanders actually understood the risk of infection. But if there’s a legal justification for killing someone in self defense, can ignorance of that justification lead to conviction for murder? Surely you can’t be convicted of murder just because you intend to commit murder, if it turns out the law says what you did is not actually murder?
I suspect in their eyes they are practicing foreign policy. So the analogue might be rules of engagement with respect to a hostile force.
I think they may have some grasp of disease, given the observable effects of past encounters with Westerners, along with their lack of access to antibiotics. Furthermore, I’m guessing they have a rough sense of the hazards of colonialism. Either that, or they are just a culturally hostile tribe, which are the only sort that aren’t remain. Lots of friendly Andaman tribes once existed, but were wiped off the map.
In the GD thread I approve of intercultural dialogue: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21343684&postcount=209
In the GD thread, I name a dozen or so extinct Andaman tribes: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21344069&postcount=214
Actually yes, you can. If I intend to murder you, and I cause your death, that’s murder. The two elements of crime are met, even if in another context my action would have been legal.
Having said that, it doesn’t mean the Sentinelese were not legitimately defending themselves just because they don’t know about germs. Their rationale was probably not avoiding disease, but they probably had a rationale. Their hostility to outsiders is consistent and ferocious; they have SOME reason for it, one they believe wholeheartedly.
A better analogy would be this; you break into my house intending to rob me. I believe, mistakenly but honestly, that you are breaking into my house intending to kill my wife, and so I kill you. That is legal homicide, even if I was mistaken about your intent.
So let’s stipulate that we have mens rea for murder. Are you saying that just causing death is then sufficient to constitute the actus reus (I think that’s the correct term?) for murder? I would have thought more was required.
Just because you don’t know about germs doesn’t mean that you’ve not possibly seen someone get sick after contact with outsiders, and thus assume that there is something (maybe miasma or a curse) that caused that to happen. We had the idea that diseases were infectious long before we knew about germs: why do you think certain sick people were declared “unclean”?
I think you greatly overestimate the degree to which the causal connection is likely to be recognized in a primitive culture. Even in the developed world, it was the mid nineteenth century when Semmelweiss showed that if doctors washed their hands infection rates were massively reduced, and his conclusions were widely rejected; only in the late nineteenth century did Lister pioneer sterile surgical technique.
I agree with BigT. You don’t need the germ theory of disease to believe that others are culpable in illness. In fact such a concept is ubiquitous in primitive cultures.
I googled and found a 1932 tract. http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucp032-003.pdf From page 2, emphasis added: Aside from this similarity, by no means as psychologically natural as it seems, the concepts will fall roughly into three broad categories: first, natural causes, which include the modern medical theory and all injuries obviously inflicted by material agencies; second, human agency, i.e., disease is considered directly due to the malefic action of some human being, embracing sorcery in all its phases; and third, supernatural agency, i.e., sickness is regarded as due to the action of supernatural factors.
All three of these categories occur among both civilized and primitive peoples, although the first is by far the most prominent among the civilized peoples of Europe and America today. Even so, traces of the other beliefs still linger, especially among the peasantry of eastern Europe. Among primitive people and, perhaps to a lesser extent, among the nations of antiquity the latter two categories attain the greatest adherence.
Closer examination of the concepts of primitive people, however, although confirming our classification, shows that the three categories are far too broad for practical purposes. Narrowing these down without creating artificial classes, primitive disease concepts are of five main types, which are described below. All 3 theories are consistent with the idea that Contact By Outsider == Bad.
I think you greatly underestimate the very common sense things it takes for a tribe to survive for tens of thousands of years by itself.
If many many years ago it was discovered that anyone who ate a particular fruit would get very sick and in many cases died, the tribe will learn to not eat the fruit. They may not know the exact mechanism, the reason that fruit is fatal. But it won’t take long for them to learn to stop eating it and that will be passed down through the generations.
Now apply that to outsider visits. There are documented cases of people visiting the island and harm the falling the Islanders. Fascinating Twitter thread that has been referenced in this thread, they reference an old couple who died after coming into contact with an outsider.
Just as it’s not a big surprise that lasts tens of thousands of years don’t eat any of the poisonous fruits on their Island, it’s also not a shock they would learn that Intruders can mean death. So they learn both of those things, and react accordingly.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
I don’t dispute the idea of primitive cultures having that general notion.
But the idea that causation is as direct as physical contact ==> disease? If that’s so natural, why did it take us until almost 1900 to embrace the idea in the West?
You don’t need to understand germ theory to observe that being around sick people often makes you get the same sickness. We understood the concept well enough to segregate lepers and use plague dead as biological weapons in the middle ages, for example. AIUI, the reason Semmelweiss’ contemporaries rejected his ideas was not that they didn’t believe that being near sick people could pass on sickness, but rather, the idea that a person could pass on a disease without suffering from it themselves. The objection wasn’t, “You can’t get disease from touching people!” it was, “I can’t be giving people diseases - I’m perfectly healthy!”
Many primitive peoples attribute all deaths to sorcery or other supernatural causes. If in the past contact with outsiders resulted in death, they wouldn’t need to have a germ theory of disease to conclude that outsiders brought bad juju and should be eliminated to ensure self preservation.
Because it didn’t. There was theory of Miasma. Bad air emitted by rotting stuff and filth. That was …roughly correct, sort of. At least in terms of rough correlations. Florence Nightingale liked fresh air and cleanliness. Treatment of water for public health purposes date from the mid 1800s IIRC.
I’m basically arguing along John_Stamos’_Left_Ear’s lines, with my 1932 link above thrown in. Miasma theory - Wikipedia
Self defense does not occur without the knowledge of the one allegedly acting in self defense.
Outsiders practice a sort of witchcraft that feeds on the life force of the Sentinalese making them sick, often fatally so.
John Chau could have been seeking asylum on the island and the POSI (President of Sentinel Island) could have previously closed the borders declaring that no new asylum seekers would be permitted and that all would be killed on sight.
There once was a girl from Nantucket …
… who identified however the hell she wanted, and we all respected that and no one cared what was in her pants except her sexual partners…um, bucket.