This has not been addressed in any of the other threads on that Peruvian shoot-down. What the hell were those parents thinking, taking two young children on a “mission” to Peru?! According to their own church (quoted in today’s NY Times), they weren’t going there to build schools or hospitals—they were going to hold “bible meetings” (e.g., cram their religion down the throats of villagers who have much more pressing problems, thank you).
OK, so if these missionaries feel the need to travel hither and yon trying to convert people, fine. They get themselves killed by insurgents or tropical diseases or shoot-downs, they brought it on themselves. But what the hell could they have been thinking, taking an infant and a small child with them into such dangerous and primitive conditions?
That’s a point, Eve, but stretching my imagination and placing myself in these missionary’s place, I can see wanting to take my children along… it’s not as if they were just going to visit a villiage, convert them in a few days, and then leave… my understanding of missionary trips is that they go for a LONG time (maybe permanantly), I’d want to take my family…
As far as the primitive conditions go: [missionary mind] This is the world that God created! How can it be said to be primitive?[/missionary mind]
I personally, knew a family who went to Guatemala to live and build a church, etc.
They took their three daughters with them (10, 8, and 3).
They still live there safely, as far as I know.
Is it That primitive in Peru?
It’s nice to blame the victims for what happened to them, ain’t it? It’s not the fault of those nice Peruvians, not just a “shit happens” kind of thing, oh no, it’s the parents’ fault for bringing their kids along.
Yes, it IS the missionaries’ damn fault for putting their kids into dangerous and—yes—primitive conditions. What if the kids get sick and there’s no hospital available?
Remember, I don’t even particularly LIKE kids. But if you’re going to have kids, you have some responsibility for keeping them safe. If you’re going to go whirling ‘round the world cramming religion down peoples’ throats, maybe you shouldn’t have kids in the first place. Getcher priorities straight. Which is more important: “being fruitful and multiplying,” or making sure every evil heathen in the world Comes to Jesus?
Oh, I forgot—“God will protect them.” Yeah, looks like God was doin’ a real bang-up job THIS time. Guess his eye was on the sparrow or somethin’.
I don’t know, Eve. I think to pass judgement on this we need to know the normal mortality rate of missionaries in Peru, how close they were going to be to modern medical care, etc. etc. It may well be that Peruvian missionaries have been taking thier kids along for 25 years with nary a mishap. Ignoring the reason for thier visit, I would love to give my hypothetical children a chance to see the world.
For example, one of the most prominient Mayanists in the world is a young man named David Stuart. His parents were the Nat Geo’s in-house Mayanists and he spent his childhood going to Mexico and Guatamala on digs. Was this as safe as growing up in a subdivision? Of course not. But I suspect they think it was worth it (He won a McArthur at 18 . . .). As my mother said, you have to let kids climb SOME rocks, and all you can do as a parent is try to guess when the potential danger is greater than the potential learning experience/charecter building. Sometimes even good parents guess wrong.
Just a question … would this vitriol have been directed at the parents if they were on vacation with their kids in Peru and their plane had been shot down?
Well, I thought that they’d been on the mission for some time, so the kids (or at least the daughter) were born while they were in Columbia. As far as these kids were concerned, South America WAS home.
A lot of kids have had very positive experience being in missionary families. Pearl Buck is one example! The alternative is: leave the kids at home to be raised by other families. Not appealing. Or: insist that all missionaries be childless. Wanna start a family? Then leave the field and leave the work to others. I don’t like that either–reproductive rights aren’t something I wanna mess with.
I’m not sure how dangerous it really is – as long as you don’t have planes shooting you down. Kids are tough, and for every hazard down there you’re avoiding some pretty big ones back home.
Sauron, I think you’ve hit on an important point. Some people do find the purposes of Christian missionary work pretty distasteful (even infuriating). It makes it them seem more blameworthy.
“Just a question … would this vitriol have been directed at the parents if they were on vacation with their kids in Peru
and their plane had been shot down?”
—Well, yeah, actually. If I read about parents who decided it would be neat-o to climb Mount Everest with the kids, or “gee, wouldn’t a week in Afghanistan be fun?” I WOULD blame them for putting their kids in danger. It just makes me all the madder that the are so self-righteous about it.
C’mon, aren’t there any parents out there who would have a problem with putting their newborn baby in a prop plane over a third-world country with known drug-running dangers? This really has become Bizarro World if I am the only one going, “but think about the CHILLLLDREN!”
Well, it appears that the baby was adopted, so she wasn’t born down there. I think they came back to the states to get her, but they’ve been down there since 1996. I gotta get my facts straight.
Anyway, she was living with her parents, in the place they chose to live and work. Rather than compare it to going on a dangerous vacation, it’s probably better to compare it to living/working in a risky area. For example, most of Detroit.
The reason I asked the question is I know eco-tourism has become something of a fad in the last few years. I don’t know specifically if Peru is one of the countries that’s a hot spot, though.
I think there’s a slight difference between saying “Let’s load up the kids and head for the North Slope of Everest” and “We’re flying in a scheduled flight from one town to another.” Yes, it’s Peru, but surely they don’t shoot down EVERY small plane, do they?
Now, having said that … the only information I have on this story is what CNN.com reported today. I note that apparently a CIA plane was also tracking this plane, and their on record as saying they did everything they could to make sure proper procedures were followed. It sounds to me like the pilot of the missionaries’ plane may have screwed up somehow, not responding to radio calls or something similar.
As I said, maybe you’ve seen additional info I haven’t, Eve, but nowhere have I seen statements from the family that sound “self-righteous.”
I’m sure that part of the world is much safer place to raise kids than parts of the city I live in. My father is a Baptist Preacher, and a graduate school professor(gerontology), and I grew up with a lot of missionary kids for friends. One of thems father was trown in jail by Castro(there were a couple of books written about him). All in all, the ones I knew turned out pretty good. I think odds wise, they would be more likely to be killed by a drunk driver in this country, than shot down by the military over there. This was just a freak accident.
Sorry, but I thought this was going to be along the lines of one of my regular Sunday morning confrontations with the people who who drag their children around witnessing with them every weekend rain, hail, or stinking sunshine.
I’m not sure that I support the premise that no-one with children should ever travel to Peru. The world isn’t a gated community, and nor should we seek to make it one.
It seems a bit silly to blame misionary parents for taking their kids to Peru. Expat parents take their kids with them to many countries, and Peru is actually a fairly safe place, especially since the family was going to be in backcountry villages and not in Lima.
Eve, kids in Harlem and Bed-Stuy are in a lot more danger of getting killed every day than are missionary kids. This tragedy was the result of compound errors, and I don’t fault the parents for taking their child with them.
Not that anyone asked my opinion, but personally HATE the whole concept of missionaries. The arrogance of pushing your religion and culture on others is just the beginning of it. There are so many fascinating cultures around the world… and the missionaries go off white-breading as much of it as they can find.
I know I would. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm…(snapping out of erotic reverie) Whoops!
I was going to join in and say that this seemed kinda out-of-character for you, Eve, and that pretty soon you’d be knitting booties for SDMB newborns and baking birthday cakes for us all. But I know how sensitive you are.
I agree with you, in any case. I’m not crazy about the idea of putting little kids in tiny prop planes under any circumstances, let alone over drug-smuggler airspace.
I think a lot of your OP is based on the assumption that Peru is an inherently more dangerous place than the US. Well, according to UNICEF, Peru has a mortality rate for children under five is 32 per 1,000 while the US is 30 per 1,000. I didn’t dig around to find statistics about violent death or comparisons of specific regions in Peru vs. specific regions in the US. But, as goboy has said, living in certain areas in the US can be much more dangerous.
I personally will never go on a missionary trip. But it’s a big world and we have a lot of people with differing views. It’s a bit ironic that one of your problems is that the parents were trying to “cram” their beliefs down people’s throats. That seems to be what you want to do.