should we intervene with the Sentinelese under any circumstances?

Great Debates
81

It’s pretty simple: “It’s shame your mother died in childbirth and your father from an infection. We cure those all the time… But every time we tried to help them, they attacked us, so it’s their own damn fault as far as I’m concerned.”

I’m a big fan of the Prime Directive. I say this because I have actually been to Afghanistan and I know, first hand, that trying to shape a primitive culture to conform to our standards of morality is futile. The key point is that the Prime Directive not only exists to protect the primitives from contamination by a more developed people, but it also relieves the more developed people of the responsibility of trying to solve other people’s problems. We can show them the right way to do things, we can give them examples and we can hope that they follow our lead, but at the end of the day we can’t force them to do anything unless we are willing to take on the burden of re-writing their entire culture from the floor up. And eventually it leads to the obvious question that if we are willing to invade/assist X group, why not Y? And then you end up being responsible for everyone on the entire planet.

Personally, I say, “Fuck 'em.” It doesn’t matter to me whether these people live or die. If they want to sacrifice their babies to the moon god or whatever hypothetical atrocity we’re talking about, they can have fun with that. When and if they want to change, they will change. But that is their decision to make. And if they never want to change, who cares?

I also do not believe that any such things as human rights exist. Rights are obtained and guaranteed by force of arms, and whoever has the power in any given situation has the ability to nullify whatever purported “rights” he pleases.

Any list of “human rights” (such as the aforementioned UN declaration) is an artificial thing created by imperfect humans. The UN declaration itself is not “universal” because not every UN member supports it, and many ostensible signatories treat it like toilet paper.

82

And most of the time those cobbled-together abortifacients are either ineffective or hazardous…

They aren’t going to have the Pill and condoms are a bit unlikely. Infanticide is, in fact, a form of population control that is found in primitive societies from Europe to the South Pacific to the North American arctic.

In the case of Ancient Rome we have written correspondence between Romans discussing whether or not to expose the product of an upcoming birth, among other things. It’s not always a matter of outsider bias.

83

The “no contact” bias seems to be largely on their part - more than one group has attempted to make contact, only to be fired upon with arrows and spears.

84

They did have contact. Someone gave them a copy of “Guns, Germs and Steel”. Since then, it’s been, “No, thanks, eat my spear.”

85

I did not say we are all in favor of it.

Eh-hem. It was referenced.

The unfortunate term was used to reference an unshakeable sense of cultural supremacy still common today, as well as a stunning inability to even acknowledge cultural bias, and it was meant to be exactly as offensive as everyone found it.

Because I find this hypothetical very offensive and the basic premise - that one is justified in forcing one culture’s ethics and morals on another - both unethical and immoral (and please note that I used “force” not “persuade”), when those morals and ethics are being violated within one’s own society. I am not one for quoting scripture, but I recommend Matthew 7:3.

How about the example that keeps coming up, infanticide? Is killing an infant immediately after birth so much worse than denying it access to basic medical care, or physical safety, or even food? Babies and children die of curable diseases, or of violence either directly by or by the negligence of their parents or the state, or simply malnutrition in our oh-so-non-primative societies.

I guess my answer to the original question would be “means-restricted access to the resources necessary to thrive for children”. So everyone better look out if I get an army.

Except maybe Norway.

86

You took it wrong; I meant what I said. Not “problems”, but four specific issues that were raised in the OP.

I believe I was quite clear: good and egalitarian people would contemplate interference, but might not act; on the other hand, people of any group with delusions of superiority would happily use a handy excuse to do so. Maybe I got the comma wrong.

And I do not “keep looking the other way”, I look straight at what is in front of me, and see people suffering, so I don’t have to roam Wikipedia and an atlas to find an entertaining topic for outrage.

Are there no people living under overpasses and begging at the end of the interstate ramps where you are? Do you never see those little cans and flyers and GoFundMe pages by people trying to pay a child’s medical bills? Have you never even seen people buying those nasty sugar-laden processed foods because they’re cheaper than vegetables? How about the wives beaten by husbands enraged by their inability to meat unrealistic expectations, like decent food and adequate medical care?

“First world problems” are not all being unable to charge your smart phone.

What is the academic definition of “primitive”?

87

I don’t know how academics define it but for me “pre-iron working” might be a start.

Of course, Iron Age civilizations have also used infanticide. And then you have societies like the Aztecs that happily cut the hearts out of living adult people.

Not everyone values human life to the extent we do.

Infanticide is a brutally effective means of population control. Also it has been used to dispose of defective infants. Our society doesn’t view either of those options as ethical but then, unlike many past societies, we have alternative methods of limiting births and dealing with the disabled.

88

Yeah, maybe I’m just a passive-aggressive sort of Imperialist. It’s not that I want to invade, provide modern technology and tell them what to do exactly, but I do want to be visible and impossible to ignore. “Welcome to the world, folks, you have to deal with us.”

I don’t think it’s doing anyone any favors to be entirely isolated.

I just thought I’d add for clarification: I’m not proposing any enforced changes in the culture, even to prevent human rights violations. The world tolerates all kinds of bad behavior - Cambodia had a national program of death camps just a few decades ago, and the world did nothing about that. Even more recently, the world did precious little about the Balkans and genocides in multiple locations in Africa. They can do bad things, they just don’t get to ignore us.

89

Your knowledge of history is flawed. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop the death camps, and we intervened in both the Balkans and Rwanda. The interventions didn’t prevent all the deaths, especially in Rwanda but we did try.

90

That wasn’t the joke…

Not in the post I quoted.

91

You are listing a number of very real problems we are facing ihn our “first world” home countries. As far as I can tell, no one in this thread has suggested to not address these problems. I am sure that I have not. But are addressing these problems at home and engaging in attempts to relieve problems elsewhere in the world really mutually exclusive alternatives? Would you prefer that for example, US-funded vaccination campaigns in Africa be stopped and the funds be re-routed to pay some of the bills of underprivileged Americans? I believe that whatever funds the US have contributed to, for example, the eradication of Polio has done more good than spending the same amount within US borders ever could have.

92

According to those sources, that means that there is a very high rate of syphillis infection amongst children causing infertility and child mortality

Is this really a lot better than infanticide?

93

I guess we can disagree about how relatively much or little was done in those situation. I am aware of the history there. In Cambodia, I would hesitate to credit “the world” with intervening when Vietnam was the only open participant. In Rwanda and the Balkans, I did acknowledge intervention, but I stand by my feelings that it could have been a bigger more effective effort.

In fact, quoting a choice passage from your Wikipedia link on Rwanda:

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread too much with my use of these as comparisons of world intervention in human rights issues.

94

Well, if the mutant problem gets clearly out of hand…

95

This. Pretty much word for word. It is neither our job nor our duty to fuck with this society in any way.

96

This has been an interesting thread to read. Personally what Chihuahua said here is where I am, but I find the “perfected drone technology” solution for ‘invisible observation’ mentioned up-thread intriguing as the sentinelese are a minor fascination of mine, how did they get this way and why? what is their language-group, customs, ceremonies, social structure and hierarchy etc.

Intervene if you must, but first observe and record their culture as thoroughly as possible and then do it three more times just to be sure before you invade.

97

I thought I was clear; I would prefer that the U.S. and other “developed” countries deal with the mote in their own eyes, and not force themselves into the affairs of other nations, especially when based on unreliable claims of wanting to save them from their “primitive” selves.

As for the vaccinations, I would prefer the U.S. kept the CIA out away from them.

Since you raised the issue, can you provide a reference that describes the timelines of the U.S. efforts against polio in the U.S. versus other nations?

So, you want to force yourself on them, but not try to help in any way?

98

… aaaaand if they happen to be not based on such claims? I once met a French nurse who volunteered to do aid work in rural villages of Nepal. She never referred to the Nepalese as “primitive” - at least not in my presence. And yet she “forced herself into their affairs”.

You say you want to be clear, but you are keeping your statements murky. What is that “mote in their own eyes” that the states are not dealing with? You are referring to the social ills you mentioned earlier? What makes you say they are not dealing with them? They have not fully eradicated them - but is that the same as not dealing with them?

I guess most of us would. But if that is supposed to be relevant to this discussion, I’d like to hear how.

The concentrated effort to eradicate Polio around the world was started in 1988. It was not a unilateral US effort but was led by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Rotary Foundation - organizations that receive personnel and substantial funding from the US. If you are interested in the progress the effort has made around the world, please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia article.
By the time the effort was started the US had been Polio free for nine years. The last case of wild polio in the United States was recorded in 1979. (See herefor reference.)

99

Did the Nepalese welcome the aid workers, or did they drive them out? Or even ask them to leave?

If the Nepalese welcomed, or even tolerated, the aid workers, that is really not germane here (or relevant, if you would prefer), as the issue is forcing intervention on a group.

If the aid workers forced their interventions in Nepal, I don’t see that it matters if one nurse ever used the term “primitive” in your presence.

I really don’t see how I could be more clear.

A metaphor

This list of social ills that I mentioned was in response to the accusation that I just “keep looking the other away”.

I don’t see that sincere and effective efforts are being made to deal with many social ills in what I believe we are now calling developed nations.

I do not believe one nation should force intervention on another under the guise of addressing issues that the first nation has not found a means of dealing with effectively within its own sphere.

You brought up vaccinations, apparently as a defense of or an example of desirable intervention, didn’t you? Yes, that was you. I brought up the CIA as an example of why interventions often are and should be viewed with suspicion, and not naively accepted as entirely altruistic.

If you now think the vaccination programs are irrelevant, I withdraw the comment.

And that was my point. The U.S. dealt with issues within its direct sphere of responsibilities first, and then cooperated in an international effort with the consent and cooperation of the host countries. This is very different from forcing an intervention based on incomplete knowledge and likely flawed understanding of an isolated culture.
(And before you pick that nit, I will acknowledge that complete knowledge of any culture is impossible, and would happily consider any recommendation for a better term.)

100

“Better” in the sense that it’s something done to them, rather than done by themselves, yes (the syphilis being congenital and not the result of paedophilia). And disease is only one factor, there’s the general low female fertility in addition. This isn’t all associated with congenital STD from what I can tease out.

Now, if the Sentinelese are truly uncontacted, we shouldn’t expect there to be the syphilis factor, but the low fertility factor might be there.