Ellis Dee, I understand your idealism. The example you gave sounds good, but it only works in retrospect. You can’t use it to plan unless you know what the future will bring. When you contact these people you don’t know what will result. It’s a pretty safe bet to say it won’t be good, from experience and history. Actually, it will probably be one of the most traumatic experience they will ever live through. Then again, everything might turn out well and happy, but the chances are slim. Is that a bet you are ready to take with human lives and human welfare at stake?
Shalmanese, I disagree with you because there is an unspoken assumption in your argument. That is, that physical hardship is equal to psychological/emotional/spiritual hardship. That is simply not the case. Whatmore, coming from Australia, you must know the results of what you advocate. Remember that what has been done to the aborigenese was done “for their own good”. They were supposed to become perfect and happy citizen of Australia. You know the rest. I know it too: I’ve been there and I’ve seen it with my own eyes. We have the same thing in Canada. We were supposed to save the Indians from themselves, but no one was there to save them from us.
No amount of goodwill can protect the natives from the consequences of our own cultural bias, however benevolent it might seem to our eyes.
I understand and agree with the arguments of Sofa King and Momotaro. My points have correctly been identified as idealism. In theory, I have a point, but in practice, it’s probably not a good idea.
That said, I hope there comes a time in our species’ evolution where the practices catch up with the idealism. I would hate to think of a situation where an isolated civilization were butchering there women with circumcision, slaughtering their young to ensure firstborns were male, or any other number of atrocities were going on all in the name of “let them be.”
I’m wondering why nobody has touched on one of my stronger (IMHO) arguments: what about a three year drought? Do we let them all die? In other words, given the high probability of having a negative impact from contact, is there no situation in which contact (or even assimilation) would be the lesser of two evils?
Your drought argument assumes that the tribe has never lived through similar experiences. They already have survived similar trials or we would not be here talking about them.
I’d say first Gold, then Glory, and then thereafter God, if there was any time left. Regardless, although the civilizations were impressive, I highly doubt the Spanish were really any worse than the societies already in place. Local tyrant versus foreign tyrant. Disease was not really understood then, so you can hardly blame the Spanish for that.