Uncontacted
Tribes
Paragraph: I chose this article for the blog because it made me further think about the effects people can have, even today, on indigenous people. We explored this idea with Columbus’s journal entries which recounted his interactions with the natives in the New World. The article describes and shows videos of a lone survivor in Rondonia and the Flecheiros group in Vale do Javari in Brazil, both of which have never been in contact with outsiders. The author shows how technology can help these indigenous people while also potentially harming their futures. The FUNAI, an indigenous affairs agency in Brazil, released the videos thinking that they were helping raise awareness of the indigenous people; however, I feel as though they are intervening in the indigenous people’s lives much more than they need to. The article shows that the observers are monitoring the indigenous people’s movements, while also leaving them gifts of seeds and tools. These groups have been able to survive on their own for many years without intervention from outside people, so the monitoring and helping of these people seems to be a little extreme and unnecessary. Overall, this article continues to pose the question of whether intervention in the lives of indigenous groups will help them or hurt them, which has been an idea contemplated since Columbus interfered in the lives of the natives.
Questions: How ethical is it to monitor indigenous people, who do not have a full understanding of outsiders and what the outsiders are trying to do? Does observing these people through technology appear to be any better than just interacting with them and using their land, like Columbus? In your opinion, will technology better or worsen the likelihood that these indigenous people will be exploited?
Paragraph: I chose this article for the blog because it made me further think about the effects people can have, even today, on indigenous people. We explored this idea with Columbus’s journal entries which recounted his interactions with the natives in the New World. The article describes and shows videos of a lone survivor in Rondonia and the Flecheiros group in Vale do Javari in Brazil, both of which have never been in contact with outsiders. The author shows how technology can help these indigenous people while also potentially harming their futures. The FUNAI, an indigenous affairs agency in Brazil, released the videos thinking that they were helping raise awareness of the indigenous people; however, I feel as though they are intervening in the indigenous people’s lives much more than they need to. The article shows that the observers are monitoring the indigenous people’s movements, while also leaving them gifts of seeds and tools. These groups have been able to survive on their own for many years without intervention from outside people, so the monitoring and helping of these people seems to be a little extreme and unnecessary. Overall, this article continues to pose the question of whether intervention in the lives of indigenous groups will help them or hurt them, which has been an idea contemplated since Columbus interfered in the lives of the natives.
Questions: How ethical is it to monitor indigenous people, who do not have a full understanding of outsiders and what the outsiders are trying to do? Does observing these people through technology appear to be any better than just interacting with them and using their land, like Columbus? In your opinion, will technology better or worsen the likelihood that these indigenous people will be exploited?
This is a really interesting debate. As I watched the first video, I couldn't help but think about times in which I've recorded (or seen recordings of) a wild animal in its natural habitat. In that sense, it certainly doesn't seem ethical to record and treat these people as interesting "wild" subjects. I do suppose hidden recordings may be slightly better than direct interaction because it doesn't directly destroy anything, but again, it gets at the filming of something "wild." On the other hand, my curiosity is piqued and I would love to know more about these people and their concepts of the world. However, I have no idea how an organization could, or if it should, go about learning more about these people.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is very thought provoking. They seem to genuinely want to protect this man and let him live his life, but are concerned about his solitude and the dangers living alone in the wild entail. On the other hand, like you say, it is definitely strange to have them monitoring him with drones when he does not really seem comfortable with this new addition to his life (from what I inferred from the article). I think more needs to be researched on his life and the potential affects of introducing modern technology to someone who has survived his entire life without it. I do not see issues in protecting him from a distance, I do see ethical issues should officials begin to treat him like an animal or child simply because his methods of survival differ from ours. Very fine lines.
DeleteThe intention of video monitoring of indigenous people to protect these people is honorable, yet I am hesitant to say it is completely ethical because this monitoring is without consent and as Marilyn says it is reminiscent of watching a documentary of a “wild” animal. Part of me is concerned this could lead to further dehumanizing as the technology could create a barrier between the observer and the one being observed, and as the article says, it could even lead to more exploitation. Still, the act of making these people visible and known can lead to prevention of further exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with Maryella that the organization, though its intention is valid, is operating between very fine lines, especially since the organization cannot ensure that these negative consequences will not ensue.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIndigenous tribes such as the ones found In Brazil are a really unique case. They raise the question of whether a group of people can be considered impoverished or disadvantaged if they are not even aware of the existence of such concepts. While observation can be considered a less invasive method of interaction, observing a tribe without its consent would have morally dubious implications. Any ordinary citizen would likely issue protest to those involved if they were subject to similar treatment. As for observation's effects on native exploitation, it could have positive side-effects. Videos and data about indigenous tribes could provide the general public with a better sense of understanding and empathy towards them. This in turn would allow for people to organize in defense of native rights and ultimately prevent further exploitation.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting and raises a lot of ethical concerns, while also paralleling many of the themes we saw throughout the readings of Columbus’ journals. I do not believe it is ethical to monitor indigenous people who have no knowledge of this surveillance. The article says that the drone was originally meant to monitor an attack on the tribes, but was not meant to “violate the group’s privacy.” By engaging in monitoring them without any kind of interaction or knowledge, they are violating the group’s privacy and innate rights. I believe that the surveillance of indigenous people will only lead to further exploitation. I understand wanting to offer protection, but this unknown surveillance could lead to people treating indigenous tribes differently or harshly, because they lead a different lifestyle than ours, something seen through Columbus.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis situation is without undoubtedly extremely complex. I believe that at the core there are good intentions behind the surveillance. It seems as if the overarching goals is to protect these people and ensure their safety. But it also does seem slightly demeaning and ignorant in a way to assume that they need to be watched over constantly when they have survived on their own for years. Without a doubt though, this type of intervention is much more ethical than that of Columbus because they are not acting out of greed or personal gain. This distinction is very important because these two scenarios are completely different in terms of intent.
Though this article focuses on the uncontacted tribes, another way at looking at this is that uncontacted tribes show us a lot of about who were are as people. I forget where I read an article that was talking about this, but the debate of whether or not we should contact tribes reveals a question about who were are as a society. Do we bring enough good to the table to outweigh the bad? Does giving these people modern medicine and scientific breakthroughs warrant the disease, war, and famine that we would have to introduce them to. Are they better off being without all of these things? I think that the issue of monitoring these people is clear, we should leave them alone. If they have chosen to be apart from the rest of the world, there is no way we can introduce ourselves to us without taking that choice away. Researchers in plane s have already importunately invited ourselves in to their world, but we can never really know what they perceive of us. I think that with newer technology, we could become less obtrusive, but that doesn't change the ethics of it all.
ReplyDelete