NationStates Jolt Archive

Stone Age tribe kills fishermen who strayed on to island
By Peter Foster in New Delhi
(Filed: 08/02/2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/08/wsent08.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/08/ixworld.html

One of the world's last Stone Age tribes has murdered two fishermen whose boat drifted on to a desert island in the Indian Ocean.

The Sentinelese, thought to number between 50 and 200, have rebuffed all contact with the modern world, firing a shower of arrows at anyone who comes within range.

They are believed to be the last pre-Neolithic tribe in the world to remain isolated and appear to have survived the 2004 Asian tsunami.

The two men killed, Sunder Raj, 48, and Pandit Tiwari, 52, were fishing illegally for mud crabs off North Sentinel Island, a speck of land in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands archipelago.

Fellow fishermen said they dropped anchor for the night on Jan 25 but fell into a deep sleep, probably helped by large amounts of alcohol.

During the night their anchor, a rock tied to a rope, failed to hold their open-topped boat against the currents and they drifted towards the island.

"As day broke, fellow fishermen say they tried to shout at the men and warn them they were in danger," said Samir Acharya, the head of the Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology, an environmental organisation.

"However they did not respond - they were probably drunk - and the boat drifted into the shallows where they were attacked and killed."

After the fishermen's families raised the alarm, the Indian coastguard tried to recover the bodies using a helicopter but was met by the customary hail of arrows.

Photographs shot from the helicopter show the near-naked tribesmen rushing to fire. But the downdraught from its rotors exposed the two fisherman buried in shallow graves and not roasted and eaten, as local rumour suggested.

Mr Acharya said the erroneous belief in the tribe's cannibalism grew from the practice of another tribe, the Onge, who would cut up and burn their dead to avoid them returning as evil spirits.

"People saw the flesh cooking on the fire and thought they must be cannibals but this incident clearly contradicts that belief," he said.

Attempts to recover the bodies of the two men have been suspended, although the Andaman Islands police chief, Dharmendra Kumar, said an operation might be mounted later.

"Right now, there will be casualties on both sides," he said from Port Blair. "The tribesmen are out in large numbers. We shall let things cool down and once these tribals move to the island's other end we will sneak in and bring back the bodies."

Environmental groups urged the authorities to leave the bodies and respect the three-mile exclusion zone thrown around the island.

In the 1980s and early 1990s many Sentinelese were killed in skirmishes with armed salvage operators who visited the island after a shipwreck. Since then the tribesmen have remained virtually undisturbed.

DNA analysis of another tribe, the Jarawa, whose members made first contact with the outside world in 1997, suggest that the tribesmen migrated from Africa around 60,000 years ago.

However, the experience of the Jarawa since their emergence - sexual exploitation, alcoholism and a measles epidemic - has encouraged efforts to protect the Sentinelese from a similar fate.


The Sentinelese, by virtue both of long-standing isolation and formidable commitment to ongoing independence, remain perhaps the most successfully unassimilated aboriginal society on Earth. It is my sincere hope that they persist as such.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I agree.

If we start meddling in their lifestyle, they'll be wiped out, just like the other thousand or so native cultures who couldn't adapt fast enough to alcoholism, diseases etc.

Just leave them alone, or better yet throw an even bigger exclusion zone around the island.

Any thoughts?
Yeah, I say we introduce them to some of the old "thunder of the gods."
I'm not allowed to buy a field somewhere and kill anyone who comes near it, they shouldn't be afforded such benefits either.

The fishermen should have known better then to trespass.

The Sentinelese don't sound very bright >.> Seriously, when xenophobia gets to such levels that they kill anyone on the island regardless of why that someone is there then it's time to interfere. I'd say for every outsider they kill one of them should be killed. Afterall, they've obviously given the okay to kill indiscriminately.
I can understand why they'd want to be secluded, but there's no reason to kill someone who's not out to harm you at all.

Yeah, I say we introduce them to some of the old "thunder of the gods."
I'm not allowed to buy a field somewhere and kill anyone who comes near it, they shouldn't be afforded such benefits either.

You, on the other hand, are a member of the society where you would be buying said field. These people are probably not even fully aware that the society that you suggest kill them exists.

See the difference?

I can understand why they'd want to be secluded, but there's no reason to kill someone who's not out to harm you at all.
I was wondering when someone would suggest picking up the White Man's Burden. Wanting to civilise the savages, eheh? I know what you are like... ;)

You, on the other hand, are a member of the society where you would be buying said field. These people are probably not even fully aware that the society that you suggest kill them exists.

See the difference?

So we can't kill them, can we turn the island into Neolithic Park?

What could possibly go wrong?

You, on the other hand, are a member of the society where you would be buying said field. These people are probably not even fully aware that the society that you suggest kill them exists.
So? Ignorance is no excuse from the law, and the law prohibits such rabid xenophobia. Now, they can stay on their island and avoid the world all they want, and I'd even have been cool with them killing the guys as soon as they got out of the boat (provided they offered warning), but they attacked them as soon as they got within range (and it sounds like they only reason they haven't killed more people is their lack of range).
They have no sense of restraint, and so they should be "civilized" to the extent that they are willing to leave boaters alone.

[SIZE="4"]The Sentinelese, by virtue both of long-standing isolation and formidable commitment to ongoing independence, remain perhaps the most successfully unassimilated aboriginal society on Earth. It is my sincere hope that they persist as such.
Why?

So? Ignorance is no excuse from the law, and the law prohibits such rabid xenophobia. Now, they can stay on their island and avoid the world all they want, and I'd even have been cool with them killing the guys as soon as they got out of the boat (provided they offered warning), but they attacked them as soon as they got within range (and it sounds like they only reason they haven't killed more people is their lack of range).
They have no sense of restraint, and so they should be "civilized" to the extent that they are willing to leave boaters alone.
Actually Indian law allows them to kill anyone who gets in range. And it's not like they're going to be developing cruise missiles any time soon. The law also prohibits other people to get close to that island, and warns that they could be in danger.

So, the tribe's not doing anything illegal. They're not occupying land illegaly, they're not killing people illegaly. If your argument is the rule of law, the tribe is not being unlawful.

Why?
Why not? Shouldn't people have the right to live as they please? They seem very pleased to be living like that. We may not understand why, and we may believe that they'll be better living like us, but if they don't want to, let them be.

Wow...I want to live with these Sentinelese. But then, no NationStates. Which would suck...

Kreynoria']Wow...I want to live with these Sentinelese. But then, no NationStates. Which would suck...

It can't be that bad.

Lets see those fishermen were illegally fishing, they were drinking while boating, they deserved their fate for being such idiots. And it seemed that this tribe respect life enough to give them a burial at least. So no action should be taken, they did the crime, they paid the price, it's their own fault.

I guess I'm the only one, who after a little research, would like the chance to study the Sentinelese language?

I can understand why they'd want to be secluded, but there's no reason to kill someone who's not out to harm you at all.
There is if they want their seclusion to continue. And their actions suggest that isn't lost on them.

good for them. if only all indigenous peoples had reacted the same.

Why not? Shouldn't people have the right to live as they please? They seem very pleased to be living like that. We may not understand why, and we may believe that they'll be better living like us, but if they don't want to, let them be.
From what I know, stone age man had a fairly decent life by all accounts, aside from an average lifespan of about thirty. You only have to 'work' four to five hours per day, maybe less since these folks may not have to hunt for everything. Sure, lets take these (relativly) happy people and put them into the 'real' world where you spend eight hours a day working to buy money to pay bus fare and buy food so you can go to work in the morning :P

Personally, I think we should drop a gun with a camera on it in the middle of their settlement, just too see what would happen. Fox would most likely make a reality program out of it.
Heh, Ill bet they do the next Survivor there. THAT would be one reality show I would watch ;)

Heh, Ill bet they do the next Survivor there. THAT would be one reality show I would watch ;)
Call it 'REAL Survivor' and lob self-satisfied twenty-somethings in bikinis out of helicopters onto the Sentinelese beachfront.

I like it.

I can understand why they'd want to be secluded, but there's no reason to kill someone who's not out to harm you at all.

and history is filled with examples of 'civilized' societies not harming indigenous ones when contact is made?

Lets see those fishermen were illegally fishing, they were drinking while boating, they deserved their fate for being such idiots. And it seemed that this tribe respect life enough to give them a burial at least. So no action should be taken, they did the crime, they paid the price, it's their own fault.

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago. Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago. Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?

Almost all the other groups of people who did behave like those people were wiped out long ago, which explains the rush to protect the ones we haven't eliminated.

I guess I'm the only one, who after a little research, would like the chance to study the Sentinelese language?


I agree...I think we should watch them from a far..Try to make clues as to how society really was way back when and use that to explain a crap load more about how we evolved into the "modern" society.

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago. Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?

Don't bother using reason on NationStates.

Almost all the other groups of people who did behave like those people were wiped out long ago, which explains the rush to protect the ones we haven't eliminated.

There is good reason why these violent societies have been wiped out.

I just can't understand why this one gets a free pass.

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago. Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?
And how do you suggest communicating with these people?

I guess I'm the only one, who after a little research, would like the chance to study the Sentinelese language?
How would you propose to do that?

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Look at it this way. Does getting drunk and wandering into range of a hungry lion deserve being maimed, mangled, and most likely killed and eaten?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago.

Let's see, how about the people who would land somewhere, spread disease, enslave, rape and kill people, and then blame on the fact that their savages? Take your pick from the colonial era.

Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?

How about a unique culture, not to mention the fact that it would be genocide.

There is good reason why these violent societies have been wiped out.

I just can't understand why this one gets a free pass.

Because other violent societies have pointier sticks?

Or do you erroneously mean to say that only primitive societies are violent?

There is good reason why these violent societies have been wiped out.

because our ancestors were even more violent and had larger numbers?

good for them. if only all indigenous peoples had reacted the same.

Indeed. Things like industry and electronic technology are such evil things.

Indeed. Things like industry and electronic technology are such evil things.

Because colonials were always interested in giving these things to the people for the people's own good.

Because other violent societies have pointier sticks?

Or do you erroneously mean to say that only primitive societies are violent?

No, of course I don't mean that. But if a society behaves in a way that only harms the societies around it, why should anyone even bother to protect it. It only seems that we want to keep them around as a zoo exhibit that no one can actually study.

Because colonials were always interested in giving these things to the people for the people's own good.

Right. So if some can't have it, no one deserves it.

Indeed. Things like industry and electronic technology are such evil things.

When used as weapons in order to annihilate the backbone of your culture: yes.

Indeed. Things like industry and electronic technology are such evil things.

they certainly aren't unambiguous goods.

No, of course I don't mean that. But if a society behaves in a way that only harms the societies around it, why should anyone even bother to protect it. It only seems that we want to keep them around as a zoo exhibit that no one can actually study.

You're wrong/

In reality, it's a secret Illuminati traning camp. They just use that as an excuse to keep people away

When used as weapons in order to annihilate the backbone of your culture: yes.

Depends on your definition of backbone.

because our ancestors were even more violent and had larger numbers?

That was a principle reason. I am not proposing assimilating these people, I am not proposing that we force them to be open. I am proposing that this is an act of war, and it should be treated as such.

No, of course I don't mean that. But if a society behaves in a way that only harms the societies around it, why should anyone even bother to protect it. It only seems that we want to keep them around as a zoo exhibit that no one can actually study.


Ur... what gives us the right to make decisions about what should actively be done with their society?

Look, it's all moot anyway; you can't interact with them. There's no opportunity to study or to exploit - they'll kill you. Why not leave well enough alone? These people know we're out here, at least they know there are other people in the world other than themselves, and when they decide they want to interact with others, they'll let us know.

That was a principle reason. I am not proposing assimilating these people, I am not proposing that we force them to be open. I am proposing that this is an act of war, and it should be treated as such.


What leads you to believe that this culture has a notion of 'war' which is congruent to that which has been only recently held in the last hundred or so years by modern nation states?

Right. So if some can't have it, no one deserves it.

...

I can't even think of anything sarcastic to that. It's, it's just... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


All right, now let me see...

I go to an indigenous culture, and try to exploit them. They kill me. Industry and electricity magically disappear from existence. Yep. That makes sense.

Look, it's all moot anyway; you can't interact with them. There's no opportunity to study or to exploit - they'll kill you. Why not leave well enough alone? These people know we're out here, at least they know there are other people in the world other than themselves, and when they decide they want to interact with others, they'll let us know.

Or, to look at it from another perspective:

Look, it's all moot anyway; you can't interact with them. There's no opportunity to study or to exploit - they'll kill you. Why not leave well enough alone? These people know we're in here, at least they know there are other people out in the world other than themselves, and when they decide they want to interact with others, they'll let us know.

Look at it this way. Does getting drunk and wandering into range of a hungry lion deserve being maimed, mangled, and most likely killed and eaten?

No, no one deserves that. If a lion has a habit of killing and eating villagers, the villagers will hunt it and kill it to protect themselves.

Let's see, how about the people who would land somewhere, spread disease, enslave, rape and kill people, and then blame on the fact that their savages? Take your pick from the colonial era.

This is apparently not a problem for these villagers, because it takes more than a village of 50-250 armed with arrows to turn away modern civilization.

However, this has nothing to do with the situation. This is a society that unjustly attacks anything that comes near them. It is a problem and there is absolutely no benefit to keeping the problem around.

How about a unique culture, not to mention the fact that it would be genocide.

They would not be targeted based on their culture or ethnicity, they would only be targeted because of their behavior. The second they stop attacking unarmed fisherman, I say let them be.

Or, to look at it from another perspective:

Look, it's all moot anyway; you can't interact with them. There's no opportunity to study or to exploit - they'll kill you. Why not leave well enough alone? These people know we're in here, at least they know there are other people out in the world other than themselves, and when they decide they want to interact with others, they'll let us know.

Well, I think that they have made it quite clear that they have no desire to interact at the moment. So that's probably not what's going through their heads. Then again, I'm no xenopsychologist, so I'm just taking and educated guess.

Ur... what gives us the right to make decisions about what should actively be done with their society?

How about protecting our own society? Why should any society allow another society to attack its own members without justification?

I personally don't care if they ate their own first born daughter, but they should not be allowed to murder members of other societies.

What leads you to believe that this culture has a notion of 'war' which is congruent to that which has been only recently held in the last hundred or so years by modern nation states?

I don't care what their society considers war. Our society made rules deciding that the government should protect its citizens.

No, of course I don't mean that. But if a society behaves in a way that only harms the societies around it, why should anyone even bother to protect it. It only seems that we want to keep them around as a zoo exhibit that no one can actually study.
But they are not. They don't get on boats to raid the neighboring islands, they don't threaten other nations with military intervention or what have you. They just kill whoever happens to step on their island. Sure, that may seem harsh, but it's not like no one knows or like they attract people to their island just to kill them.

And yes, it's kind of like a zoo, but at least it's not like a slaughterhouse. And perhaps the British still have one spy rock or two to study them :)

How about protecting our own society? Why should any society allow another society to attack its own members without justification?

Without understanding their worldview, how do you know that the killings weren't entirely justified to the society?

I personally don't care if they ate their own first born daughter, but they should not be allowed to murder members of other societies.


So, if an Englishman killed an American it would be an act of war?

How about protecting our own society? Why should any society allow another society to attack its own members without justification?

I personally don't care if they ate their own first born daughter, but they should not be allowed to murder members of other societies.

Oh I am finding this so ironic.

"Oh, the savages killed people from another society! Nuke 'em! Nuke 'em! It's not like anybody civilized has ever done that! Nuke 'em! Nuke 'em!"

Ur... what gives us the right to make decisions about what should actively be done with their society?
What gives them the right to decide what should be done with the people on the boat? I'm all for leaving them alone normally, but once they started killing people, they need to be sorted out.
They're like a feral animal. They have no concept of right and wrong, but so long as the remain nonoffensive it doesn't matter. Once they start becoming dangerous, they need to be either tamed or put down.

And cut it out with the colonial arguments, people. This is no longer the Colonial period, and we aren't that sort anymore. Further, there is no sense of precedence here. The islanders have never seen previous invasions, and so they are acting like savages simply because they are savages.

I don't care what their society considers war. Our society made rules deciding that the government should protect its citizens.

And our society has bigger sticks, so it is RIGHT?


Edit: to say nothing of the question of the sovereignty of the area where the killings took place. What gives another nation the right to claim it for their own and to act as if their laws apply there? On the surface it would seem to me that if anyone should have sovereignty of the island and its surrounds it should be the Sentinelese.

Whose laws have these tribesmen violated?

Who would have the authority to land on their sovereign territory and arrest the perpetrators?

Who has the right to arrest them?

What would the charges be?

Where would the trial take place?

Would they be entitled to FREE legal representation?

How could they possibly have a fair trial?

Who would translate?

IF found guilty, where would they go to jail or would they automatically be executed?

Hell, even Florida has a new law on the books:

The "Castle Doctrine" simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him.

Gov. Bush Signs Florida’s New “Castle Doctrine” Self-Defense Law (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685)

Hell ya, that sure is civilized!! :rolleyes:

What gives them the right to decide what should be done with the people on the boat?Their resolve gives them the right.

They have no concept of right and wrong, but so long as the remain nonoffensive it doesn't matter.

Proof?

Or are you actually saying that because killings happen all over the world in every society no society has a concept of right or wrong?

How about protecting our own society?

already done. hence the exclusion zone.

The police should go in and arrest who-so-ever is responsible for the killings. They should be charged and arraigned for two counts of murder.

Without understanding their worldview, how do you know that the killings weren't entirely justified to the society?

I don't need to understand their worldview. Is the kidnapping and murder of a journalist in Iraq by terrorists justified?

So, if an Englishman killed an American it would be an act of war?

This is not a member of their society acting outside of the norms, this is an entire society acting violently. If Britain has a unfailing tendency to launch missiles at ships that went through the Channel, I have a feeling it might qualify as war.

How would you propose to do that?


Unless TV has lied to me, we have devices that can pick up sound over a great distance.
I'm pretty sure a fairly decent linguistic analysis of their language could be done using these devices.
Using spy equipment for linguistic analysis. I feel like the Linguistics equivilent to James Bond.

Oh I am finding this so ironic.

"Oh, the savages killed people from another society! Nuke 'em! Nuke 'em! It's not like anybody civilized has ever done that! Nuke 'em! Nuke 'em!"

Why do the misdeeds of past societies negate this one's?

I think they should be left alone to do as they like.

Of course we're assuming that they've had no contact with the rest of the world, maybe they got visiters in the past who fucked them over and since then they've killed all the ones who came.......

The police should go in and arrest who-so-ever is responsible for the killings. They should be charged and arraigned for two counts of murder.
And who would you charge if there are no eyewitnesses?

How would you find out who actually killed these two men?

And if you could figure out who did it, then you need to answer the rest of these questions:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10401141&postcount=55

Good luck.

Their resolve gives them the right.
Then our resolve to go in and kick their collective asses gives us the right to tell them how to live.

Proof?

Or are you actually saying that because killings happen all over the world in every society no society has a concept of right or wrong?
The proof is in your own arguments. Either:
A) These people knew they were doing was wrong. Then they should be punished for their actions or started a war or whatever.
OR
B) They didn't feel that they were acting wrongly, in which case they have no sense of right and wrong with which we can relate. And it is that incompatibiliy of moral systems that leads us to determine that they, the feral dog, a lion, and a shark are all without any concept of right and wrong.

Vittos Ordination2, your argument of them being unprovoked and killing for no reason is defunct.
Do a little research on these people, you'll find their history is full of people like salvage workers for instance, firing on them from boats for no reason. Poachers frequent the area too, and I don't see poachers being particularly nice to a "bunch of savages" with nothing to offer them.

The Indian government is responsible for the area these people reside, and the Indian governemt has put a 3 mile exclusion zone around the island, making it completely illegal to go near the island without strict Indian government premission and supervision. As I understand it, entering the area, according to Indian law, forefits you any legal protection and mans you accecpt the possibility of being killed without warning for any reason.

The proof is in your own arguments. Either:
A) These people knew they were doing was wrong. Then they should be punished for their actions or started a war or whatever.
OR
B) They didn't feel that they were acting wrongly, in which case they have no sense of right and wrong with which we can relate. And it is that incompatibiliy of moral systems that leads us to determine that they, the feral dog, a lion, and a shark are all without any concept of right and wrong.
Or, c) their concept of right and wrong differs from ours. And since Indian law gives them the right to apply that concept within their island, they did as they are supposed to do.

I'm shocked and a little disturbed reading all these posters saying that we should get them back or hold them accountable. Not that I don't think killing is wrong or anything, but consider it this way.

These are Pacific islanders who have lived in isolation for most of our history. We have little or no contact with them exchange of fire, and they don't seem to want to talk.

Two fishermen illegally fish for mud crab, get a little drunk and then drift into the tribe's waters, and are then killed. It's not an act of war or a completely unreasonable action for a person to kill a trespasser without warning (happens in my home state enough). It was stupid on the part of the fishermen to put themselves in that kind of situation in the first place.

The tribe is only dangerous to anyone who comes close, and seeing as their most advanced technology consists of bows and arrows, they aren't really any kind of a threat to anyone outside of their island.

I say let them live in peace. If they can survive by themselves, then fine. Lets not wipe out an entire culture and people just because two people were killed.

The "Castle Doctrine" simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him.

Gov. Bush Signs Florida’s New “Castle Doctrine” Self-Defense Law (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685)

Hell ya, that sure is civilized!! :rolleyes:
Which doesn't apply here in the least. These men never put foot on the island, they were killed in the shallows.
A comparison would be if a law were passed allowing Floridians to shoot people walking by their house because they looked suspicious. No such law is in place anywhere.

And who would you charge if there are no eyewitnesses?

How would you find out who actually killed these two men?

And if you could figure out who did it, then you need to answer the rest of these questions:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10401141&postcount=55

Good luck.

You're assuming that the local police have to follow American police procedure. You should send in cops to start asking questions. If they get shot at, they shoot back.

I can't help but think, and not without a certain degree of savage mirth, how these isolated islanders would feel if a cruise missile slammed into their beach. Now THAT would put things into perspective about the outside world. Shoot some arrows, eh?

Which doesn't apply here in the least. These men never put foot on the island, they were killed in the shallows.
A comparison would be if a law were passed allowing Floridians to shoot people walking by their house because they looked suspicious. No such law is in place anywhere.

They wouldn't even have to look suspicious. They could be shot for any reason at all.

Which doesn't apply here in the least. These men never put foot on the island, they were killed in the shallows.
A comparison would be if a law were passed allowing Floridians to shoot people walking by their house because they looked suspicious. No such law is in place anywhere.

'Place of business' would map pretty satisfactorily onto 'shallows' for me.

Or, c) their concept of right and wrong differs from ours. And since Indian law gives them the right to apply that concept within their island, they did as they are supposed to do.
If the fishermen had made landfall, then you would have a point. They didn't, they simply entered the range of the bows the tribe has, and they were killed for that.
You are failing to see that, and that is my only issue here. If so much as one tow had touched their sand, or if the fishermen had made some blatantly aggressive gesture, then the tribe would have been perfectly in the right to rip the fishermen apart. They could even eat the corpses if they felt the need, but they acted first. No one has the right to fire first, and they did, and for that they should be made to pay.

The Sentinelese, by virtue both of long-standing isolation and formidable commitment to ongoing independence, remain perhaps the most successfully unassimilated aboriginal society on Earth. It is my sincere hope that they persist as such.if they remain that way they will suffer and die from easily preventable and curable diseases, also what about womens rights and what happens to the disabled, who looks out for their equal opportunity and just think about the children!Look at it this way. Does getting drunk and wandering into range of a hungry lion deserve being maimed, mangled, and most likely killed and eaten?so you are comparing these people to animals now.How about a unique culture, not to mention the fact that it would be genocide.every potatoe chip is unique. also there is no need for genocide, you would only kill those shooting arrows at you in self defense.



to those, who think our laws cannot be applied here:
if this sentinelese island is a place, where the laws are suspended, what stops me from landing there with a few pals with guns to kill, rape and plunder, i mean, if the sentinelese dont have to stand trial, why would we have to, isnt everyone equal under the law?

B) They didn't feel that they were acting wrongly, in which case they have no sense of right and wrong with which we can relate. And it is that incompatibiliy of moral systems that leads us to determine that they, the feral dog, a lion, and a shark are all without any concept of right and wrong.

I can apply the same fatuous logic to show that all those nations who practice capital punishment are without any concept of right or wrong, and you can likewise use it to show that all those nations who don't practice capital punishment are without any concept of right or wrong.

If the fishermen had made landfall, then you would have a point. They didn't, they simply entered the range of the bows the tribe has, and they were killed for that.

What privileges solid sovereign possessions over liquid sovereign possessions?

'Place of business' would map pretty satisfactorily onto 'shallows' for me.
Are these people in the business of boating? It appears that they are limited exclusively to the land, meaning that, unless the fishermen were on the ground, they were out of the business place.

So? Ignorance is no excuse from the law, and the law prohibits such rabid xenophobia. Now, they can stay on their island and avoid the world all they want, and I'd even have been cool with them killing the guys as soon as they got out of the boat (provided they offered warning), but they attacked them as soon as they got within range (and it sounds like they only reason they haven't killed more people is their lack of range).
They have no sense of restraint, and so they should be "civilized" to the extent that they are willing to leave boaters alone.

What law? Seeing how the matter at hand is not so much "ignorance" of as inability to comprehend foreign legislation, should Sentinelese be held accountable for violations thereof? More importantly, should they be expected to conform to alien standards for treatment of outsiders (the very concept of which having been inconceivable for most of Sentinelese history)? In my view, no. In any case, said fishermen quite clearly chose to disregard both federal regulation and fundamental precepts of common sense.

On the basis of regional precedent, it would appear that absolute proscription of external contact may be the sole means of assuring ongoing cultural integrity for the Sentinelese. Elsewhere in the Andamans, acute indigenous vulnerability to foreign pathogens, relatively low population figures, and cultural outlooks irreconcilable with radical upheaval have, time and time again, set the stage for surging territorial encroachment, environmental degradation, and irreversible – often terminal – social damage. Today, of the Andaman Islands' documented residents (reportedly 314,239 in 2001, up - largely by virtue of migration from the Indian mainland - from roughly 2000 in 1901), less than ten percent are estimated to be indigenous. In the devastated wake of pandemics, colonial strife, and forcible relocation, many indigenous Andamanese populations, if not altogether extinct, have today been reduced to total dependence on the Indian government for food, shelter, and clothing. Abuse of alcohol, allegedly supplied with frequent compliance of government officials, is prevalent.

to those, who think our laws cannot be applied here:
if this sentinelese island is a place, where the laws are suspended, what stops me from landing there with a few pals with guns to kill, rape and plunder, i mean, if the sentinelese dont have to stand trial, why would we have to, isnt everyone equal under the law?


What stops you? The bows and arrows of the islanders. That and the vessels of the Indian armed forces who would probably take an interest in your approaches too.

Vittos Ordination2, your argument of them being unprovoked and killing for no reason is defunct.

Do a little research on these people, you'll find their history is full of people like salvage workers for instance, firing on them from boats for no reason. Poachers frequent the area too, and I don't see poachers being particularly nice to a "bunch of savages" with nothing to offer them.

I can understand that happening, and it is sad that it does. But the poachers and salvage workers are breaking India's law, and will receive punishment if they are caught. There is no accountability for these villagers when they kill unarmed people.

The Indian government is responsible for the area these people reside, and the Indian governemt has put a 3 mile exclusion zone around the island, making it completely illegal to go near the island without strict Indian government premission and supervision. As I understand it, entering the area, according to Indian law, forefits you any legal protection and mans you accecpt the possibility of being killed without warning for any reason.

I am saying that law should not be necessary.

Are these people in the business of boating? It appears that they are limited exclusively to the land, meaning that, unless the fishermen were on the ground, they were out of the business place.

They were on land: they were dragged there from their boats by the islanders.

I can apply the same fatuous logic to show that all those nations who practice capital punishment are without any concept of right or wrong, and you can likewise use it to show that all those nations who don't practice capital punishment are without any concept of right or wrong.
And if we were in the habit of excercising those morals over each other, then there would be a problem. However, the US doesn't execute foriegners, and so it has never been an issue. This tribe executed some foriegners, without even giving them so much as a thread of doubt or casual debate, that makes it an issue.

also what about womens rights and what happens to the disabled, who looks out for their equal opportunity and just think about the children!
You've got to be kidding me. What are you going to do, send in lobbyists? Social workers? Candy stripers? Boy Scouts?

My brain hurts.

if they remain that way they will suffer and die from easily preventable and curable diseases, also what about womens rights and what happens to the disabled, who looks out for their equal opportunity and just think about the children!so you are comparing these people to animals now.every potatoe chip is unique. also there is no need for genocide, you would only kill those shooting arrows at you in self defense.



to those, who think our laws cannot be applied here:
if this sentinelese island is a place, where the laws are suspended, what stops me from landing there with a few pals with guns to kill, rape and plunder, i mean, if the sentinelese dont have to stand trial, why would we have to, isnt everyone equal under the law?

1: What makes you think those apply at all there? They may be a matriarcy society for all we know.

2: India says they can rule themselves as they apply. And since it's India's territory, they obviously can say so.
In the same way India will deal with you if you do that, since you will be breaking Indian law, and they can do whatever they like with you for it.

If the fishermen had made landfall, then you would have a point. They didn't, they simply entered the range of the bows the tribe has, and they were killed for that.
Dude, let it go. Indian legislation defines the island not only as the dry land, but also the area of water surrounding it for three miles. They were within those three miles, the Sentinelese had the right to kill them, by law. Simple as that.

You don't like it? Go tell it to the Indian congress. Write to your representative in New Dehli.

You've got to be kidding me. What are you going to do, send in lobbyists? Social workers? Candy stripers? Boy Scouts?

My brain hurts.i mean, that bringing them into the civilized world is our moral obligation, ultimately it is also better for them.

What law? Seeing how the matter at hand is not so much "ignorance" of as inability to comprehend foreign legislation, should Sentinelese be held accountable for violations thereof?

So these islanders are mentally retarded, now?

More importantly, should they be expected to conform to alien standards for treatment of outsiders (the very concept of which having been inconceivable for most of Sentinelese history)?

If an alien space ship were to appear tomorrow in low Earth orbit, would you say that we would be justified in destroying it? And if we did, would you say that the alien civilization that sent that ship should be disallowed from retaliating?

In my view, no. In any case, said fishermen quite clearly chose to disregard both federal regulation and fundamental precepts of common sense.

So you think that vigilantism is perfectly acceptable?

I can understand that happening, and it is sad that it does. But the poachers and salvage workers are breaking India's law, and will receive punishment if they are caught. There is no accountability for these villagers when they kill unarmed people.

So anyone who kills anyone else for any reason is now held accountable for anything?
Every American soldier in Iraq, every policeman who has ever killed anyone, now should all go to jail for murder by your logic.



I am saying that law should not be necessary.

But it is nessecary, and your assumptions that we should be able to go in there and do as we please because we have guns is exactly why it is nessecary.

Are these people in the business of boating?

Yup.

http://www.and.nic.in/images/trib6.jpg

Are these people in the business of boating? It appears that they are limited exclusively to the land, meaning that, unless the fishermen were on the ground, they were out of the business place.

They live in long communal huts with several hearths, and like the Onge, they use outrigger canoes to travel the seas around their island.
From http://www.survival-international.org/related_material.php?id=92

They have canoes. Apparently they keep to themselves with them to.

i mean, that bringing them into the civilized world is our moral obligation, ultimately it is also better for them.


What?

You're assuming that the local police have to follow American police procedure. You should send in cops to start asking questions. If they get shot at, they shoot back.
You are assuming that the local police know how to talk to these natives.

You are assuming that if they could talk, the natives would tell the police who killed the intruders?

Sounds like mission impossible to me.

What stops you? The bows and arrows of the islanders.

We're assuming he has a nice armoured ship with a couple of mounted machine guns.

if they remain that way they will suffer and die from easily preventable and curable diseases

you are of course refering to the mass die-offs and epidemics that swept through their neighboring tribes during earlier rounds of contact, forced settlement, and such. right?

And if we were in the habit of excercising those morals over each other, then there would be a problem. However, the US doesn't execute foriegners, and so it has never been an issue. This tribe executed some foriegners, without even giving them so much as a thread of doubt or casual debate, that makes it an issue.


So now your beef with them is that they have different notions of jurisprudence?

You are assuming that the local police know how to talk to these natives.

You are assuming that if they could talk, the natives would tell the police who killed the intruders?

Sounds like mission impossible to me.

The only thing that I'm assuming is that the natives will start flinging projectiles at the police and the police will have to start shooting. The rest is context.

i mean, that bringing them into the civilized world is our moral obligation, ultimately it is also better for them.

dude...

We're assuming he has a nice armoured ship with a couple of mounted machine guns.

Yes. Are you expecting me to state that God will punish him if he sets out on a campaign of rape and pillage? Would that it were, but no.

Dude, let it go. Indian legislation defines the island not only as the dry land, but also the area of water surrounding it for three miles. They were within those three miles, the Sentinelese had the right to kill them, by law. Simple as that.

You don't like it? Go tell it to the Indian congress. Write to your representative in New Dehli.
If only I had one. Whatever, I'm tired of arguing about this crap, so I'll just agree with you all.
That's right, I've seen the light. I'm going to go live in a grassy field, and whenever someone comes within 3 miles of my field, I'll fucking shoot them. It won't be my fault, though, because I have no concept of your backwards Western morality and civilization.
Maybe a woman cute chick will come within range. Jack-fucking-pot. After all, these arbitrary boundries are mine, and all who walk on my land (or near my land. Or a decent distance from my land) are my property, to dispose of how I wish.

So these islanders are mentally retarded, now?

Not at all - I was speaking of linguistically-rooted practical incapability. Sorry for the confusion.

Not at all - I was speaking of linguistically-rooted practical incapability. Sorry for the confusion.

Hey, it's no one's fault but these islanders that no one else knows their language.

If only I had one. Whatever, I'm tired of arguing about this crap, so I'll just agree with you all.
That's right, I've seen the light. I'm going to go live in a grassy field, and whenever someone comes within 3 miles of my field, I'll fucking shoot them. It won't be my fault, though, because I have no concept of your backwards Western morality and civilization.

The problem with being civiliized (either by choice or by force) is that you can't just chose to opt out of it all.

The only thing that I'm assuming is that the natives will start flinging projectiles at the police and the police will have to start shooting. The rest is context.
So in other words, the police should just go in there and kill all of the natives?

Amazing how everyone ASSUMES that these fishermen were not given a chance to try and reason with the tribe. Amazing how we all assume that these fishermen did now shoot first and the response from the people who may verywell have tried to be nice to them was to defend themselves.

Stop with the assumptions and do a little reading about what these people actually are. They have their reasons for shooting at things, and I doubt that those reasons are purely because they like it.

If only I had one. Whatever, I'm tired of arguing about this crap, so I'll just agree with you all.
That's right, I've seen the light. I'm going to go live in a grassy field, and whenever someone comes within 3 miles of my field, I'll fucking shoot them. It won't be my fault, though, because I have no concept of your backwards Western morality and civilization.
Maybe a woman cute chick will come within range. Jack-fucking-pot. After all, these arbitrary boundries are mine, and all who walk on my land (or near my land. Or a decent distance from my land) are my property, to dispose of how I wish.
Dude, stay off the crack. It's obviously affecting you. You don't have an exclusion area, they do, whether they know it or not. I tell you, if you think that's unfair, become a citizen of India and then write to your representative. Or write to your congressperson in your own country and ask for an exclusion zone.

So anyone who kills anyone else for any reason is now held accountable for anything?
Every American soldier in Iraq, every policeman who has ever killed anyone, now should all go to jail for murder by your logic.

No, these poachers are operating outside of their society's endorsement, while the villagers have the society's endorsement. The poachers are held accountable for the death of the villagers, the entire society is held accountable for the death of the fishermen.

The deaths caused by soldiers and policeman operating in the line of duty are ultimately accountable to the government that issued the order.

But it is nessecary, and your assumptions that we should be able to go in there and do as we please because we have guns is exactly why it is nessecary.

I am not saying that. I am saying that if they cannot act with reasonable restraint, then we should restrain them ourselves. Opening fire upon anything that comes within range is not reasonable restraint. Like I said to someone else, if Britain began lobbing missiles at any boat that used the channel, something would have to be done.

So in other words, the police should just go in there and kill all of the natives?

Only if the natives shoot first and only the natives that shoot at them.

The problem with being civiliized (either by choice or by force) is that you can't just chose to opt out of it all.
By all accounts, these people have encountered "civilization" before. They didn't take to it, and so they kill anyone else who might try and come by. I shall follow suit. After all, the past two decades, give or take, have just been one long, extended skirmish from which I shall soon flee!
WHEEEE!!!

That is fucking retarded. Getting drunk on a boat now deserves being killed by a bunch of savages?

Personally, I think the rush to protect these people is asinine. If any other group of people were to behave like these people, they would have been wiped out long ago. Let them know that they have a choice, live peacefully or be removed. I am guessing that they will have to be removed, but what is lost?

Oh, your shallow understanding of human culture is showing here. This group of people probably don't even know of the world outside, be it the lifestyles, social orders, governments, and much much more. These people more than likely believe that the rest of the world is exactly as their world. They probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the idea that killing someone who trespassed onto their land is "wrong"(subjective, really-there are laws in many places which allow people to protect their land in similar ways). This is probably due to their extreme isolation(both natural and chosen). Hell, they probably fear demons from the outside for all we know.

And once more, people were warned to stay away from the island, infact laws forbid going on the island. The fishermen met with some misfortune, yes, however the law allows the people to protect their land.

What is lost, you ask? Well, how about an opportunity to gain perspective on man's past? Such a society would be a perfect opportunity to study on neolithic man.

What stops you? The bows and arrows of the islanders.a handfull of people with (half)automatic guns can stomp over a tribe of stonage bow users. it is not like they are using long bows or any advanced type of composite bows even.

Amazing how everyone ASSUMES that these fishermen were not given a chance to try and reason with the tribe. Amazing how we all assume that these fishermen did now shoot first and the response from the people who may verywell have tried to be nice to them was to defend themselves.

Stop with the assumptions and do a little reading about what these people actually are. They have their reasons for shooting at things, and I doubt that those reasons are purely because they like it.

It seems apparent from what I have read that their custom is to open fire upon anything that comes into range.

It's piracy on the high seas. The exclusion zone is irrelevant, as is the Indian governments position on this. National law does not supercede international pre-emptory norms.

That fiddles guy is right.

After all, these arbitrary boundries are mine, and all who walk on my land (or near my land. Or a decent distance from my land) are my property, to dispose of how I wish.

You forget, the Indan government, who technically has the land, gives the island and the 3 miles of coast around it to the islanders as their property.
Your property is given to you as your government.
Thus neither limit is arbitrary, and thus your idea of being able to shoot anyone nearby, is dumb.

Only if the natives shoot first and only the natives that shoot at them.

The problem with this is that you go in with the intention of causing conflict. Leave em be. It's an island, with no real worth, and they want to be left alone. Leave em be.

a handfull of people with (half)automatic guns can stomp over a tribe of stonage bow users. it is not like they are using long bows or any advanced type of composite bows even.

Generally yes, but let us not forget the guerrillas of the Philipines and their victories over the Japanese... but, anyhow, I already answered this question.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10401477&postcount=99

The problem with this is that you go in with the intention of causing conflict. Leave em be. It's an island, with no real worth, and they want to be left alone. Leave em be.

There is no intention to cause conflict. Only the expectation thereof. The intention is to see justice served.

It's piracy on the high seas. The exclusion zone is irrelevant, as is the Indian governments position on this. National law does not supercede international pre-emptory norms.

That fiddles guy is right.

Hey, you might want to actually check the definition of 'high seas' before you try that approach.

There is no intention to cause conflict. Only the expectation thereof. The intention is to see justice served.
Justice was served: the fishermen trespassed, the islanders arrowed them. All legal.

It seems apparent from what I have read that their custom is to open fire upon anything that comes into range.

Such accounts come from the report of the Helicopter that went to recover the bodies. You can't blame them for shooting at the helicopter. They have no idea what it is, it makes alot of noise, and is big. The islanders may very well have been shot at first by the fishermen, and by others before, now they're shooting at what is essentially a monster.. their approach makers logical sense to me compared to yours.

Justice was served: the fishermen trespassed, the islanders arrowed them. All legal.

"Legal"=/=Justice

a handfull of people with (half)automatic guns can stomp over a tribe of stonage bow users. it is not like they are using long bows or any advanced type of composite bows even.


Try the Indian navy, who can easily stomp on a few guys with semiautomatic rifles in a little boat. Don't forget these people's rights to do as they like here, is enforced by India.

You forget, the Indan government, who technically has the land, gives the island and the 3 miles of coast around it to the islanders as their property.
Your property is given to you as your government.
And the deed to my field shall be granted through the US government. It will be mine.
Thus neither limit is arbitrary, and thus your idea of being able to shoot anyone nearby, is dumb.
Yes it is, there is no rationale for India define the line at the 3 mile point. Why not 1 mile? Why not give them the entire subcontinent? However, since these people don't understand the law, they didn't know that they had the three mile part, they just chose to shoot anyone who got close because they hate foriegners.
Well, so do I.
I wonder if I can get some claymores to scatter around a four mile perimeter?

seriously, i think it would be better if we brought them the blessings of civilization, like vaccinations, modern medicine, safety regulations for the workplace etc. think about the children of these people, we cannot let them grow up among these savages.

"Legal"=/=Justice

What is justice, oh wise Socrates?

"Legal"=/=Justice
And who defines what's just?

What is justice, oh wise Socrates?

Justice would be arresting the islanders responsible and giving them a fair and open trial. Afterwhich they serve twenty-five to life in a correctional facility of the judge's choice.

Try the Indian navy, who can easily stomp on a few guys with semiautomatic rifles in a little boat. Don't forget these people's rights to do as they like here, is enforced by India.but the indian navy didnt stop the boat of the 2 fishermen either. and if they want to get us after the fact it will be the exact same situation as it is now: an attempt to capture and punish the lawbreakers would lead to an armed conflict.

Generally yes, but let us not forget the guerrillas of the Philipines and their victories over the Japanese... but, anyhow, I already answered this question.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10401477&postcount=99

Its not like the people in the philippenes were stoneage tribesmen, they had been colonized by the spaniards at least 60 yrs before then(probably more). And for 50 before then they were a US possesion, so its not quite the same thing.

And who defines what's just?

I do. Apparently.

"Legal"=/=Justice
You are a silly person. I'll bet you even think that there might be fundamental human rights? All of it is just lies perpetrated by your government to keep you in line, Western Style.
All that matters is power, the power to kill and to take what you want. India has this power (legal) and they are willing to support and protect a tribe (who had the bows), thus they can do Hell all that they feel like.

No, these poachers are operating outside of their society's endorsement, while the villagers have the society's endorsement. The poachers are held accountable for the death of the villagers, the entire society is held accountable for the death of the fishermen.

The deaths caused by soldiers and policeman operating in the line of duty are ultimately accountable to the government that issued the order.

And these people know that the people attacking them are not representative of the entire outside world how exactly?

That of course forgets the point that the death of those fishermen, is their own fault. If they went into the area knowing it was a possibility of death, and a legal possibility of death fromthe government, then they forefited their lives.
Same if you walk onto an armed forces base where you know you can be shot on sight. It's your fault there if you die.


I am not saying that. I am saying that if they cannot act with reasonable restraint, then we should restrain them ourselves. Opening fire upon anything that comes within range is not reasonable restraint. Like I said to someone else, if Britain began lobbing missiles at any boat that used the channel, something would have to be done.

But Britan has been known to fire at ships found to be unfreindly in the channel. These people may consider everything in the outside world unfreindly simply because of the shit the outside world has done to them up until now.

Oh, your shallow understanding of human culture is showing here. This group of people probably don't even know of the world outside, be it the lifestyles, social orders, governments, and much much more. These people more than likely believe that the rest of the world is exactly as their world. They probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the idea that killing someone who trespassed onto their land is "wrong"(subjective, really-there are laws in many places which allow people to protect their land in similar ways). This is probably due to their extreme isolation(both natural and chosen). Hell, they probably fear demons from the outside for all we know.

You presume to know much more than I do. Since I know nothing of their culture, that is not hard to do.

However, I do have an idea of justifiable behavior, and this is not it.

I don't particularly understand what could drive a person to kidnap and decapitate a journalist, but I do know it is wrong.

And once more, people were warned to stay away from the island, infact laws forbid going on the island. The fishermen met with some misfortune, yes, however the law allows the people to protect their land.

Yes, I understand this, this is where my problem lies. Why should a village be absolved for this?

What is lost, you ask? Well, how about an opportunity to gain perspective on man's past? Such a society would be a perfect opportunity to study on neolithic man.

Except that you cannot get near them without meeting an unfortunate end.

I do. Apparently.
Then you go to arrest them.

"Legal"=/=Justice


What, pretel, equates justice then?
Because every first world country in the world, would disagree with you there.

There is no intention to cause conflict. Only the expectation thereof. The intention is to see justice served.

Justice for what? They did what their society believes is right-killing trespassers. It's their way, it's their society. Just because outsiders were killed doesn't change anything. This notion hold true everywhere- you break a law in a country, you are charged for that law, and you are given punishment accordingly(as in, you are punished according to that countries standards, not yours). The society of these people is to kill trespassers. The law of the counry which "owns" this island protects the people, and infact allows them to kill trespassers.

No justice needs be served, for the law allows these people to govern themselves as they wish. People were warned. Hell, the fishermen were warned that they were drifting towards the island as well. So, they should have known they were going to danger.

Then you go to arrest them.

OK. Give me your credit card number, I'll bill you for all of my expenses.

Its not like the people in the philippenes were stoneage tribesmen, they had been colonized by the spaniards at least 60 yrs before then(probably more). And for 50 before then they were a US possesion, so its not quite the same thing.

True, but a large majority of them were armed primarily with traditional indigenous weaponry, and it was only the few who carried modern firearms.

Justice for what? They did what their society believes is right-killing trespassers. It's their way, it's their society. Just because outsiders were killed doesn't change anything. This notion hold true everywhere- you break a law in a country, you are charged for that law, and you are given punishment accordingly(as in, you are punished according to that countries standards, not yours). The society of these people is to kill trespassers. The law of the counry which "owns" this island protects the people, and infact allows them to kill trespassers.

No justice needs be served, for the law allows these people to govern themselves as they wish. People were warned. Hell, the fishermen were warned that they were drifting towards the island as well. So, they should have known they were going to danger.

And the Nazis believed it was moral to murder ten million people just because they didn't like them. What makes you think that the motivation here is any different?

Justice would be arresting the islanders responsible and giving them a fair and open trial. Afterwhich they serve twenty-five to life in a correctional facility of the judge's choice.

And what is the ontological underpinning for this thing you call justice?


To say nothing of the fact that you declare they should have a 'fair and open' trial, but then state they will go to jail. That whole 'innocent until proven guilty' malarky isn't part of justice then?

However, I do have an idea of justifiable behavior, and this is not it.

given the result of contact in essentially every case we know of, i'd say it is more than justified.

OThese people more than likely believe that the rest of the world is exactly as their world.

Despite the fact that they've clearly seen a helicopter?

And these people know that the people attacking them are not representative of the entire outside world how exactly?

They wouldn't have a way, but that is beside the point, as the fisherman did not represent any threat.

India has two choices, stop the poachers or stop the villagers. Innocent people should not be murdered because of government inaction.

That of course forgets the point that the death of those fishermen, is their own fault. If they went into the area knowing it was a possibility of death, and a legal possibility of death fromthe government, then they forefited their lives.
Same if you walk onto an armed forces base where you know you can be shot on sight. It's your fault there if you die.

That shouldn't have to be the case.

And what is the ontological underpinning for this thing you call justice?


To say nothing of the fact that you declare they should have a 'fair and open' trial, but then state they will go to jail. That whole 'innocent until proven guilty' malarky isn't part of justice then?

I don't think it'll be much of a trial. It mean it should be kinda obvious who did it. Justice is not served when guilty men are turned free.

And the deed to my field shall be granted through the US government. It will be mine.

Yes it is, there is no rationale for India define the line at the 3 mile point. Why not 1 mile? Why not give them the entire subcontinent? However, since these people don't understand the law, they didn't know that they had the three mile part, they just chose to shoot anyone who got close because they hate foriegners.
Well, so do I.
I wonder if I can get some claymores to scatter around a four mile perimeter?

Their rational is to keep people from killing them, from disturbing them, and from doing stupid things. They are the government owning the area they can do that as they please. And as these people have not tried to leave that exclusion zone, it seems the zone is entirely appropriate.

What rational does the government have to give you the land you claim?
And what rational do you have to scatter claymores and other weapons on peoperty not legally yours?
These people know that land is their because they live on it and have lived on it for many many generations. You, however, have no claim to your land outside what the government lets you, and you have no claim on the land outside that land because the government says so. If these people decide to leave their 3 mile esclusion zone, they have to deal with the laws outside that zone, just like you have to deal with the laws outside your property (And on your property because that's what the government says regarding your land).

Yes, I understand this, this is where my problem lies. Why should a village be absolved for this?
They just are. Indian law recognized that because of cultural and historical differences it would be wrong to hold them up to the same law as every other Indian and, instead of presuming to do so, establishes an area of especial rule. Like reservations in the US or the concept of diplomatic immunity.

Is it moral for the natives to act that way? That's a whole different kettle of fish but not for the law to decide in this case.

Generally yes, but let us not forget the guerrillas of the Philipines and their victories over the Japanese...but those had at least metall weapons to start out with and captured guns and explosives from the japs. the sentinels have stone age tech: no metall.

Despite the fact that they've clearly seen a helicopter?
And visited the helicopter factory, and been taught about helicopters in school.

but those had at least metall weapons to start out with and captured guns and explosives from the japs. the sentinels have stone age tech: no metall.

Incorrect. They have no real metalworking technology, but they work on and use metal items which are washed up on their shores, or that they scavenged off the container ships that ran aground nearby.

but the indian navy didnt stop the boat of the 2 fishermen either. and if they want to get us after the fact it will be the exact same situation as it is now: an attempt to capture and punish the lawbreakers would lead to an armed conflict.

You forget, your in an armed expidition in Indian soviergn territory. Thus you are legally making an action against India itself.
Catch you after the fact or not, I'd hate to be in your shoes when they catch you, because I doubt the Indians will do something like just imprison you for life in a nice cell like they do in the US, they're more likely to torture you, torture you, and torture you some more.
And that's before the international community gets to you for attempted genocide, breaking international law, and being utterly stupid.

Those two fishermen, however, were from the area, and thus knew better.

I don't think it'll be much of a trial. It mean it should be kinda obvious who did it. Justice is not served when guilty men are turned free.

Guilty of what crime?

<snip>
What right have I to do anything? You all have enlightened me, there is no "right", "wrong", "justice", or any other niceties. All that matters is that I have the power to kill those people who get near my land, and that I own that land.
Might makes right, and if I happen to kill someone, then it is their fault for walking across an imaginary line somewhere and entering my kill space.

OK. Give me your credit card number, I'll bill you for all of my expenses.
Why? It's you who wants to have justice served, and it's your opinion that only you can serve it. I'm satisfied that it was served.

Guilty of what crime?

Murder in the first degree.

given the result of contact in essentially every case we know of, i'd say it is more than justified.

Hey, us Euros came off pretty damn well when the Tasmanians tried to civilize us.

Why? It's you who wants to have justice served, and it's your opinion that only you can serve it. I'm satisfied that it was served.

Yes, and Goering thought that justice was being served by him getting to go home to his lofty estate after fighting a losing war. Doesn't make him, or you, right.

What right have I to do anything? You all have enlightened me, there is no "right", "wrong", "justice", or any other niceties. All that matters is that I have the power to kill those people who get near my land, and that I own that land.
Yup. If you're a native of that island.

And the Nazis believed it was moral to murder ten million people just because they didn't like them. What makes you think that the motivation here is any different?


We won. If the Nazi's had won, we'd be using their values in this regard, and then the murder of that many people would be right.

Unless you're going to bring to me proof of a genetic idea of "right and wrong" in humanity?

what are the odds the christians will send middiares there and covert them and by convert them i mean ive them western diasses.

Yes, and Goering thought that justice was being served by him getting to go home to his lofty estate after fighting a losing war. Doesn't make him, or you, right.
Yay! Reductio ad Hitlerium! I win!

Yay! Reductio ad Hitlerium! I win!

Are you going to withdraw, now? I mean, you've "won", haven't you?

Murder in the first degree.

No. That's an american legal classification which does not apply in India. Further to this, any crime which does correspond to it in Indian territory and is enforced in the rest of India is not the law on this island and within its exclusion zone.

Justice would be arresting the islanders responsible and giving them a fair and open trial. Afterwhich they serve twenty-five to life in a correctional facility of the judge's choice.

Wow. Just wow. I now undertand your problem. You view western systems superior to all other systems, and therefor the only system possible. Gotchya.

Okay, this is going to be difficult to explain.

First, such a system does not exist everywhere in the world. Infact, such a system doesn't always occur in civilized nation. You must understand that these people likely have very little comprehension of law. Also, remember that most countries with such a system exempt people whom do not understand the consequences of their actions. These people, whom more than likely have never even known of any system other than their own, probably would have a very hard time comprehending western legal systems, not only due to ignorance, but also to a COMPLETELY different system. This is their system. They live by their system. How can you hold somebody accountable for a system that they not only do not, but likely cannot understand.

You are looking at this with the assumption that these people have a basic understanding of a legal system, when infact they more than likley have not had any contact with any legal systemever. You cannot hold people accountable under your system for living their way of life, on their own land.

We won. If the Nazi's had won, we'd be using their values in this regard, and then the murder of that many people would be right.

Unless you're going to bring to me proof of a genetic idea of "right and wrong" in humanity?

Given that even atheists adhere to ideas of right and wrong.

Yay! Reductio ad Hitlerium! I win!

Go and read what Godwin actually wrote, not what you think he wrote. There is nothing there about 'winning' or 'losing'.

Are you going to withdraw, now? I mean, you've "won", haven't you?
Sure, since there are no more arguments I can counter. Except for this, I guess:

Murder in the first degree.

According to what body of law?

Wow. Just wow. I now undertand your problem. You view western systems superior to all other systems, and therefor the only system possible. Gotchya.

Okay, this is going to be difficult to explain.

First, such a system does not exist everywhere in the world. Infact, such a system doesn't always occur in civilized nation. You must understand that these people likely have very little comprehension of law. Also, remember that most countries with such a system exempt people whom do not understand the consequences of their actions. These people, whom more than likely have never even known of any system other than their own, probably would have a very hard time comprehending western legal systems, not only due to ignorance, but also to a COMPLETELY different system. This is their system. They live by their system. How can you hold somebody accountable for a system that they not only do not, but likely cannot understand.

You are looking at this with the assumption that these people have a basic understanding of a legal system, when infact they more than likley have not had any contact with any legal systemever. You cannot hold people accountable under your system for living their way of life, on their own land.

Perhaps you'd prefer that I suggest that we go for the more internationally accepted version of justice: that the Indian army and navy go on manuevers on their island?

what are the odds the christians will send middiares there and covert them and by convert them i mean ive them western diasses.

The exclusion zone would probably be enforced to keep such missionaries out.

Yup. If you're a native of that island.
No, any time. Those people had to go to the island at some point, meaning they left another place. Therefore, they are no more native than I will be when I buy my field.
And, as DL just said, there is no right and wrong except that which one can impose with force. If I want to say that I am a native, and I can kill anyone who argues differently, then I am rightly a native.

Hey, us Euros came off pretty damn well when the Tasmanians tried to civilize us.

oh yeah, i forgot about that one. 'tis good to be civilized.

hey, whatever happened to those benevolent civilizing tasmanians?

According to what body of law?

Given that it occured on Indian territory, it would be according to Indian law.

good no more missionaires!

They wouldn't have a way, but that is beside the point, as the fisherman did not represent any threat.

India has two choices, stop the poachers or stop the villagers. Innocent people should not be murdered because of government inaction.

First off, what proof do you have that the fishermen didn't represent a threat? Do you know they didn't fire first?
Do you know what these people consider a threat?
Do you know what diseases these fishermen had?

And These fishermen, are the poachers. Or did you not notice that they were participating in an illegal activity when this happened? It seems the Indian government is perfectly content to let the islanders stop the poachers.



That shouldn't have to be the case.

Then write your governemt and demand official soviergnty with an exclusion zone. See how far that gets you.
The case is the case because those who can make it so, say so.

Or better yet. Walk onto an armed forces base. Since you obviously believe you should be able to.

Given that even atheists adhere to ideas of right and wrong.

Atheists who are born into cultures which inculcate the ideas of right and wrong?

The exclusion zone would probably be enforced to keep such missionaries out.

Except they clearly aren't enforced at all.

Go and read what Godwin actually wrote, not what you think he wrote. There is nothing there about 'winning' or 'losing'.
No, but according to internet folklore first guy to mention Hitler or the Nazis loses ;)

And the Nazis believed it was moral to murder ten million people just because they didn't like them. What makes you think that the motivation here is any different?

The Nazi's weren't protecting their land. They wanted to kill almost everyone who wasn't Ayrian. Also, they wanted to expand into a global empire so as to make the "perfect race"(at least the intentions of many nazis-Hitler was a different story as to the genocide).

The people here want to protect their land, of which they CANNOT expand(It's a goddamn island), and their way of life.

Big difference-One wants to kill every who is not them. The other want to protect themselves.

No, but according to internet folklore first guy to mention Hitler or the Nazis loses ;)

Doesn't change the truth of what I said, though.

Given that it occured on Indian territory, it would be according to Indian law.
There you are. According to Indian law there was no crime.

hey, whatever happened to those benevolent civilizing tasmanians?

Their bloodline only survived thanks to fucking the visiting savages.

The Nazi's weren't protecting their land. They wanted to kill almost everyone who wasn't Ayrian. Also, they wanted to expand into a global empire so as to make the "perfect race"(at least the intentions of many nazis-Hitler was a different story as to the genocide).

The people here want to protect their land, of which they CANNOT expand(It's a goddamn island), and their way of life.

Big difference-One wants to kill every who is not them. The other want to protect themselves.

They believed all of Central/Eastern Europe was their land. And that they could kill anyone inhabiting those lands as they say fit. Just like these natives. Or would the Nazis have been moral, in your opinion, if they had only killed German, Austrian, and Bohemian Jews?

Perhaps you'd prefer that I suggest that we go for the more internationally accepted version of justice: that the Indian army and navy go on manuevers on their island?

It is solely up to the Indian government what to do. I would be quite dismayed if they were to do such, however the Indian government has decided to protect the island, and allow it's inhabitants to rule themselves.

Thus, this point is moot.

What right have I to do anything? You all have enlightened me, there is no "right", "wrong", "justice", or any other niceties. All that matters is that I have the power to kill those people who get near my land, and that I own that land.
Might makes right, and if I happen to kill someone, then it is their fault for walking across an imaginary line somewhere and entering my kill space.


Amazing how you presume I'm advocating that those who can kill can do as they please. Really, that's putting words in my mouth, and is a dumb way to debate.
What makes right, wrong, and anything else, is the society you live in. These people have their ability to dictate their right and wrong because their society is under the protection of the Indian society, and the Indian society says they can do as they want in that area.
Your society tells yu how to behave because you live in it.

Go take a damn anthropology course.

The Nazi's weren't protecting their land.

Yes they were. That's what the whole Lebensraum thang was about. It just happened that other nations happened to be laying claim to their land and squatting on it.

Atheists who are born into cultures which inculcate the ideas of right and wrong?

So these barbarians are somehow exempt from respecting what has internationally been determined to be universal human rights?

Doesn't change the truth of what I said, though.
:rolleyes: Your argument is still false.

The law defines what justice is. Not you, or Goebbels, or the islanders. The law applicable to each jurisdiction.
The law said that Goebbels should have been hanged.
The law says the the natives of this island can kill trespassers.
That's it, justice was served in both cases.

mussoilny was trying to get his land back from the time of the roman empire. that means taking europe and last time i checked gemany was in europe. is it still there?

here is what i don't get - if you do not go with the plan of leaving these people alone to live by their own rules and enforcing an exclusion zone, then you are de facto in favor of genocide.

They believed all of Central/Eastern Europe was their land. And that they could kill anyone inhabiting those lands as they say fit. Just like these natives. Or would the Nazis have been moral, in your opinion, if they had only killed German, Austrian, and Bohemian Jews?

Nice. Real nice. Twisting facts.

No. Not at all. The Nazis believed that they were superior to all other races, thus is why they "deserved" to own Europe.

These people, I assume, do not believe as such. And even so, they do not go on genocidal rampages trying to conquer the world. If they stepped foot on any other Indian land with such intentions, they would likely be shot on sight. However, they are on a small secluded island, which was GIVEN to them by the Indian Government. It is THIER land. Unlike the Nazis who took the land forcefully.

Quite a different story.

So these barbarians are somehow exempt from respecting what has internationally been determined to be universal human rights?

Nothing has been determined: just declared.

Given that even atheists adhere to ideas of right and wrong.

Atheists adhere to a concept of right and wrong given to them by the culture they live in. Your argument is poor at best.

So these barbarians are somehow exempt from respecting what has internationally been determined to be universal human rights?
Yes! Finally, by Jove! They are exempt from having to live according to what are internationally recognized human rights. And at the same time are protected by those same human rights. That's why it's called an "exclusion area". Not only that you shouldn't go in there, but that law is different there.

Why do they deserve such a privileged treatment? Simply because of the enormous difference in history and culture that law considers unfair to submit them to the same as everyone else.

:rolleyes: Your argument is still false.

The law defines what justice is. Not you, or Goebbels, or the islanders. The law applicable to each jurisdiction.
The law said that Goebbels should have been hanged.
The law says the the natives of this island can kill trespassers.
That's it, justice was served in both cases.

So Germans gassing Jews is justice? North Koreans starving to death because they won't join the North Korean army is justice? Refugees being strafed by attack helicopters is justice? Christians being executed in Iran is justice? Women and men being executed at random in Afghanistan is justice? Tibetan monks being executed by members of the PLA is justice?

However, they are on a small secluded island, which was GIVEN to them by the Indian Government.

Complex point here: if the island should belong to the islanders, then it never really belonged to the Indian Government. Perhaps it would be better to say that it still belongs to them, thanks to the grace of the Indian Government.

No, any time. Those people had to go to the island at some point, meaning they left another place. Therefore, they are no more native than I will be when I buy my field.
And, as DL just said, there is no right and wrong except that which one can impose with force. If I want to say that I am a native, and I can kill anyone who argues differently, then I am rightly a native.


Legally accecpted nativity of a region, is dictated by a group of people being there 10,000 years or more. As these people are leated to the tribes on nearby islands that have been in contact, and have been determined to having been there for 60,000 years, these people obviously have legal native status in the international community.

Yes! Finally, by Jove! They are exempt from having to live according to what are internationally recognized human rights. And at the same time are protected by those same human rights. That's why it's called an "exclusion area". Not only that you shouldn't go in there, but that law is different there.

Why do they deserve such a privileged treatment? Simply because of the enormous difference in history and culture that law considers unfair to submit them to the same as everyone else.

Well I find it rather amusing that there are a large number of stone age tribes in the Amazon that somehow manage not to kill everyone they come into contact with.

So these barbarians are somehow exempt from respecting what has internationally been determined to be universal human rights?

Okay, tell me then: What are the "internationally" determined universal human rights?(Also, for everything involving the UN, it pretty much only applies to UN members and government actions-which the island doesn't apply to, so nice try really)

Also, "barbarians" is such a pretentious word, used by the conceited to hold themselves above other systems which they do not understand.

Canabalism, for example, is often described as "barbaric", however almost nobody understands why or how it is done(in most cases), and also don't understand(or respect) the differences between their culture and others.

http://www.andaman.org/book/reprints/goodheart/rep-goodheart.htm

This is a good article.

I would say from reading a portion of it, that the Jarawa and Sentenalese were violent before Western interaction. I would say that they have avoided assimilation because of this, but I don't believe it was west that turned them into a violent civilization.

The Jarawa, for example, would enter into neighboring villages and shoot people, not actually killing trespassers.

Amazing how you presume I'm advocating that those who can kill can do as they please. Really, that's putting words in my mouth, and is a dumb way to debate.
What makes right, wrong, and anything else, is the society you live in. These people have their ability to dictate their right and wrong because their society is under the protection of the Indian society, and the Indian society says they can do as they want in that area.
And when I live in my field, I will have my own society, which I shall define by my rules. Or perhaps, you would find it acceptable if I first had a couple kids and then raised them in the field, telling them the "proper" way to live.
Were Sawney Beans children behaving in a manner that was legitimate and acceptable, by your definition?
Your society tells yu how to behave because you live in it.
So, you mean that everyone in a society will follow the same morals? That must be why no one ever kills anyone in the US. I mean, murdering your wife is pretty against the society.
That would also explain why society has never evolved from the beginnings. I mean, wouldn't it be crazy if moral forces sought to equalize injustices in Western government by allowing women the right to vote and prohibiting the hunting of Roma?
Go take a damn anthropology course.
Go develop a rational argument.

Nice. Real nice. Twisting facts.

No. Not at all. The Nazis believed that they were superior to all other races, thus is why they "deserved" to own Europe.

These people, I assume, do not believe as such. And even so, they do not go on genocidal rampages trying to conquer the world. If they stepped foot on any other Indian land with such intentions, they would likely be shot on sight. However, they are on a small secluded island, which was GIVEN to them by the Indian Government. It is THIER land. Unlike the Nazis who took the land forcefully.

Quite a different story.

All isolationist societies, all xenophobis societies, are inherently racist. They believe that they are the cream of the crop. And when Indian helos bug out because they're being shot at by arrows, they feel it justified. When the Indian government is forced to sneak onto an island, it makes them feel that it's justified.

Well I find it rather amusing that there are a large number of stone age tribes in the Amazon that somehow manage not to kill everyone they come into contact with.

Because it is not thier culture to. Not all "stone age"(Most Amazon Tribes are not anymore considered stone age) are the same. There are culturally differences. Not all tribes are homologous. Especially when considering distances and isolation, as well as the environment.

This is basic anthropology, here.

http://www.andaman.org/book/reprints/goodheart/rep-goodheart.htm

This is a good article.

I would say from reading a portion of it, that the Jarawa and Sentenalese were violent before Western interaction. I would say that they have avoided assimilation because of this, but I don't believe it was west that turned them into a violent civilization.

The Jarawa, for example, would enter into neighboring villages and shoot people, not actually killing trespassers.

Hmmm. I'm reminded of Pierre Clastres here, an anthropologist who sometimes argues that the violence of tribal societies is actually a defense mechanism against the arisal of states.

Okay, tell me then: What are the "internationally" determined universal human rights?(Also, for everything involving the UN, it pretty much only applies to UN members and government actions-which the island doesn't apply to, so nice try really)

Also, "barbarians" is such a pretentious word, used by the conceited to hold themselves above other systems which they do not understand.

Canabalism, for example, is often described as "barbaric", however almost nobody understands why or how it is done(in most cases), and also don't understand(or respect) the differences between their culture and others.

:rolleyes:

I have no respect to give to a culture that decides that it has the right to shoot anyone who appears on their 'property' with out asking them to go away first. Except for that, I find their culture prefectly respectable.

So Germans gassing Jews is justice? North Koreans starving to death because they won't join the North Korean army is justice? Refugees being strafed by attack helicopters is justice? Christians being executed in Iran is justice? Women and men being executed at random in Afghanistan is justice? Tibetan monks being executed by members of the PLA is justice?
I'm not sure about Germans gassing jews, since I'm not familiar with the local and international law of the time. The rest aren't, because the governments in those places have agreed to be ruled by international law, and respect the current definition of human rights.

The people in the islands 1) are not a government, 2) have signed no such treaty, 3) are under the protection of India, which has signed a treaty and made the sovereign decision to grant them such exclusion, and 4) International law recognizes the right of India to grant such exclusions in very special cases, under which this one classifies.

And when I live in my field, I will have my own society, which I shall define by my rules. Or perhaps, you would find it acceptable if I first had a couple kids and then raised them in the field, telling them the "proper" way to live.
Were Sawney Beans children behaving in a manner that was legitimate and acceptable, by your definition?

So, you mean that everyone in a society will follow the same morals? That must be why no one ever kills anyone in the US. I mean, murdering your wife is pretty against the society.
That would also explain why society has never evolved from the beginnings. I mean, wouldn't it be crazy if moral forces sought to equalize injustices in Western government by allowing women the right to vote and prohibiting the hunting of Roma?

Go develop a rational argument.


I've thrown more rational arguments at you then you deserve. You just seem to refuse to accecpt that your society as a whole dictates your moral and legal standards. Wether or not individuals break that is their perogative, but they will be punished by the society.
If you don't want to understand that, then you're not worth explaining it to over and over because you obviously have no idea how the world works or how people interact.

Because it is not thier culture to. Not all "stone age"(Most Amazon Tribes are not anymore considered stone age) are the same. There are culturally differences. Not all tribes are homologous. Especially when considering distances and isolation, as well as the environment.

This is basic anthropology, here.

Here's a what-if: If, tomorrow, an alien spaceship appeared in low earth orbit, would we be justified in shooting it down?

If we shot it down, would it not be culturally acceptable to the alien civilization that sent the ship to retaliate by, say, destroying every major urban center on earth?

Would that all be moral to you?

Well I find it rather amusing that there are a large number of stone age tribes in the Amazon that somehow manage not to kill everyone they come into contact with.
They haven't lived in such extreme isolation, which means that there have been clashes. Don't think it's always been very peaceful, what with poachers, ranchers, and loggers around them. And Brazilian law grants them certain autonomy, but not as much as India does to these people.

All isolationist societies, all xenophobis societies, are inherently racist. They believe that they are the cream of the crop. And when Indian helos bug out because they're being shot at by arrows, they feel it justified. When the Indian government is forced to sneak onto an island, it makes them feel that it's justified.

You are presuming that they consider themselves better. Perhaps they fear(and probably rightfully so) the outside world? Perhaps they believe that the people coming onto the island are coming to kill them? Or even that they are demons(strange clothes and items would cause confusion). It's not unreasonable to believe such. You are presuming that these people have a good understanding of the outside world-which they probably do not.

Also, they probably wouldn't even know that the government had to sneak onto the island. They probably would be frightened and confused at the fact that the bodies disappeared from the ground one day. They probably wouldn't even know why the bodies were recovered, and probably wouldn't feel highly due to outsiders having to sneak onto the island, as they may not be able to understand it.

All isolationist societies, all xenophobis societies, are inherently racist. They believe that they are the cream of the crop. And when Indian helos bug out because they're being shot at by arrows, they feel it justified. When the Indian government is forced to sneak onto an island, it makes them feel that it's justified.


You're assuming they see Helicopters as human pieces of equipment, and not as animals or monsters.
You can't apply racisim to African people based on the actions of a Lion, can you?

I'm not sure about Germans gassing jews, since I'm not familiar with the local and international law of the time. The rest aren't, because the governments in those places have agreed to be ruled by international law, and respect the current definition of human rights.

The people in the islands 1) are not a government, 2) have signed no such treaty, 3) are under the protection of India, which has signed a treaty and made the sovereign decision to grant them such exclusion, and 4) International law recognizes the right of India to grant such exclusions in very special cases, under which this one classifies.

International law is a pile of feel-good shit that stands for less than the declaration of universal human rights. Even you should know that. International law cannot and will not be enforced except in nations that willingly allow those laws to be followed. Which is why everyone ignores international law: except for when it benefits them.

So, since there was no international laws during WWII, does that then make the gassing of Jews and gypsies justice?

I am amazed at the stunning misuse of logic shown in this thread.

I love the people who think that, with their bows and arrows, these people should just let anyone come aboard their island, when the chances are great that others HAVE tried to take over in the past but unsuccessfully. Being 'kind' to the invading population sure worked out good for Native Americans, didn't it?

I am shocked by the people who claim they have no sense of morality, or it would be alright for US to go and kill them now. Excuse me, but unless you're raised by this tribe, there is a good chance that your law DOESN'T excuse that. Their law probably does, just as we allow people who have trespassed into our home. Just because their law is different than ours doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Are they taking active roles to spread thier law? No, they are passive, and as long as they are not leaving the island and trying to attack nearby ones, we should let them have their culture.

The island, and the surrounding property, have been deemed by Indian law to be this tribe's. The warnings are all there. Or do you feel great horror and pity towards the people who, I don't know, use a hairdryer in the bathroom and get electrocuted? Do you yell at the hairdryer for not having warned them? Or the company, for not including a bigger warning on the box?

Let these people be.

Nicodemus Laryner,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

You are presuming that they consider themselves better. Perhaps they fear(and probably rightfully so) the outside world? Perhaps they believe that the people coming onto the island are coming to kill them? Or even that they are demons(strange clothes and items would cause confusion). It's not unreasonable to believe such. You are presuming that these people have a good understanding of the outside world-which they probably do not.

If they feared us, they would run and hide. We wouldn't even know that anyone was there.

Here's a what-if: If, tomorrow, an alien spaceship appeared in low earth orbit, would we be justified in shooting it down?

If we shot it down, would it not be culturally acceptable to the alien civilization that sent the ship to retaliate by, say, destroying every major urban center on earth?

Would that all be moral to you?

Hypothetical nonsense, completely irrelevant. First, we would have a basic comprehension of the craft(it flies, it's not human-must be alien), and if there were no aggressive acts made, it would be stupid for us to attack it(for if they were able to traverse space, they would be able to destroy us easily).

These people probably have very little comprehension of the world elsewhere. As far as they know, it's the same everywhere, or they may be the only island, and all outsiders are demons. They may not be able to understand that there are peoples FAR greater than them elsewhere.

Truly, you can do better.

You're assuming they see Helicopters as human pieces of equipment, and not as animals or monsters.
You can't apply racisim to African people based on the actions of a Lion, can you?

Given that they saw humans inside them, I would have to say that that isn't likely.

Hypothetical nonsense, completely irrelevant. First, we would have a basic comprehension of the craft(it flies, it's not human-must be alien), and if there were no aggressive acts made, it would be stupid for us to attack it(for if they were able to traverse space, they would be able to destroy us easily).

These people probably have very little comprehension of the world elsewhere. As far as they know, it's the same everywhere, or they may be the only island, and all outsiders are demons. They may not be able to understand that there are peoples FAR greater than them elsewhere.

Truly, you can do better.

OK, then if my culture demands it, I can go in and kill every single person on that island, how about that?

EDIT: And it isn't irrelevant. Replace 'alien spaceship' with 'fishing boat' and we'd be in the same position as those islanders.

I've thrown more rational arguments at you then you deserve. You just seem to refuse to accecpt that your society as a whole dictates your moral and legal standards. Wether or not individuals break that is their perogative, but they will be punished by the society.
And you seem to refuse that there might be an international society. If these people are the way they are because they don't know any better, then they need to be educated.
Society is the sum total of interacting individuals, and the moment that the tribe started getting involved with outsiders, they entered into a greater society.
If you don't want to understand that, then you're not worth explaining it to over and over because you obviously have no idea how the world works or how people interact.
I have a very good idea, as someone who has been on both sides of justice, about how human interaction goes. When you start stepping out of line, it doesn't matter why, you get put back in place. If you stepped out of line because you didn't know any better, you are educated.
Often education is painful, sometimes it is ultimately fatal, but it must be done so that we aren't all a bunch of anarchists killing each other just because we're bored and afraid.

If they feared us, they would run and hide. We wouldn't even know that anyone was there.

Uh, no. It's not uncommon to try and destroy that which you fear. You are basing this off of the idea of the "unwitting and gentle savage" often portrayed in movies. It is not unbelievable for them to try and destroy something they fear greatly(to the point of almost hating).

See "faith healers", specfically Christians. They both fear and hate Satan, and try to "destroy" or get rid of him/it. Same applies here. These people may view outsiders as demons which they must drive back.

Given that they saw humans inside them, I would have to say that that isn't likely.


The Tainio's saw Columbus' ships with humans in them, but didn't think of them as ships. They say the Spaniards in their armour and didn't think of them as humans, they thought of them to be gods.
That doesn't fit with how you explain it.

OK, then if my culture demands it, I can go in and kill every single person on that island, how about that?

EDIT: And it isn't irrelevant. Replace 'alien spaceship' with 'fishing boat' and we'd be in the same position as those islanders.

If you actually lived in a culture as such, which you do not, then I would have little to no qualms. However, as we live in an "enlightened" world, and these people do not, you cannot, as your culture most certainly does not demand it.

And yes it is: You forget the idea of "comprehension".

I love the people who think that, with their bows and arrows, these people should just let anyone come aboard their island, when the chances are great that others HAVE tried to take over in the past but unsuccessfully. Being 'kind' to the invading population sure worked out good for Native Americans, didn't it?

Except for the fact that the Amerindian tribes committed as many heinous acts against American settlers, with no justification, as the US Army committed against the Amerindian tribes. Not all the tribes were happy with Euro-Americans, afterall. And they responded by killing them.

Given that they saw humans inside them, I would have to say that that isn't likely.

Not quite so. Most spirits depicted in Stone Age painting and art are human-like. That, and they may have had a hard time figuring out what such a machine was-to them, man cannot fly, thus the Helicopter is not man(possibly). If you had not comprehension of a helicopter, and saw one flying, what would you think?

If you actually lived in a culture as such, which you do not, then I would have little to no qualms. However, as we live in an "enlightened" world, and these people do not, you cannot, as your culture most certainly does not demand it.

And yes it is: You forget the idea of "comprehension".

These people are not children who you need to hide away from the world and the longer you hide them, the greater the damage will be when they are finally forced to confront it.

And, by the way, I live in Montana. My society is not your society.

So, since there was no international laws during WWII, does that then make the gassing of Jews and gypsies justice?

Of course not. But, only because Germany was part of the Western world. They shared similar moral and political priciples with other countries, including the U.S. Not explicitly similar, but enough so that they knew the rest of the world would look at it as a vile crime against humanity if they found out.

These are Pacific islanders with no prior contact or shared background of any kind with the surrounding nations, much less the West. We can't judge them by our measure of law and justice simply because we have no idea what kind of values they have.

For all we know, shooting at newcomers is a traditional greeting among the tribe. Or, they could simply be unable and unwilling to suffer anyone else on their land because they have a long history of violence with outsiders. Or, they had a case of mistaken identity and shoot first by mistake.

My point is that we don't have any frame of reference for judging them. No social, religious, political, or ideological infotmation about them means we simply can't tell why they killed those men, nor can we judge them as bad or simply ignorant.

First off, what proof do you have that the fishermen didn't represent a threat? Do you know they didn't fire first?
Do you know what these people consider a threat?
Do you know what diseases these fishermen had?

1. I have no idea who fired first. These villagers have a history of attacking without warning, the article states that the fishermen were most likely drunk and passed out. I am taking the most probable assertion.

2. These people do not take the time to identify threats.

3. These people were obviously not worried about diseases, as they promptly took their possessions and buried the bodies in an open grave.

And These fishermen, are the poachers. Or did you not notice that they were participating in an illegal activity when this happened? It seems the Indian government is perfectly content to let the islanders stop the poachers.

Then write your governemt and demand official soviergnty with an exclusion zone. See how far that gets you.

If I start shooting at anyone who ventures onto my lawn, I have a feeling I won't get an exclusion zone. The government will not say "We don't know why he is shooting, it must be his culture," and leave me alone.

The case is the case because those who can make it so, say so.

The tried and true justification for bad legislation.

Or better yet. Walk onto an armed forces base. Since you obviously believe you should be able to.

That military base is installed to protect society. It is defended for completely different reasons than this island.

And you seem to refuse that there might be an international society. If these people are the way they are because they don't know any better, then they need to be educated.
Society is the sum total of interacting individuals, and the moment that the tribe started getting involved with outsiders, they entered into a greater society.

I have a very good idea, as someone who has been on both sides of justice, about how human interaction goes. When you start stepping out of line, it doesn't matter why, you get put back in place. If you stepped out of line because you didn't know any better, you are educated.
Often education is painful, sometimes it is ultimately fatal, but it must be done so that we aren't all a bunch of anarchists killing each other just because we're bored and afraid.

And you assume there is a global society, which history has proven there not to be. Your experiance with your society is with your society. If you want to impose your societal values on the island people in question, take it up with the Indian government, who has jurisdiction here. You have no say, no one but the Indians and these islanders have a say. And as these fishermen were Indian, breaking Indian law in the first place, and the Indian government is not going in, it shows that the Indians have decided that the islanders were right. If you have an objection to it, object to India.

Not quite so. Most spirits depicted in Stone Age painting and art are human-like. That, and they may have had a hard time figuring out what such a machine was-to them, man cannot fly, thus the Helicopter is not man(possibly). If you had not comprehension of a helicopter, and saw one flying, what would you think?

That's simply anthropomorphism. It wasn't because they actually saw human-like animals.

If I didn't have comprehension of a helicopter, then it would appear to be a magically propelled device manned by human beings, complete with protective unmelting ice to protect them from the magics unleashed by their being able to hover.

These people are not children who you need to hide away from the world and the longer you hide them, the greater the damage will be when they are finally forced to confront it.

And, by the way, I live in Montana. My society is not your society.

No, however you should not force them to change if they do not wish to. Change must be of their own accord, not ours.

I live in Minnesota. Our societies are almost identical.

That's simply anthropomorphism. It wasn't because they actually saw human-like animals.

If I didn't have comprehension of a helicopter, then it would appear to be a magically propelled device manned by human beings, complete with protective unmelting ice to protect them from the magics unleashed by their being able to hover.

Consider, though, these were people in flight suits, probably wearing flight masks and goggles. They wouldn't resemble anything the islanders knew as human, and were probably thought to be something not human, especially since they were inside a large, flying machine that makes one hell of a noise.

Of course not. But, only because Germany was part of the Western world. They shared similar moral and political priciples with other countries, including the U.S. Not explicitly similar, but enough so that they knew the rest of the world would look at it as a vile crime against humanity if they found out.

The morality of the Nazi Party said it was OK.

These are Pacific islanders with no prior contact or shared background of any kind with the surrounding nations, much less the West. We can't judge them by our measure of law and justice simply because we have no idea what kind of values they have.

Of course, they're perfectly exempt from the consequences of their actions becuase they're darkies. :rolleyes:

For all we know, shooting at newcomers is a traditional greeting among the tribe. Or, they could simply be unable and unwilling to suffer anyone else on their land because they have a long history of violence with outsiders. Or, they had a case of mistaken identity and shoot first by mistake.

Shooting at and killing? Well, what a way to go! The only history of violence they have with outsiders is them shooting arrows at them.

Consider, though, these were people in flight suits, probably wearing flight masks and goggles. They wouldn't resemble anything the islanders knew as human, and were probably thought to be something not human, especially since they were inside a large, flying machine that makes one hell of a noise.

You don't wear flight masks when you're flying a helicopter. Maybe sunglasses, but no flight mask. They would look like funny-looking men, but men none-the-less.

That's simply anthropomorphism. It wasn't because they actually saw human-like animals.

If I didn't have comprehension of a helicopter, then it would appear to be a magically propelled device manned by human beings, complete with protective unmelting ice to protect them from the magics unleashed by their being able to hover.

Towards anthropomorphism-THis much is true, however after many generations of oral traditions, people actually would start to believe that such beings actually exist. It is not unlikely that these people viewed the helicopter as a threat, as well. More than likely, a supernatural threat. You do not weigh the importance of the supernatural in Stone Age societies.

Yeah. You would also probably fear them as gods. See: Spaniards.

No, however you should not force them to change if they do not wish to. Change must be of their own accord, not ours.

I live in Minnesota. Our societies are almost identical.

Explains why your's is a blue state and mine is a red. :p Having been to Minnesota, though, I can safely say that there are a number of differences between the two: your city dwellers are more urbane than ours, while your rural farmers and rednecks are more ignorant than ours. :p

Hmmm. I'm reminded of Pierre Clastres here, an anthropologist who sometimes argues that the violence of tribal societies is actually a defense mechanism against the arisal of states.

I would say that it is like evolution. Tribal societies did not become violent as a reaction to states, violent tribes were just naturally predisposed to fight against states while peaceful ones succumbed.

And you assume there is a global society, which history has proven there not to be.
If there is no such society, then why, exactly, is the US pouring out money to help fund International governing and regulating bodies? Why has war after war been waged to help maintain one people or another? What justification can you find for international law?
Your experiance with your society is with your society. If you want to impose your societal values on the island people in question, take it up with the Indian government, who has jurisdiction here. You have no say, no one but the Indians and these islanders have a say. And as these fishermen were Indian, breaking Indian law in the first place, and the Indian government is not going in, it shows that the Indians have decided that the islanders were right. If you have an objection to it, object to India.
And once again, you are confusing the philosophical with the legal. I believe that India is in the wrong, and that is what I am arguing. What they do, or do not do, isn't the point. It may be legal for me to pee on the shoes of Japanese visitors, but I'm pretty sure that Japanese visitors would still complain. Would you argue, then, that I am automatically right because my government currently feels so? Or would you say that what I and my government are doing is crazy?
I'm saying that what India is doing is crazy, and enumerating reasons for it. I am doing this because this is a political forum, not a legal case, and not the real world. I find it amusing to argue over whether this law should be the way it is, I don't find it amusing to send ineffectual letters to India.

You don't wear flight masks when you're flying a helicopter. Maybe sunglasses, but no flight mask. They would look like funny-looking men, but men none-the-less.

Depending, they may have also worn headgear. Also, depending on the type of helicopter, it may have been impossible to tell if people were inside.

Towards anthropomorphism-THis much is true, however after many generations of oral traditions, people actually would start to believe that such beings actually exist. It is not unlikely that these people viewed the helicopter as a threat, as well. More than likely, a supernatural threat. You do not weigh the importance of the supernatural in Stone Age societies.

Yeah. You would also probably fear them as gods. See: Spaniards.

Yeah, but I don't think I'd kill gods. Like the Inca and the Aztec. They didn't kill the Spaniards when they thought they were gods.

1. I have no idea who fired first. These villagers have a history of attacking without warning, the article states that the fishermen were most likely drunk and passed out. I am taking the most probable assertion.

2. These people do not take the time to identify threats.

3. These people were obviously not worried about diseases, as they promptly took their possessions and buried the bodies in an open grave.

So you magically know how they identify threats now?
You're basing your assumptions on that article you posted, which according to everything else I've read states that the crew of other ships stranded there in the years prior shot at the islanders, the salvage crews sent to get it back shot at the lsianders (Both time shey shot first too). Makes alot of sense to me for them to shoot at something huge beaching itself nearby, especially if something simmilar had happened before and the huge thing had shot at you.


If I start shooting at anyone who ventures onto my lawn, I have a feeling I won't get an exclusion zone. The government will not say "We don't know why he is shooting, it must be his culture," and leave me alone.

The government doesn't give you that right to do so though. The government who owns this land however has already given that right to these islanders.



The tried and true justification for bad legislation. The only methoed of legislation. Or do you deny that people govern themselves?



That military base is installed to protect society. It is defended for completely different reasons than this island.

There is no difference here. That island has an exclusion zone to protect their society. Those fisherment violated that exclusion zone, they were killed. You violate the property of an armed forces base, you may be killed.

Yeah, but I don't think I'd kill gods. Like the Inca and the Aztec. They didn't kill the Spaniards when they thought they were gods.


Yeah, best leave the killing Gods business to the Judaeo-Christians.

Depending, they may have also worn headgear. Also, depending on the type of helicopter, it may have been impossible to tell if people were inside.

I would assume that it was a UH-1 'Huey' (or similar). Odds are that one of the side doors was open and that there was a man hanging out of it (so to speak), given that they intended to recover the bodies, and they probably wanted to do so ASAP.

Given the altitude, they probably would have been wearing helmets and sunglasses, but, again, no flight masks.

Explains why your's is a blue state and mine is a red. :p Having been to Minnesota, though, I can safely say that there are a number of differences between the two: your city dwellers are more urbane than ours, while your rural farmers and rednecks are more ignorant than ours. :p

Oh, there are a number of differences, however we both have the same overall social constructs(Federal laws and regulations, as well as fairly homologous state laws). As for our rural farmers and rednecks-I wouldn't doubt that point. Most are downright stupid these days. I have stories of their idiocy. My grandpa was a farmer, though, and he was quite intelligent. Why can't that be anymore?

Yeah, best leave the killing Gods business to the Judaeo-Christians.

Judeo-Christians wouldn't kill someone they believed to be an embodiment of their god.

The morality of the Nazi Party said it was OK.

The Nazis had only been in power for maybe six, seven years. The German people had all grown up in something resembling a republic before that, and had learned the same kind of lessons about morality and politics other people in the West did before they got creamed in WWI

Of course, they're perfectly exempt from the consequences of their actions becuase they're darkies. :rolleyes:

I never said that, so I'll reiterate what I said before. We do not know what they believe, how they live, or what they value. We can't tell what kind of culture they have because we share nothing in common, so we can't judge them until we know more than we know now.

Shooting at and killing? Well, what a way to go! The only history of violence they have with outsiders is them shooting arrows at them.

That "history" is barely two years worth of incidents. They lived on that island a hell of a lot longer, and that is the history I mean. How a culture will react to outsiders comes on large part from their history, and my point is that they could have formed this violent treatment of outsiders because they had a long history of violence that reaches back centuries, we just don't know about it.

Oh, there are a number of differences, however we both have the same overall social constructs(Federal laws and regulations, as well as fairly homologous state laws). As for our rural farmers and rednecks-I wouldn't doubt that point. Most are downright stupid these days. I have stories of their idiocy. My grandpa was a farmer, though, and he was quite intelligent. Why can't that be anymore?

I dunno. But when I was going to St Olaf last year, it sounded like every hunter in the state used automatics to hunt with. And when I say 'automatic' I don't mean 'semi-automatic'.

Judeo-Christians wouldn't kill someone they believed to be an embodiment of their god.

The same population that once carried palm branches later cried 'Barabas'.

The Nazis had only been in power for maybe six, seven years. The German people had all grown up in something resembling a republic before that, and had learned the same kind of lessons about morality and politics other people in the West did before they got creamed in WWI

The Nazi Party's actions were an outgrowth of years of what Germans considered to be OK. Germans have been killing Jews since the Crusades.

I never said that, so I'll reiterate what I said before. We do not know what they believe, how they live, or what they value. We can't tell what kind of culture they have because we share nothing in common, so we can't judge them until we know more than we know now.

And the only people responsible for that are they, themselves. If they opened up as much as Japan did during their isolationist Tokugawa period, then we'd understand and we'd have something with which to frame these actions.

That "history" is barely two years worth of incidents. They lived on that island a hell of a lot longer, and that is the history I mean. How a culture will react to outsiders comes on large part from their history, and my point is that they could have formed this violent treatment of outsiders because they had a long history of violence that reaches back centuries, we just don't know about it.
That "history" is barely two years worth of incidents. They lived on that island a hell of a lot longer, and that is the history I mean. How a culture will react to outsiders comes on large part from their history, and my point is that they could have formed this violent treatment of outsiders because they had a long history of violence that reaches back centuries, we just don't know about it.

Western Civilization has a history of violence and ethnic cleansing. Doesn't make it acceptable in our culture.

And once again, you are confusing the philosophical with the legal. I believe that India is in the wrong, and that is what I am arguing. What they do, or do not do, isn't the point. It may be legal for me to pee on the shoes of Japanese visitors, but I'm pretty sure that Japanese visitors would still complain. Would you argue, then, that I am automatically right because my government currently feels so? Or would you say that what I and my government are doing is crazy?
Let's say that instead of peeing on people's shoes your people have the custom of, oooh... I don't know, let's say owning and carrying firearms and executing criminals, and that the Japanese or some other government, maybe from Europe, don't like that because it's their idea of civilization that people shouldn't carry firearms willy-nilly or execute people no matter what the crime.

Is it appropiate for those governments to discuss the morality of carrying arms and executing criminals? Yes, of course. Would it be excusable for those same governments to invade the gun-toting, execution-loving country if they feel strong enough? No, maybe carrying weapons and executing criminals is not moral or justifiable, but it's their country. It's up to them to change.

If there is no such society, then why, exactly, is the US pouring out money to help fund International governing and regulating bodies? Why has war after war been waged to help maintain one people or another? What justification can you find for international law?

And once again, you are confusing the philosophical with the legal. I believe that India is in the wrong, and that is what I am arguing. What they do, or do not do, isn't the point. It may be legal for me to pee on the shoes of Japanese visitors, but I'm pretty sure that Japanese visitors would still complain. Would you argue, then, that I am automatically right because my government currently feels so? Or would you say that what I and my government are doing is crazy?
I'm saying that what India is doing is crazy, and enumerating reasons for it. I am doing this because this is a political forum, not a legal case, and not the real world. I find it amusing to argue over whether this law should be the way it is, I don't find it amusing to send ineffectual letters to India.


There is no difference between the philosophical and the legal here. Your philosophical ideals do not apply to the legal situation of another country. No matter how much you want them to.

So you magically know how they identify threats now?
You're basing your assumptions on that article you posted, which according to everything else I've read states that the crew of other ships stranded there in the years prior shot at the islanders, the salvage crews sent to get it back shot at the lsianders (Both time shey shot first too). Makes alot of sense to me for them to shoot at something huge beaching itself nearby, especially if something simmilar had happened before and the huge thing had shot at you.

I would like to read these articles.

The government doesn't give you that right to do so though. The government who owns this land however has already given that right to these islanders.

If I don't get the right, why do they?

The only methoed of legislation. Or do you deny that people govern themselves?

I don't know where you are going with the second sentence, or what it has to do with the statement I was replying to.

There is no difference here. That island has an exclusion zone to protect their society. Those fisherment violated that exclusion zone, they were killed. You violate the property of an armed forces base, you may be killed.

OK

Military base - only exists to facilitate the protection of the members of a society, by using the protection of the military base, you agree to let the base operate without interference.

Stone age village - no societal purpose to its existance, government protects it by forfeiting the rights of its own citizens.

Furthermore, by going onto the military base, you are killed by your government, by going to the village, you are killed by private individuals.

<snip>
Once again, your argument doesn't apply. The US doesn't force foriegners to carry guns, and it doesn't make a habit of executing them.
As long as we insure that our cultural problems remain problems just among us, it is no one else's business. Now, if we started killing Japanese people and forcing Irish men to carry AK-47s when they visit, then there would be grounds for an invasion.

If I don't get the right, why do they?
You get to vote in your country's elections. Why not citizens of other countries?