NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
Do you see the contradiction here? I do.
If the philosophy of the matter and the law were the same thing, then I would be either:
A) Emperor of India, in which case my philosophy becomes law
B) A mindless drone who is incapable of thinking for myself and can only parrot Indian law

Oh, wait, nevermind. I just realized that I must be B. After all, society determines everything because it, like Jesus and gravity, is absolute and unchangeable with no one ever disagreeing with it.

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.

To be fair, most of Europe had been killing Jews since the Crusades.

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.

Well, that is a problem. They don't seem to want to talk anyone about anything. But it is kind of problem they have to resolve for themselves internally, we can't do anything about it short of a military incursion.

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

Our culture is not the issue here. It's their culture is what matters and as we said above, we know next to nothing about their culture. Just because we learned not to kill each other on sight doesn't mean they have, but it doesn't mean that they won't eventually come around to that way of thinking or at least try to make recompense somehow.

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.
There are foreigners in death row, you know. And foreigners are forced to be in the presence of armed civilians in the US. Anyone could be carrying a weapon.

A foreigner commits a crime and he risks being sent to death row, when in his country would just serve a long prison sentence. A foreigner get into a bar fight and he risks getting shot, when at home he would only get beaten. If he trespasses into private property, he also risks being shot, when at home there would only be some guy chasing after him with a machete or something.

Those are cultural differences, and people are warned. In some cases the reactions are lawful in the US when they wouldn't be in other countries. It's very much the same in the case of the islanders. There are cultural differences, namely they will shoot arrows at you if given half the chance, and that's lawful. And people are warned.

I would like to read these articles.

Here's three.
http://www.andamanindia.com/people.htm
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter8/text8.htm#sentineli
http://www.ccmb.res.in/newccmb/andaman/mystery.html

I'm digging up the book refrenced in your article, the one from the Indian Anthropologist, in my university library.


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

Because the government they fall under gives them that right, and the government you fall under does not.



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.
You said bad legislation is the result of those who can make it making it, and since those who can and do make it in most of the world is the people it effects, you are essentially stating that people make bad legislation. Following in your tradition, then I have deducted that you don't support the ability of people to govern themselves because they will make bad legislation.



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.

So you're denying these islanders have a society of their own? If you do then you deny any society exists, you deny humans are social creatures, and you deny that you are doing what you are doing now, which is involving yourself in a discussion, a social activity.
That exclusion zone is there to protect their society, it is put there by the Indian government working on behalf of the Indian people. The Indian government forefits no more rights of it's citizens then do the American government when they shoot people for tresspassing on a military base, or on whitehouse property.

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.

good idea. and while they do that that USA should just give the all of pennsylvania to the amish

Do you see the contradiction here? I do.
If the philosophy of the matter and the law were the same thing, then I would be either:
A) Emperor of India, in which case my philosophy becomes law
B) A mindless drone who is incapable of thinking for myself and can only parrot Indian law

Oh, wait, nevermind. I just realized that I must be B. After all, society determines everything because it, like Jesus and gravity, is absolute and unchangeable with no one ever disagreeing with it.


Last time I checked, India held elections. Last time I checked the Indian people, through representative government, made the laws. Thus the average Indian citizen, has say in the law. Therefor, B does not exist. So therefor you must be in C) A member of the voting society who helps shape the law.
Society is shaped by it's people as a whole group. If the whole group does not want it changed, it does not change.

And apparently, in terms of international law as it applies ere, you agree with me. Since:
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.
You agree that we have no right to jump in there and force our laws and cultural beliefs on them.

You get to vote in your country's elections. Why not citizens of other countries?

Because I am voting on the legislation that will affect me not them. That is the distinction.

What is the distinction between me and those villagers that allows them to freely attack anyone who approaches their land?

Last time I checked, India held elections. Last time I checked the Indian people, through representative government, made the laws. Thus the average Indian citizen, has say in the law. Therefor, B does not exist. So therefor you must be in C) A member of the voting society who helps shape the law.
Society is shaped by it's people as a whole group. If the whole group does not want it changed, it does not change.
I'm not an Indian, therefore I can't change Indian law.
Further, India is a representative government, therefore, the people don't make the laws. They elect people to make the laws.
As a result, at most a majority of Indians are shaping the rules of society. And in a representative democracy, a minority can shape the rules in spite of contrary majority opinion, provided that the majority is sufficiently divided.
You agree that we have no right to jump in there and force our laws and cultural beliefs on them.
Provided that someone is willing to do what they do on their own, without bothering others, I really don't give a fuck what they do. When you start killing people just because they're within range, then I have a problem.

I'm not an Indian, therefore I can't change Indian law.
Further, India is a representative government, therefore, the people don't make the laws. They elect people to make the laws.
As a result, at most a majority of Indians are shaping the rules of society. And in a representative democracy, a minority can shape the rules in spite of contrary majority opinion, provided that the majority is sufficiently divided.

Provided that someone is willing to do what they do on their own, without bothering others, I really don't give a fuck what they do. When you start killing people just because they're within range, then I have a problem.


And when you start going into an area that you know you can get killed for going into, it's your own fault.
These fishermen knew better, and they should have stayed away, instead they took their life into their own hands and went nearby anyway, and they paid the price for it. It's their fault, they should be held accountable for it, and they have. Hopefully their deaths will deter others from making such a stupid mistake.

Because I am voting on the legislation that will affect me not them. That is the distinction.

What is the distinction between me and those villagers that allows them to freely attack anyone who approaches their land?


That's been covered.
The government jurisdiction they fall under says they can.
The government jurisdiction you fall under does now say you can.

You want to kill people who come near your land, talk to your government jurisdiction about it.

And when you start going into an area that you know you can get killed for going into, it's your own fault.
And when you start killing people, it's your own fault and you deserve to be retaliated against.
These fishermen knew better, and they should have stayed away, instead they took their life into their own hands and went nearby anyway, and they paid the price for it. It's their fault, they should be held accountable for it, and they have. Hopefully their deaths will deter others from making such a stupid mistake.
It is the fault of the people who killed him, and they should be held responsible. A few dozen dead on the island should make the point perfectly clear, and hopefull their deaths would deter others from making such a stupid mistake.

And when you start killing people, it's your own fault and you deserve to be retaliated against.

It is the fault of the people who killed him, and they should be held responsible. A few dozen dead on the island should make the point perfectly clear, and hopefull their deaths would deter others from making such a stupid mistake.


Then you should have every right to walk into an armed forces base, and whoever tries to shoot at you for doing so regardless of what posted rules say, will be held accountable and punished for it... in your world.
Go into your world, walk into a forces base, see if that happens, then come back and we can apply your failed reasoning to the real world.

Here's three.
http://www.andamanindia.com/people.htm
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter8/text8.htm#sentineli
http://www.ccmb.res.in/newccmb/andaman/mystery.html

I'm digging up the book refrenced in your article, the one from the Indian Anthropologist, in my university library.

The first and third don't seem to touch on their behavior towards newcomers, and the second validates the idea that the Sentenalis usually are the first to attack.

Because the government they fall under gives them that right, and the government you fall under does not.

So if the US Government gave me the right, you would be ok with that?

You said bad legislation is the result of those who can make it making it, and since those who can and do make it in most of the world is the people it effects, you are essentially stating that people make bad legislation. Following in your tradition, then I have deducted that you don't support the ability of people to govern themselves because they will make bad legislation.

There is a difference between people governing themselves and democracy, but that is a different thread.

What I support is giving people as little ability at governing others as possible, just in case they did inact bad legislation.

So you're denying these islanders have a society of their own?

They do have a society of their own, but another society's government protects it at the cost of its own society.

That exclusion zone is there to protect their society, it is put there by the Indian government working on behalf of the Indian people. The Indian government forefits no more rights of it's citizens then do the American government when they shoot people for tresspassing on a military base, or on whitehouse property.

Military bases are used to facilitate the protection of the rights of the members of this society. I pay for them, I have a partial say in how they are run.

This exclusion zone is used to facilitate the protection of the rights of the members of another society. The citizens of India pay for them in money and sometimes their lives, and they have absolutely no say in how they operate.

That's been covered.
The government jurisdiction they fall under says they can.
The government jurisdiction you fall under does now say you can.

You want to kill people who come near your land, talk to your government jurisdiction about it.

Would you defend my right to shoot anyone who went down my street if the government gave it to me? What if you lived near my street?

The first and third don't seem to touch on their behavior towards newcomers, and the second validates the idea that the Sentenalis usually are the first to attack.

Even if they are the first to attack, does that negate their right to defend their land, which they apparently see as soviergn to them?



So if the US Government gave me the right, you would be ok with that? Yea. Since the US government has no say in my area, and neither would you have that right in my area, it wouldn't make a difference to me.



There is a difference between people governing themselves and democracy, but that is a different thread.

What I support is giving people as little ability at governing others as possible, just in case they did inact bad legislation.

And now you go against what you're saying. You're saying normally that we should go in and impose our governing on these other people, yet you just said you think we shouldn't govern others.



They do have a society of their own, but another society's government protects it at the cost of its own society.
Looks to me like their own society protects itself, and the Indian society recognises their right to do so.



Military bases are used to facilitate the protection of the rights of the members of this society. I pay for them, I have a partial say in how they are run.

This exclusion zone is used to facilitate the protection of the rights of the members of another society. The citizens of India pay for them in money and sometimes their lives, and they have absolutely no say in how they operate.
This exclusion zone seems set up to protect the Indian people, it also has that side effect of protecting the people on the island. If these fishermen were too stupid to violate it, then they deserve their fate just as someone who walks into an armed forces base without permission deserves what happens to them.

Would you defend my right to shoot anyone who went down my street if the government gave it to me? What if you lived near my street?
Since I don't live on your street, nor your country, this doesn't apply. And if I did decide to move there or visit I would be fully accecpting the possibility of getting killed by making that decsion.

OMG. I could go there and be like, a god :D

And when you start killing people, it's your own fault and you deserve to be retaliated against.

It is the fault of the people who killed him, and they should be held responsible. A few dozen dead on the island should make the point perfectly clear, and hopefull their deaths would deter others from making such a stupid mistake.
I just love your faulty logic.

You will go to their island to apprehend the two or three that killed the fishermen, knowing full well that you will have to kill "a few dozen" to make the "point perfectly clear" that it is wrong to kill.

Ahh the wonders of democratic thinking. You made me laugh. :eek:

And then justice will be served and mankind will have moved inexplicably forward somehow?

Then you should have every right to walk into an armed forces base, and whoever tries to shoot at you for doing so regardless of what posted rules say, will be held accountable and punished for it... in your world.
Go into your world, walk into a forces base, see if that happens, then come back and we can apply your failed reasoning to the real world.
I've walked on a military base before and *pats self* I don't appear to have any holes. You see, in the real world, people have to ask questions before they shoot; they don't just have carte blanche to unload rounds everywhere because they happen to be wearing the right shade of camo.
I've even walked within 20 yards (Z0MG! 1 R 73H 5H4LL0W W4LK3R!!!) of a military base without proper identification/escort without being shot.
Of course, maybe I'm being to hard on you. You might have been raised in a totalitarian society where government workers are allowed to just blow people away without consequence because they happen to be upset. Maybe your homeland doesn't have things like "man-slaughter", "conduct unbecoming" or "military tribunals"

They do have a society of their own, but another society's government protects it at the cost of its own society.

a negligible cost to its own society. especially compared to the genocide that doing anything else would cause.

I've walked on a military base before and *pats self* I don't appear to have any holes. You see, in the real world, people have to ask questions before they shoot; they don't just have carte blanche to unload rounds everywhere because they happen to be wearing the right shade of camo.
I've even walked within 20 yards (Z0MG! 1 R 73H 5H4LL0W W4LK3R!!!) of a military base without proper identification/escort without being shot.
Of course, maybe I'm being to hard on you. You might have been raised in a totalitarian society where government workers are allowed to just blow people away without consequence because they happen to be upset. Maybe your homeland doesn't have things like "man-slaughter", "conduct unbecoming" or "military tribunals"

Oh my you walked within 20 yards of a military base. Right after saying you walked on a military base, which is it?
That's funny, I thought I made it clear that you had to be on the military base itself without permission they can and may shoot you. All three of the armed forces bases in my area have signs on the fences saying "No Unauthorized Access", "Tresspassers may be fired upon without warning" and "Use of Lethal Force is Authorised".

I'm glad you live in a society that doesn't protect it's defensive assets, if anyone decides to invade you it will be easier for them.

I just love your faulty logic.

You will go to their island to apprehend the two or three that killed the fishermen, knowing full well that you will have to kill "a few dozen" to make the "point perfectly clear" that it is wrong to kill.
It appears to have been an act of the entire tribe, in which case the tribe is at fault.
However, the bulk of that statement was designed to parody the sentiments of the person I was responding to. After all, if the people deserved to die just because they crossed an invisible line then the islanders deserve to have some random death because they crossed a metaphorical line.
And if the islanders resisted an attempt to arrest the wrong doers, then they would have to die. They started this matter: by attacking the boaters they brought violence into the equation. The violence must be resolved by bring the violent to justice.

Oh my you walked within 20 yards of a military base. Right after saying you walked on a military base, which is it?
That's funny, I thought I made it clear that you had to be on the military base itself without permission they can and may shoot you. All three of the armed forces bases in my area have signs on the fences saying "No Unauthorized Access", "Tresspassers may be fired upon without warning" and "Use of Lethal Force is Authorised".

I'm glad you live in a society that doesn't protect it's defensive assets, if anyone decides to invade you it will be easier for them.

Let me be the first to say, Shut Up Please!

Even if they are the first to attack, does that negate their right to defend their land, which they apparently see as soviergn to them?

They should at least be expected to make discernable judgements, rather than charging out of the forest and attacking any human that comes near shore.

And now you go against what you're saying. You're saying normally that we should go in and impose our governing on these other people, yet you just said you think we shouldn't govern others.

I don't care how those people govern themselves, up to the point where they become dangerous to me. Self-governance comes with responsibility, and these villagers don't appear to have any.

Looks to me like their own society protects itself, and the Indian society recognises their right to do so.

Once again, self-governance comes with responsibility. India on one hand gives them the right to protect their own society, yet on the other hand completely acknowledges that they will not do it responsibly.

Since I don't live on your street, nor your country, this doesn't apply. And if I did decide to move there or visit I would be fully accecpting the possibility of getting killed by making that decsion.

You really believe that, since government gives me the right, I am justified in shooting anyone walking down my street?




And tell me this:

How does this situation differ from terrorists kidnapping and decapitating Western journalists?

a negligible cost to its own society. especially compared to the genocide that doing anything else would cause.

A tremendous cost to those fisherman and their families.

Oh my you walked within 20 yards of a military base. Right after saying you walked on a military base, which is it?
Perhaps I have done both at different times? People don't run from one town to the next all the time, sometimes someone stays in an area for awhile. Maybe they go to a place one day, and then a week later they could walk within a couple dozen yards of it?
That's funny, I thought I made it clear that you had to be on the military base itself without permission they can and may shoot you. All three of the armed forces bases in my area have signs on the fences saying "No Unauthorized Access", "Tresspassers may be fired upon without warning" and "Use of Lethal Force is Authorised".
Can and Will are different things. That is why we have different words for them, follow me so far?
And in a civilized society, you don't do all that you can do, because having civilian blood on your hands is a bad thing. If they just shot everyone, without asking questions, they'd end up killing quite a few of their own (not everyone on a base recognizes each other by sight).
Instead, the signs are up to cover themselves if they need to kill someone without asking questions or making a peaceful attempt at detaining them.
I'm glad you live in a society that doesn't protect it's defensive assets, if anyone decides to invade you it will be easier for them.
So you really feel that the only two options are a paranoid, wild west style, "shoot first, don't worry about the questions" form of rabid xenophobia or simply rolling over for everyone? There are degrees in between, degrees of restraint and civility that allow us to get by in the world without killing everyone.

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

And I might not. Apparently they attack any vessel under innocent passage. If the indian government refuses to deal with this, then any nation has jurisdiction.

Unless you want to argue that the holocaust was perfectly legal. :rolleyes:

Oh my you walked within 20 yards of a military base. Right after saying you walked on a military base, which is it?
That's funny, I thought I made it clear that you had to be on the military base itself without permission they can and may shoot you. All three of the armed forces bases in my area have signs on the fences saying "No Unauthorized Access", "Tresspassers may be fired upon without warning" and "Use of Lethal Force is Authorised".

I'm glad you live in a society that doesn't protect it's defensive assets, if anyone decides to invade you it will be easier for them.
Fiddlebottoms, where exactly do you live? I have some contacts with a few arms smuggl... err... arms dealers, and I think they'd be interested in contacting you. :D

Unless you want to argue that the holocaust was perfectly legal. :rolleyes:

At least I didn't make that comparison.....yet.

They should at least be expected to make discernable judgements, rather than charging out of the forest and attacking any human that comes near shore.
And that is a lesson they will learn themselves through time if we continue to be nice to them and let experts attempt contact. If we run in guns blazing what lesson does that tell them, that's it's expected to react to everything with viloence?



I don't care how those people govern themselves, up to the point where they become dangerous to me. Self-governance comes with responsibility, and these villagers don't appear to have any.

Firstly, you're contradicting yourself, since you apparently care how these villagers handled their situation.
And I think the fact that they still exist is enoug proof that they are responable enough to take care of thereselves. Those fishermen however, apparently arn't.


Once again, self-governance comes with responsibility. India on one hand gives them the right to protect their own society, yet on the other hand completely acknowledges that they will not do it responsibly.
Just as, apparently, every country in the world save the US and Canada acknowledge the right or every other country to self govern, but believes they will not do so responsably. How is this a point?

* Note: I mention the US and Canada because of their longest undefended border, thus they must each recognise that the other has the responsability.



You really believe that, since government gives me the right, I am justified in shooting anyone walking down my street?
If your government gave you that right sure.
Now in the real world, will your government give you that right? Because I doubt so.




And tell me this:

How does this situation differ from terrorists kidnapping and decapitating Western journalists?
Arn't these terrorists acting illegally in the nations they act in to begin with? Thus making their actions illegal regardless.
If they're acting within their own soviergn state and laws, and those western journalists entered that area and were kidnapped and decapitated there, then there is no difference and it is the fault of the journalist for entering.
Journalists know the danger they may be getting into when they travel to certian places, and they accecpt that danger and that they may be killed.

At least I didn't make that comparison.....yet.

Piracy is a big no-no, like genocide. It doesn't get excused because a nation-state decides to permit it under their own laws.

Ships have the right of innocent passage through territorial waters.

And I might not. Apparently they attack any vessel under innocent passage. If the indian government refuses to deal with this, then any nation has jurisdiction.

India has delt with it, they put an exclusion zone around the island.
Innocent passage that enters any territorial water may be attacked by the country that it's approaching, it's international law. That's why ships moving around like that have radios and plan their voyage with permission from the countries who's whaters they may enter.

Piracy is a big no-no, like genocide. It doesn't get excused because a nation-state decides to permit it under their own laws.

Ships have the right of innocent passage through territorial waters.
But the fishermen were fishing, not just passing. Actually, they were poaching, not fishing.

Ships have the right of innocent passage through territorial waters.

Through territorial waters that they have been granted access to. Protected zones, exclusion zones, and the likes are not applied here.
You have every right to sail your boat around an area, if you try to enter a harbour without permission you're porbably breaking the law of the harbour authorities, and thus a criminal.

A tremendous cost to those fisherman and their families.

meh. they knew the risks.

meh. they knew the risks.
I'm recording this moment, FS, as I believe it will be the only time I ever see you advocate anything like private property rights or nationalism.

It appears to have been an act of the entire tribe, in which case the tribe is at fault.
Oh, now it appears that the whole tribe is guilty? Might just as well carpet bomb the whole island and then there won't be any more unfortunate deaths of drunken fishermen and there won't be any possibility of invading soldiers getting killed?

There ya go, judge, jury and executioner all in one neat "civilized" package.

Modern man has evolved so well. :rolleyes:

India has delt with it, they put an exclusion zone around the island.
Innocent passage that enters any territorial water may be attacked by the country that it's approaching, it's international law. That's why ships moving around like that have radios and plan their voyage with permission from the countries who's whaters they may enter.

So a nation can just declare an exclusion zone, and allow pirates to operate in its territorial waters? I think not.

In any event, ships of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters, subject to some millitary provisions. I am not aware of any subsection that allows the establishment of permanent exclusions zones that supercede this right.

Oh, now it appears that the whole tribe is guilty? Might just as well carpet bomb the whole island and then there won't be any more unfortunate deaths of drunken fishermen and there won't be any possibility of invading soldiers getting killed?

There ya go, judge, jury and executioner all in one neat "civilized" package.

Modern man has evolved so well. :rolleyes:
So, you mean it is wrong to kill people over an accident in geography? That maybe you should think or ask questions before simply opening fire on someone based on their current location?
I wonder why no one else on this thread has thought of that.

And that is a lesson they will learn themselves through time if we continue to be nice to them and let experts attempt contact. If we run in guns blazing what lesson does that tell them, that's it's expected to react to everything with viloence?

The only reason that this society of people remains is due to four factors:

1. The island does not have much to offer.
2. The island is surrounded by a dense reef.
3. The original colonists and anthropologists originally made every effort to be friendly to avoid another Tasmania (albeit colonial friendliness is everything but)
4. They have been protected as a nature reserve since the 1960s.

And even through 30 years of repeated friendly visits they remain as hostile as they ever were.

Firstly, you're contradicting yourself, since you apparently care how these villagers handled their situation.

There was a very important clause in there, try reading it again and see if you can pick it up.

And I think the fact that they still exist is enoug proof that they are responable enough to take care of thereselves. Those fishermen however, apparently arn't.

See above.

Just as, apparently, every country in the world save the US and Canada acknowledge the right or every other country to self govern, but believes they will not do so responsably. How is this a point?

* Note: I mention the US and Canada because of their longest undefended border, thus they must each recognise that the other has the responsability.

Name one country that shoots anyone who comes within eyesight of their shore or border.

If your government gave you that right sure.
Now in the real world, will your government give you that right? Because I doubt so.

I don't believe that first sentence, but I will humor you.

Explain why you doubt the government will give me that right.

Arn't these terrorists acting illegally in the nations they act in to begin with? Thus making their actions illegal regardless.

I am questioning whether the actions of the villagers should be legally sanctioned by India, and your main argument so far is "It is ok, because India says its legal."

If they're acting within their own soviergn state and laws, and those western journalists entered that area and were kidnapped and decapitated there, then there is no difference and it is the fault of the journalist for entering.
Journalists know the danger they may be getting into when they travel to certian places, and they accecpt that danger and that they may be killed.

Are you serious?

We should condone the terrorists actions? Daniel Pearl should have been killed because he ignored the risks?

meh. they knew the risks.

The risk shouldn't be there in the first place. That is what I have been saying all along.

You are saying that India should perpetuate the risk of more innocent people dieing, in order to protect this violent culture of 50-200 people.

So a nation can just declare an exclusion zone, and allow pirates to operate in its territorial waters? I think not.

In any event, ships of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters, subject to some millitary provisions. I am not aware of any subsection that allows the establishment of permanent exclusions zones that supercede this right.


Now you're making no sense.
Pirates allowed to opperate in a nations territorial waters are perfectly possible legally. Wether or not it happens is another story.
These islanders, are not by any definition, pirates.

A nation may do what it wants with it's territorial water. If it doesn't want people in it, it can fire on ships entering. If it wants to create a specific exclusion zone, then they can. And a number of exclusion zones exist in territorial waters and around areas, and for a number of reasons.

Now you're making no sense.
Pirates allowed to opperate in a nations territorial waters are perfectly possible legally. Wether or not it happens is another story.
These islanders, are not by any definition, pirates.

Ah, but they are not. Prevention of piracy is a non-derogable obligation under international law, as is slave trading. (For similar reasons). Further, these pirates waded out into the shallows and killed the crew of a boat under innocent passage. (Arguably their illegal mud crab fishing might jepordize that status, but as the islanders are not aware of that, and nor are they acting under the color of law, that's really a seperate issue.) So they are clearly pirates

A nation may do what it wants with it's territorial water. If it doesn't want people in it, it can fire on ships entering. If it wants to create a specific exclusion zone, then they can. And a number of exclusion zones exist in territorial waters and around areas, and for a number of reasons.

No, they can't. Not if they are a signatory to UNCLOS. Which india is. Exclusion zone doesn't mean that.

The only reason that this society of people remains is due to four factors:

1. The island does not have much to offer.
2. The island is surrounded by a dense reef.
3. The original colonists and anthropologists originally made every effort to be friendly to avoid another Tasmania (albeit colonial friendliness is everything but)
4. They have been protected as a nature reserve since the 1960s.

You forget the fact that the didn't kill themselves off yet. Even though you seem to regard them as entirely viloent and irresponsible with that viloence.

And even through 30 years of repeated friendly visits they remain as hostile as they ever were.

I count less then a decade of freindly visits. Thirty years of contact, accidental or not, that may or may not have been freindly.

There was a very important clause in there, try reading it again and see if you can pick it up.

I did, and these people in no way effect you do they?


Name one country that shoots anyone who comes within eyesight of their shore or border.
North Korea.
Most countries find it more of a better idea to take said people prisoner and use them to negotiate. These islanders obviously have no wish to negotiate, or interest in taking prisoners.

I don't believe that first sentence, but I will humor you.
And you have every right not to believe that sentence.

Explain why you doubt the government will give me that right.
Because the other people living on your street would object, since it threatens their lives. And, as I understand you're American, in which case do you not have the legal right to shoot people for tresspassing? That is the same as here, as the exclusion zone is technically their property in the eyes of the Indians.



I am questioning whether the actions of the villagers should be legally sanctioned by India, and your main argument so far is "It is ok, because India says its legal."
And that is really all that matters, since the Indian government has already sanctioned that area as protected. If it were the opposite then the logic could be applied to say there are no laws, no freedoms, and no property, and then we'll see what happens to civilization.



Are you serious?
Yes.

We should condone the terrorists actions? Daniel Pearl should have been killed because he ignored the risks?
Who said condone?
I said they are well within their rights to do so under the situation I mentioned, and reporters who go to such places accept those risks. Wether or not the actions following are condoned is irrelivent as we have no right to encroach on their soviergnty just to impose our values on them.

Ah, but they are not. Prevention of piracy is a non-derogable obligation under international law, as is slave trading. (For similar reasons). Further, these pirates waded out into the shallows and killed the crew of a boat under innocent passage. (Arguably their illegal mud crab fishing might jepordize that status, but as the islanders are not aware of that, and nor are they acting under the color of law, that's really a seperate issue.) So they are clearly pirates
You still havn't told me how these islanders are prates. Your explination rests on nothing except that they killed people trespassin on their territory and are thus pirates. No matte how freindly you are, you will not be alowed into another nations water without permission. Wether or not they kill you for it is their decsion, but you will be stopped and charged/ticketed/whatever they do. Otherwise, maratime patrol doesn't exist, the US Coast Gaurd is just a fancy yatch club, and pirates rule the seas.
Secondly, these islanders have boats, they didn't have to wade.



No, they can't. Not if they are a signatory to UNCLOS. Which india is. Exclusion zone doesn't mean that.
Remember that by signing into such an agreement a nation is only agreeing to abide by the organization they sign into. This does not mean they will abide by it, and it does not mean that organization (Especially not the US) has any ability to enforce that.

So, you mean it is wrong to kill people over an accident in geography?
So now these people are an accident of geography? Were the people of Fallujah and Qaim also accidents of geography and deserve to die because they want to protect their country/land from unwanted invaders?

That maybe you should think or ask questions before simply opening fire on someone based on their current location? I wonder why no one else on this thread has thought of that.
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here?

And even through 30 years of repeated friendly visits they remain as hostile as they ever were.BUt how can you know that all visits have been friendly? We have found out that people were poaching in their waters only because they have managed to kill the poachers, but who knows how many times "unfriendly" people have visited their island? As far as they are concerned, they see that sometimes the visitors are friendly and sometimes they are not. In these conditions, better safe than sorry.

The risk shouldn't be there in the first place. That is what I have been saying all along.

You are saying that India should perpetuate the risk of more innocent people dieing, in order to protect this violent culture of 50-200 people.
I would be bothered if the Fishermen were innocent, however if you read the article you would know that they were Poachers as in BREAKING THE LAW.

And even through 30 years of repeated friendly visits they remain as hostile as they ever were.
Friendly visits?

From the linked article:

In the 1980s and early 1990s many Sentinelese were killed in skirmishes with armed salvage operators who visited the island after a shipwreck.

Sounds kind of hostile to me.

You still havn't told me how these islanders are prates. Your explination rests on nothing except that they killed people trespassin on their territory and are thus pirates. No matte how freindly you are, you will not be alowed into another nations water without permission. Wether or not they kill you for it is their decsion, but you will be stopped and charged/ticketed/whatever they do. Otherwise, maratime patrol doesn't exist, the US Coast Gaurd is just a fancy yatch club, and pirates rule the seas.
Secondly, these islanders have boats, they didn't have to wade.

It's not the tribe's water. They are not soveriegn. They are barely anything - except possibly cannibals. And yes, you are allowed through another nation's territorial waters, without permission. You are not, of course allowed into the internal waterways, and esturies, but that isn't the case here.

They are pirates because the commited an act of piracy.



Remember that by signing into such an agreement a nation is only agreeing to abide by the organization they sign into. This does not mean they will abide by it, and it does not mean that organization (Especially not the US) has any ability to enforce that.

It's a multi-lateral treaty. Of course you have to abide by it. Failure to do so is a violation of international law. Obviously.

Unless of course you are taking the position that soveriegnty trumps international law. In which case we are talking at cross-purposes.

The risk shouldn't be there in the first place. That is what I have been saying all along.

You are saying that India should perpetuate the risk of more innocent people dieing, in order to protect this violent culture of 50-200 people.

And you are arguing that an entire culture should be killed off in order to accomodate the needs of drunken illegal fishermen.

You are saying that India should perpetuate the risk of more innocent people dieing, in order to protect this violent culture of 50-200 people.

yes i am. proudly.

I would be bothered if the Fishermen were innocent, however if you read the article you would know that they were Poachers as in BREAKING THE LAW.

I gather you are a staunch advocate of the death penalty then?

Ummm... so, I've seen a lot of people somehow trying to relate this ancient civilization to modern day laws and I have to say it...
ARE YOU FRIGGIN' RETARDS!?

How damn civilized do you think OUR ancestors were in that same era of technology!? And they didn't have Magical flying devices that come with great thunderous roar coming down upon them! They didn't have armed men shooting their people to death with projectiles they could not see, from weapons that must appear devilish to them!
I completely agree with anyone who has sided with leaving this culture alone, and intact. I'm not convinced any of us 'modern' countries have even figured out what's best for ourselves yet, nevermind a civilization that we can't understand.

And you are arguing that an entire culture should be killed off in order to accomodate the needs of drunken illegal fishermen.

precisely. it comes down to a choice between leaving them free and independent or committing genocide. i'll take the occassional death of people violating the exclusion zone, thanks.

You are saying that India should perpetuate the risk of more innocent people dieing, in order to protect this violent culture of 50-200 people.

Who are you to decide why they're violent?
Maybe the world should step up and wipe out America because they're violent and have nuclear weapons.
Maybe China should be destroyed for lack of humanitarian rights?
Maybe Africa should be obliterated because their diseases threaten the rest of humanity?

Killing off civilizations is an evil act. Period. Don't play god.

It's not the tribe's water. They are not soveriegn. They are barely anything - except possibly cannibals. And yes, you are allowed through another nation's territorial waters, without permission. You are not, of course allowed into the internal waterways, and esturies, but that isn't the case here.

They are pirates because the commited an act of piracy.




It's a multi-lateral treaty. Of course you have to abide by it. Failure to do so is a violation of international law. Obviously.

Unless of course you are taking the position that soveriegnty trumps international law. In which case we are talking at cross-purposes.

I hate to keep pointing this out. But the UN Law of the Sea does not contradict this exclusion zone.
In fact, according to the law, it's applicable to international exclusion zones. Article 21 directly supports this islands exclusion zone. As does Article 19.

Secondly, the law refers to territorial waters, those considered soviergn property, as internal waters, in which it states that innocent passage does not apply without permission from the nation in question.

These people and their actions are not against international law at all. Unless you care to find me other sources.

EDIT: Furthermore, international law states that the fishermen were in the wrong to begin with, and thus exemptions of innocent passage do not apply.
Of course, as they are within their territorial waters such rights do not apply anyway. Inside your own waters you are subject to the laws of your nation, international laws of the sea only apply to international travellers.

I hate to keep pointing this out. But the UN Law of the Sea does not contradict this exclusion zone.
In fact, according to the law, it's applicable to international exclusion zones. Article 21 directly supports this islands exclusion zone. As does Article 19.

Secondly, the law refers to territorial waters, those considered soviergn property, as internal waters, in which it states that innocent passage does not apply without permission from the nation in question.

These people and their actions are not against international law at all. Unless you care to find me other sources.

Those exclusion zones do not prevent passage, simply millitary transit and exploitation of resources.

What india has done here is establish a 'total exclusion zone', which can only be done as part of an emergency, or during war.

It's state sponsored piracy.

Those exclusion zones do not prevent passage, simply millitary transit and exploitation of resources.

What india has done here is establish a 'total exclusion zone', which can only be done as part of an emergency, or during war.

It's state sponsored piracy.

No, they prevent passage. It says they prevent passage and use of the waterways to shipping, no where does it specify military or exploitation of resources.
Secondly, India has established a total exclusion zone for the protection of a culture in according with the laws of India, fully within the UN's laws.

You're still unable to definitivly tell me why they're pirates. You just keep saying they are.

For your convienence, here are Articles 19 and 12 of the UJ Laws of the sea in their full.

Article19

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article21

Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage


1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic;

(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations;

(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;

(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea;

(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof;

(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys;

(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State.

2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards.

3. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.

Nothing seems contrary to support of these islanders recieving an exclusion zone. The exclusion zone you're citing, is Article 25.

Article25

Rights of protection of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.

3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

And Article 25 does not apply here, in fact it further supports it, if you see part 2.

No, they prevent passage. It says they prevent passage and use of the waterways to shipping, no where does it specify military or exploitation of resources.
Secondly, India has established a total exclusion zone for the protection of a culture in according with the laws of India, fully within the UN's laws.

You're still unable to definitivly tell me why they're pirates. You just keep saying they are.

Article 17 gives the right of ships of all states innocent passage through territorial waters. Subject to the priviso of 18,19,21.

Boarding another vessel and killing and eating the crew is an act of piracy.

Edit: 19 is the definition of innocent passage, which this was. And nothing in 21 is applicable in the instant case. Ergo the ship should enjoy full protection.

Further, if you notice, article 25, allowing the establishment of total exclusion zones, only allows said zones of a temporary nature. It's quite clear that this zone is not temporary, not is it established within the framework of 25, therefore it cannot be legally recognized.

However, this is getting no-where, so I suggest we agree to differ.

I completely agree with anyone who has sided with leaving this culture alone, and intact.
I totally concur.

I'm not convinced any of us 'modern' countries have even figured out what's best for ourselves yet, nevermind a civilization that we can't understand.
Given the statements of the posters on the other side of this debate, I would have to agree with you.

Article 17 gives the right of ships of all states innocent passage through territorial waters. Subject to the priviso of 18,19,21.

Boarding another vessel and killing and eating the crew is an act of piracy.

The islanders have not boarded another vessle.
The islanders have not eaten their crews, reports of cannibalisim is false, reread the news article and the resources on this tribe and you'll see that.
Killing the crew within such an exclusion zone does not constitute an act of piracy because part of the exclusion zone's point of being is that people may be killed entering it, and thus those who enter it forefit their lives to this possibility.

And you are arguing that an entire culture should be killed off in order to accomodate the needs of drunken illegal fishermen.

First off, this is not about the fishermen, this is about a dangerous group of villagers who will attempt to kill anyone they can who gets near their island.

Secondly, why is it important to protect their culture?

The islanders have not boarded another vessle.
The islanders have not eaten their crews, reports of cannibalisim is false, reread the news article and the resources on this tribe and you'll see that.
Killing the crew within such an exclusion zone does not constitute an act of piracy because part of the exclusion zone's point of being is that people may be killed entering it, and thus those who enter it forefit their lives to this possibility.

They attacked the vessel in the shallows. They must therefore have boarded it. Further, they are paleolithic sedentary mixed hunter-gather/food producers. Most cultures like that are cannibals. There was a recent article in National geographic - I think - about that. Most primative cultures are.

And as I said, you can't just go around declaring permanent total exclusion zones.

Secondly, why is it important to protect their culture?


Because cultures are rich and part of human society. If we leave them alone generally and let experts work on contact, as they were trying, under controlled and well planned conditions, then we may even be able to study them and learn more about how our cultures evolved, and thus learn more about ourselves.

And what will be the end result after these 21 pages of debate?

My guess is that the Indian government will not act against the natives and the only thing that will probably happen is an attempt to recover the bodies:

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."

End of story and end of the dramatics.

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.
What about the 3 MILE EXCLUSION ZONE?

Who are you to decide why they're violent?

You must not have read anything about these people.

Maybe the world should step up and wipe out America because they're violent and have nuclear weapons.

Would you stop America from preemptive strikes if you could?

Maybe China should be destroyed for lack of humanitarian rights?
Maybe Africa should be obliterated because their diseases threaten the rest of humanity?

China and African nations are rational to varying degrees, and will negotiate. Any attempt at communication with the Sentenalese is met with a hail of arrows.

Killing off civilizations is an evil act. Period. Don't play god.

If these were rational people, there would be no need for killing them off.

First off, this is not about the fishermen, this is about a dangerous group of villagers who will attempt to kill anyone they can who gets near their island.

Secondly, why is it important to protect their culture?

That's it. Where are you from? I'm going to get a petition going to invade and kill you and 50-200 people you know, because you're advocating killing people for the reason that they kill people.
Hmm... then I suppose someone would have to kill me and 50-200 people I know...
and so on and so forth. Killing people "just cuz they're violent" isn't any kind of realistic solution.
These people offer us a modern day window into our own pre-historic past. I think it's facinating that they've managed to remain (relatively) untouched by modern civilization.
I can't even imagine what sort of rationalizations they've come up with for the strange invaders that periodically come to their shores...

They attacked the vessel in the shallows. They must therefore have boarded it. Further, they are paleolithic sedentary mixed hunter-gather/food producers. Most cultures like that are cannibals. There was a recent article in National geographic - I think - about that. Most primative cultures are.

And as I said, you can't just go around declaring permanent total exclusion zones.


Nice racist generalisation of yours. They've already been proven not cannibals, in fact the news article in the origonal post stated it.
Secondly, no such article exists unless it's a hundred years old. Ask any anthropologist and they'll tell you different.
Thirdly, read the article, since it's obvious that you havn't now, and you'll notice that these fishermen were in an open topped boat, and since these islanders have a tendency to use bows and arrows, I don't see it as very hard to kill them and let them drift ashore without boarding them.
Furthermore they have boats to, they could verywell have sailed out near it and killed them (Although unlikey since it was in the shallows, and why sail or get wet when you have longer range weapons then knives?)

And finally, this is not a perminant exclusion zone, it is temporary for as long as the tribe on the island decides it does not want to interact with the outside world, however long that takes. Even so, if it were a permenent exclusion zone, it would be completely legal because of the island and it's inhabitants status in regards to Indian law.

Cultural diversity is also essential to the long-term survival of the species. A single culture is always at risk if some essential resource gives out, characteristic of its environment changes. etc. Where one culture might fail, however, another might survive if it is not as dependent on that factor.

That's it. Where are you from? I'm going to get a petition going to invade and kill you and 50-200 people you know, because you're advocating killing people for the reason that they kill people.
Hmm... then I suppose someone would have to kill me and 50-200 people I know...
and so on and so forth. Killing people "just cuz they're violent" isn't any kind of realistic solution.
These people offer us a modern day window into our own pre-historic past. I think it's facinating that they've managed to remain (relatively) untouched by modern civilization.
I can't even imagine what sort of rationalizations they've come up with for the strange invaders that periodically come to their shores...

I am for stopping a danger to society. I don't want to kill them off, unfortunately these people won't have it any other way.

I am for stopping a danger to society. I don't want to kill them off, unfortunately these people won't have it any other way.

They do not represent a serious threat to our society. We, on the other hand, represent a serious threat to theirs.

Vittos Ordination2
We've only been trying to communicate with these people recently. Communication with China at first, and with many African tribes took a long time even using colonial and warlike tactics. Come back in 50 years after anthropologists have had a chance to try, maybe then they'll be more freindly. Your entire idea is that we must wipe them out now because we're impaitent. These things take time, always will take time and always have.

You must not have read anything about these people.

And you're giving me the feeling you've never read anything about ancient history.

Would you stop America from preemptive strikes if you could?

That would depend on their reason for attacking. If they were being faced with an invasion from an unknown threat, I could see why they'd want to take up arms. If they're making up threats and chasing ghosts with false intel, you're damn right I'd want to stop them.

China and African nations are rational to varying degrees, and will negotiate. Any attempt at communication with the Sentenalese is met with a hail of arrows.

So stay away from them. It's not like they have WMD's that are a threat to anyone. So long as you stay away, they can't hurt you, and everyone's happy.
Can we PLEASE try to remember that this is not a modern nation, so communication is going to be ridiculously hard to start with? If they're as ancient as has been posted, breaching the language barrier at all would be nearly impossible, let alone negotiation. Is it their fault these strangers from mysterious outside lands come and terrify them? People fear what they don't know. That's evidenced every day.

If these were rational people, there would be no need for killing them off.

There's no need to kill them off just because they don't reason in the same way you do.
I will never advocate genocide, ESPECIALLY when it's completely avoidable by something as simple as leaving the people alone, because they can't pose any real threat to us.

Vittos Ordination2
We've only been trying to communicate with these people recently. Communication with China at first, and with many African tribes took a long time even using colonial and warlike tactics. Come back in 50 years after anthropologists have had a chance to try, maybe then they'll be more freindly. Your entire idea is that we must wipe them out now because we're impaitent. These things take time, always will take time and always have.

Why not just leave them alone altogether. They are clearly not interested in contact with the outside world. Quite frankly, I don't blame them. Why do they need to serve some purpose for us? Why not just let them be?

Nice racist generalisation of yours. They've already been proven not cannibals, in fact the news article in the origonal post stated it.
Secondly, no such article exists unless it's a hundred years old. Ask any anthropologist and they'll tell you different.
Thirdly, read the article, since it's obvious that you havn't now, and you'll notice that these fishermen were in an open topped boat, and since these islanders have a tendency to use bows and arrows, I don't see it as very hard to kill them and let them drift ashore without boarding them.
Furthermore they have boats to, they could verywell have sailed out near it and killed them (Although unlikey since it was in the shallows, and why sail or get wet when you have longer range weapons then knives?)

And finally, this is not a perminant exclusion zone, it is temporary for as long as the tribe on the island decides it does not want to interact with the outside world, however long that takes. Even so, if it were a permenent exclusion zone, it would be completely legal because of the island and it's inhabitants status in regards to Indian law.

It's quite well established that cultures like this are cannibalistic. It has nothing to do with racism. I have cannibals in my ancestry. Indeed, cannibalism is still widespread today. Race has nothing to do with it.

In all likehood, the reason why the bodies had not been consumed totally is that there is probably some ritualistic aspect, wherein only certain parts are consumed, for example the heart. It's really beyond contention.

You'll be saying that human sacrifice is another myth next.

Further, whether they killed the crew and then boarded the boat, or boarded the boat and then killed them is irrelevant. The salient fact is that the crew was killed, and the vessel seized. That is pretty much the sine-qua-non of piracy.

As to the exclusion zone, of course it is permenant. And as I pointed out, nor was it established within the framework that allows such zones. So it's a moot point anyway.

Cultural diversity is also essential to the long-term survival of the species. A single culture is always at risk if some essential resource gives out, characteristic of its environment changes. etc. Where one culture might fail, however, another might survive if it is not as dependent on that factor.

I cannot conceive of any possible circumstances under which this so-called culture holds the key to the survival of the human race.

If these were rational people, there would be no need for killing them off.
Wow, such a profound statement from someone who has all the comforts of modern civilization, including a computer, whereby you get to type such drivel.

I am certain that you would be able to rationalize and negotiate with these people about all the benefits of modern society. And if they don't see it your way, just kill them all off and the world will be so much better for it?

If they're as ancient as has been posted, breaching the language barrier at all would be nearly impossible, let alone negotiation.


I just wanted to make a side note. This isn't that true. Any language used by humans can be understood and replicated by humans. As these are humans, their language can be deciphered, learned, and used.
And, for am Anthropological Linguist trained in such things, it wouldn't take very long. Two weeks and you could easily understand eachother. A year, you could be fluent in their language, if you know how to approach it.

I cannot conceive of any possible circumstances under which this so-called culture holds the key to the survival of the human race.

Your own inability to conceive of it doesn't mean it might not be the case. They could, for example, have knowledge of certain medicinal properties of plants that might be essential to fighting certain diseases.

It's also noteworthy that the Pitcairn islanders were not afforded such leeway.

It's quite well established that cultures like this are cannibalistic. It has nothing to do with racism. I have cannibals in my ancestry. Indeed, cannibalism is still widespread today. Race has nothing to do with it.

In all likehood, the reason why the bodies had not been consumed totally is that there is probably some ritualistic aspect, wherein only certain parts are consumed, for example the heart. It's really beyond contention.

Your assumptions go against my anthropology books, my studies in ancinent cultures, and common sense. Stop with the drivle and present facts to back it up.

You'll be saying that human sacrifice is another myth next.
That entirely depends on the culture. Human sacrafice by, say, the Taino culture, is a myth, but by the Inca it is not.

Further, whether they killed the crew and then boarded the boat, or boarded the boat and then killed them is irrelevant. The salient fact is that the crew was killed, and the vessel seized. That is pretty much the sine-qua-non of piracy.
Then any nation who kills the crew of a ship, regardless of the circumstances, is a pirate nation. Therefore, all nations with a navy are pirate nations because they've all done it.

As to the exclusion zone, of course it is permenant. And as I pointed out, nor was it established within the framework that allows such zones. So it's a moot point anyway.

You didn't point anything out. You havn't cited a single part of the UN Law of the Sea that supports your argument, all you've done is say you're right.
Start citing things to support this or I'll just stop bothering with you and move to people who are willing to deal with reason for their arguments.

It's also noteworthy that the Pitcairn islanders were not afforded such leeway.

The castaways or the original polynesian inhabitants of the island?

It's also noteworthy that the Pitcairn islanders were not afforded such leeway.


The Pitcarin islanders were dead and gone when more modern civilizations got there. They couldn't have been afforded such leeway because they were not there.

Your assumptions go against my anthropology books, my studies in ancinent cultures, and common sense. Stop with the drivle and present facts to back it up.

Your anthropology books are at variance with genetic evidence. Canibalism (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030411071024.htm)


Then any nation who kills the crew of a ship, regardless of the circumstances, is a pirate nation. Therefore, all nations with a navy are pirate nations because they've all done it.

No, because when navies do it, it is after a declaration of war, and under color of law. Further wanton killing of the crew is prohibted in these circumstances and there are protocols and laws surrounding surrender and treatment of prisoners. None of which apply to the islanders.

Further, if a national navy, which these islanders are not, simply opened fire without provocation on another vessel, then that would be illegal under international law, and in all probabilty, most likely piracy also.

Spain certainly considered it such.

You didn't point anything out. You havn't cited a single part of the UN Law of the Sea that supports your argument, all you've done is say you're right.
Start citing things to support this or I'll just stop bothering with you and move to people who are willing to deal with reason for their arguments.


Article 25. Rights of protection of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.

3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

Again, this was innocent passage, subsection 1 does not apply. Nor does 2, as it deals with internal waters.

The issue here is not related to the security of India, or weapons excercises.

Your anthropology books are at variance with genetic evidence. Canibalism (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030411071024.htm)

You're assuming a theory to be fact.
In fact, the article itself is stating that it's a theory, a possibility, may be the cause.
My anthropology books, classes, professors, are all basing their on documented cases. I'll take documented cases over theory any day.




No, because when navies do it, it is after a declaration of war, and under color of law. Further wanton killing of the crew is prohibted in these circumstances and there are protocols and laws surrounding surrender and treatment of prisoners. None of which apply to the islanders.
Declarations of war are not always made, remember.
And I would like to see these laws regarding the killing of the crew, otherwise you're just making assumptions.

Further, if a national navy, which these islanders are not, simply opened fire without provocation on another vessel, then that would be illegal under international law, and in all probabilty, most likely piracy also.

Who are you to tell that provocation had not previously existed? Read through this thread again, you'll find that many people from our outside world have actually shot at them and tried to kill them first, even in recent times. They have every right to be paranoid, and defending themselves. Unless you have not noticed, these people are within an area designated to them by India as their own. They have not signed an international treaty stating international laws, and are thus not subject to those laws. The moment they start killing people outside this exclusion zone, then they can be tried for it.



Again, this was innocent passage, subsection 1 does not apply. Nor does 2, as it deals with internal waters.

The issue here is not related to the security of India, or weapons excercises.
Innocent passage applies to international shipping. These fishermen were not international, they were national, thus innocent passage does not apply, nor does international law of the sea.
Furthermore, Article 19, subsection 1 agrees with their right to be in an exclusion zone, and the right for such an exclusion zone to exist, this is backed upby Article 21, subsection 2, parts G, I, J and L. Article 21, subsection 1 supports this, especially in relation to parts A, D, E, F and H.

Who are you to tell that provocation had not previously existed? Read through this thread again, you'll find that many people from our outside world have actually shot at them and tried to kill them first, even in recent times.
Not tried to kill them, they have killed them:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10402500&postcount=298

Again, this was innocent passage, subsection 1 does not apply. Nor does 2, as it deals with internal waters.


It wasnt Passage. Innocent passage refers to foreign ships and boats in [indian] waters. These were Indian ships in Indian waters. Not in any sort of way an international issue.

It wasnt innocent. The fishermen were breaking Indian law. They were not passing. They were fishing. Illegally. If they had been foreign fishermen(poachers) they would have been in violation of international law, in which case UNCLAW would agree that they faced punitive measures according to Indian law. Indian law being a moot point, because they are dead. You dont flog a dead horse.

Temporary is not defined. At least not in anything anyone has posted here. More than likely, it was wisely left undefined so that specific circumstances could be allowed for. If a country had a sea floor Hydrocarbon upwelling zone, they could state that its excluded to all ships for safety purposes, and leave the duration undefined, because really, who could possibly know when it was safe again? Likewise, the area around that island is unsafe until the islanders choose to allow it to be safe(or until their freedom of action is curtailed).

They are Indian Citizens. They might not think so, but the 3 mile bubble they live in exists only due to the grace of the Indian government. No other country claims that island as their own, nor contests Indian rights to deal with it as India sees fit. Any misdeeds committed were solely between two groups of Indian citizens, and as such, is not subject to international law.

They believe they control their own destiny. India allows them that fantasy. It is a fine joke at their backwater understanding of life on earth.

Not tried to kill them, they have killed them:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10402500&postcount=298

Same thing in the end is it not?
They fired on the people, and killed the people they fired on thus they were probably trying to kill them. And even so, they did not need to fire on with the accuracy that results in death if they were only warning shots.

You're assuming a theory to be fact.
In fact, the article itself is stating that it's a theory, a possibility, may be the cause.
My anthropology books, classes, professors, are all basing their on documented cases. I'll take documented cases over theory any day.

Here's the national geographic article. Not from one hundred years ago either. Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)

As you can see, it is more than just genetic evidence. Clearly it is a revision of
earlier perspectives, but it is backed by physical and genetic evidence. The main counter argument is that 'no-one has ever witnessed it', hardly convincing given the amount of contact with primative cultures. I'd also note that modern man quickly reverts to canablism - the doner party, several cases involving shipwrecked sailors, stalingrad - in near starvation conditions. Given the paucity of food available to prehistoric cultures, I don't think widespread cannabalism is at all surprising.

Most likely, the current bias against admitting this is the label was previously used as a slur, so it is politically sensitive.


Declarations of war are not always made, remember.
And I would like to see these laws regarding the killing of the crew, otherwise you're just making assumptions.

Absent a declaration of war, it is against international law. The law you are looking for is the geneva convention.

Who are you to tell that provocation had not previously existed? Read through this thread again, you'll find that many people from our outside world have actually shot at them and tried to kill them first, even in recent times. They have every right to be paranoid, and defending themselves. Unless you have not noticed, these people are within an area designated to them by India as their own. They have not signed an international treaty stating international laws, and are thus not subject to those laws. The moment they start killing people outside this exclusion zone, then they can be tried for it.

The islanders aren't soveriegn, they can't declare war, and they are not the navy. Regardless of previous provocation, they can't simply go out and butcher people in boats.


Innocent passage applies to international shipping. These fishermen were not international, they were national, thus innocent passage does not apply, nor does international law of the sea.
Furthermore, Article 19, subsection 1 agrees with their right to be in an exclusion zone, and the right for such an exclusion zone to exist, this is backed upby Article 21, subsection 2, parts G, I, J and L. Article 21, subsection 1 supports this, especially in relation to parts A, D, E, F and H.

Innocent passage, as per article 17, applies to ships of all states, traversing between international waters, or from a national port to international waters. (Article 19). Do you know where these fisherman were going before they were killed? Further, did they have to transit beyond the six mile limit to get to the islands territorial waters?

It cannot be dismissed out of hand that this vessel is covered by right of innocent passage. The fact that it is an indian flag vessel is irrelevant.

Hmm...I think letting them get away with it gives them the wrong idea about things. As it stands if anyone is accidently swept onto the islands water, they are going to be killed. Sooner or later an innocent family who loose control of their boat are gonna get slaughtered, and people may care more than about drunk fishermen. Since they aren't going to suddenly change their minds about it being okay to kill foreigner scum, maybe they could attempt to at least scare them into not doing it again?

Don't actually hurt them or anything, but get a well protected and armoured group to land ashore there and somehow threaten them not to harm people again unless they are actually intentionally landing at the island. Of course this would be very difficult to do...perhaps the language could be learnt somehow? Images displayed to them? That or just make some symbolic statement they are sure to understand, like the day after they kill a group of innocents all their weapons are destroyed.

You could say that this is 'interefering with their culture' but it's not really - it's real life. In real life, if you do something which hurts others then you should expect consequences. Letting these islanders get away with it is treating them as if they are somehow different from other cultures - inferiour, because they don't understand about retaliation and we arrogantly assume they cannot possibly learn. Don't impede on their culture, but let them know that they can't just do whatever they feel like and get away with it. Soon enough they might start thinking that since they can easily kill anyone who comes near, they will easily be able to raid others land and nothing will happen.

Here's the national geographic article. Not from one hundred years ago either. Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html)

As you can see, it is more than just genetic evidence. Clearly it is a revision of
earlier perspectives, but it is backed by physical and genetic evidence. The main counter argument is that 'no-one has ever witnessed it', hardly convincing given the amount of contact with primative cultures. I'd also note that modern man quickly reverts to canablism - the doner party, several cases involving shipwrecked sailors, stalingrad - in near starvation conditions. Given the paucity of food available to prehistoric cultures, I don't think widespread cannabalism is at all surprising.

As you can see, it's a theory. Theory is all well and good, but it's not fact or law.
Second in mind, your examples are all extreme cases. Anything can happen in extreme cases that's not to be argued, what you assume though is that cannibalisim is a culturally accecpted practise in all non-modern cultures. This is not only wrong and misinformed, but can be considered as racisim.
You also go on to assume that you know the ecological system of this island and that the people there somehow do not follow the natural path that all other species take and grow or shrink to fit the resources at hand. The idea that prehistoric cultures didn't have alot of food is dumb. They would have all died off, and we would not be here debating this. They may not have had food in the ammounts we do, but we have an over abundance of food, and we can live on much much less.
And before you start, as I have a feeling you may, do not equate third world Africa to prehistoric tribes, there are major differences.


Most likely, the current bias against admitting this is the label was previously used as a slur, so it is politically sensitive.
It is a slur. But that doesn't mean your assumption that all cultures practised canniballisim in anything but special circumstances is still absurd.




Absent a declaration of war, it is against international law. The law you are looking for is the geneva convention.
And how many times has international law stopped wars, some started by the US itself, from happening because they did not have a declaration of war?



The islanders aren't soveriegn, they can't declare war, and they are not the navy. Regardless of previous provocation, they can't simply go out and butcher people in boats. They didn't go out and butcher people in the boats. Read the article. The boat drifted to their reach because the fishermen were idiots. The tribe has boats, they can easily go out and raid others outside their exclusion zone, but they do not, they only attack those who come to them.




Innocent passage, as per article 17, applies to ships of all states, traversing between international waters, or from a national port to international waters. (Article 19). Do you know where these fisherman were going before they were killed? Further, did they have to transit beyond the six mile limit to get to the islands territorial waters?

It cannot be dismissed out of hand that this vessel is covered by right of innocent passage. The fact that it is an indian flag vessel is irrelevant.
You obviously didn't read the article, nor have you read the UN Law of the Sea. I'm not even going to continue with you intil you at least read the article where it clearly states that the Fishermen were illegally fishing inside the exclusion zone, not passing through anything. Thus they are not under the protection of Innocent Passage, which clearly states (And only applies to international shipping) that ships using Innocent Passage as their right are not alowed to stop and fish, not alowed to make such detours to protected life areas, and not alowed to go against the laws of the nation who's waters thay are in.
Read the article. It's the last time I say it.

Hmm...I think letting them get away with it gives them the wrong idea about things. As it stands if anyone is accidently swept onto the islands water, they are going to be killed. Sooner or later an innocent family who loose control of their boat are gonna get slaughtered, and people may care more than about drunk fishermen. Since they aren't going to suddenly change their minds about it being okay to kill foreigner scum, maybe they could attempt to at least scare them into not doing it again?

Don't actually hurt them or anything, but get a well protected and armoured group to land ashore there and somehow threaten them not to harm people again unless they are actually intentionally landing at the island. Of course this would be very difficult to do...perhaps the language could be learnt somehow? Images displayed to them? That or just make some symbolic statement they are sure to understand, like the day after they kill a group of innocents all their weapons are destroyed.

You could say that this is 'interefering with their culture' but it's not really - it's real life. In real life, if you do something which hurts others then you should expect consequences. Letting these islanders get away with it is treating them as if they are somehow different from other cultures - inferiour, because they don't understand about retaliation and we arrogantly assume they cannot possibly learn. Don't impede on their culture, but let them know that they can't just do whatever they feel like and get away with it. Soon enough they might start thinking that since they can easily kill anyone who comes near, they will easily be able to raid others land and nothing will happen.


The problem is their killing of the fishermen could very well be in consequence of outsiders killing them. In which case they are merely acting in self defence.

And I might not. Apparently they attack any vessel under innocent passage. If the indian government refuses to deal with this, then any nation has jurisdiction.

Are you now claiming that those waters which are under India's jurisdiction aren't actually under any nation's jurisdiction, and so count as 'high seas'?

It's not the tribe's water. They are not soveriegn.


Apart from the fact that they have been granted de facto sovereignty by the Indian state, of course...

Those exclusion zones do not prevent passage, simply millitary transit and exploitation of resources.

Under what reading does poaching not count as exploitation of resources?

They attacked the vessel in the shallows. They must therefore have boarded it. Further, they are paleolithic sedentary mixed hunter-gather/food producers. Most cultures like that are cannibals. There was a recent article in National geographic - I think - about that. Most primative cultures are.


You have descended into realms of nonsense and refusal to face the facts as they stand to an extent that even your namesake would be ashamed.

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.

Given the fate of natives exposed to Europeans, I'd say they were far more than bright, they were bang on on the nail. A population that small may well die out anyway, but they should at least be allowed go with the dignity of their culture intact. The planet does not need another set of asses in the seats of a mc donalds, wondering where their world went,

From what I know, stone age man had a fairly decent life by all accounts, aside from an average lifespan of about thirty.

While I'm not advocating a return to the Stone Age, I would like to point out that this number can be misleading.

First of all, there is a difference between "life span" and "life expectancy." Stone Age humans have the same life span as any other humans, being of the same species. Their life expectancy, however, is shorter than that of modern humans in "advanced" societies (an achievement we've only attained rather recently).

Secondly, their average life expectancy is considerably reduced when one includes infant mortalities and those who die of childhood diseases. The fact of the matter is that, of those people who survive into adulthood, many live to be quite old men and women, into their 80s and 90s.

Now, infant mortality is certainly not a good thing... but again, I just wanted to put things in perspective when it comes to the lives of Stone Age adults.

:eek:

Given the paucity of food available to prehistoric cultures...

hahahaha

dude, you really need to do some actual research

The fact of the matter is that, of those people who survive into adulthood, many live to be quite old men and women, into their 80s and 90s.

richard lee found that the percentage of individuals over 60 among the ju/'hoansi was roughly proportional to what we have now, though lagging a bit since medical advances in the past 50 years or so have added a few years to the end of everybody's lives.

The fishermen should have known better then to trespass.
They were washed ashore in the night while they slept. They didn't tresspass, they were shipwrecked. Personally I think that sailors should carry weapons. The tribesmen greet them with arrows, the sailors can return the favor with rifle bullets.

Personally I think that sailors should carry weapons. The tribesmen greet them with arrows, the sailors can return the favor with rifle bullets.

yeah, a little bit of genocide is good for the soul

yeah, a little bit of genocide is good for the soul
It's all good.
Hey, you got xenophobic homicide on my genocide! You got self-defense on my legally mandated right to slaughter innocent people!

yeah, a little bit of genocide is good for the soul
Self defense dude. If you don't play well with others you shouldn't be surprised if someone puts a hurt on you.

Self defense dude. If you don't play well with others you shouldn't be surprised if someone puts a hurt on you.
Those fishermen were asking for it (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/10/23news.html).

Well, ethnic purity enforced by lethal force isn't really my thing, but there's no denying that it has kept the colonialists out and there really isn't much else that would.

Self defense dude. If you don't play well with others you shouldn't be surprised if someone puts a hurt on you.
By a similar rational you should be allowed to open fire on the Nayy if you get drunk and accidentally drift into a live fire testing area and you get shot at.

Self defense dude. If you don't play well with others you shouldn't be surprised if someone puts a hurt on you.

self defense! the action you favor is precisely equal to stealing their land and resources and then killing them off because they don't say 'thank you'. the inevitable outcome of what you propose is genocide. stopping genocide trumps offensive 'self defense' by invaders.

By a similar rational you should be allowed to open fire on the Nayy if you get drunk and accidentally drift into a live fire testing area and you get shot at.
Why not? The only problem with that is that you're outgunned.

self defense! the action you favor is precisely equal to stealing their land and resources and then killing them off because they don't say 'thank you'. the inevitable outcome of what you propose is genocide. stopping genocide trumps offensive 'self defense' by invaders.
Dude, the fishermen inadvertantly drifted onto the island as they slept.

A more accurate analogy would be if someone tripped on the sidewalk and fell onto your lawn so you shot him for it.

Need I remind everyone who has not read the entire topic that the Indian government, who technically owns the island, establishesd a 3 mile exclusion zone around the island that no one can enter legally, and that these fishermen were illegally fishing in that area when they got themselves drunk and drifted near shore of an island who's inhabitants they knew to be dangerous like this.

Dude, the fishermen inadvertantly drifted onto the island as they slept.

after spending the day poaching inside the exclusion zone

after spending the day poaching inside the exclusion zone
Poaching shouldn't carry a death penalty.

Well, ethnic purity enforced by lethal force isn't really my thing, but there's no denying that it has kept the colonialists out and there really isn't much else that would.
No it hasn't. A couple drunk guys on a wayward boat are not a colonizing force, nor is the helicopter sent to recover their bodies.
If there was a serious move to colonize the island, they'd be wiped out in a few days. What has kept the colonialist out is that the island is worth next to nothing and that the colonialists are willing to let them continue surviving.

I have half a mind to catch a nasty flu virus, buy a plane ticket to India and cough on one of the tribesmen. That'll teach them a lesson. Or maybe wipe most of them out from illness that they have no natural Resistance to.

I have half a mind to catch a nasty flu virus, buy a plane ticket to India and cough on one of the tribesmen. That'll teach them a lesson. Or maybe wipe most of them out from illness that they have no natural Resistance to.


Good luck getting past the Indian navy. After an incident like this they're sure to be patrolling that exclusion zone much more frequently now.
Take pictures too if you make it back alive or don't get thrown in jail.

I have half a mind to catch a nasty flu virus, buy a plane ticket to India and cough on one of the tribesmen. That'll teach them a lesson. Or maybe wipe most of them out from illness that they have no natural Resistance to.

Better idea: Hijack an airliner and fly it into their tallest building. That'll show them how civilized we are.

Poaching shouldn't carry a death penalty.

nope. but enforcing that sentiment requires committing genocide. i know which side of that question outweighs which.

Good luck getting past the Indian navy. After an incident like this they're sure to be patrolling that exclusion zone much more frequently now.
Take pictures too if you make it back alive or don't get thrown in jail.
I'll paddle a canoe out there naked. Maybe they'll just think I'm a tribal fisherman.

Better idea: Hijack an airliner and fly it into their tallest building. That'll show them how civilized we are.
That's kind of overkill for a hut.

That's kind of overkill for a hut.

Fine, make it a small one.

I'll paddle a canoe out there naked. Maybe they'll just think I'm a tribal fisherman.

And you'll be getting pictures right?

Forget that they're probably going to stop boats even if they look like they're from the tribe on the island, since they rarely go even out half as far as the exclusion extends.

I'll paddle a canoe out there naked. Maybe they'll just think I'm a tribal fisherman.

Be sure to tell them you're related to Atouk, and bring lots of ool too.

That's kind of overkill for a hut.
You're right. To maintain the proper scale, you should use a balsa wood plane, powered by a rubber band.
Let's see how crazy your gods are now, motherfuckers!

You're right. To maintain the proper scale, you should use a balsa wood plane, powered by a rubber band.
Let's see how crazy your gods are now, motherfuckers!
You've given me a great idea! I don't enven need to come into contact with them. Just drop empty coca cola bottles from a plane. Remember how much chaos they caused to the little bushman in that movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

You've given me a great idea! I don't enven need to come into contact with them. Just drop empty coca cola bottles from a plane. Remember how much chaos they caused to the little bushman in that movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?


You'd be better off dropping full bottles of beer to them. See what kind of mayham that would cause.

You'd be better off dropping full bottles of beer to them. See what kind of mayham that would cause.
Beer? Vodka would be better. A few flasks of some good old 160 proof, and we'll have enough material for two or three seasons of reality TV.

Beer? Vodka would be better. A few flasks of some good old 160 proof, and we'll have enough material for two or three seasons of reality TV.


I see you missed the survivor idea put up earlier. Dump a bunch of people there and whoever survives wins.
I'd much rather watch that then a bunch of drunks.

I see you missed the survivor idea put up earlier. Dump a bunch of people there and whoever survives wins.
I'd much rather watch that then a bunch of drunks.
No, I'd prefer to see some drunken and impovershed natives. All I need now is a potato famine and a top hat to fully enjoy the spectacle.

No, I'd prefer to see some drunken and impovershed natives. All I need now is a potato famine and a top hat to fully enjoy the spectacle.
It's much more fun if you own a primitive, dangerous textile mill that employs them at the rate of fifty cents per day. That way you get fun and profit.

Eh, too much thread to read all of it, but I can't help turning up now, can I? *Nods to his nation's name* In NS, the Sentinelese get a rough ride from the Andaman and Nicobarese authorities.

Still, in real life, they have been violently attacked in the past, much like the other aboriginal communities in the islands. North Sentinel Island was attacked by armed men in the past, who killed a number of the natives. Given that there's only between forty and three hundred in their entire civilisation, such attacks are sure to make a major impression. Certainly makes something like 9/11 look like a splinter, relatively speaking, and that has excused a lot more killings than the Sentinelese have carried out since they were attacked.

Don't go to North Sentinel Island and you won't be shot by Sentinelese bowmen, it's pretty easy to avoid the place, you just have to...not go poaching there and not be stupid enough to do it drunk.

Suggesting that someone should go and destroy Sentinelese independence over it is pretty ridiculous. Maybe when the Sentinelese paddle on over to Port Blair and start shooting people then there's some justification for direct action.

Some day, presumably, they'll be nearly wiped out by some poacher/diplomat/soldier/scientist with flu or something, and the survivors assimilated into Indian society. Personally I'd rather see them launch a campaign of conquest and build a superpower with a culture that's new to us and not bogged-down by 'international norms', but I'll settle for being glad that they survived the tsunami. Thanks be to the unspoilt treeline.

Eh, well, a lot of that was probably already said elsewhere, but them's my thoughts on the Sentinelese, or whatever they may call themselves. I'll be off, now, to carry disease into a neighbour's land despite knowing full well that it is private property with a keep-out sign, because I'd like to steal the food he uses for living and crazy shit like that. I'm sure he'll react in a friendly manner, according to my rules, designed for my house, when I'm on his land. Yess. Off I go.

Eh, well, a lot of that was probably already said elsewhere, but them's my thoughts on the Sentinelese, or whatever they may call themselves. I'll be off, now, to carry disease into a neighbour's land despite knowing full well that it is private property with a keep-out sign, because I'd like to steal the food he uses for living and crazy shit like that. I'm sure he'll react in a friendly manner, according to my rules, designed for my house, when I'm on his land. Yess. Off I go.
Just be sure that you don't walk within sight of a military base, because they'll shoot your ass. And be sure that you don't get a bit lost and trip and fall into someone's yard, because they'll also shoot your ass.
In fact, if anyone else happens to see you, they'll shoot you, and it will be your goddamn fault for trying to be all colonialist and shizit.

soooooooo if the law is suspended within 3 miles of the island whats to stop drugdealers meeting there or a giant floatin crack house for that matter?:D

soooooooo if the law is suspended within 3 miles of the island whats to stop drugdealers meeting there or a giant floatin crack house for that matter?:D

I would think it is not condusive to do any sort of business within a hail of arrows.

stone arrows fired from 2 miles away arnt going 2 peirce a steel hull are they?

I would think it is not condusive to do any sort of business within a hail of arrows.
Yeah, but arrows are no match for AKs and it's probably possible to buy the natives off with a couple of cooking pots and a handfull of buck knives.

soooooooo if the law is suspended within 3 miles of the island whats to stop drugdealers meeting there or a giant floatin crack house for that matter?:D


The Indian Navy.
It's an Indian Government protected zone, not a lawless area.

No it hasn't. A couple drunk guys on a wayward boat are not a colonizing force, nor is the helicopter sent to recover their bodies.
If there was a serious move to colonize the island, they'd be wiped out in a few days. What has kept the colonialist out is that the island is worth next to nothing and that the colonialists are willing to let them continue surviving.

Colonisation is often a lot more insidious than a heavily armed force moving in and wiping out the natives.

Yeah, but arrows are no match for AKs and it's probably possible to buy the natives off with a couple of cooking pots and a handfull of buck knives.


You won't believe this..

They tried that, and those trying it nearly got killed.

Some anthropologists tried to make contact, with an armed and armoured escort, they landed on the island, left a toy car, some pots and pans, a doll, and a live pig they tied to a lease on the ground. Guess what the islanders did.
Speared the pig and doll, burried them, and took the cookware, after firing a barrage of arrows at the boat the anthropologist was waiting in to see their reactions.
They also waggled their penises around (No joke, they did this) and shouted apparently in some form of teasing victory.

Just be sure that you don't walk within sight of a military base, because they'll shoot your ass. And be sure that you don't get a bit lost and trip and fall into someone's yard, because they'll also shoot your ass.
In fact, if anyone else happens to see you, they'll shoot you, and it will be your goddamn fault for trying to be all colonialist and shizit.

What is with the weak analogies to private property rights? This is an issue about sovereignty and cultural survival.

"The Indian Navy.
It's an Indian Government protected zone, not a lawless area."

spoil sport i wan mah floatin crakhouse

"The Indian Navy.
It's an Indian Government protected zone, not a lawless area."

spoil sport i wan mah floatin crakhouse


Then go out into international waters and have it.
Then of course I can legally sail out and kill you and it wouldn't be a problem.
If I cared to sail out there at all.
Who would visit a crackhouse so far off shore anyway?

Then go out into international waters and have it.
Then of course I can legally sail out and kill you and it wouldn't be a problem.
If I cared to sail out there at all.
Who would visit a crackhouse so far off shore anyway?
Put it on a huge, posh cruise ship with prostitutes and gambling and alot of wealthy people would go indulge for a few days at a stretch.

Colonisation is often a lot more insidious than a heavily armed force moving in and wiping out the natives.
You're right. Apparently merely being within a couple miles of a boat will colonize you. I had know idea that civilization was air bourne.

Speared the pig and doll, burried them, and took the cookware, after firing a barrage of arrows at the boat the anthropologist was waiting in to see their reactions.
They also waggled their penises around (No joke, they did this) and shouted apparently in some form of teasing victory.
In light of this, I'm going to change my verdict. Clearly this is a culture worth preserving, and I move that we exterminate all of India so that this tribe can spread out and dominate the whole subcontinent. A culture like this, so unique, must be preserved and encouraged at all costs.

You're right. Apparently merely being within a couple miles of a boat will colonize you. I had know idea that civilization was air bourne.


No, but diseases are. And diseases have killed far more indigenous people than colonizing forces ever did.

In light of this, I'm going to change my verdict. Clearly this is a culture worth preserving, and I move that we exterminate all of India so that this tribe can spread out and dominate the whole subcontinent. A culture like this, so unique, must be preserved and encouraged at all costs.

Just out of curiosity, what, if anything, qualifies you to determine what cultures are and aren't worth preserving? This is ethnocentrism at the least, but probably more like good ol' racism.

You're right. Apparently merely being within a couple miles of a boat will colonize you. I had know idea that civilization was air bourne.


In light of this, I'm going to change my verdict. Clearly this is a culture worth preserving, and I move that we exterminate all of India so that this tribe can spread out and dominate the whole subcontinent. A culture like this, so unique, must be preserved and encouraged at all costs.

Would you mind not posting stuff that's just dumb?

I appreciate clever sarcasm as much as the next person, but when someone relies on it to such a heavy degree as to hope it proves their point, it's...

Well, it's dumb. Try using persuasion instead of throwing attempts at being snide at everyone, you might actually persuade someone.

On topic, I've seen people commenting about the fishermen not "stepping foot" on the island, but instead just being in the shallows. Consider the range of a stone age bow. Now consider the range at which you'd need to be accurate enough to kill two humans.

Secondly, Indian law protects and preserves this culture, while giving them the right to kill anyone that comes close enough for them to kill. Why is this even being discussed? Anyone Indian here? Not saying it can't be debated or talked about, but you're all carrying on like if you can't convince the other side to change their completely ridiculous opinion to your fallacy-proof facts, something might actually happen.

Just out of curiosity, what, if anything, qualifies you to determine what cultures are and aren't worth preserving? This is ethnocentrism at the least, but probably more like good ol' racism.
There's nothing wrong with ethnocentrism. Some civilizations don't contribute anything to humanity. Others contribute alot.

It's not racism.

There's nothing wrong with ethnocentrism. Some civilizations don't contribute anything to humanity. Others contribute alot.


By whose standards? Your own admittedly ethnocentric ones?

There's nothing wrong with ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism blinds one to the rich diversity of human cultures.

By whose standards?
By objective standards. Who invents usefull technology? Not primitives. Who cures disease? Not the stone age losers. Who secures the rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law? Primitive tribes don't. By any measure they are inferior societies.

Ethnocentrism blinds one to the rich diversity of human cultures.
Blah blah blah....

Rich diversity my ass.

Female circumcision, male penile subincision, cannibalism, supertition and ignorance don't make one's culture rich.

By objective standards. Who invents usefull technology? Not primitives. Who cures disease? Not the stone age losers. Who secures the rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law? Primitive tribes don't. By any measure they are inferior societies.

who invents technology that kills millions? civilization.
who caused disease? civilization.
who got rid of free speech and equal rights? civilization.

take your delusional superiority complex and fuck off.

who caused disease? civilization.

How does civilization cause disease? Didn't it exist long before it?

And perhaps the British still have one spy rock or two to study them :)

I hope so, Can't you just hear David Attenborough narrating a programme about them that was filmed by the "secret rockcam(tm)"?

It's hard to say wether it was legally correct for them to do it, it's under Indian law and they grant certain exemptions to uncivillised tribes. So it looks like they're going to get away with it. But I still think it was a mindless and needless killing that should be punished in some way. If a member of my family was one of the fishermen killed then I doubt I'd be concerned with arguments about aboriginal autonomy and cultural relativism. The only thing I'd want to do is get the families together, arm ourselves with assault rifles, rent a boat and go to the island to teach them a lesson.

By objective standards. Who invents usefull technology? Not primitives. Who cures disease? Not the stone age losers. Who secures the rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law? Primitive tribes don't. By any measure they are inferior societies.
Those standards are reflective of someone who lives in a society that would be most benefited and credited with success by adhereing to them. You are criticizing their society because it does not exist to acheive the same ends as your own ideal one. There is nothing objective about that.

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The Indian gov't has decided that this island should be undisturbed by non-natives and that those who attempt to break that will be rewarded with whatever fate befalls them. It's really too bad for the families of those fishermen but they should have known better in the first place, AND they were warned by others nearby that they were too close to the island.

How does civilization cause disease? Didn't it exist long before it?

large sedentary populations living in close proximity to domesticated animals provide ideal environments for diseases to evolve in.

It's hard to say wether it was legally correct for them to do it, it's under Indian law and they grant certain exemptions to uncivillised tribes. So it looks like they're going to get away with it. But I still think it was a mindless and needless killing that should be punished in some way. If a member of my family was one of the fishermen killed then I doubt I'd be concerned with arguments about aboriginal autonomy and cultural relativism. The only thing I'd want to do is get the families together, arm ourselves with assault rifles, rent a boat and go to the island to teach them a lesson.

aka "commit genocide"

who invents technology that kills millions? civilization.
who caused disease? civilization.
who got rid of free speech and equal rights? civilization.

take your delusional superiority complex and fuck off.
Try to act a little civilized and not flame people.

Sure we have technology that kills millions. But the chances of a person dying a violent death are lower in a civilized society than in a primitive one.

We don't cause diseases. Diseases evolve. We figured that out. The primitives didn't. They still kill someone suspected of witchcraft when a person gets sick.

No, the idea that people have the right to speak their mind without violent repression and that all people are equal as individuals regardless of what "tribe" they descended from is a modern invention.

aka "commit genocide"
I dunno about you, but I wouldn't be prepared to see the killers of someone I love walk free and not face the consequences of their actions. I'd want revenge, regardless of the label that you give to it.

Those standards are reflective of someone who lives in a society that would be most benefited and credited with success by adhereing to them. You are criticizing their society because it does not exist to acheive the same ends as your own ideal one. There is nothing objective about that.

I think it's pretty cut and dried. The Indian gov't has decided that this island should be undisturbed by non-natives and that those who attempt to break that will be rewarded with whatever fate befalls them. It's really too bad for the families of those fishermen but they should have known better in the first place, AND they were warned by others nearby that they were too close to the island.
Those standards are not subjective. Do you think that those primitives couldn't benefit from a secure food source, antibiotics, vaccinations, and free exchange of ideas? What are they, perpetual children who can't be trusted with modern tools and ideas? Why do you think it's good to keep people ignorant and benighted?

I'm not debating the second part. Indian law is what it is.

large sedentary populations living in close proximity to domesticated animals provide ideal environments for diseases to evolve in.
Yet one of the most deadly pathogens ever followed cro magnon out of Africa. Smallpox wasn't eradicated until modern people decided to use science to do so.

Just out of curiosity, what, if anything, qualifies you to determine what cultures are and aren't worth preserving? This is ethnocentrism at the least, but probably more like good ol' racism.
What qualifies you to determine that this civilization is worth more than the lives of fisherman? That sounds like some good ol' ethnocentrism there. These people aren't innocent, they had their chance to exist on the island, avoid contact with civilization, and wave their penises at passing boats. They blew it when they started killing anyone who entered range.
And if this were a matter of racism, I wouldn't care one way or another. A racist would say:
"Oh, those savage darkies killing each other! Ha-ha, quite worth a good chuckle, but certainly not worth anyone's effort. Better to just study their alien ways with survelliance rocks."

And, FS, if these people are so inbred and weak that a few men on a boat could "commit genocide" and eliminate the entire island, then they had it coming.

Try to act a little civilized and not flame people.

if you refrain from calling for genocide, deal.

if you refrain from calling for genocide, deal.
The only time I came close to calling for genocide it was in that joke about catching the flu and coughing on them.

Yet one of the most deadly pathogens ever followed cro magnon out of Africa. Smallpox wasn't eradicated until modern people decided to use science to do so.

source? cause as far as i know, it only showed up in ancient egypt

source? cause as far as i know, it only showed up in ancient egypt
Read The Demon in the Freezer. It's about the history of Smallpox, it's eradication and the danger it poses if used as a biological weapon. It's close relation to orthopox viruses that attack rodents has led to the new theory that it was originally a disease of African rodents, possibly some breed of squirrel, and that it jumped to humans in prehistoric times.

The only time I came close to calling for genocide it was in that joke about catching the flu and coughing on them.

true or false - you call for intervening in their culture to some extent?

true or false - their neighboring tribes that were subject to such interventions are no longer going concerns?

true or false - you call for intervening in their culture to some extent?

true or false - their neighboring tribes that were subject to such interventions are no longer going concerns?
true or false - those tribes weren't completely exterminated

true or false - the people of this tribe are capable of reproducing with nonmembers

And if this were a matter of racism, I wouldn't care one way or another. A racist would say:
"Oh, those savage darkies killing each other! Ha-ha, quite worth a good chuckle, but certainly not worth anyone's effort. Better to just study their alien ways with survelliance rocks."


Okay, that was a cheap shot. I was not actually being serious.

Personally I would go with learn their language (admittedly possibly by using the now-classic spy rock) and then have a nice freindly little chat over the bows of a cruiser about things like not shooting anyone who happens to drift by.

true or false - you call for intervening in their culture to some extent?

true or false - their neighboring tribes that were subject to such interventions are no longer going concerns?
1) true with an explanation. I don't mean uncontrolled access to their land and people. I think it should be taken slowly by introducing them to modern medicine first, then schools that teach reading, writing, math, and science. Then small scale industries, like fishing and farming so that they can trade and build some wealth. All stretching over generations so that one day they will have the advantages that most of the rest of the world has.

2) I don't know, I haven't looked into it. If so then I would assume that their contact with the modern world wasn't well controled and probably run by people seeking to exploit them and their land.

I don't like the idea of keeping people in nature preserves like some endangered species of lesser animal.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I find them fascinating. However, with such a small number of them still existing, I wonder if they'll survive much longer. And as for them being the last stone-age tribe, I have this feeling there are others existing deep within the Brazilian rainforests that we haven't come in contact with yet.

It's close relation to orthopox viruses that attack rodents has led to the new theory that it was originally a disease of African rodents, possibly some breed of squirrel, and that it jumped to humans in prehistoric times.

i'll bet money that it said this happened in an agricultural society. like ancient egypt. which is where we find the earliest known cases.

By objective standards. Who invents usefull technology? Not primitives. Who cures disease? Not the stone age losers. Who secures the rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law? Primitive tribes don't. By any measure they are inferior societies.


And who is it thats ensured that only now after 5 or so centuries the descendants of the primitive tribes are starting to come to power in their own countries? And who has systematically denied them the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law? And who made them so poor they couldnt afford modern medicine,or afford 99% of the technology around them?
And who doesnt have the excuse of not knowing a "higher" standard of behavior towards others?

And who used train them to rape and kill the "natives" and give them finances to do so?

i'll bet money that it said this happened in an agricultural society. like ancient egypt. which is where we find the earliest known cases.
It's kinda hard to find known cases among people without written languages, but the biological evidence, IIRC, points to an earlier jump to humans.

true or false - those tribes weren't completely exterminated

true or false - the people of this tribe are capable of reproducing with nonmembers

1. essentially false and irrelevant

2. true and irrelevant

And who is it thats ensured that only now after 5 or so centuries the descendants of the primitive tribes are starting to come to power in their own countries? And who has systematically denied them the rights to free speech and equal protection under the law? And who made them so poor they couldnt afford modern medicine,or afford 99% of the technology around them?
And who doesnt have the excuse of not knowing a "higher" standard of behavior towards others?

And who used train them to rape and kill the "natives" and give them finances to do so?
Isn't cultural evolution a wonderful thing? We're developing respect and love for our fellow man regardless of what culture he comes from. Now that we're getting to that point we should share the benefits of our more highly evolved culture with them so that they can transcend the superstition, ignorance, and the savage nature of their current existence.

1. essentially false and irrelevant
Genocide isn't about the essentials, it is about the sum total. The other groups weren't completely wiped out, which means that under controlled circumstances, integration could be achieved.
2. true and irrelevant
Very releveant. If they can reproduce with other humans, then they are not a seperate species. This means that, given time and effort, they could be integrated into the general society.

1) true with an explanation. I don't mean uncontrolled access to their land and people. I think it should be taken slowly by introducing them to modern medicine first, then schools that teach reading, writing, math, and science. Then small scale industries, like fishing and farming so that they can trade and build some wealth. All stretching over generations so that one day they will have the advantages that most of the rest of the world has.

2) I don't know, I haven't looked into it. If so then I would assume that their contact with the modern world wasn't well controled and probably run by people seeking to exploit them and their land.

I don't like the idea of keeping people in nature preserves like some endangered species of lesser animal.

it's not keeping them in, it's keeping others out. it's all about self determination and avoiding the well-known consequences of doing anything other than leaving them alone.

Genocide isn't about the essentials, it is about the sum total. The other groups weren't completely wiped out, which means that under controlled circumstances, integration could be achieved.

i think you might need to look up genocide

Very releveant. If they can reproduce with other humans, then they are not a seperate species. This means that, given time and effort, they could be integrated into the general society.

so?

it's not keeping them in, it's keeping others out. it's all about self determination and avoiding the well-known consequences of doing anything other than leaving them alone.
What good is self determination if you don't have any knowledge of the outside world? How can you make an informed choice without information? By denying them any contact whatsoever with the rest of the world you're condemning their culture to stagnation and eliminating the possibility of progress.

Isn't cultural evolution a wonderful thing? We're developing respect and love for our fellow man regardless of what culture he comes from. Now that we're getting to that point we should share the benefits of our more highly evolved culture with them so that they can transcend the superstition, ignorance, and the savage nature of their current existence.

But I don't want to be a missonary in Kansas.....

But I don't want to be a missonary in Kansas.....
Well, somebody has to. They're a fierce tribe too. They've been known to react with violence to missionaries.

By objective standards. Who invents usefull technology? Not primitives. Who cures disease? Not the stone age losers. Who secures the rights to free speech and to equal protection under the law? Primitive tribes don't. By any measure they are inferior societies.

First of all your standards are not objective. They are only subjectively important to you. Second of all, objectivity is not something valued by all cultures. Some value balanced perspectives more. To use objectivity as you touchstone is, in and of itself, ethnocentric.

First of all your standards are not objective. They are only subjectively important to you. Second of all, objectivity is not something valued by all cultures. Some value balanced perspectives more. To use objectivity as you touchstone is, in and of itself, ethnocentric.
Ok, I get it. You're one of those soft-skulled postmodernist weirdos who think everything is subjective. I won't bother debating with you anymore.

And, FS, if these people are so inbred and weak that a few men on a boat could "commit genocide" and eliminate the entire island, then they had it coming.

And that, my friend, is social darwinism. A largely discredited theory, but very popular among racists.

And that, my friend, is social darwinism. A largely discredited theory, but very popular among racists.
Calling people racist makes baby hitler cry.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_imagearticle588.jpg

What good is self determination if you don't have any knowledge of the outside world? How can you make an informed choice without information? By denying them any contact whatsoever with the rest of the world you're condemning their culture to stagnation and eliminating the possibility of progress.

it sure must be heavy, that burden you carry.

if they want to interact then let them do so on their own terms in their own time.

i think you might need to look up genocide
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
Yup.
And don't give me the bullshit deifinition about destroying a group in part. Using that deifinition, if I wandered out into the street and shot someone, I'd be guilty of genocide, as that person would (invariably) be a member of an ethnic, racial, or cultural group.
so?
That means that there is no reason to force them to stay in their current way. They need to be offered some form of choice about whether they want to stay in a primitive place.
Just because you've got a stick up your ass about the matter and are convinced that modern society has caused all the ills in the world, is no reason to make other people live in dirt.

What qualifies you to determine that this civilization is worth more than the lives of fisherman?

I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that the survival of an entire culture is more important than the survival of a couple of drunken poachers.

it sure must be heavy, that burden you carry.

if they want to interact then let them do so on their own terms in their own time.
Nice. White man's burden joke.

How do you propose to let them interact on their own terms when they know absolutely nothing of the outside world? Decisions must be made based on information.

Calling people racist makes baby hitler cry.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_imagearticle588.jpg

Hahaha! Well done!

And that, my friend, is social darwinism. A largely discredited theory, but very popular among racists.
That was largely sarcasm, with a healthy bit of disbelief thrown in. If a few people on a boat could wipe these people out, they'd already be dead.

Isn't cultural evolution a wonderful thing? We're developing respect and love for our fellow man regardless of what culture he comes from. Now that we're getting to that point we should share the benefits of our more highly evolved culture with them so that they can transcend the superstition, ignorance, and the savage nature of their current existence.

But apparently we can't respect them enough to just leave their culture alone.

I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that the survival of an entire culture is more important than the survival of a couple of drunken poachers.
I think it is very much of a stretch to suggest that the survival of an entire culture was imperiled by a couple of drunk poachers.

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
Yup.
And don't give me the bullshit deifinition about destroying a group in part. Using that deifinition, if I wandered out into the street and shot someone, I'd be guilty of genocide, as that person would (invariably) be a member of an ethnic, racial, or cultural group.

so there was no genocide in rwanda?

They need to be offered some form of choice about whether they want to stay in a primitive place.

i'd say the hail of arrows pretty much sums up how they feel about the matter

I think it is very much of a stretch to suggest that the survival of an entire culture was imperiled by a couple of drunk poachers.

let in those, you let in others.

That was largely sarcasm, with a healthy bit of disbelief thrown in. If a few people on a boat could wipe these people out, they'd already be dead.

Depends what diseases those boat people are or aren't carrying and what diseases these people are or aren't immune to.

But apparently we can't respect them enough to just leave their culture alone.
That's not respect. That's abandoning them.

I think it is very much of a stretch to suggest that the survival of an entire culture was imperiled by a couple of drunk poachers.

Right, because at no time in history has an entire culture ever perished because a boatload of disease carrying foreigner showed up in their midst.

That's not respect. That's abandoning them.

Abandoning them to what?

Abandoning them to what?

the horrific fate of letting them make their own decisions

Abandoning them to what?
I shouldn't even be responding to you. I said I wasn't going to debate with you. Still, I will for a little while.

Abandoning them to ignorance, high infant morality, an unreliable food supply, and other drawbacks to a paleolithic style existence.

All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.

the horrific fate of letting them make their own decisions
As I said before, you can't make free informed decisions unless you know what your options are. Without any contact with the outside world how can they know their options?

let in those, you let in others.
They didn't want in, they were drunk and passing by. Look, you may be permanently embittered that your primitive forefathers were stomped by Europeans, but this isn't then.
This tribe and their island have been known about for years. People have entered their island before, and they will do so again (if nothing else, to recover the bodies). Your argument doesn't apply.
i'd say the hail of arrows pretty much sums up how they feel about the matter
It sums up how they, in their xenophobia, feel about foriegners. Never has anyone offered them the benefits of society in an understandable and honest attempt.

Abandoning them to ignorance, high infant morality, an unreliable food supply, and other drawbacks to a paleolithic style existence.



Most of these problems continue to persist in most of the world, even among people who are aware of the benefits of "civilization".

I shouldn't even be responding to you. I said I wasn't going to debate with you. Still, I will for a little while.

Abandoning them to ignorance, high infant morality, an unreliable food supply, and other drawbacks to a paleolithic style existence.

All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.
they live in INDIA, forcing them into indian society isnt going to improve those statistics.

these people have let their opinion on joining "civilization" be clearly known.

why wouldnt you respect that?

It sums up how they, in their xenophobia, feel about foriegners. Never has anyone offered them the benefits of society in an understandable and honest attempt.
I would suggest that if they were aware of the what "civilization" has done for most indigenous peoples, they would probably continue to choose isolation.

Ok, I get it. You're one of those soft-skulled postmodernist weirdos who think everything is subjective. I won't bother debating with you anymore.

Actually, I think postmodernism is pretty nihilistic. That doesn't stop me, however, from thinking that maybe my culture does not have all of the answers. If that makes me soft-skulled, then so be it. I'd rather be soft-skulled than thick-skulled or hardheaded.

There's nothing wrong with ethnocentrism. Some civilizations don't contribute anything to humanity. Others contribute alot.

It's not racism.

Care to name me a civilization which doesn't contribute anything to humanity?

they live in INDIA, forcing them into indian society isnt going to improve those statistics.

these people have let their opinion on joining "civilization" be clearly known.

why wouldnt you respect that?

As I said before, you can't make free informed decisions unless you know what your options are. Without any contact with the outside world how can they know their options?


All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.

Care to name me a civilization which doesn't contribute anything to humanity?

Apparently the Sentinelese don't. According to my friends here, waggling penises at passing boats is primitive. It is much more civilized to brandish nuclear weapons at each other. The phallic imagery is so much more subtle.

I shouldn't even be responding to you. I said I wasn't going to debate with you. Still, I will for a little while.

Abandoning them to ignorance, high infant morality, an unreliable food supply, and other drawbacks to a paleolithic style existence.

All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.


Isn't that the kind of thing they'd get were they natives in Peru or the like?
Or residents of certain areas of New York or East LA?

As I said before, you can't make free informed decisions unless you know what your options are. Without any contact with the outside world how can they know their options?
.

Much better for open-minded people such as ourselves to impose their choices on them.

Care to name me a civilization which doesn't contribute anything to humanity?
A certain fisherman-killing tribe on a certain Indian island comes to mind.

Much better for open-minded people such as ourselves to impose their choices on them.
Hows about we offer them an informed choice instead of abandoning them?

Actually, I think postmodernism is pretty nihilistic. That doesn't stop me, however, from thinking that maybe my culture does not have all of the answers. If that makes me soft-skulled, then so be it. I'd rather be soft-skulled than thick-skulled or hardheaded.
Being hard headed has kept me from being knocked out in various fights. I'm pretty glad I'm hard headed. I've had pieces of lumber broken over my head in fights and never suffered a concussion or been knocked senseless.

Hows about we offer them an informed choice instead of abandoning them?

There is no possibility for an "informed choice" here. In order to provide them with the information you think they need, we would need to interact with them in a way that would pretty much wipe out their culture.

Care to name me a civilization which doesn't contribute anything to humanity?

Most of Africa doesn't do much. If I'm wrong though, it isnt racism, its ignorance. I don't really hear much from half of those countries except when we are wanted to give money to a charity that helps them.

Being hard headed has kept me from being knocked out in various fights. I'm pretty glad I'm hard headed. I've had pieces of lumber broken over my head in fights and never suffered a concussion or been knocked senseless.

I was speaking figuratively of course. My head is pretty hard too. I once broke a toilet with it.

There is no possibility for an "informed choice" here. In order to provide them with the information you think they need, we would need to interact with them in a way that would pretty much wipe out their culture.
I disagree. Low levels of carefully planned and controlled interactions would not destroy their culture unless it made them decide to abandon said culture. If it did, well it's their informed decision.

As I said before, you can't make free informed decisions unless you know what your options are. Without any contact with the outside world how can they know their options?


All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.

yeah. living in the slums of india is an amazing improvement over living life as they have chosen to live it.

there is no way to "give them options" without destroying their culture. to invade their chosen privacy and force civilization on them is to make the decision for them.

there are many ways to live. civilization has its drawbacks. if they arent interested, leave them alone. it impoverishes the entire species when we lose a culture and when we demand that everyone lives the same way as we do.

It sums up how they, in their xenophobia, feel about foriegners. Never has anyone offered them the benefits of society in an understandable and honest attempt.
And of course, you are willing to kill off a few dozen of them to bestow upon them "the benefits of" your "society".

And of course, you would want them to learn your language, and buy your products, and make them work for a living (at far less than minimum wage)?

And of course, you would not be able to give them proper health coverage because they are too poor, and besides it would be unfair to the 45 Million Americans who also don't have health coverage?

And of course, you would want to impose your laws on them, and police them, even though they have lived under their own laws for thousands of years, and policed themselves?

I could go on, but I think you get the point?

Nice. White man's burden joke.

How do you propose to let them interact on their own terms when they know absolutely nothing of the outside world? Decisions must be made based on information.


I'll say this one last time. Since saying it over 10 pages of debate and having no one actually understand it is getting tiresome. And I think, since you didn't read the first 10 pages, you should be informed.

The islanders have boats. They have the ability to make boats to get them to the nearby islands. They know there is an outside world. Freindly contact has been made with them, albiet rarely. That freindly contact was stopped abruptly when a nearby island, which was also just as isolationist, came into contact with the outside world willingly and has almost been entirely wiped out because of drugs, alcohol, diseases from the outside, and shitty economic conditions, There are less remaining of that tribe alive today then I have fingers on my right hand. And that is when India decided no more contact with these islanders, no more uncontrolled contact without strict supervision and done by an anthropologist that is.
These people are not forced into this isolationisim, they know there are people, even some freindly people, out there. They choose not to contat and interact with the outside world, and that is ther choice to make, and India is enforcing that choice on the rest of us outside of their island. When they feel like talking to us, they'll row a canoe our way.

I disagree. Low levels of carefully planned and controlled interactions would not destroy their culture unless it made them decide to abandon said culture. If it did, well it's their informed decision.

Any amount of planned and controlled interaction would change them in a way that would cause them to lose much of their cultural uniqueness. How are you going to explain "civilization" to them in a way they can understand without wreaking massive change?

I'll say this one last time. Since saying it over 10 pages of debate and having no one actually understand it is getting tiresome. And I think, since you didn't read the first 10 pages, you should be informed.

The islanders have boats. They have the ability to make boats to get them to the nearby islands. They know there is an outside world. Freindly contact has been made with them, albiet rarely. That freindly contact was stopped abruptly when a nearby island, which was also just as isolationist, came into contact with the outside world willingly and has almost been entirely wiped out because of drugs, alcohol, diseases from the outside, and shitty economic conditions, There are less remaining of that tribe alive today then I have fingers on my right hand. And that is when India decided no more contact with these islanders, no more uncontrolled contact without strict supervision and done by an anthropologist that is.
These people are not forced into this isolationisim, they know there are people, even some freindly people, out there. They choose not to contat and interact with the outside world, and that is ther choice to make, and India is enforcing that choice on the rest of us outside of their island. When they feel like talking to us, they'll row a canoe our way.
Sorry, I missed that post. I didn't know that they'd had contact with the outside world and chose not to participate. So they have the information needed to make their decision and they made it. In that case, fine by me.

I'll say this one last time. Since saying it over 10 pages of debate and having no one actually understand it is getting tiresome. And I think, since you didn't read the first 10 pages, you should be informed.

The islanders have boats. They have the ability to make boats to get them to the nearby islands. They know there is an outside world. Freindly contact has been made with them, albiet rarely. That freindly contact was stopped abruptly when a nearby island, which was also just as isolationist, came into contact with the outside world willingly and has almost been entirely wiped out because of drugs, alcohol, diseases from the outside, and shitty economic conditions, There are less remaining of that tribe alive today then I have fingers on my right hand. And that is when India decided no more contact with these islanders, no more uncontrolled contact without strict supervision and done by an anthropologist that is.
These people are not forced into this isolationisim, they know there are people, even some freindly people, out there. They choose not to contat and interact with the outside world, and that is ther choice to make, and India is enforcing that choice on the rest of us outside of their island. When they feel like talking to us, they'll row a canoe our way.

I think that sums it up fairly nicely. I have to sign off now.

As I said before, you can't make free informed decisions unless you know what your options are. Without any contact with the outside world how can they know their options?

based on experience, their response would largely be "leave us the fuck alone" no matter how you dressed up the glories of civilization. and they would keep saying "leave us the fuck alone" until their culture was destroyed or weakened to the point where it could no longer fight back. that is how it has always gone down. that is how it is still going down in parts of africa, in papua, in south america, etc.

everywhere where civilization comes into contact with people outside of it, the outsiders tell it to fuck off. and then people like you come along and go "oh, those poor ignorant savages, they don't know what they are missing. let's force them to see how wonderful civilization is." and then comes the forced relocations, and the forced 'integration', and the obligatory giving away of their ancestral land. followed immediately by the descent into alcoholism and drug abuse, de facto second class citizen status, economic exploitation, social breakdown, a dramatic rise in crime, and a generalized social malaise that will last for generations. and that is for those lucky enough to survive the initial violence and waves of disease.

do we really need to destroy another culture, just because you think that maybe this time it might be different?


in the words of the free papua movement,

"We do not want modern life!
We refuse any kinds of development:
Religious groups, aid agencies, and governmental organisations
just Leave Us Alone, Please!"

Sorry, I missed that post. I didn't know that they'd had contact with the outside world and chose not to participate. So they have the information needed to make their decision and they made it. In that case, fine by me.


Personally, I hope they are willing to resume the extremely limited contact that they have had with professionals. I would love the chance to learn and study their language, a language uneffected by outside factors and other languages for possibly 60,000 years. That kind of chance simply does not exist anywhere else.

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?

I first read about the Andamanese (including the Sentinelese) a few years ago. I fully agree with you. At least there is one indigenous society on earth which is still relatively undamaged by westernisation.

What I've read in this thread is appalling. I thought I could no longer be surprised by arrogant ignorance, but that so many of you still hold such narrow-minded, nineteenth-century, culturally blind, self-contentedly and aggressively ignorant views is... well, saddening.

As has already been pointed out, the Sentinelese are aware of the outside world and, having seen the horrendous damage which "civilisation" has wrought upon more unfortunate Andamanese peoples, have wisely chosen to keep to themselves. As is their recognised right under Indian law. Officially, these islands are Indian sovereign territory, and India has decided to protect the Sentinelese by banning anyone from approaching. Under Indian law, the Sentinelese are legally entitled to do whatever they damn well please on their land, which includes killing trespassers. It's legal. It's their land, and our concepts of morality and society rightly have no place there.

Well, ethnic purity enforced by lethal force isn't really my thing, but there's no denying that it has kept the colonialists out and there really isn't much else that would.

Do you think a small band of villagers armed with bows and arrows kept out the colonists? These people have been extremely lucky in having several factors that have given no reason for colonial violence towards them.

:sniper: why should they be aloud to "legally" kill people in a boat, still offshore mind you, yet it is illegal for me to physicaly harm anyone who unlawfully enters my home? killing outsiders constitutes mixing with the outside world, so let judgement be delt, and the guilty men slain in the same fashion

:sniper: why should they be aloud to "legally" kill people in a boat, still offshore mind you, yet it is illegal for me to physicaly harm anyone who unlawfully enters my home? killing outsiders constitutes mixing with the outside world, so let judgement be delt, and the guilty men slain in the same fashion

Do you propose a method to finding the guilty people in a village of 200 full of people whose language is a complete mystery to you and who are very likely to be completey uncooperative even if you did know their language?

but was met by the customary hail of arrows.
lmao. I'd love to see that.

:sniper: why should they be aloud to "legally" kill people in a boat, still offshore mind you, yet it is illegal for me to physicaly harm anyone who unlawfully enters my home? killing outsiders constitutes mixing with the outside world, so let judgement be delt, and the guilty men slain in the same fashion
1. They are not bound by your laws, or your judgment.

2. It is legal to kill someone who enters your house in Florida.

3. Read the thread and you will find the answers.

So? Ignorance is no excuse from the law, and the law prohibits such rabid xenophobia.

Show me.

You'll be needing to find a source that describes Sentinelese law, of course, since this action happened in their sovereign territory...

A certain fisherman-killing tribe on a certain Indian island comes to mind.


Most of Africa doesn't do much. If I'm wrong though, it isnt racism, its ignorance. I don't really hear much from half of those countries except when we are wanted to give money to a charity that helps them.

They are also humanity, and by existing together in kindness (which is their standard state) they contribute to humanity. Or were you just defining 'humanity' as 'a bunch of English speaking white people'?

I shouldn't even be responding to you. I said I wasn't going to debate with you. Still, I will for a little while.

Abandoning them to ignorance, high infant morality, an unreliable food supply, and other drawbacks to a paleolithic style existence.

All groups of people have equal potential. It's a tremendous waste when we don't help them to live up to that potential. It impoverishes the entire species.

The "White Man's Burden" comment was pretty apt.

I say let them be primitive, just as long as they act reasonably. They aren't.

The "White Man's Burden" comment was pretty apt.

I say let them be primitive, just as long as they act reasonably. They aren't.

I'd question your use of the word 'reasonable'.

They have their reasons, they are a sovereign territory, and they don't want any invaders in their space.

The article said that the fishermen were illegally within their territory, did it not?

Thus, they were just defending their rights against trespass. Since they don't carry that isolationism TO others... it seems perfectly reasonable.

The "White Man's Burden" comment was pretty apt.

I say let them be primitive, just as long as they act reasonably. They aren't.

Only according to your definition of "acting reasonably".

Only according to your definition of "acting reasonably".

in fact, not only are they acting reasonably, but they are acting exactly as one would expect them to act if you looked at the history such contacts.

Really, what’s the big deal?
They broke the law in India, they should have been smarter than that. The law effectively grants those primitive people the island and the land around it and they’ve made it clear that trespassers will be shot.
Plus, I don’t want my money spent on some mad excursion into the Indian Ocean to punish some barely human savages who won’t even understand what is going on.

They need to be offered some form of choice about whether they want to stay in a primitive place.

Okaaaay. what part of "arrows being fired" constitutes refusal of all unspoken offers, dont you understand? what part of "I wag my penis in your general direction, you silly science K-nig-hts!" is saying "Come in for a spot of tea, and lets trade cultural tidbits, wot?"

They.dont.want.our.society. What you are saying is "lets force them to confront it". Thats not offering, Its forcing.


That being said, our societies ARE better than theirs, our lives are better, fuller, and probably a good deal happier.

That being said, our societies ARE better than theirs, our lives are better, fuller, and probably a good deal happier.

I disagree. I think you will find that by comparing the rates of our society and theres in regards to depression, rape, suicide, child molestation, anorexia, bulimia, imprisonment, stress, number of hours worked per week and contentment with one's spirituality, our societies have a distinct disadvantage.

I disagree. I think you will find that by comparing the rates of our society and theres in regards to depression, rape, suicide, child molestation, anorexia, bulimia, imprisonment, stress, number of hours worked per week and contentment with one's spirituality, our societies have a distinct disadvantage.

Nicely put.

That being said, our societies ARE better than theirs, our lives are better, fuller, and probably a good deal happier.
maybe

i say that because we dont KNOW what their health is like. we dont KNOW what their infant mortality is. we dont KNOW what their nutrition is like.

but you are comparing the best of us with the worst of what you think they might be like.

if they "accepted" civilization they wouldnt be living in a soho loft discussing modern art and sipping red wine

they would end up in the slums of india. seperated from everything they know and understand. set at the utter bottom of an extremely poor society. "untouchable" in the hindu religion that would surround them. they would be uneducated, unlanded, unconnected. they would have none of the family and clan support that keep people alive in poor societies. living on the streets, they would have no chance at good nutrition, what would they understand about indian food? they would be surrounded by diseases they have never been exposed to in a country that has almost no medical resources to help them. there would be nothing about this life that was superior to the one they live now.

I disagree. I think you will find that by comparing the rates of our society and theres in regards to depression, rape, suicide, child molestation, anorexia, bulimia, imprisonment, stress, number of hours worked per week and contentment with one's spirituality, our societies have a distinct disadvantage.
You forgot war!! :rolleyes:

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.

The Indian government is very strict about access to them. They have been so isolated that any mainlander going there would cause killer diseases which would wipe them out. After the tsunami, the govt did not allow access to them for the foreign relief agencies because of that.

So they get to do what they please. I feel sorry for the fishermen, but they should have been careful. Almost everyone one knows those islands are off limits.

There are even stone age tribes who have had no first contact.