NationStates Jolt Archive

Phew..just read thru the whole damned thread. Never knew that this incident would spark off intense debating.

I am amused at some postors entertaining notions like going there to "teach the tribals a lesson". The govt is very protective of those regions. Not surprising since it is our very own unsinkable aircraft carrier (the aribase at Car Nicobar). Trust me, you won't get far there.

I support the idea of leaving those people be. They don't bother me and I don't bother them. Bringing them into civilization all sounds nice but we have to be very very careful in attempting that sort of thing (given our track record).

I remember a rather funny narration in the aftermath of the tsunami. The govt official incharge of that area feared that whole tribe may have been wiped off. He went there in a helicopter and was very glad when he say spears being thrown at himi. They were alive !

You forgot war!! :rolleyes:
Sounds like they don’t have a problem with war, just on a much smaller level. After all, they are willing to kill. Also, most Americans and Western Europeans have not been directly negatively effected by war.

Sounds like they don’t have a problem with war, just on a much smaller level. After all, they are willing to kill. Also, most Americans and Western Europeans have not been directly negatively effected by war.
Oh, I was just going for a little comic relief and it appears that I failed. :(

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

You're funny. Using incorrect examples for your arguments. The more correct argument would be walking into a grizzly bear's den when it's at home then blaming the bear for choosing that particular cave that you were mauled in. Or entering the house of an armed Texan uninvited and complaining that you got shot.

The old arrogance of the white man's burden is still alive and strong I see. White man's ego is more like it.

I remember a rather funny narration in the aftermath of the tsunami. The govt official incharge of that area feared that whole tribe may have been wiped off. He went there in a helicopter and was very glad when he say spears being thrown at himi. They were alive !

that story actually got repeated in a magazine called "green anarchy" - i don't know if i saw it anywhere else round here though

I don't know remember where, but I do remember that story.

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

By entering the exclusion zone, the fishermen were already breaking Indian law, not to mention the bit about illegal fishing.

If you ignore a warning that you are aware of on an electrified fence, drunk or not, you've got no-one to blame but yourself when you do the electric tango.

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

No. From the looks of things, you want revenge. Justice is a rather moot concept actually. Even the so-called justice of the fairest courts in the land are really just different means of revenge. The principles behind justice courts and fair hearings are to punish offenders thus discouraging repeat incidents, NOT justice.

And going with the express purpose of shooting back in the full knowledge that you will be shot at is about the same as going to cause conflict anyways.

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

Yes, they are. They're not trying to impose their ways on the outside world; they're merely applying their laws on their own land, which is legal not only according to their laws (obviously), but under Indian law as well (since the Andaman Islands are officially part of India).

Are you advocating going to war with India?

I can't believe the arrogance of some people on here.

These people probably don't even have a conception of law. They probably can't conceptualise a complex concept like that. I'd be quite shocked if they had a conception of jail. I'd be just as amazed if they even had a word for murder. They don't have a written language. I can say that with a fair degree of certainty, having studied linguistics at university for 3 years. How on earth do you expect them to receive a fair trial? Unless you don't believe in people having to understand right and wrong?

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.
Yes, that's absolutely damn right!
I'm really appaled by the vast display of stuck-up ignorance and arrogance here as well :mad:

On another topic brought up, while it would certainly be interesting to study their language, I see absolutely no reasonable way to do it without greatly disturbing their culture.

I can't believe the arrogance of some people on here.

These people probably don't even have a conception of law. They probably can't conceptualise a complex concept like that. I'd be quite shocked if they had a conception of jail. I'd be just as amazed if they even had a word for murder. They don't have a written language. I can say that with a fair degree of certainty, having studied linguistics at university for 3 years. How on earth do you expect them to receive a fair trial? Unless you don't believe in people having to understand right and wrong?

I agree fully with where you're coming from, but I'd just like to raise one small point. Nothing indicates that they have no concept of law. All societies have that. Indigenous societies encountered by Europeans have always had laws of their own. Likewise, I very much doubt they have no concept of right and wrong. It's simply that their concept of it is different from ours. "Right" and "wrong" aren't moral absolutes; they're socially subjective.

They undoubtedly do have laws and ethics. Which they're perfectly entitled to. The point is that our laws and ethics have no place on their sovereign land, and we have no right to expect them to follow them, or even be aware of them.

Yes, that's absolutely damn right!
I'm really appaled by the vast display of stuck-up ignorance and arrogance here as well :mad:

On another topic brought up, while it would certainly be interesting to study their language, I see absolutely no reasonable way to do it without greatly disturbing their culture.

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

Before you know it, blacks murdering whites will be considered "O.K." in the name of "multiculturalism" since they once were our slaves.

You cannot make rules for "special" people or groups. Murder is murder. They murdered two unfortunate fishermen, and probably more in their past.

You keep on thinking about the "good" of the tribe... What about the families of those two fishermen? Those families not only lost a loved one but the main source of income, the only thing keeping them alive. Of course, in the name of multiculturalism, you'd rather have those unfortunate families be heartbroken and slowly starve than intrude on a tribes "sovereignty."

I agree fully with where you're coming from, but I'd just like to raise one small point. Nothing indicates that they have no concept of law. All societies have that. Indigenous societies encountered by Europeans have always had laws of their own. Likewise, I very much doubt they have no concept of right and wrong. It's simply that their concept of it is different from ours. "Right" and "wrong" aren't moral absolutes; they're socially subjective.

They undoubtedly do have laws and ethics. Which they're perfectly entitled to. The point is that our laws and ethics have no place on their sovereign land, and we have no right to expect them to follow them, or even be aware of them.

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally. They have trampled upon India's sovereignty now, since they just killed two Indian citizens. If Canadian border guards just opened fire and killed two American citizens, there most likely would be a serious international diplomatic incident. But since these people are a "sovereign tribe" we must not do anything in fear of being "politically incorrect" or "racist."

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally.

maybe. depends on how you define "murder".

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally. They have trampled upon India's sovereignty now, since they just killed two Indian citizens. If Canadian border guards just opened fire and killed two American citizens, there most likely would be a serious international diplomatic incident. But since these people are a "sovereign tribe" we must not do anything in fear of being "politically incorrect" or "racist."

A better comparison would be a Russian warship speeding towards a US navy base and being sunk with missiles, it was self defense.

The last time they made contact with the outside world was when armed looters in boats illegally landed and attacked them.

Now, what do you think they're likely to do if they see another boat coming in to land on their island?

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

Before you know it, blacks murdering whites will be considered "O.K." in the name of "multiculturalism" since they once were our slaves.

You cannot make rules for "special" people or groups. Murder is murder. They murdered two unfortunate fishermen, and probably more in their past.

You keep on thinking about the "good" of the tribe... What about the families of those two fishermen? Those families not only lost a loved one but the main source of income, the only thing keeping them alive. Of course, in the name of multiculturalism, you'd rather have those unfortunate families be heartbroken and slowly starve than intrude on a tribes "sovereignty."

And if we go in and kill them all, the family will suddenly have a new source of income?

And if we go in and kill them all, the family will suddenly have a new source of income?

When have I ever said we should kill them all? Only because the family will not have a new source of income, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do justice for the family.

The way you put things in this post, we shouldn't have any trials at all, after all, they don't "help" anyone. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=The Spartan Confederat]From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally.QUOTE]

Yes. But what is considered murder is not universal. As far as the killers' motivations go, they were defending their home, much like if you broke into someone's house and you shot them.

A better comparison would be a Russian warship speeding towards a US navy base and being sunk with missiles, it was self defense.

The last time they made contact with the outside world was when armed looters in boats illegally landed and attacked them.

Now, what do you think they're likely to do if they see another boat coming in to land on their island?

You seem to forget that this boat was simply being carried by the tide and both the men were most likely asleep.

There was no threat to the tribe.

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

According to what set of laws did they murder anyone?

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally.


So everyone who commits murder either knows they are doing wrong or are insane?

Yes. But what is considered murder is not universal. As far as the killers' motivations go, they were defending their home, much like if you broke into someone's house and you shot them.

You seem to easily forget that these fishermen weren't marching in on their island with rifles, guns, or any other kind of weapons.

They were sleeping on a boat that was carried by the waves to that island.

The tribe killed these fishermen without any provocation.

You seem to forget that this boat was simply being carried by the tide and both the men were most likely asleep.

There was no threat to the tribe.

And how exactly did you expect them to know this? As far as I'm concerned, what happened was the equivilant of if they had fallen asleep and drifted in a whirlpool. They knew the Sentinilese were nearby. If they made a living by fishing, they probably knew that it was possible that they would end up within range of the Sentinilese. They got drunk anyways.

You seem to easily forget that these fishermen weren't marching in on their island with rifles, guns, or any other kind of weapons.

They were sleeping on a boat that was carried by the waves to that island.

The tribe killed these fishermen without any provocation.

See my above post.

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

Before you know it, blacks murdering whites will be considered "O.K." in the name of "multiculturalism" since they once were our slaves.

You cannot make rules for "special" people or groups. Murder is murder. They murdered two unfortunate fishermen, and probably more in their past.

You keep on thinking about the "good" of the tribe... What about the families of those two fishermen? Those families not only lost a loved one but the main source of income, the only thing keeping them alive. Of course, in the name of multiculturalism, you'd rather have those unfortunate families be heartbroken and slowly starve than intrude on a tribes "sovereignty."
hmmmmm

are you really unaware that the definition of "murder" is set by law based on the culture doing the defining?

the law has been decided by the country of india. there is no "murder" here because the law doesnt define these deaths as murder. the law says that the sentinelese are allowed to defend their "borders" with deadly force. everyone knows it. its a shame that illegal fishing and excessive alcohol consumption put these men in danger but the law is the law.

According to what set of laws did they murder anyone?

Are you going Bill Clinton on me? :rolleyes: Questioning the precise definition of a word is idiocy. According to this magical thing called logic, they murdered two people. They took away two fishemen's life without provocation.

Oh, and to satisfy your petty needs, this was in areas controlled by the Indian government. I am positively sure that if you took away the politics, this would be considered murder.

According to this magical thing called logic, they murdered two people.

demonstrate this.

hmmmmm

are you really unaware that the definition of "murder" is set by law based on the culture doing the defining?

the law has been decided by the country of india. there is no "murder" here because the law doesnt define these deaths as murder. the law says that the sentinelese are allowed to defend their "borders" with deadly force. everyone knows it. its a shame that illegal fishing and excessive alcohol consumption put these men in danger but the law is the law.

There is one problem here... The tribe wasn't "defending" their borders. To defend is when you are protecting something from something else that is violent and/or dangerous. The fishermen were neither violent nor dangerous.

There is one problem here... The tribe wasn't "defending" their borders. To defend is when you are protecting something from something else that is violent and/or dangerous. The fishermen were neither violent nor dangerous.

And how were they expected to know that?

And how were they expected to know that?

Okay, so according to you, we should shoot at all Arabs trying to get into the States or Europe because we don't know if they will be a danger to us or not. Just jolly.

There is one problem here... The tribe wasn't "defending" their borders. To defend is when you are protecting something from something else that is violent and/or dangerous. The fishermen were neither violent nor dangerous.

and the fact that all of their neighbors that didn't defend their borders in this way no longer exist should not in any way influence the determination of whether these outsiders were dangerous?

demonstrate this.

Taking away life of people without provocation = Murder

and the fact that all of their neighbors that didn't defend their borders in this way no longer exist should not in any way influence the determination of whether these outsiders were dangerous?

So this gives them a right to murder two sleeping fishemen in a little boat that is drifting towards their island with the tide? I believe not, comrade.

Taking away life of people without provocation = Murder

define provocation

Are you going Bill Clinton on me? :rolleyes: Questioning the precise definition of a word is idiocy. According to this magical thing called logic, they murdered two people. They took away two fishemen's life without provocation.

Logic without definitions tells us nothing. Questioning the precise definition of a word is exactly how legal systems work. Are all legal systems idiocy?



Oh, and to satisfy your petty needs, this was in areas controlled by the Indian government. I am positively sure that if you took away the politics, this would be considered murder.

Yes, it oocured in an area controlled by the Indian government - who chose not to apply the laws that they apply elsewhere on the island and in its exclusion zone. Thus the killings were not against the law, and thus not murder.

define provocation

You are Bill Clinton, aren't you?


1 a archaic : to arouse to a feeling or action b : to incite to anger
2 a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : EVOKE <provoke laughter> b : to stir up purposely <provoke a fight> c : to provide the needed stimulus for <will provoke a lot of discussion>


These fishermen didn't incite anyone to anger, nor did they stir up purposely to provoke a fight.

They were sleeping in a boat, and got shot up with arrows. They weren't jumping around threatening them with machine guns or spears or anything.

There is one problem here... The tribe wasn't "defending" their borders. To defend is when you are protecting something from something else that is violent and/or dangerous. The fishermen were neither violent nor dangerous.

In the eyes of the Sentinelese all contact with the outside world is dangerous, and understandably so, they having witnessed the extremely deleterious effects of contact on the surrounding islands.

You are Bill Clinton, aren't you?

Has Clinton become the new Socrates?

So this gives them a right to murder two sleeping fishemen in a little boat that is drifting towards their island with the tide? I believe not, comrade.
what? you dont believe in the rule of law?

the law is that no one is allowed near that island and that the islanders can shoot anyone who gets within arrowshot. they give a warning volley then they kill whoever gets too close.

its the law.

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

Multiculturism is exactly what this is not: multiculturalism would be to bring the Sentinelese culture into the main body of Indian life. The very opposite is happening here.

In the eyes of the Sentinelese all contact with the outside world is dangerous, and understandably so, they having witnessed the extremely deleterious effects of contact on the surrounding islands.

So since they believe that all contact with the outside world is dangerous, this gives them the right to murder people who have by accident found themselves on their island?

Has Clinton become the new Socrates?

he does bear a certain resemblance

its the law.

Whether it is just or not is an entirely different matter, obviously, but arguing that they committed 'murder' (a legal term) when what is still up for debate is whether they killed people unjustly is pointless.

(Comments addressed to our Spartan friend, not Ashmoria)

Multiculturism is exactly what this is not: multiculturalism would be to bring the Sentinelese culture into the main body of Indian life. The very opposite is happening here.


From my understanding, multiculturalism is embracing different cultures and letting them do what they want because it is "good for their culture." To bring them in to the main body of Indian life would mean that they would assimilate, and it wouldn't be multicultural anymore, just one Indian culture.

Is this the day the world has gone mad? Do you actually want to have these people get away with murder in the name of cultural diversity or "multiculturalism?"

Before you know it, blacks murdering whites will be considered "O.K." in the name of "multiculturalism" since they once were our slaves.

You cannot make rules for "special" people or groups. Murder is murder. They murdered two unfortunate fishermen, and probably more in their past.

You keep on thinking about the "good" of the tribe... What about the families of those two fishermen? Those families not only lost a loved one but the main source of income, the only thing keeping them alive. Of course, in the name of multiculturalism, you'd rather have those unfortunate families be heartbroken and slowly starve than intrude on a tribes "sovereignty."
It appears that you have many issues here:

You are against "multiculturalism?"

You have already judged the indians as murderers without knowing all the facts.

You assume that the fishermen have families to support and that they are the sole bread winners.

What does black, white, "our slaves" have to do with any of this?

And the world is full of rules for "special people", be they rich or poor, black or white. Many of these rules are exclusionary.

Perhaps you would like to enslave them to live by the laws of your culture?

From my understanding, multiculturalism is embracing different cultures and letting them do what they want because it is "good for their culture." To bring them in to the main body of Indian life would mean that they would assimilate, and it wouldn't be multicultural anymore, just one Indian culture.

No, multiculturalism is the existence of multiple cultures within mainstream national life. To sum up Indian culture as a monolitihic block is like trying to sum up United States culture and claim that there are no different strands based upon race, heritage or beliefs running through it. I can however accept your earlier claim that the situation is motivated by a wish for cultural diversity.

Whether it is just or not is an entirely different matter, obviously, but arguing that they committed 'murder' (a legal term) when what is still up for debate is whether they killed people unjustly is pointless.

(Comments addressed to our Spartan friend, not Ashmoria)

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
synonym see KILL

Indeed, this seems to be murder.

Taking away life of people without provocation = Murder

Taking away a people's livelihood doesn't count as any kind of provocation?

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

Indeed, this seems to be murder.



Were the killings against the law? Nope.
Were they carried out in a wanton manner? Nope.

Show me again how this advances your case, would you, because I fail to see it.

It appears that you have many issues here:

You are against "multiculturalism?"

You have already judged the indians as murderers without knowing all the facts.

You assume that the fishermen have families to support and that they are the sole bread winners.

What does black, white, "our slaves" have to do with any of this?

And the world is full of rules for "special people", be they rich or poor, black or white. Many of these rules are exclusionary.

Perhaps you would like to enslave them to live by the laws of your culture?

You are a true idiot:

I am against multiculturalism taken to far (i.e. where regular murder is considered O.K.)
I never judged the Indians as murderes.
You seem to say that you know everything. Tell me then, what are all of the facts?
In the majority of India and other third world nations families have to lean on the males of the families for their daily bread. It's just how things work.
I was using "black" "white" and "our slaves" as an exageration about how the way many people view these things in this thread, black against white crimes will be viewed as "O.K." I was exagerating to make a point. Grow up.
Obviously, I do not support exclusionary rules.
No, slavery has ended in first world nations a long time ago for a good reason. You seem to assume way too much, my friend.

Were the killings against the law? Nope.
Were they carried out in a wanton manner? Nope.

Show me again how this advances your case, would you, because I fail to see it.

Murder is against Indian law, they just decided not to try the members of the tribe that commited it.

Yes, it was in a wanton manner:
1 a archaic : hard to control : UNDISCIPLINED, UNRULY b : playfully mean or cruel : MISCHIEVOUS
2 a : LEWD, BAWDY b : causing sexual excitement : LUSTFUL, SENSUAL
3 a : MERCILESS, INHUMANE <wanton cruelty> b : having no just foundation or provocation : MALICIOUS <a wanton attack>
4 : being without check or limitation: as a : luxuriantly rank <wanton vegetation> b : unduly lavish : EXTRAVAGANT

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




I think that is the most important part of the article. People here have said this tribe has acted unreasonably and savage and whatnot in killing these fisherman who strayed to close to their island(which quite ironically is illegal for all you folks saying this tribe should be wiped out for breaking the "Law") but just look at that qoute. Early 1990's isn't that long ago and so events that happened then wouldn't have been forgotten now. Seems the last time people came to the island they shot themselves a good few of these tribesmen. Now maybe they were provoked, I don't know the whole story, but the point is the island was basically invaded. I know to us in civilization this incident doesn't seem like much but this was probaly the biggest thing that happened in the tribes history for years. In a tribe of 50-200 people even a few deaths is a lot and it sounds like it was more than a few deaths.

The Sentinelese have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world, none. They don't know about WW2, 9/11, that man landed on the moon, they don't know who Jesus Christ or Mohammed is. You can't expect them to understand our laws and to understand that in our society it is wrong to kill someone just because they strayed onto your property. They have no conception of that, all their trying to do is live. And in recent memory the last time they remember people landing on their island in strange crafts that floated on water many Sentinelese died. I don't know about you but if I was them and I lived through that the next time I saw people coming in similar craft to my island I would take them out cause I don't want to die, and I don't want my people to die.

Furthermore, while the article didn't say I am assuming the boat was pretty close to the island. Bows do not exactly have long ranges, know more than 1-200 yards, probaly less. And unless there a lot stronger than most "civilized" people theyre not going to be wipping spears out all that far either. So these fisherman had to have gotten pretty close before they got themselves killed.

Also, it is not like this tribe is going out and attackig people, if that were the case I would fully support taking them out. The fisherman came to them, for all the Sentinelese knew they were being "invaded" again. They did not know what was going on, they do not have all the knowledge we do, they couldn't have possibly understood that these fisherman were drunk because I don't think they even no what alchohol is.

seriously, i think it would be better if we brought them the blessings of civilization, like vaccinations, modern medicine, safety regulations for the workplace etc. think about the children of these people, we cannot let them grow up among these savages.
Apparently they dont want them and how can you say that our soceity is actual better than theirs. Dont forget they have had experiences with "civilised" people before. Also they will probably have a high level of ummunisation to the diseases they r actually on the island, vaccinations seems a tad pointless when delivering the vaccinations wld put them in more danger than if they didnt have vaccinations
Also the word "savage" is a pretty outdated concept really, they just arent technologically or scientifically as advanced as we, their emotions and brains are just as developed. This idea that because they shot the fishermen they are barbaric is flawed. They seem to hace essentially viewed it as an invasion and acted in a manner to defend themselves. It seems that all contact with others such as the poachers and salvagers have turned out violent and its not an unreasonable view to take considering that they would have had a limited world view

Murder is against Indian law, they just decided not to try the members of the tribe that commited it.

No, because the policy of minimum intervention held by the administration also has the force of law, and here supercedes the legislation concerning murder which is in operation throughout the rest of India.

Yes, it was in a wanton manner:

It was not wanton because by the pack of fishermen were taking the islanders fish stock and also threatening contact with the outside world, which has lead to almost complete destruction of neighbouring island cultures - thus provocation existed and the killings can be viewed as self-defense. Let us not forget here that the fishermen themselves were breaking the law as laid down by the administration.

The Sentinelese have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world, none. They don't know about WW2, 9/11, that man landed on the moon, they don't know who Jesus Christ or Mohammed is.


In covering the story, the BBC reported that the islanders have very little contact with, and by inference, understanding of the outside world – hence the arrows. In reality, the indigenous populations of the Andaman and Nicobar islands have had extensive contact with the outside world. These descendents of African peoples were first visited by Marco Polo who described them as “No better than wild beasts.” European slave-traders later raided the islands for slaves. Starting in the 1800s, British troops visited wholesale massacres upon the islanders. An Indian land grab in the 20 th century forced most of the remaining islanders from their ancestral lands. Anthropologists report that slavers continued to raid the islands well into the second half of the 20 th Century, long after the international slave trade was thought dead. So it seems that the islanders have a much better understanding of the outside world than the BBC would suspect. And that quaint bow and arrow thing might be a bit more complex than a cutesy story about a naked savage.

http://mediastudy.com/articles/av1-13-05.html

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

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



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?

If the island is considered the private property of the tribe, then they are actually in their right to do so, as part of defending their private (albeit communally owned) property.

If not, then they committed murder and need to be tried by the fullest extent of the law. Send in some helicopters carrying soldiers and secure an area to force the said murderers to turn themselves in, while also repulsing any assaults the natives might make with far superior firepower.

If the island is considered the private property of the tribe, then they are actually in their right to do so, as part of defending their private (albeit communally owned) property.

Workign backwards from this: would the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas and Australia/Oceania have been in their rights in killing all who entered their territory?

Workign backwards from this: would the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas and Australia/Oceania have been in their rights in killing all who entered their territory?

Technically yes, since they would be considered sovereign national entities, but the simple fact that the colonizers of the countries forced them into submission indicates that they lost that status. In effect, the land belongs to he who can take it.

Yes they were. That's what the whole Lebensraum thang was about. It just happened that other nations happened to be laying claim to their land and squatting on it.
Thats a poor argument for comparing the islanders with the nazis, firstly, the nazis particapated in an international society that regonised the exsitence of these soverignities, when they did what they did they knew they were breaking the rules of their society, the fact they broke them because they felt justified is moot. These islanders on the other hand do not have a concept of international relationships, they are completely isolationist, and have no idea of how society in the rest of the world work. They werent attempt to expand at all, only defend what is soverign, the nazis even if they considered it theirs, still knew they were expanding into a differnt soverginty, they wanted to remove it
Oh and by the way, its not Lebensraum you are talking about, that was Hitlers idea of gaining living space, i think you mean Grosdeutchland-including all germans in the 3rd reich

Thats a poor argument for comparing the islanders with the nazis...

Yeah, I wasn't really making any serious point with that post, just trying to illustrate how subjective the views of the world and right and wrong can be when looked at through the eyes of different cultures.

If they feared us, they would run and hide. We wouldn't even know that anyone was there.
Actually, the three possible repsonses to fear are Freeze,Flee and FIGHT, your argument is false

Quote:
Originally Posted by Safehaven2
The Sentinelese have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world, none. They don't know about WW2, 9/11, that man landed on the moon, they don't know who Jesus Christ or Mohammed is.




Quote:
In covering the story, the BBC reported that the islanders have very little contact with, and by inference, understanding of the outside world – hence the arrows. In reality, the indigenous populations of the Andaman and Nicobar islands have had extensive contact with the outside world. These descendents of African peoples were first visited by Marco Polo who described them as “No better than wild beasts.” European slave-traders later raided the islands for slaves. Starting in the 1800s, British troops visited wholesale massacres upon the islanders. An Indian land grab in the 20 th century forced most of the remaining islanders from their ancestral lands. Anthropologists report that slavers continued to raid the islands well into the second half of the 20 th Century, long after the international slave trade was thought dead. So it seems that the islanders have a much better understanding of the outside world than the BBC would suspect. And that quaint bow and arrow thing might be a bit more complex than a cutesy story about a naked savage.




Guess they had more contact with the outside world than I thought, but it still does not change the fact that they have no idea what is going on in the outside world. No body in that article sat down and talked to them. This article proves my point even further, going from your article while the Tribe had more contact with the outside world than I thought all, or at least the grand majority, seems to have been extremely violent. Raids, massacres, an apparent invasion by Indian troops kicking them off some land. Just proves the point that they probaly thought they were under attack and that they were defending themselves. They're whole history of contact with the outside world seems to be one where Sentinelese were killed or kidnapped into slavery. With that kind of history, you can't blame them for being "trigger-happy", as wrong as it may be.

Yeah, I wasn't really making any serious point with that post, just trying to illustrate how subjective the views of the world and right and wrong can be when looked at through the eyes of different cultures.
Lol, cool.

Lol, cool.

It is not often that hermeneutics receives the response 'Lol, cool'.

Given that they saw humans inside them, I would have to say that that isn't likely.
How exactly do u know they did. If the hellicopter was high enough, they wldnt have, and if they were looking up then they wldnt have been able 2 see much of the cockpit at any real flying height. Stop making stupid assumptions. You dont appear to know much about the tribe yet you are using your assumptions to form an argument.

Okay, so according to you, we should shoot at all Arabs trying to get into the States or Europe because we don't know if they will be a danger to us or not. Just jolly.

Friend, if you're going to draw innaccurate parallels and create strawmen then it's considered good manners to make them at least semi-convincing.

Your analogy would only work if we had never made friendly contact with an Arab.

You are a true idiot:
Nice flame. Think what you wish, it is of no consequence to me.


I am against multiculturalism taken to far (i.e. where regular murder is considered O.K.)
Ummm what has multiculturalism got to do with this story? Nada. Yet you mention the word three times. Your bigotry is showing.

I never judged the Indians as murderes.
Yes you did. You don't remember what you wrote?

You seem to say that you know everything. Tell me then, what are all of the facts?
I am not, unlike you, claiming to know all the facts. However, you do seem to be embellishing the story.

In the majority of India and other third world nations families have to lean on the males of the families for their daily bread. It's just how things work.
That may be very well true, but you don't know that for a fact in this story. In other words, you are making up shit, for the sake of an emotional appeal.

I was using "black" "white" and "our slaves" as an exageration about how the way many people view these things in this thread, black against white crimes will be viewed as "O.K." I was exagerating to make a point. Grow up.
Another nice flame. I have grown up enough to recognize that your analogy was a totally inappropriate comment for this debate, especially when all parties involved in this story are Indians.

Obviously, I do not support exclusionary rules.
I didn't say you did, but I was making the point that there are rules for "special people" in this case, and that they just don't happen to jive with the rules that you want to apply.
No, slavery has ended in first world nations a long time ago for a good reason. You seem to assume way too much, my friend.

Interestingly, you typed the words "since they once were our slaves" in your previous post and if you had omitted the word "our", I would have had a totally different appreciation for what you were trying to say. The word "our" confers ownership. And when you combine that statement along with your obvious discomfort with multiculturalism, the picture is complete.

Judging by your flaming rebuttal, I sense that I touched a nerve.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck........

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally. They have trampled upon India's sovereignty now, since they just killed two Indian citizens. If Canadian border guards just opened fire and killed two American citizens, there most likely would be a serious international diplomatic incident. But since these people are a "sovereign tribe" we must not do anything in fear of being "politically incorrect" or "racist."

Wrong comparison. Under Indian law, the Sentinelese are entitled to use deadly force against anyone who enters their sovereign territory. Therefore, it was not murder in a legal sense.

The Sentinelese were acting within the framework of their own society, ethics and laws, which they are entitled to do on their own territory. You cannot expect them to abide by our laws and ethics, or even to be aware of them.

hmzt ive been following this thread since the beginning and it seems that many do not see the position that the tribesmen are in and thus claim that they are murderers and should be exterminated/brought to justice/put on trial (or something to that effect).. maybe if we saw it from the islanders' point of view we could understand a lil better.. earlier on in the thread there was something about an alien spaceship coming into low orbit over earth and i thought it was a pretty good analogy..

hypothetically speaking, if an alien mothership (foreign boat) came into low orbit around earth one fine day, and aliens came out and abducted people, blew up half of new york city and extracted out all the oil from saudi arabia, (slave traders, soldiers massacring them, poachers shooting at them, illegal fishing of their fish etc) would the earth and all the people in it want to retaliate? most probably we would send will smith in a bomb-laden F16 into the mothership and blow it up, use some computer/biological virus or whatnot, in short everything in our power to get rid of the alien mothership...(hail of arrows seemed to do the trick for the islanders)

... 30years later another alien mothership pops up on the radar screen.. maybe not the exact same type... maybe an older model without the giant laser turrets mounted on top (not military vessels or motorised fastcrafts but an open topped boat) ...it doesnt seem to be hurtling right towards earth, but maybe making slow manouvers near the moon. (not landing on the island but drifting around, apparently aimlessly)

...now are we, the people of earth, going to sit around and wait to see what happens? "maybe they jus wanna say hi?" "Maybe its another alien race? One that doesnt want to blow up our cities and abduct us to their home planet to sell as pets?" Most probably not, cause they might jus decide to unleash their entire arsenal of high tech alien weaponary and God knows what else they have ingeniously hidden within the hulls of their mothership (the islanders have no idea as to the capabilities or the intentions of the fishermen) on the earth and vaporise the entire asian continent cause they felt like it.. more likely we'd once again do everything in our power to get rid of the alien mothership.. and the first method used would be the tried-and-tested one.. the F-16/virus/nuclear bomb whatever (hail of arrows)..

..with all that said and done, what would the people of earth want? no doubt they would be science enthusiasts who want to make contact the alien race, possibly strike deals with them and procure some alien technology etc etc... However considering that there is no safeguard against the aliens suddenly changing their minds and deciding to exterminate us, that the alien technology has its merits and demerits eg. "i can make you live in an utopian paradise but you all have to plug yourselves into this giant computer system known as the matrix" , and that we just like life the way it is without the aliens, the majority of the population would vote in favour of telling the aliens to move along and leave the earth alone.. and if they didnt listen and kept coming, we'd nuke every single bloody spaceship that they throw at us.

...in essence,
1. the islanders know nothing of us except that everytime we show up, something bad happens to them.

2. from past experiences, they figured that all we can be is bad news for them.

3. hence they would rather not risk us getting close to them cause bad things might happen (and so far every single time has happened) to them. they're opting to be safe rather than to be sorry.(and dead)

4. they found out that the best way to keep us out is to shoot arrows at us, cause it worked before. (and is basically everything in their power to stop us)

..hence imho, the islanders were making rational decisions based on the information that they had and past experience, and did everything in what they perceived as self defence from an imminent threat... therefore there isnt a need nor a reason to retaliate.. jus leave them alone and everything will return to normal...

..hope this helps, but if it doesnt then oh well...:)

hmzt ive been following this thread since the beginning and it seems that many do not see the position that the tribesmen are in and thus claim that they are murderers and should be exterminated/brought to justice/put on trial (or something to that effect).. maybe if we saw it from the islanders' point of view we could understand a lil better.. earlier on in the thread there was something about an alien spaceship coming into low orbit over earth and i thought it was a pretty good analogy..

hypothetically speaking, if an alien mothership (foreign boat) came into low orbit around earth one fine day, and aliens came out and abducted people, blew up half of new york city and extracted out all the oil from saudi arabia, (slave traders, soldiers massacring them, poachers shooting at them, illegal fishing of their fish etc) would the earth and all the people in it want to retaliate? most probably we would send will smith in a bomb-laden F16 into the mothership and blow it up, use some computer/biological virus or whatnot, in short everything in our power to get rid of the alien mothership...(hail of arrows seemed to do the trick for the islanders)

... 30years later another alien mothership pops up on the radar screen.. maybe not the exact same type... maybe an older model without the giant laser turrets mounted on top (not military vessels or motorised fastcrafts but an open topped boat) ...it doesnt seem to be hurtling right towards earth, but maybe making slow manouvers near the moon. (not landing on the island but drifting around, apparently aimlessly)

...now are we, the people of earth, going to sit around and wait to see what happens? "maybe they jus wanna say hi?" "Maybe its another alien race? One that doesnt want to blow up our cities and abduct us to their home planet to sell as pets?" Most probably not, cause they might jus decide to unleash their entire arsenal of high tech alien weaponary and God knows what else they have ingeniously hidden within the hulls of their mothership (the islanders have no idea as to the capabilities or the intentions of the fishermen) on the earth and vaporise the entire asian continent cause they felt like it.. more likely we'd once again do everything in our power to get rid of the alien mothership.. and the first method used would be the tried-and-tested one.. the F-16/virus/nuclear bomb whatever (hail of arrows)..

..with all that said and done, what would the people of earth want? no doubt they would be science enthusiasts who want to make contact the alien race, possibly strike deals with them and procure some alien technology etc etc... However considering that there is no safeguard against the aliens suddenly changing their minds and deciding to exterminate us, that the alien technology has its merits and demerits eg. "i can make you live in an utopian paradise but you all have to plug yourselves into this giant computer system known as the matrix" , and that we just like life the way it is without the aliens, the majority of the population would vote in favour of telling the aliens to move along and leave the earth alone.. and if they didnt listen and kept coming, we'd nuke every single bloody spaceship that they throw at us.

...in essence,
1. the islanders know nothing of us except that everytime we show up, something bad happens to them.

2. from past experiences, they figured that all we can be is bad news for them.

3. hence they would rather not risk us getting close to them cause bad things might happen (and so far every single time has happened) to them. they're opting to be safe rather than to be sorry.(and dead)

4. they found out that the best way to keep us out is to shoot arrows at us, cause it worked before. (and is basically everything in their power to stop us)

..hence imho, the islanders were making rational decisions based on the information that they had and past experience, and did everything in what they perceived as self defence from an imminent threat... therefore there isnt a need nor a reason to retaliate.. jus leave them alone and everything will return to normal...

..hope this helps, but if it doesnt then oh well...:)

An excellent first post, welcome to the forum.:)

If the island is considered the private property of the tribe, then they are actually in their right to do so, as part of defending their private (albeit communally owned) property.

If not, then they committed murder and need to be tried by the fullest extent of the law. Send in some helicopters carrying soldiers and secure an area to force the said murderers to turn themselves in, while also repulsing any assaults the natives might make with far superior firepower.

Of course the problem would be this.

Soldier "Who killed these men."

Tribesmen, <What did he say>

Soldier "Stop talking gibberish and someone confess!"

Tribesmen <Hey! Stop talking gibberish and tell us what you want!>

i have to agree that is a good way of puting it although i realy do wonder what happens when the islanders decide to do a little exploreing after all thay have boats and thay didnt just pop on to the island so thay must have a history no-matter how distant of migration

ps woooot a intelegent post 4 1ce :D

Guess they had more contact with the outside world than I thought, but it still does not change the fact that they have no idea what is going on in the outside world. No body in that article sat down and talked to them. This article proves my point even further, going from your article while the Tribe had more contact with the outside world than I thought all, or at least the grand majority, seems to have been extremely violent. Raids, massacres, an apparent invasion by Indian troops kicking them off some land. Just proves the point that they probaly thought they were under attack and that they were defending themselves. They're whole history of contact with the outside world seems to be one where Sentinelese were killed or kidnapped into slavery. With that kind of history, you can't blame them for being "trigger-happy", as wrong as it may be.

A note: historical treatment of other indigenous Andamanese peoples has not necessarily held true for the Sentinelese.

There is one problem here... The tribe wasn't "defending" their borders. To defend is when you are protecting something from something else that is violent and/or dangerous. The fishermen were neither violent nor dangerous.

Actually, the long-standing isolation of the Sentinelese (even as compared to, say, the remnant Great Andamanese - many of which now mostly speak Hindi) has, by way of disease transmission risk, rendered all contact with outsiders perilous.

An excellent first post, welcome to the forum.:)

Indeed

(and without an gun smilies either. Good first post and no gun smilies, surely this is a rarity :p)

From the Indian government's "Master Plan 1991-2021 for Welfare of Primitive Tribes of Andaman and Nicobar Islands" by S.A. Awaradi (former assistant commissioner of the Nicobars and director of tribal welfare in the Port Blair administration), published in January 1990 by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration at Port Blair:

Section II / Chapter 21

MASTER PLAN FOR THE SENTINELESE

The Sentinelese situation is unique with their existing eco-cultural system and the dynamic eco-cultural equilibrium. The ubiquitous incubus phenomenon of destabilization of eco-cultural equilibrium, in contrast to all other negrito tribes of Andaman Islands, has not yet succeeded to descend on the Sentinelese. The present state of situation with regard to all other primitive tribes viz, the Great Andamanese, the Onge, the Jarawa and the Shompen of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is the consequence of the historical expediency due to the nation's socio-political history, The British India government fought to befriend the hostile Great Andamanese in early years of the Penal Settlement when they decided to found such settlement in the Andamans following the Great Mutiny of 1857. The free India government usurped the territory of the Jarawas and Onges to settle the refugees following the partition of the Greater India in 1947. Similarly the Shompen territory in Great Nicobar Island was usurped to settle the Indian ex-servicemen, as it was thought expedient to inhabit this frontier and most strategic island with such people also though it was inhabited by the tribes i.e. the Shompen and the Nicobarese. Fortunately no such historical and socio-political expediency has crept up affecting the North Sentinel Island. And precisely on account of this the Sentinelese are beyond the reach of the arms of the modern society and hence they continue to be of their own making.

21.2. The above analysis of the tribal situation in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands brings us to the crucial crossroad and the question as to whether we are unwittingly bringing about or creating the "ideological expediency", the "modern man's burden" to spread everywhere his culture and value system and "share" the"fruits" of the modern cvilization. Or is it the modern man's unending inquisition to uncover the unknown phenomena and people? But as the long experience goes these ethnocentric endeavours have done more harm expecially to the small and isolated primitive communities than any good. Despite all this, the contact expeditions are organised to the Sentinelese with the mission to befriend them. It appears that the genesis of the practice of organisation of contact expeditions is the modified form of the earlier practice of the British lndia government. The British tried to "win" the friendship of the autochthons often through battles while free India government tried to "earn" the friendship and not in the battle field. In case of the Jarawa, as noted above, it might have been expedient to solve the "Jarawa problem" by establishing the friendly relations so that the loss of life and property of the settlers caused by the Jarawas is curbed. However, this purpose/motif of the contact expedition has not been fully accomplished as the Jarawas continue to inflict terror on the non-autochthons and thus able to keep them at bay on the eastern part of the Great Andaman Island. And it appears that the mission to befriend the aborigines (Jarawa) has simply been extended to the hostile Sentinelese too though there was no expediency to do so. Once started, it becomes a bureaucratic precedent and continues as a matter of practice.

21.3. Though there is a specified contact team consisting of the Secretary of Tribal Welfare, Superintendent of Police (Bush Police) Deputy Director of Anthropological Survey of India, Port Blair, Medical Officer, Executive Secretary and the Senior Social Worker of AAJVS, in practice, as in the case of the Jarawas, the special visitors/VIP also accompany the team, creating similar situations as discussed in paragraphs 19.21 and 19,24. The gifts of coconut, machetes are dropped on the beach of the island. This new item of food may cause complication in digestive and. other systems of the Sentinelese. There is the possibility of the danger due to consumption of spoiled coconuts. At times the "adventurous" members of the contact team may cause the mishap like the one that happened a decade ago when the Sentinelese shot the arrows at the "daring" member and the latter had to fire in self defence, and escaped narrowly and fortunately he opened fire in the air that time (paragraph 20.4). Therefore, the basic question is why at all these contact expeditions? The Sentinelese do not require the benevolence of the modern civilization and if at all they require any thing, it is the non-interference, The continuation of the practice of organising the regular contact expedition to the Sentinelese would raise certain fundamental questions like for instance, what right does the modern man have got to interfere in the totally isolated tribal life of the. Sentinelese? What right does he got to decide unilaterally to impose his "friendship" on the Sentinelese who have been vehemently resisting it? Is it not their fundamental community right to live their own way, which they have been enjoying time immemorial? What is the logic in, meddling with their independent and the perfect eco-cultural equilibrium (may be unwittingly) first, and then attempt to run to restabilize the equilibrium?

21.4. Therefore the practice of organizing the contact expedition to the Sentinelese requires a review and modification as under. The expedition shall be organised occasionally to the North Sentinel Island only to observe the Sentinelese and their number from the respectable distance say 50 metres from the shore. No gifts of any kind shall be dropped. The authorised team shall also assess the efficacy of the total isolation of the Sentinelese enforced by the armed forces. A constant surveillance by the Indian Coast Guard,' Indian Navy and Police over this isolated island is kept so that no outsiders approach it. These forces too shall not land or go very near the beach of the North Sentinel Island.

21.5. Two international shipping liners viz. M.V. Primrose and M.V. Rusley have wrecked by agrounding on the coral beds in the coastal waters of the North Sentinel Island recently. The Sentinelese took away some iron pieces from these wrecked ships when they were abandoned following the rescue of crew. Subsequently these two ships have been auctioned away to the scrap dealers by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. A portion of scrap has already been retrieved by the dealer while major chunk is still left there. The scrapping of ship involves the use of powerful metal cutters, explosives and manpower, thus resulting in intense human activities by the non-autochthons. It would be imperative to stall all such activities near North Sentinel Island. Nevertheless, such grounded ships can not be abandoned either because their hull plates will rust due to long sea water action and ship bottom may wreck spilling the cargo. The cargo spilth (especially the chemicals and oil) could be hazardous to marine life around the North Sentinel Island and in turn the Sentinelese who subsist on it. Therefore in such cases the cargo should be loaded to another ship so that the grounded ships float again and thereafter they are towed to safe place to scrap. Such mishaps may occur here in future also hence the environmental experts shall be consulted before the wreckage is salvaged quickly. If wrecks are to be auctioned, the suitable terms and conditions for the protection of environment and isolation of Sentinelese shall be incorporated in the agreement.

Of course, in the name of multiculturalism, you'd rather have those unfortunate families be heartbroken and slowly starve than intrude on a tribes "sovereignty."

Hell yes!

And, no doubt, you would, too... if you were a member of a small community that had little contact with a much larger world, and that was so small in numbers that ONE carelessly spread disease could easily wipe out ALL of your family and friends.

Not to mention the fact that the Sentinelese effectively are doing nothing but protecting themselves, and their land. If a much larger power started placing troops in your own nation, you'd complain, would you not? You'd resist, would you not?

And, in the case of a community as isolated as this... ANY civilian is indistinguishable from a potential bio-contaminat weapon.

Stay the hell of their island, and you'll be fine.

From what I know, murder is considered to be wrong universally. They have trampled upon India's sovereignty now, since they just killed two Indian citizens. If Canadian border guards just opened fire and killed two American citizens, there most likely would be a serious international diplomatic incident. But since these people are a "sovereign tribe" we must not do anything in fear of being "politically incorrect" or "racist."

Rubbish. Sorry, but that really is just so far from true....

American law allows the home-owner to fire on an intruder WITHIN his domain. That is not considered 'murder'.

The Indian government allows the Sentinelese to claim sovereignty over their territory. And, defending your nation against trespassers is something ALL nations allow, in varying degree.

Are you going Bill Clinton on me? :rolleyes: Questioning the precise definition of a word is idiocy. According to this magical thing called logic, they murdered two people. They took away two fishemen's life without provocation.

Oh, and to satisfy your petty needs, this was in areas controlled by the Indian government. I am positively sure that if you took away the politics, this would be considered murder.

Totally false.

Questioning the precise definition of a LEGAL term, like 'murder', is entirely appropriate.

'Murder' (under American law) requires that the act of killing be illegal... and there are numerous 'factors' that can change the considered opinion... such as - was it self-defence? Was it protection of property?

They had provocation... they were protecting their sovereign territory against intruders.

You seem to think that a nation can have it's sovereignty fairly delineated by the number of citizens.

And how were they expected to know that?

It isn't true, anyway. Isolated tribes have been decimated by casual contact with other 'peoples' that have access to greater disease-pools than are accomodated by the immune-systems of the small society.

The classic example being Christian missionaries having a long established tradition of bringing the twin attributes of 'civilisation' and 'syphilisation' to the 'heathens'.

Seems like a pretty clean cut case in my book. It looks like the Indian government has made it very clear to stay the hell away from that island because its occupied by hostile natives. The fishermen have no one to blame but themselves. It is unfortunate that they died, but if everyone would just comply with the law and stay the hell away from that island we would never have this trouble. It's clear these people want to be left alone. Is that such a crime?

Seems like a pretty clean cut case in my book. It looks like the Indian government has made it very clear to stay the hell away from that island because its occupied by hostile natives. The fishermen have no one to blame but themselves. It is unfortunate that they died, but if everyone would just comply with the law and stay the hell away from that island we would never have this trouble. It's clear these people want to be left alone. Is that such a crime?

Exactly. Indian law forbids entry into Sentinelese water, and allows the Sentinelese to use whatever means they deem necessary to enforce an exclusion zone.

Thus, the whole argument of 'wrongdoing' is moot.

So... the fishermen were drunk? Since when was being 'drunk' a defense against enforced no-fly or exclusion zones? Indeed... although it may carry it's own defintions, being drunk is no legal defense, either...

As for the supposition that the Sentinelese necessarily attempt to kill all outsiders within bowshot, I am aware of online video footage (to be posted pending moderator approval) demonstrating this to be incorrect.

I take this view: Although grisly, India has made clear it is a dangerous place. IMHO, any attack on outsiders by the tribe is in a certain respect self defense, because any approaching outsiders carry a high risk of destroying 200+ people. Therefore, an unfortunate murder or two by people who knew damn well to not go near anyway is an acceptable price to protect the lives of many more people.

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

Not at all.

"It has frequently been claimed by linguists that the Sentineli language could not be recorded or investigated since contact with the Sentineli has been virtually impossible. This is true as far as it goes. However, advances in technology have invalidated the argument: there are now highly developed directional microphones available that could record any talk among Sentineli on their beaches from a considerable distance (say, from a boat off-shore) without disturbing the Sentineli or endangering the researchers. The recorded conversations could later be analyzed in the safety of the linguists' own laboratories."

(http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter8/text8.htm#sentineli)

"Various studies in the past, both linguistic and genetic, suggest that Andamanese languages might be the last representatives of pre-Neolithic Southeast Asia. They represent, perhaps, the initial settlement by modern humans (ref. Hagelberg et al 2002 ). Hagelberg analysed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and RFLP polymorphisms, and Y chromosome bi-allelic markers and microsatellites, in present day Andamanese of the Onge, Jarawa, and Great Andamanese tribes. She and her co-workers also analyzed mtDNA sequences from Andamanese hair samples collected by an ethnographer during 1906-1908. Their conclusion was that Andamanese have closer affinities to Asian than to African populations and that they are descendants of the early Palaeolithic (old-stone age) colonizers of Southeast Asia."

(http://www.andaman.org/book/originals/Abbi/art-abbi.htm)

See http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter32/text32.htm for more information on Andamanese languages.

I might as well throw in these links. Apparently A&N islands are the focus of the "Incredible India" tourism campaign. So those who want to study the tribes or "teach them a lesson" can get a glimpse of what is there.

http://www.incredibleindiatour.com/beaches-in-india/beaches-in-andaman-and-nicobar.html

http://www.incredibleindiaholiday.com/incredible-india-beach-holidays/andaman-and-nicobar-beach-tour.html

Tours
http://www.all-india-travel-guide.com/andaman-nicobar-tours/index.html

http://india-tourism.com/en_ani.0.html
http://india-tourism.com/uploads/RTEmagicC_8cbf5c3553.gif.gif

http://www.niot.res.in/m5/An%20CD%201/photos/Andaman%20island1.jpg

Not at all.

"It has frequently been claimed by linguists that the Sentineli language could not be recorded or investigated since contact with the Sentineli has been virtually impossible. This is true as far as it goes. However, advances in technology have invalidated the argument: there are now highly developed directional microphones available that could record any talk among Sentineli on their beaches from a considerable distance (say, from a boat off-shore) without disturbing the Sentineli or endangering the researchers. The recorded conversations could later be analyzed in the safety of the linguists' own laboratories."

(http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter8/text8.htm#sentineli)

"Various studies in the past, both linguistic and genetic, suggest that Andamanese languages might be the last representatives of pre-Neolithic Southeast Asia. They represent, perhaps, the initial settlement by modern humans (ref. Hagelberg et al 2002 ). Hagelberg analysed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and RFLP polymorphisms, and Y chromosome bi-allelic markers and microsatellites, in present day Andamanese of the Onge, Jarawa, and Great Andamanese tribes. She and her co-workers also analyzed mtDNA sequences from Andamanese hair samples collected by an ethnographer during 1906-1908. Their conclusion was that Andamanese have closer affinities to Asian than to African populations and that they are descendants of the early Palaeolithic (old-stone age) colonizers of Southeast Asia."

(http://www.andaman.org/book/originals/Abbi/art-abbi.htm)

See http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter32/text32.htm for more information on Andamanese languages.


Unfortunatly, we linguists can't do anything more then phonological and a very very very light description of syntactical and morphological structures without actually knowing what their words mean. And we can't find that out without talking to them. Unless they're kind enough to point out everything when they mention it's name, and do every action that they speak of, as we film it. And even then all we get are what we think are the names of objects and what we think are verbs.
The only way to study and learn their language in particular, is to speak to them.

An excellent first post, welcome to the forum.:)

thx.. :p

Indeed

(and without an gun smilies either. Good first post and no gun smilies, surely this is a rarity )

..gun smilies? :sniper: ...waaaaaay cool... hahahaha :D

i have to agree that is a good way of puting it although i realy do wonder what happens when the islanders decide to do a little exploreing after all thay have boats and thay didnt just pop on to the island so thay must have a history no-matter how distant of migration

ps woooot a intelegent post 4 1ce :D

...thx.. :) ....well THEN i think we'd have a problem.. depends on how they react upo discovering civilization then... if they are peaceful about it then i guess everythings fine.. if they start arrow shooting then we could maybe...

1. shoot back and kill them

2. tranquilize them and deport them back to their island

3. tranquilize them, render them completely harmless, then try to convince them that we want peace, although this method would more often than not produce counterproductive results (imagine what the poor guy would think if you broke his bows, dumped him in a straightjacket and handcuffed him to a chair bolted to the ground, then started talking to him in what he hears as nonsense... lolz)

I am going to make this argument again. Why do they have to serve as purpose that is "useful" to our society? why can't we just let them be?