|
Jerry Cotton posted:Because the end goal is to completely reassimilate Gaza into Israel and either drive away or kill all the muslims currently living there. *Made extra funny by the traditional Jewish view, which sees the mother as the source of ones ethnicity.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
15 Maps That Don't Explain the Middle East at All. Recent article from the Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think the re in reassimilate makes it sound too much like the Israeli Jews are the real descendents of ancient Israel, while the local Palestinians are simply Jews who have abandoned that heritage. Considering that half of Israel's Jews are Ashkenazi, who are primarily of Western European heritage*, it's kinda hard to argue they're reassimilating anyone so much as just assimilating. As someone who considers himself a traditional, Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jew, I think Israelis, including those with Ashkenazi names, are way more assimilated into the middle eastern Mizrahi culture than they are in any way Eastern European. Also yeah Ashkenazis are Eastern Europeans, it's the Sephards who come from the west. Israelis speak a different language than us, they use a different form of liturgical Hebrew, they eat different food. Although they may not be brown enough to look middle eastern or Palestinian or whatever, they are definitely way more middle eastern than European. No true Ashkenazi would eat hummus. Sorry if that's a pedantic rant but it's just another thing that makes me mad about the idea that The Jewish State is Our Jewish State and is some sort of representative home for Jews everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I would have to agree, I've always considered Israel to be a distinctly Middle Eastern country and I'm surprised whenever I see someone even indirectly refer to it as a bastion of the West. It makes the right-wing American support all the more baffling, I can only imagine how frightened and confused they'd be if they had to live there for an extended period of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
So all those right-wing American Christian supporters of Israel -- do they think they're supporting a modern day Kingdom of Jerusalem or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
The Evangelicals in the US think that once Israel is restored to its full glory the day of judgement will come.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:As someone who considers himself a traditional, Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jew, I think Israelis, including those with Ashkenazi names, are way more assimilated into the middle eastern Mizrahi culture than they are in any way Eastern European. Bloodnose posted:Israelis speak a different language than us, they use a different form of liturgical Hebrew, they eat different food. Although they may not be brown enough to look middle eastern or Palestinian or whatever, they are definitely way more middle eastern than European. No true Ashkenazi would eat hummus. I wonder what the world would have been like if the Ashkenazi had been given East Prussia, instead of the Russians taking it. An alternative to Israel probably wouldn't have hurt, and it would probably be a healthier place for Ashkenazi culture to thrive than having the population scattered to the winds or end up in a completely different climate with a bunch of very different people. Bloodnose posted:Also yeah Ashkenazis are Eastern Europeans, it's the Sephards who come from the west. Riso posted:The Evangelicals in the US think that once Israel is restored to its full glory the day of judgement will come.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So all those right-wing American Christian supporters of Israel -- do they think they're supporting a modern day Kingdom of Jerusalem or something? Actually I'm about 100% certain the main reason is they just hate "arabs" a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Actually I'm about 100% certain the main reason is they just hate "arabs" a lot. "Muslims" you mean. After all, they hate Iranians and Afghans and Pakistanis and the non-Arab African Muslims, too. Torrannor fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Like he said, 'Arabs'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I wonder what the world would have been like if the Ashkenazi had been given East Prussia, instead of the Russians taking it. An alternative to Israel probably wouldn't have hurt, and it would probably be a healthier place for Ashkenazi culture to thrive than having the population scattered to the winds or end up in a completely different climate with a bunch of very different people. As far as I know, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is the only place in the world where Yiddish has official language status.    Ashkenazi culture did not do well there and the Jewish population of the JAO is negligible today. edit: Honestly, the place where it's been most successful is the US. Kiryas Joel, New York is almost entirely Yiddish speaking and I think I once read has the lowest percentage of native English speakers of any incorporated place in the US. Or something like that. Although I don't exactly approve of the Hasids and the way they practice their religion either, they're definitely a lot more similar to me in culture than Israelis. More broadly, Ashkenazi culture has blended in and out of the broader American melting pot culture in a way that's pretty cool. Lots of Yiddish words like "schlep" are widely understood and even sometimes used by non-Jews. My browser spell checker didn't even underline it. It underlines "Ashkenazi" though, hilariously. Ashkenazi food and humor is widely enjoyed in America. I honestly don't understand how Seinfeld became as popular among gentiles as it did, but it just goes to show how that "New York Jew" blend of Ashkenazi and American culture works well in the US. And that's why America is my Jewish homeland and Israel should probably be dismantled into something more inclusive and stop pretending to be The Jewish State. Deep State of Mind fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:"Muslims" you mean. After all, they hate Iranians and Afghans and Pakistanis and the non-Arab African Muslims, too. From an Evangelical religious viewpoint, Muslims 'reject' the divinity of Jesus, and demote him to the mere status of prophet, which is heresy they came *after* Jesus and *chose* not to believe he was the son of God, which is heresy. Jews are more acceptable (in the Modern Era), since they are considered a throwback to a pre-Jesus world, an Old Testament world, kind of like humans look at chimpanzees - cousins, but clearly 'lesser advanced', and, in the Biblical sense, still a 'Chosen People', but also the wards of Christians. Whenever I speak with non-crazy Evangelicals/Baptists, and we talk about Israel, they talk about it as if it's an extension of *their* faith and *their* heritage, rather than that of the Jewish people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:As far as I know, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is the only place in the world where Yiddish has official language status.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, I know that didn't really work out that well, but that's hardly surprising given the location. I would expect a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in East Prussia would have fared better, if only because it would've had a familiar climate and be connected to the rest of Europe. I can imagine some tension with its neighbors though, especially early on. Probably still less tension in the long run than Israel has with its Arab neighbors. Israel wound up being the destination for Europe's Jewish refugees partly because it was easier at the time. The Yishuv in British Palestine was already there as a kind of shadow state or at least a foundation on which a Jewish country could be created, and the Holy Land itself had a strong pull factor for Jewish immigration. Trying to carve out a state somewhere else would run into the problem of that place not having its own existing Jewish community to absorb and integrate the refugees, and of not being particularly attractive to its intended residents. Konigsberg may have been more better than Birobidzhan but not to the point that Jews from all over the world would have been trying to get in just because it was promised to them as their own state, as happened with Israel. The other merit to handing over Palestine is that the powers didn't have to give up anything themselves. The USSR wasn't about to give East Prussia over for a Jewish state because they were going to convert it into the world's largest military base. They had their own plans. On the other hand, a lot of the refugees would have preferred emigration to the USA even over Israel, only the USA had no interest in absorbing hundreds of thousands or millions of Jews. Creating Israel pushed all the costs onto the Arabs, who had no seat at the table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:And that's why America is my Jewish homeland and Israel should probably be dismantled into something more inclusive and stop pretending to be The Jewish State. Well IIRC originally Israel was far more secular in nature than it is today. The idea as such wasn't completely bad to give Jewish people (whether ethnic or religious) a country of their own to run, but unfortunately if you look at the history of Israel and its neighbours it's like it's some twisted RPG where every time they got a dialog window with options, they always chose the worst possible option, leading us to today's clusterfuck. e: also I had to explain to a French-speaking colleague today that 'Jew food' and 'Jewish food' mean different things. He told me he got the former from a Jewish friend who is staunchly anti-Zionist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:
In French there's no "Jew/Jewish" distinction, there's only "juif, juive". Unless I misunderstood you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, I know that didn't really work out that well, but that's hardly surprising given the location. I would expect a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in East Prussia would have fared better, if only because it would've had a familiar climate and be connected to the rest of Europe. I can imagine some tension with its neighbors though, especially early on. Probably still less tension in the long run than Israel has with its Arab neighbors. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was founded in 1934 to stem the threat of Zionism, which the Soviet government perceived as a threat until its end. Stalin was pretty prejudiced against Jews and some argue that the Doctor's Plot was the beginning of an antisemitic campaign. Successive Soviet regimes were also pretty prejudiced towards Zionism and Jews in general.  "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists allied themselves in anticommunist action with Israeli Zionists.", 1977 EDIT: Israel used to be pretty socialist but made a hard right turn in the 1980's. RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Why are bourgeois represented in torn off clothes and such? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense (at the time anyway)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Why are bourgeois represented in torn off clothes and such? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense (at the time anyway)?  Torn and ratty clothes, especially blue jeans, were a symbol of Western bourgeois decadence. There's probably something in there about the deprivations of capitalism but I'm pretty sure most people, even the propagandists, didn't care by 1977. EDIT:  As you can see, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is not exactly in a prime real estate area. A Jewish homeland was definitely not on the list of Soviet priorities and was more akin to voluntary exile. RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Man, I thought torn clothes were a more recent trend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:
Is this a cartoon about the dangers of bourgeois capitalist Scooby Snacks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So all those right-wing American Christian supporters of Israel -- do they think they're supporting a modern day Kingdom of Jerusalem or something? Jerry Cotton posted:Actually I'm about 100% certain the main reason is they just hate "arabs" a lot. As others have said, it's this. There are some really loving crazy evangelicals who think end of the world etc, but mostly it's because Jews fall on the right side of the us/them border, partly due to familiarity as a minority in America and partly due to neocon messaging in the right wing media. I don't think the US population is as pro-Israel as you might expect from our foreign policy, it's just very convenient for the neocon architects like Cheny and company who conceived of the culture war against Islam in the last 30 years for the stated reasons, and also because Israel was a US ally against the Soviets in the cold war. A Buttery Pastry posted:I wonder what the world would have been like if the Ashkenazi had been given East Prussia, instead of the Russians taking it. An alternative to Israel probably wouldn't have hurt, and it would probably be a healthier place for Ashkenazi culture to thrive than having the population scattered to the winds or end up in a completely different climate with a bunch of very different people. Okay, but this happened in like the 1000s or 1100s AD, and the Yiddish language is based off German and Slavic languages. They're pretty clearly Central/Eastern Europeans. the jizz taxi posted:Well IIRC originally Israel was far more secular in nature than it is today. The Zionist movement had many factions, one of which was the right-wing quasi-fascists who intended Israel to be a Jewish nation-state. This group was mostly marginalized politically for the first few decades in favor of democratic socialists in the Labour Party / Fabian School tradition, much like happened in India, Singapore and a lot of the post-colonial world. This group included Albert Einsten. The transition to the right wing politically happened in the 70s/80s, as people have mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Given the rise of neoliberalism in the West at the same time, would there be any connection?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Given the rise of neoliberalism in the West at the same time, would there be any connection? In general terms yes. The political demise of the left in Israel pretty much coincides with its demise everywhere else in the western world. The political disintegration of the Eastern Bloc, especially with China leaving, the economic crisis of the 70s and the rise of overseas economic competition from Asia/Japan, etc, all did it in, same as everywhere else. At the same time constant wars with neighboring Arab states soured the Israeli public's opinion of them and made the previously mentioned quasi-fascists' positions seem more attractive. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was founded in 1934 to stem the threat of Zionism, which the Soviet government perceived as a threat until its end. Stalin was pretty prejudiced against Jews and some argue that the Doctor's Plot was the beginning of an antisemitic campaign. Successive Soviet regimes were also pretty prejudiced towards Zionism and Jews in general. Can you elaborate more on the threat the Soviets perceived from Zionism? I know that Eastern Europe can be crazy anti-Semitic, and I have a basic understanding of The Doctor's Plot, but outside of geopolitical concerns that would have arisen only after the fact of the establishment of the state of Israel, I can't see why prior to that that Zionism would have been seen that way. If the Zionists wanted to leave, what was the harm in letting them emigrate? At the very least, they could have let the rabble-rousing radicals go. Seems like it would have been an easy way for the Soviet leadership to wash their hands of dissidents while keeping their hands clean. Did the Soviets fear outside criticism? Because I can't really understand that that would have posed much of a threat into the 1930's-1940's, since my impression is by that most influential Western leftists, even those with deep convictions, had abandoned all hope of the USSR would be their savior from capitalism long before then. I'm sure it goes deeper than that though, and my knowledge of Soviet history is pretty thin compared to many in the thread, but outside of basic prejudice I don't see why the Soviets would care all that much about Zionism, let alone be threatened by it. RocknRollaAyatollah posted:EDIT: Israel used to be pretty socialist but made a hard right turn in the 1980's. turn left israel noooooo
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:EDIT: Israel used to be pretty socialist but made a hard right turn in the 1980's. The Palestinian Jewry(pre 1948)/Israelis were moving steadily to the right since before the 1980s. Early 1950s Israel was very, very socialist; until like the 1980s, significantly more than half of Israel's workforce belonged to the same union, the Histadrut. 1950s Israel was actually a pretty poor country in general and was under food rationing for a period of several years, something which probably wouldn't be possible unless they had a powerful central government with that kind of philosophy. IIRC Israel started moving to the right in the 1960s and 1970s with the consolidation of Herut and other right-wing parties into Likud and their slow increase of influence. Elyv fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
It took way longer than that for a lot of 'leftist intellectuals' to stop supporting the Soviet Union. People like Sartre continued to speak out in their favor in the postwar period (another reason why he's a piece of poo poo compared to Camus). It was only after the violent suppression of the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Spring, and also when it became clear that the millions of deaths caused by Stalin were not a capitalist fabrication, that many of them began to turn away from the SU. Even then, quite a few of them simply turned towards Maoism. Af for Soviet antipathy towards Israel, that was just geopolitics. Israel ended up being an American ally, while the Russians tried building relations with Egypt/Syria and whichever other ME country they thought they could get a foothold in. And of course Zionism, much like apartheid, just made for a good propaganda vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, but this happened in like the 1000s or 1100s AD, and the Yiddish language is based off German and Slavic languages. They're pretty clearly Central/Eastern Europeans. Obviously Israel deligitimizes itself through it's actions too, but it never hurt being able to show how even their own logic doesn't hold up for a significant part of their population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How the Ashkenazi Jews came to be directly undermines Zionist justifications for their right to Israel, by showing they are primarily descendents of European populations who had existed in Europe since before the spread of agriculture in some cases. Can you cite some sources for any of this? I thought the origin of the Ashkenazis is pretty mysterious with lots of competing theories. And if we did come from some mass conversion of western Europeans, that sounds like a pretty big historical deal that I'd like to know more about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:Can you elaborate more on the threat the Soviets perceived from Zionism? I know that Eastern Europe can be crazy anti-Semitic, and I have a basic understanding of The Doctor's Plot, but outside of geopolitical concerns that would have arisen only after the fact of the establishment of the state of Israel, I can't see why prior to that that Zionism would have been seen that way. If the Zionists wanted to leave, what was the harm in letting them emigrate? At the very least, they could have let the rabble-rousing radicals go. Seems like it would have been an easy way for the Soviet leadership to wash their hands of dissidents while keeping their hands clean. Did the Soviets fear outside criticism? Because I can't really understand that that would have posed much of a threat into the 1930's-1940's, since my impression is by that most influential Western leftists, even those with deep convictions, had abandoned all hope of the USSR would be their savior from capitalism long before then. I'm sure it goes deeper than that though, and my knowledge of Soviet history is pretty thin compared to many in the thread, but outside of basic prejudice I don't see why the Soviets would care all that much about Zionism, let alone be threatened by it. It's less 'the Soviets' and more 'Stalin' from what I know. Stalin was extraordinarily paranoid, and Zionists were a somewhat powerful political group, therefore they might be enemies. That's all there was to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Can you cite some sources for any of this? I thought the origin of the Ashkenazis is pretty mysterious with lots of competing theories. And if we did come from some mass conversion of western Europeans, that sounds like a pretty big historical deal that I'd like to know more about. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html They mention in this study that we're at a point where just a bit further study can essentially recreate the genetic history of the Ashkenazi, basically tracing the where, when and how of their origin in a detailed fashion. It's pretty drat cool what the kind of things we can learn just be looking at our genes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:In French there's no "Jew/Jewish" distinction, there's only "juif, juive". Unless I misunderstood you. That is true, but he speaks English with his Jewish friend, who apparently thought it was funny to teach him antisemitic slurs 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The point isn't that they aren't Central/Eastern Europeans, it's that genetically they're more European than Levantine. You can't argue that by ignoring the early-to-late middle ages, before they arrived in Eastern Europe. On top of that Israeli propaganda stretches back much further than even that to justify Zionism. How the Ashkenazi Jews came to be directly undermines Zionist justifications for their right to Israel, by showing they are primarily descendents of European populations who had existed in Europe since before the spread of agriculture in some cases. But, Israelis, to my knowledge, don't claim a genetic right to the Holy Land. The claim is religious/ethnic and ethnicities are by definition imagined communities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Gleri posted:But, Israelis, to my knowledge, don't claim a genetic right to the Holy Land. The claim is religious/ethnic and ethnicities are by definition imagined communities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Halachic conversion is a thing though and converts are no less Jewish than Jews by birth. Edit: converts can also of course trace their religious lineage back to ancient Israel if not their ethnic lineage. And Halachic conversion is a big ordeal and not taken as lightly as in proselytizing faiths. Also Wikipedia says that 60% of Israelis are of Mizrahi ancestry, citing some Israeli social science academy study thing. So saying they're all kreplach-munching Italians is probably one of the least valid criticisms of Israel's existence. Deep State of Mind fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
If you put people next to each other, they're gonna bone. That's human nature. I imagine that is how the Ashkenazim came to be. Especially during that wild period from 70-~600AD. When you've got migrations all over the place, you grab what you can get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Halachic conversion is a thing though and converts are no less Jewish than Jews by birth. Bloodnose posted:Also Wikipedia says that 60% of Israelis are of Mizrahi ancestry, citing some Israeli social science academy study thing. So saying they're all kreplach-munching Italians is probably one of the least valid criticisms of Israel's existence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:Can you elaborate more on the threat the Soviets perceived from Zionism? I know that Eastern Europe can be crazy anti-Semitic, and I have a basic understanding of The Doctor's Plot, but outside of geopolitical concerns that would have arisen only after the fact of the establishment of the state of Israel, I can't see why prior to that that Zionism would have been seen that way. If the Zionists wanted to leave, what was the harm in letting them emigrate? At the very least, they could have let the rabble-rousing radicals go. Seems like it would have been an easy way for the Soviet leadership to wash their hands of dissidents while keeping their hands clean. Did the Soviets fear outside criticism? Because I can't really understand that that would have posed much of a threat into the 1930's-1940's, since my impression is by that most influential Western leftists, even those with deep convictions, had abandoned all hope of the USSR would be their savior from capitalism long before then. I'm sure it goes deeper than that though, and my knowledge of Soviet history is pretty thin compared to many in the thread, but outside of basic prejudice I don't see why the Soviets would care all that much about Zionism, let alone be threatened by it. The Soviet Union had the same problem that China has today. You can't cherry pick which nationalist or religious movements you give into. If you give into one group, the other groups are going to be agitating for what they want more than they already were. There was also supposed to be Soviet socialist patriotism, dedication to the Soviet government as a socialist federation of multiethnic states. Within the Soviet mindset, there was no need for an independent Jewish state because all peoples were equal in the USSR and admitting that such a state was needed would undermine Soviet nationalism. The Soviet Union was not a rationally or realistically run state, especially by the end. Russia itself was incredibly antisemitic before the Russian Revolution and communism didn't change that greatly since Judaism is a religion. Even after Stalin's death, Zionists were a convenient scapegoat due to Israel and the lack of any real opposition within the USSR. It's not to say there were huge campaigns of antisemitism or pogroms but life was bad enough for Russian Jews during the heyday of the USSR that aliyah was preferable to living in the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:The Soviet Union had the same problem that China has today. You can't cherry pick which nationalist or religious movements you give into. If you give into one group, the other groups are going to be agitating for what they want more than they already were. There was also supposed to be Soviet socialist patriotism, dedication to the Soviet government as a socialist federation of multiethnic states. Within the Soviet mindset, there was no need for an independent Jewish state because all peoples were equal in the USSR and admitting that such a state was needed would undermine Soviet nationalism. The Soviet Union was not a rationally or realistically run state, especially by the end. That's not really true today because outside of the "officially recognized minorities" or whatever China has never pretended to be anything but a single empire. They have agitators but those live off in the hinterlands. It also helps that China hasn't really grown from this point 200 years ago (it's shrank with Mongolia et all leaving) whereas the Soviets had the addition of Eastern Europe to their empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
To add to my post in the pictures thread: where do the last uncontacted people on earth live? This map appears to be a bit out of date, though. As far as I can see, the estimated number of uncontacted peoples has risen throughout the last couple of years. For Papua-New Guinea, the number of 40 tribrs ist most often mentioned, for example. Also: "uncontacted" mostly mustn't be taken literally. Many of these tribes know very well that civilisation exists, and intermittently have contact with it via forest workers, missionaries and ethnologists. "Uncontacted" in this context only means that the contacts never became more than sporadic. Many tribes even actively refuse to engage outsiders, as previous experiences left some bad memories. Some of those people are even citizens of the EU, as one tribe (estimated at ~100 people) lives in the very south of French Guiana. Keep in mind that most of these groups are very small, ranging from maybe 20 (in some cases even less) members to the the outlier of the Hi-Merima tribe in Brazil, which numbered over 1,000 in 1943.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:57
|
|
