Bruchko

May 11, 2007 8:53 AM

"I looked into the faces of my executioners and saw that many of them had tears in their eyes."In 1961, Bruce Olson, a brilliant 19-year-old linguistics student, tells his parents he wants to be a Christian missionary. In disgust, his dad buys him a one-way ticket to Caracas. Without sponsors, he walks alone into the jungle looking for the Motilone natives. A Motilone arrow pierces his thigh, and he is taken back to the village where his fate will be decided. He is eventually accepted into the tribe and begins to evangelize without disrupting the culture. In 1988, Olson is captured and condemned to die by guerrillas. Investigating the story, journalist Maria Caballero ventures into the jungles to interview indigenous leaders, who testify to Olson's 30-year history of service to them and in some cases volunteer to die in his place. The president of Colombia says, “This is the first white man to be defended by the indigenous communities in our country, in Latin America.”
posted by No Robots (74 comments total)

I met Olson. I had read his book, Bruchko, and been completely enthralled. When I heard he was speaking at a local church, I made sure I went to listen. A good-looking silver-haired guy, he was standing at the front of this conservative mega-church and he said, "You see me standing here in this suit, but 48 hours ago I was running around naked in my village. I haven't been in clothes for two years."
posted by No Robots at 8:55 AM on May 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

Iincredible story, and one I hadn't heard before. Thanks for posting this.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2007

...begins to evangelize without disrupting the culture.

Huh?
posted by DU at 9:03 AM on May 11, 2007 [7 favorites]

Awesome. This would make a great movie.
posted by tkchrist at 9:19 AM on May 11, 2007

This is maybe the miracle of human beings. They can justify the most selfless compassion and the most insane destructiveness with the same simple lie: God.

I might have told this story before, but once I heard Phillip Roth interviewed on the radio. He said he'd heard someone say once that WW2 would only be over when a mother innocently named a child Hitler.

See the cat? See the cradle?
posted by ewkpates at 9:23 AM on May 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

...begins to evangelize without disrupting the culture.

Huh?
posted by DU

I'm glad you pointed it out. Also, there seems to be no mention of Caracas anywhere, I think he actually went to Colombia. I know it might all seem like "the jungle down there" from other places, but it's not. Caracas is not in Colombia and to "walk alone into the jungle" from Caracas you'd have to walk quite a distance.
posted by micayetoca at 9:25 AM on May 11, 2007

From the second link:

He decided to go to Colombia – initially he went to Venezuela, but his goal was to go help the Motilones, an indigenous people in Colombia. He went there to establish contact, and eventually lived with them for practically 30 years, trying to help them.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2007

Sorry, my bad. It's just that some people always refer to South America as if it was just one big jungle and the way the phrase was put together sounded to me like just that. Then I read the first link and saw no mention of Venezuela and came back and posted that comment, but it was my bad, sorry. It was not what the OP meant.
posted by micayetoca at 9:42 AM on May 11, 2007

The president of Colombia says, “This is the first white man to be defended by the indigenous communities in our country, in Latin America.”

Is this empircally proven?
posted by footnote at 9:54 AM on May 11, 2007

He seems like an interesting and decent human.

However, the record of Christian missionaries operating in Central and South America is utterly deplorable. The idea of being able to evangelize without disrupting the culture would be ludicrous if it wasn't so tragic.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:09 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I like missionaries (minus the God exists unproven part , the burning in hell and all the childish stuff), but I don't like people posing as missionaries , collecting money and goodwill.
posted by elpapacito at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2007

Is this empircally proven?

Does it matter? What's your point? If he's the second white man to defended by the indigenous population, his contributions are somehow reduced?

He seems like an interesting and decent human to me, too. I think he made a significant contribution to better the human condition, and the locals appear to love him for it.

But maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture. Maybe we should castigate him for being a Christian instead. Maybe we should deplore his intent of evangelizing without disrupting the culture, and only trust those evangelists who make their disruptive purposes explicit. Maybe the president of Columbia is secretly another Bush puppet and he's only making these undocumented claims to further GWB's religious causes. Yeah, that's probably it.
posted by JParker at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Maybe we should deplore his intent of evangelizing without disrupting the culture, and only trust those evangelists who make their disruptive purposes explicit.

Are those our only choices?
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:36 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Does it matter? What's your point? If he's the second white man to defended by the indigenous population, his contributions are somehow reduced?

My point is that that's a rather strange claim to make about the "indigenous population." So no indiginous person anywhere has ever "defended" a white man? What does that mean? Why is it relevant?
posted by footnote at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2007

Thirty years in the jungles of Colombia? Pffft. Dude wouldn't last 5 minutes in the wilds of MetaFilter.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:40 AM on May 11, 2007

Really interesting story. Thanks, No Robots.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2007

Here's the big picture, JParker.

Christian evangelists in Central and South America have done things like have people fed to dogs or flayed alive. They systematically destroyed whole cultures, burnt historical records and stopped at nothing to spread their Holy Gospel. Millions died.

This nice man is one of those people.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:52 AM on May 11, 2007 [5 favorites]

This is maybe the miracle of human beings. They can justify the most selfless compassion and the most insane destructiveness with the same simple lie: God.

These are both degrees of heedlessness: compassion is heedless to self, destruction is heedless to others.

It's no miracle that people are willing to act on ideas. It's the ears-shut devotion to an idea - whether it's a social science, a political agenda, or a religious doctrine - that compels people to act heedlessly, for better or worse. Narrow and Utopian views are not exclusively limited to ideas about what God is.
posted by kid ichorous at 10:55 AM on May 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

lupus_yonderboy, you're blaming Bruce Olsen for the actions of others. Bruce Olsen himself has done none of the things you list.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:56 AM on May 11, 2007

Here's the big picture, JParker.
Christian evangelists in Central and South America have done things like have people fed to dogs or flayed alive. They systematically destroyed whole cultures, burnt historical records and stopped at nothing to spread their Holy Gospel. Millions died.
This nice man is one of those people.

Cool. By this logic, I'm going to start holding the nice Muslim family that lives on my street accountable for 1200 years of religious imperialism. Guilt by association.
posted by kid ichorous at 10:58 AM on May 11, 2007 [4 favorites]

Olson, not Olsen. D'oh! Sorry, folks.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:01 AM on May 11, 2007

Maybe we should deplore his intent of evangelizing without disrupting the culture, and only trust those evangelists who make their disruptive purposes explicit.

Maybe the evangelists should simply mind their own business and stay home.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2007

If they did they did that, we'd be talking about the only South American Motilone Priest ever accepted by the savage indigenous natives of Europe. Welcome to Earth lupus NOBODY is minding their own business and staying home, ever.
posted by youthenrage at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2007

Cool. By this logic, I'm going to start holding the nice Muslim family that lives on my street accountable for 1200 years of religious imperialism. Guilt by association.

I don't see your example as relevant, unless your nice Muslim family is composed entirely of jihadis.

This man is going to South America to convert people away from their native beliefs and to Christianity. If he succeeds, their whole culture will be swept away, despite fatuous claims to the contrary.

The fact that Olson doesn't use the same tactics (according to the fawning article) as other people on his team doesn't change the fact that he's squarely on the bad guys' team, through his own choice and actions.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2007

Remarkable story of a remarkable individual. I admire him, and apparently the people he lived with and served did/do too. Thanks for posting this.
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:18 AM on May 11, 2007

At one point he's wandering dazed and starving in the jungle. He lies down and goes to sleep. He dreams that there is a butterfly in his mouth. He wakes up and finds a foot-and-a-half long worm coming out of his mouth. You know things are bad when even your intestinal parasites give up on you!
posted by No Robots at 11:18 AM on May 11, 2007

Welcome to Earth lupus NOBODY is minding their own business and staying home, ever.

Actually, ALMOST EVERYONE stays at home and minds their own business. Most humans never leave the country they were born in.

I've travelled all over the world and talked to thousands of people. In my experience (with of course lots of exceptions) your average person just wants to live their lives in peace and prosperity.

And the argument that "everyone does it, so why complain?" is bootless. We complain about Americans invading Iraq, why doesn't your argument hold?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:19 AM on May 11, 2007

I admire him, and apparently the people he lived with and served did/do too.

He seems like an admirable person -- as an individual. It's just a terrible shame he's working for so dark a cause.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:20 AM on May 11, 2007

The fact that Olson doesn't use the same tactics (according to the fawning article) as other people on his team doesn't change the fact that he's squarely on the bad guys' team, through his own choice and actions

We make so much progress toward good communication, understanding, and co-existence when we boil things down to "good guys" and "bad guys." It's so much simpler and requires so much less analytical effort. Bravo!
posted by mistsandrain at 11:26 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

The problem with "letting people live in peace and prosperity" is that it doesn't happen. It is absolutely necessary for Olson to be down there helping to mediate the interests of the natives with all those who aren't staying at home: government, guerrillas, farmers, freebooters, resource extractors.
posted by No Robots at 11:26 AM on May 11, 2007

We make so much progress toward good communication, understanding, and co-existence when we boil things down to "good guys" and "bad guys."

Let me rephrase this way then: "He is carrying on this work which has caused millions of deaths and the destruction of countless cultures in Central and South American."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2007

It is absolutely necessary for Olson to be down there helping to mediate the interests of the natives with all those who aren't staying at home: government, guerrillas, farmers, freebooters, resource extractors.

I'm down with that -- I never complained about that. It's the evangelism I have very strong issues with.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:31 AM on May 11, 2007

"Christian evangelists in Central and South America have done things like have people fed to dogs or flayed alive. They systematically destroyed whole cultures, burnt historical records and stopped at nothing to spread their Holy Gospel. Millions died."

Any sort of link would be nice here lupus. That is a pretty grand claim. Any sources. Are you referring to the Conquistadors? Which church supported the actions of these missionaries? Anything, or ya just spitballing. Millions died? Over how long of a time span? Help a brother out.
posted by vronsky at 11:31 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't see your example as relevant, unless your nice Muslim family is composed entirely of jihadis. This man is going to South America to convert people away from their native beliefs and to Christianity. If he succeeds, their whole culture will be swept away, despite fatuous claims to the contrary.

Well, is the free exchange of ideas bad when it causes people to alter their ways? From what I've read, he's not forcing anyone to convert, anymore than he forced the rebels to employ his knowledge about medicine. He's merely presenting them with information, and allowing them to make up their own minds. This is absolutely different from what a Jihadi or Crusader does - which is to employ force, punishment, and the threat of violence in communicating ideas.

Let me ask you: Do you think we should incubate fringe cultures against communication with the outside world? Do you think there should be a strict, Star-Trek-esque directive against introducing them to medical information or cultural tropes that could radically change their way of life?
posted by kid ichorous at 11:33 AM on May 11, 2007 [2 favorites]

If he succeeds, their whole culture will be swept away, despite fatuous claims to the contrary.

Do you as zealously advocate the preservation of his culture? If not, why not?

Actually, ALMOST EVERYONE stays at home and minds their own business. Most humans never leave the country they were born in.

I've travelled all over the world and talked to thousands of people. In my experience (with of course lots of exceptions) your average person just wants to live their lives in peace and prosperity.

Hold on, now. You are one of the people who does not mind his/her own business -- you have disrupted the cultures of "thousands of people." I suppose the difference between you and Olson is that you're right and he's wrong, right? Or is it that you didn't think you had anything of value to share with anyone else in the world, whereas he thinks that his opinions are important, and you object to people thinking their opinions are right and wanting to share them?
posted by The World Famous at 11:36 AM on May 11, 2007

"He is carrying on this work which has caused millions of deaths and the destruction of countless cultures in Central and South American."

What- by building health clinics and sending folks to law school so that they understand land use and territorial rights in a larger perspective? These people had choices, they weren't idiots, no one forced them to allow him to stay. I don't think he marched in there with guns, typhus, smallpox, and domesticated pigs...
posted by mistsandrain at 11:37 AM on May 11, 2007

Any sort of link would help

Take two minutes with a search engine, won't you?

A 30-second search got me this and this, which is on a somewhat dubious site but seems to have many of the facts straight.

Let me ask you: Do you think we should incubate fringe cultures against communication with the outside world? Do you think there should be a strict, Star-Trek-esque directive against introducing them to medical information or cultural tropes that could radically change their way of life?

Um, how did "medical" slip in there? "So you won't take Christianity? Then you won't get medicine either!"

I think fringe cultures need to be treated with delicacy and respect. That doesn't mean a "Prime Directive"; it does mean making every respect to preserve their culture so it can flourish into the future. I do not believe evangelicals wish to preserve indigenous cultures except in museums.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:45 AM on May 11, 2007

Great story, great post—thanks, No Robots!

For those who don't read the whole thing, here's a nice self-contained anecdote:

But Franco [a fellow prisoner of the guerrillas] was not easy to counsel. For one thing, he kept going on hunger strikes. Four of them, all told. "I won't be treated like this," he told me before the first one. "They can't victimize me. I'll show them -- I'll starve myself to death! They won't get their ransom. I still have some power over my own life!" I couldn't persuade him not to do it, so he angrily announced his hunger strike to the guerrillas and was enraged even further when they paid no attention.

By the end of the first night of his hunger strike, Franco came to me saying, "Oh, my friend, I'm so hungry! I can't stand it! You've got to bring me something to eat. Can you sneak me something from your dinner? Don't let the guerrillas know, whatever you do!"

By this time the guerrillas gave me a little more freedom to move around in the camp, so I was able to slip most of my dinner into a plastic bag and hide it under my shirt until I could pass it to Franco later that night. He waited until he was in his hammock and wolfed it down. This went on every day of his so-called hunger strike. And he was always ravenous, so it got to the point where I was starving to death because Franco couldn't get by on less than my full ration of food.

Eventually the guerrillas started to worry about Franco's health. One of them asked me, "Do you think he might die? How long can he live without food?" Most of the guerrillas had mixed emotions about it -- they didn't want to lose their ransom, but at the same time they fervently wished to be rid of him.

Finally, a responsable came to me and said, "Franco's hunger strike has lasted two weeks now. Can you do something to make him eat? We're getting tired of this. He's driving us crazy. We've decided to just go ahead and execute him if we can't get him to cooperate. After all, he wants to die from starvation, so it will shorten his suffering if we shoot him now." I decided humor might be the best solution to Franco's problem. "Don't worry about Franco," I told the guerrilla. "I'm the one who's starving -- he's been eating all my food!" The guerrilla laughed uproariously as I described how Franco had been getting plump while I wasted away from his hunger strike. It became something of a camp joke -- though Franco never knew about it. After this, every time Franco announced another hunger strike, they gave me two dinners -- one for me to "sneak" to Franco to keep him happy, and another for myself. We survived all four of his long hunger strikes this way. Franco was eventually released.

(Gosh, if it hadn't been for lupus_yonderboy we might have made it all the way through the thread without a "Christians suck" derail!)
posted by languagehat at 11:46 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Er, I meant that my second link is on a dubious site.

ReligiousTolerance.org is scrupulously footnoted and seems pretty well on-the-level.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:46 AM on May 11, 2007

lupus_yonderboy, the Motilone people let Bruce Olson live with them for 28 years. Obviously they like him and are interested in hearing what he has to say. In this case, if the Motilone choose to switch their belief systems and convert to Christanity, isn't that ultimately their choice?

Granted, this is a tricky issue. I understand where you're coming from when you say "their entire culture will be swept away." All around the world, indigenous cultures are opting for more 'Modern' ways of living-- and in some cases these cultures are having 'Modern' life thrust upon them. Wade Davis discusses this in his book Light At The Edge of The World: A Journey Through The Realm of Vanishing Cultures.

This has happened throughout the history of the world. Cultures arise and Cultures fade away, and it is sad when Cultures disappear. Other Cultures adapt, choosing to fold in new ideas into their existing belief systems. So far the Motlione people have been able to choose their own fate and live the lifestyle they want, and hopefully this will continue, with or without Bruce Olson.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:47 AM on May 11, 2007

Thank you no robots. This was one of the most inspiring things I have read in a long time. Powerful stuff.
posted by caddis at 11:51 AM on May 11, 2007

(Gosh, if it hadn't been for lupus_yonderboy we might have made it all the way through the thread without a "Christians suck" derail!)

For someone named "Language Hat", your reading skills are deficient. My complaint is with Christian evangelism, in particular as it relates to "fringe" cultures.

A more thoughtful commenter wrote:
lupus_yonderboy, the Motilone people let Bruce Olson live with them for 28 years. Obviously they like him and are interested in hearing what he has to say. In this case, if the Motilone choose to switch their belief systems and convert to Christanity, isn't that ultimately their choice?

In some sense yes. In another sense, I'd say that cultures like that are ill-prepared for the aggressive and seductive techniques of evangelism that have been developed over two thousand, in the same way that they'd no doubt become hooked on refined sugar and cigarettes if exposed to them.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2007

(Gosh, if it hadn't been for lupus_yonderboy we might have made it all the way through the thread without a "Christians suck" derail!)

LOL. You've got to be kidding. It said "Christian" in the FPP! Godwin'ed in 5 comments.
posted by JParker at 12:02 PM on May 11, 2007

Um, how did "medical" slip in there? "So you won't take Christianity? Then you won't get medicine either!" I think fringe cultures need to be treated with delicacy and respect.

Well, since religion plays a central role in the medicines of shamanistic cultures, you can't introduce Western medicine without undermining existing practices.

Any exchange of knowledge can prompt change to the status quo. Rather than decide a priori which kinds of knowledge are good and bad for others to hear, I think the best policy is to allow knowledge to be exchanged so long as it's without coercion.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:06 PM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

er, over two thousand years. :-( I'm running out of time to proofread and soon to answer....
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:09 PM on May 11, 2007

One of the most important effects of Olson's work is among other evangelists. Many have been hostile to his "gone native" approach, but his way is more and more seen as the right one.
posted by No Robots at 12:09 PM on May 11, 2007

Rather than decide a priori which kinds of knowledge are good and bad for others to hear, I think the best policy is to allow knowledge to be exchanged so long as it's without coercion.

I might agree with that -- but I'd consider threatening people with an eternity of infinite torture "coercion" (forgetting about the physical tortures that have also been applied in the persuit of the same cause).
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:11 PM on May 11, 2007

For someone named "Language Hat", your reading skills are deficient.

So are yours. There are no capital letters or spaces in "languagehat."

My complaint is with Christian evangelism, in particular as it relates to "fringe" cultures.

I'm well aware of what your complaint is; you've made it abundantly clear in your string of obsessive comments to this thread (some of which seem to have been cleared away by mods, and good for them). I wouldn't have taken issue with you if you'd made one remark along the lines of "Let's bear in mind that evangelism is a problematic thing," but to ride your hobbyhorse over and over in a thread which is not about "evangelism" but about one man's experience and the article he wrote about it is ridiculous. But you have company in your single-mindedness:

LOL. You've got to be kidding. It said "Christian" in the FPP!

If the implication is that any post about Christians is fair game for "Christians suck" derails, that's pathetic. If you were being sarcastic, let me remind you that all we have to go on here is words on the page; none of us can read your mind.
posted by languagehat at 12:14 PM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm well-aware of what your complaint is

Then why did you misrepresent it as something it was not?

(some of which seem to have been cleared away by mods, and good for them).

To my knowledge, none of my posts were removed -- and if so, I'd be curious as to the justification, as I've been on-topic, not overtly insulting of others, and have backed up my arguments with good links on request.

to ride your hobbyhorse over and over in a thread which is not about "evangelism" but about one man's experience

One man's experience working for a cause which has caused endless pain and destruction all over the region.

Surely the fact that he's an evangelist is the central motivating point of the article? He talks about it many times on every page; the article is reprinted from an evangelical periodical; why is this thread not about evangelism when the article clearly is?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:24 PM on May 11, 2007

I might agree with that -- but I'd consider threatening people with an eternity of infinite torture "coercion"

I agree - it's a form of coercion, mild because it deals with a supernatural, non-physical and unfalsifiable threat, but a threat nonetheless. I'd have a problem with a missionary who used the threat of Hell to spread his message, but I also suspect he'd be laughed out of town at best. Every culture I've read about has had a preexisting conception of an Underworld somewhere at the root of their magical systems, and it's not something you can waltz in and displace.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:27 PM on May 11, 2007

Well, since religion plays a central role in the medicines of shamanistic cultures, you can't introduce Western medicine without undermining existing practices.

When the village was going through a pink eye epidemic, Olson tried to get the shaman to use an antibiotic. The shaman refused. So Olson smeared goo from someone's eye in his own, and when he got the infection, asked the shaman to put the medicine in his eye. The shaman did so, and watched as Olson got better. The shaman then happily treated everybody else.
posted by No Robots at 12:29 PM on May 11, 2007

...One man's experience working for a cause which has caused endless pain and destruction all over the region...

You must be real fun at parties...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:38 PM on May 11, 2007

languagehat: yes, that was a sarcastic remark about the word "Christian" in the FPP. I assumed, incorrectly, that it was obviously so. Next time will include </sarcasm> notation.

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
—Winston Churchill
posted by JParker at 12:39 PM on May 11, 2007

That some Christians give themselves over to triumphalist gloating about Olson's work is predictable. It just doesn't sink in with them that this is the very thing that Olson is fighting against.
posted by No Robots at 12:50 PM on May 11, 2007

You must be real fun at parties...

heh, let me quote an old girlfriend: "You couldn't buy a toy as entertaining as you."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:56 PM on May 11, 2007

lupus, your links are not talking about evangelism. They are talking about colonialism. The two are interrelated, but not at all the same thing, and you can have one without the other (as is the case here). The fact that you refuse to recognize this suggests that you are wildly irrational in your ideology. I can imagine you in your daily life:

Jewelry store clerk: You might be interested in these silver cufflinks...
lupus: WHAT?! Silver mining eradicated millions of Indians! How dare you sell silver! Murderer!
posted by nasreddin at 1:25 PM on May 11, 2007

What if Christians applied Olson's techniques to atheists? What if instead of beating them over the head, they instead provided them with the spiritual assistance they need, and put the proselytizing on the back-burner?
posted by No Robots at 1:32 PM on May 11, 2007

lupus, your links are not talking about evangelism. They are talking about colonialism.

The link to ReligiousTolerance.org is definitely about Evangelism. The second one contains a lot about "colonialism" in South America as well.

The fact that you refuse to recognize this suggests that you are wildly irrational in your ideology.

The fact I refuse to recognize what? That some of my links contain information additional to the point at hand? That's "wildly irrational"? I was clear that I didn't even post those links as some definitive statement -- I wanted to point out to the poster that a few seconds' of searching will find all the documentation you like.

Are you in fact claiming that these things DIDN'T happen? That Christians did not in fact massively kill native peoples and destroy their cultures as part of their evangelical process? That Christian evangelism in South and Central America proceeded for the most part peacefully, with dignity and respect for the native people's and their cultures?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:54 PM on May 11, 2007

I have to leave unfortunately. Thanks for the stimulating debate!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:59 PM on May 11, 2007

see, that was the problem all along, lupus doesn't know what evangelism is.
posted by caddis at 2:06 PM on May 11, 2007

Cool. By this logic, I'm going to start holding the nice Muslim family that lives on my street accountable for 1200 years of religious imperialism. Guilt by association.

This would only be valid if we didn't commonly judge people by the company they choose to keep and the groups they choose to be a part of. Guess what: we do. Hell, I've had to answer for my group affiliations over and over on this site -- people have stopped talking to me "because I've learned not to argue with X", and I've even had people get in my face over liking certain kinds of music and movies, because of what that "says about me". That's life, and personally, I don't believe that religion ought to get a special pass in this regard.

So yeah, if you're a voluntary member of a group that's perpetrated 1200 years of religious imperialism, I don't think it's all that unfair for somebody to call you on it. You may be a very nice person, but you're still "in with that lot" by your own choice, and you ought to have to pay the social price just as we seculars have to. The idea that religion isn't the sort of thing one can be held accountable for is balderdash, and to be honest, I think it insults the religious at least as much as it insults everybody else.
posted by vorfeed at 2:13 PM on May 11, 2007

Evangelists are an odd mix of parochialism and arrogance.
Good riddance to the lot of them.
posted by signal at 2:22 PM on May 11, 2007

What if Christians applied Olson's techniques to atheists? What if instead of beating them over the head, they instead provided them with the spiritual assistance they need, and put the proselytizing on the back-burner?

I'm an athiest. I don't need any spiritual assistance, and I'm pretty damn sure the Motilone didn't either.

But I'd be willing to fake it for better health care.
posted by hydrophonic at 2:24 PM on May 11, 2007

I'm an athiest. I don't need any spiritual assistance, and I'm pretty damn sure the Motilone didn't either.

Think of it as spiritual dialogue rather than assistance. Perhaps, to you, the idea is as unwelcome as a 8 AM telemarketing call - if so, certainly you wouldn't be alone in thinking that. But the Motilone seem to be shamanistic, not post-Enlightenment atheists, and it's denying their own autonomy to say that they can't decide for themselves how to receive Olson's ideas.

That said, I myself am none too friendly when Mormons come knocking.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:20 PM on May 11, 2007

No Robots, I enjoyed this post and your contributions to the conversation it provoked. Christianity (like Islam, or America, or the West, or humanity) is a huge tent, and cavalierly lumping Olson in with conquistadors and James Dobson, as I take some of our more wolvish commentors to be doing, is like equating Abraham Lincoln with George Bush because they're both Republicans who claim they want to protect the United States. I think it speaks well for Christianity that it is people like Olson who are most faithful to Jesus' basic message and modus vivendi (healing, reaching out to the disempowered, and non-coercively inviting everyone to join a community to do the same), while many other people who invoke the language and symbolism of Christianity as a form of identity don't seem to take their supposed Lord's model very seriously at all.

Culture death is another topic, and one I don't feel qualified to address, but broadly speaking I don't think evangelists of the Olson type (big proviso) are the bad guys.
posted by sy at 3:44 PM on May 11, 2007

...it's denying their own autonomy to say that they can't decide for themselves how to receive Olson's ideas.

Absolutely worth repeating.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:19 PM on May 11, 2007

Somehow, despite being raised by catholic parents and getting a catholic education and living in an overwhelmingly Christian country, I still managed to end up an atheist.

The natives are adults, they aren't being coerced, I'm sure they can manage.
posted by empath at 7:12 PM on May 11, 2007

Fascinating read, No Robots. Thanks for the post.
posted by BostonJake at 8:04 PM on May 11, 2007

What I find most fascinating (and there were many fascinating things in his story) was how he was able to weave the basic story of Christianity into the Motilone's established mythology. It was also interesting to read that he was criticized by some Protestant leaders for not introducing more Westernized teachings into their belief system. It's a sign of his effectiveness and respect for the Motilone's culture that he knows which elements of the Christian faith have universal appeal (ie the death & resurrection, boundless compassion & love), and which elements would be orthodoxical baggage (ie requiring that they worship in a church on Sunday) that would impede his mission.
posted by irix at 10:41 PM on May 11, 2007

"you got your god stick in my atheist jelly!" "you got your atheist jelly all over my god stick!"

[its how the babies are built!]
posted by Jeremy at 11:45 PM on May 11, 2007

Some of my best friends are indigenous people, no really.

Stories that legitimze missionary/anthropological/exploration work by claiming the local indigenes welcome and support the missionary/anthropologist/explorer (often without understanding the scale of what s/he represents) go back to the freaking 15th century in the New World.

We all want to believe.
posted by spitbull at 5:18 AM on May 12, 2007

legitimize
posted by spitbull at 5:18 AM on May 12, 2007

Amazing story in many ways. Reminded me of the based-on-a-true-story 80's movie, The Emerald Forest.

Having met a number of missionaries I didn't like, who did their evangelizing in Central Africa and India, I wasn't inclined to read the post. From one Christian missionary site, it says about George Olson's missionary work, "Today the Motilones are almost universally converted to Christ. "

I enjoyed lupus_yonderboy's thoughts and think he made excellent points. However, for a missionary, George Olson sounds like a decent human being. His parents didn't value his goals and in a way it sounds like Olson, who didn't wear clothes for years at a time while living among the Motilones, found a sense of home there in the Colombian jungle.

Going in the other direction, from Christian to indigenous, some years ago I found out my devoutly Christian great uncle, who lived in Michigan, was invited to visit Arizona by a friend. Once there, he went to a Navaho reservation and ended up being converted to a more Navajo-Hopi kind of belief system, which he wrote about.

From the little I know, the Peace Corps, seems a less damaging kind of work in helping others, without colonizing, without religious evangelizing and basically respecting the local culture.
posted by nickyskye at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2007

How the strings of my heart are pluck'd as White Man trembles before the savages with their heathen gods!
posted by moonbird at 7:05 PM on May 12, 2007