Is anyone out there? Does anyone copy?

June 20, 2008 10:19 PM

A young girl is saved from being buried alive. NSFW

Brazil, Amazon, Suruwaha Tribe: "Those crippled children get all the good meat while we only get bones. They can't speak or walk right. Evil spirits have stolen their souls. What have we done to anger the spirits? Those crippled children shouldn't have been born. And now we are cursed for allowing them to live." A film by David L. Cunningham. (Indigenous nudity)

posted by sluglicker (36 comments total)

Excellent link, however due to my eyesight I can't watch much of this at once. Anyone know where (or how) I can view in a larger size?
posted by dawson at 12:03 AM on June 21, 2008

Powerful. Thank you for posting this. I'm glad to be aware of the issue and this very interesting movement.
posted by loiseau at 12:47 AM on June 21, 2008

While I take a dim view of sites that pour on the active content in heaps, I'd like to know what that site is doing to cause my entire browser window to flash as it loads.
posted by crapmatic at 7:13 AM on June 21, 2008

You should contact Mel.
posted by Mblue at 8:42 AM on June 21, 2008

dawson, you can download the whole movie. There's a link under the small screen on that page. It's a wmv file and about 100 MB.

crapmatic, I don't have any problems with my FF or Opera, but did with Mozilla and IE, but not the extreme flashing you describe. There's a jQuery $(document).ready thing going on which causes events to fire before/while the page loads, I think. If your connection speed is on the slower side, this would cause what you're describing.
posted by sluglicker at 8:51 AM on June 21, 2008

Villager: "I cried all night. I wanted to die with him."

THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU FUCKING STOP THE BURIAL!!??

As for the anthropologists who believe this is okay because of cultural relativism: you make me wish there was a hell you could burn in :|
posted by vertigo25 at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2008

As for the anthropologists who believe this is okay because of cultural relativism: you make me wish there was a hell you could burn in :|

Wow. I can't even formulate a response to your comment that jessamyn wouldn't delete within a few minutes, so I guess I'll save her the trouble.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:13 AM on June 21, 2008

Docudrama? I'm not following the specifics of this production. Is this a fictional recreation of actual events, starring indigenous people, with the intention to highlight infanticide?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:15 AM on June 21, 2008

I think that's exactly what it is, AZ. This story in the Telegraph clears things up a little.
posted by nowonmai at 10:30 AM on June 21, 2008

As for the anthropologists who believe this is okay because of cultural relativism: you make me wish there was a hell you could burn in :|

Of course it's OK for indigenous people to bury crippled children alive. They don't have the medical technology to detect birth defects before birth, after all. What are they supposed to do?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:38 AM on June 21, 2008

On the other hand, missionaries have fucked up indigenous peoples way more than infanticide has.

This looks like basically a stealth effort to raise money and support to Christianize the savages. Here's a Google cache of a since redacted "personal campaign" page noting that people should be careful to hide their affiliations when spreading the word.

For permanent record, it says: Send correspondence from Private emails. NO YWAM or UofN related e-mails please!

YWAM and UofN are Youth with a Mission and the non-accredited University of the Nations, of which the documentary filmmaker is an alumnus.

Donations are to be made thusly:

a. Make check payable to UNKF ;
b. Attach a note to the check stating, "Designation: Hakani Project, Fund 611"
c. Mail check to: 75-5851 Kuakini Hwy, #256 / Kailua Kona, HI 96740 / USA

It's pretty telling, though, that besides the redacted mention I noted above, a google search of Hakani.org reveals only one tangential mention of "YWAM," "Youth with a Mission," "UofN," or "University of the Nations." There is a UofN logo on the "partners" page, but it has no link or text to tell you what it is.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2008 [13 favorites]

vertigo25: there are many cultures where abandoning your elder relatives in an unfamiliar place to die alone with strangers is so far beyond the realm of thought that doing so would be considered a heinous, unforgivable, subhuman act. yet in our culture it's fairly common.

please reconsider your notion of "cultural relativism" - you have no grounds to determine what is or is not moral in other cultures.
posted by gnutron at 1:46 PM on June 21, 2008 [8 favorites]

please reconsider your notion of "cultural relativism" - you have no grounds to determine what is or is not moral in other cultures.

Fuck that. If you've somehow made the leap to understand that nursing homes are immoral to a great many people, even thought it's not thought that way in your culture, and act all high and mighty about it, perhaps culture isn't so iron-bound as you say it is. Besides, why should I give a shit what some other culture thinks about nursing homes? They have no grounds to determine what's moral in this culture.
posted by Snyder at 2:22 PM on June 21, 2008

snyder: it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself (or agreeing with me). i never said culture was "iron-bound," nor do i think it is. i think it is very flexible and mutable. the undeniable truth we can pull from this is: things that are appalling to some people are commonplace to others.

you shouldn't give a shit about what other cultures think about nursing homes, just like other cultures shouldn't be expected to automatically give a shit about what we think is immoral.
posted by gnutron at 4:28 PM on June 21, 2008

The story about the boy and his sister was compelling. It enlightened me about another culture, and gave insight to my own. Thanks for posting this, sluglicker.
posted by figment of my conation at 5:44 PM on June 21, 2008

you shouldn't give a shit about what other cultures think about nursing homes, just like other cultures shouldn't be expected to automatically give a shit about what we think is immoral.

Hell, I don't give a shit what we think is immoral. I just try to stay out of trouble. That's my culture, I guess.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:07 PM on June 21, 2008

This is one fucked-up website and organization. I'm sure infanticide is a problem amongst indigenous peoples in Brazil, but isn't a more pressing concern loss of land due to agriculture, mining and logging? Seems to me this group won't be happy until everyone is dressed properly and is able to recite the Lord's Prayer.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:35 PM on June 21, 2008

YWAM and UofN are Youth with a Mission and the non-accredited University of the Nations, of which the documentary filmmaker is an alumnus.

...Oh, wow, this is by that Path to 9-11 douchebag? Nice with all the pro-life language also.
posted by nanojath at 8:22 PM on June 21, 2008

Howsabout you bible-toters keep yer Jesus outta the jungle, okay?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:31 PM on June 21, 2008

No, I'm pretty sure keeping kids from being slowly murdered tops lecturing poor farmers about how they shouldn't clear a couple of acres with fire. If it makes you feel better, you can ask them to give lectures in proper land use and organize unions for mine workers after rescuing the kids.

It boils down to this - the kid doesn't get a choice what culture she was born into. Until she reaches the age of majority and decides, hey, I'll let them bury me alive because I have no soul, we must obey the strictures of our culture, and rescue the damn kid. Standing by and letting it happen is violating the mores of mainstream Brazilian and Western culture in a big, big, big way - much more than "not respecting cultural differences."

The indigenous cultures may not have any qualms about killing helpless kids, but I have a big beef with anyone not of that culture who stands idly by and lets it happen. They're accomplices to murder, not impartial observers.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:35 PM on June 21, 2008

...I have a big beef with anyone not of that culture who stands idly by and lets it happen.

What do you mean? Isn't anyone "not of that culture" who now knows about this practice and isn't doing something concrete to stop it in fact standing "idly by"? Wouldn't that include yourself?

...the mores of mainstream Brazilian and Western culture...

By "mainstream" it can be assumed here that you're referring to "non-indigenous" culture, no? And if so, why should these cultural mores necessarily hold sway over the cultural mores of these indigenous people?

Also, I'd just like to throw something into the discussion here that seems, to me, worthy of consideration. These people live in small bands, in the jungle. They hunt and forage, are probably nomadic to some extent. The conditions in which they live, and their daily life patterns are probably all but unimaginable to us. They have no "social services", no "special education", no "physical therapy", no infrastructure that would serve to ease the burden on the community that a disabled child will no doubt create. I'd venture to say that a child with a severe disability could be, for the community as a whole, a very severe and debilitating problem that might even spell the difference between life and death for people in the group or even the group as a whole. Now, you may think that's a really harsh thing to say, but honestly, try for a moment to put yourself in these people's position, and, well, you might see things a little differently.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:53 PM on June 21, 2008

There is no moral ambiguity here. As much as I like nuance, there is none to be had. There is no excuse, especially as they are not living in the stone age, and there are, in fact, resources available to help them with "burdensome" children that do not require a time machine to access. Yeah, growing up a disabled orphan in rural Brazil would probably suck... especially as you'd basically be a captive of whatever religion was running the orphanage until you came of age.

It beats the hell out of being dead.

OK. Let me put myself in their shoes: I'd take the kid to the nearest town, and leave them on the doorstep of the police station in a little basket. The nearest town might be fifty miles off, which is what? Three days walk through the rainforest? Two if there are good footpaths most of the way. Six days round trip. That, or murder. I'll take the walk. There. That wasn't so hard.

Look, cultures do all kinds of inhuman things to humans living in them... whether it's the expulsion of the Jews from post-reconquista Iberia or hanging black men who wolf-whistle at white women. I'm sure there were perfectly valid cultural reasons for these things to happen. Should I put myself in Torquemada's shoes to see his point of view?
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:13 AM on June 22, 2008

actually, the practice of discarding children is not uncommon among a lot of groups in brazil, as approximately 1/8 of all brazil's children live on the streets. i can't find the citations, but apparently there is also a substantial group of those children who prefer living in the sewers rather than literally on the streets. ah! here you go, although those are articles related to latin america and the caribbean as a whole.

i would imagine the attitude toward children is somewhat a carryover from the indigenous peoples, but rest assured the problem is not confined to one specific group of people. quick overview from wiki.

i understand that those references don't mention burying kids alive. i also understand that death by suffocation might be viewed as a kinder end than simply tossing them out there to fend for themselves.

i won't be rushing to brazil nor will i be sending my money. if i have an urge to help unfortunate children, i can find plenty of them in my own city--and that statement would work no matter what city i live in.
posted by msconduct at 4:45 AM on June 22, 2008

slap*happy, it's true that cultures do all kinds of inhuman things to humans living in them; i doubt anyone would argue with that, and i would postulate that the statement applies to your own culture, regardless of which one that is. perhaps the argument is not that it occurs, but that looking for injustice anywhere but within is simply avoiding the injustice you can actually do something about.
posted by msconduct at 4:57 AM on June 22, 2008

msconduct, I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is denying that there are unbelievably bad things done within our own cultures, and when someone posts to mefi about those injustices, those are the ones we talk about. Here, the post is about burying children alive in the indigenous tribes of rural brazil, and as that's what we're supposed to be talking about, I have to agree that cultural relativism just doesn't cut it for me anymore as an excuse to turning a blind eye to atrocities.

While it's true that there are, and there must be levels of flexibility between moral standards of different cultures, murder, burying your children alive (and not because of any practical reason as far as I can tell, not because their disability is a burden, but rather because disabled people have no souls.) is fairly concretely a bad thing to do.
posted by emperor.seamus at 7:24 AM on June 22, 2008

But why burying alive, which even primitive people would be able to figure out would be terribly unpleasant?

Why not just a rock to the head? It wouldn't be very difficult to instantly crush a small child's head with a rock.

The burying alive almost seems punitive. Cruel and unusual.

I think that's what really aggravates some.

And as far as cultures go, I think it could be safely stated that a goal of mankind should be to not murder children.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:29 AM on June 22, 2008

Someone is claiming that we have no moral standing to claim that burying disabled children alive is a bad thing. Someone else says that the Christians who are trying to stop it are the real bad guys here.

Yep, I must be reading Metafilter again. Geez.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:27 AM on June 22, 2008

Someone else says that the Christians who are trying to stop it are the real bad guys here.

The history of missionary work with indigenous peoples can at best be described as problematic, and I think the deceitfulness of that site is reason to question. For example, it definitely looks like donations could go to whatever the UofN wants (general fund, president's salary, random missionary efforts) rather than anything to do with infanticide.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:38 AM on June 22, 2008

gnutron: there are many cultures where abandoning your elder relatives in an unfamiliar place to die alone with strangers is so far beyond the realm of thought that doing so would be considered a heinous, unforgivable, subhuman act. yet in our culture it's fairly common.

Yet you never see any senior citizens being "rescued" from a nursing home by someone considering keeping them there a heinous, unforgivable, subhuman act.
posted by sour cream at 12:15 PM on June 22, 2008

please reconsider your notion of "cultural relativism" - you have no grounds to determine what is or is not moral in other cultures.

I hate to be seen as invoking Godwin's Law (which is definitely not my intention)...but there's a similar story of euthanising the disabled and "burdensome" carried out by a more militarized culture, that well...as most of us know, evolved into a far more grave chapter in human history. I'm not saying that this Amazon tribe is anywhere in the same context as Nazi Germany, except for that one part where the world sat idly by as they euthanized their own disabled. They too, were portayed as soul-less....and less human. I cannot avoid drawing parallels here in the kind of rationale that is used...and I can't help but wonder where the "leaders" of this Amazon tribe draw the line on what makes an invidual "souless" or not worthy of remaining alive.

With that in mind, I can simply find no acceptable excuse for this. As a human, acting in the interest of other humans, we have every ground to determine morality when it involves the involuntary taking each other's lives. We may not always agree on other issues of morality, but those of us that know the pitfalls of our shared grim history are quick to point out these universal violations of what is widely considered the greater good. To say its otherwise, in my view, is simply choosing to not think it though...are you saying murder not the right word to use?
posted by samsara at 3:13 PM on June 22, 2008

for vertigo:

Idiots who don't know the first thing about anthropology, let alone the concept of cultural relativism, once again finding reasons to be infuriated with anthropologists for defending the indefensible as if it were all just so fucking obvious.

As if Western culture did not have its barbarisms which no one decries . . beginning with raining terror bombings on civilians and calling it "legal war" in Iraq.

This anthropologist, currently at this moment working in an indigenous community that historically practiced senescide for good, solid reasons having to do with *merely surviving* in a world without fucking supermarkets, and where elders sometimes still continue that tradition by killing themselves when they become too infirm to contribute to subsistence, would like to tell you to go screw yourself, regardless of the risk of deletion or censure.

If you don't know squat about anthropology, or indigenous people, or culture. Maybe you should keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.

Or better yet, go try to survive in the jungle, the desert, or the rain forest with no modern conveniences. Please.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:51 PM on June 22, 2008 [4 favorites]

As if Western culture did not have its barbarisms which no one decries . . beginning with raining terror bombings on civilians and calling it "legal war" in Iraq.

Yeah, no one decries this...are you new here? And I don't mean to just Metafilter, but I mean to the internet and the planet as a whole?
posted by Snyder at 12:41 AM on June 23, 2008 [2 favorites]

Cultural relativism is a sham as is all moral relativism. This is the larger problem: Ethics, defined as a system of integrity and accountability without a religious component, doesn't allow for relativism. It doesn't allow for unethical behavior based on personal beliefs or perspective. Anyone can say anything they like about the "truth" of morality, but ethics is a standard we all have to step up to.

Killing people because they have no soul, that's unethical.
posted by ewkpates at 5:12 AM on June 23, 2008 [3 favorites]

You don't know what "relativism" means when it is prefixed by the term "cultural," ewkpates; go read some books and get back to me about that.

And Snyder, the concept is hypocrisy. It's in the dictionary. Before you scream that 300 native people are doing something barbaric while trying to subsist in a harsh environment, clean your own western house, which is full of much greater and more brutal barbarisms than any ever dreamed up by tribal people.

I'm serious. As an anthropologist who works in indigenous communities these days, I don't believe every asshole is entitled to an opinion on this any more than a doctor believes every asshole is entitled to an opinion on whether a tumor is benign or malignant.

"Cultural relativism" is a technical term of art in anthropology; it has nothing to do with ethics or moral relativism in the common sense uses of those terms. It is a scientific perspective, not a moral one. Go read about it and get back to me when you've got a doctorate in anthropology too.
posted by fourcheesemac at 12:24 AM on June 24, 2008 [1 favorite]

I apologize mr. cheese, clearly my comment didn't apply to you.

To you, I say this: Without your knowledge, and clearly behind your back, there is a social/philosophical movement which thinks that the term "cultural relativism" refers to a kind of multiculturalism which interposes itself between cultures and the morality of those not a part of said cultures. No, these aren't anthropologists. No, these people don't know what they are talking about. But yet they persist. Beware, sir, beware.
posted by ewkpates at 3:43 AM on June 24, 2008 [1 favorite]

From my experiences working at a university, I've gotten pretty tired of the "doctorate waving" as if it was a way of saying "I'm right, and you're wrong." Doctorates show persistence to master a field of study, and really that's about it. They don't make one more "right" in their assertions or one less of an asshole. Unfortunately, doctorates also have a tendency to hold those that receive them within the paradigms of the school under which they've study...where terminology gets in the way of progress or critical thinking, and sometimes falls behind the trends of change within the field where improvements are made. For example, 19th century psychology vs. today: the Freudian style is essentially obsolete due to all the scientific discoveries and paradigm shifts related to how the brain actually functions.

Or in other words, we know a lot more now than we did then....but by no means are we anywhere close to being finished.

Doctorates are good for pursuing careers, help promote education, and help add authority or respect within the scope of their specialization. But a doctorate in any field is essentially tied to the fad's of their time..."people related" fields more-so than most. Essentially, the term "cultural relativism" could have a completely different interpretation 50 years from now. The problem being argued, is not whether it is being applied correctly here or not....but rather, its about that point where person stops being an Anthropologist and starts being a human in order to save a child's life.

Put down the book, put down the camera...and stand up for the one thing that you yourself cherish. If you didn't have your life, you wouldn't have had the chance to earn a "doctorate."
posted by samsara at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2008