I have stayed at the Barefoot location in South Andaman at Colinpur Village last year. The resort is a very small one – 6 tents and one bungalow priced at approx US$40 per night per couple. It is located quite far distant from the Jarawa Reserve (more than a couple of kilometers at the very least) and there is no interaction between Jarawa and the resort. In fact, the resort expressly forbids any attempt to contact the Jarawa, and explains the same to guests, but that is more for legal and cultural reasons (it is not legal to enter the reserve and considered culturally inappropriate by the resort owners for outsiders to try to initiate contact with the Jarawa).

Diseases such as measles etc have not caused any mortality amongst the Jarawa in the past 10 years of contact, as per online postings, which suggests to me that they are nowhere near as vulnerable as Survival International claims they are, in its stand. Also, diseases such as those mentioned, and also swine flu require close personal contact, none of which is available through this resort which is located much much further away than Survival International’s exaggerated claims of less than 500 metres.

I have been there and I can vouch for the fact that the resort it is more than a few kilometres away from the reserve. Also, it is in the midst of farmland and not on any hunting path of the Jarawa as Survival claimed. In fact, this is the most baffling thing of all to an informed observer – these are very obvious exaggerations, and the actions of Survival International almost stinks of a stitch-up by Survival International and I cannot understand why they would seek to do this?

The Jarawa are in daily contact with hundreds of tourists inside the reserve. It seems to me to be very inappropriate and inexplicable why Survival would target a resort many kilometers outside the reserve when the real dangers to the Jarawa lie elsewhere.

The language of the debate between Survival and Barefoot is harsh on both sides. But I sympathise with the resort in this case. Having been there, I can say that my interpretation of the truth is this: Survival has chosen a soft and inappropriate target. It has exaggerated the situation of the tribals and exaggerated the situation of the resort. The resort has reacted sharply because Survival’s actions have (unfairly in my opinion) affected the resorts business.

My point is this – Survival have exagerated on many counts:
1) The Jarawa are not isolated
2) The Jarawa are not at mortal risk in the manner Survival suggests
3) The resort (Barefoot) is nowhere near as close to the reserve as Survival suggests
4) There is no hunting path of the Jarawa in the vicinity of the resort
5) Swine flu does not spread in the manner Survival International obliquely suggests in its follow up release
6) From my experience of the Jarawa, the ones I met wanted the contact with the outsiders.
7) If they are other Jarawa – older ones – who do not want contact, the presumption must be that they will not trek down to the resort to seek contact

Toby seems to suggest that the Jarawa should not want the contact if they know whats good for them, and that, even if they want the contact now, then when they grow older and wiser (like Toby??) they will not want the contact any more

The Jarawa I met at Baratang jetty were intelligent and conscious of what they were doing. Cheeky even. I don’t think they would appreciate Toby of Survival International telling them what to think or how to behave or his opinion that they should stay permanently in the Jungle.

I would say that the Jarawa individuals are capable of deciding for themselves. Perhaps that the only people who benefit from enforcing the myth of isolation or attempting to recreate an ancient reality would be organisations like Survival International.

Its a harsh assessment I admit, but I would urge you to think deeply upon it

Survival refers to the Jarawa as ‘isolated’ and ‘recently-contacted’ because as a people they have had peaceful contact with outsiders for only 10 years, and are still at very significant risk of disease. While some Jarawa come out of the reserve from time to time, and some emerge quite regularly, most in fact stay inside the reserve, and clearly don’t want interaction with outsiders. Even those who do like to visit the trunk road when they are young (such as those you will have seen while on the Andamans) go back into the forest once they get married and have family responsibilities.

Those Jarawa emerging from the reserve could easily pick up diseases and transmit it to those inside. The Jarawa have already suffered from measles, chicken pox and malaria since they started coming out onto the road and we are now of course facing a global flu pandemic.

This is why Survival considers an influx of tourists to the edge of the reserve to be so irresponsible. Many will have recently stepped off airliners and are likely to be carrying diseases to which the Jarawa have no resistance.

Toby, Survival International

Quite a spat brewing, as this link shows http://www.rtnetworking.org/ngo/index.htm
and some intemperate language as well, but I can’t help feeling (especially as I have been to the Andamans and know the ground situation) that SI has overstretched all credulity here.

As Rex says, it undermines genuine work for the benefit of such peoples.

The Jarawa are anything but isolated – in factmy girlfriend lost her chocolates to them on a visit last year and there were hundreds of other visitors present on the day. The Jarawa have daily interaction with hundreds of visitors and some even speak the main Indian language yet Survival terms them ‘isolated’.

Why?

Paul

Thom

You can read more about the Porgera mine that I study here:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=420

I am less an activist than Kerim, and most of my written work has been critical of land and landowner registration programs that do a bad job (in my opinion) of providing benefits to landowners (largely because they are based on romantic notions of indigenous authenticity). Two papers you might be interested in include:

http://alex.golub.name/log/things-ive-written/Golub%202007%20Ironies%20of%20Organization.pdf

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/customary/pdf/ch05.pdf

I think you are right Thomas, I (or someone) should write more about the relationship between anthroplogists and ‘the indigenous rights movement’ and I’d like to do so… when I’m not so burned out on this topic…

So instead of this sniping, how about a discussion about the whether, and if so how, anthropology and anthropologists should contribute to the indigenous rights movement? SI is by no means the only player in this, but it does seem to be the most obviously successful. If there is a contribution, perhaps it should ‘include’, as opposed to more-or-less solely consisting of, constructive criticism?

Stephen says: “just overt criticism launched in a blog which ordinarily we would not have seen and so had no opportunity of responding to.”

My comment was not ‘just overt criticism.’ Did you miss lines like “I appreciate SI’s work on behalf of ‘tribal’ people” or “I think SI’s attempts to bring these problems to the attention of the public is admirable” or when I suggested (repeatedly) that people donate to your organization?

This post is an attempt to provide interested nonspecialists an answer to the question “Are there still ‘uncontacted tribes’?” My short answer was “no” and I analyzed the material on the SI website to indicate that, contrary to the impression it creates, it in fact supports my claim. I still stand by this analysis, and I also stand by my claim to speak for the profession as a whole when I say that all humans being have always been in contact with one another, to some extent or another (I’ve already written a post explaining what ‘contact’ might mean). This is one of the fundamental findings of our discipline.

I am critical of the models of society and history that underlie SI’s presentation of itself on the website. I am not critical of its goal or good works. Stephen seems to think that principles agreement about one part of an organization is total disagreement with all of it. I wish he could see his way past this but if he can’t, there’s probably nothing I can do to convince him of it.

“A blog which ordinarily we would not have seen and so had no opportunity of responding to.”

I included links to SI because I knew that these would alert the SI’s website that we had commented on them, which apparently it did. The tenor of Scott’s comments seems to suggest that it is somehow my fault that he doesn’t read SM, and that I should only blog about my regular readers. This is just not how the Internet works. I don’t think anyone should read SM if they don’t want to but… perhaps an organization like SI might want to check out the most popular cultural anthropology blog from time to time?

“Survival is perfectly open to questions. It thinks carefully about the terms it uses… and we are happy to defend them when given the chance”

OK: Why did you choose the word ‘uncontacted’ when it is so manifestly a poor choice?

On the one hand, I’m happy to provide SI the chance to defend their use of the term ‘uncontacted’ here on SM, both in comments or in an occasional piece. They also have their own blog and website. So I would encourage them to post something entitled “Why ‘uncontacted’ — the name we chose and the reason behind it”. But that, so far, has not happened.

On the other hand, I am disappointed that SI feels that questions are acceptable but criticisms of any sort are not. Let me be clear — I don’t doubt that SI thinks carefully about the terms it uses. I just think that they have made the wrong decision in this case. I understand that SI got a lot of flack for the recent ‘lost tribes’ fiasco and they may feel on the defensive, but it is disappointing that their response to criticism always to defend their position rather than to take a measured approach and explain why they’ve chosen the terms they have, and maybe even admit that they may have something to learn from other people. Instead I feel we are being labeled the ‘bad’ anthropologists who ask hard questions instead of the ‘good’ anthropologists who are unquestioningly sympathetic towards SI.

I guess I am just more of a fan of overt criticism than Stephen is — I believe in the power of reasoned discourse in which people make claims clearly and overtly, and other people then respond to them. I believe the ability to engage in this sort of discourse even when the stakes are high is a true virtue. Instead Stephen has made insulting references to my relationship with my partner and accused me of being opposed to rights for tribal/indigenous people. This is not the best way to build alliances with anthropologists.

Survival is perfectly open to questions. It thinks carefully about the terms it uses – after all, hundreds of thousands of people will read them within a few days. Not everyone will agree with them, but they are considered, and if asked we can explain why we resort to them rather than alternatives (our use of ‘Bushmen’, ‘tribal peoples’, ‘uncontacted’, are all thought about at length and we are happy to defend them when given the chance, though obviously there is plenty wrong with all of them).

Anyway, I apologise for the confusion over the order in my postings (and the duplicate)!

That is ‘uncontacted’ if anything is. It’s a term I’ve heard many anthropologists use over several decades. Some sectors of the media interpret it as ‘undiscovered’. That’s ethnocentric, obviously wrong, and Survival doesn’t use it (Of course we realise that Columbus didn’t discover the Americas. Do those who argue that the terms are near-synonymous, think he did?). But you can argue about words forever (though we won’t).

JH asks, perfectly reasonably, ‘Why draw a distinction?’ Well, in Peru for example, ‘native communities’ can be ‘registered’, have recognised ‘councils’, and see their land recognised. They can speak for themselves. Obviously, uncontacted peoples can’t. If their land is to be recognised as theirs, the law must be applied differently. Also, they are vulnerable to disease in a way which more contacted peoples aren’t. That’s one reason, irrespective of debates about indigenous rights, why loggers, film crews etc should not attempt contact. That’s why a distinction is vital. The Brazilian authorities recognise this with a specialist department within FUNAI dedicated only to such peoples.

There are plenty of peoples who constitute an ‘autarky’ (though that also has nuances – lots of peoples acquire things from ‘outside’ well before anyone turns up to shake their hands) who are not uncontacted. No journalist is ever going to use such a word. It’s all very well (some) anthropologists adopting a superior ‘we know best’ attitude vis-à-vis the media, but it’s pointless. How do you know US forces (surely not the ‘government’ itself!) resort to torture, if not through the media?

It has always dismayed me that there is a sector of the ‘anthropological interpretive community’ which rubbishes attempts – often extremely successful ones – to help tribal peoples assert their rights. There are others of course who don’t, and who are in the vanguard of the indigenous rights movements. Each to his/her own, but don’t pretend that the sceptics and critics speak for all anthropologists: I assure you, they (some of you?) don’t.

I would think it is better to educate the public by getting shrinking minds to admit just one or two more words to their vocabulary, such as autarchic (or autarkic, depending on your preference). If these groups have purposely isolated themselves, and reject all external contact (except perhaps for neighbouring groups), then the word for that is autarky, not “uncontacted.” It’s not that any implicit romanticism of “uncontacted” is the real problem (I am a big fan of romance), it’s just a very counterintuitive term that does far more to mislead than to clarify.

So why use it?

Perhaps the campaign should be called ‘previously contacted tribes’ or ‘trying not to be contacted again tribes’. The whole point of the organization is to try to bring some justice to the contact process, which is already going on and has clearly had a dramatic effect on the communities involved.

I think that Stephen’s comment does hit on the most important point, however, when he writes “Call them whatever you like, but stress that there are ways of helping them – by telling governments and companies you think their land and right to reject ‘contact’ should be respected.” This is why I included links in my post to SI’s donation and activism pages. I just wish that SI used a more accurate — and less exoticizing — term for the people they are trying to help.