He uses emacs because he likes the benefit of slime when he's programming with Clojure. But he's not opposed to using vim once a vim Clojure environment becomes more mature.
Advanced societies invariably have subsumed whatever indigenous populations they've encountered, determining those tribes' fates for them. But Brazil is in the middle of an experiment. If peaceful contact is established with the lone Indian, they want it to be his choice. They've dubbed this the "Policy of No Contact." After years of often-tragic attempts to assimilate into modern life the people who still inhabit the few remaining wild places on the planet, the policy is a step in a totally different direction. The case of the lone Indian represents its most challenging test.
Perhaps not quite as extreme. I'm sure this guy can venture to the edges of the territory preserved to him and observe the outside world, or at least see airplanes flying above him.
In fact, it sounds less like the Prime Directive and more like a type of basic respect--if the man wants to be left alone and seems to be leaving us alone, then live and let live.
The curious thing about the Amazonian peoples is that a lot of them are refugees on the run. We don't really know a lot about what the continent looked like before the European conquest because most of the indigenous peoples were slaughtered or integrated into Spanish/Portuguese society as slaves.
So there's actually a lot of evidence that these hyper-insular tribes are products of the conquest, and did not have this extreme a society before Europeans arrived. In some ways, this man might be the last remnant of a hodgepodge guerrilla army of sorts that has been fighting a losing battle for centuries.
I just finished reading The Lost City of Z by David Grann. Archeological evidence supports the conclusion that pre-invasion Amazonians did have larger societies than they do now, and what we previously thought.
In addition I'd just say read up on Latin American history in general. Slavers and missionaries worked all over the continent for centuries. It's hard to imagine that any society survived unchanged in that environment, especially as new societies were built up.
And when I say guerrilla army I'm being more figurative than literal. It seems fairly obvious there wasn't a serious power structure in place outside of the Andes, but I think that it's definitely true that the cultures we see today do not look much at all like the pre-colonial Amazonian culture.
I've heard similar descriptions of the aboriginal people of Australia - they only have their tribal grounds in the bush because the prime real estate they used to inhabit is taken.
i don't think a parallel to this mans situation can go very far.
we aren't reluctant to make contact with aliens the way he is reluctant to contact us. we wouldn't appreciate being "preserved" the way indigenous tribes would prefer to perpetuate their traditions.
assuming aliens capable of contacting are us out there, i think the likeliest explanation for the fermi paradox is complete disinterest. their relation to us is more like our relation to inanimate matter than our relation to this fellow human.
But it's also possible that we simply could not conceive of the kind of transformation which the alien contact would bring about. Lots of native tribes were actually eager to contact European explorers but had no idea that it would lead to the more or less complete destruction of their culture. There might be an analogy in contact with aliens but an analogy which are simply incapable of even understanding, despite belief that we are the most advanced thing around.
It's also possible that we were not alive and/or could not have understood the "howdy" when it occurred. We are but a primitive species. To think that somehow in the last 1000 years or so somebody must have made contact in a way we could understand -- or there is nobody -- is really pretty arrogant.
How about accepting the apparent fact that we are completely alone, instead of trying to satiate our immense egos with fantasies about why someone else would possibly want to ignore something so important as the human race?
I'm imagining a mind report in the intergalactic ether about the most isolated species on earth: humans. Attempts at contact with other isolated civilizations by the intergalactic community have often resulted in disaster, so for now, they've decided to clear a wide path around earth and wait.
But there are no such reports. Is the speculation that we are causing disasters without even knowing it?
I suppose we may be isolated because we're still primitive. So it's one of those explanations of Fermi that relies on centralized planning rather than an eco-system. Cool.
A few creatures from the planet Earth have made their way in to space and have potentially spotted our reconnaissance craft. In case of attempts to contact, attack or trade please leave the area immediately. Earthlings are so accustomed to sightings by now they attribute these to madness in those that have been in contact, they even have special institutions where they house those that have had the misfortune of spotting one of us.
This is also a reminder that isolation is to be maintained at all cost, Earth is one of the few uncontacted tribes and it is of vital importance this situation remains so they may be studied.
A hyper-cube of 50 parsecs is off limits to anybody but qualified and suitably camouflaged observers, to avoid messing up their culture the area has been electromagnetically shielded for anything but the visible spectrum of the inhabitants.
As far as weaponry is concerned a class-1 shield is more than sufficient to take care of the worst they can throw at any intrepid researcher so any kind of retaliation would be a punishable offense. "
FYI: The story of the "Lone Woman of San Nicolas", mentioned in the 5th paragraph of the article, is dramatized in the novel Island of the Blue Dolphins.
"... The story of the "Lone Woman of San Nicolas", mentioned in the 5th paragraph of the article, is dramatized in the novel Island of the Blue Dolphins. ..."
Why would he necessarily think those who have tried to contact him are people? He could think only he and his tribe are people and the others are:
1. aliens
2. demons
3. spirits
4. some animal
5. lesser humans
6. and so on
Numbers 2,3 and 5 are not too far fetched. Heck even in the 20th and 21st century there are modern cultures that think this way. Racism is really all about #5. Various fundamentalist religions have a tendency to think in terms of demons and spirits.
It is a completely valid hypothesis that he believes he is the last man on earth or the last 'real man' or whatever.
When I was working in the Ecuadorian Amazon, the Waorani people, who had only recently been contacted, believed only other Waorani were human beings. This created several difficult situations because they saw nothing wrong with attacking and in some cases killing "non-humans" they came in contact with. My understanding is that many other native people in the Amazon used to share a similar view of their own unique human-ness
Why is that necessarily the case? Perhaps there are some aspects of this culture that make is psychologically easier for him. For example, maybe he believes that his people are with him just in another form.
I haven't read the novel or seen the comparatively recent film yet, but I saw both of the other film adaptations of the novel (The Last Man On Earth starring Vincent Price and The Omega Man starring Charlton Heston) and there may indeed be some parallels with how the eponymous man in either of those films views the strange, apparently subhuman creatures who roam the streets in the night. As other comments in this thread have noted, many indigenous people didn't recognize outsiders as quite human upon initial contact.
Isolation is not about distance. The man this article refers to is more isolated from other humans than, for example, any of the first astronauts that were put alone in orbit.
It's also reminiscent of Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese soldier in WWII who was commanded to carry out guerrilla tactics in the Philippine jungle. Believing reports of the war's end to be an Allied deception, he continued to attack and raid the locals for thirty years.
I disliked the way the reporter kept calling the man an Indian
It almost made me want to stop reading, but the story is quite interesting. I wonder what the 5 foot deep pits he digs are really for. Pit fall traps for.... vehicles?
Many indigenous Americans prefer "Indian" to "Native American". "Native American" is a term invented by white people to make themselves feel better, by and large.
"American Indian" is the preferred term if you need to distinguish from the people of India.
"Charles C. Mann noted in his 2005 book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus that "every native person whom I have met (I think without exception) has used 'Indian' rather than 'Native American'."[17] Russell Means, an activist in the American Indian Movement, said in 1998, "I abhor the term Native American...I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins."[4][17]"
"Many of those who are covered by the term strongly prefer "American Indian" over "Native American".[21][22] According to the US Census Bureau, as of 1995 50% preferred "American Indian", 37% "Native American", and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference.[23]"
"every native person whom I have met (I think without exception) has used 'Indian' rather than 'Native American'."
I grew up in Nebraska and I went to primary school with a number of Native Americans. It was considered very disrespectful to refer to them as Indians.
The Native Americans I grew up with would not put up with people calling them indians, engens, or anything similar. If you really want to respect a native (a real one, not just one with native ancestors) then don't stereotype them by calling them anything other than their actual name.
If you must refer to them by race you call them by the name which they give you which is going to be their tribe name and not some 500 year old archaic misunderstanding of the people on earth. Or if you want to be safe you can always call them natives, because the definition actual fits.
While the preference is understandable, it's too confusing to use the word "Indian" for two different types of people, one of which is actually from a country called India.
"Indigenous" is the word you're looking for, not "native".
I've seen no evidence that the term "Native American" is in any way a term Indians use to describe themselves. It's most likely a neologism of white origin used to assuage white guilt. It's considered respectful to call any group of people by the term they prefer to call themselves, not to invent your own term out of patronizing guilt for 400 year old navigational errors.
(Incidentally, "native American" is ambiguous in that it could also be used to describe people of any race who were born in America. In fact, the term "native American" was used in this manner throughout the 19th century by anti-immigration activists, also known as "nativists". That's why "indigenous" is the most general and ambiguous term.)
I dont think one would go wrong by using the word indigenous
Native as a word is a noun, easy concise and neutral. Indigenous is not a noun. Other than that i'm not going to argue the difference between using indigenous over native. Its apples and oranges
In Brazil, the word we commonly use to refer to the native inhabitants is "índio". When we refer to someone who is born in India, the word is "indiano".
Both words translate to "Indian" in English. Maybe that is why the article calls him an Indian. What word would you use instead, "native", maybe?
There is no real authority on whom should call whom by what name except for the one that has to wear said name. The term Indian for a native to the amaerican continents has carried a lot of derogatory meaning. Notwithstanding it is just plain inaccurate.
So I do think we (all of us) can do better than following a 500 year old misconception, if nothing else
Thats not at all what I was pointing out. This story actually takes place in Brazil. He should be referred to by the name his people would use for themselves, for God's sake people, have some respect.
And if it is the case that you do not know a person's heritage use a term that is reflective of that (your lack of knowledge) instead of using some archaic misconception just because it has become the status quo.
THIS MAN does not live like any person today. He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english, or another modern language, and they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place) and they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.
Hell, it's 2010 and with a story like this we actually had the chance to get the "discovery of a new peoples" thing down right this time with respect. The gov't of Brazil realizes this and the steps they have taken to insure this mans safety back that up. This story completely blows the humanitarian aspect though, rather than preserving it.
Why? Because he is way more native than any of the "American Indians" that you are referring to but you just completely don't get it. He is unique. He is an authentic native to his territory. He should be called by his tribal name, failing that he is a native or indigenous person and that is all that we really know.
There is at least one person today he lives exactly like.
He is not even an "American Indian". Your "American Indians" all speak english[sic], or another modern language,
I guess all the Quiché speakers I met in Guatemala and the Tzeltal speakers in México who didn't speak Spanish just don't count for you. There are millions of people in the Americas who don't speak any of the Indo-European languages that dominate modern politics and commerce in the hemisphere.
they are integrated with society (hence they could be interviewed in the first place)
So Lacandons and Raramuri who don't speak Spanish and still live traditional lifestyles without European culture contact far in the backwoods don't exist? They're well documented.
they are not this man and they do not speak for this man or his people.
As far as he cares we can probably just call him Brazilian Bob. He's living out the rest of his days in complete solitary isolation from the rest of the world--I don't think he even cares exactly which term for "indigenous person of the Americas" Slate uses to describe him.
The word in Brazil for indigenous people is indio. It doesn't carry negative connotations and is often considered a contraction for indigenous.
Each nation, culture, and language in the Americas has its own points of sensitivity. Don't describe "tribes" in Mexico and remember that the word is "first nations" in Canada while "native americans" works better in the USA. In Latin American "indian" is preferred when you don't actually know the specific nation in question and its native name.
For differentiating between East Indians and American Indians, remember the the politically correct terms are "casino Indian" and "call center Indian."
