The incident on North Sentinel Island

[Daria]

I am fascinated, and horrified, both by this story, and by the way the American media is spinning the story.  

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/us/missionary-john-chau/index.html

I can't imagine a situation where someone committed immigration fraud, violated multiple laws, and did something with the potential to kill an entire society and their culture, in the name of any other religion would get the same treatment by the American press.  Would such a person really be labeled as a "tourist" or "missionary".  Would the article focus on the fact that they coached soccer and liked to hike? Would that picture be chosen?

What do you think?

Edited November 22, 2018 by Daria
Edited the topic to make it more clear what I was talking about.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

[Daria]

9 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

 

 

I don't know what that means.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, Daria said:

 

I don't know what that means.

It is a link to another thread where this is being discussed.  So then you will know what people think. 

[Daria]

35 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

It is a link to another thread where this is being discussed.  So then you will know what people think. 

 

Thanks!

[bolt.]

4 hours ago, Daria said:

I am fascinated, and horrified, both by this story, and by the way the American media is spinning the story.  

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/us/missionary-john-chau/index.html

I can't imagine a situation where someone committed immigration fraud, violated multiple laws, and did something with the potential to kill an entire society and their culture, in the name of any other religion would get the same treatment by the American press.  Would such a person really be labeled as a "tourist" or "missionary".  Would the article focus on the fact that they coached soccer and liked to hike? Would that picture be chosen?

What do you think?

I think it’s clear that the American media is going to reflect the norms of American society: a society that privileges Christianity, Christian observances, and modern Christian-ish narratives. No surprises there.

I agree that an “ideological infiltration” story between two other cultures (neither with any particular resonance to majority-America) would probably have been narrated in favour of the isolated culture ‘in need of protection’ — not in favour of the (religiously well-intentioned) outsider.

[moonflower]

I can't imagine a story in which someone crossed illegally into the US from anywhere with peaceful intentions (annoying, intrusive intentions, but peaceful) and was shot on sight being treated as sort of culturally okay because we really didn't want them here and after all we warned them ahead of time and have been shooting people on sight when they cross for years, etc.

 

 

[bolt.]

2 hours ago, Fifiruth said:

It’s interesting that people who normally support open borders and the right of people to enter a society illegally even though the people there don’t want them there, and resent them changing their culture and bringing new languages and religions, are the same ones who resent this guy and believe that the islanders were right and justified in killing him. 

As an example, could we even imaging it being okay to kill African immigrants upon stepping foot on our island, so to speak? After all, they speak different languages, have different religions, and may bring exposure to the deadly Ebola virus. No, I don’t think so. 

 

Do you know people who “support open borders” and the “right to enter a society illegally”? That sounds irrational to me. I’ve never heard of it before. How do they explain that idea?

Do you know people who “believe the islanders were *right* or *justified* in killing” this man? Could you provide a source where people seem to express that perspective on the tragedy?

Why would any person want to kill someone else (an African? Why?) for border crossing in a modern context? How could that possibly be ethical, proportional, humane, or legal? Both International law and the internal laws of the relevant countries certainly provide appropriate responses to border infractions. Simply follow those.

Edited November 22, 2018 by bolt.

[KathyBC]

42 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Do you know people who “support open borders” and the “right to enter a society illegally”? That sounds irrational to me. I’ve never heard of it before. How do they explain that idea?

Do you know people who “believe the islanders were *right* or *justified* in killing” this man? Could you provide a source where people seem to express that perspective on the tragedy?

Why would any person want to kill someone else (an African? Why?) for border crossing in a modern context? How could that possibly be ethical, proportional, humane, or legal? Both International law and the internal laws of the relevant countries certainly provide appropriate responses to border infractions. Simply follow those.

Well, I personally do know people who believe those two things, but can't share a source as these would be Facebook friends. It's not hard to find those perspectives. I'm surprised you don't see that in your feed on a daily basis, frankly.

[Daria]

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

I can't imagine a story in which someone crossed illegally into the US from anywhere with peaceful intentions (annoying, intrusive intentions, but peaceful) and was shot on sight being treated as sort of culturally okay because we really didn't want them here and after all we warned them ahead of time and have been shooting people on sight when they cross for years, etc.

 

 

 

He didn't have peaceful intentions.  If he had done any research at all, he would have known that the risk presented by outside germs was enormous and had the potential to wipe out the population.  Knowingly doing something that exposes that many people to possible death isn't peaceful.  

 

[Daria]

3 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

 

Walking onto an island with the hope of talking to people, with no weapons and no intent to murder, is not hostile. He did not deserve death, nor was he a terrorist as I have read some try to suggest. 

He was young, idealistic, and naive. 

Imagine that your child was hospitalized in isolation to treat an immune condition.  Your family had already lost many members to the same condition, and you felt strongly that you needed to do whatever was needed to protect him or her.  The hospital had policies in place to prevent people from entering the room, except in very specific circumstances.  Signs were clearly posted.  But a stranger walked past them because they wanted to talk to your child.  Maybe they were curious.  Maybe they just like talking to children. 

In the time before you know if your child survives, would you agree with someone who described this person as hostile, or not?  

[Sneezyone]

Can we just fact check for a second? The natives didn’t kill him on sight. They warned him off and he persisted. He recorded details of these warning encounters in his journal. There are videos online of this tribe and their reaction to outsiders. They gather on the beach and warn people away. This is much more akin to a stranger walking up to your house, you waving them off/firing at them, and they walk on in anyway. Castle Doctrine. Stand Your Ground. He was warned. His entry was not legal. Asylum-seekers, BTW, aren’t illegal migrants. 

This situation reminds me of the parable of the guy in a leaky boat who ignores all rescue attempts while claiming God’s going to save him. God sent lots of signs and this idjit blew right past them.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Sneezyone

[itsheresomewhere]

12 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

 

Walking onto an island with the hope of talking to people, with no weapons and no intent to murder, is not hostile. He did not deserve death, nor was he a terrorist as I have read some try to suggest. 

He was young, idealistic, and naive. 

  I see this more as a way to become famous more especially as more of his diary comes out.  He knew he wasn’t supposed to go there.  

[bolt.]

55 minutes ago, KathyBC said:

Well, I personally do know people who believe those two things, but can't share a source as these would be Facebook friends. It's not hard to find those perspectives. I'm surprised you don't see that in your feed on a daily basis, frankly.

Nobody on my Facebook advocates for open borders -- what a legislative nightmare! Can you imagine how many acts of parliament would have to be passed to end all of our border control? To facilitate completely unregulated migration? To remove ourselves from so many of our international treaties? We'd be next-door to a rogue nation. The UN would probably try to intervene. The US definitely would! How would we continue to offer public services? The questions are endless. You say that you see these proposals daily? On Facebook? You must have a fun feed!

The most "pro islander" view I have come across is that his death was predictable and that his actions were risky, foolish and illegal. Nobody is talking about it being right or justified.

Edited November 23, 2018 by bolt.

[Terabith]

In my mind, this was a clear case of self defense.  

[ktgrok]

What I don't understand, as a Christian, is thinking that God is going to send those dozen or so tribal people to hell for eternity because you didn't go there to share the Bible. What kind of awful God is that? 

Not to mention, why those few people, rather than the many many more  he could reach that wouldn't kill him? Not to mention, nothing says "Jesus loves you" like spreading germs that could be fatal. 

The whole thing sounds like it was about ego, not Jesus. 

[Daria]

54 minutes ago, Terabith said:

In my mind, this was a clear case of self defense.  

This.  

I don't think that we can judge the Sentinelese without taking into account that almost 90% of the Andaman population was destroyed by people acting very similarly to this man, and that entire languages and cultures in that region have been lost*.  They have very legitimate reasons to be terrified of outsiders.

I also think that we have to take into account that it is very unlikely that the Sentinelese, who don't have the ability to create fire, have any other systems in place that would let them deal with this situation.  They tried peaceful means to communicate that he didn't want them there.  It's not like they could put him in humane detention and appeal to a court of law and then deport him.  Those structures and concepts don't exist in their world.

*This is assuming that the population would have remained stable without outside intervention, and includes that caveat that my #'s came from Wikipedia.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

Nobody on my Facebook advocates for open borders -- what a legislative nightmare! Can you imagine how many acts of parliament would have to be passed to end all of our border control? To facilitate completely unregulated migration? To remove ourselves from so many of our international treaties? We'd be next-door to a rogue nation. The UN would probably try to intervene. The US definitely would! How would we continue to offer public services? The questions are endless. You say that you see these proposals daily? On Facebook? You must have a fun feed!

The most "pro islander" view I have come across is that his death was predictable and that his actions were risky, foolish and illegal. Nobody is talking about it being right or justified.

 

Well, if you read this thread and the other here, several people have said that this guy was essentially a terrorist who deserved to die.

As far as open borders, yes, there are people that advocate that - a fairly prominent Guardian journalist wrote an article to that effect not long ago.  But many more make the argument in principle that immigration should be allowed almost across the board, with only administrative controls. The other side of that argument, often heard, is that those who are anti-immigration are bigoted.  Maybe especially if their concern is maintaining a culture.

I wouldn't say this is quite the same situation, mainly because of the health concerns, but someone who in principle thinks that a society should be open to others, as many do, would, I expect, tend to think it's not good for a society in principle, to be isolationist.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Bluegoat

[ktgrok]

22 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

 

I wouldn't say this is quite the same situation, mainly because of the health concerns, but someone who in principle thinks that a society should be open to others, as many do, would, I expect, tend to think it's not good for a society in principle, to be isolationist.

I can not want MY country to be isolationist, but not want to force that on another society. 

Either way though, a population of what, a dozen people, is a lot more likely to be facing extinction than the population of the united states. 

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, bolt. said:

Nobody on my Facebook advocates for open borders -- what a legislative nightmare! Can you imagine how many acts of parliament would have to be passed to end all of our border control? To facilitate completely unregulated migration? To remove ourselves from so many of our international treaties? We'd be next-door to a rogue nation. The UN would probably try to intervene. The US definitely would! How would we continue to offer public services? The questions are endless. You say that you see these proposals daily? On Facebook? You must have a fun feed!

The most "pro islander" view I have come across is that his death was predictable and that his actions were risky, foolish and illegal. Nobody is talking about it being right or justified.

Actually....I kinda do think it was justified.  I mean, was it ideal?  No.  But they tried to warn him off.  This is in no way comparable to any other open border issue, because simply by his physical presence, he was a mortal threat to each and every member of their tribe, through the germs he carries with him, not to even get into the cultural issue.  It's a truly unique situation.  It's not like they could put him in isolation or detention.  They tried to warn him off, and when that did not work, they killed him, using the technology they had at their disposal that kept them as far from him as possible.  

I mean, I honestly don't see what other recourse these people have.  Either no contact truly means no contact and is enforced with lethal force, or it's meaningless.  

[Sneezyone]

Here's the thing...

In this country, I don't have the authority to shoot someone entering the city limits because it's my city whether I wave them off or not. I only have the right to defend *my* person and *my* property. The entirety of the nation is not mine, alone to control. By law and custom, we allow people to walk up to our national borders and have their cases heard. Trying to impose our legal obligations/expectations on people who have not consented to be governed by them is stupid.

[KathyBC]

3 hours ago, bolt. said:

Nobody on my Facebook advocates for open borders -- what a legislative nightmare! Can you imagine how many acts of parliament would have to be passed to end all of our border control? To facilitate completely unregulated migration? To remove ourselves from so many of our international treaties? We'd be next-door to a rogue nation. The UN would probably try to intervene. The US definitely would! How would we continue to offer public services? The questions are endless. You say that you see these proposals daily? On Facebook? You must have a fun feed!

The most "pro islander" view I have come across is that his death was predictable and that his actions were risky, foolish and illegal. Nobody is talking about it being right or justified.

Yes, they advocate for the US to have open borders. And they don't define open borders or follow thoughts through to their logical conclusion, just you know, post self-righteous rants.

[KathyBC]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, if you read this thread and the other here, several people have said that this guy was essentially a terrorist who deserved to die.

As far as open borders, yes, there are people that advocate that - a fairly prominent Guardian journalist wrote an article to that effect not long ago.  But many more make the argument in principle that immigration should be allowed almost across the board, with only administrative controls. The other side of that argument, often heard, is that those who are anti-immigration are bigoted.  Maybe especially if their concern is maintaining a culture.

I wouldn't say this is quite the same situation, mainly because of the health concerns, but someone who in principle thinks that a society should be open to others, as many do, would, I expect, tend to think it's not good for a society in principle, to be isolationist.

Oh, you don't have to be anti-immigration to be bigoted. Any immigration controls count as racist, with some folks.

[Daria]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Here's the thing...

In this country, I don't have the authority to shoot someone entering the city limits because it's my city whether I wave them off or not. I only have the right to defend *my* person and *my* property. The entirety of the nation is not mine, alone to control. By law and custom, we allow people to walk up to our national borders and have their cases heard. Trying to impose our legal obligations/expectations on people who have not consented to be governed by them is stupid.

North Sentinel Island isn't a country.  Chau traveled to India.  By going through customs and immigration, where he clearly lied, he did agree to follow Indian law.  

North Sentinel Island isn't a city either.  It belongs to the tribe as a group, in the same way that a family farm might belong to an extended family.  

I think it's ironic that those of who believe in increased protections for migrants and asylum seekers and also think that this killing of Chau was justified are being called hypocrites on the same thread where people who have argued their right to own weapons and use them to defend their families and homes, are shocked that these people defended their own families and property from illegal entry by someone who was potentially carrying something that had the potential to kill them all.

[Frances]

4 hours ago, Fifiruth said:

 

Walking onto an island with the hope of talking to people, with no weapons and no intent to murder, is not hostile. He did not deserve death, nor was he a terrorist as I have read some try to suggest. 

He was young, idealistic, and naive. 

So why did he think it was illegal to do it? The government had simply made some arbitrary rule for no reason whatsoever? I agree he did not deserve death. But it’s hard to believe he didn’t know that he could cause the death of everyone on the island. And besides, how was he going to talk to them? He most certainly didn’t speak their language.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, KathyBC said:

Yes, they advocate for the US to have open borders. And they don't define open borders or follow thoughts through to their logical conclusion, just you know, post self-righteous rants.

Do they use the term open borders, or do you interpret their stance to mean that? I've been told many times I want open borders, when that isn't what I have said nor what I want. 

[Corraleno]

11 hours ago, Daria said:

I think it's ironic that those of who believe in increased protections for migrants and asylum seekers and also think that this killing of Chau was justified are being called hypocrites on the same thread where people who have argued their right to own weapons and use them to defend their families and homes, are shocked that these people defended their own families and property from illegal entry by someone who was potentially carrying something that had the potential to kill them all.

This.

Chau was not an "immigrant." He was not a refugee fleeing horrible conditions in a country that was destabilized by the Sentinelese. He was illegally invading the home of a small group people, to whom he represented a mortal danger, and who repeatedly warned him to go away. It was a home invasion, not a request for asylum.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Corraleno

[Amira]

I also don’t think this situation can be used as an analogy for any other because it’s so unique.  The legal ideals we use in the rest of the world don’t apply here in any way. There are very few places in the world where the rules are so very different as they are on North Sentinel Island.  Not only was it illegal for Chau to do this, it was immoral in every way.  I cannot see any way in which this could possibly be given a moral explanation.  Unjustifiable in every single way.

While I don’t think the exact label of terrorism fits here, partly because I don’t think what happened can fit in well with worldwide notions of law, I do think Chau was using a violent action to promote his religious belief.  He’s certainly not the first people to do that, but he’s being eulogized by those who are more likely to agree with that belief. As a member of a denomination that sends missionaries (almost) all over the world, I’m dismayed that anyone would try to justify this in any way.  This is not something Christianity wants to support.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Amira

[Frances]

7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Really?  

 

He thinks he's going to save the souls of these people by showing up and screaming "Jesus loves you!" at them.....but he's smart enough to realize that he could bring them lots of diseases?  There are people in this country who believe that the earth is flat.  There are people in this country who believe that vaccines are a government conspiracy.  There's a doctor in this country who makes a lot of money posting videos of popping pimples.  So, I am wondering, what is it really that people are basing this assumption that he "knew" he could cause the death of everyone on the island by bringing germs and such.  This doofus thinks that if he just brings these people Jesus, then...I dunno, they will accept him?  Worship him?  Be saved and live forever in heaven after the next tsunami wipes them all out?  I don't understand how that fits with the idea that he's smart enough to think about diseases he could bring to the island.

 

 

 

He was an idiot.  Idiots often suffer severe consequences of their actions.  And the idea that the media is going to look for the human interest story (oh, he was beloved by his church, he was such a quiet neighbor) is for sure not nothing new.  I have seen violent criminals get the same treatment in the media.  None of that suprises me in the least.

 

And it doesn't change the fact that this guy was dumb.  And that sometimes, being dumb has some severe consequences...........................................deserved or not.  We all make mistakes, but sometimes those mistakes result death.  Thankfully this time, it only resulted in the death of the person who screwed up.  

I agree he sounds very dumb or at best, incredibly naive. But I honestly think he had to know about the risks of exposing them to disease. A simple look in Wikipedia would have told him that, not to mention that he knew he was doing something illegal. It was illegal for a reason. I just find it unfathomable that he travelled that far and did not understand the risks. I truly don’t think he cared. I think he was likely driven by ego, hubris, and extreme beliefs.

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, Daria said:

This.  

I don't think that we can judge the Sentinelese without taking into account that almost 90% of the Andaman population was destroyed by people acting very similarly to this man, and that entire languages and cultures in that region have been lost*.  They have very legitimate reasons to be terrified of outsiders.

I also think that we have to take into account that it is very unlikely that the Sentinelese, who don't have the ability to create fire, have any other systems in place that would let them deal with this situation.  They tried peaceful means to communicate that he didn't want them there.  It's not like they could put him in humane detention and appeal to a court of law and then deport him.  Those structures and concepts don't exist in their world.

*This is assuming that the population would have remained stable without outside intervention, and includes that caveat that my #'s came from Wikipedia.

This.

From their perspective, he was every bit as dangerous as we would deem a terrorist here. Their history is that of a people for whom contact with outsiders has ended horrifically numerous times. And he may yet kill them from grave if they handled his body. The incubation period for many viruses that we carry and are not vaccinated for - the common cold, flu, and several others is 24-72 hours, but for tuberculosis - something that is on the rise here in the States - it is 2-12 weeks, bronchiolitis is 3-5 days, enterovirus is 6-12 days, 3-5 for strep, 4-10 for staff,  2-14 for adenovirus, up to 20 days on pertusis, 1-4 weeks on bacterial pneumonia, etc. and people are contagious prior to being symptomatic. His vaccinations are not that much of a protection for these folks. Their isolation means that diseases that are not a danger to him or would be easily treated here are total killers to them. He may yet cause the extinction of this tribe. 

His going was a premeditated attempted genocide whether or not he fully understood that. Ignorance is really not a pass either.

There is no correlation that can be drawn between immigration issues in a country that has the ability to quickly identify sick people, and has hospitals all over its nation capable of bio-hazard quarantine. Think about how we handled the ebola patient in Texas. They don't have that, and he KNEW they were that isolated from medical technology.

His journal entries indicate that he received multiple, hostile warnings, and he still went back. It isn't as if they simply murdered him on sight. They gave him the option to save his own skin. They made it clear they weren't messing around. And he ignored it. He was, to them, a potentially homicidal maniac. I have nothing but sympathy for them. The fear they live with is all encompassing, and informs their lives in ways most Americans can't wrap their brains around.

I am saddened that there are posters on this topic that have in past threads strongly advocated for "stand your ground" and self defense laws, the right to own lethal weapons in order to defend against perceived threat, but seem to think the actions of the tribe were extreme. We talk sometimes about the concept of white privilege, but I think that we need to actually discuss the concept of "American Privilege" along with the general privilege afforded Christianity when it comes to interactions with non-american cultures because there appears to be a double standard.

From their perspective, he deserved to die, and frankly, given what was at stake for them, it is their perspective that counts the most, with the government of India - ie laws of the nation - coming in second. It is very sad for his family that he did such a profoundly terrible thing. However, I think that most of the emotional energy should be focused on hoping and praying he didn't end up bringing something to that island that will kill this fragile people.

[Sneezyone]

51 minutes ago, Daria said:

North Sentinel Island isn't a country.  Chau traveled to India.  By going through customs and immigration, where he clearly lied, he did agree to follow Indian law.  

North Sentinel Island isn't a city either.  It belongs to the tribe as a group, in the same way that a family farm might belong to an extended family.  

I think it's ironic that those of who believe in increased protections for migrants and asylum seekers and also think that this killing of Chau was justified are being called hypocrites on the same thread where people who have argued their right to own weapons and use them to defend their families and homes, are shocked that these people defended their own families and property from illegal entry by someone who was potentially carrying something that had the potential to kill them all.

 

I think you totally misunderstood my comments. A) I think the island is their 'home', their 'castle' and, as such, it should be easy for US folks to understand why/how they defended it. I am not shocked. My point was that their island was more like a personal home than a city or country. I am not and never was confused about whether their island is a country or city. B) I never argued that Indian law didn't apply only that US laws don't apply in India. Indian law clearly prohibited his interaction with and approach to the natives there. So, again, I was pointing out that the situations aren't analogous as, in the U.S., we have no blanket prohibitions against people approaching a border. To the contrary, people are allowed to approach, state their claims and have them adjudicated.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Daria]

I don't think his intelligence was the issue.  I think he was deluded into believing something untrue.  

To be clear, I don't think that his Christianity was a delusion.  But the idea that God was speaking personally to him, to ask him to do this particular thing?  Yes, I do think that's delusional.  And whether it's because he was mentally ill, or because he was so deeply involved in a subculture within Christianity that believed that way that he had become brainwashed, I don't know.  Either way, I don't think he was thinking or straight or logically.  Given that, while I'm sure he had read about the risks that germs pose to the Sentinelese, I'm sure he either believed that because his actions were justified God would protect them, or that converting them was so important that it was worth the risk.  

I also wouldn't say that he deserved to die.  I don't think that's something I ever believe.  I think the decision of who deserves to live or die isn't one for humans to make, which is why I oppose the death penalty so strongly.

However, I do think there are situations where people need to make horrible decisions to kill individuals to save the life of other people, by stopping a crime that is happening.  While I never believe in using death as a punishment, I do think that sometimes it needs to be employed as a last resort.  So, while I don't believe that he deserved to die.  I do believe that the Sentinelese were justified in killing him.  He posed a severe threat to a group of people who are very vulnerable, and who have already lost so much.  They stopped that threat.  

[Frances]

6 hours ago, moonflower said:

I can't imagine a story in which someone crossed illegally into the US from anywhere with peaceful intentions (annoying, intrusive intentions, but peaceful) and was shot on sight being treated as sort of culturally okay because we really didn't want them here and after all we warned them ahead of time and have been shooting people on sight when they cross for years, etc.

 

 

The tribe in question doesn’t even have the ability to make fire. They are so far removed from our society that I don’t think we can make cultural comparisons. They were basically being invaded by a potentially deadly force. How is it peaceful to potentially bring fatal dieseases on to an island with no medical care? They tried to make him leave. He wouldn’t leave. What other recourse did they have? Call the Indian authorities?

[chiguirre]

33 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

. It was a home invasion, not a request for asylum.

That's a great analogy.

Dh had to take an "indigenous encounter orientation" once when he visited an oil production facility in the Amazon. The whole point of the course was that if for some reason you got lost in a tribe's territory, you could manage not to threaten them and get yourself killed. If an oil company can be this culturally aware, someone who aspires to live with a group should be able to do a whole bunch better. Since he couldn't, he faced the consequences.

[Terabith]

I imagine this man, this very young man, grew up surrounded by stories of heroic missionaries and had all the delusions of grandeur that those stories engender.  But at the same time, a six year old can tell you about the role of germs played in the conquest of the Americas and how utterly vulnerable isolated groups are to the germs of the outside world.  It's unfortunate that he made the choices that he did, but I'm infuriated that the response of his family is to ask for FORGIVENESS as if the people who killed him need forgiveness rather than to hope and pray that they are spared the genocide of their people because of his very, very foolish actions.  

[KathyBC]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Do they use the term open borders, or do you interpret their stance to mean that? I've been told many times I want open borders, when that isn't what I have said nor what I want. 

I can see how that could happen.

[mathnerd]

 

7 hours ago, moonflower said:

I can't imagine a story in which someone crossed illegally into the US from anywhere with peaceful intentions (annoying, intrusive intentions, but peaceful) and was shot on sight being treated as sort of culturally okay because we really didn't want them here and after all we warned them ahead of time and have been shooting people on sight when they cross for years, etc.

 

 

These people are stone age humans and cannot count beyond two, don't have any known languages that they speak, cannot make fire and have had zero contact with civilization for over 30,000 years. The Indian government allows them to thrive in isolation without all of them getting killed by germs that modern humans have immunity to. How do you expect the Sentinelese to tell this guy to get lost? These people need to be left alone so that they can live their lives peacefully - there are only a handful of them alive and they have miraculously survived tsunamis and other natural disasters using their instincts that they have honed to help them survive.  They have been known to be aggressively against contact with the outside world. It is illegal to go into their territory. This person bribed fishermen to take him to the island knowing that he was doing an illegal act.

 

ETA: Another source says that they have not been in contact with the outside civilizations for 50,000 years and that they have forgotten how to make fire over the past many thousands of years and that they keep a few fires permanently burning on the island so that they never run out of fire. Apparently, they took the fire up on to tree tops during the tsunami!

Edited November 23, 2018 by mathnerd

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I imagine this man, this very young man, grew up surrounded by stories of heroic missionaries and had all the delusions of grandeur that those stories engender. 

Yes, I think this is exactly it. He wrote in his journal "The eternal lives of this tribe is at hand and I can’t wait to see them around the throne of God worshipping in their own language, as Revelations 7:9-10 states.”

Given the fact that their language is unrecorded and he had no way to learn it, I can't imagine how he thought he was going to convert them. Even if he had managed to live there for 10 years without them killing him, or him killing them through disease, how do you explain Biblical concepts to people who don't even have fire, let alone understand what a temple or a priest or a king or a god is? When there are so many other places in the world he could evangelize, why target this ONE particular tiny, isolated, incredibly vulnerable tribe, who are known to kill intruders, who are legally protected from outside interference, and who have approximately zero chance of ever understanding what you are trying to teach them? That's more that simple naivety, there's also a certain amount of hubris there, thinking that he alone was chosen by God to "save" these people (assuming he didn't kill them off with pathogens first).

[Faith-manor]

Agreeing with Terabith, it is appalling that the family even THINKS from this perspective. The only person who needed forgiveness for anything was the man who put them in danger, and anyone who may have supported him in his actions. The statement from the family is deeply offensive.

[Murphy101]

48 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

 

These people are stone age humans and cannot count beyond two, don't have any known languages that they speak, cannot make fire and have had zero contact with civilization for over 30,000 years. The Indian government allows them to thrive in isolation without all of them getting killed by germs that modern humans have immunity to. How do you expect the Sentinelese to tell this guy to get lost? These people need to be left alone so that they can live their lives peacefully - there are only a handful of them alive and they have miraculously survived tsunamis and other natural disasters using their instincts that they have honed to help them survive.  They have been known to be aggressively against contact with the outside world. It is illegal to go into their territory. This person bribed fishermen to take him to the island knowing that he was doing an illegal act.

 

That’s not true according to the article posted or anything else. 

The outside world has been in contact with this tribe for hundreds of years.  Always violently, but still it’s not like they don’t know there is a different world away from their island. They have fire and iron.

One anthropologist has even had regular contact with them and was the first person to ever have peaceful contact. 

This info is readily available on Wikipedia.

This island has respectfully been alllowed to stay isolated since 1997.  For disease and other reasons. 

This guy was trespassing and being an aggressor. It sucks that it got him killed but he knew it would. I have to think this is more similiar to suicide by cop than anything else. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Murphy101

[mathnerd]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

One anthropologist has even had regular contact with them and was the first person to ever have peaceful contact. 

 

Which anthropologist? The Indian one? He just brought them gifts regularly and left the island and I am not sure that he was ever in "contact" with them.

Edited November 23, 2018 by mathnerd

[Corraleno]

59 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

That’s not true according to the article posted or anything else. 

The outside world has been in contact with this tribe for hundreds of years.  Always violently, but still it’s not like they don’t know there is a different world away from their island. They have fire and iron.

One anthropologist has even had regular contact with them and was the first person to ever have peaceful contact. 

 

According to the Indian anthropologist (Pandit), the Sentinelese try to preserve embers from lightning strikes, but don't know how to make fire, and although they have scavenged some metal from shipwrecks, they don't have the technology to make their own. Some of the reports in the popular press are citing "30,000 years of isolation" as if it refers to lack of contact, but the figure is actually based on DNA analysis and refers to genetic isolation, not lack of contact. 

But the Sentinelese don't even have much contact with other Andaman Islanders; their language does not seem to be related to the languages of other groups nearby, so they have no way of communicating even with their nearest indigenous neighbors. (Which makes it seem even crazier that Chua thought he was going to be able to convert them, since there was no possibility of even using a local translator.)

Edited November 23, 2018 by Corraleno

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, moonflower said:

I can't imagine a story in which someone crossed illegally into the US from anywhere with peaceful intentions (annoying, intrusive intentions, but peaceful) and was shot on sight being treated as sort of culturally okay because we really didn't want them here and after all we warned them ahead of time and have been shooting people on sight when they cross for years, etc.

 

 

Potentially he could have wiped them out with a disease they hadn't been exposed to.  If you had someone infiltrating your borders carrying ebola or something you would probably stop them - luckily you could probably tranquilize them but I suspect the may end up shot by the police.

Obviously it is sad he was killed but he sounded like martyrdom would be the next best thing to "winning them for Christ".  I agree that he must have been raised on a steady diet of missionary and martyr stories but I would have to assume some mental disorder as well.

Edited November 23, 2018 by kiwik

[Pawz4me]

I agree that there must have been some degree of mental illness/brainwashing/something involved. The idea that he would have been able to communicate with them seems to go beyond hubris or ego into the realm of not-in-touch-with-reality. And to even attempt to go there seems to me to indicate that he had to have done more than cursory research. It doesn't seem likely to me that he wouldn't have realized that he could potentially infect them with all sorts of things.

@Murphy101 said it seems like suicide by cop. I think that's a pretty good analogy. I was thinking--totally w/o wanting to dehumanize anyone involved--that it was like the stories that crop up every year of a tourist in Yellowstone or some similar place who approaches a wild animal. The wild animal almost always "wins." And again that's not meant to dehumanize anyone, it just seems to me that's a good analogy of the vastness of the gulf he was trying to breach. Approaching a bison or bear in Yellowstone is not like approaching a milk cow or a Golden Retriever, and approaching these isolated islanders is not like crossing a border between two modern countries.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

What I don't understand, as a Christian, is thinking that God is going to send those dozen or so tribal people to hell for eternity because you didn't go there to share the Bible. What kind of awful God is that? 

Not to mention, why those few people, rather than the many many more  he could reach that wouldn't kill him? Not to mention, nothing says "Jesus loves you" like spreading germs that could be fatal. 

The whole thing sounds like it was about ego, not Jesus. 

Many Christians do believe this, though. (I am not one of them.) They believe that The Great Commission was give so all would have an opportunity to know God (through Jesus); those who don’t, die in sin. 

It has been the motive of countless Christian missionaries. 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Frances said:

I agree he sounds very dumb or at best, incredibly naive. But I honestly think he had to know about the risks of exposing them to disease. A simple look in Wikipedia would have told him that, not to mention that he knew he was doing something illegal. It was illegal for a reason. I just find it unfathomable that he travelled that far and did not understand the risks. I truly don’t think he cared. I think he was likely driven by ego, hubris, and extreme beliefs.

I don’t know; I think happysmiley makes a good point. 

Having spent my formative years around people were very pro-proselytizing, I have heard countless stories about how God miraculously intervened so a people group could learn about Jesus against all probability. I have been told stories of missionaries with no ability to communicate somehow magically bringing peoples to the faith by mere mention of the holy name. Or that hostile groups quelled hostility after hearing the singing of hymns. And, actually, I don’t recall a single instance where it was pointed out that a Christian missionary could literally be a mortal threat due to germs. Perhaps the same people relating those stories would also think God would miraculously protect the people groups so they could be reached with the message. 

 

[ktgrok]

57 minutes ago, Quill said:

Many Christians do believe this, though. (I am not one of them.) They believe that The Great Commission was give so all would have an opportunity to know God (through Jesus); those who don’t, die in sin. 

It has been the motive of countless Christian missionaries. 

 

I know....I've just never been able to relate to it. If God was actually and literally sending whole portions of the population to hell for no fault of their own, just because missionaries didn't make it there...that' wouldn't be a God I'd want to worship. I've never belonged to a denomination that believed this (Episcopal, PC-USA, and Catholic) so it's just totally foreign to me. But assuming he did believe it, it still makes no logical sense to go where he did (I know you aren't saying it does) because he could save MORe people going somewhere else, rather than those 12 people or so, and by risking this life to go there he is limiting how many people he can reach. If the goal is to convert as many as possible it's still a dumb thing to do, lol. 

It all speaks of Ego to me. 

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I agree that there must have been some degree of mental illness/brainwashing/something involved. The idea that he would have been able to communicate with them seems to go beyond hubris or ego into the realm of not-in-touch-with-reality. And to even attempt to go there seems to me to indicate that he had to have done more than cursory research. It doesn't seem likely to me that he wouldn't have realized that he could potentially infect them with all sorts of things.

@Murphy101 said it seems like suicide by cop. I think that's a pretty good analogy. I was thinking--totally w/o wanting to dehumanize anyone involved--that it was like the stories that crop up every year of a tourist in Yellowstone or some similar place who approaches a wild animal. The wild animal almost always "wins." And again that's not meant to dehumanize anyone, it just seems to me that's a good analogy of the vastness of the gulf he was trying to breach. Approaching a bison or bear in Yellowstone is not like approaching a milk cow or a Golden Retriever, and approaching these isolated islanders is not like crossing a border between two modern countries.

 

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Many Christians do believe this, though. (I am not one of them.) They believe that The Great Commission was give so all would have an opportunity to know God (through Jesus); those who don’t, die in sin. 

It has been the motive of countless Christian missionaries. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Quill said:

I don’t know; I think happysmiley makes a good point. 

Having spent my formative years around people were very pro-proselytizing, I have heard countless stories about how God miraculously intervened so a people group could learn about Jesus against all probability. I have been told stories of missionaries with no ability to communicate somehow magically bringing peoples to the faith by mere mention of the holy name. Or that hostile groups quelled hostility after hearing the singing of hymns. And, actually, I don’t recall a single instance where it was pointed out that a Christian missionary could literally be a mortal threat due to germs. Perhaps the same people relating those stories would also think God would miraculously protect the people groups so they could be reached with the message. 

 

 

He went to Oral Roberts University, which is charismatic so he probably heard many stories of the miracles of speaking in tongues and thought that God would miraculously intervene.  And that same line of reasoning does come directly from the Bible and was the reason for all missionaries.

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I know....I've just never been able to relate to it. If God was actually and literally sending whole portions of the population to hell for no fault of their own, just because missionaries didn't make it there...that' wouldn't be a God I'd want to worship. I've never belonged to a denomination that believed this (Episcopal, PC-USA, and Catholic) so it's just totally foreign to me. But assuming he did believe it, it still makes no logical sense to go where he did (I know you aren't saying it does) because he could save MORe people going somewhere else, rather than those 12 people or so, and by risking this life to go there he is limiting how many people he can reach. If the goal is to convert as many as possible it's still a dumb thing to do, lol. 

It all speaks of Ego to me. 

 

I think the goal is to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth so that Christ can return.
 

Quote

 

Matthew 28:19 - Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...

Mark 16:15 - He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

Acts 1:8 - But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

 

 

I could post many similar verses that explain his theology. Many Christians, especially of the Charismatic bent look on things like education and common sense with a bit of disdain.  They take every marching order from reading the Bible and interpreting it themselves. They celebrate Bible verses that downplay the "wisdom of the world" and try to "look foolish for Christ."  You could also interpret different verses to have a radically different meaning, but his interpretation is easily there.

He didn't care about the diseases because in his mind they may be going to eternal hell without Christ, but life is temporary for everyone. I don't agree with that interpretation either, but many Christians are taught that is the truth.
 

[DawnM]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I don’t know; I think happysmiley makes a good point. 

Having spent my formative years around people were very pro-proselytizing, I have heard countless stories about how God miraculously intervened so a people group could learn about Jesus against all probability. I have been told stories of missionaries with no ability to communicate somehow magically bringing peoples to the faith by mere mention of the holy name. Or that hostile groups quelled hostility after hearing the singing of hymns. And, actually, I don’t recall a single instance where it was pointed out that a Christian missionary could literally be a mortal threat due to germs. Perhaps the same people relating those stories would also think God would miraculously protect the people groups so they could be reached with the message. 

 

 

I have been trying to gather my thoughts on this entire situation and address it from where I sit......I am the child of missionaries.  I grew up in "deepest darkest" and came back to the US at age 18 to attend college.  

My parents were with a well established missionary agency.  In fact, my great grandfather was the first missionary with this particular organization, then my grandparents, then my parents.  

I was always taught that we seek first to understand.  We don't go all Maverick style and charge in demanding to be heard.  We build relationships.  And we do that by having a humanitarian purpose for being there first.  It could be pastoral, but for my family it was educational or medical.  Much of what my parents and grandparents did could be done by Universities starting up satellite campuses overseas or though organizations like Doctors without Borders, BUT, it had the spiritual component to it, sharing the gospel of Jesus' salvation.  

This is why something like a radical going rogue would be not only discouraged, but would be seen as jeopardizing any future humanitarian or spiritual work within the community they are trying to engage with.

Edited November 23, 2018 by DawnM