rachamim
Bluelighter
Far away and long ago I was once a student pursuing my degree in an anthrpological genre. One of the first rules budding anthropologists master is to never interfere in or judge another group's cultural practices. Known as "Cultural Relativism," it is rooted in the more widely known "Moral Relativism."
The 18th Century philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder pretty much summed up the premise of Moral Relativism when he wrote that there are no moral absolutes. von Herder believed that humans inherently lack a fixed nature, that one's nature- and thus their moral outlook- are shaped by ones environment. In more simpler terms, "Nurture" wins out in the perennial battle of "Nature versus Nurture." If one accepts this premise- and it is the basic foundation of Cultural Anthropology- there is no common moral denominator shared by all of humanity.
Many people, myself included, disregard this outlook in favour of a universal standard. Mine, basically put, is that one is free to do whatever one wants AS LONG AS it does not cause direct injury or death to another human being. Many people agree that this is a fair minded outlook. In this perspective, the practice of Infanticide is verboten and should be interfered with no matter the cost to the culture in question. Moral Relativists argue that interfering with such a practice unfairly imposes an alien morality, often upon very ancient cultures. A pending law in Brasil illustrates these contrasting perspectives perfectly.
Known as "Muwaji's Law," Bill #1057-2007 was introduced to Brasil's National Congress in May of 2007 by Congressman Henrique Afonso. Currently awaiting signing after passing through the Congressional Human Rights Committee in June of 2011, the legislation seeks to illegalise the practice of Infanticide as practiced by the indigenous people of the Amazon.
The issue first began attracting attention when an Evangelical Christian youth organisation, PhotogenX International, published a book on the subject replete with dramatic photos of both victims and survivors. Spurred by the small but enthusiastic interest in the book, missionaries Edson and Marcia Suzuki convinced American filmmaker David Loren Cunninghamm to film a 30 minute-long docudrama on the issue in 2008. Funded by the Suzuki's NGO "Atini," and another Evangelical youth organisation, the film used actual survivors of attempted Infanticides to portray this practice in a manner so realistic that most viewing it had no idea that it wasn't an actual documentary, despite a disclaimer at the end explaining just that.
Entitled "Hakani" (Smile), the story is a retelling of an incident central to the Suzukis' lives. In 1997 a 2 year old girl named Hakani was sentenced to death by the elders of the Suruwaha Tribe, an indigenous group living in Northwest Brasil, very near the Peruvian border. Afflicted with hypothyroidism young Hakani had yet to learn how to walk or to speak. As in all such cases her poor parents were commanded to murder their child. Unable to comply, they both committed suicide by ingesting a poisonous root known locally as "Timbo." Now parentless, Hakani became the ward of her 15 year old brother and it was he whom the elders next delegated the murder. Hitting his 2 year old sister broadside on the head with his machete he knocked Hakani unconscious. As he carried his sister to a ready mad pit just outside his hut she revived and began crying. Unable to comply he carried his little sister back inside their hut without resolving the situation one way or another. Outraged, his (and Hakani's) grandfather took his bow and shot an arrow into the girl's abdomen before he too became overcome with emotion. Fearing the malevolent intentions of their tribal elders the grandfather and grandson carried Hakani into the jungle and deposited her in a clearing. There, for 3 years, they smuggled food to her and the young girl managed to survive, albeit in a pitiful state.
When Hakani was 5 years old Edson and Marcia Suzuki discovered her existence and immediately attempted to rescue the girl. Weighing just 6 kilos and less than .75 meter tall she propelled herself around her small jungle clearing on her hands and knees and communicated via guttural animal-like noises. Suffering from the festering wound in her abdomen the Suzukis knew that time was of the essence. Having spent nearly 2 decades working with the Suruwaha, the couple had no illusions about the complexity of the situation. Like all indigenous people in the Amazon the tribe was under the care and supervison of FUNAI (Fundacao Nacional do Indio), known in English as "The National Foundation of the Indian). Complicating the matter greatly was the requisite compliance of a second state agency, FUNASA (Fundacao do Saude), "The National Health Foundation." Never an easy sell, FUNASA's agreement would be next to impossible given the girl's pitiful condition. FUNASA would be reluctant to risk negative publicity with most people probably pointing to the agency as negligent, or worse. In the end the Suzukis used that same fear as leverage when they warned FUNASA staff that Hakani's death would be blamed on agency staff should she die without ever leaving the Suruwaha reserve.
Rescuing and then adopting Hakani the Suzuki's got her prompt medical treatment that not only saved the girl's life, but treated her underlying condition of hypothyroidism as well. Within 6 months both her weight and height doubled, she had learned to walk and was communicating in Portugese.
All's well that ends well, right? Hardly. Upon release of the docudrama the UK-based NGO "Survival International" interjected itself into what had heretofore been a purely Brasilian issue. The NGO's Director, Stephen Corry, was livid over both the film AND the assertion that Infanticide amongst Amazonian Tribes was a real and pressing problem. Emphasising that the brouhaha had been generated by Christian missionaries the NGO went on the offencive plastering the international media with almost comical assertions. Personally speaking, my all time favourite has to be Corry telling anyone who would listen that noone was really being buried in the film (they were, though they were immediately uncovered). Instead, he insisted that the "actors" had had "chocolate cake" smeared all over their faces. Survival International's efforts helped to polarise the Brasilian National Congress. Adding their proverbial two cents were the predictable academics such as Professor of Anthropology Erwin Frank who teaches at Brasil's Federal University of Roraima State. In the words of Professor Frank, "This is their way of life and we should not judge them on the basis of our values. The difference between the cultures should be respected," Moral AND Cultural Relativism defined.
In the 4 years since the film's release Survival International has continued to attack any suggestion that the practice be stopped, or even suggestions that it actually exists as anything more than an absolutely rare anomaly. In reviewing the issue online I have found pages heaped upon pages of people with otherwise good intentions nastily talking about the racism of the docudrama for even portraying Infanticide. Inevitably quoting Stephen Corry such people insist that the issue has been manufactured by missionaries to bolster their cause. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Aside from the Suruwaha Tribe there are at least 15 tribes still practicing Infanticide, something I was compelled to learn about during my days at university:
1) Korubo (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present" ed. Anna Roosevelt, 1994 [University of Arizona Press]
2) Jivaro (ibid)
3) Yanomamo/Yanomami (in 2004 alone a single Yanomamo village murdered 98 newborns as detailed by Dr. Marcos Pelegrini of the Yamomami Tribe Health District; a 1990 study by Early and Peters has the Mucajai band of Yamomamo murdering so many babies that 44 percent of all infant deaths were attributable to Infanticide)
4) Magoruna-Matses (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present")
5) Matis (ibid)
6) Marubos (ibid)
7) Turano (ibid)
8 ) Tapirapes (ibid)
9) Madihas (ibid)
10) Kamaiuras (ibid)
11) Cubeo/Kubeo (see Goldman, 1979)
12) Mundurucu (see Murphy and Murphy, 1974)
13) Waorani (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present")
14) Sharanhua (See Siskind, 1973)
15) Ayereo (Burgos and MacCarthy published a study in 1984 in which Infanticide was said to be the number one cause of Infant Mortality within the tribe)
Far from being a "very rare practice," a 1970 study by Neel pegs it as killing 15 to 20 percent of all children under 5 within the Amazon ("Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to Today"). Yet Corry is still on the offencive, currently on a crusade against Australia's Channel 7 for a piece by correspondent Tim Noonan of the newsshow "Sunday Night." In the piece, which first aired September 4th, 2011 Noonan accompanied a self-promoting "adventure writer" on a visit to the aforementioned Suruwaha Tribe. Living with the tribe for more than a week he presented tribal members' views in their own words. Infanticide and rampant suicide were discussed in depth and once again Corry was enraged. That piece has led to this year's "Freakshow Campaign" in which Corry blasts Channel 7 for airing such phrases as "stoneage tribe," "suicide cult," and the unthinkable "lost in time." According to Corry, it was "one of the most biased, misleading and disgusting reports we have ever seen."
Survival International's reaction has re-ignited the debate within Brasil, and to a lesser extent academia at large. Muwaji's Bill and the debate around it almost overshadow the issues at the heart of that debate. Muwaji was herself also a member of the Suruwaha. Having been ordered to kill her toddler, afflicted with Cerebal Palsy, she instead left her in the jungle. Later, Muwaji recovered her daughter and made her way to safety carrying the little girl on her back. That act represented the first recorded case of an indigenous woman defying her own tribe over the issue of Infanticide. Today, as Congress gets ready to submit the Bill to the nation's President, Muwaji and her daughter Igannani live safe in Sao Paulo. This, a mother and her child, are the at the crux of this issue, NOT Cultural and Moral Relativism.
Granted this is a very long winded post but the backstory serves to frame it rather nicely. Should we practice Moral Relativism or should we adhere to a very basic form of a universal morality. As I stated at the beginning, it could be as simple as my own basic perspective, accept anything above and beyond actions that directly injure or kill other human beings. Thoughts?
The 18th Century philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder pretty much summed up the premise of Moral Relativism when he wrote that there are no moral absolutes. von Herder believed that humans inherently lack a fixed nature, that one's nature- and thus their moral outlook- are shaped by ones environment. In more simpler terms, "Nurture" wins out in the perennial battle of "Nature versus Nurture." If one accepts this premise- and it is the basic foundation of Cultural Anthropology- there is no common moral denominator shared by all of humanity.
Many people, myself included, disregard this outlook in favour of a universal standard. Mine, basically put, is that one is free to do whatever one wants AS LONG AS it does not cause direct injury or death to another human being. Many people agree that this is a fair minded outlook. In this perspective, the practice of Infanticide is verboten and should be interfered with no matter the cost to the culture in question. Moral Relativists argue that interfering with such a practice unfairly imposes an alien morality, often upon very ancient cultures. A pending law in Brasil illustrates these contrasting perspectives perfectly.
Known as "Muwaji's Law," Bill #1057-2007 was introduced to Brasil's National Congress in May of 2007 by Congressman Henrique Afonso. Currently awaiting signing after passing through the Congressional Human Rights Committee in June of 2011, the legislation seeks to illegalise the practice of Infanticide as practiced by the indigenous people of the Amazon.
The issue first began attracting attention when an Evangelical Christian youth organisation, PhotogenX International, published a book on the subject replete with dramatic photos of both victims and survivors. Spurred by the small but enthusiastic interest in the book, missionaries Edson and Marcia Suzuki convinced American filmmaker David Loren Cunninghamm to film a 30 minute-long docudrama on the issue in 2008. Funded by the Suzuki's NGO "Atini," and another Evangelical youth organisation, the film used actual survivors of attempted Infanticides to portray this practice in a manner so realistic that most viewing it had no idea that it wasn't an actual documentary, despite a disclaimer at the end explaining just that.
Entitled "Hakani" (Smile), the story is a retelling of an incident central to the Suzukis' lives. In 1997 a 2 year old girl named Hakani was sentenced to death by the elders of the Suruwaha Tribe, an indigenous group living in Northwest Brasil, very near the Peruvian border. Afflicted with hypothyroidism young Hakani had yet to learn how to walk or to speak. As in all such cases her poor parents were commanded to murder their child. Unable to comply, they both committed suicide by ingesting a poisonous root known locally as "Timbo." Now parentless, Hakani became the ward of her 15 year old brother and it was he whom the elders next delegated the murder. Hitting his 2 year old sister broadside on the head with his machete he knocked Hakani unconscious. As he carried his sister to a ready mad pit just outside his hut she revived and began crying. Unable to comply he carried his little sister back inside their hut without resolving the situation one way or another. Outraged, his (and Hakani's) grandfather took his bow and shot an arrow into the girl's abdomen before he too became overcome with emotion. Fearing the malevolent intentions of their tribal elders the grandfather and grandson carried Hakani into the jungle and deposited her in a clearing. There, for 3 years, they smuggled food to her and the young girl managed to survive, albeit in a pitiful state.
When Hakani was 5 years old Edson and Marcia Suzuki discovered her existence and immediately attempted to rescue the girl. Weighing just 6 kilos and less than .75 meter tall she propelled herself around her small jungle clearing on her hands and knees and communicated via guttural animal-like noises. Suffering from the festering wound in her abdomen the Suzukis knew that time was of the essence. Having spent nearly 2 decades working with the Suruwaha, the couple had no illusions about the complexity of the situation. Like all indigenous people in the Amazon the tribe was under the care and supervison of FUNAI (Fundacao Nacional do Indio), known in English as "The National Foundation of the Indian). Complicating the matter greatly was the requisite compliance of a second state agency, FUNASA (Fundacao do Saude), "The National Health Foundation." Never an easy sell, FUNASA's agreement would be next to impossible given the girl's pitiful condition. FUNASA would be reluctant to risk negative publicity with most people probably pointing to the agency as negligent, or worse. In the end the Suzukis used that same fear as leverage when they warned FUNASA staff that Hakani's death would be blamed on agency staff should she die without ever leaving the Suruwaha reserve.
Rescuing and then adopting Hakani the Suzuki's got her prompt medical treatment that not only saved the girl's life, but treated her underlying condition of hypothyroidism as well. Within 6 months both her weight and height doubled, she had learned to walk and was communicating in Portugese.
All's well that ends well, right? Hardly. Upon release of the docudrama the UK-based NGO "Survival International" interjected itself into what had heretofore been a purely Brasilian issue. The NGO's Director, Stephen Corry, was livid over both the film AND the assertion that Infanticide amongst Amazonian Tribes was a real and pressing problem. Emphasising that the brouhaha had been generated by Christian missionaries the NGO went on the offencive plastering the international media with almost comical assertions. Personally speaking, my all time favourite has to be Corry telling anyone who would listen that noone was really being buried in the film (they were, though they were immediately uncovered). Instead, he insisted that the "actors" had had "chocolate cake" smeared all over their faces. Survival International's efforts helped to polarise the Brasilian National Congress. Adding their proverbial two cents were the predictable academics such as Professor of Anthropology Erwin Frank who teaches at Brasil's Federal University of Roraima State. In the words of Professor Frank, "This is their way of life and we should not judge them on the basis of our values. The difference between the cultures should be respected," Moral AND Cultural Relativism defined.
In the 4 years since the film's release Survival International has continued to attack any suggestion that the practice be stopped, or even suggestions that it actually exists as anything more than an absolutely rare anomaly. In reviewing the issue online I have found pages heaped upon pages of people with otherwise good intentions nastily talking about the racism of the docudrama for even portraying Infanticide. Inevitably quoting Stephen Corry such people insist that the issue has been manufactured by missionaries to bolster their cause. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Aside from the Suruwaha Tribe there are at least 15 tribes still practicing Infanticide, something I was compelled to learn about during my days at university:
1) Korubo (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present" ed. Anna Roosevelt, 1994 [University of Arizona Press]
2) Jivaro (ibid)
3) Yanomamo/Yanomami (in 2004 alone a single Yanomamo village murdered 98 newborns as detailed by Dr. Marcos Pelegrini of the Yamomami Tribe Health District; a 1990 study by Early and Peters has the Mucajai band of Yamomamo murdering so many babies that 44 percent of all infant deaths were attributable to Infanticide)
4) Magoruna-Matses (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present")
5) Matis (ibid)
6) Marubos (ibid)
7) Turano (ibid)
8 ) Tapirapes (ibid)
9) Madihas (ibid)
10) Kamaiuras (ibid)
11) Cubeo/Kubeo (see Goldman, 1979)
12) Mundurucu (see Murphy and Murphy, 1974)
13) Waorani (see "Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to the Present")
14) Sharanhua (See Siskind, 1973)
15) Ayereo (Burgos and MacCarthy published a study in 1984 in which Infanticide was said to be the number one cause of Infant Mortality within the tribe)
Far from being a "very rare practice," a 1970 study by Neel pegs it as killing 15 to 20 percent of all children under 5 within the Amazon ("Amazonian Indians: From Prehistory to Today"). Yet Corry is still on the offencive, currently on a crusade against Australia's Channel 7 for a piece by correspondent Tim Noonan of the newsshow "Sunday Night." In the piece, which first aired September 4th, 2011 Noonan accompanied a self-promoting "adventure writer" on a visit to the aforementioned Suruwaha Tribe. Living with the tribe for more than a week he presented tribal members' views in their own words. Infanticide and rampant suicide were discussed in depth and once again Corry was enraged. That piece has led to this year's "Freakshow Campaign" in which Corry blasts Channel 7 for airing such phrases as "stoneage tribe," "suicide cult," and the unthinkable "lost in time." According to Corry, it was "one of the most biased, misleading and disgusting reports we have ever seen."
Survival International's reaction has re-ignited the debate within Brasil, and to a lesser extent academia at large. Muwaji's Bill and the debate around it almost overshadow the issues at the heart of that debate. Muwaji was herself also a member of the Suruwaha. Having been ordered to kill her toddler, afflicted with Cerebal Palsy, she instead left her in the jungle. Later, Muwaji recovered her daughter and made her way to safety carrying the little girl on her back. That act represented the first recorded case of an indigenous woman defying her own tribe over the issue of Infanticide. Today, as Congress gets ready to submit the Bill to the nation's President, Muwaji and her daughter Igannani live safe in Sao Paulo. This, a mother and her child, are the at the crux of this issue, NOT Cultural and Moral Relativism.
Granted this is a very long winded post but the backstory serves to frame it rather nicely. Should we practice Moral Relativism or should we adhere to a very basic form of a universal morality. As I stated at the beginning, it could be as simple as my own basic perspective, accept anything above and beyond actions that directly injure or kill other human beings. Thoughts?
Last edited:
i understand the tendency for thinkers constrained by authority to over-focus on moral boundaries, and over-apply them to the entire human race
