Hakani was subsequently adopted by the Suzukis, Christian linguists, who say that when they first saw Hakani she was 5 years old, but weighed only 15 pounds and had scars all over her body. They tell that her parents had committed suicide because they could not bring themselves to kill her. This meant that Hakani was not only alone, but also that she suffered all kinds of physical and emotional abuse for more than three years. It was at that time, the Suzukis recall, that they finally received permission to bring her out of the tribe. She got medical treatment, and learned not only how to walk and talk, but also how to read and write. They report that she is now a beautiful and happy girl, and a fine little artist.
Hakani’s name means smile, and smile shes does as can be seen in her picture http://voiceforlifewhoweare.blogspot.ca/ on the Suzukis' website. The following quotations from the Suzukis are taken directly from that site. “Hakani has inspired her own people to take a stand against their ancient tribal tradition of infanticide. In turn, the courage of these Indians has inspired my husband and me to launch a national movement in Brazil called ATINI which means 'voice for life,' dedicated to saving precious Indigenous children who are at risk of being killed for cultural reasons.”
“More than 20 years of working with the Suruwahara Indians in the Amazon Basin of Brazil have made an impact on our lives. We have not only learned their language and culture, but have come to a point where we are as much a part of their lives and history as they are of ours. We have eaten monkey brains with them, and they have painted our bodies with their beautiful paintings.”
“Over these years we have cried a lot. We have cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle. We have cried with the young single girls who got pregnant and had to watch their fathers kill the babies with bow an arrow. We mourned the death of a mother and father who preferred to commit suicide instead of killing their two sick children. We then learned that one of this couple’s children, a five year old boy, was buried alive by an older brother. He was killed because he was not able to walk or talk.”
Among other things, the remoteness of some of these tribes makes it hard to accurately determine the number of infanticides in Brazil. Official records do not exist, and the statistics are disputed, but ATINI reports that in one tribe alone (the Xingu tribe) close to 30 children are buried alive every year. Reporting on a case similar to that of Hakani, the São Paulo Newspaper Folha (April 06, 2008) informs us that infanticide is practiced in about 20 from more than 200 ethnic groups in Brazil, and that this means the death of twins, children of single mothers and children with mental or physical deficiencies. The same article (http://vozpelavida-midia.blogspot.ca/2008/04/so-paulo-folha-newspaper-tackles.html) chronicles the clash between the view of many Anthropologists who argue that infanticide is a part of the indigenous culture and should therefore not be interfered with, and others who maintain (in accordance with international law to which Brazil subscribes) that the rights of the child should be paramount.
The issue is highly controversial. Anthropologist Mércio Pereira Gomes, who was president of FUNAI (National Foundation of the Indian) during the first four years of Lula’s government, admits that he suffered "a very big dilemma” in the department, on the subject of infanticide. As a citizen, he is against the practice, but as an anthropologist and president of the department, he is against intervention. Another Anthropologist Ricardo Verdum, of INESC (Institute of Socioeconomic Studies), in responding to a draft law to deal with the issue, said that he finds the draft law to be interfering in the free will of the Indians, and that "To want to impose a law is aggressive, it is violence." The irony of his words clearly escapes him!
According to the Folha article Brazil, in 1990, had already constituted the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes "that every child is entitled to life," and that the signatory countries must adopt “all the effective and appropriate measures” to abolish practices that are harmful to a child's health and well-being. In the same article we read “In 2004, the Brazilian government declared, through presidential ordinance, Convention 169 of ILO (International Labor Association), that determines that indigenous and tribal people should be entitled to conserve their customs and own institutions, as long as they are not incompatible with the defined fundamental rights under the national judicial system nor with the internationally recognized human rights."
It seems to me that the intentions of this law and ordinance are balanced and honourable. However the Government has been slow to implement these things. No one should deny that Anthropologists have a point when they condemn the insensitivity of one culture in arbitrarily imposing it's norms, values and customs on another. What is clear to me is that in the past we Christians failed in terms of cultural sensitivity. We were wrong to do that. Dressing up natives in Africa in shirt and tie was not only insensitive to the culture, it was ridiculous. It was however part of the ignorance of the times, and missionaries were not, by a long shot, the only ones who were culturally insensitive during those earlier days (witness British colonialism in India). And I have to say that I hope I won't be judged by more refined future sensibilities of which I, in my ignorance, am currently unaware. C.S. Lewis put the label “chronological snobbery” on the attitude that acts as though we are so much better than our ancestors. I like the way that the English poet Alexander Pope put it, “We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow. Our wiser sons, no doubt, will think us so.” And labelling our fathers foolish is exactly what is happening as we re-interpret history in view of our modern sensibilities when, in the Words of Dinesh D’Souza, we “make passed pale patriarchs ('dead white males') into whipping boys as we condemn colonialism or favour multicultural curricula over a Western 'cultural canon' at our universities” (Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Free Press, 1991).
So yes, Anthropologists are certainly right when they condemn the wholesale overriding of cultural norms and values. But Cultural Anthropology is surely wrong, when it allows it's doctrine of cultural sensitivity to dismiss out of hand human rights violations with their tremendous accompanying sufferings. As I have presented it, it should be clear that there is truth on both sides, unfortunately the two sides are not getting equal air time in the atmosphere that seems to be so heavily loaded in favour of political correctness.
According to the Nightline report the Brazilian government has tried to discourage infanticide, but the Department of Indian Affairs does not have a policy that requires action to stop it from happening. In an interview in the Brazilian capital, Antenor Vaz of the Department of Indian Affairs is quoted as saying "We are not defending death. Very much to the contrary, we are defending the cultural survival of a people." The report indicates that it is a view shared by some activists. In particular is it shared by Fiona Watson of Survival International, a group that defends the rights of native tribes all over the world. Watson is quoted as saying "I'm not going to defend infanticide. But I think you have to understand, that in the context of Indian culture, it's not considered murder.” She says "I have seen that, where a once proud people end up subdued, dependent upon people, because they have lost their beliefs."
It is undeniable that in the past and even now that “once proud people end up subdued, and dependent upon people,” and cultural Anthropology certainly has a role to play in trying to stop that happening. But whatever happened to wisdom, to sound judgement, to thoughtful consideration of the issues? The view of some Anthropologists seems to be “leave them alone,” in a 'one shoe fits all' approach to this issue. To be sure not everything in Western culture is good. But is it not the essence of community that we share what is good and learn from others what is not so good. Does it not make sense to seek to “separate the precious from the vile,” and in order to do that, should we not interact with sensitivity and respect for each other? Must we throw out the baby with the bath water? Are those who are so opposed to Western values opposed to those elements of it to which we surly all agree are good? I am thinking here, for example, of the teachings of Christ that we should love one another in the sacrificial way that He loved us? Are Christian teaching about love, respect and honour all wrong, and unworthy to be shared?
And do we really think in the ever diminishing size of our world, that these tribes will for ever remain untouched by outside influences? Are we so naive to be unaware that any contact at all (even so called “neutral” observation) influences these cultures. And the myth that we can ever be neutral raises its ugly head again here. The Suzukis “cried with the mothers that were forced by cultural tradition to abandon their children in the jungle.” What would Watson and those of like faith in the absolute virtue of non-intervention do? Would they weep but not be willing to help? Would they stoically keep their distance and refuse basic human kindness lest their beliefs influence these “happy” people? And would this really be neutral, or would it be better described as compassionless apathy. Or perhaps we would prefer the “first contact” to be by the exploitative greed of multinational companies, who do things like giving out free baby formula or the equivalent, until the natural milk dries up and then, having created a market where there none existed, turn round and sell their formula to them?
Certainly Western culture is not all good, and certainly we have made mistakes in the past, but can we not learn from our mistakes as part of our own separating the precious from the vile? And is not better for first contact to be made by the humble, respectful persistent loving gentleness displayed by the likes of the Suzukis, who feel strongly about preserving indigenous language, music, art, and traditional ways? Do we not need to consider what are the alternatives, and especially the above mentioned default? If imposing law is “violence,” why cannot Anthropologists and the Government come along side ATINI with its sensitivity to Indian culture, and which also works with the Indians themselves in the advocacy of indigenous children's rights. We need to ask why it is a non governmental organization such as ATINI that has spearheaded support for those, from within the indigenous communities, who want the kind of change ATINI was inspired by them to work for.
This “who are we (or you) to say that another culture is wrong” philosophy is right to be sensitive to innocent traditions and cultural norms. But it is not a virtuous neutrality, nor is it true humility when it refuses on principle to alleviate untold suffering and human rights abuses. Is it wrong to replace the belief that twins are in and of themselves somehow evil, with the belief that this is not the case, and that the rights of the child should be paramount? And what about the Indian perspective on all of this? In one eye opening and particularly disturbing part of the response to the accusations against them contained in the Nighline article, the Suzukis say “Although representatives from different organizations were able to share their perspectives, this story was ultimately about the tribes. Indigenous leaders came to Brasilia to meet with you -- some of them having traveled over 40 hours from their tribes -- but you excluded their statements from your story. The most important perspective -- of the Indians themselves -- was missed entirely” (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=6788207&page=1#.UC-JX0R35TU).
The Suzukis expected better of the media, so do I! We should in fact demand it!
No comments:
Post a Comment