Tribe Found Untouched By Civilization

(AP)  One of Brazil's last uncontacted Indian tribes has been spotted in the far western Amazon jungle near the Peruvian border, the National Indian Foundation said Thursday.

The Indians were sighted in an Ethno-Environmental Protected Area along the Envira River in flights over remote Acre state, said the Brazilian government foundation, known as Funai.

Funai said it photographed "strong and healthy" warriors, six huts and a large planted area. But it was not known to which tribe they belonged, the group said.

"Four distinct isolated peoples exist in this region, whom we have accompanied for 20 years," Funai expert Jose Carlos Meirelles Junior said in a statement.

The tribe sighted recently is one of the last not to be contacted by officials. Funai does not make contact with such tribes Indians and prevents invasions of their land to ensure their autonomy, the foundation said.

Survival International said the Indians are in danger from illegal logging in Peru, which is driving tribes over the border and could lead to conflict with the estimated 500 uncontacted Indians now living on the Brazilian side.

There are more than 100 uncontacted tribes worldwide, most of them in Brazil and Peru, the group said in a statement.

"These pictures are further evidence that uncontacted tribes really do exist," Survival director Stephen Corry said.

"The world needs to wake up to this, and ensure that their territory is protected in accordance with international law. Otherwise, they will soon be made extinct."

[bobkat258]

No one is safe anywhere.

[Overruled1]

"The world needs to wake up to this, and ensure that their territory is protected in accordance with international law. Otherwise, they will soon be made extinct."

Survival of the fittest has driven the world over time and again.
Directing my question towards Funai, I say, "WHY?" These uncontacted tribes should be contacted to bring them up to the 21st century, not live on what the Amazon is temporarily providing them.
Why not contact them? When they meet men from the outside, I'd prefer they not be the dinner plate when invited for dinner.

[dogsoul]

"Sure, they fought amongst themselves and took each other''s land, but there was plenty of vacant land to go around. And no one was put on a reservation until the Europeans arrived"

...well then, why not simply EXPAND that comment on a global scale? When you say 'they fought amongst themselves & took each other's land' - why is it that Eurpopeans somehow get excluded from 'they'? We ALL fought amongst ourSELVES and took each other's land - it just took more time for those certain groups to come into contact with each other due to technology. So, Europeans were no better, no worse - just more effective at doing what everybody was doing back then - including these native peoples. But while we're ON the subject - where is it stated that 'the land' necessarily 'belongs' to whoever showed up first? Is it like calling shotgun or something? The U.S. was first on the moon - so does that mean it's ours? Seems to me that if any entity has any moral ground whatsoever to lay claim to land, it's a nation built on the principles of individual liberties that all mankind is created equal - though they may not have always lived UP to that code.

[torocaca]

My point is that civilizations in North America probably existed before the Cherokees. If so, did the Cherokees take land that wasn''''''''t theirs to begin with? If so, this is what the Europeans did, too. Taking land by more powerful groups has always existed around the world. Agression wasn''''''''t limited to the Europeans.
Posted by rhs648 at 04:16 PM : Jun 02, 2008



And my point is the Cherokees and all other "Native Americans" are descended from the prehistoric people who arrived via the Bering Strait. Therefore, the land belonged to the Native Americans who inhabited it at the time.

Sure, they fought amongst themselves and took each other''s land, but there was plenty of vacant land to go around. And no one was put on a reservation until the Europeans arrived.

Using agression to defend one''s home and family is part of human (and animal) nature. Obviously, so is the persecution and extermination of people considered inferior.

[rhs648]

correction

Actually there is plenty of anthropology evidence that prehistoric people were here. Does the name Anasazi mean anything to you?

Posted by torocaca

Now we are getting somewhere. My point is that civilizations in North America probably existed before the Cherokees. If so, did the Cherokees take land that wasn''''t theirs to begin with? If so, this is what the Europeans did, too. Taking land by more powerful groups has always existed around the world. Agression wasn''''t limited to the Europeans.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by torocaca

[rhs648]

Actually there is plenty of anthropology evidence that prehistoric people were here. Does the name Anasazi mean anything to you?

Now we are getting somewhere. My point is that civilizations in North America probably existed before the Cherokees. If so, did the Cherokees take land that wasn''t theirs to begin with? If so, this is what the Europeans did, too. Taking land by more powerful groups has always existed around the world. Agression wasn''t limited to the Europeans.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by torocaca

[torocaca]

Again, no records and no diaries to support such a theory. What evidence is there that the North American continent wasn''t populated by older civilizations than the Native Americans?
Posted by rhs648 at 09:55 PM : Jun 01, 2008


Where is the proof that Christ arose from his grave and then a few days later ascended into heaven?

LOL!!!

I guess you don''t understand what "prehistoric" means and it wouldn''t do much good for anyone to try to explain it to you.

Actually there is plenty of anthropology evidence that prehistoric people were here. Does the name Anasazi mean anything to you?

Native, in the context of "Native Americans," means the people who lived here before the Europeans arrived.

[rhs648]

In the beginning there was no one here. The "originals" arrived via the Bering Strait before the water was high. They arrived and split into many tribes, choosing for themselves unique names that described what they did or how they lived. The land was plenty and the people were few, with plenty of "space" between tribes.

Posted by torocaca

Great theory but where is the proof? Again, no records and no diaries to support such a theory. What evidence is there that the North American continent wasn''t populated by older civilizations than the Native Americans?

[jadedreaper]

Ahem...Every peoples native tongue translates the name of their "kind" so to speak..translated into English means..."THE PEOPLE"

[dsr57]

I think my favorite part of the picture is the fact that their pointing bow and arrows at the plane. That''s a sign of hostility. We should carpet bomb them before they attack american soil