Uncontacted tribes in general, especially the Sentinelese, can only exist due to their intense isolation. Without it, they’d have already been wiped out, or integrated into a state. Maybe they’d have their own state. Regardless, it’s interesting to think about these things
I am glad that India is providing protection and safety so that they can maintain sovereignty. It would’ve been terrible if they weren’t and had to face unwanted visitors.
They are eventually going to go extinct at one point. Indian government is going to capitalize on it a lot just to be around it I bet later on if they are smart enough.
@@Raz3Raldo Oracle? Their population is diminishing & easily susceptible to diseases. It's like watching a man on his last moments & speculating he would die based of how severely ill he is. Unless the tribe is opened upto modern world in some sense they would go extinct in some manner sooner.
Recently, two of the last members of an uncontacted tribe died here in Brazil. The rest of their tribe was totally murdered 30 years ago by men hired by a large farmer who wanted to take their land. These uncontacted tribes, and the other indigenous peoples too, are suffering a genocide process here, and something needs to be done.
Well get your hands on guns start a militia and say to any one who’s ants to take their land say you have to go through us before you can your land. But I’m pretty sure that’s a bit hard to do
@@CeoMacNCheese That would be actually a good Idea If the local residents of the North had the resources to do that. Or the indigenous peoples. Sadly only the big farmers arround there have much more resources, so thats why they are the ones with armed militias, the called jagunços. Going to fight them in the Amazon rainforest is something that only the army can do. And they used to try, but when Bolsonaro came to power, he aligned with these farmers and stoped almost all the operations to protect the indigenous peoples.
The andamanese and sentinelese DO have a state; though they are unaware of it. The Republic of India provides them protection. The Indian government has civil law, maritime law, tourism, public contract law…etc. for these islands, and protects the territories from foreign threats. The islanders are simply not aware of any of it.
I would say they're more protected by their own violence to people who come to their islands. I mean, the reason for their isolation is more so because they enforce it through violence rather than Indian laws made to protect newcomers from that violence. If they did not fiercely protect their own autonomy, India would not make those laws just like India doesn't make laws protecting any other ethnic groups in it's country and islands against outside visitors.
@@tylersmith3139 if india did not provide protection there would not just be random 1 or 2 people going to the island to die, the island would be absorbed into some polity by force by a group of more than 1.
@@tylersmith3139 yes and no. India protects these islands as a mark of respect to the inhabitants. If not, more stupid people like Chau would try to destroy them. During the 2004 tsunamis, an Indian Navy helicopter went to check om Sentinelese. They threw javelins. India has made stringent laws to protect these precious people.
@St. Haborym shh RELATIVITY is a word to know. That's like asking someone to get water from Mars man. It's s 1 island & they got their hands on it! Fuxk off with that negativity lmao that shit is a game changer for them.
It's really easy. Humans don't need a state. But humans in a fairly prosperous stateless situation will have a growing population. Thus a growing population density. Thus leading to more interpersonal friction. Thus a state becomes necessary.
In some way you could see the Sentinelese as their own state, enjoying the protection of India. Clearly they have a collective "army" which in our terms I suppose would be called almost lifelong conscription. They probably have some social culture in which they share things but also are supposed to carry their own weight. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have a "leader" of sorts.
@@maxpulido4268 Well you only need a state to protect you from other POWERS. Imagine a powervacuum of a nation; Another nation might try take over it's land; But then imagine they won't because it's to hard to control; There's a reason it'd be too hard to control. Any type of group may at some point exert control. Old political parties, coalition of gunowners, a collection of neighbors, a company (which might now hire armed security). I always kinda wonder how Anarchists think it would work. In an anarchist world the strongest and richest rule. And that in turn would TODAY make the strongest form a corporation, and a corporation which is stronger than any other and stops at nothing to crush their opponents. Next to the fact that in todays world there'll simply be some group to pick up the slack and take it all over.
@@NLvideomaster as an anarchist by principle its one of the biggest problems that i cant come up with a solid solution too. Which is part of why im more closely a libertarian. But first of all you seem to think anarchism has a right leaning view on economics when original anarchism is based on left leaning principles and favors common ownership over private property. But even then it remains a problem if anybody chose to not follow an anarchist thought they are automatically going to be a potential threat to anarchist in general. So as an anarchist you cant truly want all hierachy or systems to break apart, because that would threathen the existence of anarchy. Its a hard dilemma and most anarchist dont believe in no stucture, they just believe in minimizing it to the smallest amount possible. So if it means assembling a centralized Army to keep the principles of anarchy protected anarchist will probably do it, even if it conflicts with an anarchy. Again its a dillema which will have people go against principles because of practical reasons.
2:54 - The first contact between the Sentinelese and the outside world occurred either in 1771, or 1867, depending on your definition. 1771 was the year John Ritchie spotted lights upon the island's shore, and 1867 was the year the Nineveh wrecked on the island. In either case, Portman’s 1880 (I believe this is the one you are referring to) expedition was not the first contact. 6:21 - A very salient point. Even the few remaining peoples today living without knowledge of states can continue to exist only by those states’ consent and protection 7:08 - Fantastic conclusion. After spending the past few months combing through seemingly endless videos simply rehashing the general Sentinelese story, you can imagine how wonderfully relieving it is to encounter a video that takes the Sentinelese tale and uses it to make a broader point. Well played.
The centralized entity of some form (ie government body) is a really powerful tool, you can live without it but you will have a huge disadvantage against those who have it especially if you have a large population, larger than face-to-face small group cooperation.
Actually this is not true , imagine how covid was able to infect ppl on every continent , so if covid was more dangerous like apocalypse movies than Earth would have been wiped out , solution humans need unite in diversity , diversity needs to be protected unitedly
@@VivekKumar-rb7zk We talk about governing body, not people diversity. In Covid case, the government is one of the most powerful tools to combat pandemics as you can effectively organize vaccine distribution or quarantine nationwide without government.
@@VivekKumar-rb7zk Except reality isn't an apocalypse movie, it's reality. If Covid were an actual threat to humanity(like the Black Plague, or Smallpox) countries would have shut down much faster, and it would have been a lot easier to contain it, as the infected would be dying instead of spreading it. On the other hand, if it weren't for the United Nations/Geneva Convention/western morals, these tribes would have most likely already been exterminated, as most countries would enjoy having more land.
Visiting Sentinel Island Inhabitants would be like imagining an Alien Race hovering over our City. They don't have any Concept of Present Society. So in this case we would be like some Alien Race coming into their Island World.
There's a possibility they are one earliest migrants out of Africa, that would mean 50,0000 - 70,000 years of genetic drift from the rest of Humanity. In a way we are an alien race compared to them.
@@DisturbingFacts7 While that is true, they are still homo-sapiens (as we all migrated at fairly the same time or in similar times) and thus genetically we could still procreate and produce viable offspring which would indicate that we aren't really like aliens to them on the biological level that you illustrate as no alien would be able to do as such with us. But phenotypically, yes we are different, and societal structure-wise and technology-wise we are far ahead due to unparalleled sharing of knowledge over a vast population-stock and history.
@@DisturbingFacts7 It's accepted that the Sentinelese arrived to the island about 26,000 years ago, about the same time that the nearby Adamanese islands were also inhabited, something that was stated in the video. And in the subsequent years it stands to reason they most likely had some sort of limited interaction with tribes from the Andaman Islands.
Those tribes can work as chiefdoms. They're connected and dependent on the land they inhabit and also they're not overpopulated. Large cities like New York, Frankfurt and Krakow will never fiction without a government though, the land is consumed by buildings and streets while there's the necessity of a running currency, energy and electricity, none of these things being useful in that remote island.
Also all of those cities require a massive amount of food and material. None of which would arrive without protection on the roads, or even the roads themselves
Fun fact, when the people of North Sentinel inhabited the island some 55,000 years ago during the out of Africa migration - Neanderthals were still walking the Earth until 40,000 years ago, and even in Gibraltar, there were small enclaves of them until about 29,000 years ago. It puts a lot of it into perspective for how long the people of North Sentinel island have been uncontacted for.
I find kind of ironic how this people are protected from any crime because it is their culture but if some terrorist attack happens it is condemned although it is part of the culture.
Yha i mean if you're at a home and a pink human looking thing walks up and opens your door and starta taking your family members tries to talk to you and leaves with what they have. You jever see your loved ones again. A few years later, a pink man,different shade, comes nearing your house. You remember what happened all that time back, the pink man, your family, and you take a shotgun or any conversational weapon and you run up to a safe distance. You manage to kill the man. You don't know what he was there for but knowing that he was a pink man and last time a pink came, you lost some family. Never again
@@covenawhite4855 I mean I understand why they killed him, could you imagine living through that time seeing random choppers flying over you and people looking way different than you or anybody you've ever known? Not to come off the wrong way of course, I just understand their perspective; it's the equivalent of what we see as extraterrestrial aliens.
I loved the video, but I wish that the anarchist perspective was better explored. It just seemed like the video made the argument that the state was necessary or preferable without ever exploring alternatives or analyzing the flaws of the state. I would love a video that analyzed the pros and cons of both anarchism and the state.
Anarchism is not something that would last long. It requires that the people making it up agree to abide by anarchsim and live relatively peaceful, but an outside power such as a state, or a group forming within the anarchist community, would be able to bring more firepower to bear than individuals uniting for common defense. Anarchists, funnily enough, require a state to live in, or else they would get their shit kicked in by other states that wanted their resources/had a problem with them.
@@MnemonicHack anarchist don't believe in isolated zones with no states. At least not most of them. Anarchism is an international ideology that believes in achieving stability through balance and force. An anarchist would argue that nobody would want to bring back the state because it would not be in the interest of the people (who hold the power) In the same way that there is no democracy that has been destroyed because the people voted for the monarch. They also don't believe in pacifism so if anybody did try to bring about a state through force they would be stopped by force as well.
@@puddleglum9179 Anarchism is international idiocy that would never work in the real world, just the same as communism. They can argue anything they want, but that doesn't mean I have to give whatever they say any credence. "The people who hold the power" as in who? That's what we call a state. So if anarchism intends to prevent the forming of a state, then it's not anarchism, it's enforced political isolation. Subjugation. A group, no matter if they claim they're anarchists, imposing their will on another group by seeking to dismantle efforts of that group to collectivize, is simply an authoritarian isolationist state of their own. A core of "anarchists" with power will be the ones who're deciding what's allowed and what's not, and guess what? That's a state.
@@MnemonicHack I'm not even an anarchist but It find very telling that almost everyone who opposes it knows absolutely nothing about it. It's a nearly 200 year old academic theory that has been debated and built upon by some of the greatest minds in political science, with hundreds of models that vary from marxist style communism to anarcho capitalism but when people think about it they can only image a college kid throwing a brick at a police wall. I just want people to think more critically about the systems we live under and the dichotomy between the state and anarchism is an interesting way to analyse the role of the state and explore philosophical concepts, but I can never have that conversation because anarchism is concently being misrepresented and redefined and most people are only turned off to it by its inflammatory language. Give me an hour and I could probably convince a trump supporter to be an anarchist, i would only have to not mention the word anarchy.
@@puddleglum9179 Considering I'm a Trump supporter, feel free to try. I'm not opposed to changing my mind, I just know enough about the political theory that I'm fairly certain I won't. I entirely invite you to try though.
I always wondered if they just attacked anybody or if there is a rule to it. Like if we would let a similar looking young woman strand on they beach - would they kill her?
India declared the area around the island a "no go zone". And so the tribe continues to live without the protection of a state... Wait a minute, something feels off about that...
India has changed it's mind in 2018 - the island, and other areas considered as a restriction zone is no longer a restriction zone in order to encourage tourism and studies. This can be looked up.
The thing is that even the uncontacted tribes must have some sort of organization controlling them, even if we wouldn't understand how it works. Lack of a force with the monopoly on violence is nothing more than anarchy, which The Sentinelese clearly are not.
But that is really besides the point. I am sure there is some sort of governing structure of the tribe. The point is the Indian government‘s protection is now a preservation of their culture and way of life. Without that protection intruders could colonize the island in multiple ways. So what I think it says about „us“ in modern states, is the modern state has a duty to preserve a minority’s right of existence.
What evidence do you have that the Sentinelese have an organisation or person with the monopoly on legitimate violence? You say this as if it is obvious, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate this.
Yea they probably have a guy in charge. Its just human nature to form a group pick one or a few to run it. Technically all the uncontacted tribes are dominion of who ever owns the land but they just don't know that.
@@MrSemIsAwesome Well... it kinda IS obvious. The only way there is no monopoly of legimite violence is a state of anarchy. The Sentinelese are not an anarchic society and that is provable by their hostility towards the outside world - in anarchistic setting, there should be some outliers, who would've approached the outsiders with some sense of hospitability, but as far as I know, anyone who has ventured to the North Sentinel Island has been killed - and quickly at that.
The Sentinelese may be descendants of the first migrants out of Africa.Although they may look like Africans,they are actually one of the farthest relatives to Africans,after undergoing tens of thousands of years of genetic drift.
Do you know what, it's expected that around as high as 3000 trillion cubic metres of Methane hydrates (much much much higher than global conventional natural gas reserves of 190 trillion cubic metres) and around 1,200 billion barrels of oil (slightly less than modern day world reserves) is present beneath the Andman and Nicobar Archipelago spread over an area of 54,000 aware kilometers. And more interestingly, the overall area of Andman and Nicobar Archipelago (including Continental shelf is around a 1,000,000 square kilometers. But due to American, European and Gulf's influence on Indian Government, it never started drilling. However the present day Government had started that even though on a minor scale, but it's increasing gradually. There are 22 blocks which are expected to be auctioned by the Indian Government to private companies. Out of this 5 blocks were given the final clearance to be auctioned. Out of this, 2 have already been auctioned and oil drilling is going on. And at maximum capacity, 10 million barrels of oil can be pumped out of a single block every day at maximum capacity. For a comparison, US total daily oil production is 14 million barrels per day. Not just Not just oil and Natural gas, this whole island group has huge reserves of many metal reserves too. If India even exploits a fraction of this untapped reserve, it would give a huge boost to Indian economy.
I'm glad some places remain uncontacted. Compared to those places who have been colonized or have been known by outsiders, can be taken advantage of by outsiders. On the island of Diego Garcia, part of the Chago Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, whose inhabitants faced expulsion by the British with the request of US in 1965. The island is now a military base.
The video just strengthened the claim that ""without a central authority, we wouldn't develop and maybe even will have to be hunter-gatherers". I don't think any of us wants to destroy all technology and human development. I like not being at the risk of dying very young. I like to have wikipedia and learn about science. We all like your videos - without a state your videos wouldn't exists.
The first example of an early state can be found in indigenous societies (things such as the Iroquois confederacy, which was upheld as a model for the American state).
I'd argue that the only reason uncontacted tribed don't need a state is because the world doesn't punish them for not having one. If any country decided to take one of those territorries, the tribe would have to either submit or disappear.
Naah............ It couldn't happen. Any invading country has to face Indian Navy and such clash/war would automatically result in 3rd World War with different global powers taking sides. So the results won't be profitable for the invading nation in any way.
@@moist_ointment But internally they don't have a state. The Indian state basically keeps the world from punishing them for being stateless. So... whilst they _are_ under protection of a state, they govern themselves with little to no state.
@@StuffandThings_ well, that doesn't change that fact that a state is necessary for survival. And when the estimated population is between 15 and 500, of course its not going to have an internal "state", but it would absolutely have some form of internal governance.
Oh shit the "artificial isolation" thing made me think about what if we're totally not alone in the universe and we think we are because we're a very downgraded backwater civilization to the very advanced outer universe (our system might me so outdated it couldn't be called civilization by them) and that we think we're alone in the universe because some alien species is keeping us "protected" and "isolated" within our own artificial bubble of isolation and the UFOs and all that we might see and Freak out about are the foreign expeditionaries and just like the sentinalese we'll want to destroy their UFOs and kill them because theyre foreign to us, and we'd be seen as some inferior beings by the whole gigantic rest of the universe that knowns that we know nothing about the outer universe, and here is where i Leave my theory
Interesting take. Although I doubt we'd pose a threat to any UFO or craft/species that has the ability to travel that well throughout space. So I wouldn't think they would be concerned about us attacking them. I also believe that we are capable of acknowledging the possibility of other life and our basic instinct when we speak of other intelligent life in the universe is usually pretty harmonious - most of the time we are aware of the possibilities of UFO's but we see them with curiosity, fear at times yes, but uncoupled with malicious intent or a need to fight them. Most of us, unlike these tribes, want to know if we're alone, uprooted in a desire of knowing the truth despite a very real prospect that they may actually, by being far superior to us, be a threat to us - yet we still produce satellites for listening, telescopes for seeing and crafts for signaling our existence and location. So while your analogy is interesting and true in some respects - and we may very well be isolated - it is not a direct comparison in many other ways and rather than us being shielded by said civilizations, or feared due to our possible reactions, it is more likely to do with our ability to prove ourselves worthy of attention on the universal stage and our technological inferiority holding us back - and maybe even our continuous susceptibility to diseases/viruses that we have not managed to completely erase - probably something intelligent life elsewhere has already overcome and use as a sign to look for as the ultimate litmus test for the avenue to safe intercommunication.
I wanna know why the first thought about alien life is that Earth is evolutionarily behind other possible alien life? Like what if it's actually the opposite? Earth is more technologically advanced than a lot of other inhabited planets, but we're just still not developed enough to make contact with planets that would actually be more primitive than us. Space travel is difficult, it's not going to happen quickly or easily. Like it's only been 52 years since humans landed on the moon but the planet has taken BILLIONs of years to get to where it is now. The fact that humans are already trying to create a way to get to Mars is astounding considering the usual rate of time it takes for things to develop. Basically, we're not isolated because aliens think we're primitive... we're isolated cuz space is fucking HUGE.
States needing a monopoly on violence to exist is a really interesting and honestly frighteningly true way of putting it... Whether that be the violence of ruining lives/imprisonment, or the more straightforward means of the hangman's noose or in the olden days, just stabbing dissenters to death, the government is the one 'allowed' to do it, and no one else. That quote really makes me understand when anarchists call governments criminal, because in a way... they are. Taxes are required tribute to the khan so they don't behead you/enslave you. Shame hippie communes also suck and are at the whims of the state anyway... The necessary evil and all that.
To me if anything this is just straight up proof that the state needs to exist in order for humans to continue progressing, the state ensures that people within it are safe and well which spurs advancements. Taxes is a completely different question because if you look at ancient Rome, the tax rate was only 1% and could rise to 3-5% during war or crisis (there's obviously more to it like inheritance tax, a head tax, etc etc.. but it was still MUCH much lower compared to what we have today).. yet the advancements they made are still felt today. See Africa for example, if you exclude Egypt.. Axum was arguable the most powerful african empire (or kingdom I guess) and the only reason they got that powerful was because of their location, because it meant they could trade and talk with outsiders. Would that have happened if they didn't have a state that enforced laws, had an army that was able to defend the borders and people within it? Hell no. Now look at the rest of Africa, even long before the europeans arrived they were just split up tribes scattered across the place rather than established countries or empires. The empires that did exist failed to do their job, and since there's no state to enforce laws, enforce safety and ensure trade.. the people didn't progress and they then became irrelevant until the outsiders arrived and re-connected them to the world.
There's a huge key factor missing on these sorts of conversations about states and governments, these tribes and civilizations that work without it are small communities and and they are isolated.
Nice visual reference to the drawing of the Leviathan. I think that's what it's called, right? The all-powerful ruler at 7:23 /Edit: Yes, it's a popular cover of the book "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
all of those tribes are states. if ruled by a chief they are a monarchy if ruled by a council of eldars they are an oligarchy if by a general assembly they are a democracy
Most uncontacted tribes do have access to metal tools and other modern technology these days (sometimes guns), through trade with contacted tribes. Also, hunter gatherer groups like the San And Hadza have had access to Pottery and Iron tools through trade for over a thousand years. These peoples are not existing in their "natural" state, whatever that means. I guess that makes the Sentinelese even more exceptional and important to humanity.
something not mentioned in this video is that the natives of the Andaman archipelago survived thousands of years without discovering how to make fire . They use embers from recent lighting strikes instead
Not true. There is reports of British ships voyaging by the island in the 1700's/1800's illustrating lit fires on the island on these occasions, listing it as a sign of occupation.
Every man has the right to risk his own life in order to preserve it. Has it ever been said that a man who throws himself out the window to escape from a fire is guilty of suicide? Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I feel many people missed the point of the state in this. It's not to provide governance and order, that comes out of social structure. The point of the state is to protect, as laid out at the start of the video.
how do we know they do not have something resembling a state ? tribes are known to have leaders, whom enforce rules. Their attacking of visitors could be a protocol taught and enforced by their leadership. If there was no such thing we would see more varied behaviour, with some individuals being open to interaction.
The Sentinalese have the protection of the Indian State now, otherwise could have been conquered, maybe turned into a CCP port. Also, who is to say that they do not have a means of governance and state-like organization? Sure it isn't as robust as the modern world, but given their limited population, resources, and educational opportunities, they still likely have a structure to their society.
There's a much bigger slightly less isolated Anarchist state group known as Zomia There's a book written about them. Called the art of Being ungovernable It's roughly 150 million people living and hard-to-reach mountainous areas in Southeast Asia on the borders of Burma Thailand Laos Cambodia even China. The history of the region is one where people fleeing Wars persecution headed for the mountains and it's been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
If anything, doesn't this video show that the term "uncontacted" is a bit misleading? Even the sentinelese have had contact multiple times, they've just chosen to remain isolated (and been allowed to do so by India)
Can you imagine being part of Uncontacted Tribe, at the first contact is either: A. A bulldozer destroying the forest around you (thanks, Bolsanaro) B. A war between neighbor nations and you are just chilling without being in the either side. C. Literally the end of the world (like raising level of sea) It would, straight up, not having a good time.
@EL AUTENTICO every culture has some family system and I find it offensive you don’t think my sister is part of our family or that I am either. I mean she’s a trans lesbian and I’m a bisexual so what’s your point? I mean I have plenty of black friends with families, but apparently having a grandma is somehow white? I be sure to tell them about there systematic racism and that they should just leave their wives and kids to be less racist…
When a luxery such as society, civilization or statehood has been achived, its hard to want to go back, hard to sustain another system, and hard to escape.
@EL AUTENTICO I didnt say its impossible, just hard to achive. ‘uncle ted’ the green bomberman? Its alot easier to subvert society as an individual, rather then attempt it as a group. That always begets unwanted attention. Afterall all have failed, Even your uncle
@EL AUTENTICO Civilizations are always in flux, every vaccum of power gets filled. Just like Rome did. Im taking my own happiness in my own hands rather then waiting for an Even which is as likely to make the world Worse off then it it is to male it better. But that wont stop anyone Else, thats just me
@EL AUTENTICO you actually have to «argue» when pointing out flaws, y’know? Edit: ah i Get the misunderstanding, you think i meant the statement as a «law» of nature, rather then something that usually happens, and its «hard»(not impossible) to change So civilizations can collapps, its just rare for the vaacum to not be filled again No, im very much against any authority on my life, so i dont «support» anyone. I either activly go against things that are in my way, or allow them to stay because i dont mind them. I would probably be identified as extreme left
I kind of wonder how the people in these uncontacted tribes view us. Are we humans to them or are we something we'd refer to as "Aliens" or terminator style robots sent from the future? O_O
@EL AUTENTICO Farming and trade, for the hunger thing - the state's monopoly on force for the protection thing. In the Neolithic there were many farming cultures that did not require protection from a state, many lasting hundreds to thousands of years that way... until they faced concerted aggression from other cultures; that's what motivated my comment.
@@SheonEver One can also face aggression from outsiders whom are difficult to consider as cultures. Would you consider pirates or slave catchers to be a "culture" or a "state" for example?
@@michaelnelson1270 Are they a large and organized group coming in such force that villages of people can't band together to fend them off? If so, chances are they *are* from a hostile state - like everyone's favorite raiders, the Vikings. It's not like a group of people requires a professional standing army to defend themselves from occasional light aggression, right?
A little weird thoughts on my part maybe. But shouldn't these people be extremely troubled by incest? Such a small population with no contact with the outside world?
I see that someone already noted that the tribe is just the ancestral state- a leadership command structure with rules. It's more kinship based and the rules more customary and oral than written, but then so are early forms of state. It's not a clean transition.
Absolutely. I think of tribes as being akin to a pride of lions, or a wolfpack, or a group of chimpanzees. They all have hierarchies, leaders, obligations, social rules, territory, etc. But they do not have a state. The state is an impersonal institution used by people to control an area of land. The tribe is social network based on kinship which is concerned with securing resources for its members. I feel like the transition to a state begins when the tribe goes beyond merely managing itself and defending its territory to subjugating other tribes and taking their territory, imposing rules to control and exploit them.
That a primitive tribe does not need a state does not necessarily infer that a more advanced people actually needs one. State or not, the Sentinalese would be unable to defend themselves from a dedicated invader; on the other hand, a stateless people with access to advanced military hardware will eventually drive out a dedicated invader from their midst. The State is ultimately a perversion of human nature, necessarily involving a group arbitrarily declaring "I rule you" when there is no guarantee of them being wiser or more moral than the people they rule over.
@EL AUTENTICO I wouldn't say racism; not every single god damn thing is about that. I personally think that little trash heap of land isn't worth much to any forces on the outside; so why even bother with that? We could probably learn something about them if we keep them around, so I think isolation is best for them; we can't go and they can't go out because they'd just die out here in the modern world.
It's funny that he was trying to get there for Christianity, yet what else could it be? I'd like to think his intentions were pure, but I couldn't help but laugh.
I wonder for what purpose? A few hundred people do nothing to increase the number of Christians. Also the leaders have no influence over the outside world at the slightest. Only reason would be personal pride.
Is it unethical to leave some humans thousands of years behind and away from the benefits of science for the sake of our fascination about how primitive people lived or is it more unethical to force them to live like us?
It is not unethical if it is their wish to be left alone. Forcing them to consume even a piece of bread which they dont wish to consume is criminal and unethical.
Even if anybody wishes that, it's not possible. The Sentinelese aren't even protected again common cold. They could go completely extinct if they can in contact with us.
First: They have their own state. Every society which consist of people in groups larger than a family, exist in more or less state like state with chief, king, elders or priests on top. Second: They are not isolated, it is that we chose not to visit them. They are actually quite easy to reach if somebody decides to do it. Sentinels are part of Andaman and Nicobar archipelago which is somewhat known exotic tourist destination (about 35km from main island). The archipelago suffered greatly during big tsunami but has recovered since so if some drunk tourist decide to go there it will probably be able to do it if he manages to avoid authorities long enough.
There are examples of succesful stateless societies, such as Medieval Iceland, and the "Republic" of Cospaia, lasting for around 400 years and being very prosperous despite the presence of relatively large States around its territory. There was no taxation and the authorities were just the elder council, which had no executive power whatsoever and didn't create laws or demand taxes to be paid.
I recommend reading 'Chaos Theory', by Robert Murphy, exploring the caso for the viability of a Stateless society, it's very interesting. Regarding the first States I subscribe to what I believe to be the only realistica and historically coherent theory, the predatory theory of the state, a book on the first states could be 'Against the grain'.
Placing a sterilized drone on North Sentinel Island out of a helicopter would be interesting to learn about the everyday life, culture or language on the island without being attacked or spreading disease.
I am born as India near coast. When young in youth, we would take people from that island and drop them off in forest; one being violent kill friend with rock.. and we stopped it after only 3 or 4 people total left in india wood.
The only time a human requires the protection of a state is when other states exist - so what is being referred to as a solution of peace is actually a solution to itself.
Your argument for uncontacted tribes needed protection from states is that without it, states would destroy them? I don't really understand, how they need states, to be honest. The only threats they are currently facing come from other states, so how do they need a state as well. Furthermore, why would we need states, because our ways of lives threatens uncontacted tribes? Interesting to learn a little more about uncontacted tribes, but I don't understand your line of argumentation here whatsoever
Whats not to understand? The danger to these tribes doesnt come from states primarily but from our modern world itself. Illegal logging and fishing are huge threat to them not because they are send by state but because they are trying to make a living. Imagine brazil would collapse. People would start logging the amazon much much more than they do now and because we have better and better technology they can penetrate the forest much deeper and quicker than ever before. Thats why they need state protection although they don’t even know what a state is lol
@@tedrash7402 I disagree. Yes, states themselves don't necessarily - though in the past definitely did - threaten them. But our modern life is in state structures. Our way of life threatens them nowadays more than states directly, but they only need our states to protect them from consequences from our modern state-structured ways of live. If we abolished states, like anarchists for example propose, the intensified logging you put up as an example is definitely not a given. If we got rid of our states, they wouldn't need protection by our states either. Therefore I find hard to agree with the notion that they need a state to protect them, because they need to protect themselves from dangers, that come from states and because it is uncertain whether those threats would still exist if we had no states. I hope I was able to phrase my argument more or less understandable
@@tedrash7402 I feel like most people misunderstand what the state means and the ways that it has and can be used. The state is just the centralization of power through force in a government structure, this power can be democratic or authoritarian and this power can be used to threaten or protect uncontacted tribes. Anarchism is the decentralization of power, like a state it doesn't have a specific and detailed government structures, it can also be democratic or authoritarian (yes, it sounds crazy but anarchism can theoretically be authoritarian). Anarchism is more a political theory than a political doctrine and therefor has a lot of flexibility and ways of manifesting itself just like the state. For example, some socialist anarchists believe in a world where government services and powers are decentralized and managed by democratic labor unions and communes. while others like Capitalist anarchists believe in a world where government services and powers are decentralized and managed by competing privately owned enterprises with no regulations. There's potentially hundreds of variation of both these ideas and other anarchists ideas, and depending on how a specific anarchist society organizes itself, it too can protect or threaten uncontacted tribes. The problem with the argument presented in the video is that the anarchist perspective is never explored and that the state is presented as always being a defender or protector when historically that hasn't always been the case. PS: I know it probably doesn't look like it, but I'm really not an anarchists, I just read half of a book once and chat with my teachers sometimes
@@Wildling-Princess-Val why wouldn't intensified logging or fishing be a given in an anarchist society? What would stop loggers and fishermen to further exploit natural resources?
@@cv4809 it's not a given, mainly because modern anarchist societies haven't survived through any of the Civil wars they were born into (usually because fascists or other authoritarian armies gunned them down). Further, anarchist theory rejects the large-scale exploitation of the environment. And because the theory says it wouldn't happen and we had no real life example to disprove this theory, it cannot be taken as a given. If you want to argue that anarchist societies would similarly threat these non-state, uncontacted tribes, you can do so, though I doubt successfully tbh, but you need another argument than given in this video.
I like these kind of things. It's like playing Empire Earth. Well they can live without a formal state system because we have nicer people during these times. If they weren't living on a remote island protected by a big country they wouldn't have been safe.
Isn't a tribe essentially a microcosm of a state? They're a small autonomous, self-governing collection of people who self-recognise as unique. A state is an autonomous , self-governing collection of people who self-recognise as unique. Vatican City, for example, is a tiny (in terms of population) autonomous, self-governing collection of people that is recognised as a state (it's also the only theocracy in Europe, if you're interested in such things) and many of the pacific islands are tiny (in terms of people and land mass) but are recognised as states. If you're being highly technical, the Andaman Islands are considered to be part of India, which is a state and are protected by the said state. So whilst they may not acknowledge that they're part of a state, they are, by default, part of a state.
True, they're only really allowed to exist; there's no purpose they serve really, and even if they wanted to see our world they wouldn't be able to. The diseases that we carry and have become so accustomed to would kill them all off as they have never been exposed to that before.
