And how much we still don't know about it.

Leave them alone.

I read this article on CNN and found it to be fascinating! I can't even imagine living in such an uncivilized environment. Sometimes I think they live a better life than so-called "civilized" people simply because their life probably isn't as complicated. Things must be so simple except for the occasional huge flying "bug" that hovers over their site taking pictures of them.



Although it looks like they're in danger of becoming "civilized" whether they want to or not.

Not if you leave them alone and don't try to assimilate them.

I don't think they could be assimilated, nor do I think they should be. I'm all for leaving them alone, but if they continue to cut down the rainforests, it's going to catch up with them eventually. Or is this the only case in which you might agree with the tree huggers Patton?

Nope I was just awaiting your tree hugger comment. :shrugs:

I read this article this morning... I agree... Leave them alone. They have been functioning in their world, their way on their own... Why mess with them? Why is it this world has to dissect every "new" found civilization, orgamism, animal, etc. needs to be researched to death. What is the true purpose? Does the benefits truly out weight the negative impact research can cause?

We should leave them alone...but we won't. Now that their secret is out, there will be a mad rush of people who will track through the jungle to find them to:

Study the culture
Convert them to some religion or another
Exploit them to make money
See if they have any treasures
Make a documentary
And who knows what else

Sad, isn't it?

Even missionaries from their own country or locale would not be able to covert them without inadvertantly killing at least a few of them by exposing them to bacteria and diseases to which they have no immunity. Of course.......it does not generally appear that anyone cares....We NEED to cut down their trees! We NEED their land! We MUST make them more like us..................................................

If they were in the United States, they would either not have a vote, or suddenly be given one if they all agreed to vote republican!

Yeah, just like all the republicans who led the way to giving blacks the right to vote, huh?

How long ago?

You first -- how long ago did they offer to give someone the right to vote only because they agreed to vote republican?

From what political party did most of the politicians and big shots who fought for civil rights in the 60's come from? Republican.

Despite liberal press bias, the Republican party has for over a century been the party that led on the issue of civil rights.


From http://www.ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm:

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now remember, the nation had just ended a long stretch of Democratic administrations -- nearly four terms of FDR, and seven years of Truman -- and yet there had been no civil rights legislation at all. In fact, the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first U.S. civil rights legislation in eight decades.

Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible -- more than any other individual -- for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.

The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen’s leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.

Well, they had their bows aimed at the airplane... so, I'm not sure they're that defenseless.

I'll agree with you that Nixon gave 18 yr. olds the vote, but I really don't find that republicans have been that ammenable to civil rights over the last 50 yrs. Democrats and Republicans alike were conflicted over the civil rights act of 1964.

Both Bush administrations is where the republican party has really taken a nose dive in terms of civil rights and moral leadership in general. Jeb Bush promising Florida to his brother before a general election???? Come on.....he should have just watched the election from a distance. Getting close enough to promise his state? Even in Maryland, when Glendenning won the election for governer fair and square......we had an election and he won. Republicans never did prove any wrongdoing...........(I'll have to admit, both of the Glendenning races were fun to watch, though! ) Yet they tried to make accusations. And Bush did not really win either of his presidential elections; he essentially grabbed them from the winners. The nation has been over this again and again, so I am not going to dig up data and regurgitate it unless everyone REALLY wants to go there, but lets face it, the Bush administration has some serious moral problems when it comes to counting votes. Thankyou for your valid point that BOTH parties, historically; and therefore, people in general, have had their moral problems with civil rights. The question remains, what do we do now? And concerning tribes of people who have nothing to gain from participating in any world politics except to defend themselves, how do we treat them?

Whoa, there, how on God's Green Earth did he "steal" either election. Spare me the Gore crap, heard it all before.

I do want to hear the Kerry take. This ought to be good.

Regardless, the Republican party was the party of Lincoln, and has a long record of being the one pushing FOR civil rights for blacks. We've been over this before. Although the current Democractic party hold on blacks has been rightly called the new slavery, it's a very recent phenomenon. Democrats were historically the party in favor of slavery back in the 1800s and just last century were opposed to all sorts of civil rights initiatives.

Both parties have their sleazeballs. But the Dems cannot take credit for a better record on civil rights, period.

People who believe Bush stole the election deny what even the Bush-hating liberal rag newspapers have declared after all the investigations were done.

If possible, ya leave the tribes you speak of alone. But the criminals probably won't, because there is money to be made, and it is likely they will meet a bad fate unless the country's government essentially makes the place a guarded compound.

BM...........you are correct in stating that Lincoln was republican. But he only freed slaves in the South, not the north. It was still legal to own a slave in the north after the Declaration of Indepedance. Also, why didn't he provide assurance that they could go to school or learn a trade, if they were to exist in the population of the time as free people? One does not need a crystal ball to know that people with no education and no assets against which to borrow start-up money to start businesses and no land upon which to grow crops would either starve or have miserable lives. What, exactly, were his real intentions concerning the slaves, anyway, besides using them as a tool to get what he wanted in a war?

Yes, Indeed. Lincoln WAS a republican.

And once again it went off topic.

And it only took until post #10.

SS -- read the quotes of the day. Lincoln was trying to hold together a fractured coalition. He did as much as he could get by with when he could.

An institution that existed for thousands of years (slavery) was essentially eliminated completely in the USA in roughly a hundred years, and with Republicans leading the way.

No he didn't - in fact he went too far too fast and the nation split over it. Remember that litle thing we had called the Civil War? I've got an awful lot of dead Great Great (or is it 3 greats I can never remember) Uncles as a result of the fact that the Republicans, bless them, pushed too hard too fast and we had to fight a war over it.

Umm. Excuse me.
Remember the lost people? The topic?
Thank you

And just why did certain states in the South HAVE to remain part of the nation when they did not WANT to? I don't think we had to fight a war at all.

I wasn't the one who brought up Black people or slavery.

It seems you are the one that brought politics into it though.

Wow, there are still 100 tribes that remain uncontacted.

I think it looks like a fun video game, drive by undiscovered tribes in planes shooting while they try to fire arrows at you.

The movie What the Bleep Do We Know? presented the idea that natives didn't notice explorer ships way back in the day because they couldn't imagine such a thing. These tribes that have no contact with the outside world sure did seem to see those airplanes. There's proof against it. I don't think water has feelings either

http://www.whatthebleep.com/index2.shtml