Christian Missionary Group Promotes Hatred Against Indigenous People

http://www.survival-international.org/news/4344

http://www.survival-international.org/about/hakani


David Cunningham, founder of the Christian Missionary group "Youth With a Mission" directed this video, called 'Hakani'. It's already been exposed as fake, and the filmmakers have admitted as much, but it's already left it's mark.

These are some of the comments left on YouTube:

Apparently some people consider the very existence of native people to be a threat to their way of life and feel the need to tell horrible lies about them. I'd like to remind everyone of Julius Streicher, Hitler's propagandist, who was hung, burned, and his ashes scattered into an undisclosed river so no one would know where to go to mourn him. His crimes were no worse.
All this to clear the natives out so they can develop on their land. I hope they slaughter the next missionary groups that make contact!

 

This kind of stuff makes me sick.

 

Thats some messed up shit,,,, Yay for the fuckin mercenaries eh??? WTF??? How fake can you get?

 

They've even admitted that they can't even confirm that anything 'recreated' in the video even happened. They've taken to using a kind of "means to an end" justification. They say it's to give them their human rights, but when you consider that it will be the Brazilian government acting as guarantor of those rights, you can see where it's all heading. It will just open the way to further development of the Amazon, and forcing Western culture on the people who've been living there sustainably since time immemorial.... What ever happened to the right- that is, the GOD given right to cultural autonomy?

What gives me the chills, is how perfect the film is. All the shots, carefully staged for maximum emotional impact.... How can they live with themselves, having smeared chocolate cake into a child's face, for the purpose of instilling hatred into the viewers... It keeps me up all night. And to think, their probably sleeping soundly and comfortably, secure in the knowledge that they've done their part to Christianize the savages.

 

I am going to buck the trend here...

from Survival...

It is Youtube. People say stuff like that all the time. The internet is so large that you will find such unsavory stuff all the time. It is by no means an indicator of what is going on.

This deliberate mischaracterization of what those comments amount to leaves abad taste in the mouth from the beginning.

It is often thought shameful. That leaves a lot of room for not thinking poorly of it. Funny how in an attempt to clarify the name of the tribe, Corry does not point out that it is extremely rare or that the tribe does not condone it and is outraged by such occurrances. How often would shameful not even begin to describe the feelings we (as a community) would feel here about murdring a child here. Outrage is the least thought I can think of. Also, note that the fact that it is the mother's decision rather than just something that some parents do denotes a degree of tradition involved here. Funny how that is overlooked in the defense of the tribe.

Notice how this disclaimer is thrown in. It would not be necessary if the article had been about how the tribe feels it is wrong and does not practice it. The article says no such thing but includes it for the organization. That is telling in and of itself.

from the other link to Survival, Hakani-paving the road to hell

Well, snuff films are illegal in most places. So, of course it is faked. Duh.
Plus, if they were really shoving dirt in the poor children's faces it would probably end up being child abuse in and of itself. Duh.

No, it is not presented as entirely real. That is a lie.
So, every time I see a true story I figure it is a re-enactment as does every person that I personally know. So, the trailer would be required to say that it is a re-enactment here? Where is here? Was this released as a major motion picture in the US? No. Made for TV? Lifetime has advertisements all the time for true stories and those advertisements don't say re-enactments. Was it released on YouTube? I don't think there are laws in the US that necessitate such things in internet played movies in the US.

If here is somewhere other than the US where these things are necessary, then it only proves how nonimportant the 'here' bit is and the necessity for it to be included in the trailer.

Also, anyone thinking it to be real and not a re-enactment would also want to kick in the heads of the film crew for not stopping it...

They know of no Indian peoples where parents are told to kill their children. But, as mentioned above, it does occur and is the mother's decision. Funny how that is overlooked in this counter to 'how' it occurs.

So far it sounds like propaganda designed to disparage Christians who do missionary work.

My niece, who paid her own way through medical school, spent I don't know how many summers doing missionary work in Nicaragua. Important work with her medical skills. She also convinced her father (my brother-in-law) to accompany her and help with the work.

I think it is a shame that good people are just propagandized into being pawns of big corporations when they care a good deal about and do much good work for those less fortunate than here in the US and other countries.

Given the rest, I am inclined to believe this is another mischaracterization. Anyone have a valid (and correctly translated) copy of the actual law proposal to authenticate this against or can this just as easily be labeled as a media savvy attempt by a group to mischaracterize a topic to promote a particular agenda as it is easy to lay blame at those who supposedly just wish to open up the Amazon to exploitation.

Cynicism can work both ways.

 

I did not catch this bit at first.

That is kind of sad.

 

Sounds like some more right wingnut evangelical, fundie wackos that give us reall Christians a bad reputation.

 

Jesus would have thought the same thing.

 

I read this film was intended to be propaganda in order to pass some bill that would make it legal for the south american government to take indigenous children away from there parents, I'm not sure if that's true or not.

 

You'll never see any Seventh-day Adventist Missionaries doing anything like that.

 

You must know that racism is a great way to distract the masses. They fight eachother instead of fighting for their rights and way of life.
Tradition is now becoming obsolete. Being replaced by institutionalized thought control. Creating people that can be compared as sheep and do not have the capacity to understand what is really going to effect their and others lives in the near future. Damn those non self educated mindless scum. yes, lets drop a mind nuke on their asses and enlighten them.
























Apparently some people consider the very existence of native people to be a threat to their way of life and feel the need to tell horrible lies about them. I'd like to remind everyone of Julius Streicher, Hitler's propagandist, who was hung, burned, and his ashes scattered into an undisclosed river so no one would know where to go to mourn him. His crimes were no worse.
All this to clear the natives out so they can develop on their land. I hope they slaughter the next missionary groups that make contact![/QUOTE]

 

@ shiva master

So, you will just ignore my counters to the claims as if they don't exist?

 

It's late, so I'll have to keep this brief.

As far as th you-tube comments go.... yes, people on there can be rediculous. But those comments ARE very much representative of people's views of native and tribal peoples. Yes, the internet is a big "place" (sic) and you can find all kinds of differing views but after reading a few hundred such comments, a pretty clear picture starts to emerge. I don't mean to exaggerate their importance, but I don't think they should be ignored either. It shows that after watching the video, many people reacted with extreme hostility toward tribal people as a group.

It seems as though most of the rest of your comments are comprised of YOU mischaracterizing what Survival and Steven Corry have said:

I'm not sure what your trying to say here.... your argument seems to be based on the fact that Corry's words were not strong enough for your liking when he says "often thought shameful". It has indeed been repeatedly pointed out that it IS rare and is NOT condoned by the tribe. How are Corry's words any indication that indians are any more tolerant of infanticide than you or I? Had Corry only used the word "outraged" you would have no argument. And who else's decision do you expect it to be but the mother's?
As Corry discusses in the same article: "Women usually give birth in the forest interior, alone or with one or two other women. If a baby is born severely deformed and so unlikely to survive- and sometimes for other reasons as well- it might not be brought back to the house, but left to die, even killed." It begins to sound like a reproductive rights issue, doesn't it? Keeping a child who is deformed or otherwise unlikely to survive may very well compromise the womans ability to care for herself and the rest of the family, and may put the whole tribe at risk. Difficult decisions may have to be made. Don't pretend that they like it any more than you do. I don't suppose you have ever given birth to and raised a child in the wilderness, have you?

It's exploitive. 'Nuff said.

I'm not really up for rewatching that little nightmare, but I don't really recall them going to any pains to make it clear it WAS a 're-enactment'. Furthermore, if they can't confirm it even happened, just what the fuck are they re-enacting anyway?

Survival, by the way is a UK based organization, as mentioned in the article... Which you read, right?

The point is that the film misrepresents- deliberately, I feel- how it occurs in a way which condemns the tribe as a whole, and by extension, all tribal people. In the video, it looks like it's being done in the middle of a village, with everyone watching. As has been made abundantly clear, THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

In my view, Christians SHOULD be disparaged from doing missionary work, but we'll leave that aside for th moment. In any case, there's more than enough good intentions to go around. I hear all the roads in Nazi Germany were paved with 'em.

I'm looking. The law as I understand it now though would afford Amazon tribes "rights" as Brazilian citizens.... thus invalidating their cultural autonomy as a tribe. Similar tactics have been used in the USA, Canada and elsewhere already, so I don't know why this should come as any surprise. That the Amazon rainforest itself is under dire threat is not even up for discussion, nor is the fact that there are many groups who wish to see the indians gone and out of the way.

Survival in my experience is a fantastic organization doing very important work. I use their news service often. They are very reliable.

 

And I still stand by this. They should stay the fuck out or die. And I stand by my conviction that the filmmakers should go the way of old, dead Julius. And may their deaths be as gruesome as his.

 

I am calling shenanigans on this. It is not so.

No, it does not.

I disagree with your definition of what "many" means when compared to the World Wide Web. It is not many, IMO.

No, I am not.

Well, as I stated "often thought of as shameful" in no way describes how the general public in the US feels about infanticide. Corry is working with media and carefully choosing his words so as to not to go too far and say something he doesn't wish to.

Again, this is an interview and he is carefully dancing with his words.

Asked and answered for the most part. If one uses words that do not denote a great deal of outrage do not expect me to believe that it is so. This is his opportunity to defend the tribe and nowhere does he state their outrage and nowhere does he state any type of punishment that may be meted out. This was an interview and the words have been carefully chosen for response.
Had Corry used words that would have demonstrated something other than silent acceptance to a degree more than "it is often considered shameful" it might have made a difference.

Also, in reading the article Corry goes on and on about making comparisons to infant deaths in other countries. However, Corry leaves out an important point. In the case of allowing infants that are deformed to die naturally in the UK or US there is the third party medical staff on hand to determine when such things fit under the law. There are safeguards in place to prevent its abuse. When children are abused there are safeguards in place to aid them and punish the offenders. It may not work often enough (100% would be often enough...) but it is in place and does work. There is no such safeguard in this tribe. I guess those who would have protection in other countries just fall under that "and sometimes for other reasons" than the child not being able to survive clause of infanticide.

No, it does not sound like a reproductive rights issue.
The child is already born. it deserves to live.

Also, note the wording: "...unlikely to survive- and sometimes for other reason."

Notice the dancing?
Corry leaves an enormously vague opening: Sometimes they do it because the child probably won't live and sometimes they do it for other reasons. The man is dancing with his words to avoid saying things he does not wish to say.

Further, anyone alongside the mother could say that it is improper to do.

The last is a moot point. If the tribe is part of the nation the medical services of the nation can be made available to the child but the tribe would rather have the children die. Right? But, no, they would rather remain isolated and let the children be killed than to do something about it. Or at least Survival would.

And what about the "and sometimes for other reasons" bit? Funny how that keeps creeping back into my response. It does so because it is a glaring example of oversight when examining Corry's words.

This is in response to the children with cake to represent the earth on their faces. Here it is being stated as being exploitive as a prejudged condition of the movie being exploitive. Corry used it as one of his reasons when attempting to prove the movie exploitive.

So, here and there it is being used in circular logic. Worthless when debating points.

Next...

It was blatantly obvious that it is a 're-enactment'. Again, otherwise it would have been a snuff film.

There are specific re-enactments that are of specific events (such as of a very specific person) and then there are general re-enactments which cover an event that is not representative of a real specific person but is representative of events that have happened to people. Question answered.

Note: I did not claim it to be a very good re-enactment.

Yes, I missed that spot.

Note: Snide comments add nothing to the arguments being made.

No, it does not extend to condemn all tribal people.

Corry stated explicitly that it does not happen in the village center where the tribe tells a mother to do it. However, note the previous argument made about how it may "put the whole tribe at risk." Your quote. A feeling that the tribe would wish this can very easily be drawn when such ideas are around. Look how casually it was presented in the post being responded to here. A perfectly natural thought. Just because Corry hasn't witnessed the whispers said among the tribesman when no one is paying attention does not mean that it does not happen. In fact, one of the most common things about child abuse is how no one around seems to notice it.

In this case there are no safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the infanticide. It is a simple law of how peole act. When there is strong reason to commit an act and no (or relativiely no) safeguards to prevent it, it will happen.

Straw man. There are missionaries that really do good work without doubt. Nazis were murderers. Nothing to make a comparison. Just throwing things together so as to put a bad thing (Nazis) with a good thing (missionaries in general) in hopes of discrediting them with no real connection. Worthless comparison/logic.

Well, the "rights" would give the children some chance to live (and access to medical services) who would otherwise die. Of course, despite not 'condoning' infanticide, Survival would rather have the children not receive protection or medical care and die than to risk losing what it promotes. There is politics in this organization as well as elsewhere.

Also, in the above quote, points are made but not connected to the law being discussed. Those points existing do not mean that anyting can be lain at their feet if it suits your purpose. So, all that about people wanting to see the Indian groups gone and out of the way means nothing unless it can be demonstrated that it is the intent and purpose of the law to do so and for those reasons.

I see them as any other political organization. Quite capable of twisting the truth when it would suit their purposes.

This last bit is in regard to any missionaries who enter the area. A wish for the gruesome deaths of even those who are noble at heart and willing to spend their days and years bringing medical aid to those who need it in addition to those who made this movie. Wishing the death of innocents. That is quite sad.

Extreme and unjustifiable prejudice and hostility.

Why unjustifiable?
Because it is being directed at all missionaries and not merely those who do bad things. That is unexcuseable behavior.

 

I'm with Crazy Horse on this.... and missionaries make me wanna uke:

 

Sounds like the treatment of the Jesuits to the Canadian First Nations back in the 1800s. Holy crap, all they need to do now is send them TB infested blankets.

I'm sad that no one has learned from all of trauma that has happened in my country's past. The Residential Schools were a mistake! And the impacts of it did not end with the children taken from their parents. It broke the native cycle of parenting and continues to retraumatize every subsequent generation.

My heart goes out to those suffering.

 

Hey.... it's been a long time since I've been on HF, glad to see this thread still alive. I might be back to address some of whats been said here, but for now, what TheatreMommy posted really stands out.

To put it bluntly, people HAVE in fact learned a lot from the history of North America, and residential schools in particular. I'm sorry to say it, but you are wrong: residential schools were NOT a mistake. The only trauma suffered was that of indians. The idea was to destroy a culture, and replace it with their own, and in this they were dreadfully effective. Why should other colonizers not follow the same model?

 

Dude, the saddest thing is...

You're right.

Ties my chest and stomach up in knots to think that peope would learn THOSE lessons from our past.

EDIT: I'm assuming when you are saying "The only trauma suffered was that of indians", you are meaning that ironically... insofar as ... that is still suffering and trauma and not less because it is the First Nations...