‘God, I don’t want to die,’ U.S. missionary wrote before he was killed by remote tribe on Indian island

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
The anthropologist Triloknath Pandit, one of the few people in recent memory known to have visited North Sentinel Island without being killed, noted they were cautious but happy enough to accept the coconuts, pieces of iron, etc. he brought as gifts* to break the ice (not to mention they relieved him of his glasses, all his clothes, etc.), but did not hesitate to pull a knife and otherwise make things clear when it seemed he might be planning to stay on the island longer than was welcome.

This is consistent with the story told by the missionary's enablers, namely, that he was not immediately murdered, but after he insisted on swimming back to the island (after they shot at him and broke up his canoe!), they finished the job and buried his body in the forest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
I do think it's tragic and feel a bit sorry for the guy. But, really, he's kind of the architect of his own misfortune.

But I would blame the ideology that gave him the idea that he has not only the right but even a duty to go spread his ideology where it doesn't really belong. Missionary work causes nothing but trouble. Even if the missionaries don't get themselves killed all they seem to do is create minorities to be either persecuted or persecute others in the future. When it's rich white American missionaries it's even more problematic. (Though apparently now some African Christians now see themselves as doing missionary work in converting the British back to Christianity, as we've all strayed so far from the path!).

It seems possible, though it's not very clear, that it wasn't made sufficiently clear to him that this was not allowed and/or was very dangerous, so in that regard maybe he wasn't entirely to blame for his fate.
He had enough hints, over two days. The incident however exposes them to the social media frenzy & attention in the 21st century ~ which cannot be good for them long term.
"God" forbid if more "missionary style" intruders land on that island or anyone with a gun, this current bout of destiny may well have sealed their fate.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
I really fundamentally disagree with work aimed at spreading religion or anything directly to those not asking for it. If you go somewhere that allows outsiders and set up a place of worship that is open to all who are curious, great. If you go to that land and offer charity, great. If you offer charity on condition of any kind regarding your religion, I do not support that.

I know this guy's actions are going to be universally derided here, but there is I think something worth discussing about missionary work in general.

Obviously, some Christians believe that part of the duties of being a Christian is to spread the Christian message. So they feel that failing to proselytize might be something that would get them condemned to Hell.

But that raises the question of whether a Christian is justified in exposing a group of ignorant people to Christianity and thereby placing them in risk of going to Hell if his motive for doing so is to improve his own chances of getting into Heaven. Some Christians and, presumably this guy, believe that if you've never heard about God/Jesus/Heaven that you automatically get a one-way ticket into Heaven when you die. If, however, you've heard about it but chose not to believe in it, then you go straight to hell. So this nimrod (according to his own belief system) doomed them to hell.

Perhaps this guy was aware of the danger and was seeking to be a martyr for his faith. If so, that raises the same question I asked above; is it in keeping with the tenets of Christianity if you're seeking martyrdom and trying to get into Heaven on a technicality? This guy must have been aware that his chances of being killed were high and his chances of actually converting anyone on the island were virtually non-existent.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
**I read** last Island census was 15 tribal members, all guys. Of course they are angry.

The census said it was taken at a safe distance so its only an estimate.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
So indeed does this Sentinelese tribe, much to the demise of Mr. Chau.

That may be so, but I wouldn't kill anyone over it, and that's not because killing is illegal or otherwise would cause/risk negative consequence to me.

Obviously, some Christians believe that part of the duties of being a Christian is to spread the Christian message. So they feel that failing to proselytize might be something that would get them condemned to Hell.

But that raises the question of whether a Christian is justified in exposing a group of ignorant people to Christianity and thereby placing them in risk of going to Hell if his motive for doing so is to improve his own chances of getting into Heaven. Some Christians and, presumably this guy, believe that if you've never heard about God/Jesus/Heaven that you automatically get a one-way ticket into Heaven when you die. If, however, you've heard about it but chose not to believe in it, then you go straight to hell. So this nimrod (according to his own belief system) doomed them to hell.

Perhaps this guy was aware of the danger and was seeking to be a martyr for his faith. If so, that raises the same question I asked above; is it in keeping with the tenets of Christianity if you're seeking martyrdom and trying to get into Heaven on a technicality? This guy must have been aware that his chances of being killed were high and his chances of actually converting anyone on the island were virtually non-existent.

It might be interesting to speculate on his state of mind, but I think that distracts from the welcomed discussion of how it might be most functional for society for Christianity or any particular belief to grow in society.

Fundamentally, I could not see how an absolute prohibition of spreading the message of Christ could work. I don't think Christianity should function through a different set of rules than any other message, and some of those ideas might be very desired to take root. Thus, I'd rather discuss how ideas might be spread while still maintaining respect and autonomy for those who might receive them.

As to Christians, there is a message to spread the word of Christ, and it is also fundamental to Christ's message that an individual's choices and background be respected and that they are treated with basic respect independent of that background. This creates an inherent conflict, but not one which I believe requires choosing one side or the other. I believe Christianity can spread Christ's message through their practice of it, and that practice exposes others to the opportunity to learn more about it and make an independent choice to adapt to it or not. Of course, real human behavior rarely conforms to this ideal. That's ok, too. Part of Christ's message is to recognize and honor our failings as fundamentally human because it is impossible to be so without sin. What does not happen enough is for those people to look at their own sins in the light of Christ's message to better themselves instead of focusing on conversion of others as means of protecting themselves from recognizing their faults by virtue of communal reinforcement.

We can also look at human behavior and easily observe that the adoption of new beliefs is not because those beliefs aren't inherently superior. While that includes logical errors, it's not what I speak of primarily. Human group behavior depends more upon the social value of adopting a position than the position itself. Thus, Christian conversion is successful because a person has unconsciously calculated that their social position if they convert is likely enough to improve that they can tolerate the risk of change. Each person has different susceptibilities here, but virtually none will understand their behavior as motivated in this way and instead ascribe their change in belief to superiority of the fundamental belief instead. As a species, we are far better at using logic to retrospectively explain our choices motivated by other things than prospectively applying it even though we have all kinds of ways to convince ourselves otherwise. Very often a logical analysis of options is engaged in for the purpose of being comfortable with a choice we have already unconsciously made but are unaware of. There is an argument to be made that it never works otherwise.

So, knowing that, then we recognize that adoption of new beliefs is frequently good for an individual socially but bad for its impact on society. Thus, we need a mechanism which values, to some degree, holding on to beliefs we already have. This is an argument for Conservatism.

Now, of course it is dumb to think that the way we are is the best we can be, and especially to think that this level of adaptation is preserved when the environment changes. It is also often that the new beliefs we might adopt are fundamentally better for society, so we need a mechanism for readily incorporating what we learn through experience. This is an argument for Liberalism.

Why have this discussion at all? I just said that change in human beliefs is motivated by social factors, so that would suggest you'll only believe what I say if you perceive doing so to your social advantage. For most people I interact with, I am not carrying large social value with associating with me. I like it that way. But while that drives change in someone's beliefs, it is also opposed by our lived experience with the beliefs we already hold, and not just in social calculus but with how the beliefs themselves align with our individual value systems. That means the beliefs themselves have actual power. Believe it or not, people don't like being hypocrites. While it is exceptional to confront someone with their hypocrisy and actually cause them to see it full face, we do look at our own behavior unconsciously and try to adapt it to best honor the beliefs we hold. Now, there are other things that are important. We have a need to be valued by the outside world. People whose identities are more fragile have a greater need for this value, and thus they are prone to act in ways to preserve their value to the outside world (among value is power over, mind you), so they may exploit others in the service of denial of their own hypocrisy. Ironically, this is not behavior of people who are comfortable being hypocrites. It's behavior of people that are so uncomfortable with their own awareness of hypocrisy that they act hypocritically to keep their awareness of it hidden. Most of us, though, are capable of engaging in it enough to make individual progress.

There is another fundamental way where people can benefit from engagement with others where their gain is not through social progress. If someone has beliefs already which line up with in some way what about person is saying, then that communication carries the possibility of shifting a person's attention to beliefs they already have and cause them to reprioritize their existent belief system or to help them gain flexibility in applying their belief system. In my mind, this is the way that societal progress is best made. The other way is an old system that exists primarily for children to learn their first beliefs until they gain the strength to consolidate an identity that is stabily integrates them. Sadly, certain individuals never master this task, and not doing so while internally terrifying does not strip them of the ability to influence others. In some ways, since they are governed by trying to escape the conflicts caused by following their beliefs instead of mediating them, their ability to influence others is enhanced because they have the capacity to radically alter their beliefs at a moment's notice.

Ultimately, how do we balance Conservatism which is good with Liberalism which is good when both cannot be maximized at the same time? Personally, I don't think there is a right answer. The right balance depends upon the situation. But I think our best chances of getting it right are through continual and careful self-reflection which is best facilitated by respect by our external environment.

I didn't expect to write an essay here, but I'm glad I did. I hope it causes someone to examine their own experience a little more deeply.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Bringing civilization to barbarians is always a serious risk.

If this man's true aim was to evangelize these people, then he was very brave.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
I was talking about the "15 Guys" as a total population.

You obviously didn't get the literally suck part....
Yeah sure but it's unlikely to be just 15 guys because if true, they'll be extinct soon.
Bringing civilization to barbarians is always a serious risk.

If this man's true aim was to evangelize these people, then he was very brave.
Who exactly are you talking about?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,208
28,910
136
Bringing civilization to barbarians is always a serious risk.

If this man's true aim was to evangelize these people, then he was very brave.
Evangelizing is an incredibly selfish act. At least he didn't leave a widow or children behind. Point goes to Darwin.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,699
8,906
146
Bringing civilization to barbarians is always a serious risk.

If this man's true aim was to evangelize these people, then he was very brave.
Nothing braver than trying to force your believes on people who have given every indication that they want nothing to do with anything outside of their current environment.

You might be mistaking bravery with selfishness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,864
8,280
136
They have pretty good reasons to be apprehensive about outsiders. Thebritish empire killed lots of them for fun over the years when they controlled all of India and South East Asia.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
whats even worse is the Church is so demented they will probably paint this guy as a noble hero instead of the arrogant moran he really was.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
Nothing braver than trying to force your believes on people who have given every indication that they want nothing to do with anything outside of their current environment.

You might be mistaking bravery with selfishness.


But it's also maybe just an example of how world-views can clash fundamentally and irreconcilably. Being charitable I'd assume this guy's ideology meant he genuinely believed he was 'doing good', and, more-to-the-point, that he had not just the right, but an actual _duty_ to do this. From within his mental universe he presumably thought he was being moral in doing what he did. And his killers certainly felt the same way about their own actions.

(Though it does seem a bit dim of him not to have at least thought through the very practical issues such as diseases and quarantine).
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,441
9,343
136
Bringing civilization to barbarians is always a serious risk.

If this man's true aim was to evangelize these people, then he was very brave.
What about if his act brought death and suffering to the people he was speaking to?
What if he knew that he would bring death and suffering to them?
What if he knew that and still thought that them listening to his ideas was more important than their well-being and right to be left alone?

This guy was a dick. There's no two ways about it.

Am I sorry he's dead? Yeah of course I am but he's to blame here. He should have stayed away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie