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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
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.
.

Are there not other issues involved as well? Such as, the boundaries between what is your own community, within which you have a right to evangelise your ideas, and what is an entirely separate one, where you are an outsider with less right to cause disruption?

And is your point not slightly circular? To say that the adoption of a new belief is 'bad for its impact on society' itself depends on a value judgement as to what is 'bad', and hence could be dependent on the beliefs you are spreading. Seems to me when belief systems clash so fundamentally there's an implicit appeal to some outside 'meta belief' to regulate that clash, but I'm not quite sure if such a meta-ethics exists.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,683
136
This is just a guesstimate, their real numbers are unknown & probably for the best.

Yeah sure but it's unlikely to be just 15 guys because if true, they'll be extinct soon.
Who exactly are you talking about?

We all understood your lame attempt at humor; what, you thought you were being clever?

Obviously some didn't.

You know you don't have to be an ass everyday.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Are there not other issues involved as well? Such as, the boundaries between what is your own community, within which you have a right to evangelise your ideas, and what is an entirely separate one, where you are an outsider with less right to cause disruption?

We can talk about that, but I believe the underlying principles which these rules are made from are generated from thinking about the ideas I proposed. I don't believe in hard fixed rules here because they represent a compromise that seems most appropriate for the situations we currently face or currently anticipate facing, but that won't necessarily stand the test of time. I'm also not opposed to attempting to negotiate those rules in the now, either. Otherwise, we only have abstract theory. But the theory is needed so we can continue to challenge and adapt those rules over time.

And is your point not slightly circular? To say that the adoption of a new belief is 'bad for its impact on society' itself depends on a value judgement as to what is 'bad', and hence could be dependent on the beliefs you are spreading. Seems to me when belief systems clash so fundamentally there's an implicit appeal to some outside 'meta belief' to regulate that clash, but I'm not quite sure if such a meta-ethics exists.

There is certainly logical error and underlying bias from my own value system in how I presented the principles. No doubt about that. I'm glad for your challenge because it means I have turned your attention to something important. But this statement is no concession. I never said value judgments themselves are bad. I merely stated that a value judgment of any particular belief should not guide the manner in which we judge how it should be propagated if at all. However, as individuals encountering foreign beliefs, a value judgment on those beliefs is absolutely necessary.

Now, to your point about the conflict between Conservatism and Liberalism with respect to the value of the belief being presented. Yes, I absolutely think that some beliefs are "good" for society and some "bad". I place the quotes because it really isn't an absolute split but rather relative differences to each other. However, I do not think that any particular individual holds authority on judging the beliefs society should have. How society determines the relative value of beliefs is collectively determined.

So the real question to me is not which beliefs are best. It's not even how do we determine which beliefs are best. It's how do we facilitate improving our ability to determine which beliefs are best. And to me that is where we find things like a high value of respecting the autonomy of others to choose their own way and organize into their own cultures, a high value of curiosity in the ways of others, and a strong self-reflective capacity and willingness to engage in seeing yourself in ways you don't like in order to improve.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,264
3,840
136
Has anyone considered the possibility, that he was a suicide masquerading as a martyr?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,456
136
Missionaries show up to pacify the natives and give them "civility" and an omnipotent god to be in fear of. Business folks hear that the natives have been pacified so in they come looking to exploit whatever natural resources there are to make a profit from.

Their military comes in to protect the business interests of their citizens and then their politicians show up and hook up with their business friends, corrupt the whole system for fun and profit and if profits are lucrative and sustainable, they take over the whole place by proclaiming themselves as an "independent autonomous political entity" under the protection of the nation they hailed from. They then banish those "useless disease ridden lazy natives" to the most arid hostile portions of their homeland whilst importing foreign slave labor that "work hard and know how to obey their masters".

Wash, rinse, repeat.

"Civilization" thus spreads its manifest destiny wings all over the world.

edit- syntax correction
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
He had to have known that he could carry pathogens to which they had no immunity that could wipe all of them out. But he did the "Christian" thing anyways?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,441
9,343
136
He had to have known that he could carry pathogens to which they had no immunity that could wipe all of them out. But he did the "Christian" thing anyways?
No need for quotes around Christian there. That's been SOP when spreading civilization to the heathens for a long time!
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
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.

I'd be interested to know if Pandit took steps to protect the inhabitants from pathogens he could have been harboring. I assume as a science professional he wouldn't ignore or downplay the risks like a fervent anti-science missionary might (not that this missionary was). I think back to what happened to the Yanomami in Amazon, from explorers and gold miners. Can't blame any indigenous population for feeling threatened by us. We don't need to involve ourselves in the lives of Stone Age communities, it never ends well.

I guess I can see the need for an anthroplogist to go once every 50 years or so, to do a quick head count, surmise health status of population, etc. Zero reason for a missionary to be there. Can't these guys stick to getting screwed in North Korea?
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,520
280
126
www.the-teh.com
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.

Salesmen would starve if they couldn’t push their faith on people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortylickens

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
I'm sure this guy was good and meant well, but what is it with religion that makes people think they have some higher authority right to impose on others?
I mean, WTF?
Gawd....
There are hundreds of types of religion in the world, and Christianity is actually not the top of those.
No doubt, these isolated people had some sorts of their own beliefs and here we have some well intentioned fellow thinking HE KNOWS BETTER.
And thinking HIS religion is better.

This was tragic but I applaud these people, this tribe, for defending their way of life.
All we need is for some outsider to impose their religion and start devisions within the tribe leading to a lot of wars and deaths.
All in the name of what...... RELIGION?
See the problem here? The tribes men did.

These people are happy. Their tribe looks happy. They don't need bibles or cell phones or Tupperware containers.
All they need is LEFT ALONE.
Hey mr and mrs busy body good-doers out there, mind your own business.
Gaud forbid they become civilized the American way, then start some caravan heading to the US border, with Donald Trump waiting to lock em up or shoot on sight.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,864
8,280
136
Gaud forbid they become civilized the American way, then start some caravan heading to the US border, with Donald Trump waiting to lock em up or shoot on sight.

Trump is probably gonna send the military in, then have them build him a tower and casino on the island so he can retire there away from the media!
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,595
730
126
So which is worse. Killing this lame ass dude, or by chance he converts this unique culture into a mundane group of driviling religious nuts.

The prime directive must be upheld at all costs.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
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.

He wasn't trying to bring "civilization" to them. He was trying to bring Christianity, a set of supernatural beliefs common in western countries. I hate to break it to you, but the two are not the same thing.

And one person's "bravery" is another's stupidity. This guy was warned about the consequences of attempting this. He also knew that going there was illegal. He took active steps to evade Indian law in getting to the island. Then after being shot at and injured by the natives, he decided to go back and try again.

Worse than his stupidity was his immorality and arrogance. Endangering the lives of the natives with the possibility of exposing them to pathogens to which they had no immune resistance. Trespassing on the lands of people he knew full well did not want him there. Assuming that somehow he would be the exception because he bore such an important "message." Thinking "the Lord" was personally shielding him from the consequences of his actions. Which of course was not true.

Did you happen to read his mother's comment? She says she believes he is "still alive" because of her "prayers." Evidently she thinks a deity told her he is still alive. Yet he isn't alive. The people who brought him there saw his dead body.

This is what magical thinking does to the human mind.

What a tragic waste of life.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
No, he was an arrogant person who paid for that arrogance with his life.

I'm very tempted to see it that way. Maybe because he was American (er...Canadian, I guess?) and thus wealthy and privileged compared to those he was trying to proselytize. Arrogance is in the mix, no question about it. But there was also a sense in which he was in the grip of an ideology that told him he had not just the right but actually an obligation to 'spread the word'. I don't feel I can entirely blame him for that part of it. He had a combo of privilege and brain-washing.

People evangelise for all sorts of things and the same problem arises in different situations, even if this was a particularly extreme example, given how vast was the difference between him and the targets of his evangelism. And while it can be open to criticism, the compulsion to 'spread the word' is often driven by a strong sense of duty. It's something people feel they are obliged to do. Seems to me it's a continuum and it depends critically on how large is the social gulf between the proselytizer and those they would proselytize.

E.g. i think of relatively middle-class leftists I have known, going canvassing around council estates, trying to get the proles to be more revolutionary!

(it's why I don't really feel that hostile to the Jehovah's witnesses who keep calling round here - at least they actually believe in what they are saying, unlike the spivs and wide-boys who used to call to try to get me to switch utility suppliers...the latter I would happily shoot with an arrow)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: skooma

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I'm very tempted to see it that way. Maybe because he was American (er...Canadian, I guess?) and thus wealthy and privileged compared to those he was trying to proselytize. Arrogance is in the mix, no question about it. But there was also a sense in which he was in the grip of an ideology that told him he had not just the right but actually an obligation to 'spread the word'. I don't feel I can entirely blame him for that part of it. He had a combo of privilege and brain-washing.

People evangelise for all sorts of things and the same problem arises in different situations, even if this was a particularly extreme example, given how vast was the difference between him and the targets of his evangelism. And while it can be open to criticism, the compulsion to 'spread the word' is often driven by a strong sense of duty. It's something people feel they are obliged to do. Seems to me it's a continuum and it depends critically on how large is the social gulf between the proselytizer and those they would proselytize.

E.g. i think of relatively middle-class leftists I have known, going canvassing around council estates, trying to get the proles to be more revolutionary!

(it's why I don't really feel that hostile to the Jehovah's witnesses who keep calling round here - at least they actually believe in what they are saying, unlike the spivs and wide-boys who used to call to try to get me to switch utility suppliers...the latter I would happily shoot with an arrow)

The problem with excusing the proselytizing of unproven supernatural beliefs because "brain washing" is that humans evolved as sentient beings with the capacity for reason and critical thought. Not everyone who is exposed to bad ideas accepts them. There are plenty who are raised by religious parents who ultimately reject it and go their own way.

Another problem is that this sense of "duty" you refer to - which I agree is very real to them - gives them a sense of grand purpose. To literally save people's eternal souls. This puts them above concerns of humanistic morality and legal codes. It leads to such things as breaking laws, trespassing on private lands where you aren't wanted, and potentially exposing vulnerable people to deadly pathogens.

It also leads to something which is incredibly common among missionaries: dishonesty as to their true purpose.

My first experience with religious missionaries was at the age of about 11. Another boy I played with at school kept asking me to come to a weekly social gathering which he called "Thursday Night Live." This evidently was a play on the show "Saturday Night Live" which was then popular among young people. He said I would be hanging out with other kids my age, listening to "cool music" and that we'd get cookies and punch. That last one, the promise of sweets, was like catnip to my young ears.

Fortunately, I told a mutual friend that I was going to ask my parents if I could go. The friend told me not to, that he had gone to it a month before. He said, "dude, all they talk about is God and Jesus. The music isn't any ACDC or Led Zeppelin (this is what the "cool kids" were supposed to listen to in those days). It was all about Jesus and stuff."

I then went back to the kid who had asked me to go, and asked why he had not told me it was a religious thing. I'll never forget what he said. "My pastor asked me to go around school and ask all my friends to come. He said not to mention anything about religion because then their parents might not let them go." This pastor intended to deceive not only me, but my parents, in order to lure me there with promises of sweets so that they could convince an impressionable young mind to accept their magical beliefs. This man was a liar who employed children to implement his deceit.

This experience has informed my view of religious missionaries. Unfortunately it is not an isolated case. Missionaries the world over lure people with kindness, only to later expose their true and only purpose. This guy Chau said in his diary that he intended to do exactly that. Get to know them for awhile, then eventually introduce them to "the Gospels." Yet that was really his true and sole purpose for going.

If we excuse not only people's magical thinking, but their immoral behavior toward others, because they were taught to believe certain things, well guess what? The people who taught them were also taught by someone else, and hence there will never be any responsibility fixed to anyone for this behavior. Sorry, but Chau was 31 years old, an adult who was responsible not only for the magical things he chose to believe in, but for the terrible ways in which he chose to spread them.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
Seems like a lot of assumptions are being made in this thread.

Admittedly he should know the people living on this remote island are dangerous. I can’t imagine going to a place like that without planning the trip.
Why does everyone assume he was bringing televangelist bible thumping religion with him?
Could it be possible it’s like a Mormon type things, go somewhere and actually physically help the less fortunate? *I know he wasn’t a Mormon just an example.

Regarding the 15 men census estimate, when I heard that on the radio the previous was 60-something a several years ago (maybe 8 I forgot) and 100-something the previous census.
These people are an obvious extinction risk and it’s obvious their society has been under stress. Someone going there to help or treat people while talking about god sounds pretty noble to me.
I realize we can bicker about talking god but let’s assume it’s not extreme in either direction.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2011
16,699
8,906
146
Seems like a lot of assumptions are being made in this thread.

Admittedly he should know the people living on this remote island are dangerous. I can’t imagine going to a place like that without planning the trip.
Why does everyone assume he was bringing televangelist bible thumping religion with him?
Could it be possible it’s like a Mormon type things, go somewhere and actually physically help the less fortunate? *I know he wasn’t a Mormon just an example.

Read the articles. His own words make his goal very clear.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/asia/north-sentinel-island-john-allen-chau-diary-intl/index.html

"I hollered, 'My name is John, I love you and Jesus loves you,'" he wrote in his diary, pages of which were shared by his mother with the Washington Post. Shortly after, a young member of the tribe shot at him, according to his account.

In pages left with the fishermen who facilitated his trip to the island, his musings are a clear indication of his desire to convert the tribe.

"Lord, is this island Satan's last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your name?" he wrote.

His notes indicate that he knew the trip was illegal, describing how the small fishing vessel transported him to the isolated island under cover of darkness, evading patrols.

"God Himself was hiding us from the Coast Guard and many patrols," he wrote.