Parable of the First Contact Native Amazonians.

There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1990’s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the American explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the corpses of the two American explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The end. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the American or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the American explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the American explorers are much more advanced. Relatively it would be unethical to prosecute the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Americans. Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity.

There are actual recorded cases such as the killing of Englishman Richard Mason by indigenous Amazonians in 1961.

“Accompanied by a member of the Brazilian Indian Protection Service, Hemming left gifts such as machetes and fishing line at the spot where Mason had been killed to show they bore no ill will to his killers.“

First contact Amazonian.


Consider compassion, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear weapons, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate toward animals. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s