A modern Pagan perspectivePosts RSS Comments RSS

Playing Politics With Infanticide

The Reuters FaithWorld blog reports on a controversial YouTube video making the rounds that purports to depict the “common problem” of infanticide among indigenous tribes in Brazil. The controversy has arisen because the video was funded by the missionary group Youth With A Mission (who have a vested interest in eliminating traditional religions), the video itself is an admitted “recreation” of unverified events, and Survival International claims that infanticide is actually a rare and “dying out” occurrence among Brazilian Indians.

“Enock Freire, one of the makers of the film that was shot with members of the Suruwaha tribe, defended it when contacted by Reuters. He said it was no secret that it was fiction, acted out by local Indians, but that it was aimed at drawing attention to the very real and what he said was the common problem of infanticide by Amazon Indian tribes. He said there is a widespread belief among tribes that children with “bad souls”, including those who are disabled, need to take their last breath underground to avoid them coming back to haunt the village.”

So what does it matter if the practice is “rare” or “common”? Both Survival International and Youth With A Mission are against the practice of infanticide, so what’s the big deal with a video drawing attention to the problem? The problem, according to Survival International, is that the video is racist, incites anti-Indian sentiment, and is actually part of an evangelical campaign for passage of the “Muwaji law”.

“The Muwaji law focuses on what it calls ‘traditional practices’ and says what the state and citizens must do about them. It says that if anyone thinks there is a risk of ‘harmful traditional practices’, they must report it. If they don’t, they are liable to imprisonment. The authorities must intervene and remove the children and/or their parents. All this because someone, anyone, a missionary for example, claims there is some risk.”

Survival also points out that killing children is already illegal in Brazil, and that this new law would grant vast powers to unscrupulous missionaries, and prompt “witch-hunts” against indigenous peoples.

“…this law could bring catastrophic social breakdown, with neighbor spying on neighbor, families split and lives destroyed. Local authorities are bound to err on the side of caution, and wade in, especially if they risk imprisonment themselves if they don’t act. All manner of petty neighborhood disputs risk escalating into appalling and irreversible action … suppose, for example, some disgruntled community member, or local missionary, reported his thoughts that everyone in a village knew about a risk of infanticide but hadn’t gone to the authorities. Under the proposed law, everyone except him should be imprisoned! It’s a law fostering witch-hunts.”

There are web sites that quite plainly position the “Hakani” video as a tool to pass this new law, and brands opponents as followers of “radical” Cultural Relativism. Plainly revealing the political agenda behind their public cries of empathy. Nor is Survival International the only critic of this film. The Brazilian government’s Indian affairs department has called for an investigation into whether Youth With A Mission broke the law in the making of “Hakani”. While all sides agree that infanticide is tragic and something that should be ended, it seems rather clear that passions are being inflamed in order to pass laws that could target tribes resistant to advances from Christian missionaries. Distracting the public from the real dangers tribal groups face from loggers, ranchers, and even the Brazilian government’s own military.

9 responses so far

  • Baruch

    Between this and the Pope's remarks in Africa, there seems to be a full-court press happening against our Indigenous cousins.

    Baruch Deamstalker

  • http://sari0009.xanga.com/603410074/imagination-and-virtues-of-equality/ KarenAScofield

    Not to make light of the rare and already illegal cases of infantcide there, but killing off Pagan/indigenous ways is supposedly less tragic and less evil than killing indigenous people…and yet the evils of the abuse paradigm don't necessarily rely on (known) overt violence in order to usher in centuries of "unintentional" tragedy, abuse, lies, false equations, misleading use of association/connotation, and inequality/prejudice.

  • http://jamesrfrench.wordpress.com James French

    Youth With a Mission, incidentally, is considered by many to be an abusive organization: http://www.rickross.com/groups/youth.html

  • http://jamesrfrench.wordpress.com James French

    Youth With a Mission, incidentally, is considered by many to be an abusive organization: http://www.rickross.com/groups/youth.html

  • AmericanTrikstr

    Whenever a religious group as a "mission", "crusade", or uses similar language to describe their cause it throws up all sorts of red flags for me.

    Sometimes my initial suspicion is unfounded, such as if the group is trying to get equal legal rights. Sometimes.

    But most of the time when that kind of language is used I find that the group in question has a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. In other words, to paraphrase Sari (if I understand what she's saying correctly) the conduct of the group in question ends up causing harm to the people they are going on a "mission" for. Whether this harm is intentional or unintentional, physical, mental, and/or spiritual is something that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But the one similarity is that it's there.

  • http://sari0009.xanga.com/603410074/imagination-and-virtues-of-equality/ KarenAScofield

    "Unintentional"

    If the patterns are more than strongly established only the extreme dishonesty of intense denial can dismiss said established patterns and their racist, religionist, creedist ramifications. Patterns of indigenous ways and people suffering for decades and centuries after religious and cultural conversion are strongly established in many instances and such assaults are launched on the basis of thinking errors and deception perpetrated by supposed sacred rescuers/protectors who wish to supplant their own religion and culture based on it.

    It is patently dishonest to strongly associate rare and already illegal instances of infanticide with indigenous ways/beliefs/culture and then proclaim supplanted religious as savior and protector from evil.

    Of course, the same people who don't like their Johari windows of self-awareness cranked open a bit think they're going to pull the wool over other sheeples' eyes. They think that if they try to galvanize people against an already illegal but rare practice that one will accept their cultural and religious triumphalism and "superiority" built upon deception and other MFs.

  • AmericanTrikstr

    Alright, let me see if I'm understanding this correctly.

    Basically they're using a very rare, already illegal practice as the basis that the cultural/religious practices of the people are in "error" and need to be "corrected".

    And those who teach this actually believe this, being fooled by their own propaganda.

    Am I at least in the ballpark?

  • http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/ Snoozepossum

    And what better way to insure outrage and keep anyone from questioning their agenda too much than whipping out a sure-fire heartstring-puller like babies? "Oh, the poor little helpless innocents! Only true evil would want to hurt a baby!" Boom – if you don't support their "mission" (points to Trikster's observations about "missions"), why, then you must hate children. Nothing like a sensationalism-driven stigma to make sheeples (bows to Sari) sit down, shut up, and buy a button to wear.

    Even if a people have a tradition of infanticide for children with "bad souls" or disability, it would be more honest to look at explanatory examples of those terms, and the available resources. What do they mean when they say "bad soul"? If a child were born in a very isolated tribe with, say, spina bifida myelomeningocele or any other condition that would make it impossible to live without major surgical intervention or other treatment that may not be feasible, is it kinder to let him continue in difficulty and possible pain until he dies on his own? I think modern medical options make us forget that people of the past had to deal with decisions like this.

  • http://sari0009.xanga.com/603410074/imagination-and-virtues-of-equality/ KarenAScofield

    You sure are. They're not just supposedly in need of being corrected but are taught to "know" that they must be saved and that they must identify with the supplanted faith-based identity, institutions, and culture. They must march to the beat of that drummer. They have a new master culture, religion, and power paradigm.

    The flip flip side of that coin involves marginalization, a host of -ists and -isms, and even criminalization of things indigenous extending way past the initial concerns (infantcide, in this case).