Commentators

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Stephen Corry: Don't call these people primitive

Michael Buerk's choice of words could not have been more unfortunate

The fall-out from BBC broadcaster Michael Buerk's comments about New Guinea tribes has been quite something. Presenting Radio 4's Moral Maze, Buerk made his own moral howler by labelling New Guinea tribes "primitive" and accusing them of killing random strangers. "The only really primitive societies to survive into the modern age are the tribes in the remote parts of New Guinea, and whenever they come across a stranger they kill them," were his words.

The Papuan human rights organisation, Elsham, responded by accusing Buerk of "regurgitating racist stereotypes" and "being offensive and totally wrong". Others have weighed in. Here at Survival International, the NGO defending tribal peoples' rights around the world, we called Buerk "dangerously wrong".

What's all the fuss about? Does calling tribal people "primitive", or even "Stone Age" or "savage", really matter? Isn't this just another example of political correctness gone mad? In fact, it has nothing to do with political correctness at all. The reason the use of terms like "primitive" to describe tribal peoples is so important, and so dangerous, is because they lead directly to the destruction of tribal peoples.

Governments, corporations and assorted others regularly exploit the idea that tribal peoples are "primitive" in order to remove them from their land or open it up to outsiders, thereby freeing up access to the natural resources on or under their land. Often this is done in the name of "development", justified on the grounds that the so-called "primitive" tribes are backward and out-of-date and need to "catch up" with the rest of us. But what are the consequences? For the tribes, they are almost always catastrophic: cultural and spiritual alienation, poverty, alcoholism, disease and death.

Mr Buerk could not have chosen a more unfortunate example than the tribes of New Guinea – peoples so "primitive" that there is evidence they were practising agriculture thousands of years before anyone in what became the British Isles.

The Indonesian government's "transmigration" policy, which has brought millions of Indonesian colonists into West Papua, was, according to one government minister, "probably the only way of getting Stone Age, primitive and backward people into the mainstream of Indonesian development". What this has actually meant for local Papuans is the loss of their land and economic marginalisation – to say nothing of the imposition of brutal military and police regimes that together has intimidated, tortured, and killed about 100,000 Papuan adults and children.

Paradoxically given Mr Buerk's view, one thing tribal peoples do possess which we seem to be losing is a strong sense of how to live in a community and how to treat people appropriately. They do not live in paradise: barbaric practices can unfortunately be found in all societies, including ours. Even worse, wanton, casual and gross inhumanity towards defenceless people is more evident much closer to home than New Guinea. Calling tribes "primitive" ignores all this and plays into the hands of the powers that be who are destroying them.

Stephen Corry is the Director of Survival International

www.survival-international.org

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Michael Buerk's slur on Papua
[info]andrew767 wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 05:24 am (UTC)
The 20th century has been the century of genocide and terrorism, in previous centuries empires admitted they were at war for economic benefit, but in the twentieth Hitler to Japan to African nations claimed racial superiority as the grounds for their war. The Nazi regime terrorised London with the blitz, and the US terrorised Japan with the A-bomb.

The savages of Europe and America were searching for new lands to exploit, and in 1936 the Rockefellers were told that the world's richest deposits of gold & copper were in West Papua. Their dutch geologist named the mountain Ertsberg, Mountain of Ore. Believing they had a divine right to the world's gold and copper, they lied to the colonial government and claimed they had not found anything. When the Papuan mines office announced in 1959 that they were searching for the mountain source of alluvial gold they had found in the Arafur Sea; a Rockefeller mine company Freeport Sulphur began sending people to lay claim to the Ertsberg site. In 1960 a fellow Freeport director, Robert Lovett told US President elect Kennedy that he should appoint McGeorge Bundy as the US National Security Adviser; and from April 1961 Bundy and the NSC began telling Kennedy that he had to sacrifice West Papua to buy the good will of Indonesian President Sukarno.

West Papuans are a civilised people. I can not say the same about the foreign people from America, Europe and Indonesia.

Please stop the savage GENOCIDE and EXPLOITATION of West Papua.
A Very Confused Response to Buerk....
[info]fshbg wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 02:24 pm (UTC)
This essay attempts to do something difficult which is to tie the horrendous abuses by the Indonesian government and military to the Papuan peoples in the province of West Papua with an obnoxious radio personality's obnoxious comments. As tempting as it is to get super-righteous and blame the human rights abuses on some twit of a BBC announcer's comments at best it's an excersize in wasted time and breath. The Indonesian government doesn't give a shit about the BBC or their commentors and don't look for justification for repression and brutality from the BBC, British politicians, policy, or even racist attitudes. It isn't "dangerous" to anyone in West Papua or PNG for that matter if Mr. Buerk calls them names. It is, however, upsetting and disheartening and demoralizing to the people who listen to him in Britain -- of all colors and creeds. There has to be room in honest discussion to note differences in cultures around the world. But mocking or being pejorative about people you don't understand is indicative of a close-minded and uncurious attitude to your fellow humanity. The BBC has certainly never presented that to the world; the opposite. Why not just say Mr. Buerk is an uninformed, obnoxious cretin who got it wrong about Melanesian culture? That the British, and Britain in its post-colonial existence has tried to become a true melting pot, respectful of difference enough to take a moment and figure out what is really going on in other parts of the world? And that's pretty great and surely much more than enough to expose a jackass like Buerk for what he is: a jackass not an abettor of genocide.
Tribal peoples
[info]against_history wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
"tribal" is just as much a misnomer as "primitive" and others terms. not all people who practice other economies were "tribes" until they were forced to tribalize and centralize to interact with State's on their peripheries. its well known that early missionaries and anthropologists had to ask periphery cultures to get generalized (and often derogatory) names to categorize communities. unsegmented band societies are/were hardly "tribes" when state presence is missing. the term tribe is just as generalized and sweepingly inappropriate in some cases.

is the term savage bad? by definition, no ("Not domesticated or cultivated; wild"). Paul Shepard, one of the best human ecologist/natural philosophers used the term to regenerate something deep inside all of us. its all based on the context used. our culture controls perspective and stigma (ie: we must prove to idiots like Buerk that everyone lives in a contemporary world and has been historicized through multiple external factors). idiots who believe in the myth charter of Progress think of "savage" as negative. people looking for different models of community find it a liberating term and something to "reclaim" from negative connotation. maybe theyre terms not worth dying on a hill for... at the same time, civilization isnt worth saving either. ;)

Columnist Comments

bruce_anderson

Bruce Anderson: Iraq is inseparable from Tony Blair

The destruction of Saddam was a noble cause, even if ineptly conducted

yasmin_alibhai_brown

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Why is my gender in retreat?

The truth is that all nations would prefer it if women went back indoors

philip_hensher

Philip Hensher: Gaffes that can be a boon to Cameron

The expenses scandal too will be seen as a helpful winnowing exercise


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion