Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 197 posts

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#141

Post by monocasa »

JPKab wrote: post #123
monocasa wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from the deep south (the largest baptist church in America was walking distance from my house as a kid) there's a huge push for third world mission work among evangelicals. The only reason why you don't see the focus on explicit conversion is that they don't feel like there's many pagans left to convert. For an example of the US evangelical effect on the third world: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl…

I'm fully aware of the push for missionary work by US evangelical churches. Is it arrogance? Is it American arrogance more specifically? As someone who is borderline atheist, but grew up in a religious household, I don't think it's arrogance of any form. I think that these people truly believe that they are saving people from a bad afterlife. You can certainly call that delusional. Just not sure it's arrogance.

I think the entire idea of going half way around the planet to tell a bunch of people how they're doing life wrong without putting any effort into understanding why they don't already agree with you (aka nearly all mission work) is the epitome of arrogance.

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#142

Post by Udik »

ryanmercer wrote: post #108
Udik wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see catholic christians setting up missions with the primary purpose of proselytizing. In many respects it is true that American evangelical churches are much more retrograde than the Catholic church itself, promoting a brand of religion that is, for example, self-righteous, anti-scientific, and putting particular emphasis on the more archaic and brutal Old Testament.

>I don't see catholic christians setting up missions with the primary purpose of proselytizing. Because they did most of it starting in the middle ages and the Age of Discovery. In fact that's mostly what the Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits did in California, South America and Asia from 1500ish to well into the late 1800's.

Of course, I'm talking about the current situation.

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#143

Post by etrautmann »

dragonwriter wrote: post #118
Udik wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see catholic christians setting up missions with the primary purpose of proselytizing. In many respects it is true that American evangelical churches are much more retrograde than the Catholic church itself, promoting a brand of religion that is, for example, self-righteous, anti-scientific, and putting particular emphasis on the more archaic and brutal Old Testament.

> I don't see catholic christians setting up missions with the primary purpose of proselytizing. To the extent that is true, it is a post-Vatican II reform (and proselytization is still an important function of Catholic missionary work, though the method of more persuasion by example.)

> persuasion by example

A bit of an odd example that the catholic church chooses to set...

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#144

Post by smsm42 »

It is fascinating - and unsettling - how many people react to this on range of "ha-ha, stupid medieval idiot, deserved to be murdered" to "typical American!".

I know some cultures don't value human life as high as we in the Western culture do, and murdering people for trespassing on some taboo barely comprehensible to outsiders is not very far from our culture either. But what I see is a person trying to do a subjectively good thing to the islanders (even though one can certainly disagree about it being objectively good, but it's clear he meant absolutely no harm to them) and objectively at least not doing anything we'd consider harmful - getting murdered.

I don't think it warrants derision and mockery that I am reading here, and I don't think such reaction would follow if he wasn't an American Christian. It is true than in the past Christians participated in many atrocities (not that it's in any way unique to Christians), including against indigenous people - but this person has nothing to do with it. He meant no harm, and he got murdered for it. It is tragic, and should not be a place to make fun of his religion (even if you consider it and all religions stupid in general, there are many more befitting opportunities to make fun of them than a murder of an innocent person) and blaming him for being American.

Yes, maybe he is not the cleverest cookie in the jar, and he probably shouldn't have done what he did. But making fun of his murder goes far beyond that, and I am positively horrified of how many people jump into that so readily and with such gusto.

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#145

Post by thunfischbrot »

iBelieve wrote: post #98
swatkat wrote: post #13

What he did was illegal. Access to the island is restricted for a reason. >>> But Mr. Chau pushed ahead in his kayak, which he had packed with a Bible. After that, it is a bit of a mystery what happened. Also, can these evangelists take a break? It's not 1600s anymore.

If you were convinced that something is true and that it has eternal consequences for those who reject or don't hear that message, how could you _not_ want to tell everyone about it, going to the ends of the earth and risking life itself so others could hear that message?

Although if you believe in an omnipotent god, would you believe that she/he would not give those a chance who did not here of her/him? Why the need to actively push it onto those who are currently unaware?

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#146

Post by smsm42 »

beat wrote: post #44
projectramo wrote: post #38

The comments here are horrific. Yes, I don't think we should invade the lives of indigenous people any more than you do. And yes, I think this young man was mistaken and misguided. But, he went in with the best of intentions, and he died. You just don't believe what he did. Imagine a techie died while trying to teach rails to the homeless (which, I can only assume, some of you might be more sympathetic towards), woul…

If it was actually against the law to teach Rails to the homeless, in order to protect them? Yeah.

In some places, it's actually against the law to feed the homeless (without a proper license). Teaching Rails does not require a license, so it's probably OK (though if I were homeless, I'd rather take food).

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#147

Post by sbarre »

thunfischbrot wrote: post #145
iBelieve wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were convinced that something is true and that it has eternal consequences for those who reject or don't hear that message, how could you _not_ want to tell everyone about it, going to the ends of the earth and risking life itself so others could hear that message?

Although if you believe in an omnipotent god, would you believe that she/he would not give those a chance who did not here of her/him? Why the need to actively push it onto those who are currently unaware?

That my friend is a level of self-reflection and self-awareness that is not as common as you'd imagine.

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#148

Post by scruple »

swatkat wrote: post #13

What he did was illegal. Access to the island is restricted for a reason. >>> But Mr. Chau pushed ahead in his kayak, which he had packed with a Bible. After that, it is a bit of a mystery what happened. Also, can these evangelists take a break? It's not 1600s anymore.

Well, it's made much more clear what his intentions most likely actually were in the BBC [0] article:

> "People thought he is a missionary because he had mentioned his position on God and that he was a believer on social media or somewhere online. But in a strict sense, he was not a missionary.

> "He was an adventurer. His intention was to meet the aborigines."

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46293221

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#149

Post by loco5niner »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #57
xutopia wrote: post #23

I'm fascinated by these people. They must have one heck of a culture to immediately resort to killing any stranger that lands on their shore. I wonder what religious beliefs they have and what kind of society creates what seems to be extreme and violent xenophobia to us. As fascinated as I am I would double check that I have something to row with if I take a motorboat out to see the island from afar. No way in hell I…

I think you're over estimating how friendly other cultures are to outsiders. There are numerous, numerous cases of greed and ambition leading to the slaughter and enslavement of native peoples by invaders/conquerors. There are also multiple states in the USA where you'd be within your rights to shoot anyone on your property.

> There are also multiple states in the USA where you'd be within your rights to shoot anyone on your property.

Yikes, that doesn't sound right. Citation please?

Re: American Is Killed by Bow and Arrow on Remote Indian Island

#150

Post by wwweston »

JPKab wrote: post #36
deanCommie wrote: post #12

> Mr. Pathak said Mr. Chau, believed to be 26 or 27 and from Washington State, may have been trying to convert the islanders to Christianity. Right before he left in his kayak, Mr. Chau gave the fishermen a long note. In it, police officials said, he had written that Jesus had bestowed him with the strength to go to the most forbidden places on Earth. A perfect storm of Christian and American arrogance.

Please explain to me how the fact that he happens to be American is proven to be causal here? I guess you make a good point. After all, the missionaries who converted indigenous populations all over the world were all from the USA. Oh wait, no. The vast majority of the Christian missions were founded by Europeans. Arabs converted millions to Islam hundreds of years ago. But yeah, they were all infected with American…

Americans certainly aren't the source of arrogance nor its sole practitioners.

But the phrase "American exceptionalism" is a thing for a reason. And if other societies through history may also have indulged in similar thinking, it functions more to demonstrate how a comparable place in the world can present comparable temptations more than it serves to refute the existence or problems of exceptionalist thinking among Americans.

Religious fervor may, of course, play a greater role (something I'm personally acquainted with as someone who was also involved in evangelism once). The combination of background cultural exceptionalism doesn't help, though.

Post reply on HN