aww well they are still pretty cool

I agree. But, still.

looks like my cynical anthropologist friend was 100% right. damn.

Completely agreed, dorkman.

Yay for cycnism!

/cynics and skeptics get a bad rap

*cynicism.

/my spellers gone wacky today

hahahaha

nobody said they were "undiscovered" they said they were "uncontacted"

meaning of course they knew they were there but outsiders have not had contact with them.

pretty sad they'd exploit the tribe like that

i blame julia

and j.j. abrams.

I'm confused how they were exploited? They took a photo of people they already knew were there, and distributed it in a way that helped (or may help) prevent them from losing their homes and habitat.

"The term "exploitation" may carry two distinct meanings:

1. The act of utilizing something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.
2. The act of utilizing something in an unjust or cruel manner. It is this meaning of exploitation which is discussed below."


Not sure what sonmi means, but, I think definition #1 fits here. The point of my original post is just, why use any kind of deception at all? The original article made a HUGE deal about this "undiscovered" tribe, etc. Why not just tell the truth? It would still have a large impact. What is there to gain by lying?

I'll exploit you for your own good! *shakes fist*

Try the "undiscovered" taste of cocacola red today.

ha!

ugh... for the 2nd time the orig reports said they were Uncontacted... which is as far as I know correct. NOT Undiscovered.

by exploiting, i just mean using the tribe's images for a publicity stunt.

maddingo -- I was referring to this report:

The discovery of a previously unknown Amazon Indian tribe in the western Amazon rainforest, in the Brazilian state of Acre, demonstrates the threats such “lost” tribes face from contact with outsiders.

It was the use of the words "discovery" and "previously unkown" that made me think the report was of a newly discovered tribe.

/hehe
//gotcha there

Don't know why the link isn't working. Here is the title and first paragraph of the original article:

"Discovery of Amazon Tribe Highlights Danger of Contact
Posted on: Saturday, 31 May 2008, 17:05 CDT

The discovery of a previously unknown Amazon Indian tribe in the western Amazon rainforest, in the Brazilian state of Acre, demonstrates the threats such “lost” tribes face from contact with outsiders."

I'm not entirely sure if the author of the story did a real bad job of reading the initial coverage / was looking at different news sources than myself.

but from reading about this in the NY Times and BBC news coverage of it, I have personally been well aware that the photos where not of a previously unknown tribe but a tribe not contacted by outsiders.

also I was aware that the people that took the photos did so in a effort to put pressure on the gov of Peru to stop logging that was going to disrupt / destroy the tribes areas.

The people that took / released the photos have said they didn't take that action lightly but figured between two bad choices (taking the photos/releasing them to the world vs. having the tribes village / land logged) the photos were the least bad option.

I would suggest that the author(s) of the story linked have their own agenda or did a REAL bad job of understanding the orig coverage.

if you want to be mad be mad about how many news organizations did a piss poor job covering the orig news story.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm

dorkman on Jun 23 '08 at 4:11pm
Not sure what sonmi means, but, I think definition #1 fits here. The point of my original post is just, why use any kind of deception at all? The original article made a HUGE deal about this "undiscovered" tribe, etc. Why not just tell the truth? It would still have a large impact. What is there to gain by lying?

I'll exploit you for your own good! *shakes fist*

What would gain more attention and get more searches and diggs and all of that other crap that makes things "relevant":
"Primitive Tribe Photographed" or "Unknown Primitive Tribe Discovered"

maddingo -- wouldn't surprise me one bit if our press over here manipulated the truth. It's happened before. (See Iraq, etc.)

Daddydom -- made me lol

If they REALLY wanted to pump it up, they should've gone with:
"Unknown Primitive Large-Breasted Teenage Tribe Discovered and Photographed"

"Unkown Primitive Large-Breasted Teenage Tribe Discovered and Photographed Having a Pillow FIght"

"Unkown Primitive Large-Breasted Teenage Tribe Discovered and Photographed Having a Pillow FIght On A Trampoline"

I searched for that story...on google image....with safesearch turned off

On a serious note, I must admit to having never seen exploit...exploited? as a synonym for the word "use"

me neither. I assume that was 18th century English or something.

oh, and,

"Unkown Primitive Large-Breasted Teenage Tribe Discovered and Photographed Having a Pillow Fght On A Trampoline In Their Panties"

what context did you think "exploit" was normally used?

i mean, it's not just a straight-up synonym of "use"; it has some negative connotations

i like to exploit the bud for it's thc. like that.