WITH the news that Alice Roberts, medical doctor and anthropologist, is joining my university as Professor of Public Engagement in Science, I decided to have a look back at a post I once wrote about her programme, The Incredible Human Journey, in order to see how harsh I had been. I wasn't a fan. This is because I don't think it is right for a science programme to state anything as fact without explaining any of the methodology behind that conclusion, and I felt that the programme did this. Furthermore, to avoid an explanation because it is considered too complicated is only evidence for the need for more programmes and further explanation. To be fair, her recent Origins of Us was, I felt, a much better series. My comments on The Incredible Human Journey led some to refer to her as my nemesis, but I'm glad for the university at her appointment and look forward to meeting her if possible. This may take some time, however, as I notice that on her first official day at the university, she was filming in Romania.
In that post from 2009 I questioned the ethics and effect of television crew contact with indigenous tribal peoples. Dr Roberts, as she was then, walked straight into a Nyangatom village in search of a guide, whereas in 2006, Bruce Parry had required extensive permission to live with the Nyangatom for an episode of Tribe. At the same time as The Incredible Human Journey, the flagship BBC series South Pacific featured extensive new footage from the remote island of Anuta, where an indigenous community live in isolation and in harmony with the sea. Different footage showing precisely the same thing - the trials of island life and isolation, and further cultural observations - already existed from a different episode of Tribe. To quote myself (what a strange feeling):
Even with the best intentions, these new visits will slowly have negative impacts on the traditional way of life. Repeated contact is bad for the preservation of society. It might not be immediately devastating, but in my view it is sufficiently bad. This saddens me, because I would love to follow in the footsteps of people like Parry*. The BBC are not to be held accountable for this, as I am sure many other crews have visited similar places and had similar effects. My point is, the appearance of a television crew cannot be allowed to become something ordinary and familiar to these people.
Reading this back, I began to wonder why I never asked people who have some authority on issues such as these what their thoughts were. Three years later, I have now done so. Survival International are the only organization working for tribal people's rights worldwide, and I am a big fan of their work (you may have noticed a link to their website over on the right hand side for about 2 years now). Their recent campaigns have fought on behalf of bushmen in Botswana and the Dongria Kondh in India, whose plight against the mining giant Vedanta Resources was like a real-life Avatar story.
On their blog you can ask them anything. So I did.
Their response to my query can be read here. While you're there, I urge you to browse a bit further and read a little more about their campaigns, their motives and about known tribal peoples and plights.
*I should have added here: 'but know that I cannot and, more importantly, should not'.
PS. Survival, in other news, have hit headlines recently with the release of pictures of an uncontacted tribe in Peru. You can read all about it here.
PPS. I wanted to call this post 'Sex-crazed, mean and savage?', a quote from Survival's response. But this might have been taken to refer to Alice Roberts, which would be awkward...
3 comments:
There are a few points that I could pick up on but I'll just say that of course Alice didn't just 'waltz straight' in to the village. I guess I should just put this down to your naivety regarding the making of television programmes. This trip would have been pre-planned and local fixers would have been with the crew at all times. You don't just walk in to a village where people are walking around with AK47's!
'Waltz straight in' is flippant, I apologise. I realise work goes on behind the scenes to allow for access to the group, but nonetheless the way it was presented in the programme was that Prof Roberts walked straight into the village. My question remains, however: was this a necessary instance of contact? How damaging might it have been? If cultures exist in the ways that they do because of their isolation, is it right to make repeated contact, particularly when appropriate footage already exists?
I'd be interested to hear your other points (and may I ask your name? I'm not a fan of anonymous commenting)
This is really interesting. I often wander how these trips get arranged and why. I think the answer to your question is very good and interesting.
Post a Comment