Comments on: ‘Hakani’ and paving a road to hell

By: 39 Hakani 39 and paving a road to hell Edger | My Site

39 Hakani 39 and paving a road to hell Edger | My Site — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:07:45 +0000

[...] 39 Hakani 39 and paving a road to hell Edger Posted by root 24 minutes ago (http://theedger.org) 39 hakani 39 and paving a road to hell leave a comment bhan september 30th 2008 8 50 am 2009 edger powered by wordpress Discuss | Bury | News | 39 Hakani 39 and paving a road to hell Edger [...]

By: Alona

Alona — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:56:17 +0000

If there’s anybody I’m skeptical of, it’s Corry. Referring to the “Rabbit proof fence” as “brilliant” is one giveaway. The aboriginal subjects of that film (sorry-can’t recall the names), said it was not their story. The girls were not caged and abused during the journey to the home. In fact they went by boat and stopped for lunch and lemonade, or some such refreshment.
It’s really puzzling sometimes why white do gooders want to vilify their own race so much. I mean, there’s enough real abuse without making more up, or pretending that it was worse than it was. There was a book by a Danish man who lived among Eskimos for many decades and married one. He liked Eskimos and was often critical of European, yet he wondered why the white man kept writing that same old story about the healthy, peaceful, brave, civilized indigenouse peoples being corrupted by evil whites. He saw Eskimo children “eaten alive by lice”, not to mention infanticide and various forms of violent and sick behavior, vunerability to the elements, etc. Yes, such things happen among Europeans, but given a choice, he noted no Eskimo wanted to return totally to the old ways once exposed to the Europeans.
In any case, the “burying” was clearly staged. Give it a rest.

By: Barbara Overgaard

Barbara Overgaard — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:58:39 +0000

Mr. Corry’s attempt to quote scripture is so out of context it is almost laughable. I refer to his statement that: “Things might be different if these fundamentalists actually did believe one Bible teaching: that only those free of sin themselves should cast stones at others – ‘sinners’ maybe – who are trying to cope with life’s tragedies. But of course the nature of fundamentalism is to select which teachings to believe and which to reject.”

Besides taking Scriptures out of context and making huge assumptions about what these missionaries believe, he misses the entire point of the film. It has nothing to do with “throwing stones” at “sinners” and everything to do with helping the victims (infants/children). And, beyond that, these missionaries have also demonstrated a desire and commitment to help the very Indians who have been committing infanticide.

By: Mariposa

Mariposa — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:48:58 +0000

It is so interesting that Stephen from Survival International does not seem very interested in the survival of these children, nor of the tribes of the Amazon that have such self-destructive practices – even when the people from the tribes themselves are seeking help in order to survive. Survival International, I encourage you to stop focusing on the missionaries who are trying to help the Indians survive by focusing your efforts to stop the infanticide and help the Indians. Most of the children killed could grow up to be intelligent, educated, loving and talented people – like the little girl, Hakani, who is a survivor of several attempts on her life.

By: Landa Cope

Landa Cope — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:24:10 +0000

If all Mr. Corry needs to validate this film is “reenactment” at the beginning and who produced it, then lets give it to him.

By: Xue Yo

Xue Yo — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:46:17 +0000

There’s two important facts that are being left out of this discussion:

1. This movement against infanticide was not initiated by the missionaries, but rather by indigenous groups who see in the tradition something that harms their tribes and their culture. These indigenous leaders requested the assistance of some mission groups and politicians such as Congressman Henrique Afonso (author or Muwaji’s Law) in increasing awareness about this problem, in Brazil and worldwide. These indigenous leaders are not offended by the graphic nature of the docu-drama “Hakani”. As a matter of fact, since the making of the film, over 60 tribes have received copies of the film which is now being used as part of education campaigns about alternatives to infanticide (through adoption or healthcare).

2. When asked how widespread he thinks infanticide is, Mr. Corry states, “… most Indian experts, at least those not driven to evangelise, believe [infanticide] is rare and fading away, and that’s what most Indians say.” Below are a few examples of Brazilian Government experts saying otherwise.

On March 11, 2005, in an article for the “Folha de Boa Vista” Newspaper, Dr. Marcos Pellegrini who used to coordinate FUNASA activities among the Yanomami tribe in Roraima reported that 98 Yanomami children were killed by their mothers in 2004. In 2003 there were 68, making this cultural practice the main cause of childhood mortality among the Yanomamis.

On October 10, 2007, in another article by the same “Folha de Boa Vista” newspaper, FUNASA Regional Coordinator Ramiro Teixeira, tried to defend the effectiveness of FUNASA’s health care programs among the Yanomamis. After commenting on the specific challenges of working with the Yanomami (geography, difficult access, nomatic culture), Teixeira echoed Dr. Pellegrini’s assessment that infanticide is the #1 reason for infant mortality among the Yanomamis.

Earlier this year, in a article for the magazine “Problemas Brasileiros” [Issue #381], FUNASA spokesperson Ribamar Rocha stated: “The Yanomamis are the most primitive people on the planet. If a child is born with any kind of physical defect, they kill the child. If a mother has two girls, for example, and another is born, they kill her too. This is a cultural question, and we, of FUNASA, don’t work with that. All of the numbers are passed on to FUNAI.”

By: Neves

Neves — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:25:50 +0000

There’s two important facts that are being left out of this discussion:

By: Ian Bushfield

Ian Bushfield — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:39:50 +0000

Paul you sound like an evangelical troll.

We love the Brazilian tribes, love the diversity of their cultures, the music, the dress, the language, the architexture. But much like my US culture, there is stuff I have to discard, greed, drugs, violence, alcoholism, and much more.

Perhaps give us some of your credentials on the topic and don’t use (potentially fake?) hotmail email addresses to sign your posts.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:54:14 +0000

Stephen is completely ignorant in his comments, or lying purposefully. Muwaji’s law was not created in any way to punish the indians, but to help them. It is also a law that is meant to give freedom to the indigenous peoples of Brazil to seek medical care, chose freely to do what they want, be afforded the same freedoms that the rest of Brazil’s population has. Many people do not realize that an indian in Brazil cannot vote, unless he turns in his Brazilian identity and becomes a “real” Brazilian. The indians are considered minors, wards of the state, cannot own land, vote, seek medical care, travel to other parts of Brazil without government autorization. Many many indians are coming forward wanting to save their children, or even saving children of others, they are involved in the campaign. Also some of the stuanchest supporters are non-chiristian indians in Brazil. Stephen is totally wrong also in making the audience believe that infanticide is not widespread. It is a practice here in Brazil that kills even perfectly healthy children. In one tribe, the spiritual leader will even condemn the baby while in the womb, mandating life or death. The law is to hold accountable government workers AND even missionaries who are present and do not help the children in question. The film made me feel compassion for the parents who had to decide to kill their children, and chose suicide over that. Muwaji herself is single parent who decided to keep her child against custom. Stephen is obviously a staunch supporter of infanticide. It is obvious that he would even be in favor of practices such as genital mutilation, since that too is a custom practiced by people in Africa. Maybe he should also support slavery, since that is also a cultural practice of the dominant tribes in Africa too. Cannibalism? Child sex slavery in Asia? Child prostitutes (as young as 3 years old) in India in the temples? All Cultural practices with hundreds or thousands of years of practice, but none morally supportable. Stephen, give it your best shot and try to support those practices, you have to if you are going to use your “culture” excuse. We love the Brazilian tribes, love the diversity of their cultures, the music, the dress, the language, the architexture. But much like my US culture, there is stuff I have to discard, greed, drugs, violence, alcoholism, and much more.

By: Bhan

Bhan — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:50:52 +0000

Interesting! I’m brazilian, and during last year even one of our biggest weekly magazine talked a lot about this issue, infanticide among the indians. The mag was clearly against the indians, and criticized heavily the FUNAI (a government branch wich deals with the indigenous people) for overlooking these practices with the excuse of respecting indian’s customs and traditions (by the way, the same traditions that the missionaries are willing to eliminate.)
Well, it’s not that simple, and the interviewee sure has a point. But beyond proving the “Hakani” movie a piece of crap, it seems that his main argument was ” Hey, I know the indians often commit infanticide, but so do we! And they don’t actually enjoy the killing”.