Ask Your Question today
He went to an island of violent natives. He knew that the natives are aggressive and kills anyone who dare enter their island. Yet he did it anyways. He wanted to spread the word of Jesus and god. This cost him his life. Do you think what he did was the right thing?
| No | 27 | |
| Yes | 11 |
The average IQ of the world bumped upwards an infinitesimal amount because of his decision, so yeah, he did the right thing.
What do you mean by "right"? He knew he might die and he went there anyway and ended up dying. He did what he wanted to do. I don't think it's a question of right and wrong.
I don't understand it myself, and I certainly wouldn't have gone there, but he obviously felt it was worth it. Good for him.
Sometimes I think these tribes cut off from civilization are onto something. Leave us the f*ck alone, we like us the way we are!
Every one of us has a mission in life.
Some give their life for their beliefs.
Who is it we're speaking of? And, no, the only acceptable missionary is the sex position on a lazy day for the lady.
the dreama anyone whos been woken up on a saturday mornin by jehovahs witnesses
He was a fool and died a fool. I’m not happy about him being killed but given the stupidity of the religious I’m not surprised.
He was an arrogant moron who thought his religion was better than everyone else's. I'm not glad he's dead, but if he was just shot in the leg with an arrow and then arrested I'd say he deserves it. Honestly though, it wasn't a tragic outcome. He could've killed the entire population of that island with the germs he was carrying that their immune systems aren't equipped to deal with, that would've been tragic.
Him, and all christians should stay the fuck out. Clearly didn't learn anything from colonialism.
He did what was right because he was willing to at least try to save people by telling people about our lord and savior, so that they could be saved and when they die go to heaven with god, so yes he did the right thing, by risking his life to save others'
Sorry, I'll quietly leave to go and make some posts about wanting to have lots of gay sex despite being totally straight.
It's not that deep. He made his thoughts and motives quite clear in his diary and in conversations with all of his friends and family as he spent years planning this.
Otherwise, his thoughts and motives are irrelevant and most of the comments here don't even mention them. Regardless of why, he intentionally broke multiple international laws and willfully endangered an entire civilization. That's objectively wrong no matter how you look at it.
He did what he did.
He knew the risks.
He got the results.
The end.
Don't blame him, or the natives.
If you tell me not to go swimming with sharks during my period, and have chum in my wet suit.
But I do it anyway.
Do you blame the sharks?
R.I.P. the world moves on.
Pretty sure I'd like to live with the natives that killed him
White man's guilt and Jewish religion,taxes, speed limits, etc.
What a royal pain in the ass.
If he knew, why didn't he get protection? Either way, his death should be brought to justice. It was murder after all.
I don't know a lot about the Sentinelese, but what I've read recently suggests that they have good reason to be hostile to invaders. Apparently, an anthropologist did manage to spend some time with them a few decades ago, and his conclusion was that they are a peaceful society (as much as any group of humans is peaceful). But their oral history seems to include memories of slavers and conflict on their island in WWII. As far as they're concerned, outsiders are nasty people who wish to do them harm. They killed his particular god-struck cretin because he was an invader. That's a rational response if your group is living a marginal existence on a tiny island. He didn't get official protection because what he was doing was against the law. It seems pretty clear that he didn't try to protect himself because he believed his delusions would protect him, and he probably had a wish to die a martyr.
So he got what he wanted - suicide by heathens.
Shrek: 'They judge me before they even know me.'
It appears to me, from the context you've so kindly given, that he was indeed a Shrek to them, and while his folly cannot be condoned, it wasn't reason enough for murder. Clearly something has changed in their society, for which they are no longer peaceful. According to the article I read, he was encouraged by 2 American missionaries into this folly, and followed perhaps as is the nature of an overzealous youth.
This article provides a good explanation of how he ended up there. He was definitely not a follower as it was a years long, life consuming obsession.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/he-lost-his-mind-slain-missionary-john-allen-chau-planned-for-years-to-convert-remote-tribe/2018/11/27/eb13d7ad-4685-4748-951b-790d671f655d_story.html?utm_term=.217716666292
Note that he went three days in a row...on the first day, they simply yelled and pointed their weapons at him. On the second day, there was a warning shot. We don't know what happened on the third day that lead to his death, but clearly they were not eager to kill him. He left them no choice.
And this article helps show why, after centuries of atrocities brought upon the islands by foreign invaders, even a peaceful society would understandably turn violent when left with no other choice:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/30/sentinelese-tribe-who-killed-american-are-peace-loving-say-anthropologists
When I said follow, I meant that he was at some point encouraged to do so, as is per the article I read. So from what you're telling me, there are definitely conflicting accounts. For the sources of these accounts to hold true, they would have to be from his nearest kin, and those with whom he worked, and from credible sources rather than sensationalist media, for which I'm not passionate on this subject to verify.
"We don't know what happened on the third day that lead to his death, but clearly they were not eager to kill him. He left them no choice."
Nobody can be the spokesperson for this tribe, except for their arrows. This man committed no crime punishable by death, for which he left them no choice. While I do appreciate the context surrounding his death that you've given, and I've said earlier and will hold to, while his folly cannot be condoned, it was no reason for murder, especially when he was all alone and unarmed. If this tribe has so little regard for life, it makes one think what other illogical and possibly dangerous practices they have within their own little society
All of the sources were named in the articles I linked and if there was a mistake, it's safe to say a correction would've been issued in the ensuing days since they were published. For them to be as false as you're suggesting they could be would take serious journalistic malpractice, the likes of which would be essentially unprecedented in any legitimate news organization.
"If this tribe has so little regard for life, it makes one think what other illogical and possibly dangerous practices they have within their own little society"
I'm curious what makes you think they have little regard for life or why you would believe they have any illogical or dangerous practices. Defending themselves from hostile foreign invaders is certainly justifiable in their situation and the repeated attempts they made to peacefully do so show quite a bit of restraint and regard for his life, despite the fact that he was showing no regard for theirs by attempting to expose them to any number of germs and diseases to which they have no immunity. Perhaps murder cannot be condoned, but self defense is certainly understandable in this case. His well earned punishment of death for his very serious crime prevented a potentially serious tragedy - one that we've seen play out time and time again in very similar situations.