Sign Up Now
Login/New User

Eco

Aliens in the Home World

Antonio Lopez

As a cultural meme, photos of the so-called "lost" tribe of the Amazon circulated more rapidly in the mediasphere than electrons buzzing through duel processors. But now that the images have been revealed to be a "hoax," we should kick back in our collective armchairs and probe what happened. To be clear, the pictures weren't a hoax per say, because the people depicted in them are real and do live off our grid, but the implication that they were unkown or off civilization's radar was false. Survival International, one of the organizations who published the photos, said:

"This is a classic example of journalists getting the wrong end of the stick. The only people who ever claimed that the Indians photographed were ‘lost’ or ‘undiscovered’ were…. the press, despite the fact that Survival has been campaigning for the protection of the many isolated Indian tribes on the Peru-Brazil border for more than twenty years.... Indeed, you might have thought that the fact that the Indians are living in a government reserve set aside for isolated Indian groups would tend to indicate that they weren’t exactly ‘unknown’."

I found the images intriguing as a media phenomena. With our point of view coming from the surveilling eye of extraterrestrial flight, I can't help but feel like these are stills from a Star Trek scouting mission in which we -- the humanoid aliens -- are observing a distant world uncontaminated by our civilization. For many viewers, I'm guessing the reverse reaction was true: that the indigenous people covered in body paint and pointing bow and arrow at our high tech aircraft are the strange, exotic creatures of a "lost" world. But as a reflection of our own zeitgeist, the intrigue of a potentially "lost" tribe says a lot more about "us" (the scientifically "advanced" world) than "them" (the forgotten, primitive ur-past of yore). In our effort to name and identify the event at a distance -- i.e. to "other" the Others -- the media buzz surrounding these photos is yet another indication that we have become aliens in our home world.

The images struck a chord because of the nature of media (interesting pun), which survives by cannibalizing novelty. Any photo that presents "newness" metabolizes into information and will froth to the head of the noosphere only to be gobbled and digested rapidly like a yeasty beer. In particular, what drives media's center of gravity is the striving for authenticity in order to fertilize its newness reproduction cycle. This is not without some irony. Upon looking up "authentic" in Merriam-Webster, I found several curious and contradictory definitions. One is "made or done the same way as an original," and the other is "not false or imitation." A photo can embody both senses of the word, because on the one hand it is an imitation of something -- reality -- and on the other hand, it is a reality unto itself. The tricky thing about photos is that we assume that they are facts, yet what we do with them, how we choose what we see and the impact of the photo is far from the reality it purports to represent. Add to that digital manipulation, context and framing -- i.e. the "naming" of the image -- and you have one big fat dose of truthiness.

This is the subtext of the image controversy, because there is an underlying distrust of media and civilization itself as ultimately inauthentic. Most of us feel like the characters in The Matrix. The only way that machines can keep us interested is to offer us scraps of reality through these kinds of controversial images so that we can verify the existence of truth and the so-called real. Nonetheless, I happen to not believe in the simulacra argument, because most of our lives are actually not electronically mediated, though we assume that they are. The distrust of simulation is older than modern technology and particular to the European mindset, going back to Plato. He was the one who said the bed was a mere imitation of a more perfect bed made by God. His is not a bed made by machines, but by human hands with tools. The interesting thing is that human language actually evolved from our hands and the use of tools, not the other way around: technology is human communication.

Plato's fear and distrust of appearances has repeated itself incessantly as a tulpa trapped inside a hall of mirrors that is now modern media. Advertising simultaneously assures us of the world's stability while the news makes us fearful of its structural integrity. Despite this tension, the capitalist system of commodities and consumption has become nature, our habitat. It is so normal that anything that can differentiate itself from the ambient background of consumerism and the techno-fetishistic mind will become novel.

Nonetheless, in this semiotic war for attention, capitalism still struggles mightily to be relevant and real. The underlying argument of typical advertising pitches is that their product is "the real thing" (to paraphrase one of the more memorable slogans of the century). Marketers use every magician's trick to offer us some kind of allusion to authenticity, be it the bodily sensations of fear, hunger, humor and sexuality, or to wink at us by acknowledging that we all know this is a con game. It's a treadmill that marketers fear to jump off of.

Which brings us back to the photos. Like passengers in a spaceship Hummer driven by the corporate dream world, many of us have become accustomed to feeling like aliens on our own planet. I consider this kind of "alienation" the true source of our pill-popping, "social anxiety disorder" ways. I differ with some postmodernists who contend we are too alienated to be alienated, that alienation requires a sense of self, and that when we are decentered simulations of our own beings, there is nothing to bounce off of. I disagree. I believe we yearn for nature and connection because they are tangible and exist no matter how minute the splinter in our minds and souls. Without this longing, advertising could never proceed because it traffics in the language of loss.

These images demonstrate, however, that the prevailing "lost" trope in the media zeitgeist is reversing: in our grasping for the real, more than ever we feel the urge to really be "lost": off the radar, away from the cell phone, pager and Internet like Into the Wild's Chris McCandless or the actor reciting Jack Kerouac in a recent BMW ad. In our post-National Geographic world where all has been disovered, cataloged, photographed and integrated into the electronic sphere of our realm, there is little left for us to remember or know about how we used to be. But like the X File's Agent Mulder, we feel the truth is out there, hovering outside us like pixel dust blowing in the cosmic winds.

Contact with "authentic" humans in the natural world gives us hope and wonder, yet the very act of taking the photos violates that innocence. Some even argue that trolling the forests for "authentically lost" humans violates their right to be uncontacted. Consider Star Trek's Prime Directive:

"No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations." (Quoted from Wikipedia)

Because these photos indeed touched upon the "lost" meme, they also drew awareness to Survival International and to the plight of indigenous people in the Amazonian reserve (an interesting word in itself) and elsewhere. The fact that ultimately we are talking about the fate of real people with integrity and just as much of a right to exist on their own terms as we do, makes the this whole discussion more urgent. The civilization end game is upon us, and our budget of cultural diversity is dwindling rapidly, suffering the same fate as the biological diversity that supports us.

Organizations like Survival International do necessary and important work, but they also depend on the media to educated the public about their mission and projects. Like many NGOs, Survival International's site has plenty of sensationalistic images and videos, which raises the question of whether or not other people's suffering can be contained and communicated effectively through images. Is this unethical? Not necessarily, as long as we are clear about the game we are playing and the nature of how it works. But it certainly remains ironic that it's through media that we have to communicate civilization's inauthenticity via the language of propaganda and exploitation.

Image by blakewest, courtesy of Creative Commons license.

email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Reality Sandwich.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You can only email up to 10 recipients
Aliens in the Home World
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Reality Sandwich
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Reality Sandwich web site.
Picture of <em>Michael Matejka</em>

purity

These pictures did astound me, I have to admit. The article I'd read didn't paint the tribe as lost or undiscovered, however, and what interested me more in the article was that the government was protecting them from outside influence and actually preventing anthropologists and so on from studying or interacting with the tribe so as to retain their "purity," or some similar notion. As if we're preserving them for a future generation. I wondered what stories they told each other about the flying ships their brave warriors chased off. Has the story already become legend? Are they bracing for an alien/divine invasion? Your article makes me question: are they actually unaware of the grid, or is that also a romantic delusion?

I also admit an uncomfortable, voyeuristic sensation when I first saw the photos. I couldn't repress the word savage from my consciousness. Next step, I elevated them to noble savages. Some loops of thought are impossibly vicious. Some things are easier to abandon than to correct.

And I realize a part of me wants to see pictures of a tribe that's never dreamed of our world.

Picture of <em>vivifidal</em>

there are actually a few of these...bring red plastic buckets...

Several at least hardly interacted with tribes, http://www.survival-international.org/campaigns/uncontactedtribes lists few of them and the ones that seem to do better share a common interest in shooting arrows at anyone they don't know, which considering the circumstances might be considered a most prudent course of action, most of the amazonians have turned up on the doorstep of a neighboring less uncontacted tribe for some kickdowns, a rave throwdown or bit of winkwinkyounowhatImeansaynomore. There is one island in the Indian Ocean that has a small band that has defied contact and has been given protected status, they are however, rather fond of red plastic buckets but not so keen on green ones.
Picture of <em>ecolocal</em>

spears against helicopters

The scenes in those photos are pretty much identical with scenes in the astonishing film  At play in the fields of the lord....
Picture of <em>vivifidal</em>

ayuhuasca

heh...
Picture of <em>vivifidal</em>

maybe

best movie ever made
Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

With Tom

Waits no less...
Picture of <em>Rogerscott</em>

Some questions

First of all: what does "ur-past" mean?

Second, I found this same article, unattributed at:

http://mediacology.com/

So, what's going on here? Where was this written first? Why not just link your "post" to a link to an earlier article, or if it is original here, maybe you aren't aware it's over at "mediacology.com".

I've been asked to write a piece for RS. But it never occurred to me to just "copy and paste" something I've written before and try and pawn it off as an "original article" for RS. Sorry, pal, but I have, I HAVE to call BS on you, or you have to explain this.

Picture of <em>Jonathan Phillips</em>

Roger - Double Post & Comments Guidelines

Hey Roger,

As Antonio mentioned this came from his blog, and as you've probably noticed we do publish double posts on this site (ie: many of Daniel's articles also go out to Conscious Choice). I really do appreciate your insights and fiery spirit, but I want to address the tone you take with some of the writers and fellow commetors on the site as it is in clear violation of our comments guidelines.  Now, we've discussed this before and you said you'd make note of this when commenting on the site.  RS basically has 3 simple guidelines.  1.  Be polite (no personal attacks). 2. Stay on topic 3. Don't curse.  That's it. Nothing else.

There's a civil way to ask the questions you have without going directly on the attack.  The last thing we want to do is to delete a comment but if you keep this up and keep breaking our guidelines, we'll have to do so.  We want to ensure that the parents, kids, teenagers, and everyone else who reads this site can enjoy it without fear of attack.  That doesn't mean we can't have dynamic debate and diaologue, but there's a way to approach this without alienating people. In the future I encourage you to take an extra few seconds before sending out a blatantly negative comment, allowing yourself the time, compassion, and even courage to dare to consider their perspective as valid as well.   I look forward to reading more of your spirited insights on the site with a tone that's graced  with a dash understanding.

Picture of <em>Antonio Lopez</em>

My BS

Ciao Roger, Mediacology is my blog and I usually re-post what I write for other blogs on mine as well (including "Blog Critics") because not everyone reads both. In the past when I have linked to the RS page, my readers don't follow the link, but only respond when I put the material in my blog.

Many articles on RS by other authors have also appeared elsewhere first, including many by Daniel. I don't run the site, but it's a mix of both original and reprints. To me it is a kind of aggregator for the specific audience/community that is RS. But I don't want to speak for the crew who runs this operation.

Anyhow, I don't see what the problem is and why you think it's BS. Also, the version that appears on RS is usually a little different because it goes through an editing process and RS doesn't link the same way as I do on my site. On my site I have more video and images with the blog's post, for example. Besides, are you paying for "original" work? Why do you feel cheated? This is a free service and no one is making any money. The goal is to proliferate like dandelions so the ideas get out there, not to lock down information. I'm sorry you feel cheated, but really, what is the problem? Would you have found this article if I had only put it on my blog? If others think this is wrong, I'd like to know.

As for "ur-past," it's like an imaginary, mythical past we long for, such as "the good old days."

Picture of <em>cjmoore</em>

like Ur-sprach

they spoke on sprockets, you may kiss my media-jones monkey on my back, like in the good old days, then we listened to the crackle on the old 78's or 45's, it was really the crackle that spoke to us, so the message of the lyric the deep hidden sprach in the folk medicine words. like the first lines of the Bo Diddly song,Who Do You Love,(Hoodoo)you love, "I walk 47 miles of barbed wire, i ware a cobra-snake for a neck tie, i got a brand new house by the roadside made of rattlesnake hide... "the mythical past we long , (wang dang doodle), for"

I'm a cheater, baby, I would cheat the lighting from the sun. i gotta run....

V live long and prosper V

and may the long lost past whisper its message through the media blitz... 

Picture of <em>Rogerscott</em>

What and what not I said

I never called the article "blankety blank" (for you kiddies).

I asked, in my blissful inebriation, some questions, aprapos to the topic of "pseudo" reportage. Now that that has been dispensed with. No big deal. Just say: Roger's drunk. Didn't read the rules. Didn't read the blog with the links, or whatever.

Don't be so sensitive. Why not just say: 'c'mon, you kidding?' here's why, etc. You can call me on my "*-*". I won't be offended. This is a an open forum, right? You take it, or you don't publish. I write. I'll take it. Not offended. No offense intended. Just words. Just questions. Excellent article notwithstanding.

As for my ripe language. Are acronyms so offensive?

I'm willing to discuss the content here. I don't know why, suddenly, I feel like discussing the reactions to reactions.

Does anyone really believe that any response to an article that uses terms like "semiotics" or "trope" or other obscure metaphysical terms will offend children or stick in the craw of parents with children because they think: my 10 year old who enjoys obscure and complex topics will be altered in horrible ways by rogerscott who said "**"? Really? Something as innocuous as "**"? Do you really think that the average sixth grader doesn't know even riper terms than that?

Why even respond to me or the 'tripe' I write? Actually I think what you wrote was great and deep stuff. Anything that sends one to Webster has to be good, right? The intent, the thesis: too good to be obscured by obscure terms. Maybe I should have just written you privately and said 're-write it'. Make it simpler to grasp. That is, after the "originality" issue was cleared up. Yeah, you wrote it all right. And I'm awed by how much you write.

This is rediculous, isn't it?

Once, I was studying the Dictionary, and developing my vocabulary, and one of my teachers asked me a question: Why? are you trying to make your ideas more difficult to understand?

I was highly offended. I simply didn't like being blocked from knowledge by obscure terms. It took some time to appreciate his point: I didn't understand what they were talking about, so I was delving into a vocabulary that might very well make me just like them: obscure and difficult to understand. It is part of the viscious cycle of "scholarship".

Another teacher of mine once said, if you can't explain what you're talking about in such a way a 12 year-old can understand, most what you are saying is "blankety blank".

This isn't about being knowledgeable about history. It's about being unable to convey what it is we have found from first hand experience so as to be enlightening, liberating or even just relevant to our fellows. So, I tend to criticize scholars, which, obviously, you are.

I think I should have sent my original post privately, again. But since the what followed is completely public now, I'll keep it public and open.

No personal offense intended. Just language. I think I was fully understood. You, on the other hand, might have been taken as utterly sweet or maybe highly sarcastic. Someone with a lessor vocabulary couldn't tell. And problably stopped reading after the first 30 words. 'Hows about dumbing things down for us pedestrians?' I think some readers might have thought. Again, no offense. Really. I will respond to your article as to its substance, in my own lights. And I promise not to be hyper-critical. Honest. As it stands, the responses are, I think, I don't know....maybe overkill? It would have been better to just ignore me. After all, who am I?