The "conversion" of various indigenous peoples to essentially a western system of beliefs is what I find disagreeable. Proselytization events such as these have resulted in a significant loss to the preservation of various cultures (and languages) around the world and I feel have contributed to a loss of identity especially among indigenous or aboriginal communities.
Forgive me if I seem overly sensitive to this, but some of my ancestors got to experience this "wondrous conversion" firsthand and it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.
Anyway, I think you're making an important point that shouldn't be lost. There is a great arrogance in thinking we know how other people should live.
> The "conversion" of various indigenous peoples to essentially a western system of beliefs is what I find disagreeable.
Keeping people in a zoo is more disagreeable to me. This liberal idea of keeping tribal cultural of any kind around is incredibly disturbing.
We should not be using the communities poorest children for instance as repositories of language.
As a rich, educated person I would never want my child to learn a dead language. Even Latin with it's ivory status. Their future will be hard enough.
What does conversion of people to a western system of beliefs have to do with keeping people in a zoo? No one said anything about keeping people there; what I take issue with is the coerced or forced conversion of people.
We should not be using the communities poorest children for instance as repositories of language.
I don't think anyone implied that, I have no idea how you've extrapolated that idea from the statements made.
As a rich, educated person I would never want my child to learn a dead language. Even Latin with it's ivory status. Their future will be hard enough.
I fail to see what your socioeconomic status has to do with this conversation. Regardless, "dead" languages are not at issue here. Even if they were, understanding languages that are no longer in common use is important in understanding the past of humanity. I only object to the active discouragement of learning.
Learning for the sake of gaining knowledge itself seems like a reasonably admirable trait.
As such, more than 96 percent of Papua New Guineans identify as Christian. Yet theirs is a fluid, syncretic Christianity, not unlike the Christianity of the Middle Ages, one that has been grafted onto a long-established cosmology rife with demons, witches and relics imbued with power.
EDIT: Reading your follow up comments, I agree the "Thanks" bit means "Due to" not actual thankfulness in this context.
That's a bizarre bit of editorializing to put into what should be a balanced work of journalism.
I imagine the writer was trying to imply that most of the population in Papua New Guinea won't participate in events like these because of a belief system they've acquired. However, when a writer words things like that, it makes me question their inherent bias.