Souls for Sale: Thailand's hill tribes defending their culture and religion against missionaries

Run time: 03:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgKyldHENk   Posted on YouTube: June 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 09, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 1403

 
Thailand is an overwhelmingly Buddhist nation, but many hill tribes in the north of the country are animist - worshipping nature.

And for centuries these tribes have been the target of Christian missionaries looking for converts.

But as Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley discovered, the hill tribes aim to defend their culture and religion.

I know, there's an anthropologist out there who wants to strangle me for that remark!

Countries that let them in: Vietnam & Cambodia.

There's definitely a moral in there.

French colonial power followed the missionaries, using protection of the missionaries at times as an excuse for injecting military force, at other times making use of the antagonisms between Vietnamese kingdoms vs. the Khampuchean/Cambodians, and the Thai King to whom the Cambodians owed tribute and allegiance. Vietnamese rulers initially welcomed French assistance in trying to reclaim lost territories once held by the Tay Son triumvirate, but grew to resent and suspect French motives as the number of French troops sent to destroy weapons of mass destruction, to spread democracy, fight Al Qaida "to protect the Christian missionaries" kept growing, and the attacks by the missionaries on the traditions of Vietnamese life and religion intensified. The French began seizing southern Vietnam outright starting in 1859 gaining control of the south in 1862, and forcing concessions in the remaining northern areas in the following year. The Cambodians, under Thai domination and perennially caught in power struggles between Thailand and Vietnam, invited Napoleon III to declare Cambodia a protectorate and gave up their sovereignty in 1863. They sold out. In 1864, France declared what it possessed of Vietnam henceforth to be a French colonial territory, not ruled on behalf of any Vietnamese potentate but strictly for the good of France. Twenty years later they completed the conquest of the north of Vietnam (Tonkin) and rolled Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos up into a colonial package called French Indo-China. What began as a Parisian Missionary Society fieldtrip to save heathen souls for Jesus ended in slavery for over a hundred million people, and endless war, and death for millions.

Thailand alone had kept the missionaries out, had tightly controlled trade with the West, and managed to keep its king through the entire 19th century. Vietnam and Cambodia were both weaker states, and were blindsided by the curious alliance of Western religion, with Western trade and military domination. They paid a terrible price for their tolerance of Christian proselytizing and paid and paid and paid it for more than a hundred years. So when hilltribes react with suspicion and even violence against Christian missionaries, no one should be surprised or offended. These people are merely acting upon the accumulated knowledge experiences of others like themselves who were faced with the same threat. They are frightened and they have good reason.

When you see the gentle missionary coming up the path there is only one thing to do.

Japan avoided much of western influence, and still became a militaristic waring power in 1930's

Also Ireland, and the Norse countries had missionaries convert the population, without the effects you mention.

However I agree many missionaries in the past have lost the empathy for other people by thinking of them as lessors, but I think this is more racism then just religious behaviors. Both North and South American people were considered savages that had lesser value to both society and missionaries.

I don't think it is a fact of religion, it is a combination of a failed societal thinking that is involved with the missionary thinking of the time.

If you look at the many missionaries of today, you find a wide variety, some are holding witch trials, while others are trying to bring safe water and farming methods to remote areas. Even today their are a wide range of missionaries.

There are also alot of organizations that just want to alleviate suffering, and then when asked they share their beliefs.

Also there is an old idea, if a group is treating some thing as special or an idol, the missionary consecrates it to Christ, and does not just change the practice. So instead of cutting down a tree, the tree is shown to be part of the message of Christ, maybe shown by the limbs and branches. It is an inclusion of basic thought, knowing that all things are of God when thought of as of God. But that is a complicated conversation, and others would be better at discussing it. However it does not mean that an entire culture is removed or changed by missionaries, they just share their beliefs on the meanings of life with others, knowing that all creation testifies to the beauty of God.

.....and effect accurate"

I'd reckon that link was more solidly made than one comparing 19th century Southeast Asian cultures to medieval Northern European cultures. The point being made was that in the case of Indo-China the French government used "protecting missionaries" as their EXCUSE to colonize.

The conditions and traditions of European Christian missions to the Japanese had no equivalent in any other Christian missionary effort. Commodore Perry made no pretense of protecting missionaries in his dealings with the Japanese. Nor did proselytizing in Japan have any lasting result such as that in Northern Europe.

by an excuse of protecting missionaries, I also do not agree that the laws like no european could be tried by a chineese court or held guilty of an offense, were right.

I was trying to say it was not the missionary work that lead to colonization, it was a desire to colonise and then using missionary work as an excuse to achieve that desired end.

It wasn't about the religion, it was about getting a colony and the resources.

I would also say the bad parts had more to do with a lack of respect for the culture and people then a desire to spread ideas about a particular faith.

a peaceful activity? I think the people had the choice to convert or die once "Christian missionaries" promised power to King Olaf (the Traitor).

"After his confirmation as King of Norway, Olaf traveled to the parts of Norway that had not been under the rule of Haakon, but that of the King of Denmark; they too swore rudely at him. He then demanded that they all be baptised, and most reluctantly they agreed. Those that did not were tortured or killed."

Whereas some apparently think they are really doing someone a favor, and maybe a small number of
them are so naive as to really have good intentions going out into the world telling people that
their own religion is wrong and that Christianity (or whatever flavor they're selling) is right,
I can't help but think that plenty of them think they will somehow satisfy some latent control
urge if they win converts.

In the end, it's pure arrogance. Who are we (or anyone) to go to people of some other culture
and tell them their religion is "wrong" and another is "right?" Christians, who instigated the
Crusades, the Salem witch burnings and the Spanish Inquisition, decry Muslim barbarity and wonder
why the Muslims laugh and come out with their local expressions about pots calling kettles black.
In a country where, centuries ago, wars between Catholics and Protestants raged, sometimes for
decades at a time (other factors were in play as well, obviously), my wife, as recently as the 1950s,
had kindergarten friends whose parents told them not to play with her, as she and her whole family
were going to hell. You see, she was Catholic, and they were Protestant. And to think that some still
wonder why today's generation of Europeans don't attend church a lot.

I was once asked to contribute to an American Christian woman's trip to India so that she could
convert the people there to Christianity. I said OK if she would contribute an equal amount to pay
for Indians to come to America to convert the people there to Hinduism. She was horrified at my
suggestion, and yet didn't at all see the irony in her reaction.

Bravo to the hill tribes of Thailand for saying no. I haven't heard of any of them showing up
in Texas to convert the people of Dallas to their religion, so I think they are on solid moral
and ethical ground.

And you are correct, it requires believing one religion is the correct one, and the others are wrong.

Which brings up a funny fact,

Most religious people agree, most religious people are wrong on religious thinking.

If you think about it it is true and ironic.

I think if a group goes to alleviate suffering, or to learn or talk with people, then if asked shares their thoughts on things, it is ok. But that is just my view.

That's fine. But most of the time, it's "we're here to show you why we're right and
why you and all your ancestors were wrong all this time."

If religion is just taken for its base value, it's fine. Faith=belief. If you believe
something different from what I believe, fine and dandy. Different strokes. But if you
KNOW that what you believe is right, then by definition, you KNOW that what I believe
is wrong, and therefore I need to be converted. That's when it starts to get unpleasant.

Then if you are right, any bad things would leave, and if you are wrong, you would be sharing love with a brother in another pen of Christ.

:shrug:

Either way if you try and show love, and try to be honest, that's really all you can do. In my view claiming to know all the mysteries or ways of the mind of God is not the best choice, so being certain of something is a bit disrespectful in my view. But I could be wrong...

As my signature says: "Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."

If their demi-god is so great why do they have to use material things to convert people. Why not just do what is right and help people without conditions?

How does anyone defend the right of Missionaries to push their wares at this point in history?

this will mean that lots of knowledge of their arts & crafts as well as history will be lost and destroyed all in the name of Jaaysus....can we round up all the missionaries and wingnuts and send them on a one-way trip to the sun?

I lived in Bangkok for 2 years as a teenager...I found the thai people to be some of the most friendly, and fun, people I ever met.

All religious groups should be able to speak their message to people and the people themselves should be able to decide for themselves which religion, if any, is best for them. Yes, all religious groups offer help to their members (and I do mean all religious groups) but that is hardly an argument for repealing the right to freedom of religion.