Story of the Mouk Tribe

[+Link of Hyrule]

The Mouk Tribe are a group of natives living in Papua New Guinea. In 1983, a Christian Missionary went to the tribe in order to teach them about Jesus and almost universally, the tribe converted to Christianity. At this point, if I were reading this as an impartial observer I would roll my eyes and say that here is another example of Christians ruining the great culture of a people. Like many, even though I am a Christian, I have this preconceived view that tribal societies are idyllic and carefree, devoted to each other and not fearing of anything. So when I sat down to watch a documentary on this tribe, I was getting ready to say to myself that this was how Missionaries in the past operated but now they move in for more humanitarian aid and the like rather about the destruction of their beautiful society.

My experience turned out quite different to my expectations.

Far from seeing a tribe of peaceful natives devoted to family and love, I saw a tribe living in perpetual fear of ancestors' wrath, I saw a tribe which thought it right and fitting to beat women and children, a tribe based on segregation and cultural hurt. Listed here are some of the observations I recorded immediately after the documentary (it is by no means exhaustive, though does deal with the key issues).

Fear, Mistrust and Lies

A very important ritual for the Mouk people involved the summoning of an ancestral spirit. The men would dress in a mask and robe and dance as the spirit. However, this was supposedly unknown to the women. The mask was hidden in a special place reserved for men only. If a woman made it known that they knew that it was not a spirit but a man in a mask, they were routinely executed. However, due to scars on people's feet, the shapes of toes and other identifying features of feet, the women had known for generations that it was not a spirit but one of their own dressed up. If they let slip that they knew about this though, they would still be executed. They were playing a cultural role in society that led to their subjugation (at best, if they played ignorant) or death (if they let it made known that they knew).

Women were literally afraid for their life if they let it known to men that they knew. The current elder of the village was present when his own mother was killed for this when he was a child.

Worship rituals

Furthermore, part of the ceremony of the spirits involved women preparing food for the spirits to eat. Not just a little bit but literally tonnes of food. Despite the fact that the women already knew the spirit-dance was a sham, they would prepare all this food and give it to the men. Often there was so much that the men would simply eat what they could and so to keep the secret (they did not realise their women knew) would throw the food away. Women would see the fruits of their labour thrown away but could not say anything or they would be put to death because they admitted to knowing about the falsehood of their actions.

Segregation

Society was highly segregated. Men had special "male-only" tents/huts which the men would spend the majority of their time. The women were left to raise the family alone. Relationships were non-existent, women were property, children were second-class citizens. Both were treated unkindly with violence in many instances.

Death

The Mouk believed the spirits were angry with them and there was no way they could appease them. Living in fear, they mourned with true hurt when their people died, fearing the wrath of their spirits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I could write more about their particular beliefs, but in general it was not pretty. This shattered my views that Christian missionaries destroyed cultures. When you see the transformation of the tribe before and after their hearing of Christianity, I could not in any way claim that their culture was destroyed. The men tore away their male-only areas and focused more on families. Wife-beating became non-existent and men partook in the raising of the children. The men confessed to the women that they had been lying about the ancestors and the women confessed that they had always known. Compassion and love for each other flowed.

On accepting Christianity as true, there was unbridled joy for two and a half hours and men and women, the young and the old literally danced in the streets at their joy of no longer living in fear of the spirits. If Christianity can be said to have converted through "fear", it certainly was nothing compared to the fear they already felt. As an aside, the exact manner in which they came to believe and understand about the Bible is quite extraordinary in itself. If the discussion permits I may write something of this later on.

Naturally, I can see people responding that this documentary showed what the film-maker's wanted us to see and therefore highlighted the undesirable aspects of their old society and the good points to their new one. Nevertheless, I felt I should share with you this experience that I had, so that you might think on preconceptions of tribal-life and perhaps ask whether missionaries truly are the destroyers of culture that we stereotypically see as idyllic tribal life.

Thanks for reading, if you got down this far. All the best,

~ PA

[eight bits]

I am glad that the Mouk people successfully stepped out of the stone age. I hope that as they learn more about what their fellow human beings have achieved in the wider world, their worldview will correspondingly grow.

Nevertheless, their culture was destroyed. The question which troubles me is who died and left the missionaries in charge of deciding which cultures live and which do not? I suppose the flippant answer is Jesus.

Not good enough in my view. Sorry. Glad it worked out this time, but my suspicion of those who assume the "white man's burden" and parade the happy natives as proof of their own righteousnes remains intact.

[fullywired]

I watched the story of the mouk "conversion" on your tube

I don't know if it was the same film you watched but I wasn't impressed with it .They merely swapped one fictional story for another ,rubbished evolution among other things

Hardly suprising that it was made by Foreign Missions Evangelism Tribal Witnessing

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

I watched the story of the mouk "conversion" on your tube

I don't know if it was the same film you watched but I wasn't impressed with it .They merely swapped one fictional story for another ,rubbished evolution among other things

Hardly suprising that it was made by Foreign Missions Evangelism Tribal Witnessing

fullywired

The video I watched was 50 minutes long. This is less than 10 minutes. It looks like the same group released this, but it's a much shorter version than the one I saw.

Though the scene where they "rubbished evolution" was just a one-liner when the missionary showed them that some people believe we evolved, to which the tribes said that these people were stupid (or some similar comment). Hardly a rubbishing of evolution. The Mouk tribe are hardly experts in the field.

And yes, I realise that from your point of view they are just swapping one fictional story for another. But from a purely social standpoint, the fiction they replaced it with (if you choose to call it a fiction) made them better for it. *as an aside, is Buddhism a fiction as well???*

[+Link of Hyrule]

I am glad that the Mouk people successfully stepped out of the stone age. I hope that as they learn more about what their fellow human beings have achieved in the wider world, their worldview will correspondingly grow.

Nevertheless, their culture was destroyed. The question which troubles me is who died and left the missionaries in charge of deciding which cultures live and which do not? I suppose the flippant answer is Jesus.

Not good enough in my view. Sorry. Glad it worked out this time, but my suspicion of those who assume the "white man's burden" and parade the happy natives as proof of their own righteousnes remains intact.

Valid observations, eight bits. I think it's a matter of people believing in what they do so strongly that they are willing to go out and risk death and worse to tell others about what they believe, to the point of giving up their jobs, living off zero income, learning entire new languages, and spending months living with strangers, all in order to share what they see as the most vital piece of news they could possibly bring.

True, this does mean that some cultures have been destroyed, and in some cases the culture was likely better than the one they were given in exchange. I see your point. I was sharing a story of what happened to one set of tribes; the Mouk later took their new beliefs and sincerely wanted to share what they had found with all the tribes in the surrounding villages, with similar results - yes, more destroyed cultures, but they also felt the need to share what they saw as fantastic news; So I guess the "white man's burden" became the black-man's burden for the Mouk....... just a thought,

~ PA

[Leonardo]

True, this does mean that some cultures have been destroyed, and in some cases the culture was likely better than the one they were given in exchange.

I think this is the first time I've seen Christianity (albeit indirectly) referred to as a culture?

Surely the Mouk were introduced to Western culture, and Christianity was simply included because the missionaries were Christian? If the Mouk had been introduced to Western culture without the baggage of Christianity I'd wager the result would have been more or less the same.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Leonardo

[Belle.]

PA, I understand what you are saying about viewing cultures through the prism of "romantic primitivism" which can be patronising in its own way. Historically, anthropological observations of indigenous cultures have fallen prey to this view as it is a seductive, if somewhat ignorant, black and white view of the world. On the flipside, when cultures do meet in practical terms it often comes down to "replacing mine with yours".

Idealising or alternatively damning different cultures is too simplistic - and historically humans tend not to be very good at managing these interactions.

Hey, I view many of Christianities practices as unnecessary, negative and based on patriarchal superstition. Would you be willing to play the "Mouk"?

Great topic though

[fullywired]

The video I watched was 50 minutes long. This is less than 10 minutes. It looks like the same group released this, but it's a much shorter version than the one I saw.

Though the scene where they "rubbished evolution" was just a one-liner when the missionary showed them that some people believe we evolved, to which the tribes said that these people were stupid (or some similar comment). Hardly a rubbishing of evolution. The Mouk tribe are hardly experts in the field.

And yes, I realise that from your point of view they are just swapping one fictional story for another. But from a purely social standpoint, the fiction they replaced it with (if you choose to call it a fiction) made them better for it. *as an aside, is Buddhism a fiction as well???*

I seem to recall that you once said that Genesis was not to be taken literally .did the evangelists explain all this to the Mouk? do you think they understood .In the film you watched did they mention that other Christians had a different version of what they were preaching? did they give them a one liner about the trinity .my point being I have no problem with missionaries going to places were the people are not primitive and are sophisticated enough to question the things being proposed but to descend on a primitive tribe with their version of the truth without explaining that this was only their version and that other religions were different was not on .As you said the one I saw was only 10 minutes and perhaps the one you saw was more honest

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

I seem to recall that you once said that Genesis was not to be taken literally .did the evangelists explain all this to the Mouk? do you think they understood .In the film you watched did they mention that other Christians had a different version of what they were preaching? did they give them a one liner about the trinity .my point being I have no problem with missionaries going to places were the people are not primitive and are sophisticated enough to question the things being proposed but to descend on a primitive tribe with their version of the truth without explaining that this was only their version and that other religions were different was not on .As you said the one I saw was only 10 minutes and perhaps the one you saw was more honest

fullywired

I understand you are coming at this from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe, but from a believer's point of view, Christianity is the truth. It would be dishonest to ourselves to say otherwise. To say, "Well we believe this, but others believe...." entirely defeats the purpose of sharing what we believe. If you feel so strongly about it though, perhaps you could go and work as a "counter-missionary" in areas where missionaries are working with tribal societies. Christians feel strongly enough about their belief to give up their income and time to go to these countries. Maybe if you work in the same capacity to care for the intellectual well-being of the tribe then they could receive this alternative knowledge from the white-man.

I don't know what this Missionary believed about creation and Genesis. Quite frankly, when it comes to Australian Christianity, the issue is an "I don't care" matter. Whatever way God created the world, whether by evolution or some other method, the point in the Bible is "God did it". Yes, I believe that it is figurative, and have strong textual reasons to believe so (imo, at least). However, ultimately it matters not at all to me - the point is, God did it, and that doesn't change whether by evolution or a mystical 7-day cycle. Perhaps it is an issue to this missionary and he believes in a six-thousand year earth. I don't know. I wasn't there giving up my time and money. What I do know is that from the 50-odd minutes of the documentary, they shared the story of the Bible (not just of Jesus, but the whole Bible) and they did so in what I saw as faithful to the truth of the text.

And to be absolutely honest, the Mouk people understood the Old Testament better than most in our modern world. I guess we in the West know the stories without the background, but the Mouk received the background first and even before hearing the stories end knew how God would react simply because they had an idea of his character that is bereft in much of the modern West. That is my sincere opinion and I think it is an injustice to the intelligence of the Mouk to consider them innocent victims in this simply because they don't have the level of technology that we do.

Just a thought

~ PA

[fullywired]

I understand you are coming at this from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe, but from a believer's point of view, Christianity is the truth. It would be dishonest to ourselves to say otherwise. To say, "Well we believe this, but others believe...." entirely defeats the purpose of sharing what we believe. If you feel so strongly about it though, perhaps you could go and work as a "counter-missionary" in areas where missionaries are working with tribal societies. Christians feel strongly enough about their belief to give up their income and time to go to these countries. Maybe if you work in the same capacity to care for the intellectual well-being of the tribe then they could receive this alternative knowledge from the white-man.

I don't know what this Missionary believed about creation and Genesis. Quite frankly, when it comes to Australian Christianity, the issue is an "I don't care" matter. Whatever way God created the world, whether by evolution or some other method, the point in the Bible is "God did it". Yes, I believe that it is figurative, and have strong textual reasons to believe so (imo, at least). However, ultimately it matters not at all to me - the point is, God did it, and that doesn't change whether by evolution or a mystical 7-day cycle. Perhaps it is an issue to this missionary and he believes in a six-thousand year earth. I don't know. I wasn't there giving up my time and money. What I do know is that from the 50-odd minutes of the documentary, they shared the story of the Bible (not just of Jesus, but the whole Bible) and they did so in what I saw as faithful to the truth of the text.

And to be absolutely honest, the Mouk people understood the Old Testament better than most in our modern world. I guess we in the West know the stories without the background, but the Mouk received the background first and even before hearing the stories end knew how God would react simply because they had an idea of his character that is bereft in much of the modern West. That is my sincere opinion and I think it is an injustice to the intelligence of the Mouk to consider them innocent victims in this simply because they don't have the level of technology that we do.

Just a thought

~ PA

How do you know that the Mouk understood the Old testament? .do you speak their language or are you just believing what the film said ? if the missionaries only told them an edited version of christianity ,they could hardly claim a successful conversion.You didn't answer the question ,how did they handle the trinity bit.

As to rest of your post I have no intention of interferring in other peoples lives ,something the missionaries should practice

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

How do you know that the Mouk understood the Old testament? .do you speak their language or are you just believing what the film said ? if the missionaries only told them an edited version of christianity ,they could hardly claim a successful conversion.You didn't answer the question ,how did they handle the trinity bit.

As to rest of your post I have no intention of interferring in other peoples lives ,something the missionaries should practice

fullywired

Ah, I guess the translations provided by the documentary were wrong or lying. When the Missionary shared the story of Abraham and Isaac, I guess they were lying that four people came up to him and told him how the story would end before they told it, particularly pointing out that God had already promised that Isaac must live since the promises made to Abraham were to be completed only through Isaac. Seriously, FW, as I said, I watched what they showed of the Bible and nothing was "heretical" in my opinion. To suggest any other alternative (they're making up the language for us, or they're just making it up period - two examples only) just shows how far you want to go to make it appear as if they are being dishonest. You WANT them to be dishonest, just so you can feel further justified in your belief (in my opinion, at least).

As to the Trinity, I don't remember them saying much about it, truthfully. Perhaps they did and I don't recall it. However, they did point out that Jesus was God. Why is this such a big issue for you? To me, it doesn't really matter, as long as they get the important bit out - Jesus is God, died for us. The rest is details.

If you don't want to interfere, then don't. But if you want them to hear certain things, there's only one way to make that happen. Unfortunately for your cause, many Christians believe enough in what they do to give up their time and money to do this. I even contemplated it myself for a time. There's no use saying what people should or should not do. Do. Or do not. That is the only issue.

All the best,

~ PA

Edited October 12, 2008 by Paranoid Android

[fullywired]

Ah, I guess the translations provided by the documentary were wrong or lying. When the Missionary shared the story of Abraham and Isaac, I guess they were lying that four people came up to him and told him how the story would end before they told it, particularly pointing out that God had already promised that Isaac must live since the promises made to Abraham were to be completed only through Isaac. Seriously, FW, as I said, I watched what they showed of the Bible and nothing was "heretical" in my opinion. To suggest any other alternative (they're making up the language for us, or they're just making it up period - two examples only) just shows how far you want to go to make it appear as if they are being dishonest. You WANT them to be dishonest, just so you can feel further justified in your belief (in my opinion, at least).

As to the Trinity, I don't remember them saying much about it, truthfully. Perhaps they did and I don't recall it. However, they did point out that Jesus was God. Why is this such a big issue for you? To me, it doesn't really matter, as long as they get the important bit out - Jesus is God, died for us. The rest is details.

If you don't want to interfere, then don't. But if you want them to hear certain things, there's only one way to make that happen. Unfortunately for your cause, many Christians believe enough in what they do to give up their time and money to do this. I even contemplated it myself for a time. There's no use saying what people should or should not do. Do. Or do not. That is the only issue.

All the best,

~ PA

Why is it an issue ? because they are only telling part of the story .they are selling half the package.I think the missionaries hear what they want to hear and no doubt the natives told them what the wanted to hear.I don't doubt the missionaries are sincere and think they are doing gods work. It is not unfortunate for me but it is for the natives.(incidently I don't have a cause unless an interest in the truth is a cause)

fullywired

Christian Missionaries

Missionaries have always held a heroic and romantic place within the Christian imagination. Even today churches regularly collect contributions for the mission field. The reality, of course, is very different. From its very beginnings, Christian missionaries have inflicted tremendous harm on the peoples they "witnessed" to. In the past, the damage done by missionaries were shared equally between the Protestant and Catholic churches. Today, most of the damage is done by fundamentalist, pentacostal and evangelical protestant sects, mostly from the US, Canada and Europe. Numbering about 80,000 strong [1] these fundamentalist missionaries spread like locusts throughout the world. Their destruction of native cultures, and in some cases actually causing the deaths of these natives, can only be described as a modern cultural and genocidal holocaust.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html

[danielost]

The same concept with the native Americans. They don't or didn't believe property. But this is wrong they didn't believe in personal property at least not more than you could carry.

[hetrodoxly]

The same concept with the native Americans. They don't or didn't believe property. But this is wrong they didn't believe in personal property at least not more than you could carry.

How did this work, the women they stole from other tribes, are you saying they could only take the amount of women they could carry? what about horses they stole, how many could they carry? after killing a whole herd of buffalo lets say 800-1000 just for their tongues, i wonder how many each woman could carry?

Edited October 12, 2008 by hetrodoxly

[+Link of Hyrule]

Why is it an issue ? because they are only telling part of the story .they are selling half the package.I think the missionaries hear what they want to hear and no doubt the natives told them what the wanted to hear.I don't doubt the missionaries are sincere and think they are doing gods work. It is not unfortunate for me but it is for the natives.(incidently I don't have a cause unless an interest in the truth is a cause)

fullywired

When I first became a Christian, I didn't think too much of the Trinity either. It's one of those things that come as we progress. When we are spiritual babies we understand very little and so often need milk, but as we learn and grow we start to want more and more to understand. Do you think I knew everything I know now when I first became a Christian? I honestly don't think it matters. I believe in a Trinity and believe it is based on biblical teachings, but it is not necessary for salvation - understanding that Jesus was God who died for our sins however, is essential.

Christian Missionaries

Missionaries have always held a heroic and romantic place within the Christian imagination. Even today churches regularly collect contributions for the mission field. The reality, of course, is very different. From its very beginnings, Christian missionaries have inflicted tremendous harm on the peoples they "witnessed" to. In the past, the damage done by missionaries were shared equally between the Protestant and Catholic churches. Today, most of the damage is done by fundamentalist, pentacostal and evangelical protestant sects, mostly from the US, Canada and Europe. Numbering about 80,000 strong [1] these fundamentalist missionaries spread like locusts throughout the world. Their destruction of native cultures, and in some cases actually causing the deaths of these natives, can only be described as a modern cultural and genocidal holocaust.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html

Oh joy, anti-missionary propaganda

[Rosewin]

Counter-missionaries lol.

As far as the Mouk I would have to see the documentary and read more about them to fully comment but I will offer one of my suspicions which is in general the Westerner's view of other cultures is usually incorrect. We usually feel women in other cultures are oppressed when the women in such cultures might not feel the same. I remember reading about a reporter in a Muslim country, a woman reporter, who was among some Muslim women, only women, and they were watching TV which showed other women in the capital racing with small shorts and such as a form of protest. The women dismissed the notion that those women racing in a marathon represented them. No, they saw those women as fools who were giving away their most valuable possession for free, their bodies. Such is their culture and many Westerners cannot ever understand it. Some Westerners might believe they are helping such women when they speak of women's rights and how women in Islamic countries have none, but they are just being patronizing them, acting as if they can help them, when they need no help, instead they should respect them and attempt to understand their mindset. Yes, never trust a Westerner's opinion of other cultures.

[fullywired]

Oh joy, anti-missionary propaganda

How easily you dismiss the criticism of missionary activity ,forgetting that the programme you are referring to was propaganda made by the missionary evangelists

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

How easily you dismiss the criticism of missionary activity ,forgetting that the programme you are referring to was propaganda made by the missionary evangelists

fullywired

How easily you embrace that same criticism while simultaneously rubbishing the program that seems to praise these particular missionaries. For the record though, I have never said that Missionaries were blameless souls with nothing but best interests at heart. I understand there is bad history there. You seem interested about nothing other than rubbishing them though

Just a thought,

[fullywired]

How easily you embrace that same criticism while simultaneously rubbishing the program that seems to praise these particular missionaries. For the record though, I have never said that Missionaries were blameless souls with nothing but best interests at heart. I understand there is bad history there. You seem interested about nothing other than rubbishing them though

Just a thought,

I am interested in showing the other side of the coin which you neglected to do

fullywired

[+Link of Hyrule]

I am interested in showing the other side of the coin which you neglected to do

fullywired

You tend to do that a lot, mostly at the expense of the side you happen to disagree with. Just an observation I've noticed

[fullywired]

You tend to do that a lot, mostly at the expense of the side you happen to disagree with. Just an observation I've noticed

I could say the same about you but probably you wouldn't agree

fullywired

[GIDEON MAGE]

I could say the same about you but probably you wouldn't agree

fullywired

You know, I looked up this tribe on the internet, and there are no references other than how these people, if they truly exist, were "saved". I have a few comments on this.

#1. I found no references to anthropologists studying these people. What a waste that their culture was not documented before being destroyed by xians.

#2. I think that missionaries are among the most evil people in the world. If this is an exception, as p.a. claims, I have a simple question.

How many thousands of native cultures destroyed by xians are justified by a single tribe that was "helped"? I want a number.

#3. How would the american colonists have responded to, for example, Buddhist missionaries trying to "save" them from their savagery? They were murdering native americans by hundreds of thousands at a single fell swoop, burning witches at the stake, had black slaves, and treated women like chattle. Would it have been a good idea for Buddhist monks to have shown up and rescue them?

#4. Do we have any proof that the horror stories told about the Mouk by missionaries were not made up by the missionaries?

[fullywired]

You know, I looked up this tribe on the internet, and there are no references other than how these people, if they truly exist, were "saved". I have a few comments on this.

#1. I found no references to anthropologists studying these people. What a waste that their culture was not documented before being destroyed by xians.

#2. I think that missionaries are among the most evil people in the world. If this is an exception, as p.a. claims, I have a simple question.

How many thousands of native cultures destroyed by xians are justified by a single tribe that was "helped"? I want a number.

#3. How would the american colonists have responded to, for example, Buddhist missionaries trying to "save" them from their savagery? They were murdering native americans by hundreds of thousands at a single fell swoop, burning witches at the stake, had black slaves, and treated women like chattle. Would it have been a good idea for Buddhist monks to have shown up and rescue them?

#4. Do we have any proof that the horror stories told about the Mouk by missionaries were not made up by the missionaries?

your right ,I found no references to them neither only this snippet

Memory, forgetting and the New Tribes Mission in West New Britain.

by Andrew Lattas

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the politics of memory and forgetting amongst the bush Kaliai people of West New Britain.(1) It focuses on the recent attempts by the New Tribes Mission to transform and eradicate not only the collective memory of the traditional past, but also the more recent collective memories created by cargo cults which are still active in an underground form. In 1986, during my first period of fieldwork, the New Tribes Mission had just arrived but had yet to set up 'literacy classes'. I then rarely heard any mention of Satan or Hell. By 1991, converts to the new mission spoke continuously of Satan and the fires of Hell. Converts took up the new mission's condemnation of their traditional customs which were now denounced as Satan's laws. The ancestors, dead relatives, and masalai, who use to regularly visit people were now seen as Satan's illusions and tricks.(2) An American missionary, whom I will refer to as Sign, was influential in bringing about these mass conversions.(3) He proudly told me how people had cried when confronted with the 'fact' that their dead relatives had died without knowing God. Villagers told me that the reason people were crying was because they had been told their parents and grandparents were burning in Hell for having sinned against God.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I could say the same about you but probably you wouldn't agree

fullywired

Probably so. At least now we can agree on something

[+Link of Hyrule]

You know, I looked up this tribe on the internet, and there are no references other than how these people, if they truly exist, were "saved". I have a few comments on this.

#1. I found no references to anthropologists studying these people. What a waste that their culture was not documented before being destroyed by xians.

#2. I think that missionaries are among the most evil people in the world. If this is an exception, as p.a. claims, I have a simple question.

How many thousands of native cultures destroyed by xians are justified by a single tribe that was "helped"? I want a number.

#3. How would the american colonists have responded to, for example, Buddhist missionaries trying to "save" them from their savagery? They were murdering native americans by hundreds of thousands at a single fell swoop, burning witches at the stake, had black slaves, and treated women like chattle. Would it have been a good idea for Buddhist monks to have shown up and rescue them?

#4. Do we have any proof that the horror stories told about the Mouk by missionaries were not made up by the missionaries?

I guess I'll address each point one at a time:

#1 - That is a valid point. That is a piece of history no one will get back now (see, I don't blindly disagree with everything people say, lol).

#2 - I did not claim this was an "exception", and I do not claim it as one. I only ever said it was a preconception that people had of idyllic tribal societies. As such, numbers are irrelevant. I could probably quote statistics about how many tribes missionaries have been to, but you'd have to search each individually to find out what their culture was like and whether it was idyllic or not.

#3 - I don't know how they would have reacted. Perhaps they would have been shown a different way to live, or perhaps not. Though since you speak of treating women like cattle, that is basically how the men of the Mouk tribe describe the way they treated women before they were shown to live in love and respect for each other.

#4 - The stories were told by the Mouk, not the missionaries (though the Missionary did allude to them at times). If you want to try and argue that the overdubbing was put in to deceive us and they were really saying, "I don't believe and our society was so much better beforehand" feel free to go ahead. However, I suggest it is you that would need the proof of this.