North Sentinel Island (Photo: DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)
North Sentinel Island (Photo: DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)

SocietyDecember 4, 2018

Three myths about North Sentinel Island

North Sentinel Island (Photo: DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)
North Sentinel Island (Photo: DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)

The recent killing of an American by a North Sentinel tribe has put the isolated island on the map. But there are three myths about the North Sentinelese that have been regurgitated in media. Scott Hamilton sheds some light.

It was a story from another century. A young man landed on a small island, with a Bible in his hand. Men emerged from trees at the edge of the beach. Their skin was dark, unclothed. The missionary greeted them in English; they replied with arrows. Twice the missionary retreated to a ship beyond the island’s reef. His third visit to the island was his last. The heathens buried him in the beach where he had hailed them.

The recent death of John Chau has made North Sentinel Island famous. Journalists and commentators around the world have been busy explaining that the island is part of the Andamans archipelago, that its inhabitants are hostile to all interlopers, and that the Indian government, which has administered the Andamans since the British departed in 1947, has forbidden all contact with them.

But there are three myths about the North Sentinelese that have been regurgitated, in article after article. Here in the South Pacific, we’re in a good position to lance these myths. After all, the same sort of misconceptions were once aimed at the indigenous peoples of our region. Contemporary Pacific scholars can help us see the North Sentinelese in a clearer light.

The myth of unprovoked hostility

Many journalists and commentators have interpreted the slaying of Chau as the work of an aggressive and xenophobic culture. But the Sentinelese have good reason to distrust outsiders.

In 1880, the British colonial administrator Maurice Portman led an armed expedition to North Sentinel. Portman was a paedophile and a pederast who was obsessed by the bodies of young Andamanese men. By 1880, he’d already led raids on several islands in the archipelago, and taken away children and adolescents to photograph and molest. Some of Portman’s pornography survives: his photos show black bodies decorated by jewellery the colonist had imported from Europe. The Sentinelese fled before Portman’s force, but he was able to capture and remove to Port Blair four children and two elderly islanders. The pair of old people died quickly, but the children endured weeks in Portman’s ‘care’ before being returned to North Sentinel.

It’s unsurprising that after the raid of 1880, the Sentinelese resisted visitors to their island. In 1896, a convict escaped from the prison at Port Blair, and was washed ashore at North Sentinel. A search party found him on the beach with his throat cut. An anthropologist who came calling in 1974 got an arrow in his leg.

Indian authorities have declared an exclusion zone around North Sentinel, but fishermen-poachers persist in entering that zone. When Sentinelese shout protests from their beach, or approach in canoes, the fishermen often shoot. In 2006, two drunken Indian poachers fell asleep off North Sentinel Island. Their anchor broke; their boat drifted ashore. The Sentinelese strangled and buried them.

John Chau may have had peaceful intentions when he approached North Sentinel Island, but his mere presence on the island could’ve been devastating. When he climbed into a kayak and paddled through North Sentinel’s reef, Chau made his craft into a rocket, and himself into its warhead. Chau was a healthy young man, but like anyone from the West, he was loaded with pathogens that could swiftly kill the Sentinelese who lack our immunity to a slew of diseases. When they killed Chau, the Islanders were neutralising a biological weapon.

A look at the modern history of the other indigenous peoples of the Andamans suggests that the Sentinelese have been wise to isolate themselves.

Anthropologists believe there were at least 5,000 Andamanese when the British arrived in 1789. Today, there are less than 700. The Great Andamanese, who were once the archipelago’s most populous people, today number about 30 and live on a small reservation island in concrete houses. They no longer speak their language fluently but instead, communicate in an Andamanese-Hindu pidgin. Most of them are alcoholics; many also suffer from diabetes. The Onge people live in another, larger reservation and number about 100.

Andaman Island, India, 2002: One of the warnings posted by Indian authorities along the Andaman Trunk Road (ATR) going along the Jarawas’ territory (Photo: Thierry Falise/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The Jarawa people live in the jungle of South Andaman Island. For centuries they refused all friendly contact with outsiders, preferring to shoot arrows at intruders on their land and to raid the villages on the edge of the forest. In 1996, a Jarawa teenager named Enmei fell out of a fruit tree he’d been robbing in the Indian village of Kadamtala, and broke his leg. Enmei spent six months in the hospital at Port Blair, the capital of the Andamans, where he learned to wear clothes and enjoy television. He went home as an emissary for the Indian authorities and soon persuaded his fellow Jarawa to make peace with the settlers.

Today, a road runs through Jarawa territory; tourists drive it with their windows down and cameras ready, like visitors to a safari park. Survival International, a London-based charity that advocates for isolated indigenous peoples, has published photographs and videos that show Jarawa dancing beside parked vehicles, in return for bananas and other food. Poachers infiltrate the Jarawas’ domain; they take away timber and bushmeat and leave alcohol and venereal diseases.

The myth of ancient isolation

Journalists have correctly noted that the North Sentinelese have in modern times rejected outsiders. Too often, though, they’ve assumed that the Sentinelese have been isolating themselves for tens of thousands of years.

Like other ‘negrito’ peoples of Southeast Asia, from Sri Lanka’s Veddahs to Malaysia’s Semang, Sentinelese are descended from some of the first humans to leave Africa. The ancestors of the Sentinelese walked across what’s now the Bay of Bengal when an Ice Age had created a land bridge.

When seas rose, many of the early arrivals from Africa were left on small islands. It’s likely that, as the media has reported, the Sentinelese have lived on their island for tens of thousands of years. But that doesn’t mean they’ve been isolated all that time.

I recently discussed the Sentinelese with Dr Lorenz Gonschor, a German-born Pacific-resident scholar who’s an expert on indigenous resistance to Christianisation. Gonschor pointed out that the Sentinelese, like other Andamans peoples, developed aquatechnology long ago.

A quick look at a map should’ve shown the world’s journalists that North Sentinel Island is less than 40 km from the large South Andaman Island and less than 60 km from South Sentinel Island. As Lorenz Gonschor pointed out, those are tiny distances for an island people. Gonschor argues that, rather than being isolated, the Sentinelese visited other Andamanese peoples. Their isolation wasn’t ancient, he thinks, but the product of British and Japanese colonialism, and in particular, the British invasion of the island in 1880.

We can use Lana Lopesi’s new book False Divides to understand what the North Sentinelese have suffered. Lopesi laments the way that, in the Pacific as well as the Indian Oceans, colonisation interrupted histories of inter-island voyaging, trade and marriage. ‘Random lines’ were drawn on maps by ‘land-centric’ cultures, dividing the peoples of a vast liquid continent into ‘small colonies and resource bases’. In many parts of the ocean, Lopesi calls Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, colonial administrators banned inter-island voyaging.

Lopesi’s arguments float on an ocean of data. It’s 20 years since Lisa Matisoo-Smith’s pioneering DNA studies of rat bones showed that archipelagoes like the Cooks, Hawai’i and Tonga were visited again and again by different groups of Polynesians. Matisoo-Smith’s findings were reinforced by an Australian study that found Tongan adzes (a cutting tool) on islands across the Western Pacific. The linguist William Watson has heard Hawai’ian words on atolls many thousands of kilometres from the Sandwich Islands.

1900. India. Bows and arrows are used by the Andamanese for killing land animals and fish, and detachable harpoons in the pursuit of turtle and sharks. These natives are employed by the Port Blair authorities against the wild tribes who have habit of killing the convicts settled on the land for the sake of the iron ring round their neck, which is useful for tipping arrows. (Photo by: SeM Studio/Fototeca/UIG via Getty Images)

The peoples of the Indian Ocean were as mobile as their Pacific cousins. The Indonesian scholar Waruno Mahdi has shown how Austronesian ships sailed west from his homeland to India, Madagascar, the east coast of Africa, and even the Red Sea. Mahdi has discovered Austronesian place names in Iraq, as well as Indian Ocean touches on Phoenician ships. Mahdi emphasises that the negrito peoples, as well as the latecomer Austronesians, were sailors and navigators. He credits negritos with the creation of the first outrigger canoes. Photographs in British museums support Mahdi: they show Andamanese hollowing tree trunks, attaching floats to them, raising sails.

There are some parts of the world where peoples have suffered radical isolation. The indigenous people of Tasmania, for example, were cut off from the rest of the world for about 12,000 years after an Ice Age land bridge vanished. But the isolation of the Sentinelese is a modern, relatively recent phenomenon.

The myth of a static culture

British journalist Brendan O’Neill has responded to the death of John Chau by arguing that the Sentinelese need to be ‘civilised’ so that they can experience the wonders of the West. O’Neill says that groups like Survival International, which campaign against forced contact with peoples like the Sentinelese, have forgotten the delights of modernity and learning and the misery of life in the forest.

Like many other commentators, O’Neill characterises the Sentinelese as suffering from a frozen culture, a culture incapable of innovation. Similar claims have been made in the past for numerous other indigenous peoples by outsiders advocating colonial projects.

The late John Chau wasn’t much of an anthropologist, but one of the notes he scribbled before his demise included a fascinating detail that refutes claims Sentinelese culture is incapable of innovation. Chau described how an arrow with a metal head came flying his way. The metal on the Sentinelese arrow may well have come from the Primrose, a cargo ship that was wrecked on a reef off North Sentinel in 1981. The Primrose’s crew were rescued by chopper before Sentinelese could storm their vessel.

The Sentinelese have brought themselves into the Iron Age, by adapting metal from the Primrose for use on arrows and, in all likelihood, other tools. John Chau was probably killed by the material of his own civilisation after it had been repurposed by an innovative island people.

In another note he made off the coast of North Sentinel, John Chau called the island ‘Satan’s last stronghold’, presumably because of its people’s resistance to Christianisation. As Lorenz Gonschor points out, though, there are other islands where Christianity has been scorned, even in recent times. Most of the Polynesian people of Takuu, an atoll north of Bougainville, still prefer old gods like Tangaroa and Maui to Jehovah.

The ethnomusicologist Richard Moyle landed Takuu in the 1990s, and was able to record scores of religious songs and chants, and video sacred events like seances. Moyle’s words and footage are a door to ancient Polynesia, before the intervention of missionaries and colonial administrators (many of Takuu’s inhabitants have emigrated in recent years, as the seas around the island rise; it’s unclear whether their religion can survive the loss of its sacred landscapes).

The Kwaio people do not worry about rising seas. They live in the mountains of Malaita, a large island in the Solomons. Kwaio villages sit in bush clearings, close to shrines adorned with ancient skulls. Despite the efforts of generations of missionaries, Kwaio still practice their ancestors’ religion.

Elsewhere in the Pacific, there are attempts to resurrect lost gods. On Tahiti, for example, Moana’ura Walker, a veteran anti-nuclear and pro-independence campaigner, has declared himself a pagan, and rebuilt an ancient temple in the forest outside Papeete, where large ceremonies are now held. For Walker and similar activists, North Sentinel is a symbol of a post-colonial future, not some sad remnant of the past.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now


Keep going!
Photo: Getty
Photo: Getty

SocietyDecember 4, 2018

Four different perspectives on reproductive rights

Photo: Getty
Photo: Getty

Ahead of Wednesday’s March for Reproductive Rights in Wellington, four people weigh in on why they’ll be supporting the march and what they hope to see from the national discussion around abortion rights.

ALRANZ supports Model A

by Terry Bellamak, national president of ALRANZ Abortion Rights Aotearoa

By now, most New Zealanders are familiar with the three options the Law Commission has presented to the Minister of Justice:

Model A: the pregnant person can consult a doctor for abortion care at any time
Model B: the pregnant person must get the legal approval of a doctor to receive abortion care
Model C: like Model A up to 22 weeks gestation, then like Model B

ALRANZ supports Model A. Most professional organisations, especially the ones that deal with abortion on a regular basis, agree with us. I’ll get to our reasons in a minute.

Many members of New Zealand’s political class prefer Model C. According to a recent article in the NZ Herald, it’s because MPs have ‘concerns’ about ‘abortions at a late stage of pregnancy’.

What are those concerns? Are they afraid the number of abortions at later gestations will increase? If so, there’s no evidence to support their fear that numbers would rise if there were no legal hoop to jump through. Canada has had no gestational limits on abortions for 30 years, and less than 1% of abortions there occur after 22 weeks, just like New Zealand.

Or are their concerns more like those of the Medical Association, which “believes there should still be a test for doctors to apply contained in health legislation.”

Why does the Medical Association believe women need the legal approval of an authority figure to decide on an abortion, more than they do to get married, take a job, emigrate to another country, or get divorced? Even though women in other countries have been deciding to receive abortion care without let or hindrance for yonks?

Photo: Getty images

The Justice Minister also prefers Model C, saying “given the likely viability of the foetus there are public policy considerations that come into it that I think a GP should be held to when they are giving advice.”

Parsing a politician’s utterances is sometimes dicey, but it looks like he’s saying women can’t be trusted not to request abortions later in pregnancy in situations where the doctor would be required to put a check on their wishes and deny their abortion in the interest of public policy. It implies women are likely to delay requesting abortions for reasons that are morally indefensible.

Why do these paternalistic myths about later gestations, and women’s intellectual and moral inferiority persist? It’s because our culture still carries old, false messages about how women are delicate, indecisive, child-like, and need to be governed in their own best interest.

Squeamishness about women making important decisions that primarily concern themselves, shows a complete lack of trust in women and pregnant people as fully autonomous human beings. It’s sexist.

ALRANZ likes Model A because we trust women and pregnant people to decide for themselves. No one, not even a doctor, MP or any other authority figure, understands a pregnant person’s circumstances better or has a right to require them to carry a pregnancy to term.

We trust women and pregnant people because we know them. They’re our sisters, our friends, ourselves. We understand that people seek abortions at later gestations because their wanted pregnancies went tragically wrong. We recognise the cultural narrative of a woman popping off to get an abortion on a whim at a late stage for morally indefensible reasons for the ridiculous lie it is.

This year New Zealand celebrated an anniversary: 125 years since it recognised women’s right to vote and the first country in the world to do so. Yet we’re openly discussing continuing to treat women and pregnant people like children when it comes to abortion. We’re better than this.

Model A recognises the reality that women and pregnant people are capable adults who have a right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies. ALRANZ supports Model A. If you agree, let your MP and your party know.

An Intersex Perspective on Reproductive Rights

by Kī Foster

It’s often assumed that intersex and transgender people have no reason to be invested in reproductive rights. This couldn’t be more false. Some of us, like me, are able to conceive but don’t want to. Lack of access to abortion is compounded by lack of access to affordable, accessible endocrinology and gynaecology which understands our specific hormonal and physiological needs. The last birth control I was prescribed messed up my hormones dangerously in a way my doctor couldn’t explain. We still haven’t found a replacement.

Some of us worry about losing our fertility. For intersex people, sometimes functioning gonads are removed without our consent or awareness when we’re infants. Any ambiguity or inconsistency in our genitals or reproductive organs is manipulated to fit a standard heterosexual model, based on a guess of what gender we might turn out to be. By the time we know what we’ve lost, it’s too late. For many trans people, the road to hormones or affirmative surgery doesn’t involve enough information about how our options may affect our future fertility.

Instead, we often face scaremongering from anti-trans lobbyists, medical professionals and our families alike about us throwing our fertility away, when our access to life-saving care should be their first priority.

The main barriers to better trans and intersex reproductive outcomes come from a lack of choice and knowledge. Socially, the hoops we have to jump through to be recognised as who we are can force us to make changes that we may not be fully comfortable with. Medically, the professionals who are meant to be guiding and treating us often fly blind. They sometimes know less than we do. We have no choice but to leave immensely personal care in the hands of people who may not even know how to be respectful or sensitive.

A teenage trans girl shouldn’t feel she has to let several people handle her testicles while talking about “him” and “the young male” in order to gain access to hormone blockers. If I wasn’t a sex worker with access to NZPC’s sexual health clinic, I probably wouldn’t have caught the genital pre-cancer I had at 21 in time, because GPs tend to be too curious for me to willingly get into stirrups for them.

This isn’t good enough, and we need to say so. We need to call for better practitioner education on intersex conditions and issues. We need to keep our DHBs up to date with international best practice on transgender treatment. We need to support the proposed amendments to the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which remove mentions of “physical conformation”, “sexual reassignment” or “medical evidence” from the process of changing legal sex. We need to fund sexual health clinics with compassionate, trauma and gender-educated staff so that they don’t have to send away people who might not be able to receive that care anywhere else.

We need to support trans men who make the choice to bear children, and affirm trans women by making it clear that the presence of a functional uterus isn’t proof of womanhood, nor required to be a woman.

We still fight for reproductive rights because of misogyny. If anything, this makes it even more important to consider trans and intersex voices in this struggle. Women’s health and wellbeing is neglected under the same system which silences and erases intersex and trans people. None of us are biologically impossible, inferior or incomplete. None of us deserve anything short of a happy, healthy sex and family life free from coercion, medical or otherwise.

This push for reproductive rights calls for the informed consent model to be adopted for everyone. We all deserve to know what is and could be happening to our bodies. We all deserve to be able to decide what we want to do with that knowledge.

We’ve put up with the current state of affairs for an embarrassingly long time. Now it’s time for us to step forward, together, into a brighter future.

From reproductive rights to reproductive justice

by Sue Bradford, beneficiaries’ rights activist and former Green MP

With the possibility of major abortion law reform on the close horizon for the first time in forty years, this is a useful moment to consider reproductive choice in a broader way than has been usual in New Zealand debates on these issues.

As a mother of five who spent some years on the DPB after my first two babies were born, and as a longterm activist in unemployed workers’ and beneficiaries’ organisations, I’ve been acutely conscious of ways in which the state —through laws, policies and practices — interfere with the choice to have children, as much as it does with the choice of whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy.

In recent years there have been two gross examples of this.  One is the clause in the Social Security Act which deducts $22 to $28 a week from beneficiary sole parents who have not identified their child’s father, almost always for the most sensitive of reasons.  In some families this applies to more than one child. While this may not seem like a lot of money to people on high incomes, for those who are struggling to provide even the basics of life, every dollar counts. A disproportionately high number of those affected are Māori.

Handmaid’s protestors outside Parliament. Photo: Emily Writes.

I was a Green MP when Labour extended the penalties against this group of beneficiaries in 2004.  As I asked in Parliament then ‘Would all those people who support this … also support the state advising mothers to have abortions if they are not willing, or able, to name the father of their child?’ That seemed to me then, as it does now, the logical extension of this policy.

Things got even worse when National brought in new guidelines on the back of the Welfare Working Group report in 2011, in which Work and Income was to encourage women on benefits, and their daughters of reproductive age, to use long-acting (five year) contraceptive implants.

Fortunately, Labour has recently rescinded this instruction, but the stain remains as a reminder that even in this country we have governments who don’t shy away from openly eugenic policies when it comes to reproductive choice by people deemed as less worthy than others.

Behind policies and practices like these stands a long history of political parties who deliberately vilify beneficiaries in a bid for votes.  One of the strongest strands of this vilification is the underlying assumption that if you’re poor, single, brown, unemployed, or on a benefit for reasons like impairment, you shouldn’t even consider bringing a child into the world – that somehow it’s morally better not to have that child.  

To me, this is just as reprehensible as the belief that people should be denied access to safe birth control and abortion. Each and every baby we have should be valued in their own right. Every mother and parent should be supported and respected for the huge job they take on in bearing and raising children, including the choice they may make to have a baby rather than prevent its birth.

One of the worst impacts of all this is the internalisation of societal finger pointing and shame by people who face a choice about whether to keep a baby or not.  Carrying the load of victim blaming internally – or being the recipient of partner violence and abuse in regards to reproduction – are two of the ugliest ways in which people are affected by wider societal and political views on how much reproductive choice the most dispossessed and vulnerable really have.

There are many more aspects to this discussion, but the starting point is that when we talk about reproductive choice, we also need to consider reproductive justice.

Photo: Getty

Decriminalisation and removing stigma

By Dame Catherine Healy, sex workers’ rights activist

In Aotearoa, we have come some way towards improving the legislative response to sex workers. We’ve created a rights-based framework which has enabled sex workers to have more control over what we choose to do in the context of our work.

The process of decriminalisation involved heated debates, often with those who were least affected, if at all, by the day-to-day experience of living and working as a sex worker in a criminalised context. It is apparent the same forces are at work in discussions around sexual and reproductive health rights. I believe that opponents of abortion are very often far removed from the reality of people who most need access to abortion.

These opponents fuel the stigma against abortion, just as opponents of sex worker rights do. Stigma causes harm because it creates situations where people are unable to seek help. Sex workers are quick to sense negative attitudes towards them. Sometimes we’re made to feel ashamed of our choices, and our confidence is undermined.

As with sex work, there should be no stigma about abortion for any reason.

The current law supports a hierarchy in the abortion debate, whereby it’s necessary for people to cite “serious danger to mental or physical health,” to have an abortion.  There are reasons for having an abortion that may have reduced stigma, such as being a rape survivor. There are likewise more “acceptable” ways of being a sex worker – street-based sex work has significantly more stigma than indoor sex work.

These hierarchies are damaging because it makes some people and their choices less acceptable than others. But everyone should be equally supported.

I needed an abortion as a much younger woman in the 1970s. I had to fly to Sydney. I have no regrets. It wasn’t traumatic. As Jackie Edmond, CEO of Family Planning says, “There’ll always be unplanned pregnancies. There’s contraceptive failure and the human factor. We don’t always make the right decisions at the right times. That’s just what being human is.”


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now