I'm enjoying the show tremendously, but was a bit disturbed by Mark's display of moral relativism with regard to the fate of Jose's newborn son. Do we really wish to witness a murder and do nothing? It seems like he took the idea of the "noble sauvage" to the extreme. I understand having respect for other cultures, but isn't there a limit at some point? I lost respect for Mark.

I sort of agree, but the alternative stinks suspiciously of colonialism - and we all know how well THAT's worked over the centuries.

I guess if had come to it and they had made the choice to "save" the baby, then they would have had to also accept responsibility for his upbringing.

Nothing is simple - not even life vs. death.

Hi Willy

I think you can well imagine the dilemma facing not just Olly and I but the entire crew. Barely a fraction of the discussions that ensued could be squeezed into a single show and for the purposes of covering the dilemma properly Olly and I tried to take slightly opposing standpoints in front of the camera. You have to remember that the 8 hours of TV distilled from 3 months of living cannot possibly give 100% of the actuality. Thanks for watching. M

Moral relativism? Try ethnocentrism.

You can't impose your own ways of thinking on another culture. Trying to save the baby would have shown no respect for their way of life and may have even created a dangerous situation.

I'm with Anthronerd on this one. You shouldn't impose our western ideology onto other cultures. They'll be drinking coke and using plastics before you know it! I hope you enjoyed the specialness there.

As a teacher of culture and geography, I actually had this discussion with my students after they watched this episode. We cannot impose OUR moral beliefs upon another culture, in the same way we do not want them to do the same. The ywere in a Machigenga village and must be a part of their culture, not the other way around. If an old fashioned Saudi man moved into you neighborhood, would it be alright for him to enforce that all of the women wear hijab when in the streets? Of course not! Ethnocentricity has been at the root of most of history's conflicts.

I used this show as a way to teach my students that ethnocentrism is a two-way street. The Machigenga were ethnocentric of the European culture and did not care to learn much of it for most of the show. As the show went on, we saw that not only did Mark and Olly better understand the ways of Korankorata, but the village better understood them. The Machigenga enjoyed Ollys tea a LOT!!!

Thanks for making my 170 students Mark and Olly addicts! I got so many calls and emails from parents about the fact that there children were switching from MTV to Travel Channel! I owe you guys!

Mr. Lambert
Blazer High School
Ashland, KY, USA

Let me see if I understand the argument against those of us who are ethnocentric. Do we have no right to pressure the government of Sudan to stop a genocide in Darfur, for fear of insulting cultural sensibilties? What other cultural practices do we tolerate? Child prostitution? Female genital mutilation? Slavery? Do you shake your fist in anger at Abraham Lincoln for interfering with the traditions of the southern US in the 1860s? I am awaiting an answer to this question; please don't dodge it.

geogteacherlambert, I'm especially disappointed in you since you are a teacher. I hope that you are not teaching your students this "when in Rome" mentality. Most of us consider the Roman practice of feeding Christians to lions as universally wrong, and would feel obliged to prevent it--I hope you do too, and I hope your students will. I encourage you to reopen the discussion with your students also from an ethical standpoint, not just an ethnic one.

ideaman420, it's hard to understand your disdain for Coke and plastic. I drink Coke almost every day. Do you disrespect these icons of my culture? It's hard to see what's wrong with giving the Machigenga a taste of Coca-Cola or a cup of English tea. I don't resent the Chinese restaurant down the street from me. Rather, I enjoy the food they make, and I'm glad they came. It's not wrong to share ideas between cultures--after all, we're all guilty of this for watching the show.

anthronerd, I agree about the potential for a dangerous situation. I would have behaved the same way as Mark, but only to save my own skin. However, I would recognize that I had weaseled out of my obligation to prevent a murder.

Mark, thanks for your answer. I sense that you also see the difficult line between ethocentricity and ethics, and I appreciate your candor.

Well, just one example you gave that I've studied, female circumcision (female genital mutilation is a term used to shock outsiders, you don't see us calling it male genital mutilation [although I do recognize the difference between removing foreskin and clitoris]) is being addressed in the following ways:

Education about the complications arising from the procedure and dispelling myths about how it makes girls "behave themselves" sexually.

Providing sterile environments if circumcision is desired, such as a hospital.

Female circumcision is actually becoming less widespread in some areas, and people are starting to see uncircumcised women as women instead of polluted objects. Honestly, if women want to be circumcised (and you have to realize many women do, they are not being forced in any way) you can't keep them from doing it, you can only provide medical staff, sterile equipment and pain medication.

Enslavement of African Americans was not a cultural norm until people began bringing them back from Africa. How long was that, a couple hundred years? Not that it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't a tradition carried for thousands of years that helped social cohesion. There's a difference between something that performs a function in your culture (even if those outside don't agree with it) and something that is just convenient (free labor and an excuse for discrimination).

Anthronerd, thanks for the interesting info. But I'm still looking for an answer to my ethical question about ethnocentricity. It sounds like you're saying this: if slavery is practiced for thousands of years and helps with social cohesion, then it is justified. So we have no right/responsibility to free slaves in other cultures? Had Harriet Tubman lived in ancient Rome instead of the Civil War U.S., should we consider her some sort of ethnocentric villain instead of a hero?

And what do you mean when you say female circumcision is being "addressed"? By "addressed", you make it sound like it's a problem we are working to solve. But doesn't "addressing" it mean that someone is wrongly imposing his cultural beliefs on those who practice it?