Identity loss and suicide rates in Maoris

I agree that there are possible personality considerations at work. Its just that there seems to be a trend among indigenous peoples [especially in postcolonial European style societies] with opportunities for welfare and assimilation, to demonstrate higher suicide rates. Do they also demonstrate higher suicide rates in these other categories? I don't think anyone has looked at it. The dwindling population is also intriguing because usually, under threat, population numbers go up, not down.

But the trend is similar in indigenous peoples of Canada, US and Australia, for example and I wonder at the external/internal factors which drive these statistics

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats cart before the horse. You don't approach a dataset with a conclusion in hand.

Well here is a hint. There is no such thing as "Hindu Philosophy"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SAM, I know this thread is about the Maoris, but hasn't similar studies been done in India and some of the various populations?
I recall a article a few years ago about how Indian farmers were committing suicide in astounding numbers. Were they some isolated groups?
What about other Indian populations? I mean, according to you, India is a immensely diverse nation, so I would think that some studies about cultural identity would have been done in the past. Does suicide come into play at all?

Baron Max

 

There are no instances I know of where a particular tribe has opted for suicide, the farmers in India were committing suicide for the same reason this one in the US did.

What would be interesting is to look into reasons why some people feel depressed and suicidal after watching Avatar. Or why people feel suicidal when their society starts breaking down [as in the former Soviet Union]

I'm not sure how a paradigm shift is an analytical tool, since scientifically its a process. I'm also not sure how stating the Maori reaction to occupation is due to a paradigm shift is not a conclusion.

As for Hindu philosophy, Indians are very much like the Maoris and Australian aboriginals in their belief systems.

From wiki:

iow, the paradigm shift was not the Maoris or the Indians' or the Aborigines' : I think all of them understood very clearly what occupation means - being stripped of their self determination. The paradigm shift was the occupiers and they never did anything beyond scratching the surface of what was a much superior philosophy of life [one where deeds and not material scraps of paper were a measure of worth]

So they merely put it in a box and stuffed it in a corner and tried to explain their indifference to other thought processes as some -ism which was inferior to their own.

In India, they called the box, Hinduism. In other places, I'm not sure they even bothered to assign it a name. The mindset difference alone is one reason why I do not think western psychologists are capable of analysing the problems of indigenous populations in occupied territories. They have no idea what they are dealing with.

 

Perhaps when it comes to misplaced keys or socks, but I doubt it the same goes for issues of identity.

The situation seems somewhat similar to the situation in Japan as it began to become westernized, to the Native Americans after the colonization, and the seculariozation/modernization of many primitive tribes.

What has always puzzled me about these, and what they have in common, is that they gave in to the westernization/colonization while yearing for a "glorious past" and becoming self-destructive (the post-colonization alcoholism in the Native Americans can be blamed on their genetic susceptibility - or not).

How come that an old culture like the Japanese one gave in to the pressure of westernization, becoming a mockery of what it used to be?
How come that the noble tribal Native American warriors became shadows of themselves once placed in the context of the Western culture?
And so on.

My guess is that these old cultures simply are not good enough, not strong enough, not philosophically sound enough to withstand the pressure of colonization.
The lacks of these cultures are then experienced on the level of the individuals, who have a tendency to become self-destructive. This self-destruction can take on many forms, such as drug abuse, suicide, risky behavior, promiscuity, procrastination ...


When cultures mix, it seems it comes down to three options: lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If you're not strong enough to lead, if you're not convinced enough to follow others, and if you don't want to get out of the way, then you're in trouble.

 

Ah yes!!! YES!! I knew there was something I was forgetting!! Japan has the same trends!!!!! Thank you.

Now to the rest of your post....

 

It seems that you are trying to explain this in purely sociological/psychological terms. As if all cultures/societies were equal and their specifics and differences are merely superficial - as if it wouldn't matter whether they are monotheists or not, for example.

 

Actually, its the other way around. I think it does matter if they are monotheists. I do not think societies based on the principle of dharma will be the same as ones based on the principle of karma.

 

You're a Muslim. You believe in God. You are happy in your belief in God.
It's my guess that identifying yourself as a Mumbaikar is actually superficial/secondary to your actual sense of identity.

 

No, those are mutually exclusive portions of my identity. I identify first as a person in my own right, my religion is something I test and question, its a belief system, my identity as a Mumbaikar is not something I need to think about.

I think being self destructive is a sign of persistence. ie they cannot let go. Its actually a sign of the strength of that culture. Not a weakness. If I am making any sense.

 

That, and Western psychologists are atheistic.
Moreover, value judgments over which culture is superior to another are only borderline scientific.

So far, you hadn't brought up the issue of monotheism (unless I missed it).

Karma-centred doctrines (my lay guess is that the Maori is such a doctrine), in their various forms, are liable to be more vulnerable and less resistant to external pressure than those who center on God.

 

Hmm, imo, Maori mana is like Santana Dharma, duty conferred by power of a formless nameless authority.

I see monotheism as more karmic, in that there is accountability and notions of every atom of good and bad being recompensed at some point.

So in my way of thinking, suicidal tendencies in the Japanese [for instance] reflect a severance from this dharmic bond. For the Muslim, its not an issue because forgiveness/compensation is possible.

Remember you have to be born a Hindu/Japanese/Maori but you can become a Muslim.

 

Why mutually exclusive?
You are in a female body, this is not mutually exclusive to being a soul.

I think understand what you mean.
But what I mean by "weakness of a culture" is that it is unable to overcome external/foreign pressures. Of course the members of a culture will fight against the pressure, in one way or another. They may get together, arm themselves and attack the foreigners by force, or they may protest, write petitions to the government, study their own culture more precisely (especially the sacred writings), or pull back and become depressed and suicidal.

 

The oak and the reed. Its much easier for one to change their belief systems, to adopt a new identity and to shed an old one. Its much harder for the other.

So whether it can continue to stand depends on how deep it is rooted and how strong is the wind.

 

"Duty conferred by power of a formless nameless authority"? Then that is the problem, the weak spot.
How can nameless, formless authorities confer duties to anyone? The closest I can think of is being visited by a ghost, getting spooked, and thinking there is some kind of obligation folowing from all this for you. Not a very reliable and sane way to go about thinking about your duties ...

 

It is definitely about identity. It's why there are so many ethnic gangs.

What impressed me as a youngster, and I didn't consider I had any special vantage point, was how the natives seemed to be more culturally aware than my European compatriots.

They only have to get together and soon there's a bit of culture happening spontaneously. This is one big difference, Europeans are much more reserved about breaking into song (they need more alcohol usually), whereas singing and dancing are natural cultural means of socialising for Polynesian people in general. The education system prefers organised culture, whereas Maori culture is organised when Maori get together, in a natural spontaneous way.

The historical facts are that their culture was suppressed actively for centuries, more successfully as Europeans got more numerous and more organised.

More than a handful of explorers ended up going native and living tribally, adopting Maori names, dancing with what passed for wolves, etc.
There were strictures made by missionary churches, about the dangers of being too familiar with the natives and their culture. However, some that did get more familiar than the mission statement allowed, provided some of the best early accounts of European-Maori contact, and how they lived.

 

When its a duty, there is an obligation to fulfill it. When its a choice, you can tweak the options based on whats more advantageous at the moment.

Its why the caste system is so entrenched in India. Even the Dalits are reluctant to go against their perceived duty.

On the other hand, you can't be excommunicated from Islam, because no one else can decide for you what it is. And the clergy have no authority to do so.

The flexibility has advantages and disadvantages, its easier to be morally bankrupt when you don't recognise your obligations as duties. Or when you have the freedom to change them. Or interpret them

Yes, but what does that mean?