Deusdedit Ruhangariyo
ICT
Around the world: Report calls for respect for 196 uncontacted peoples across the world; Canadian armed forces apologize for decades of discrimination; and Victoria enacts legislation to empower First Peoples.
INTERNATIONAL: New report calls for respect for 196 uncontacted peoples
From the depths of Brazil’s Amazon to the jungles of Indonesia and the rainforests of India, an estimated 196 uncontacted Indigenous peoples or groups continue to live on their own terms, choosing silence over assimilation, autonomy over contact. A recent report by Survival International, “Uncontacted Peoples: At the Edge of Survival,” reveals both the remarkable endurance of these communities and the acute danger they now face.
A world map of hidden peoples
Although their exact locations and numbers remain guarded — often for their protection — the data shows a stark concentration of these groups in three major regions:
- South America (chiefly the Amazon Basin): Over 188 of the 196 known groups live here, with Brazil alone accounting for around 124. (news.mongabay.com)
- Asia (including India & the Andaman/Nicobar Islands): A handful of groups remain in voluntary isolation in the Bay of Bengal and forested zones of Southeast Asia. (en.wikipedia.org)
- Pacific Islands & Indonesia (Island forests): Small but critical clusters remain in Halmahera, West Papua and adjacent islands. (uncontactedpeoples.org)
In other words, though often described as “worldwide,” the known uncontacted peoples are currently documented on two to three continents — primarily South America, Asia and the Pacific.
Autonomy in a diminishing wilderness
These groups are defined by their deliberate choice of isolation: not simply “never contacted,” but refusing sustained contact with outsiders as a protective, cultural and spiritual act. (assets.survivalinternational.org) They live deep in territories that they guard and know intimately. Their lives remain largely invisible to the outer world — yet their survival is deeply entwined with global ecological, ethical and human-rights issues.
Threats unseen and urgent
The report warns that nearly half of these groups could vanish within a decade if they continue to face unchecked pressure. (apnews.com)
The key threats:
- Illegal logging across vast swathes of Amazon territory.
- Mining and agribusiness expansion, which fragment forests and expose uncontacted peoples to outsiders and diseases. (news.mongabay.com)
- Tourism, influencer incursions and missionary contact, often reckless, triggered by curiosity rather than consent. (nypost.com)
All of these pressures risk not only land loss, but also the introduction of illnesses to which these peoples have no immunity — echoing colonial tragedies of the past.
The right to refuse contact
Beyond the ecological and rights-based arguments lies a more profound moral issue: the right of a people to say no and to be respected for that refusal. For many uncontacted groups, isolation is not mere invisibility — it is sovereignty.
When global society treats them as subjects to be discovered, documented or “rescued,” it repeats a centuries-old pattern of intrusion. The choice to remain uncontacted demands our humility, not our curiosity.
Why the world should listen
These people, though small in number, hold vital lessons for our collective future:
- They are guardians of ecosystems that impact climate stability and biodiversity.
- Their refusal to be subsumed by modern society reminds us that development is not always progress.
- Their survival is a test of whether humanity can protect the most vulnerable, invisible communities within a technoscientific age.
In a world obsessed with connectivity, the survival of 196 uncontacted groups underscores a radical idea – sometimes, the greatest act of contact is non-contact. Let us listen to their silence so the rest of us might finally hear what we have failed to ask: Can progress respect refusal?
AUSTRALIA: Legislation grants greater power to First Peoples of Victoria
In a historically consequential move, the State of Victoria has advanced the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025, which seeks to formalize a new foundational relationship between the Victorian government and the First Peoples of Victoria. The bill recognizes the unique status of traditional owners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Victoria, their unceded connection to the land, and the enduring impact of colonization, Parliament of Victoria reported on October 31.
At its core, the legislation acknowledges that First Peoples in Victoria have an ancestral and irreplaceable contribution to the land, waters and culture of the state, and it expresses the state’s commitment to ensuring past injustices and ongoing disadvantages are addressed. It frames self-determination as an inherent right of First Peoples and embeds that principle into the governance architecture of the bill.
The bill establishes several key institutional mechanisms. Most notably, it creates an entity called Gellung Warl, designed to represent First Peoples collectively, hold decision-making powers, negotiate the statewide treaty with the state, and advise the government on matters affecting First Peoples.
Parallel to that, it formalizes a renewal of the role of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, with defined functions, powers, membership and rule-making capacity.
The objects and principles of the act include giving effect to the first Statewide Treaty, establishing ongoing treaty-making foundations between Gellung Warl and the state, advancing the inherent rights of First Peoples, and addressing the unacceptable disadvantage resulting from colonization.
The bill also emphasizes that Statewide Treaty-making imposes mutual obligations on both parties — the state and Gellung Warl — to ensure cooperative arrangements that incorporate First Peoples into the democratic and political fabric of Victoria.
Another significant aspect of the bill is truth-telling and healing. The act builds on the earlier Yoorrook Justice Commission report and acknowledges that enduring outcomes for First Peoples require recognition of historical wrongs and structural disadvantage. The bill explicitly links treaty-making with this healing process and frames it as necessary for a more just and prosperous future.
Commencement provisions show that certain parts of the legislation take effect immediately upon royal assent, and the remainder will commence from May 1, 2026 — giving time for institutions to be set up and systems to be aligned.
The transitional provisions are also noteworthy. For example, they detail how the Gellung Warl electoral roll will be formed, how transitional elections will be held, and how property, rights and liabilities will vest under the bill. These elements underscore that the bill does more than symbolically recognize First Peoples — it transfers decision-making, rule-making and governance powers in a tangible manner.
By amending multiple existing acts — including those relating to Aboriginal heritage, public administration, and data transparency — the bill ensures cohesive integration of treaty-making into Victoria’s legal framework.
At its heart, this legislation marks a turning point: It is the first time a mainland Australian state has legislated a statewide treaty structure embedding Indigenous self-determination into the legal foundation of the state.
In sum, the Statewide Treaty Bill 2025 offers a formal lens through which Victoria commits to shifting from a legacy of injustice and exclusion toward one of partnership, power-sharing and accountability. It marks the beginning of a new era — one where the First Peoples of Victoria move from recognition to meaningful governance and collaboration, shaping the future of the land and the state together.
CANADA: Armed forces apologize for decades of discrimination
The Canadian Armed Forces issued a landmark apology on October 31, acknowledging decades of racial discrimination and harassment faced by Indigenous, Black, Asian, and other racialized service members, CBC News reported on October 31.
The apology, delivered in Ottawa by General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Chief Warrant Officer Bob McCann, was not just an act of contrition but a public reckoning with the institution’s own conscience.
“For way too long First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Black, Asian, and other racialized members of the (Canadian Armed Forces) faced systemic barriers that limited their ability to serve, contribute and thrive as equal members,” said Carignan. “We failed you. … We didn’t create an environment where you could serve your country with pride and determination. I’m sorry for the silence, the indifference, and that this went on for years.”
The statement, carried by CBC News, reflected a rare acknowledgment of moral injury within a national institution known for its discipline and patriotism. Carignan vowed that the Canadian Armed Forces would now focus on eliminating systemic barriers, confronting biases at every level, and embedding awareness of racism into recruitment and training. “Racism has no place in the CAF,” she declared, “and it has no place in our future.”
Chief Warrant Officer McCann added a poignant truth: “You gave your best to this institution. You gave your best to this country. You deserved far better than what you received.”
Retired members echoed both pain and resolve. Wendy Jocko, a retired sergeant and former chief of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, reminded the audience that an apology must become transformation. “We do not seek empty promises or hollow gestures,” she said. “We seek deep, lasting, and meaningful change.” Her own family history — a lineage of Indigenous service dating back to the War of 1812 — embodied the contradiction of loyalty and exclusion.
Other veterans, including retired captain Kevin Junor and lieutenant-commander Albert Wong, spoke about the psychological weight of serving a country that often failed to serve them back. “Racism in Canada is not a glitch in the system,” Junor quoted, “it is the system.” Wong said the apology gives hope that “the scars from racism endured by this remarkable group of warriors will no longer be invisible.”
The ceremony concluded with a moral pledge: this time, the Canadian Armed Forces’s words must become infrastructure — training, accountability, education, and justice. The Department of National Defense will conduct continuing consultations and programs to ensure the apology becomes a permanent shift in military culture.
In this moment, Canada’s conscience saluted its forgotten soldiers. Healing began not with medals, but with acknowledgment.
My final thoughts
My final thoughts are with the 196 uncontacted Indigenous groups around the world whose intentions the world misses. When the global press prints “196 uncontacted Indigenous groups,” what often disappears from the story is not just the number, but the message. We focus on the forests, the mine-roads, and the logging companies. But we forget to ask: Why did these people withdraw? And what are they protecting by doing so?
In that omission lies the missed pivot. They withdraw not from the world, but from the violence of the world. Their legacy invites us to reflect — not only on the habitats they inhabit, but on the ethics that we abandon in our rush to contact, map, mine, monetize.
For these communities, silence is not absence; it is autonomy. Their refusal galvanizes a broader question: Can a world built on open data, on connectivity and sharing, protect people who choose to keep themselves closed?
Our modern systems celebrate inclusion — everyone plugged in, everyone counted. Yet these groups show that exclusion is sometimes the highest form of inclusion: a decision to resist assimilation in order to preserve integrity, culture, language and unseen ways of being.
And when modern society values access and infrastructure above agency and authorship, we invert the moral order. The world rushes to build gridlines, broadband cables, extract value, but forgets to build the moral gridlines – legal frameworks, consent protocols, restitution mechanisms, and the right to remain uncontacted.
It’s not only that their lands must be protected; their silence must be honored. We need to build protective walls, not just pipelines.
Because if we define progress by contact, then for those who refuse it we define only their disappearance.
The ethical test for our era is this: Can civilization create systems that respect, without penetrating, the lives of those who choose to refuse contact?
If not, we don’t protect civilization, we erode it.