29 November 2018 — 0756 mst
John Allen Chau violated the Prime Directive —
Was death the proper punishment for his transgression?
Captain Kirk probably would have left the Sentinelese alone. That was his duty under Star Fleet’s Prime Directive:
General Order 1. As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.
John Allen Chau, the young All Nations missionary who was killed by hostile heathens on North Sentinel Island in the Andamans, was operating under a different directive:
Our vision is to see Jesus worshiped by all the peoples of the earth.
Our mission is to make disciples and train leaders to ignite church planting movements among the neglected peoples of the earth.
All Nations aspires to see disciple making movements in every people group of the world so that Jesus may be worshipped by every tongue, tribe and nation.
Consumed with the zeal that attends loving God deeply, but not wisely, he flouted and bent laws intended to protect the Sentinelese from the consequences, such as disease, of contact with the outside world. For assuming that he knew best, and that God’s will as he understood it authorized his methods, Chou has been condemned and reviled as a selfish, vainglorious, man with a messiah complex who deserved to die, and to die as painfully as possible, for his arrogance.
Chou did seem to have a death wish. He survived his first encounter with the Sentinelese, who drove him off with arrows, but learned only that he might die if he returned to the island. Yet return he did, ending up dead, the inevitable consequence of subordinating common sense, the ability to learn from one’s actions and environment, the wisdom that God helps those who help themselves, to faith that because he was doing God’s work, God would protect him. He was not the first to make that mistake, and he won’t be the last.
He could have done the Sentinelese great harm — or great good. We’ll never know. I'm not religious, and I'm fully aware that proselytizing can injure those targeted for salvation — but not all missionaries are reckless, not all are evil, not all do more harm than good. John Allen Chau was not an evil man. His heart was filled with love, not hate. He approached the Sentinelese to give, not to take. But religious zealotry had turned his brain to mush. What he did was reckless and stupid, but in the end his actions harmed only himself.
By what principle did he deserve to die, to be executed summarily for stepping on a beach while waving a Bible and singing hymns? The notion that his murder amounted to rough justice troubles me. When nations such as North Korea imprison Americans, we demand that our citizens not be harmed and that they be released. We do not cheer their imprisonment and denounce their mission. Killing Chou was not the only option available to the Sentinelese, who could have detained him, then turned him over to India. Instead, they killed him — murdered him, in my opinion — buried him on the beach, and apparently will escape punishment for their barbarous conduct. Whether there is a punishment they would understand is another question, but if the answer is “yes,” that punishment should be administered. Chou’s murder should not be applauded as stand-your-ground self-defense.
The vehemence of Chou’s denunciations by his countrymen also troubles me. The soul chilling anger, the rage, directed at him is not, in my judgment, commensurate with his alleged sins. Some of the most vicious comments on social media come from retired education administrators, an occupation that attracts authoritarians. Perhaps they’re exercised by Chou’s flouting of laws: authoritarians fear and loath rule breakers.
Others may be overly protective of the Sentinelese, a savage but not noble people whose numbers are shrinking and may have shrunk to the extent that their extinction is inevitable without intervention from the outside world. Despite being unloveable, the islanders have human rights, rights that are being defended by India and non-governmental groups. Given the stakes, that defense is understandably strident, but in some cases may be more strident than it needs to be. And lest we forget, Chou also had human rights.
Ultimately, I suspect that people are so angry at Chou because he violated an unspoken directive all citizens abroad should heed: your conduct should make your country proud. He was worse than the ugly American. He was the bumbling, damn fool, spaced out on salvation, American; like Donald Trump, a laughingstock, a character who made Americans cringe. Sometimes, it’s harder to forgive a fool than a knave.