In reply to emily.

Emily, I apologize if you were truly offended by my observation, for I certainly did not intend to offend you. We may diverge on the historical perspective, because all the evidence I have seen suggests the conquistadors were serving God and Country, and were amply rewarded for their service with temporal wealth. This is the colonial model, after all, it is how it worked in North America, Africa, the far east, essentially, wherever Christian Europe evangelized and colonized. I'm not making a judgment about the method, only stating the facts as I know them.

I see in your comments that you do not believe you are here to change their 'belief system', by which I believe you mean their theology (because you reference Missionaries negatively), and you obviously believe that is substantially different from urging them to change in other ways (such as their sexual practices). What I see is that we all want them to change, only you believe their current religious practices to be sacrosanct and their health practices to be inferior. If you did not believe them to be so, I suspect you would not attempt to alter them.

This was my point, that in your own mind you are respecting that which you believe is already sufficient, and urging change where you believe it necessary. The missionaries believe their souls are more important than their temporal lives, and they take the opposite approach, viz., 'saving' them first, then addressing their physical needs.

Of course the Conquistadors conquered and enslaved the people and medical mission work is not the same, but I didn't say it was; I only pointed out that from the perspective of the indigenous people, we Caucasians have been arriving here for centuries with new ideas that often bring hidden or unseen dangers for locals, and that we are aware of these dangers but for reasons that we justify to ourselves, do not disclose them.

I don't think I questioned your honesty when writing these points, only the prudence of undertaking a contraceptive evangelism without fully disclosing the risks. There is little to lose by transparency, because all will remember your disclosure; if they discover later the adverse consequences of the drug and learn you did not tell them, then the risk is that subsequent volunteers will be viewed with even greater suspicion. If you really want to find 'independent women' here in future generations, I'm sure you want to fully form their consciences of all of the risks of the behavior changes you are advocating.

I did not imagine that my disagreement would be interpreted as disrespect, or that I should refrain from posting since we have yet to meet in person. My own philosophy is that people should be respected, but opinions should always be open to discussion. By posting publicly and enabling the option for visitors to comment, I assumed you welcomed comment, even if it might differ from your own opinions.

This is of course your blog, and if you find my posts offensive, you may delete them or request that I not return, and I will respect your wishes.

Regards,

Mark