4 ms·
American expansion was "bad news" for the continent's bison. But that was a net positive for the nation in the long run, as it allowed the US to become a more s
by drak0n1c 8y ago
American expansion was "bad news" for the continent's bison. But that was a net positive for the nation in the long run, as it allowed the US to become a more self-sufficient country. Developing countries shouldn't be discouraged from doing the same by aesthetes in the west who have already built their industry and infrastructure.
- ebbv 8y agoNearly wiping out the bison was not a prerequisite to the US becoming self sufficient. Nor is destroying their natural areas a prerequisite for developing nations. Additionally you’re presenting a false dichotomy of either we hold back developing nations or we say goodbye to nature. That’s ridiculous. We can help them to grow and become modern and raise their quality of life while preserving their precious natural areas.
- firefoxd 8y agoSerious question. Is there any precedent? Where a people developed without harming their surrounding.
- oh_sigh 8y agoConnecting the coasts via trains would not have been possible with the millions of bison that used to inhabit the west. Either because of the bison directly destroying track, or interaction with the Natives who hunted the bison and were hostile towards Americans.
- gliboc 8y agoDamn bisons destroying our fine tracks and bringing Indians with them; let's wipe out their species!
- oh_sigh 8y agoI don't know what point you think I'm arguing, but I am saying what happened historically. The US would have had a much harder time maintaining their gains from the Mexican-US war less than 20 years earlier(and may have ultimately lost California et al back to Mexico) if they were not able to connect the west coast to the east via rail.
- mitchty 8y agoAs someone that has a godfather that has an actual Bison ranch, Bison are definitely still here thankfully, and are simultaneously awe inspiring and fear inducing. That part of Dances with Wolves where they leave a trail is not inaccurate. And Bison will graze on areas that to be blunt, are practially useless for anything else but digging up dinosaur bones. The only thing we need to do is get out of their way. And you can even cull them sustainably, just find the ones that are on their way out and use them for food. But I know nothing about palm oil, I presume there should be some way to treat it like paper where we can leave the simians alone and farm our own. Also, don't try to pet a Bison, even in national parks. They're like moose level scary if they see you as a threat. I don't get why people think wild animals like you petting them. I saw a buffalo wreck a F-250, they are not pets.
- yardie 8y agoThe US didn’t become prosperous because of genocide. It became prosperous in spite of it.
- maxxxxx 8y agoHow do you know? It seems good business to enter an area, kill the natives and claim the land as yours. It's not moral though.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoYou can acquire land without killing inhabitants, and people are resources. Let’s say the US was going to annex Canada, would it be good business to kill all the Canadians first, or to take them along with the land?
- maxxxxx 8y agoFor the invaders there is certainly more money in wiping out the inhabitants. It's like moving pollution to other countries is very profitable for the business owner. Please note: I am not advocating these practices.
- jcranmer 8y agoThroughout history, the countries that rose to displace the old powerhouses did not do so by emulating the old countries' ways. Rather, they found new mechanisms to do what they needed to do. For example, the British did not adopt the Spanish encomienda system when they colonized the Americas or the East Indies. Insisting that developing countries have to repeat the mistakes of developed countries to develop ignores the fact that finding ways to avoid those mistakes is one of the main ways that countries developed.