5 ms·

Why is it good to restore the tribes' way of life rather than have them catch up and adapt?

by personjerry 3y ago

voisin 3y ago
“Catch up and adapt” has some serious colonialist connotations. This isn’t an objective statement.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Imagine if we applied the same logic to white people when projects like rural electrification bills were debated.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Shitty logic, this tribe have electricity and want to restore the health of their river. Removing this dam is progress. They aren't being held back, they're moving forward. Complaining about this is idiotic. Do you people like dead rivers? Dead rivers are supposed to be something people accept and move on from, instead of problems to be fixed? What the hell.
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      My response was about the logic of "help catch up and adapt" is a colonialist dogwhistle, not about the specifics of what was being argued.
- ip26 3y ago
  Tribesmen are also U.S. citizens, which means the federal government has as much responsibility for their welfare as yours. Which makes it a question worth thinking about. What is best for their welfare? I certainly don't know, but it doesn't seem disingenuous and baldly colonialist to wonder if "restoring their way of life" is automatically the most desirable. It might be traditional, but maybe it also props up old power structures and perpetuates low standards of living. I'm stepping into a minefield, I'm sure.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    What's best for their welfare? Just ask them...
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Removing the dam is best for their welfare and the welfare of the river ecosystem, that's why they've fought for it. Or do you think you know better than them?
    - ip26 3y ago
      The only thing I think I know is not to blindly trust powerful voices advocating for a return to traditional values; they aren’t always acting in the best interests of the group. I favor the dam removal and I hope the fish recover. But I still find your straight-line thinking unsettling.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        > The only thing I think I know is not to blindly trust powerful voices advocating for a return to traditional values; Stop being disingenuous, they're trying to save a river ecosystem, not legalize wife beating.
      - jeromegv 3y ago
        Of everything read in this thread, this is really what you find unsettling? Not the anti-indigenous claims that have been repeated for hundreds of years, how we know better than them, being repeated here again?
  - OJFord 3y ago
    > the federal [US] government has as much responsibility for their welfare as yours [any other US citizen's]. You could argue that is colonialist though. It's a sailed ship obviously, but it is essentially the same as my (British) ancestors going to India and 'improving' her with tea plantations and railways, 'civilising' her, etc., isn't it?
    - 3y ago
- thriftwy 3y ago
  European newcomers also catch up and adapt all the time. It's not like they're living the way they did in 1910s or 1960s. It's disingenous to suggest that indigenous tribes should have some fixed set of behaviors. They have their culture, but cultures evolve and it would be weird if you forced them to have the averaged lifestyle of their tribe (but possibly the one none of their own ancestors had) and speak "their" language, in an averaged dialect that none of their actual ancestors spoke.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's disingenuous to suggest that if the tribe tries to restore a river ecosystem that some other party is trying to force a lifestyle on them.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I do not disagree with that. No reasons to have old, deteriorating, ecologically questionable dams around.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deviantbit 3y ago
  It is an objective statement. In fact it is empirical. Those that are left behind die. How can it be anymore objective?
  - dwemthy 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bumby 3y ago
    There is obviously a subjective value statement implying one way of life is preferential to another. It’s like when people say those in rural areas need to just move into cities because the economy of scale and “modern” jobs. Also, “those left behind die” is a bit of a strawman. I don’t think anyone is saying they need to revert to stone-age societies, or give up modern medicine, etc. And I’m the end, we all die so it really comes down to living the life one wants to live.
    - deviantbit 3y ago
      This is ridiculous. Those that adopted the gun annihilated those that didn't. No one cares about the losers way of life.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Well, there’s a lot of criticisms of the “guns, germs, and steel” hypothesis. Many of the sources used feel like it’s an oversimplification, which you seem to simplify even further. Society is complex and deserves some more nuance than you give it. A might is right ideology misses an awful lot in terms of what humans value.
sandworm101 3y ago
This would be the restoration of some aspects of the old way of life. Nobody really wants to go back to the old ways, living cold and hunting with wooden weapons. This is about the restoration of some older cycles, not an abandonment of the modern world.
burkaman 3y ago
Because letting people do what they want is usually better than "having them" do something.
jrflowers 3y ago
I am glad you asked that here on Hacker News. To begin with you pose an intere
deviantbit 3y ago
Exactly. It is time to evolve. Move forward.
dkural 3y ago
Dam removal is practiced across the world to bring rivers back to life. This happens in England as well. It prevents the accumulation of agricultural runoff, and increases fish habitat. This is an environmental project that benefits everyone except the few people who had "lakeside" property on the artificial dam reservoir.
chkaloon 3y ago
You'll probably get a bunch of responses about colonization, but it is a good question. In Alaska it is even more of an issue. There are lots of hidden costs related to AK Natives and others living in remote villages accessible only by plane or snowmachine, such as state and federal subsidies for airports, etc. Try googling "Alaska bypass mail" and go down that rabbit hole. There may be good reasons for all that cost, such as letting Alaska natives keep some heritage, keeping sovereign claim over remote lands, etc., but it does deserve a conversation about what it is costing to have them out there versus living on the road system at least. I think it's one of those "let sleeping dogs lie" sort of thing.
sinkasapa 3y ago
I think there is often a bias that when one hears "tribe" they assume that someone is living as a stone age hunter gatherer. This is not the case. There are a lot of people who live within social organizational structures that are referred to as tribes but who live in Los Angeles, are crypto-bros or one's doctor. That members of tribes are part of what we call "modern" society is not to say that they do not have traditions. Everyone has traditions. One only needs to travel a very small amount to realize that they do not live outside of culture. They realize this because they can see that other peoples' cultures are different than what they are used to. One's entire notion of being "nontraditional" may be demonstrably drawn from their own particular cultural traditions. In general, most people I know, all else being equal, feel like people having traditions that they may choose to celebrate without restriction is mostly positive. Like, telling kids from the a quasi-Christian European tradition that they can't have Christmas anymore seems wrong. If the kids complain, it seems weird to say "catch up and adapt". Ok, so in this the case of the article there is a river. So there is a natural resource involved. At some point there were some people living along a river and then other people came in and imposed something on them that was supposedly for the good of society. What is good for society isn't always about the maximum amount of electricity one can produce. Sometimes it is about compassion. Being a more compassionate society seems like a more important goal to me than being the society with the highest energy output, not that energy isn't very very important. Indigenous people often, though not always, feel that changes to their life ways were foisted on them. There are changes that they like (chocolate ice cream) and there are changes they feel it was unfair or cruel to have to make (not being able to speak their own language even at home). Just like a Christian, Italian or Bostonian might have their idiosyncratic ways of doing things that make them feel connected to their family and community, indigenous people do too. That does not make them primitive. It seems reasonable and kinder if a society cares about these traditions and is not dismissive of them. It makes sense that when society decides whether it is good or bad to have a damn that it is not just a question of electrical output but compassion to the people affected.

Why is it good to restore the tribes' way of life rather than have them catch up and adapt?

voisin 3y ago

“Catch up and adapt” has some serious colonialist connotations. This isn’t an objective statement.

oh_sigh 3y ago
Imagine if we applied the same logic to white people when projects like rural electrification bills were debated.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Shitty logic, this tribe have electricity and want to restore the health of their river. Removing this dam is progress. They aren't being held back, they're moving forward. Complaining about this is idiotic. Do you people like dead rivers? Dead rivers are supposed to be something people accept and move on from, instead of problems to be fixed? What the hell.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    My response was about the logic of "help catch up and adapt" is a colonialist dogwhistle, not about the specifics of what was being argued.
ip26 3y ago
Tribesmen are also U.S. citizens, which means the federal government has as much responsibility for their welfare as yours. Which makes it a question worth thinking about. What is best for their welfare? I certainly don't know, but it doesn't seem disingenuous and baldly colonialist to wonder if "restoring their way of life" is automatically the most desirable. It might be traditional, but maybe it also props up old power structures and perpetuates low standards of living. I'm stepping into a minefield, I'm sure.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  What's best for their welfare? Just ask them...
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Removing the dam is best for their welfare and the welfare of the river ecosystem, that's why they've fought for it. Or do you think you know better than them?
  - ip26 3y ago
    The only thing I think I know is not to blindly trust powerful voices advocating for a return to traditional values; they aren’t always acting in the best interests of the group. I favor the dam removal and I hope the fish recover. But I still find your straight-line thinking unsettling.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > The only thing I think I know is not to blindly trust powerful voices advocating for a return to traditional values; Stop being disingenuous, they're trying to save a river ecosystem, not legalize wife beating.
    - jeromegv 3y ago
      Of everything read in this thread, this is really what you find unsettling? Not the anti-indigenous claims that have been repeated for hundreds of years, how we know better than them, being repeated here again?
- OJFord 3y ago
  > the federal [US] government has as much responsibility for their welfare as yours [any other US citizen's]. You could argue that is colonialist though. It's a sailed ship obviously, but it is essentially the same as my (British) ancestors going to India and 'improving' her with tea plantations and railways, 'civilising' her, etc., isn't it?
  - 3y ago
thriftwy 3y ago
European newcomers also catch up and adapt all the time. It's not like they're living the way they did in 1910s or 1960s. It's disingenous to suggest that indigenous tribes should have some fixed set of behaviors. They have their culture, but cultures evolve and it would be weird if you forced them to have the averaged lifestyle of their tribe (but possibly the one none of their own ancestors had) and speak "their" language, in an averaged dialect that none of their actual ancestors spoke.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It's disingenuous to suggest that if the tribe tries to restore a river ecosystem that some other party is trying to force a lifestyle on them.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I do not disagree with that. No reasons to have old, deteriorating, ecologically questionable dams around.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deviantbit 3y ago
It is an objective statement. In fact it is empirical. Those that are left behind die. How can it be anymore objective?
- dwemthy 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bumby 3y ago
  There is obviously a subjective value statement implying one way of life is preferential to another. It’s like when people say those in rural areas need to just move into cities because the economy of scale and “modern” jobs. Also, “those left behind die” is a bit of a strawman. I don’t think anyone is saying they need to revert to stone-age societies, or give up modern medicine, etc. And I’m the end, we all die so it really comes down to living the life one wants to live.
  - deviantbit 3y ago
    This is ridiculous. Those that adopted the gun annihilated those that didn't. No one cares about the losers way of life.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Well, there’s a lot of criticisms of the “guns, germs, and steel” hypothesis. Many of the sources used feel like it’s an oversimplification, which you seem to simplify even further. Society is complex and deserves some more nuance than you give it. A might is right ideology misses an awful lot in terms of what humans value.

sandworm101 3y ago

This would be the restoration of some aspects of the old way of life. Nobody really wants to go back to the old ways, living cold and hunting with wooden weapons. This is about the restoration of some older cycles, not an abandonment of the modern world.

burkaman 3y ago

Because letting people do what they want is usually better than "having them" do something.

jrflowers 3y ago

I am glad you asked that here on Hacker News. To begin with you pose an intere

deviantbit 3y ago

Exactly. It is time to evolve. Move forward.

dkural 3y ago

Dam removal is practiced across the world to bring rivers back to life. This happens in England as well. It prevents the accumulation of agricultural runoff, and increases fish habitat. This is an environmental project that benefits everyone except the few people who had "lakeside" property on the artificial dam reservoir.

chkaloon 3y ago

You'll probably get a bunch of responses about colonization, but it is a good question. In Alaska it is even more of an issue. There are lots of hidden costs related to AK Natives and others living in remote villages accessible only by plane or snowmachine, such as state and federal subsidies for airports, etc. Try googling "Alaska bypass mail" and go down that rabbit hole. There may be good reasons for all that cost, such as letting Alaska natives keep some heritage, keeping sovereign claim over remote lands, etc., but it does deserve a conversation about what it is costing to have them out there versus living on the road system at least. I think it's one of those "let sleeping dogs lie" sort of thing.

sinkasapa 3y ago

I think there is often a bias that when one hears "tribe" they assume that someone is living as a stone age hunter gatherer. This is not the case. There are a lot of people who live within social organizational structures that are referred to as tribes but who live in Los Angeles, are crypto-bros or one's doctor. That members of tribes are part of what we call "modern" society is not to say that they do not have traditions. Everyone has traditions. One only needs to travel a very small amount to realize that they do not live outside of culture. They realize this because they can see that other peoples' cultures are different than what they are used to. One's entire notion of being "nontraditional" may be demonstrably drawn from their own particular cultural traditions. In general, most people I know, all else being equal, feel like people having traditions that they may choose to celebrate without restriction is mostly positive. Like, telling kids from the a quasi-Christian European tradition that they can't have Christmas anymore seems wrong. If the kids complain, it seems weird to say "catch up and adapt". Ok, so in this the case of the article there is a river. So there is a natural resource involved. At some point there were some people living along a river and then other people came in and imposed something on them that was supposedly for the good of society. What is good for society isn't always about the maximum amount of electricity one can produce. Sometimes it is about compassion. Being a more compassionate society seems like a more important goal to me than being the society with the highest energy output, not that energy isn't very very important. Indigenous people often, though not always, feel that changes to their life ways were foisted on them. There are changes that they like (chocolate ice cream) and there are changes they feel it was unfair or cruel to have to make (not being able to speak their own language even at home). Just like a Christian, Italian or Bostonian might have their idiosyncratic ways of doing things that make them feel connected to their family and community, indigenous people do too. That does not make them primitive. It seems reasonable and kinder if a society cares about these traditions and is not dismissive of them. It makes sense that when society decides whether it is good or bad to have a damn that it is not just a question of electrical output but compassion to the people affected.