5 ms·

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 thin

by 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?
- thriftwy 3y ago
  India were going to eventually cover itself with railroads and monoculture plantations in any case (who didn't?), so I don't see why we cannot argue in good faith whether the British arrival was beneficial or deleterious. It would require scientific rigor instead of either one of nationalisms, though.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    I think it's true India would've developed without Britain (isn't the alternative certainly colonialist?) - but that doesn't mean imposing things, even if we somehow know they're exactly the same things as would've been decided on anyway, isn't colonialism. In fact it's maybe the height of 'we know best' to take over saying 'just trust us you were about to decide this anyway'!
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I'm not sure it is dramatically different from people in London imposing railroads on the English countryside. It's colonialism all the way down and the apparent ironic fact that British still cannot get out of other nations' hair while they now peddle the colonialism narratives. They cannot keep away from be interminged in countries' affairs while lecturing the "natives" about the colonialism, whose narratives also come from London and are as unnatural in their new habitat as these tea plantations in India were. We will see some real colonialism understanding when the UK disengages from world affairs and behaves like an ordinary 50 million strong country like Argentine or Vietnam. That did not happen yet, so you can stop feeling bad because of India 200 years ago and get a contemporary reality (and privilege) check. Case of point, The Guardian has all kinds of Opinions about Russia and Palestine. Why don't they take most interest of the affairs of N1 9GU?
psunavy03 3y ago
The Federal government is responsible for establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It is NOT responsible for standing en loco parentis for adult American citizens.
- ip26 3y ago
  me: What is best for their welfare? you: promoting the general welfare I don’t understand what we disagree on.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Promoting the welfare of the population in general does not encompass paternalistically "deciding what's best for" a group of people. It's the difference between a manager going out of their way to give you the tools to succeed and going out of their way to micromanage you, decide "what's good for you" in the workplace, and Goddammit why didn't you fill out your time tracker?
  - bumby 3y ago
    It’s in the Taxing and Spending Clause, it’s not as broad as to give powers to “do whatever we want as long as we can tie it to the welfare of a group.” The closest clause to that is the commerce clause.
bumby 3y ago
The Constitution says for the “general welfare” (ie for the greater good, so it may go against your point) and it’s related specifically to taxation.

by ip26 3y ago

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?

thriftwy 3y ago
India were going to eventually cover itself with railroads and monoculture plantations in any case (who didn't?), so I don't see why we cannot argue in good faith whether the British arrival was beneficial or deleterious. It would require scientific rigor instead of either one of nationalisms, though.
- OJFord 3y ago
  I think it's true India would've developed without Britain (isn't the alternative certainly colonialist?) - but that doesn't mean imposing things, even if we somehow know they're exactly the same things as would've been decided on anyway, isn't colonialism. In fact it's maybe the height of 'we know best' to take over saying 'just trust us you were about to decide this anyway'!
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I'm not sure it is dramatically different from people in London imposing railroads on the English countryside. It's colonialism all the way down and the apparent ironic fact that British still cannot get out of other nations' hair while they now peddle the colonialism narratives. They cannot keep away from be interminged in countries' affairs while lecturing the "natives" about the colonialism, whose narratives also come from London and are as unnatural in their new habitat as these tea plantations in India were. We will see some real colonialism understanding when the UK disengages from world affairs and behaves like an ordinary 50 million strong country like Argentine or Vietnam. That did not happen yet, so you can stop feeling bad because of India 200 years ago and get a contemporary reality (and privilege) check. Case of point, The Guardian has all kinds of Opinions about Russia and Palestine. Why don't they take most interest of the affairs of N1 9GU?

psunavy03 3y ago

The Federal government is responsible for establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It is NOT responsible for standing en loco parentis for adult American citizens.

ip26 3y ago
me: What is best for their welfare? you: promoting the general welfare I don’t understand what we disagree on.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Promoting the welfare of the population in general does not encompass paternalistically "deciding what's best for" a group of people. It's the difference between a manager going out of their way to give you the tools to succeed and going out of their way to micromanage you, decide "what's good for you" in the workplace, and Goddammit why didn't you fill out your time tracker?
- bumby 3y ago
  It’s in the Taxing and Spending Clause, it’s not as broad as to give powers to “do whatever we want as long as we can tie it to the welfare of a group.” The closest clause to that is the commerce clause.

bumby 3y ago

The Constitution says for the “general welfare” (ie for the greater good, so it may go against your point) and it’s related specifically to taxation.