Perhaps it’s because so much culture was surrounded around food gathering? Modern technology coming around and wiping out the need for most of your tribe to hunt and gather is going to have a big impact on cultures like that.
Crazy to think that hundreds of years of violence and extraction had nothing to do with this, and it's just due to cultural faults.
There's no world in which their legacy of oppression wouldn't affect their present day material conditions.
> Modern technology coming around and wiping out the need for most of your tribe to hunt and gather is going to have a big impact on cultures like that.
Culture isn't static, it evolves over time. It's not just "their time to die out," or whatever the subtext of a statement like this is.
Cool.
> when we try to pin all of the blame on western influence in the past, when these people are quite capable of fucking up their own lives without your help thank you very much.
Guess we'll never know because of all the rape and pillage.
I'll never understand how people come to so deeply fetishize the subjective that they're entirely willing to cast off the shackles of the objective.
Generally speaking, wiping out large amounts of any population whether intentional or not is probably going to have negative multigenerational effects.
It's extremely easy to see other groups of people who suffered the same thing, and have extremely low suicide rates. At which point you could create the same post-hoc explanation for the opposite outcome, about how hundreds of years of violence created very tough and mentally strong people.
This is pure ideology: we were actually helping them when we were chopping their children's hands off in the congo when they didn't produce enough.
I don't have any ideology, I was just pointing out how post-hoc explanations always fit the data. But that you could take other examples and come to opposite conclusions.
Yes, you do. Regardless of if you want to or not, you have an ideology.
In the words of Bender, you want me to do two things??
I think this is actually an interesting point. One I hadn't considered before. I doubt it really explains it, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was a contributing factor.