Why is it good to restore the tribes' way of life rather than have them catch up and adapt?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm stepping into a minefield, I'm sure.
It is NOT responsible for standing en loco parentis for adult American citizens.
you: promoting the general welfare
I don’t understand what we disagree on.
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?
I favor the dam removal and I hope the fish recover. But I still find your straight-line thinking unsettling.
Stop being disingenuous, they're trying to save a river ecosystem, not legalize wife beating.
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?
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'!
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?