Hacker News Reader

Comment by voisin | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

I do not disagree with that. No reasons to have old, deteriorating, ecologically questionable dams around.

It is an objective statement. In fact it is empirical. Those that are left behind die. How can it be anymore objective?

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.

This is ridiculous. Those that adopted the gun annihilated those that didn't. No one cares about the losers way of life.

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.

Imagine if we applied the same logic to white people when projects like rural electrification bills were debated.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

> 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.

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?

> 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?

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.

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'!

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?

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.

me: What is best for their welfare?

you: promoting the general welfare

I don’t understand what we disagree on.

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?

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.

What's best for their welfare? Just ask them...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com