UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans

[garbon]

Hey, cheerleader, nice to see ya.

[Jaron]

Colonialist!

Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.

Have fun.

It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.

Oex's work adds a little stone to the ever growing pyramid that is the human experience.

Your life does not and your work is pointless. One would think the polite thing to do would be for mouthbreathers like you to be quiet when your betters are talking.

And it's spelled caricature, by the way.

Ooh, garbiedoll got Zoupowned.

[The Brain]

Colonialist!

Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.

Have fun.

It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.

Oex's work adds a little stone to the ever growing pyramid that is the human experience.

Your life does not and your work is pointless. One would think the polite thing to do would be for mouthbreathers like you to be quiet when your betters are talking.

And it's spelled caricature, by the way.

[Zoupa]

[Malthus]

Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain.  And then what?  Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).

I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.

Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them.  They are still the same people, with the same problems as before.  They just have more money now.

They're off the reservation, starting a new life in a town or city where they have better life prospects. How is that not a huge improvement?

To pick the worst-case scenario (because there are in fact some people living on reserves who are doing just fine):

-because the person in question is still un-educated, learning-disabled, has never been employed, and is addicted to various substances.  They live in a city now, but you've actually just cut them off from a number of programd run through DIAND (Dep't of Indian and Northern Affairs) that were designed to help such people.

Again, I can't help but think that helpful paternalism is part of the problem. The natives have had those DIAND programs "designed to help such people" for years - and they are, you say, "un-educated, learning-disabled, [have] never been employed, and [are] addicted to various substances". How is keeping them where they are ever going to improve things for them?

[Barrister]

But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.

I am unconvinced that is true.

[CountDeMoney]

But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.

I am unconvinced that is true.

Of course you don't.  That's not a trait of cultural paternalism.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's the beauty of giving them the choice. If they value the sense of community over the money, they can choose so.

Not necessarily.  Let's say a majority value community but a decent sized minority take the money.  That might leave the remainder non-viable as an independent settlement.

[Malthus]

That's the beauty of giving them the choice. If they value the sense of community over the money, they can choose so.

Not necessarily.  Let's say a majority value community but a decent sized minority take the money.  That might leave the remainder non-viable as an independent settlement.

Seems to me that what you would get is a certain amount of flux. Surely those settlements which were really unpleasant, more would take the money ... and there would be some consolidation, where those who do not wish to take the money in the settlements where most do, move to the well-run settlements.

Point being, such a plan would allow for a certain amount of organic change, by making the choice less driven by what can be seen as perverse incentives.

[Malthus]

But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.

I am unconvinced that is true.

You may well be right.

By offering them the choice, one that they can make, rather that you deciding whether you are right on that point, they will decide whether you are right on that point.

This is no panacea, because some are going to make bad choices and end up worse off than before ... of course, that goes for anyone who makes choices about their own destiny.

[Berkut]

This is no panacea, because some are going to make bad choices and end up worse off than before ... of course, that goes for anyone who makes choices about their own destiny.

Which is why people do not really buy into that entire "liberty" thing, really. People are better off letting the state make such important decisions for them, because they might make the wrong one and all...and we can't have that.