261–270 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been done. Individuals have been taken from tribes and allowed to integrate into western society. They usually choose to go back.
link?
don't have a page number unfortunately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them. Whether they're right or not is another issue, and as there's no objective way to measure such things, there is no ac…
" No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them. " " Whether they're right or not is another issue [..] " Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. -- The OPs belief is entirely objectionable. Have none of us learnt anything from history? EDIT: Actually, maybe that…
Bullshit! While morals are about distinctions between right or wrong, the only moral debates worth having are ones that are about conflicting moral principles. In this case, between the moral principle that says we should allow people to determine and preserve their own culture and the principle that we want people to have the highest quality of life possible. It involves clashing interests and ill-defined concepts, so, yes, you can have it both ways. That's why it's a debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mistaken. I did not post a parody. I'm serious. That you have a hard time believing that people who disagree with you (like myself) even exist should perhaps be a wake up call to open your mind.
It's just that many (feared and hated) leaders from history took a similar view. I'm surprised so many people on HN share it. (Did I dodge the Godwin's law bullet...?) -- Seriously though, this is exactly the point of view that was used by all colonial movements. It's antiquated, unjust and it's also completely xenophobic. I'm genuinely shocked.
If you have to ask, then no. Of course you haven't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should give them access to technology and to our way of life. Our way of life is better. Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. Help is exactly what I would want from advanced alien visitors. I don't want them to respect my culture just because it is mine; I want something better for myself, not cultural relativism. There…
How does your perspective differ from the perspective of the missionaries who attempted to bring "salvation" to indigenous peoples around the world? How does your perspective differ from the perspectives that led to the imposition of the Residential Schools? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indi... Also, nothing I wrote says anything about providing them with access , it says something about de…
Uncontacted? It looks like they're looking right into the lens!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just that many (feared and hated) leaders from history took a similar view. I'm surprised so many people on HN share it. (Did I dodge the Godwin's law bullet...?) -- Seriously though, this is exactly the point of view that was used by all colonial movements. It's antiquated, unjust and it's also completely xenophobic. I'm genuinely shocked.
Respectable people like Jacob Bronowski, David Deutsch, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- not to mention easily over 100 million Americans -- believe this kind of thing. Don't be so shocked by a mainstream point of view. It is not xenophobic to be pro-civilization, to think that allowing people the option to join civilization is good for them, or to wish aliens would come along and share advanced knowledge with us (thus radical…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Our way of life is better" Ahh yes, the colonialist's mantra. Even more of a historical failure than the communist manifesto. Go look at how life 'improved' in sub saharan africa. Or the profoundly sad state of natives all over the world, in Canada, Australia, US, and beyond. Our way of life is not better. It is not for everyone. We have huge wealth and health disparity, large scale violence, drug addiction and home…
Our way of life is not better. Yes, it is. Would you trade places with them? Would you want your children to? We have huge wealth and health disparity Which we could certainly eliminate by destroying all our wealth and abandoning medicine. The only thing that should tell you is that "inequality" is a poor metric. And none of this implies that it would be acceptable to forcibly impose our civilization on anyone. It do…
For instance, it's said that 99% of Japanese who attempt living abroad end up returning to Japan. Is it because their way of life is "superior"? The vast majority of foreigners who try living there end up returning from where they came from, as well. Is it because we're all superior to each other?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd want to be left alone - give one example of colonialism that worked out well for indigenous people, and I'll maybe change my mind.
Ok. India is now an "important" country. Burgeoning technologically and culturally, what it received from Britain was access to the intellectual firestorm of the Enlightenment. Hindu thinkers were involved in the formation of Universalism, the idea that all religions were different aspects of the same thing and could be united. Of course, it cost them the pain of the Pakistan-India divide, the struggle of Gandhi, and…
Disclaimer: I am an Indian.