undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbeatpanda12y ago0 comments

You could also say that "San Francisco is a place that people historically migrate to to subjugate native populations and force them to adopt a new culture and religion". Does that make it ethically defensible? Or did we not learn anything from the last few hundred years?

I should also point out that the reason companies started coming to San Francisco in the first place was because of the culture that is currently being displaced, largely by people who don't care about the culture at all.

0 comments

nsxwolf12y ago

I think you're smearing missionaries a bit - they haven't ALL engaged in forcible conversion of natives. Quite often it is a voluntary decision.

But anyway, my point is that culture changes, and you can't stop it. Think of it as a culture free market. You can try to put up protectionist barriers to stop it, but you won't succeed. Not even the Amish are totally successful at it.

I grew up in Redmond, WA in the 70s and I don't recognize the place anymore when I visit. It makes me a bit sad, but that's life. Someday miles-high glaciers will form and scrub the Rocky Mountains away, too.

stingrae12y ago

>I think you're smearing missionaries a bit - they haven't ALL engaged in forcible conversion of natives. Quite often it is a voluntary decision.

I would disagree on this point, Sure not all were "forced." There are invisible points that cause native nations to collapse. The missionaries didn't have to force them to come, there presence alone had enough effect on the region to force them to move to the missions. Especially in the Bay Area: http://www.amazon.com/Time-Little-Choice-Disintegration-Anth...

jbattle12y ago

Getting way off topic - the same underlying forces still play out today worldwide, largely through american/japanese/indian(?) movies and music.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse