Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

decrementsf t1_iujm6wt wrote

Infantilization alive and well. Teach a man to fish and they'll never come back. Make a man dependent? They'll feed you forever.

−83

gramathy t1_iujqdtk wrote

Infantilisation? This is for preservation of the eagles which would otherwise be extinct at this point, not “be a good boy and well give you feathers. If it wasn’t incredibly illegal to even posess I guarantee poachers would have wiped them out to make shitty “authentic” souvenirs.

The feathers are provided to preserve cultural heritage not to make anyone dependent on anyone else.

52

Mosenji t1_iujt2ql wrote

This center was founded in the early 70s when eagle populations were rapidly declining in the lower 48 because their eggshells were too thin to survive thanks to DDT everywhere. Extinction there was a real possibility, besides being a national black eye would be another cultural blow on Indians.

31

ChevExpressMan t1_iujuzic wrote

But now the eagle is off the endangered species list. Still, if caught with a eagle feather, that's $100,000 fine if you're not an Indian.

https://www.kwch.com/content/news/Taking-an-eagles-feather-could-get-you-a-100000-fine-and-a-year-in-jail-490671881.html

3

S4rd0nyx t1_iujx3iy wrote

Just being Native is not sufficient. Possession is illegal without a specific license, but only Natives are eligible for said license.

20

Mosenji t1_iujvqtt wrote

I wonder why the fine is so high?

0

ChevExpressMan t1_iujyj5t wrote

It's to deter those who would willingly kill eagles so "collectors" could posses such and thus, prohibit us non-native greedy shits from making money.

Believe it that there's B.I.G. money in the illicit animal trade.

11

MkMikki t1_iuk8tpu wrote

Hunting isn’t what brought the eagles to the brink of extinction, DDT did.

3

decrementsf t1_iuju5c7 wrote

The fur trade in 1700s America was the first to develop conservation regulations to protect their industry. This was spurred by observation in resource decline as prolific expansion transformed the frontiers. Populations rebounded and today those protocols developed have restored wildlife in parts of the US comparable to when the country first discovered. The consequence of less hunting and migratory trends to cities in the last few generations is that in the suburban to rural boundaries animal populations are growing rapidly.

It's an insult to pretend Native American's are incapable of sustainably running conservation programs. There is generational knowledge of maintaining wildlife populations there as well. We have a hundred years of strategy development. The doors to higher education are open to all. They can afford people education for top notch consulting of those programs without the hand-holding.

−1

Informal-Ideal-6640 t1_iujpb95 wrote

So let’s never do anything to benefit these people who lost so much…

10

decrementsf t1_iujr3bg wrote

My argument is to return dignity. Insulting to treat adults like children to be protected and coddled in the world. Dependency is a mental prison of another design. The tyrannical mother of affluent families smother and control their children through such dependencies, resulting in stunted growth and infantile princelings.

−21

SaxyOmega90125 t1_iujsd01 wrote

That's not going to happen as long as Native Americans are caged in tiny reserves.

A solution that might be preferable to this would be to allow Natives to gather bird of prey feathers and remains on land currently claimed by the US proper. That being said, these eagles are already shedding feathers while in these rehabilitation and reintroduction programs. Would it be better to waste those feathers than to give them freely to Native American groups that will use them?

3

horsemagicians t1_iuk73zi wrote

Because allowing that creates a risk of the birds being hunted just for feathers. Being native doesn’t automatically make them some mystical group of people that watch over the land. It’s a group of people just like any other group of people. And when you get a group of people inevitably you’ll get assholes. And in this case those assholes will decide to shoot birds for feathers and sell them. Where I am we have different tribes fighting for and against coal mining on their lands. Some see dollar signs some see protecting nature.

4

DaveOJ12 t1_iujnndw wrote

The cynicism is strong in this one.

3

[deleted] t1_iujrod1 wrote

[deleted]

1

decrementsf t1_iujv5no wrote

Not particularly. Native Americans are the winning team.

The Romans arrived in Britain and killed everyone. Then ran towns and turned Britain into the jewel of the empire leaving behind a cultural and scientific tradition. The picts, the scotti, raided and killed everyone. Before settling and building trade routes to benefit of all. The Saxons arrived and killed everyone. Before settling in and building out trade, cultural and scientific advances of their own. The vikings arrived and killed everyone. Before making settlements supporting trade routes and intermingled into the resulting culture to come out of that.

We're all interspersed. The Native-Anglo-Scottish-Prussian-Somali of America. We're a pirate colony. There is no nation on earth we can not provide talent to be competitive against. There is no other country that have that same resiliency, they thrive competitively in one or two industries -- but not all. By also offering the greatest individual freedom of any country on earth that's a powerful draw to skim off the top 1% everywhere. They all come to risk and compete trying the pirate life. To come and kill and conquer in the most brutal competitive system. But then intermingle and blend in sharing cultural and scientific best-of mix.

Excluding anyone from the pirate ship is evil. We all benefit from contributions of the best-of from all peoples. This is the merit of diversity. The winning team takes the best from all and repurposes it to their own advantage.

−1

froggrip t1_iuk3x53 wrote

I wasn't sure where you were going with that for a moment, but it's very well put. Though I have no clue what this was in response to.

1