 |
| A photo of the Philippines, where, since 2016, there has been a 71% increase in deaths of environmental activists. |
To my surprise, indigenous people have fought for their land not only when the population was so low that the problem was Columbus and his crew, but also now, when the world’s population, and demand for food, is constantly increasing.
Tight competition among businesses for land has caused natives to protest. With the United States’s recent lack of support, natives have struggled protect their land as they are frequently killed, sexually assaulted, cyber attacked, threatened, and taken to court. Except, unlike during Columbus’s time, social media is now a culprit. Although it provides an outlet for free speech, it has been used to identify activists and reprimand them for protesting.
Natives’ struggle with their land today is similar to their struggle during Columbus’s time. In both cases, newcomers are arguably presumptuously making themselves feel a little too at home, doing as they please with the land — such as Columbus renaming islands and companies destroying land to their advantage. Should natives accept today’s harsh realities and sacrifice their land, or should the land stay theirs? Is it selfish for the natives to not share their land? What should the U.S. do to help? Do the benefits of social media outweigh the costs in this situation?
I'm not as familiar with the native lands in the Philippines, but in the US, Native Americans were already given the worst parts of the country as their "protected" homes. If it's anything like that in the Philippines, then no, they're certainly not selfish for not wanting to give up their already marginalized land. Even if poor land quality is not the case, I would still never call a marginalized group of people who were original inhabitants of a place selfish for not wanting to give up more of what was (probably) wrongfully taken from them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt is simply a matter of whether one believes defending their land is worth the sacrifice of their life. There is no right answer, because so many variables come into play here. Would giving up one's land result in certain death, a loss of cultural or ecological significance, or just be a minor inconvenience? Is the land being confiscated for "good" reasons?
ReplyDeleteAs for the role of the United States and social media, it also depends on the nature of the conflict. Both things have spotty track-records when it comes to promoting individual freedom. The United States has liberated numerous countries from tyranny, and social media has been responsible for the encouragement of progressive grass-roots activism throughout the world (take the 2011 Arab Spring for instance). Yet the United States has also engaged in interventions that many would describe as borderline imperialistic. Social media has as mentioned been used as a tool, especially in authoritarian countries, to monitor and silence all dissent. It all comes down to situation and perspective.
I disagree with your statement that its only a matter of dying for land. These are people's homes, and I am pretty sure they are not going into these scenarios thinking its a matter of sacrifice. It is way more personal to try and uproot an entire culture and community simply for more places to create yet another coffee plantation. It is disgusting that people who are already incredibly discriminated against are also expected to be tossed from place to place whenever the government deems it necessary, and then to be killed for resisting?
DeleteI believe that this is all a case of whether or not their home is worth fighting over. I do not think that the natives are being selfish for not sharing their land. It is their land after all. Whether or not they are utilizing their land to the fullest capability, it all depends on perspective. In my honest opinion, I do not think that the U.S. has the obligation to help. Although I do see a Columbus situation going on here, I cannot see why it would be the U.S.’s duty to intervene. Yes, social media can be used as a platform for assistance but other than that, I cannot see the U.S. having a dog in this fight. I do think that the benefits of social media outweigh the costs in this situation as I cannot see the negative impact that social media would bring to this (social media would just bring awareness to the fact).
ReplyDeleteNative should not have to accept today’s harsh realities and sacrifice their land. They were the original inhabitants of their land and should not have to face exploitation and punishment for wanting to stay there. There is no justification for trying to push these people off of land in order for economic growth. Especially in the United States, the Native Americans have had so much land stolen from them and have very little left. They should not be forced to share this. I think social media could be effective in this situation, if it is used to speak up for the rights of natives.
ReplyDelete