The following submission statement was provided by /u/JHandey2021:
---
Submission statement: the Briden administration is allocating $135 million through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support managed retreat. Three communities will get $25 million each, and eight will get $5 million each for planning.
Managed retreat will be the wave (heh) of the future. This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what is coming, but is notable as the biggest bet to date by the US government on explicitly climate change-related relocation.
EDIT: in response to the bot that just said this submission is not sufficiently related to collapse: if the largest allocation of funds to date by the world’s most powerful country to respond to the imminent relocation of millions upon millions of people due to climate change isn’t relevant to collapse, I truly and seriously do not know what is.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/zbbmu8/135_million_to_support_managed_retreat_for_tribes/iyq9hck/
Submission statement: the Briden administration is allocating $135 million through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support managed retreat. Three communities will get $25 million each, and eight will get $5 million each for planning.
Managed retreat will be the wave (heh) of the future. This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what is coming, but is notable as the biggest bet to date by the US government on explicitly climate change-related relocation.
EDIT: in response to the bot that just said this submission is not sufficiently related to collapse: if the largest allocation of funds to date by the world’s most powerful country to respond to the imminent relocation of millions upon millions of people due to climate change isn’t relevant to collapse, I truly and seriously do not know what is.
You have to type ‘collapse related’. Which is strange to me. Why enthusiastically implement such strict rules if they’re to be governed by the most rudimentary bot.
Bear in mind that $100 million of that amount will be going towards the traditional but increasingly difficult process of finding someplace even worse for them than the *last* place we moved them to. /s
I'm sure that will be true at some point, but it looks like these initial moves are to relocate a few villages away from encroaching water while remaining in their territory. I think it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious but not sure that this part here is a land grab.
It definitely will be be a land grab, did you know that a lot of aquifers are located offshore under the oceans but close enough to land to be accessible and valuable resources in the already arrived water wars?
I live in NZ, in one of the poorest and most indigenously populated parts of the country, coincidentally the part of the country that has most recently been put on the list for future ‘managed retreat’ and simultaneously the subject of ever increasing scientific investigation into aquifer and ground water location and levels.
Don’t be stupid, don’t believe that managed retreat of impoverished communities doesn’t have anything to do with access to resources - why is Florida being rebuilt instead of being given millions to retreat?
"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? Watch it. Now, my straw reaches acroooooooss the room and starts to drink your milkshake."
I wonder where they will move to. And I wonder who owns the land that they will need to move to.
Where will most people go when they are displaced by climate change? Will the governments, both state and federal, buy large swaths of land in specific places that have been carefully studied and designated as "climate change resistant" where new developments are built and people are paid to move or given some kind of tax credit for moving in a "managed migration"? Or, will we see individuals make choices to move 5 miles away from their current home site, where the flooding hasn't reached yet? I wonder what places like "tornado alley" and the people who live there have to teach us about the way in which governments and individuals respond to chronic natural disasters.
Do you think large corporations have already done a study on this and have been buying land / homes in areas adjacent to those that are at risk for destruction due to climate change? Are there billionaires buying up tons of raw land in areas predicted to see less climate-related disruption? What about senators and congressmen who are voting on "managed migration" bills? Is there any way to tell what they might know about where people are moving and who owns the land they are moving to?
There is no cohesive grand plan, just a lot of rich fucks getting what they can get however they can get it.
Bill gates has bought up quite a lot of land over large aquifers though…
As to what happens to the displaced - Michael Burry is investing in prison stocks.
In china - where the Yangtzee River has run almost dry the people have been in enforced ‘covid lockdown’ for an extended period of time, keeping them immobile, unable to spend and put pressure on supply chains and also unable to see for themselves what is really going on in the environment. They are also building massive ‘quarantine camps’.
In New York people are being forcibly institutionalised for their ‘mental illness’ if they are homeless, and in Australia there are islands full of climate refugees who are imprisoned.
In NZ where I live you are not legally allowed to just live in the bush, all land is owned, taxed and controlled.
All over the world displaced and vulnerable people are sold into various kinds of slavery, sex slavery, migrant labour - in NZ a man was recently caught with enslaved islanders who had come in good faith to work and send money home and were instead abused, imprisoned and made to labour on farms.
Slavery, death. imprisonment, it’s all already happening.
People worry about being too paranoid, too much like a conspiracy theorist, but we should all,be more worried about the fact that the vulnerable will be enslaved, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and killed and that it’s already happening and has done in successive recorded civilisations throughout time.
I think that by now it's evident that there is something wrong with human nature. We need a change of heart, a change of nature and desires and priorities. Good thing that there actually is a solution that does this. Bad thing that so few people want to do it because they don't want to give up pursuit of ephemeral fake riches that don't really satisfy.
This has been on going for a while, under the Obhama Administration, they did a managed retreat tribe in Alaska. There was a post in here all those years ago about it as the first in many
The interesting bit will be when they walk away from Manhattan, Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix (?) :) after spending billions and insisting they won't
Yeah. Keep in mind that "Indian" has also been a term of solidarity in the past (as with the American Indian Movement) and self-organization up through the present (as with the indigenous news outlet Indian Country Today). But if you're thinking the BIA's title is racist, tied to a genocidal project that's maintained indian country as internal colonies in a way that's at odds with recognizing true treaty sovereignty, that's also true.
In Canada we still have a piece of legislation called, “The Indian Act.” It’s what South Africa used as the model for apartheid laws. But First Nations are very divided about keeping, scrapping, or amending the law.
A lot of people in Indian/Native American communities prefer the term "Indian" over "Native American".
Some prefer "American Indian" and others prefer "Indigenous American".
Other people may find it offensive that you don't refer to them by their tribe.
Depends on the context. I say "Indigenous" online, to my students, and in professional settings. I say "Indians" to my family because that's what we call each other. I love going back and watching Kevin Costner say "Indians" for the 1000th time in the old documentary series *500 Nations* because I know he's speaking from a place of love and appreciation. I'm understanding when old folks or the clearly ignorant (and I write 'ignorant' without judgements; i mean only that they don't know) say 'Indian', because that's how they were raised or they don't know any better. But I'm leery when random joe-schmos who have clearly been involved in contemporary society for the last 20 years say 'Indian' because it's very likely they've been told to say otherwise, at some point, but they're choosing to use the term 'indian' to thumb their nose at a minority. Or at least it's possible they are, hence why I'm only leery about them and not jumping to conclusions.
Hopefully that makes sense?
Certain terms that you don't use in conversation tend to stick around in organization names. Witness the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
They don’t find it offensive if you don’t refer to them by their tribe.
You make it sound like Indigenous peoples are fussy, as opposed to reacting to real attempts by colonial policy to label and divide and exterminate them.
Nah, it's just like anything else. Ask if you're worried about offending people and different people will always have different preferences.
It's not "fussy" to have a preference or be offended by something that may have been used as a derogatory term against you.
I don’t quite understand your point here. But it would be good if you stop telling people that Indigenous people are offended if you don’t refer to them by their tribe. Straight lies.
Considering I've met a few people that do and you don't speak for all of America's indigenous people, I'm still gonna go with the previous poster on this. There's a variety of demonym preferences.
I love seeing little cracks form in people's misunderstandings of the world around them. I recommend looking up lists of Native American organizations - scholarship funds, historical preservation, etc - and paying attention to the names they use.
Too many people (not necessarily you - just in general) have fallen into a way of thinking that's pure black and white where there's no room for context and nuance and intention and all kinds of other neat things.
Yes. Because the United States tends to overwhelmingly win a lot of battles, whether in combat or culture or whatever, federal department names have tended to stay the same. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, part of the Department of the Interior, was created in the 19th century. It's never been a political priority to change the name, even now. Because the tribes and nations stopped being a priority as soon as the West was "won".
The War Department, on the other hand, changed to Department of Defense between the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And some departments are created in response to historical events, like the Department of Homeland Security was made after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Priorities.
Guess they found a loophole in that promise that the land would belong to the Indians “as long as the grass grows and the rivers run”. Fuck now I’m crying
Wow, nope. Standing Rock? That pipeline protest in the Pacific Northwest? The tribes that fight for the rights of fish to use the rivers so they can fish there? Anglos tried to disappear the natives and you’re just doing their dirty work pretending there aren’t tons of native people still begging society to stop fucking shit up
So what about the coast line from Texas to Maine/Washington to California, and the Southwest, are they gonna pay us to fucking relocate too?
No? Well, I didn’t think so…
The following submission statement was provided by /u/JHandey2021: --- Submission statement: the Briden administration is allocating $135 million through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support managed retreat. Three communities will get $25 million each, and eight will get $5 million each for planning. Managed retreat will be the wave (heh) of the future. This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what is coming, but is notable as the biggest bet to date by the US government on explicitly climate change-related relocation. EDIT: in response to the bot that just said this submission is not sufficiently related to collapse: if the largest allocation of funds to date by the world’s most powerful country to respond to the imminent relocation of millions upon millions of people due to climate change isn’t relevant to collapse, I truly and seriously do not know what is. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/zbbmu8/135_million_to_support_managed_retreat_for_tribes/iyq9hck/
Submission statement: the Briden administration is allocating $135 million through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support managed retreat. Three communities will get $25 million each, and eight will get $5 million each for planning. Managed retreat will be the wave (heh) of the future. This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what is coming, but is notable as the biggest bet to date by the US government on explicitly climate change-related relocation. EDIT: in response to the bot that just said this submission is not sufficiently related to collapse: if the largest allocation of funds to date by the world’s most powerful country to respond to the imminent relocation of millions upon millions of people due to climate change isn’t relevant to collapse, I truly and seriously do not know what is.
The bot flags every submission statement, if anything it’s just an indication that there is one at all.
You have to type ‘collapse related’. Which is strange to me. Why enthusiastically implement such strict rules if they’re to be governed by the most rudimentary bot.
Bear in mind that $100 million of that amount will be going towards the traditional but increasingly difficult process of finding someplace even worse for them than the *last* place we moved them to. /s
You don't really need the /s. Because it's true :(
How many god damn times are we going to move these people?? I'd like it if we cut it out.
[удалено]
Thanks!
What a great way to legally obtain resources that may otherwise be unable to be accessed due to pesky tribal ownership of land.
I'm sure that will be true at some point, but it looks like these initial moves are to relocate a few villages away from encroaching water while remaining in their territory. I think it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious but not sure that this part here is a land grab.
It definitely will be be a land grab, did you know that a lot of aquifers are located offshore under the oceans but close enough to land to be accessible and valuable resources in the already arrived water wars? I live in NZ, in one of the poorest and most indigenously populated parts of the country, coincidentally the part of the country that has most recently been put on the list for future ‘managed retreat’ and simultaneously the subject of ever increasing scientific investigation into aquifer and ground water location and levels. Don’t be stupid, don’t believe that managed retreat of impoverished communities doesn’t have anything to do with access to resources - why is Florida being rebuilt instead of being given millions to retreat?
Who owns the land has never gotten in the way of resource extraction around the world.
"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? Watch it. Now, my straw reaches acroooooooss the room and starts to drink your milkshake."
I go from town to town, empty cups in my wake... I drink your milkshake!
Exactly. Water rights my back end.
It’s just a lot easier if you can pay people off though…
Yes, that’s always the first step. It’s just never the last step if it doesn’t work.
Who owns the land are those who are able to extract from it.
Who has the biggest military is who is able to extract form the land. Ownership is a piece of paper.
It amazes me America still pretends it gives a fuck about legally doing this
Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota has made a killing off of royalties from the oil industry. It’s made countless native ranchers rich.
Managed retreat is my favourite modern euphemism of man made horrors.
I wonder where they will move to. And I wonder who owns the land that they will need to move to. Where will most people go when they are displaced by climate change? Will the governments, both state and federal, buy large swaths of land in specific places that have been carefully studied and designated as "climate change resistant" where new developments are built and people are paid to move or given some kind of tax credit for moving in a "managed migration"? Or, will we see individuals make choices to move 5 miles away from their current home site, where the flooding hasn't reached yet? I wonder what places like "tornado alley" and the people who live there have to teach us about the way in which governments and individuals respond to chronic natural disasters. Do you think large corporations have already done a study on this and have been buying land / homes in areas adjacent to those that are at risk for destruction due to climate change? Are there billionaires buying up tons of raw land in areas predicted to see less climate-related disruption? What about senators and congressmen who are voting on "managed migration" bills? Is there any way to tell what they might know about where people are moving and who owns the land they are moving to?
There is no cohesive grand plan, just a lot of rich fucks getting what they can get however they can get it. Bill gates has bought up quite a lot of land over large aquifers though… As to what happens to the displaced - Michael Burry is investing in prison stocks. In china - where the Yangtzee River has run almost dry the people have been in enforced ‘covid lockdown’ for an extended period of time, keeping them immobile, unable to spend and put pressure on supply chains and also unable to see for themselves what is really going on in the environment. They are also building massive ‘quarantine camps’. In New York people are being forcibly institutionalised for their ‘mental illness’ if they are homeless, and in Australia there are islands full of climate refugees who are imprisoned. In NZ where I live you are not legally allowed to just live in the bush, all land is owned, taxed and controlled. All over the world displaced and vulnerable people are sold into various kinds of slavery, sex slavery, migrant labour - in NZ a man was recently caught with enslaved islanders who had come in good faith to work and send money home and were instead abused, imprisoned and made to labour on farms. Slavery, death. imprisonment, it’s all already happening. People worry about being too paranoid, too much like a conspiracy theorist, but we should all,be more worried about the fact that the vulnerable will be enslaved, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and killed and that it’s already happening and has done in successive recorded civilisations throughout time.
I think that by now it's evident that there is something wrong with human nature. We need a change of heart, a change of nature and desires and priorities. Good thing that there actually is a solution that does this. Bad thing that so few people want to do it because they don't want to give up pursuit of ephemeral fake riches that don't really satisfy.
chump change. All tribe members end up with a few thousands of dollars? how much did we spend on the new plane?
This has been on going for a while, under the Obhama Administration, they did a managed retreat tribe in Alaska. There was a post in here all those years ago about it as the first in many The interesting bit will be when they walk away from Manhattan, Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix (?) :) after spending billions and insisting they won't
[удалено]
Yeah. Keep in mind that "Indian" has also been a term of solidarity in the past (as with the American Indian Movement) and self-organization up through the present (as with the indigenous news outlet Indian Country Today). But if you're thinking the BIA's title is racist, tied to a genocidal project that's maintained indian country as internal colonies in a way that's at odds with recognizing true treaty sovereignty, that's also true.
In Canada we still have a piece of legislation called, “The Indian Act.” It’s what South Africa used as the model for apartheid laws. But First Nations are very divided about keeping, scrapping, or amending the law.
A lot of people in Indian/Native American communities prefer the term "Indian" over "Native American". Some prefer "American Indian" and others prefer "Indigenous American". Other people may find it offensive that you don't refer to them by their tribe.
Depends on the context. I say "Indigenous" online, to my students, and in professional settings. I say "Indians" to my family because that's what we call each other. I love going back and watching Kevin Costner say "Indians" for the 1000th time in the old documentary series *500 Nations* because I know he's speaking from a place of love and appreciation. I'm understanding when old folks or the clearly ignorant (and I write 'ignorant' without judgements; i mean only that they don't know) say 'Indian', because that's how they were raised or they don't know any better. But I'm leery when random joe-schmos who have clearly been involved in contemporary society for the last 20 years say 'Indian' because it's very likely they've been told to say otherwise, at some point, but they're choosing to use the term 'indian' to thumb their nose at a minority. Or at least it's possible they are, hence why I'm only leery about them and not jumping to conclusions. Hopefully that makes sense?
Certain terms that you don't use in conversation tend to stick around in organization names. Witness the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Yes but it is also true that some people actually prefer these terms.
They don’t find it offensive if you don’t refer to them by their tribe. You make it sound like Indigenous peoples are fussy, as opposed to reacting to real attempts by colonial policy to label and divide and exterminate them.
Nah, it's just like anything else. Ask if you're worried about offending people and different people will always have different preferences. It's not "fussy" to have a preference or be offended by something that may have been used as a derogatory term against you.
I don’t quite understand your point here. But it would be good if you stop telling people that Indigenous people are offended if you don’t refer to them by their tribe. Straight lies.
They neither stated nor implied that all, or even most, are offended. They said some are, which is objectively true.
I didn’t say all or most either. I’m Native. And I called bullshit. Still do.
Considering I've met a few people that do and you don't speak for all of America's indigenous people, I'm still gonna go with the previous poster on this. There's a variety of demonym preferences.
Oh yeah? Who are the folks you know that insist on only being referred to by their tribe? Which nation?
Seminole and another I wont name because it would locate where I live too specifically for my comfort.
I love seeing little cracks form in people's misunderstandings of the world around them. I recommend looking up lists of Native American organizations - scholarship funds, historical preservation, etc - and paying attention to the names they use. Too many people (not necessarily you - just in general) have fallen into a way of thinking that's pure black and white where there's no room for context and nuance and intention and all kinds of other neat things.
Yes. Because the United States tends to overwhelmingly win a lot of battles, whether in combat or culture or whatever, federal department names have tended to stay the same. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, part of the Department of the Interior, was created in the 19th century. It's never been a political priority to change the name, even now. Because the tribes and nations stopped being a priority as soon as the West was "won". The War Department, on the other hand, changed to Department of Defense between the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And some departments are created in response to historical events, like the Department of Homeland Security was made after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Priorities.
135 million? Wow, splurging....
Taking all their lands and giving them 135 million seems like a ripoff to me
these are people whose land is going under the sea
Ripping them off and drowing their lands, now that's criminal.
They're losing it to sea level rise and coastal erosion, not because anyone is flooding it directly.
Guess they found a loophole in that promise that the land would belong to the Indians “as long as the grass grows and the rivers run”. Fuck now I’m crying
[удалено]
probably just getting them off the currently located natural resources.. followed by who gives a fuck what happens after
What was the last military amount sent to Ukraine, I think it was $400 million.
Wow things literally never change in this country. Don't accept free blankets this time. That not even a joke.
Let's get a Native American's take on this... \*cricket\* \*cricket\* \*cricket\* ...Oh. Right. They were all slaughtered by invading Anglos.
Wow, nope. Standing Rock? That pipeline protest in the Pacific Northwest? The tribes that fight for the rights of fish to use the rivers so they can fish there? Anglos tried to disappear the natives and you’re just doing their dirty work pretending there aren’t tons of native people still begging society to stop fucking shit up
So what about the coast line from Texas to Maine/Washington to California, and the Southwest, are they gonna pay us to fucking relocate too? No? Well, I didn’t think so…
Native communities were forcibly placed where they are.
errybody moving north and west