I oppose all displacement of people living in a place

[MineralMan]

by other people who want to come there and displace them.

Such actions are simply wrong on a humanitarian basis. Always.

Europeans have done this many, many times in history. The original European settlers in North America did it to the indigenous people living here. Similar stories from history record the arrogance and entitlement of the more powerful or technological all over the world. In Africa, Australia, South America and everywhere else on the planet, Europeans simply pushed the existing populations out, and killed those who resisted.

You'd think we would have learned from that. To a large degree, we have, of course. However, there are still situations where the powerful are displacing the not-powerful people living in a region, and are insisting that they have some sort of right to do so.

I disagree. Vehemently. Such a course of action always ends in misery and death for the people who were already there when the more powerful people came. Such a course of action always leads to confrontations, wars and violence that can last for centuries and for multiple generations.

No doubt, you can think of examples that did not take place hundreds of years ago, if you try.

It is not right to do so. Period.

[Shermann]

1. Well in the case of gentrification, it's not quite the same

The Europeans didn't buy out the indigenous people in the Americas for the most part.

I think having your neighborhood appreciate to the point where it is a struggle to remain there is a problem, but it is sort of a problem you want to have. It's better than having your home (the largest investment for most people) depreciate.

It takes many decades, so I suspect gentrification is being blamed for the age-old dismay people feel when their old neighborhoods are not like they remember. But that happens everywhere, and most of the time we just accept it without having to blame other groups.

So in that case it is really more of a question mark than a period.

[hunter]

8. Many people displaced by gentrification don't own their homes or shops.

They just have to leave when the rents are raised.

Often the people who benefit most from gentrification have no connection to the neighborhood except as absentee landlords.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, gentrification is a problem, particularly when it is done

on a racial basis. However, that is not what I am talking about. Not at all. I'm not talking about moving across town here.

[Shermann]

10. OK that wasn't clear, you did say "all" displacement nt

[MineralMan]

14. I did say that. I meant it, too.

We must mitigate gentrification, not just ignore it. We need to plan for it, where it exists. On the other hand, consider cities like Detroit. It's a complex problem for urban communities.

I'm writing more about larger scale displacements, though, in general.

[Jim__]

2. Chimpanzees Fight Off Rival Community

I agree that we should not displace people. But, I'm sitting at my computer now, typing about some abstract beliefs. I sometimes wonder what I'd believe if my family were hungry and there was food on the other side of the river.

Fighting over territory is deeply embedded in our evolutionary history. Things like the League of Nations and the UN can help. But, if one tribe thinks it needs more or different territory to survive, I'm not sure our negotiated agreements can overrule our instincts.

[MineralMan]

5. Are we chimpanzees? I think we are not.

We are capable of far more thoughtful actions, I believe, than are chimps.

That is not relevant, actually. We might sometimes act like chimps in territorial terms, but we are not compelled to do so.

[Silent3]

11. I would say we are compelled, but have the option of using higher brain functions...

...to fight the compulsion.

[MineralMan]

15. We can see the lessons and learn from them.

Many of use have seen and have learned. Perhaps we need to teach the rest?

[Jim__]

19. We may not be chimpanzees, but when it comes to the struggle for survival ...

.. we follow the same general rules - as do most of the animals on earth.

Like I said, when we're sitting on a couch or typing on a computer, we have lots of fine abstract beliefs. When our survival is threatened, we're pretty much like any other animal. Don't take my word for it, take a look at human history. And when we're threatened, we can come up with all sorts of abstract justifications. The abstractions may change, but the actions are pretty consistent.

[MineralMan]

20. What I'm describing isn't a matter of survival.

The Europeans who came to North America didn't destroy the indigenous people here for their survival. They did it because of "Us" and "Them." They felt entitled to someone else's territory. So, they took it. The indigenous people left or died. It's the same story all over the world. The strong conquer the weak and take their land.

We could do better. We don't. But, we could.

I do not accept the inevitability of such things. Nope.

[Klaralven]

3. However, it is inevitable

Compared with hunter/gatherers, farmers and pastoralists can extract more calories per acre. Therefore, agricultural societies grow faster and displace non-agricultural societies.

Among agricultural societies, those with metal tools outperform those with stone tools.

Societies with strong centralization and forced labor outperform those with lackadaisical peasants.

Morality doesn't really enter into dialectical materialism.

[MineralMan]

6. And, yet, we claim to be moral people, as long as we are talking about

others like ourselves. We can envision and even litigate morality, but we always do so in our own favor, and at the expense of those we do not consider our equals, don't we. At least as a culture.

[Klaralven]

17. "we claim to be moral people" is farther than I would go

Individuals can claim to be moral. Specific groups might make the claim as well. But sweeping generalities about we people are not likely to have much meaning.

Religions, for example, claim to codify morality, cloak it in the authority of some deity, and impose their doctrines upon the faithful. But not all religions agree on what is moral. People belonging to the same religions, in opposing armies, have been equally convinced of the justice of their cause.

During the westward expansion of the US, religions generally regarded the native Americans as not putting the rich land to its highest use, which was to increase God's kingdom of believing souls.

[MineralMan]

18. Claims are not actions.

Most religions, as you say, claim to support morality. Few actually act as though they believe that, really.

Nations claim to support equality, but I know of none that actually act to support it.

I say that we can easily describe how we should behave, but we are chronically unable to behave as we claim we should.

Individuals sometimes are so able, but societies do not seem to be, even though they continue to make claims that they are moral and just.

We contradict ourselves at every turn.

[Happy Hoosier]

4. So we should all be assigned to living spaces...

And not allowed to migrate?

Human history is largely a history of migration. Sometimes peaceful, often not.

[MineralMan]

7. Migration is natural. Killing those we displace, however,

is not natural. It is an aberration that we justify through treating some groups as inferior to ourselves. That gives us permission to push them out or even kill them in service to our migration pattern.

We can do better. We must do better.

Here, some people think we have a problem with migration into this nation. However, the migrants do not have the power to displace us or commit genocide against us. Nor do they try to do so. They come here and attempt to become part of our society, one way or another.

They are not the conquerors. In fact our southern migrant neighbors very often have genetic histories closely connected to the original inhabitants of our nation. We conquered their ancestors and eliminated most of them. Those who come here now are not capable of overwhelming us by force.

[Happy Hoosier]

12. I agree with that for sure.

But we have to approach the subject with consideration.

[hunter]

13. Climate change will be the biggest displacement in human history.

Those who saw the least improvement in their lives from the burning of fossil fuels will suffer the worst consequences.

The wealthy, who achieved their wealth by burning fossil fuels, will simply move to higher ground and greener pastures.

It's already happening.

[MineralMan]

16. So will global pandemics.

There are many forces in play, with more to come in the future. We need to be thinking about how to mitigate the impacts of those forces, I think, in a humanitarian way.

[GoodRaisin]

21. Yes, it's wrong on it's face.

There is no acceptable justification for doing it. Nobody would want that done to them. It violates the golden rule.

[MineralMan]

22. Thanks!