Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No doubt. This example however, is low on the injustice scale, 87 people once and has been "described as a humanitarian gesture to save the lives of starving native people".



Well, that was how the government described it initially. More recently they've admitted wrongdoing and apologized. I think it's more likely they were trying to assert sovereignty in the high arctic using people they knew would stand a good chance of surviving there.


Why not both. To me this seems like the gov found a mutually beneficial opportunity and acted upon it. I'm not absolving the gov of all wrongdoing, but in this case I feel the issues were more in the execution rather than the concept or intentions.


It's not both because the threats that the displaced people faced after the move were far more severe than those faced before the move. Also, instead of keeping the families together they were dispersed into multiple groups without being informed beforehand. That is _not_ a sign of trying to help combat overpopulation, and _is_ a sign of asserting sovereignty over the land.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: