I don’t think I’m familiar enough with the situation to even know who the “bad guys” are, but I guess that depends largely on which side you’re already sitting on. Much like right or wrong being dependent on the number of people that agree with you, good or bad is largely about perspective. I don’t think anyone out there is trying to be bad just for the sake of being bad. They’re more likely just poorly implementing their good intentions.
That's an excellent concise summary of progressiveness, but isn't there some objective rule a person can trust?
It has been common practice for all of history for one powerful group to knock a weaker group to the ground then absorb their wealth and power. The modern day spin is to also exterminate their identity as a group until they are fully assimilated.
Hundreds of tribes in the 'United States' have gone extinct this way, several in the last 10 years.
Hundreds of tribes have gone extinct in China, Tibet is rapidly going down that path, along with others.
Tibet once had a very important group of sciences they were developing, today almost nobody is even aware because as a tribe gets assimilated it quietly eliminates the sciences / forks in knowledge that it created.
U.S. conquest of indigenous tribes was swift and thorough so there is not even residue of what their sciences were.
What would be required to say definitively either 'it is' or 'it isn't' good or bad to eliminate sciences and tribes for political gain?
Would it need some conclusive evidence of a harm that reached a certain level, a genetic harm, for example? A very precise and specific question, not rhetorical.
