example of the lands lost due to the dawes act
The Dawes Act of 1887 was a post-Indian Wars law that illegally dissolved 90 million acres of Native lands from 1887 to 1934. Signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on February 8, 1887, the Dawes Act expedited the cultural genocide of Native Americans. The negative effects of the Dawes Act on Indigenous tribes would result in the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the so-called βIndian New Deal.β
It authorized the U.S. to divide indigenous tribal land into allotments for heads of families and individuals, leading to a loss of 2/3rds of land (~100 million acres) over the next 50 years.
The law converted traditional systems of land tenure into a state-imposed system of private property by forcing Native Americans to "assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property" that did not previously exist in their cultures, according to historian Kent Blansett. The act declared remaining lands after allotment as "surplus" and available for sale, including to non-Natives.
Between 1887 and 1934, indigenous people lost control of about 100 million acres of land, or about two-thirds of the land base they held in 1887, as a result of the act.
The loss of land and the break-up of traditional leadership of tribes had such devastating consequences that many scholars refer to the Dawes Act as one of the most destructive U.S. policies for indigenous people in history.
Hexbear links
- π»Link to all Hexbear comms
- π Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- π₯ Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- β Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- β¨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- π Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
- 𧑠Disabled comm megathread
reminders:
- π You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- π Hexbearβs algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- π Sorting by new you nerd
- π If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- πΆ Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
- β€οΈFoundations of Leninism
- β€οΈAnarchism and Other Essays
Great links, read the substack and watched the video.
I knew about Taylorism before, and I remember when I first read about it I had a "aha" moment as I realized that is exactly how every company operates internally. Even before learning about it, I felt that obsession with metrics had alot of limits. The only thing is I don't have a good answer other than just "increase the value" of whatever it is you are working on, which is subjective, but not necessarily wrong. People's reactions to your product are always going to be subjective.
Another component of Taylorism is dividing the planning and executing among the manager and the worker respectively. This I think is straightforward for manufacturing industries, but in jobs like in tech maybe a bit more muddled, since I do think engineers do quite a bit of planning. Execs just "set the vision" and everyone else is supposed to rally around that trying to understand what the vision is. I think probably the metrics are important to, since these execs are so far removed from the product that they need a way to understand how things are going with as little investigation as possible (these people also get paid a ridiculous amount more than everyone under them for being a glorified metric nazi). Also a funny contradiction I've seen at the workplace countless times, is that the exec is allowed to make vibes-based decision, but workers have to justify everything with metrics. When the exec's decisions are so batshit that even the most obedient workers begin to question it, management says "Oh they are very visionary". Workers are not allowed to be visionary.
There is always this question I had, which is what is the purpose of a tech manager? Sure they can make decisions, lead the team etc. but that can also be done by a worker on the team. All that is needed is to pass the authority down to them. The only thing I could come up with is that, in order to enforce the metrics driven approach, there needs to be consequences for not meeting them and thats what the manager is for -- basically to fire people.
Unfortunately I think we are stuck in this metric-driven culture because people are way to deep into it to think of anything else. There are always new products that come out (like DeepSeek) that "disrupt" these companies, but when they try to answer the question of why did it happen "there" and not "here" they would never question the metric culture. One is that the people making these decisions are the execs who only know to follow the metrics, thats their entire job and they don't want to lose it. The other is that it kind of makes intuitive sense that if you want to know whether something is successful you need something to measure. Maybe a good alternative will come up one day?
Nah, its great, keep on TED talking comrade.