The Great Hippo wrote:To be more clear, here: Thesh, the problem with things like gentrification or the displacement of America's native peoples isn't *just* that they have no where else to go; even if they did, it would still be awful to displace people from the lands and homes they are familiar with -- the places that their ancestors came from. This is, in fact, a component of genocide; detaching people from the land to which they are connected -- removing their sense of history and belonging to their cultural and/or ancestral home. You can make their new house as nice and pretty as you want, and make sure all their friends are there -- but it still doesn't make this okay, or make their discontent any less credible.
You can argue that this isn't your point (I get that you're arguing these things happened not to address inequality, but to *enforce* it), but when you keep insisting that people can be happy regardless of where they are -- so long as their basic needs are met -- you start sounding a lot like the people who told Native American tribes they could be happy elsewhere. Especially since my example above with the ancestral home was based on that very idea.
Tyndmyr was arguing that people couldn't be happy unless they moved to a specific place, so therefore there is conflict. I'm saying that's bullshit, and that literally most people would prefer to stay where they are, and that just because you don't get to move to your #1 desired location doesn't mean that you can't be happy.
I'm literally saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.