I don't imagine indigenous people have very much plans for Lithium too. I think the characterization of taking probably keeps alive that colonial bent on such things.
Indigenous people usually subsist off their environments, which are disrupted and potentially destroyed by extractive industries.
It takes a certain sort of person to screw the indigenous out of not only their traditions and culture by destroying their source of food and other supplies, and then turn around and say they don't deserve to profit off that destruction because they're simple and provincial.
They get some profit. Whether or not that's "enough" is up to the eye of the beholder.
Are the benefits of living in Argentina society, bolstered by shared oil revenue, good enough for the people who born in the Andean salt flats region? That's a political question, not a moral one.
Additionally, I don't like how this is being framed.
Titling this as happening to 'indigenous peoples' instead of "Citizens of Argentina" and talking about the destruction of culture, as opposed to 'evolution' or 'melding with multicultural society'. Or people 'subsisting' instead of merely being poor. "Provincial" instead of 'uneducated'.
It slants the whole conversation in a direction I think is utterly unfair.
It takes a certain sort of person to screw the indigenous out of not only their traditions and culture by destroying their source of food and other supplies, and then turn around and say they don't deserve to profit off that destruction because they're simple and provincial.