|
DeusExMachinima posted:Reading that reddit thread I found a link to a court document that says the ACE tried to contact the tribal leaders multiple times for consultations. Other tribes talked to them, Standing Rock mostly didn't. If that's true, holy gently caress their tribal leadership is terminally retarded and may have screwed over everyone else on the rez. Check out pages 15-33 for the whole shitshow. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39 quote:Where this surveying revealed previously unidentified historic or cultural resources that might be affected, the company mostly chose to reroute. Id., ¶¶ 4-6. In North Dakota, for example, the cultural surveys found 149 potentially eligible sites, 91 of which had stone features. Id., ¶ 5. The pipeline workspace and route was modified to avoid all 91 of these stone features and all but 9 of the other potentially eligible sites. Id. By the time the company finally settled on a construction path, then, the pipeline route had been modified 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid potential cultural resources. Id., ¶ 6. Plans had also been put in place to mitigate any effects on the other 9 sites through coordination with the North Dakota SHPO. Id., ¶ 13. All told, the company surveyed nearly twice as many miles in North Dakota as the 357 miles that would eventually be used for the pipeline. Id., ¶ 12.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 07:51 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:05 |
|
Let me see if understand you right: They don't think a state that has murdered and poo poo on their people for hundreds of years should be allowed to build an unsafe pipeline through their land - but they should bend over and eat it anyway because said state probably said everything is going to be different this time? Yeah, good luck with that.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 07:56 |
|
Tias posted:Let me see if understand you right: They don't think a state that has murdered and poo poo on their people for hundreds of years should be allowed to build an unsafe pipeline through their land - but they should bend over and eat it anyway because said state probably said everything is going to be different this time? Yeah, good luck with that. 2. There's already an oil pipeline running across the lake less than a stone's throw away from the proposed new pipeline location. The pipeline built in 1982 didn't contaminate their water in the past 34 years. They have every reason to believe this one won't contaminate their precious bodily fluids either.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:06 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:1. The company rerouted the pipeline 140 times in North Dakota around tribal cultural resources. They were listening to the tribes and taking action based on their concerns, but the Standing Rock Sioux decided to try to take their ball and go home. I see where you're coming from, but if they don't get approval from the tribe that actually lives on and uses the land, that's not a legitimate negotiation - and I maintain that the SR Lakota have full rights to the land - you know, like rich white people have over everywhere else and make loving stupid decisions about every day? It's theirs, they can take their ball home as much as they want to.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:09 |
|
This is the exact document I posted about earlier in the thread. When you say the "dismissal is a pro click" you are taking it as being a 100% legitimate and honest document, and as Tias just posted there may be problems with that claim. Second, even if what's in the document is true, the DAPL people only gave the Standing Rock Sioux a few months to respond to a major project that could have huge impacts on their quality of life. Third,Tias posted:Let me see if understand you right: They don't think a state that has murdered and poo poo on their people for hundreds of years should be allowed to build an unsafe pipeline through their land - but they should bend over and eat it anyway because said state probably said everything is going to be different this time? Yeah, good luck with that.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:09 |
|
It's a natural gas pipeline running nearby, not an oil pipeline. Makes a difference when it leaks.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:10 |
|
Tias posted:I see where you're coming from, but if they don't get approval from the tribe that actually lives on and uses the land, that's not a legitimate negotiation - and I maintain that the SR Lakota have full rights to the land - you know, like rich white people have over everywhere else and make loving stupid decisions about every day? It's theirs, they can take their ball home as much as they want to. It is literally not their land and goes around their reservation just like it goes around the Fort Berthold reservation. The Army Corps of Engineers tried to open a dialogue with them and get their input and they refused. They are not entitled to veto power over all construction near their land just because some of their ancestors were killed by white men with guns.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:16 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The Army Corps of Engineers tried to open a dialogue with them and get their input and they refused. They are not entitled to veto power over all construction near their land just because some of their ancestors were killed by white men with guns. Ancestors, huh.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 08:34 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:They are not entitled to veto power over all construction near their land just because some of their ancestors were killed by white men with guns. Actually, they are
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 09:01 |
If I understand this right the tribe says the land belongs to them by treaty but the Army Corp of Engineers says we don't recognize the treaties?
|
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 09:14 |
|
Sounds like it's more a disputation of what exact rights the treaty grants.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 09:24 |
And then, as I understood it, when the tribe went to the courts the courts ruled that it didn't matter anyways because the outcome would be the same regardless of the results of the complaint?
|
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 09:39 |
|
I thought the understanding was that the Tribes had fair use of the surrounding area even if it was not "technically" their land or whatever. So my understanding is that their legal claim is that the pipeline could potentionally harm their fair use of this land , but also poison them all to death.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 09:45 |
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Actually, they are RandomPauI posted:If I understand this right the tribe says the land belongs to them by treaty but the Army Corp of Engineers says we don't recognize the treaties?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:17 |
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Actually, they are Yeah, that's the thing this idiot is missing. If the land is theirs by treaty, they are under no obligation to cooperate with allowing a private interest to exploit it. Full stop. In point of fact, depending on the terms of the treaty, the federal government may be obliged to back that up with force of arms. We aren't talking 'someone shot a native and now they're all restless', this is the basics of literally every interaction the native American nations have had with the US government for more than a century. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Nov 2, 2016 |
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:21 |
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, that's the thing this idiot is missing. IF the land is theirs by treaty, they are under no obligation to cooperate with it allow a private interest to exploit it. Full stop. It goes around their land. It's not their loving land.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:24 |
|
And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is indication that both the specific area noted is contested as being included under treaty, -and- any contamination generated by a pipeline mishap would directly contaminate the watershed for the reservation. Again, the same reason it was moved south after the white folks in Bismarck complained, indicating that the company considered this a valid enough argument to act on.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:28 |
|
Yeah there's a reason that the pipeline doesn't just head east above Bismarck. They wouldn't tolerate it being built for fears that it'd poison them which is a real concern because regardless of what you think pipelines do leak.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:33 |
|
Liquid Communism posted:And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is indication that both the specific area noted is contested as being included under treaty, -and- any contamination generated by a pipeline mishap would directly contaminate the watershed for the reservation. Again, the same reason it was moved south after the white folks in Bismarck complained, indicating that the company considered this a valid enough argument to act on. Hollismason posted:Yeah there's a reason that the pipeline doesn't just head east above Bismarck. They wouldn't tolerate it being built for fears that it'd poison them which is a real concern because regardless of what you think pipelines do leak.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:41 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Would you be okay with it if it ran through Bismarck over the same river and was still capable of contaminating the water supply downstream if it leaked? Or are you just standing athwart history yelling STOP? Hoo boy, who did you make mad enough to give you this redtext I suspect it's really just yelling STOP but wouldn't have made the news (outside of the Bismarck, Flyover State #5 local paper with a weekly circulation of 20, seriously how lovely is your state if the capital has a population of under 100k) if there weren't people protesting against it in sight of a reservation. As a side note, someone from my year in uni (UK) just took a flight to merica to protest at standing rock
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 10:59 |
|
blowfish posted:Hoo boy, who did you make mad enough to give you this redtext
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 11:33 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:America's fly over states are uninhabited wastelands. The states of Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota have a combined population equal to the St. Louis metropolitan area. However, at 100k Bismarck still swamps the population of the Standing Rock Reservation's population of 8,250. If the pipeline leaking is a risk, then we should put it where it is less likely to hurt a "major" population center. How many people have to live in a place before they're worthy of human rights under your rubric?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 11:45 |
|
They're arguing a utilitarian moral philosophy so its kind of pointless.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 11:51 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:America's fly over states are uninhabited wastelands. The states of Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota have a combined population equal to the St. Louis metropolitan area. However, at 100k Bismarck still swamps the population of the Standing Rock Reservation's population of 8,250. If the pipeline leaking is a risk, then we should put it where it is less likely to hurt a "major" population center. If they are uninhabited wastelands, why not let the pipeline go through the uninhabited wasteland parts of the state and not through lands under the stewardship of Native Americans?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 11:55 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:If they are uninhabited wastelands, why not let the pipeline go through the uninhabited wasteland parts of the state and not through lands under the stewardship of Native Americans? Jack Gladney posted:How many people have to live in a place before they're worthy of human rights under your rubric?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:03 |
|
You're spending a lot of time trying to defend the shafting of a specific Native tribe on the pretext that they didn't fill out the right forms within a certain deadline. Is this really a hill you're willing to die on?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:13 |
|
You're taking it as a given that someone needs to risk poisoning over this, though, and that it needs to happen at all. A solution that doesn't poison people, or just not building the pipeline period, both seem better to me than arguing "gently caress the natives, it's not like there's that many of them left anyway".
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:15 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You're spending a lot of time trying to defend the shafting of a specific Native tribe on the pretext that they didn't fill out the right forms within a certain deadline. Is this really a hill you're willing to die on?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:20 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:
Best for who now?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:25 |
|
That's pretty callous, and it also doesn't take into account the fact that their reasoning for not cooperating is their opposition to the pipeline in its entirety, a perfectly valid point of view.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:28 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That's pretty callous, and it also doesn't take into account the fact that their reasoning for not cooperating is their opposition to the pipeline in its entirety, a perfectly valid point of view.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:39 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:If your family asks what you want for Thanksgiving dinner and you reply that you don't think they should be celebrating Thanksgiving at all, you have no right to complain when Thanksgiving comes and there's not a single vegetarian dish.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:42 |
|
Tias posted:Seems like it's going to get worse before it gets better OP, come on. Did you even watch this? An 11 year old girl was not gunned down by police snipers.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 12:57 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:
Then why haven't you yet done your moral duty and driven yourself to the nearest hospital, taken fast-acting neurotoxin, and pinned a note to your chest explaining that you would like to donate all of your organs, JS Mill? Alternately, why should the new freeway go through your house and not your neighbor's? Utilitarianism of this sort will always be a reducto-ad because it frequently relies on stupid unexamined premises. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 14:18 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The dismissal is a pro click and completely obliterated any sympathy I may have had for the standing rock sioux. What loving idiots. The company and the army corps of engineers bent over backwards to accommodate them and they refused. Certainly that's true for their leadership. The other members of the tribe may not have known that their leaders could have done something about the pipeline and instead twiddled their thumbs. The dismissal definitely changes the impact of this news story though.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 15:41 |
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Are you blind? I linked the picture right on this page. You realize they are protesting mostly because of the river it crosses right? And because most of these companies have a lovely record when it comes to pipeline integrity, and that river is the reservations primary water source? I'd be protesting too. Even worse, looking at that map: Why is the pipeline crossing the river. Twice, when it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 15:45 |
|
CommieGIR posted:You realize they are protesting mostly because of the river it crosses right? And because most of these companies have a lovely record when it comes to pipeline integrity, and that river is the reservations primary water source? The pipeline later on will cross the Mississippi river, upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. The city of St. Louis gets a lot of its drinking water from the river.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 15:51 |
|
silence_kit posted:The pipeline later on will cross the Mississippi river, upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. The city of St. Louis gets a lot of its drinking water from the river. You're right, maybe this pipeline idea isn't as good as we're being told. Its not like we've had any explode in the past 3 months or so.... But, the point stands: Why shouldn't they protest? Its not like companies and the government don't have an established legacy of loving the Tribes even more than they gently caress everyday US citizens.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 15:57 |
|
CommieGIR posted:You're right, maybe this pipeline idea isn't as good as we're being told. Its not like we've had any explode in the past 3 months or so.... Aren't you the poster who whines about NIMBYs in the nuclear energy megathread?
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 16:01 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:05 |
|
silence_kit posted:Aren't you the poster who whines about NIMBYs in the nuclear energy megathread? Got it, an energy sector with a very excellent safety record is completely comparable to one that is notorious for loving everything up and then leaving the citizens to foot the bill. Are you serious? Here, let me help you, this is a list of pipeline spills just this year alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016 quote:On January 2, 3 people were injured, one seriously, one home destroyed, and 50 homes were damaged in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when a leak gas from a gas main entered a home. Preliminary results indicate that a leak occurred at a weld seam on the gas main. Later, later, Oklahoma regulators filed a complaint over the failure with Oklahoma Natural Gas. The complaint alleged the utility failed to properly inspect its system following eight previous leak failures in the neighborhood going back to 1983.[559][560] If Nuclear was spilling this often, I'd be calling them out too. But they are not. And you are making false comparisons.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 16:06 |