|
gfsincere posted:It's almost like it happened in our parents lifetime or something...weird right? I know! And there's this strange thing in the back of my head where I kinda remember the Navajo nation having a huge disaster recently because the EPA accidentally let loose a bunch of wastewater from a capped mine into their drinking water supply. Funny that.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its ironic because you're praising the people of Bismark for restraint over plans while tut-tutting the natives over carried out actions. CommieGIR posted:South Dakota has a legacy of abusing the Natives. Hell, some of it is ongoing right now... And let's just pretend they didn't push this through as fast as loving possible without much recourse... Yeah, why would the Souix be upset? Obviously their concerns have been addressed Goodpancakes posted:Yeah, and weirdly that is an amorphous delineation dependent upon the whims of the US Government. You can look back to the Ft. Laramie treaty where they were promised the Black Hills of South Dakota, later discovered gold there, and now we carved our president's into their sacred mountains. quote:Alicia Garza, founder of the Black Lives Matter social movement, contrasted the aggressive police action with the treatment of the organizers of a standoff at an Oregon wildlife refuge (acquitted of federal charges on the same day as the police raid of the camp),[67] saying "If you're white, you can occupy federal property ... and get found not guilty. No teargas, no tanks, no rubber bullets ... If you're indigenous and fighting to protect our earth, and the water we depend on to survive, you get tear gassed, media blackouts, tanks and all that." Civilized Fishbot posted:The Standing Rock don't want to own part of the Vegas Strip, they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics, acres that were literally stolen from them as a critical component of centuries of organized slaughter and the attempted wholesale destruction of their culture and way of life CommieGIR posted:The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:. My claim is that they deserve control over the land immediately adjacent to theirs which contains some of the proposed pipeline, the land on which they're seeking to prevent pipeline construction, and that doesn't require a position on whether they should have control over any other land as well But that's an uninteresting answer to your question, so I'll tell you that I'm leaning toward "convene a panel of historians, determine the extent of Standing Rock land that was stolen by genocidal US forces, give them all of that land that was taken from them and allow them to choose whether or not to sell any part of it back to anyone. Do the same with all other Native American tribes." As a non-historian I wouldn't be on that panel, but if the tribe feels really strongly about this patch of land, and it historically controlled this patch of land before being marched off at gunpoint, it obviously should be returned to their control
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Thank you did you understand the moral? Civilized Fishbot posted:http://www.msnbc.com/interactives/geography-of-poverty/nw.html Liquid Communism posted:poo poo, it's almost like, in living memory, the Corps of Engineers flooded one of the most resource-dense parts of the reservation because they wanted to put a lake there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:My claim is that they deserve control over the land immediately adjacent to theirs which contains some of the proposed pipeline, the land on which they're seeking to prevent pipeline construction, and that doesn't require a position on whether they should have control over any other land as well  "I'm asserting that there is definitely a property right here, but I cannot comment on where it may be bounded or what it is based on." Come on, we've already started. You've established that granting the tribe sovereignty over Las Vegas would be ridiculous, but that the land ten miles north of their current reservation should definitely be theirs. Does it extend north to Bismarck? Let's work east from Vegas, too. What about Denver?Civilized Fishbot posted:But that's an uninteresting answer to your question, so I'll tell you that I'm leaning toward "convene a panel of historians, determine the extent of Standing Rock land that was stolen by genocidal US forces, give them all of that land that was taken from them and allow them to choose whether or not to sell any part of it back to anyone. Do the same with all other Native American tribes." As a non-historian I wouldn't be on that panel, but if the tribe feels really strongly about this patch of land, and it historically controlled this patch of land before being marched off at gunpoint, it obviously should be returned to their control
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I reject any argument for reparations based on crimes committed exclusively by dead people against dead people. The victims of the crimes are still alive today. Native Americans and Black Americans aren't impoverished because they chose to be. Dead Reckoning posted:
The tribe isn't expressing interest in any sort of control except over the lands they already own and the land 10 miles north where the pipeline will be, so obviously they shouldn't have Bismarck/Denver because they don't want it. If something is stolen from you, and you want it back, you should get it back. This is a really really good law for civilization to have, because it simultaneously provides for restitution and deterrence against stealing. If you're never going to be forced to return what you stole, why not steal? Practicing this principle with Native American tribes, after they were brutally genocided for literally hundreds of years, seems appropriate Dead Reckoning posted:Okay, so your plan is to displace a large portion of the 1.6 million people in North and South Dakota (and presumably every other state in the Mississippi river basin as well) from their homes, presumably at gunpoint, if the native tribes decline to allow them the "opportunity" to purchase their homes again at full market value. That's a strange sense of justice you have there. I think I'm gonna take a pass on that, along with all the other not-crazy people Why do you think that the Standing Rock would be so cruel as to kick everyone off of the land? Because that's what was done to them? If any of the lives of those 1.6 million people are ruined, then create a robust social safety net so that they can still lead decent and comfortable lives. Doing the right thing is expensive sometimes Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The victims of the crimes are still alive today. Native Americans and Black Americans aren't impoverished because they chose to be. If we perpetuate a crime or injustice for long enough, it's okay. We are marching towards a bright and glorious future, and we should look forwards and not backwards. Obama said as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
For people saying the cultural/archaeological side of things has been addressed it really hasn't been to the standards of the broader archaeological community and theres buzz around of possible repercussions for the archaeologists that okayed the project. Its not super uncommon (sadly) for archaeologists to "survey" a site and okay it so they can make some semi quick cash. Its one reason Native groups still dont trust archaeologists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:For people saying the cultural/archaeological side of things has been addressed it really hasn't been to the standards of the broader archaeological community and theres buzz around of possible repercussions for the archaeologists that okayed the project. Its not super uncommon (sadly) for archaeologists to "survey" a site and okay it so they can make some semi quick cash. Its one reason Native groups still dont trust archaeologists. Could you share some articles about this? Sounds fascinating, but I don't know where to go looking for news about the archeological community
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Could you share some articles about this? Sounds fascinating, but I don't know where to go looking for news about the archeological community I'll see if I can dig (heh) anything up on either the SAA or AAA sites but I heard about the possible repercussions from a professor of mine who's focus is these types of issues and has been traveling to a couple of conferences where the topic has come up, it mostly likely will remain an internal debate until they reach a consensus and they will announce. Regardless of what they decide the archaeologist for the project is super hosed in regards to jobs. Archaeologists that half rear end a survey is an open secret in the profession and does not really get reported for reasons that pretty much boil down to self-interest or that the reporters get ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The tribe isn't expressing interest in any sort of control except over the lands they already own and the land 10 miles north where the pipeline will be, so obviously they shouldn't have Bismarck/Denver because they don't want it. Civilized Fishbot posted:Why do you think that the Standing Rock would be so cruel as to kick everyone off of the land? Because that's what was done to them? If any of the lives of those 1.6 million people are ruined, then create a robust social safety net so that they can still lead decent and comfortable lives. Doing the right thing is expensive sometimes BTW, this is why, despite your moralizing, the entire "just give the land back to the natives" argument is retarded. This is the only logical endpoint. The argument boils down to, "the only moral property rights were those established in 1620 (was it 1620, by the way? The year matters a lot when you're carving up the United States to give back to the tribes, because they went to war and took territory from each other pretty frequently) and any coerced transfer after that point is immoral. So to rectify those people getting forced out of their homes, where some of them had lived for generations, at gunpoint in the 1800s... we're going to force a whole lot more people out of their homes, where some of them have lived for generations, at gunpoint today." There isn't even a lovely utilitarian argument to be made. So you either parting shot the hero, or you argue long enough to see yourself propose something monstrous. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The victims of the crimes are still alive today. Native Americans and Black Americans aren't impoverished because they chose to be. Again, you are proposing a world where no-one ever forgives or forgets anything, forever re-litigating past slights in the name of "justice". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Or he could be proposing that the ongoing violations of the terms of the treaties which won that land from the natives somewhat invalidates the treaties. It's never been a big issue, since we've pushed the tribes onto bad enough land and denied them resources long enough that they've never been in a position to take reprisals, but at no point does that make it right. Edit : phone spell gud Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I am a blonde haired fair-skinned man and could easily join the KKK. I am also the direct descendant of a half-black orphan. No one knows why he was dumped at an orphanage before the Civil War, but it's pretty much certain that if not one of his parents then some of his ancestors were slaves. So despite having never been judged once in my life by the color of my skin I am probably entitled to slavery reparations. That would be ridiculous. The alternative is that we forget about slavery reparations and focus on more recent harms, like Jim Crow, redlining, and so on, and perhaps consider compensation and affirmative action on that basis. Do you see the analogy to Native Americans? You don't know anything about the case for reparations, do you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Again, you are proposing a world where no-one ever forgives or forgets anything, forever re-litigating past slights in the name of "justice". It's impossible to forget about slavery because its legacy permeates basically every single interaction and facet of American life. If we were to set out forget slavery or other "past slights", the first step would be somehow repairing the incredible damage that was done. Erasing the evidence by cleaning up the mess. Making everything look as if the terrible crime had never occurred. Repertory transformation. Reparation. You can't forget about a wound until it's healed, otherwise you can try but you'll be reminded every time you see it in the mirror. If something precious was taken from you, you can't forget about it until it's returned, even if you'd rather forget than remember. Do you see the analogy to Native Americans? Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ah, but if they did want Bismarck or Denver, would you think that they should have it? If not, why not? Your entire claim that they have a right turns pretty heavily on this. A. It was seized from them during genocide B. Nobody lives on it C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it So we don't have to worry about Denver or Bismarck or any other town where people live. Do you have any concerns with this policy? It seems to me like very literally the least that could be given to them - and, incidentally, all that they're asking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
JC, 4 pages of people not understanding what "causes people to protest"  The SR Lakota have, like all the indian nations at the site, all but wiped out by a policy of extermination by the state that now tries to ram a big gently caress-off oil pipe through their water supply. On their site may be a lot of concerned citizens, but on the other you have the USA CoE, security companies and some extremely rich people who rarely have an qualms about buying off the justice system. We're lucky things haven't gotten uglier, and should support their cause. What do you people drink, once you're done posting? Something with water in it, and you sure as hell aren't rich enough to buy up clean water supplies once a pipeline fucks up yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
I live in Ventura County. It's in Southern California and it's economy is reasonably good. Just this year we had three major oil or gas leaks including one on Wednesday which caused an area to be covered in a fog of natural gas for over 24 hours. We're also slogging thru a legal battle to force a company to definitively shut down an off-shore oil rig built on an artificial island. The pipeline's corroding, the bridge connecting the island to the shore is liable to collapse if anything heavier than a golf cart drives on it, the rock barriers need to be rebuilt, and it hasn't actually been used in years because it's no longer profitable. The counties next door have also had problems with oil and gas leaks that literally threatened schools, houses, and businesses If the heart of well-off liberal Southern California still has these sorts of problems what chances would an impoverished reservation have if something went wrong with the pipeline now, 10 years from now, 30 years from now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
As a native american, I seen that nobody gives a gently caress about Flintstones Michigan. White people cant care about water if the town is more than 15% brown. I grew up on the Wakpala Lakota reservation, and all the surviving adults from my childhood are at the protest. The tribe should just buy a bunch of bottled water with the settlement money of white people stealing their land. The Lakota can be like the fremen on david lynches dune, but underground vaults of bottled water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:What if we agree that the Standing Rock should be able to decide whether pipelines are built or not built on land so long as: twodot fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not necessarily opposed to this strategy, but I can't understand why you can't simply draw the borders of this strategy, if you think it is a coherent way to categorize land. Does "they" have unlimited rights to change where they actively express interest in? If so, I don't see how this removes worry about Denver or Bismarck. just lol at the idea that we can't respect the rights of native americans or they will take over denver the mental gymnastics, it's amazing edit. my apologies if you're being ironic it's hard to tell NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:just lol at the idea that we can't respect the rights of native americans or they will take over denver
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not being ironic, I just want people who want to grant land rights to people to explain the extent of the land that they want those rights to extend to. We can't even begin the conversation until we know what is being proposed. as you've so cleverly illustrated by bringing up such shockers as "if we grant them these land rights, what's to stop them from taking denver" really, glad we have someone like you asking the hard questions
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not being ironic, I just want people who want to grant land rights to people to explain the extent of the land that they want those rights to extend to. We can't even begin the conversation until we know what is being proposed. You already saw this: Civilized Fishbot posted:A. It was seized from them during genocide Denver clearly isn't included because, while I haven't independently verified this myself, I've been told people live in Denver. I don't know what the geographical layout of these territories would look like, but that's a coherent way to draw them out. A compromise between absolute reparations (which would involve the return of ALL land) and kindness toward the people who have settled on the stolen land. And, above all else, listening to the tribe about what they want - which isn't that much at all! Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:as you've so cleverly illustrated by bringing up such shockers as "if we grant them these land rights, what's to stop them from taking denver" Please draw these borders on a map. I don't know how to measure "They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it". edit: Oh you provided actual content. There are areas of Denver that no one lives on. quote:I don't know what the geographical layout of these territories would look like twodot fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Please draw these borders on a map. I don't know how to measure "They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
I mean the person who provided the strategy I've been talking about has explicitly said they themselves don't know how to define the region they are talking about, so I'm unclear what's unreasonable about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not the one who brought up Denver, I was replying to a person who claimed they had a strategy that precluded worrying about Denver, but wasn't able to actually draw borders that precluded Denver. Dude, I don't know what those borders look like geographically because I'm not an expert on the layout of residential and commercial land use in the American west, and an expert on the history of native land seizure in the United States, and also well-aware of what the Standing Rock do and don't want land-wise. I'm providing a principle by which those borders can be drawn, which should be enough to determine if any given parcel of land fits. The region can be defined and described by the rules that I've provided, that should be enough to start a discussion. This is actually as all hellFor example: some parts of Denver are occupied, which means that the Standing Rock can't have those. Other parts, the Standing Rock have never expressed any interest in, so they won't have those either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean the person who provided the strategy I've been talking about has explicitly said they themselves don't know how to define the region they are talking about, so I'm unclear what's unreasonable about that. Yeah I think it's painfully obvious that you're not clear on much of anything. For example, twodot posted:There are areas of Denver that no one lives on. Civilized Fishbot posted:For example: some parts of Denver are occupied, which means that the Standing Rock can't have those. Other parts, the Standing Rock have never expressed any interest in, so they won't have those either. I've lived in Denver and I'll save you some time, he's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:For example: some parts of Denver are occupied, which means that the Standing Rock can't have those. Other parts, the Standing Rock have never expressed any interest in, so they won't have those either. NewForumSoftware posted:I've lived in Denver and I'll save you some time, he's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Old unincorporated denver, where the bears and elk run wild. Some of the greatest hiking west of the mississippi, come on down to the gold mine and grab some souvenirs for the kids!twodot posted:So you're stance is now that Denver doesn't have any businesses? Like I don't want to be arguing over such trivialities, but the rules supplied are so dumb that it can't be avoided. Just draw an actual map of what you want. Uhh no my stance is that Denver has no "unpopulated areas" feel free to look at a map if you want to check. Or you know, live there for five years like I did. edit. also to be clear, my stance is that you're an idiot talking out of your rear end who literally can't stop himself
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Old unincorporated denver, where the bears and elk run wild. Some of the greatest hiking west of the mississippi, come on down to the gold mine and grab some souvenirs for the kids!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:The rules given were "Nobody lives on it", don't put quote marks around things that aren't quotes. There are areas of Denver that nobody lives on, that's just a fact. Enlighten us with an example oh wisdomful one
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Enlighten us with an example oh wisdomful one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_State_Capitol
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ignoring the fact that I already gave you an entire category of an example, nobody lives here: Ironically enough being one of the most popular places for the homeless to sleep. So actually you're wrong in this case. Really the suncor plant or the airport would be better bet if you want to double down on your autism. No see guys if we let them not build this pipeline what's to stop the Sioux from claiming the Suncor plant in Denver as their own? Really makes you think Man it's just amazing how much some people will flail to avoid just posting "you know what, that is kind of silly, maybe we shouldn't waste pages on this dumb idea that popped into my head"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ironically enough being one of the most popular places for the homeless to sleep. So actually you're wrong in this case. Really the suncor plant or the airport would be better bet if you want to double down on your autism. Someone proposed a system of rules rather than just defining the borders of what they want. If their system of rules allows the Sioux to claim the Suncor plant in Denver, me observing that fact isn't my fault. Especially considering that the person who proposed the system of rules is the one who falsely claimed that all of Denver was somehow exempt from their rules, even though they maintain they can't actually draw the borders of where their rules apply. If rules have absurd outcomes, then it's the rules (or their author) who is at fault. edit: NewForumSoftware posted:Man it's just amazing how much some people will flail to avoid just posting "you know what, that is kind of silly, maybe we shouldn't waste pages on this dumb idea that popped into my head"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I have no idea how you could go about falsifying the idea that Standing Rock (the community, the individuals that make up that community, the leadership?) has never expressed any interest in Denver. Nor have you been explicit about whether your rules permit Standing Rock to express interest in Denver having learned that expression of interest is sufficient to gain land rights. You need to understand what your proposal actually is before you can think it is good or not. Well, I think we're getting to an issue here, which is that I privately believe that justice demands the Standing Rock should be able to hold a lot of land in Denver. But I'm not working to convince you of that, I'm working to convince you that the Standing Rock should be able to control whether a pipeline is built in this very small part of land. So let's add a fourth rule: A. It was seized from them during genocide B. Nobody lives on it C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it D. The land lays at most 15 miles from the current borders of the Standing Rock Reservation as it exists today in 2016. Are you fine with these rules? Do they strike you as a reasonable compromise between restoring the impact of genocidal land theft and allowing modern-day occupiers of that land to live their lives uninterrupted? Also, one can actually draw this shape super easily if you have the right software (I don't). Take the border of the reservation; at every point along that border, draw a circle of radius 15. You'll now be able to observe a potential new border. Alter the border so that it goes around/leaves out all places that lay outside the old reservation and contain residential land use. Then, contact the Standing Rock and ask them if they want control over any of this land, and let them identify the parts they want. Give them those parts. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
alright maybe you're just a bot programmed to post autistically, either way not wasting any more time trying to explain to you why "but then they could take Denver!?!?!" is such a dumb thing for you to be posting about. have fun making a fool of yourself
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Well, I think we're getting to an issue here, which is that I privately believe that justice demands the Standing Rock should be able to hold a lot of land in Denver. But I'm not working to convince you of that, I'm working to convince you that the Standing Rock should be able to control whether a pipeline is built in this very small part of land. So let's add a fourth rule: NewForumSoftware posted:alright maybe you're just a bot programmed to post autistically, either way not wasting any more time trying to explain to you why "but then they could take Denver!?!?!" is such a dumb thing for you to be posting about. have fun making a fool of yourself
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
twodot posted:I would oppose those rules personally. If I thought Standing Rock had some claim on the land 15 miles from its current borders, I would argue the government should pay them the current market value of that land, but it shouldn't forcibly take rights to privately held land just to compensate Standing Rock. I also don't understand how you came to the figure 15 miles, and whether you would argue the same figure were their borders bigger or smaller than they are today. 15 miles is an arbitrary figure I chose to include the disputed pipeline land while leaving out anything else of note. As for the government paying them current market value: don't you think genocide victims should have the right to dictate the manner in which they're paid reparations? The land has spiritual and sentimental value due to both elements of the Standing Rock faith and the fact that it was stolen from them in genocide; its absence from their administration is gaping wound. The government doesn't have to seize that land to return it; it can just buy it back from its private owners. It might be expensive for the government to buy that land, but it can be expensive to make up for mass genocide and cultural extinction programs. I'm a Jew and we got a whole country, we can give the Standing Rock back a few parcels of land in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:07
|
|