DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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

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.

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.

The company also opted to build its new pipeline along well-trodden ground wherever feasible. See ECF No. 22-1 (Declaration of Joey Mahmoud), �� 18, 24, 40. Around Lake Oahe, for example, the pipeline will track both the Northern Border Gas Pipeline, which was placed into service in 1982, and an existing overhead utility line. Id., � 18. In fact, where it crosses Lake Oahe, DAPL is 100% adjacent to, and within 22 to 300 feet from, the existing pipeline. Id. Dakota Access chose this route because these locations had �been disturbed in the past � both above and below ground level � making it a �brownfield crossing location.�� Id., � 19. This made it less likely, then, that new ground disturbances would harm intact cultural or tribal features. Id.
[...]
The improved relationship, however, had its limits. In the spring, the Corps worked with Dakota Access to offer consulting tribes an opportunity to conduct cultural surveys at PCN locations where the private landowner would permit them. See Chieply Decl., � 28. This included 7 of the 11 sites in North and South Dakota. Id. Three tribes took the opportunity, and it paid off. See ECF No. 22, Exh. C (Declaration of Michelle Dippel) � 28. The Upper Sioux Community identified areas of tribal concern at three PCN sites, and Dakota Access agreed to additional avoidance measures at all of them. Id. At one of these sites, the tribal surveyors and the Iowa SHPO declared a site eligible for listing on the National Registry that had not previously been identified on Dakota Access�s surveys. See Eagle Decl., �� 32-36; see also Mentz Decl., �� 38-39 (describing his hiring to conduct surveys for the Upper Sioux). Dakota Access agreed in response to this discovery to bury the pipeline 111 feet below the site to avoid disturbing it. See Mot. Hearing Trans. at 36. Similarly, the Osage Tribe identified areas through their surveys that they wished to monitor during construction, and the company granted that request too. Id.

Standing Rock took a different tack. The Tribe declined to participate in the surveys because of their limited scope. See Chieply Decl., � 29. Instead, it urged the Corps to redefine the area of potential effect to include the entire pipeline and asserted that it would send no experts to help identify cultural resources until this occurred. I

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 07:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:20

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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.

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.
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: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually, they are

No, they aren't. That Michael Brown was gunned down by a white man with a gun does not mean black people in St. Louis are now entitled to a veto over metrolink expansion plans through north county. It is not their land. Someone constructing another pipeline next to an existing natural gas pipeline across water and land that isn't theirs is not going to deny them their right to hunting, fishing, or traveling on the land.

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?

They complain about a lot of things. The land that is theirs is very clear. They are by treaty allowed to hunt, fish, and travel on land that isn't theirs. The pipeline is not on their land, but we are gracious and allow them to point out burial grounds and the like on land that isn't theirs so they can be built around. Tribes that cooperated with the Army Corps were rewarded with things like Dakota Access agreeing to build the pipeline 111 feet underground to avoid disturbing a sacred site on the surface. The Standing Rock Sioux refused to fully cooperate and are now whining about the white man bulldozing burial sites (which would have been routed around if they had cooperated) and that an oil pipeline might some day leak into a waterway that also runs through their land.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 10:17

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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.

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.

Are you blind? I linked the picture right on this page.

It goes around their land. It's not their loving land.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 10:24

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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.

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?

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 10:41

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

blowfish posted:

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

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.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 11:33

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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?

It is not going through their land. It is going around their virtually uninhabited territory (2 people per square mile) and upstream over a river that also runs through their territory. They have some cultural sites outside their territory that Dakota Access gracefully routes around when the tribes cooperate with them. It is also running parallel to an existing pipeline which makes everything easier.

Jack Gladney posted:

How many people have to live in a place before they're worthy of human rights under your rubric?

You should do what is best for the most. Better to put 8k at slight risk than 100k.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 12:03

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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?

If their ancestral burial grounds and magic rocks are so important to them, they should have responded to the Army Corps many attempts to reach out to them and get their assistance in not accidentally defiling their cultural sites. Given that they did so minimally, they probably aren't that important to them.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 12:20

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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.

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 12:39

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Jack Gladney 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.

Well, four years ago I did cold call my local hospital, tell them I wanted to donate a kidney to whoever could use it the most, and then did it, so I'm not completely opposed to your idea. The catch is it wouldn't actually be that good. Donating a kidney to someone only adds about 25 years of human life to the world, so it's only as good as a $1250 dollar donation to the Against Malaria Foundation. It's very possible I will be able to do more good with my life by living well than by going Seven Pounds on myself.

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?

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?

Most maps only show a few major rivers, the pipeline actually crosses a lot more rivers than that. The Sioux land stops at Cannonball River, as it has since the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie.

I am well aware that they are mostly protesting that it crosses their river over land that isn't theirs. When Standing Rock Sioux and others talked with Army Corps of Engineers, they took action in response to their concerns about pipeline integrity and placement

quote:

Through these conversations, Henderson committed the Corps to imposing several additional conditions on DAPL, such as double-walled piping, in response to tribal concerns about environmental safety. Id., � 27. One of these summits also included an onsite visit to the Lake Oahe crossing. See Harnois Decl., � 28; see also Archambault Decl., � 19. During that visit, Chairman Archambault �pointed out areas of concern and explained the tribe�s issues with the pipeline project.�

That was after a year of cajoling. As for "why does it go to <x location>" - the answer is almost always going to be that it was the path of least resistance. For example, squint at this picture.

That dashed line is a natural gas pipeline that already runs under the lake. The company figured that if someone already ran a pipeline somewhere, running an oil pipeline right next to would be pretty easy and a lot less likely to disturb tribal cultural sites. There's also already a natural gas pipeline running through Bismarck which is part of why that route was explored.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 19:30

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually, what's best for the most is to put nobody at a slight risk when oil prices are already super low. If you accept a potential risk to human lives, 8000 of them at that, then there's no way that the value of 8000 statistical lives is exceeded by the boost in supply created by a minor oil pipeline.

Everyone please stop calling this guy a utilitarian, this isn't a coherent utilitarian position, he's just someone who's looking for reasons to not like the native american protesters for some reason

Because it's not a risk of 8,000 people dying. Even a catastrophic pipeline failure directly under the lake is not going to kill all 8,000 people on the reservation. It's a slight risk of 8,000 people being seriously inconvenienced. The worst case scenario is they can't fish or drink the water for a while and the Red Cross rushes in with pallets of food and bottled water.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The argument that the Standing Rock have some nebulous and undefined "right to the land" isn't really workable argument.

It seems there are a series of overlapping legal claims. The dismissal Nocts and DEM posted was specific to the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to abide by their requirement to consult with native tribes prior any undertaking in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. (Note that the Act does not require them to change the planned undertaking based on the concerns that the tribes raise.) Several people have claimed that the tribe either believes they own or have an interest in the private land that the pipeline is built on, due to "treaties," but I have been unable to find a citation of the specific treaties in question.
Sorry, which treaty is this, specifically?

The Treaties of Fort Laramie of 1851 and 1865 give them the right to hunt, fish, and travel over nearby land that isn't necessarily "theirs". I believe the argument is that the risk of the pipeline leaking imperils their right to fishing. There are also some federal laws specifically protecting Native American bodies/relics, so I think the company is legally required to not destroy their artifacts even if found on private land.
edit: I'm also sure they some water rights. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on this matter.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 20:10

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

mitztronic posted:

It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper.

THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER!

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 20:45

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Tias posted:

That would be article 2 of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868, it describes the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, as commencing on the 46th parallel of north latitude to the east bank of Missouri River, south along the east bank to the Nebraska line, then west to the 104th parallel of west longitude. (15 stat. 635).

However, I have also been told that the federal government have unilaterally revoked the treaty several times, carving off culturally or logistically vital pieces of the domain( such as the Missouri river and the sacred Black Hills), so I guess you could argue that they just have the short end of the straw because uncle Sam said so.

Even if we gave them back all the land they had at the signing of the treaty of 1868, they would still have no claim on the pipeline's land because it's to the north.

The tribe went to the supreme court and successfully argued that the land had been stolen from them and they deserved compensation. They were awarded over $100 million, but refused to take it because it would mean giving up their claim on the Black Hills. Thanks to compounding interest there is literally over a billion dollars sitting in a government bank account that could be theirs if they just said "SHOW US THE MONEY WHITE MAN".

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 21:15

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

coyo7e posted:

This is exactly how they determine whether you get a business or residential meter in your home when the utility provider comes and installs it. It's not literally, entirely based on zoning or permits but it is based on the intended purpose of the property, which nominally equates to its zoning. Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.

I thought business consumers paid more simply because they can pay more? I know some (most? all?) areas charge on a sliding scale where as you use more electricity you pay more per watt.
edit:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.

Your proposal would not satisfy the protesters at all. They would still be protesting the building of the pipeline and in need of some water cannon therapy even if Dakota Access had to pay a lot more money to build it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:28

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually residential consumers pay more for electricity than business consumers, because business consumers get better rates for electricity than residences.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/mon...fm?t=epmt_5_6_a

Please think about why you posted this

a. Huh, learned something new. I know in China it's the other way around.

b. What's the alternative? If you don't think it's appropriate to use force to remove them, then you're implicitly arguing we should allow protesters to filibuster construction projects they don't like by squatting on private land. That's absurd. At some point they will need to be cleared out. Driving them out with tear gas and water cannons would be less harmful to their future prospects than arresting them.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:59

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

gfsincere posted:

Best (worst) part is, the pipeline was originally supposed to go through Bismarck but the white people there were like "lol gtfo" and so they basically went to the government saying "ahhh, you guys don't keep treaties with NAs anyways, let us run the pipeline all through their poo poo".

And here we are.

No, the worst part is people like you parroting protester talking points.

It's not their land and it never was their land.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Sure, but changing the Standing Rock leadership is a long-term solution to a short-term problem.

My understanding is that the Corps just contacted the tribes to try to accomplish this goal, the Standing Rock didn't respond back, and they assumed that was the end of it.

But it turns out that the Standing Rock should've responded back, because there were some important artifacts on the grounds (maybe). And the administration hosed up badly, but the ideal response to that isn't "I guess we just have to accept that we might wreck some artifacts because the paperwork wasn't filed properly." It's a huge headache for everyone now and it's the government's job to put an end to it by going and actually examining the claims being made now by the Standing Rock. And it seems obvious that, if that's going to happen, construction needs to be put on hold until then

Standing Rock mostly ignored the government's inquiries for months, but at various points did walk around and point out stuff they cared about although sometimes they were clearly just loving with the government (e.g. they dragged the Corps to graveyard that was 1.2 miles away from the proposed pipeline).

Why should we bail out the leadership? If there's no obvious consequence to electing idiots, their voters will keep electing them.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 03:49

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Goodpancakes posted:

The suggestion that it was never their land is... I dunno? Weird?

They signed a treaty with us. Some land that used to be theirs according to that treaty no longer is because we took it back by force (there is currently a billion dollar apology sitting in a government bank account for them if they would just accept it), but none of that land includes the land the pipeline runs on.

Even if it was running right through their land, tough poo poo, they agreed we could do that.

quote:

6th. They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte river and westward to the Pacific ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States. But should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of the said commissioners to be a chief or headman of the tribe.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:14

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Hella Paunchy posted:

That's like robbing someone at gunpoint and then saying they gave you their wallet as a gift. "But officer, it isn't stealing, he said I could have it!!"

No, it's what happens when you are the weaker party. The stronger party gets to dictate the terms. Sometimes you don't like the terms. Thems the breaks.

Goodpancakes posted:

Is this a troll post? I feel like this is a troll post. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the original Sioux land claim stopped mysteriously at the western edge of South Dakota, or the tribal diaspora and makeup of the current Native peoples of North Dakota. Perhaps the most hilarious suggestion is that the Natives honor treaties with the U.S. Government despite that long and complicated history.

1. No, it isn't. I am utterly sincere in my belief that if they want to invoke the treaties when it's good for them, they need to abide by the parts they don't like. That means if we wanted to run a twelve lane NAFTA superhighway right through the Standing Rock Reservation, we could and they would be entitled to payment for the land taken.
2. This is the same justification China uses for staking territorial claims on all of its neighbors. Do you think it's right when China does it?
3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:36

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

CommieGIR posted:

Holy loving poo poo, where's the growing giant Ironicat when you need it.
1. The number of times we have literally bent Native Americans over the barrel and hosed them while fully ignoring the treaties is immeasurable.
2. China is the stronger party, and its not right when they do it either.
3. When have we honored treaties with the Native Americans. Be serious now.

1. That we were lovely to them in the past does not mean we are obligated to let them do whatever they want now. We are doing better. For example, the Indian Health Service is a functional fully socialized healthcare system that is only available to Native Americans. It's not funded as well as it should be, but it exists. The pipeline's planned route was diverted over 100 times in North Dakota alone just to appease Native Americans. We give Iceland poo poo for diverting construction over elves but somehow it's normal that we divert construction for Native American's belief in magical rock formations.

2. I don't know if you got the point of the China comparison. "This used to be China at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW China!" is no different from "This used to be Sioux land at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW Sioux!".That the Native Americans are incapable of reclaiming their territory is immaterial.

3. There's a $1.3 billion apology check for taking the Black Hills from them in violation of the treaty waiting for the Sioux if they would just accept it. We're being nicer.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Yeah but it's fair to dispute that the current legal claim is appropriate and it's fair to protest for the Sioux to have more extensive land rights than they currently do

Native Americans are 2% of the population but 4.5% of our land is set aside for reservations. In the specific case of the Standing Rock Sioux, currently a population of 8,250 people occupies 3,571.9 square miles of land for a population density of 2.3 people per square mile. Why do you think giving them even more land to not live on would help them in any way? It is my understanding that they live like most destitute people in America in trailer parks and such, but I'm open to evidence that they are actually modern hunter-gatherers in need of more territory to roam.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 05:14

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Gobbledygook please read this short play it is an analogy for the present situation

A truly beautiful story.

CommieGIR posted:

The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land.

.....no, its not. Its just 10 miles outside their land on a river they depend on for...well, nearly every source of water.

Its not like they are going across the state and raising an objection to it being built 500 miles away. Its only 10 miles away. Just 10.

It's just 40 miles from Bismarck to the Sioux reservation. Does the tribes claim on the river also extend just 40 miles upstream? Where does their claim on land that isn't their land end?

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 06:05

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Thank you did you understand the moral?

The moral is that the practitioners and profiteers of a genocide should not be able to dictate the terms of reparations to the victims, while you seem to believe that the Sioux are acting like spoiled brats for wanting to exercise control over more of the land that was taken from them

I reject any argument for reparations based on crimes committed exclusively by dead people against dead people. Once everyone involved is dead it's time to bury the hatchet. If you want to make arguments based on more recent shittiness fine, but at some point you need to let bygones be bygones unless you want to be like the former Yugoslavia and locked in eternal wars of reprisal based on whose dad killed whose dad over some meaningless strip of land 600 loving years ago. A more recent example like...

Civilized Fishbot posted:

http://www.msnbc.com/interactives/geography-of-poverty/nw.html

I'm not going to quote any of this, read the whole thing it's appalling

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.

The best part about this is the woman named "Young" who is quoted several times in that article is probably either the idiot who kept ignoring the Army Corps requests for help finding their prayer stones or her daughter. The article also tries to avoid discussing that the government did actually pay them for the land they took to build the dams, the Standing Rock Sioux and other tribes simply claim it wasn't enough and they deserve more. In the case of the Standing Rock Sioux, the government paid them $12 million (PDF) in 1958 for the land they took which would be $101 million in 2016 dollars. Another website says "nearly 1000 families" were relocated due to the construction of all five dams. Given that the Standing Rock were merely some fraction of that, they got at least $100k per family and probably more like $300k+ per family. I'm open to the idea that they weren't adequately compensated but the government's payout doesn't seem unreasonable.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 07:04

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

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.

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?

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

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Condiv posted:

so with hillary having lost is obama gonna do the right thing and reroute the pipeline or is he gonna sit back and let the standing rock sioux get trumped?

If Obama somehow stops the pipeline's construction, Dakota Access will just chill until God Emperor Trump ascends to the throne in January and then

quote:

Trump�s financial disclosure forms show the Republican nominee has between $500,000 and $1m invested in Energy Transfer Partners, with a further $500,000 to $1m holding in Phillips 66, which will have a 25% stake in the Dakota Access project once completed. The information was disclosed in Trump�s monthly filings to the Federal Election Commission, which requires candidates to disclose their campaign finance information on a regular basis.
[...]
Trump has signaled his opposition to any restrictions on the development of oil, coal or gas, telling a crowd in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, last week that he would �lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks to allow these vital energy infrastructure projects to go ahead�.

�We have roadblocks like you�ve never, ever seen � environmental blocks, structural blocks,� he said. �We are going to allow the Keystone pipeline and so many other things to move forwards. Tremendous numbers of jobs and good for our country.�

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 08:56

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Nebalebadingdong posted:

What the absolute gently caress? Is there a link for them making this outrageous claim?

LiterallyTheWurst's link to the LA times.

quote:

Herr suggested that the woman may have been injured while protesters were �rigging up their own explosives� � propane bottles to be thrown at police. None of those propane bottles exploded, and �the only explosion the officers heard was on the protesters� side,� Herr said.

No one was arrested for making or throwing explosives, she said.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 21:13

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

wateroverfire posted:

IIRC the only thing the Army Corps of Engineers has any say over is the water crossing, and the rest of the project is permitted.

The only permit they still need is from the Army Corps of Engineers. Contrary to the mythology of the protesters, the company is not going to be irreparably harmed if it's delayed through January. The next set of hearings is already scheduled for January 3rd, so nothing is happening until then. The protesters aren't accomplishing poo poo by wallowing in the cold except making themselves feel good because they're TAKING A STAND!

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 14:46

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Tias posted:

If you must persist in your passive agressive authoritarian cock gargling, could you do it outside this thread please?

I'm sorry you don't like facts in your ~safe space~.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 15:04

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

DeusExMachinima posted:

Just shut the gently caress up. If the police used flashbangs then no, they do not have the ability to create that kind of wound. Flashbangs use a magnesium mix to achieve their effect and it can cause (potentially very serious) burn wounds. That woman's arm is a blast wound.

The protesters are alleging that a concussion grenade like the MK3 was used.

---

WaPo has some good reporting

quote:

Wilansky�s father, Wayne Wilansky, said his daughter was hurt when law enforcement threw a grenade. The Morton County Sheriff�s Office maintains authorities did not use concussion grenades or any devices that produce a flash or bang during a clash late Sunday and early Monday near the camp along the pipeline route in southern North Dakota where protesters have gathered for months.

The sheriff�s office suggested in a statement Monday that an explosion heard during the skirmish might have been caused by small propane tanks that authorities said protesters had rigged to explode.

[...]

The North Dakota Highway Patrol in a statement Tuesday backed up the sheriff�s office�s version of events, saying officers during the skirmish spotted protesters with �multiple silver cylinder objects.�

�It was at this time an explosion occurred and several protesters ran to the area, pulled a female from under the burned vehicle, and fled the scene,� the patrol said.

Officers who investigated found 1-pound propane tanks �including one that appeared to be intentionally punctured,� the agency statement said.

Elsewhere someone linked to this facebook live video which allegedly shows the explosion in question. It occurs at approximately 5:40.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 15:38

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Gozinbulx posted:

I have some experience with building in protected/environmentally sensitive areas, including over water, and never proceeded with any building until the ACoE gave the all clear. Running afoul of any government institution can be very costly and my worst nightmare, but then again I'm not some huge petrochemical company with friends in high places so they probably know they can get away with it.

So there was no environmental impact study done? That seems like the primary reason why these peoples' concerns are legitimate to say the least.

An environmental assessment was done, the Standing Rock Sioux just didn't like the result.

quote:

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) and other tribal governments object to the pipeline and its alignment because the proposed route crosses under Lake Oahe a few miles upstreamof the SRST water intakes. Tribes are concerned that a leak or rupture would contaminate the river, including the SRST's drinking water. The tribes argue the District did not adequately consult on the DAPL pipeline alignment. The EA establishes that the District made a good faith effort to consult with the tribes and that it considered all tribal comments. In addition, the pipeline will be located under Lake Oahe, and Dakota Access has developed response and action plans, and will include several monitoring systems, shut-off valves and other safety features to minimize the risk of spills and reduce or remediate any potential damages.

TIL the pipeline will be 92 feet below the bottom of Lake Oahe.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 19:48

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

DeusExMachinima posted:

It's true that flashbangs *can* pulverise fingers and require amputation of the hand in severe cases. There's been plenty of dumbass cops who've pulled the pin, let the spoon go, and then held it for too long. They have very short fuses. But you lose your hand in the hospital because it's been burnt to a crisp and then they cut it off, not because the flashbang blew it off outright. As for what they do in contact to thicker body structures such as limbs, you're looking at it.

But hey, if you've got a confirmed picture of some's arm hanging loosely off the bone like that woman as the documented result of a flashbang I'd be very interested in seeing it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e91_1390339050 :nws:

The explosion occurs at 1:15. Starting at about 2:50 you can see what looks like exposed bone where his finger-flesh used to be, plus a lot of his flesh is just gone.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Nov 24, 2016

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 21:10

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

logger posted:

How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land?

Funny how oil is tolerated until a pipeline is placed too close to a city full of white people. When that happens the safety of the water source magically becomes a concern to the public, but when it comes to native land it's "How dare those protesters hurt our economic security."

There was no public outcry in Bismarck. The Bismarck route was evaluated and rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers in favor of the route near the reservation without any public discussion. You can go read their environmental assessment for yourself to see why.

http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2427

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 17:20

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

RBC posted:

Because you make no mention of their issue with the absence of consulting on land outside of the corpse's jurisdiction, the corpse setting timelines that may not be realistic for a group of 9,000 peoples with no highly paid and trained government bureaucrats to aid in responding, that they over several years, did respond to the corpse's inquiries, but those responses were simply not what the corpse wanted, and refused to engage with.

Chairman Archambault has an MBA. WasteWin Young described herself as such:

Q. Summarize your education and professional background.
A. I graduated from the University of North Dakota in 2001. I have a Bachelor�s of Arts in English Language and Literature. I have a Bachelor�s of Arts in American Indian Studies as well as a minor in psychology. I have worked in the Tribal Historic Preservation Office for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe since 2003.

She is not some uneducated rube in way over her head. She was paid 40-50k a year for over ten years explicitly to preserve cultural artifacts of the Lakota.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Nov 27, 2016

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 18:30

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

RBC posted:

The company never consulted with the tribe. They didn't have to. It was the federal government. Are you completely loving retarded?

The company did meet with the tribe, but holy poo poo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ry.html?0p19G=c

"In mid-November, the tribe posted on its Facebook page a recording of the 2014 meeting, in which Archambault warned pipeline company representatives that the tribe still recognizes the Fort Laramie borders, and therefore the pipeline that the company considered 1,500 feet north of the reservation was, in fact, part of the tribe�s territory."

The last time the Lakota controlled that territory Europe looked like this. I look forward to all the pro-protester posters showing up in the Eastern Europe thread to support comrade Putin's territorial claims.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 19:42

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Liquid Communism posted:

What, exactly, in this thread about a specific bit of privately owned oil infrastructure, indicates to you that people are vaguely protesting against oil infrastructure in general?

From earlier in this thread

mitztronic posted:

It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper.

He isn't alone. This is a stated goal of environmentalists: Find locals to NIMBY oil infrastructure plans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...roject/?0p19G=c

"Now, activists are trying something new � disrupting how the fossil fuel industry transports its products. Their objective is to prevent the fossil fuel industry from accessing the pipelines and railroad networks they need to move their products. The logic is simple; if products cannot be moved, they cannot be sold and will not contribute to global warming."

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 01:22

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

coyo7e posted:

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2012/NWP_12_2012.pdf
So they just cut it into 1/2 acre parcels.

I believe they are talking about acre-foot of water, which is the amount of water it takes to fill an acre of land to a foot. So it's not half-acre segments, just the parts that impact water must either impact less than a half-acre foot of water. In your document the Corps says each crossing is calculated separately.

In the case of Lake Oahe, the pipeline will go 92 feet under the lake bed and never touch the water, thus little to no disruption of the water at all. I imagine this is how they dealt with most if not of the crossings.

Liquid Communism posted:

So you're just plain not arguing in good faith, then? I mean, that's a thing around here, but it's a bit shameful.

I don't see how anything I said there could be interpreted as arguing in bad faith. I am genuinely interested in hearing you explain why you think my post was plainly done in bad faith.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 02:53

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Tias posted:

I don't know if this source is legit, but it would appear the ACoE has decided to evict the entire protest camp sometime this or next week:

http://inhabitat.com/us-army-to-evict-dakota-access-pipeline-protestors-next-week/

gently caress the US government and their cowardice

It's on all of the mainstream sites (NYT, WaPo, etc). WaPo says all protesters on public lands will be considered trespassing after December 5th, although they have "no plans for forcible removal". So I imagine they'll blockade resupply and starve them out.

Uglycat posted:

The Lakota were symbiotic with the Buffalo, and the white man /killed all the buffalo/, *DESTROYING* their way of life. If the buffalo had not been killed, they would have continued following them as a tribe. They had no need for gasoline with that lifestyle.

Let us all celebrate the Noble Savage who lived in harmony with the land and didn't need cell phones, vaccines, or antibiotics! Yeah, no, gently caress hunter-gatherers.

coyo7e posted:

You know who I sourced that quote from right? Or would you care to share your own credentials against a two-time vice presidential nominee and economist?

As long as "you believe" that anything involving "utility line" has essentially zero chance of ever threatening local water supply sure, we should just swallow your "best faith arguments" without any facts to back them up
Follow the standards you hold your opponents to: sources, sources, and more sources - and recent/topical ones which can be cited.

Vice Presidential nominee of the green party is like being Vice President of the Anime Club. I mistakenly assumed you had a basic level of background knowledge of a topic you care so much about. Water is bought, sold, distributed, and fought over by the acre-foot. That's what "does not result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters" refers to. The naive interpretation - that you can destroy up to half an acre of waters of any depth per project - is silly. The way you try to interpret it - "They cut the pipeline up into half-acre pieces!" - is also wrong. The Army Core of Engineers interacts with the pipeline company because they cross and impact the waters of the united states. Let's go back to what you linked. Pg 6:

"However, it is correct that the Corps long-standing practice (which we are not changing) has been to generally calculate impacts for purposes of satisfying the 1/2-acre threshold separately for each separate and distant crossing"

That sure sounds like each time it crosses water or wetlands the half-acre (foot of water) impact is calculated. The Vice President of the Anime Club doesn't like this. Good for her, I guess?

CommieGIR posted:

They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you.
[...]
Again: Native American's have every right to protest this, considering how its been largely forced through the courts and considering our endlessly bad treatment of the Native Americans.

Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded?

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 18:36

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Fansy posted:

I don't care what's legal, they're fighting for water.

If the pipeline is so loving safe, run it by the white people's water supply in Bismarck like the original plan called for.

You could go read the Army Corps of Engineer's environmental assessment for yourself. It wasn't 'originally' going past Bismarck, that's just one of two other major routes they examined (the third involved crossing Yellowstone river). The Lake Oahe crossing was always preferred over the Bismarck route for a variety of reasons including being 11 miles shorter and involving fewer water crossings.

CommieGIR posted:

Seriously, that's a pathetic comparison. Try again. That's not even barely worth addressing, comparing a multi-billion dollar for profit company's pet project to pump-and-dump as much oil on the market as they possibly can, to building a School for what is largely considered one of the poorest groups of people in the United States who have been time and again disenfranchised by the US Government.

You are focusing on the details over my obvious larger point: Protesting a construction project does not by definition make you a good guy. You are not allowed a heckler's veto over construction projects you don't like because that would be insane. I do not want to live in a society where e.g. Republicans can stop the construction of a mosque indefinitely by squatting on the land and shouting, "WE'RE PROTECTING 'MURICA FROM CREEPING SHARIAH!" That is an actual thing that could happen.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 18:58

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

CommieGIR posted:

Instances of Pipelines blowing up in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016
Instances of Sharia Law taking over US in 2016: None.

Stop

and address my point. You are arguing that people have an infinite right to stop other people from doing stuff they don't like as long as they are non-violent. If after Brown vs Board of Education men with guns hadn't enforced the right of black people to go to white schools, white people would have stopped black people from going to white schools by physically blockading the schools. Do you accept that your (insane) position also allows a heckler's veto over many good things such as the construction of mosques, new schools for the Lakota, whites and blacks going to the same schools, and women being allowed to get abortions? Or are you only allowed to protest if a committee of Native American elders certifies that your cause is Good and Just?

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 19:57

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Rodatose posted:

It sounds like you have some ideas about native americans which might make you a bit biased about what side to take here.

Maybe you should read the post I was responding to

Uglycat posted:

The people here belong to cultures that /remember/ what Turtle Island (what many folk call 'North America') looked like before the Bellows arrived. The Lakota were symbiotic with the Buffalo, and the white man /killed all the buffalo/, *DESTROYING* their way of life. If the buffalo had not been killed, they would have continued following them as a tribe. They had no need for gasoline with that lifestyle.

The objection here is to the impact that our gas-powered economy is having upon Turtle Island, a /living organism/ as they understand it. The pipeline does not bode well for the health of the body of the Turtle. And the Turtle is already ailing bad.

I am not attacking a strawman. Uglycat literally is bemoaning the tragedy that the Lakota are not still hunter-gatherers who follow the buffalo and live off the land without cars, antibiotics, and vaccines.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 21:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:20

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

- Standing Rock and the US gov't do not agree on the sovereign boundaries of the reservation. Standing Rock believes this pipeline is within their reservation boundaries, ACoE does not believe it is.

So am I correct that this is a sovereignty dispute not a water rights issue? I feel like this angle still gives Standing Rock a pretty strong argument for the land, but the justification is based on historical mistreatment of land boundaries and not the availability of safe drinking water.

Edit: It also seems like there's a pretty good claim to not allow construction of the pipeline until an alternate water supply is built and functional.

The Standing Rock Sioux want to roll back the borders to the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie, ignoring the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie because reasons.

Some protesters literally want to stop all pipeline construction and would be protesting regardless of the location. The Standing Rock Sioux would be happy if it was somewhere else but that's not going up happen.

Edit: Reminder: They currently have 1.3 billion waiting for them as compensation for the black hills being taken from them. They refuse to take the money because doing so would involve giving up the claim on land they lost a century ago.

Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 28, 2016

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 23:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

«‹›2 »