But, but, but... that doesn't fit the narrative! Charging people who oppress indians is not the right story. What we want is the palefaces being able to do whatever they want and get away with it.
(Plus, no Nazis.)
Merged Dakota Access Pipeline
- Thread starter Maya22
- Start date
But, but, but... that doesn't fit the narrative! Charging people who oppress indians is not the right story. What we want is the palefaces being able to do whatever they want and get away with it.
(Plus, no Nazis.)
eirik
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 729
But you want the energy, right?
Yoy think indians have been in the US territories..forever? And even if they have been there somewhat longer than those of European-descent, ethnic ownership to land is the sort of morally bankrupt extreme right wing stuff that fuels racism and bigotry. And the good old nazis
.Yet you keep using your energy thirsty computer to communicate just that.
Our entire modern civilization is built on energy. Take that away, large swaths of the population will pretty much immediately starve to death, freeze to death, and die of common deceases.
All human efforts (that i can think of) pose risks to the environment. To argue that any risk is intolerable, is just irrational luddite madness.
- I was under the impression that the original plans for the pipeline routed in through/near Bismarck, which the is what passes for a major urban center in North Dakota and complaints/pressure from the citizens of Bismarck is what caused the reroute into Tribal land in the first place. So while it's possible you could accuse the Standing Rock Tribe of NIMBY (and to be fair given human nature that's probably a factor in there somewhere) of self serving (not wanting the oil but wanting everything that comes with it) the citizens of Bismarck had an equal or worse case of it.
- Concerning "Well what if they built a pipeline through the 9/11 memorial" comparisons and I get what they are saying and don't disagree totally but generally speaking "White" culture (I detest using a phrase like that but you get what I mean...) has very few "sacred" sites that are so sacred zero infrastructure is allowed to go through them.
For instance to use the comparison that has been made between this and post-9/11 usage of the location commonly known as "Ground Zero" the US Government did use the rebuilt of that site as an opportunity to do things such add a new transportation hub, install new heat exchangers at the Hudson river, and build a new shopping and hotel complex, none of which were seen as an affront to the "sacredness" of the site itself. The site being both treated with reverence for what happened there and useful from an infrastructure perspective wasn't seen as an issue.
None of this is to say that the Tribe's complaints aren't valid, an oil pipeline brings with it unique risks to be sure and I'm not saying they are in the wrong.
- Concerning "Well what if they built a pipeline through the 9/11 memorial" comparisons and I get what they are saying and don't disagree totally but generally speaking "White" culture (I detest using a phrase like that but you get what I mean...) has very few "sacred" sites that are so sacred zero infrastructure is allowed to go through them.
For instance to use the comparison that has been made between this and post-9/11 usage of the location commonly known as "Ground Zero" the US Government did use the rebuilt of that site as an opportunity to do things such add a new transportation hub, install new heat exchangers at the Hudson river, and build a new shopping and hotel complex, none of which were seen as an affront to the "sacredness" of the site itself. The site being both treated with reverence for what happened there and useful from an infrastructure perspective wasn't seen as an issue.
None of this is to say that the Tribe's complaints aren't valid, an oil pipeline brings with it unique risks to be sure and I'm not saying they are in the wrong.
NoahFence
Banned
???
Forever as in since the Earth was created? No.
There is talk from the White House of the pipeline being re-routed.
Obama says U.S. mulling alternate routes for North Dakota pipeline
Obama says U.S. mulling alternate routes for North Dakota pipeline
NoahFence
Banned
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
<snip>
Yoy think indians have been in the US territories..forever? And even if they have been there somewhat longer than those of European-descent, ethnic ownership to land is the sort of morally bankrupt extreme right wing stuff that fuels racism and bigotry. And the good old nazis
<snip>
Land they own by treaty (the ones we haven't broken yet, at least) isn't ethnic ownership. It's a legal contract with the U.S. government.
eirik
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 729
Uh, land owned by an ethnic group sounds like ethnic ownership to me. I didn't claim it was illegal, I merely opined it's a barbaric, immoral and racist arrangement.
Anyway, the pipeline isn't on Indian land. The "sacred burial ground" is not in the treaties. The "ownership" invoked in this thread, is therefore of a more abstract form. Like I said, before you go down this route, assuming ethnic superiority in geographic areas because someone "was there first", just think of what this would entail of a moral outlook, and what bearing this would have on e.g. modern immigration-policies.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
There's an awful lot of land in the world "owned by an ethnic group".
Most of it, maybe.
Stepping back from this single particular issue the question of how sustainable the concept of a quasi-independent "Indian Reservation" is going to be in the long term is not a totally invalid one.
And I'm not being facetious here is the plan to just maintain these in perpetuity realistic and/or the best thing for all parties involved?
And I'm not being facetious here is the plan to just maintain these in perpetuity realistic and/or the best thing for all parties involved?
They are little different from State governments. Think of smaller states with a different origin. Why not keep them?
And it is not an ethnic group owning land. It is Tribal governments or the U.S. Government owning land - both subject to elections and with written foundational documents that structure and restrict said governments. The land within reservations is a mix of privately owned land, land owned by the tribal government, and land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In some reservations the majority of the private land is owned an occupied by non-tribal members. In those cases those people are subject to tribal civil jurisdiction but not criminal jurisdiction. Tribes can also own land outside of reservation boundaries, but that land is just property, still subject to state and county jurisdiction. They can petition congress to add it to the reservation, but such political solutions are slow and uncertain.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
You'd have to ask them I suppose.
Whatever they want, they should get. I don't care if it's the entire state of North Dakota. Kick everyone out but Native Americans.
plague311
Great minds think...
First off, WE (as in North Dakotan's) aren't getting **** from this pipeline. The oil will leave our state and, even more likely, our entire country. Gas in North Dakota is not much, if at all, cheaper than any other state in the country. Pipelines don't produce **** for jobs, post construction, and they also create an environmental mess.
It wasn't a US territory until we slaughtered their people and took it. Have you even *********** been to North Dakota? Do you know anything about my state or this entire thing, other than what you've read recently in the news? Do you have any idea the massive environmental impact oil, and subsequently, pipelines have had on our farmland? I didn't think so.
And even if they have been there somewhat longer than those of European-descent, ethnic ownership to land is the sort of morally bankrupt extreme right wing stuff that fuels racism and bigotry. And the good old nazis
Jesus Christ, a Godwin? Really? I'm not going to waste time on dumb ******** like this, it's so off base.
No one is taking away energy. We're functioning perfectly fine without that pipeline right now, considering the thousands of miles of other pipelines we have. The only people that will benefit from this **** are the oil companies, and frankly, I don't give a good god damn what happens to those ********. I mean that. ****. Them.
Right, thank you for this semantic nonsense. It's always a blast to hear the "everything we do causes damage, so we might as well do whatever we want!" I mean, it's a terrible argument that falls flat on its face when confronted with logic, but at least it's an argument.
This pipeline WILL leak into their water supply, as the village is just a few miles away. It's not an "if" it will happen, it's "when" it will happen.
It's not just a different origin, they are sustained by ethnic background, a notion that runs contrary to US founding principles. Isn't it the case that tribal membership is predicated (and the goodies that flow from the affiliation) on what percentage indian you are? My understanding is that ethnicity is at the heart of how tribes are defined and governed.
OK, it will happen 120 years from now, three decades after the pipe is completely removed from service and empty.
Does "when" matter after all?
OOooookkkkaaaayyy.
plague311
Great minds think...
Yes, it does. People will still drink that water 120 years from now, and to date, not one single pipeline has stayed leak proof for 120 years.
It may not mean **** to you because it's not your water, but it does to those that have to drink it. There's also nothing stating that it won't leak in a month after being built.
Membership requirements varies from tribe to tribe. Some tribes only require that you be able to document one person in your family tree who was a member of that tribe - the Dawes Role, for example. I once knew a very fair skinned, blond-haired and blue-eyed member of the Cherokee Nation, for example. She had an ancestor on the Dawes role, she could document the connection, that was enough.
I would say they are less sustained by ethnicity than by ancestry - which are not always the same.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Yea, I'd be OK with it.
I guess the "when" matters after all.
How are you feeling about having a gas station on the reservation? The one with the underground tanks full of gasoline? Any concern about one of those leaking into the ground water?
My guess is having the gas station available is an acceptable risk, even though we know that those tanks can leak. A sort of cost v. benefit thing in an environment with uncertainty. The sort of thing we do all the time: analyze risk and try to mitigate it.
But I fear no such compromise is in the offing for the pipeline. Because it really isn't about estimating risk and mitigation. It's really about taking advantage of the poor, helpless indians. Pretending it's about risk of a leak is a red herring, because no solution will do and no compromise is possible. If they wanted to build a power line, then some property of power transmission would be the objection. Windmills? Same thing.
So long as the real topic is oppressing native peoples, no discussion about the pipeline will go anywhere at all.
You are correct that it isn't my water. It isn't my gas either. And I understand that, as a Native American who lives in the area, you have a vested interest which I do not share. It is also possible that the same vested interest bestows an emotional bias against the pipeline.
Last edited: