Author Topic: Native Americans?  (Read 6456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #105 on: November 01, 2016, 10:10:35 AM »
I have read the info about sacred burial sites, but I have also read that it is on federal land, not tribal land.  Are both of these things true?

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/09/23/archaeological-experts-appalled-dapl-sacred-site-destruction-1281-sign-petition-165877

To answer, I believe so.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #106 on: November 01, 2016, 02:26:15 PM »
Yeah, this is another Army Corps of Engineers debacle. Unrelated, but I wanted to address the following and we can take it to another thread if there's interest.

Corporate Greed?   That's a bumper sticker.   There more than enough "Sour Grapes" in there too.

Except it's not. On the whole, corporations function to meet the demands of shareholders. Shareholders are often the ones with the "shortest view" of the consequences of their corporation's actions. This is why corporate greed is real, and why corporations aren't able to consistently make "wise" decisions, even for themselves. Everything is geared toward pleasing a group of people (Shareholders) who have the shortest-term interest in the company.

So, yeah, I'm a firm believer in the realness Corporate Greed, which is why I've never trusted the folk knowledge that "a business man would make a good president". Show me a corporation that has wisely followed through decades and decades of sustainable success for itself, and then show me that they're the rule rather than the exception. Until then, I have no problem with that bumper sticker you mentioned.

But somewhere along the line, "corporate greed" - where a corporation arguably makes decisions that are in it's own worst interest, like knowingly polluting rivers, lying to regulators, using "scorched earth" with customers, in order to maximize ONE variable, profit - has morphed to include even those reasonable circumstances where profit is but one variable in the equation.  That a corporation makes anything less than the perfect decision with respect to it's long term growth and the upside is a slightly higher profit is not automatically "corporate greed".  If anything, I would say - from personal experience - the problem isn't "corporate greed" it's "personal gain".  I have rarely if ever seen a clearcut case of "take profit NOW and fuck everything, including the environment and the future!"; I HAVE seen cases of a manager making a decision that got him/her a promotion for meeting a metric that perhaps was not an optimal 20-year horizon decision.  That's not corporate greed either.

I would offer that "wisely followed decades and decades of sustainable success" is NOT a measure (or not) of corporate greed versus corporate success.  Many companies have done this - GE, Ford, General Motors, BMW, Walmart, Exxon - and that's not to say they haven't had hiccups.   Companies don't fail because of "corporate greed" as a matter of course - outside of the occasional "Enron" - they fail because of a more fundamental, human nature problem:  how to innovate without incentive; how to proactively change.  ATT.   They didn't fail (get broken up) because of "corporate greed"; they failed because they had all their eggs in one basket and couldn't diversify fast enough.   Records stores didn't fail because of "corporate greed"; they failed because they couldn't adapt fast enough to the disruptive force of the internet.   

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #107 on: November 03, 2016, 10:18:27 AM »
This is Corporate Greed though. Backed by the state and govt interests. Only one presidential candidate went and that's Jill Stein. Not making this into th election talk.

I don't understand how the state, police force, and national guard can sleep knowing they are causing this.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #108 on: November 03, 2016, 10:25:50 AM »
This is Corporate Greed though. Backed by the state and govt interests. Only one presidential candidate went and that's Jill Stein. Not making this into th election talk.

I don't understand how the state, police force, and national guard can sleep knowing they are causing this.

How so?  The corporation is supposed to close it's doors, lay off people, and just stop operating because you don't like what they're doing?   Your beef is with the government and the people on YOUR side that didn't make the case strong enough.   

I just read an article yesterday (it was in a paper dated October 21, though) about a proposed road extension here in Connecticut - State Route 11 - to connect the existing Rte 11 and the I-95/I-395 interchange in the southeast portion of the state (near to two tribes), and it was cancelled, in part, because there are numerous sacred burial grounds in the proposed corridor.    The STATE made this determination.  The roadway contractor is following their directive.   Had the state said "YES", the roadway contractor is under no obligation to do anything other than build that road.   Because you don't like the outcome, you don't get to blame whoever you want. 

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #109 on: November 03, 2016, 02:20:46 PM »
Dakota Access decided to bulldoze the alleged sacred sites before the tribe could provide the evidence to the court. So sure, I agree that the Government deserve some blame for letting construction happen without truly consulting the tribe to begin with, but asking people to hold Dakota Access irresponsible? There's a lot of things Dakota Access could have done to help themselves out there, seems like they did the opposite instead.

Also, people blow off a lot of steam about how x, y, and z things lead to "layoffs, shutdowns, etc." Totally bogus. Every construction company delays work thanks to countless predictable and unpredictable delays each year. Every construction company has to get proper permitting, has to figure out how they're going to deal with the community, etc. A company that bulldozes through an alleged sacred site 24 hours after evidence is filed in court proving so is a company that is either a.) greedy or b.) desperate. The tribe has my full sympathy.


Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #110 on: November 03, 2016, 03:05:27 PM »
Simple question, maybe... who does the land below to where these "sacred sites" belong to?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #111 on: November 03, 2016, 03:07:26 PM »
Simple question, maybe... who does the land below to where these "sacred sites" belong to?
It is apparently federally-owned land.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #112 on: November 03, 2016, 03:17:12 PM »
Simple question, maybe... who does the land below to where these "sacred sites" belong to?

It belongs to no one. Those sites are where we as a people have come from. It's our history
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9268
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #113 on: November 03, 2016, 05:09:40 PM »
So is the land in question just some open, barren nondescript stretch or are there ruins/burial grounds/etc that could be unearthed?

I don't understand how the state, police force, and national guard can sleep knowing they are causing this.

Because this really only affects a small group of people and they aren't a part of it.

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #114 on: November 03, 2016, 07:41:52 PM »
So is the land in question just some open, barren nondescript stretch or are there ruins/burial grounds/etc that could be unearthed?

The Sioux say that recent archaeological evidence suggests the site is a burial ground. The Sioux are also concerned as the construction site is right upstream from their reservation and represents a public health risk. The controversy exists because the Sioux have been trying to prove that the site is a national historic place deserving of protections, and instead of waiting for the results of trial,Dakota Access decided to start construction anyway. Now they've got their heavy equipment on top of the supposedly sacred site and are probably destroying whatever evidence is there.


Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #115 on: November 04, 2016, 12:19:45 AM »
Yup...

Imagine them digging up a church or other place...it's the same thing. Hell, we know our land. We're keeping it safe from the parasites. Since 1492 and whatever your history tells you.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #116 on: November 04, 2016, 07:50:39 AM »
Also, people blow off a lot of steam about how x, y, and z things lead to "layoffs, shutdowns, etc." Totally bogus. Every construction company delays work thanks to countless predictable and unpredictable delays each year. Every construction company has to get proper permitting, has to figure out how they're going to deal with the community, etc. A company that bulldozes through an alleged sacred site 24 hours after evidence is filed in court proving so is a company that is either a.) greedy or b.) desperate. The tribe has my full sympathy.

One, not what I'm saying; not saying "the delay leads to layoffs" (though it does; I've been in construction in one form or another for almost 20 years).   I was talking about not having the job to begin with.  If a project doesn't go, at all, yeah, it DOES lead to layoffs.

Two, that's not the fault of the contractor.  if the process calls for 24 hour notice, and that has been met, so be it.  Change the process if it's not working for a specific instance.  I'm sensitive to this (the 'construction' I mentioned above was in large part environmental construction, meaning, cleaning contaminated property, closing landfills, building treatment facilities, etc.  I've been in EPA offices - including the Federal office in Washington DC - on tens of projects) but at some point, enough is enough.   The contractor is NOT obligated to do your due diligence for you. The contractor is NOT obligated to incur costs and delays (including, in some cases, liquidated damages) to cover someone else's inability to adequately articulate their position.   

Where are the tribe's lawyers in all this?   Why isn't some of that casino money going to a high-powered DC lawfirm that can get heard?   I'm not asking to hold Dakota Access "irresponsible" (I assume you mean "NOT responsible").  I'm saying that the answer isn't all CORPORATE GREED! and whatever other bumpersticker trope you want to trot out.  Sacred lands and endangered species get protected every day across this country with respect and dignity, and that there is one case where some people don't like the answer doesn't necessarily mean that it's all <Charlton Heston voice> EVIL CORPORATIONS!

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #117 on: November 04, 2016, 08:38:15 AM »
They actually do have a lawyer out there helping. But as its been said, they don't want to listen. We can shout in their ear, but they're ears are full on gnomes they dont want to hear it.

I don't know if Standing Rock has a casino, but each member doesn't get much. Theirs so many of them, plus it could be council greed.

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #118 on: November 04, 2016, 09:43:04 AM »
They actually do have a lawyer out there helping. But as its been said, they don't want to listen. We can shout in their ear, but they're ears are full on gnomes they dont want to hear it.

I don't know if Standing Rock has a casino, but each member doesn't get much. Theirs so many of them, plus it could be council greed.

I wouldn't have expected anything less.  Always "greed".   

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #119 on: November 04, 2016, 05:02:20 PM »
They actually do have a lawyer out there helping. But as its been said, they don't want to listen. We can shout in their ear, but they're ears are full on gnomes they dont want to hear it.
That's the part that makes Dakota Access look the worst, in my opinion. They knew that the Sioux were going to try and take legal action, and they decided to send the dozers in before any of that could be investigated.

The contractor is NOT obligated to do your due diligence for you. The contractor is NOT obligated to incur costs and delays (including, in some cases, liquidated damages) to cover someone else's inability to adequately articulate their position.   
The contractor knew full well the sensitivity of the issue and decided to plow on ahead. Setting aside what the legal "obligations" are for a moment (and, by the way, the Sioux seem to believe they have a case there as well). If, like Romney says, "corporations are people, my friend" Dakota Access just proved to the world that they're one bad hombre. The general public are well within their rights to protest, and call DA out on being bad corporate citizens. You seem to have a bone with people calling DA out as "greedy". If DA aren't greedy, they could prove it. Prove it with their response to this sensitive, controversial issue. Sorry to say their response says it all.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 05:32:49 PM by Skeever »

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9268
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #120 on: November 04, 2016, 05:33:45 PM »
So is the land in question just some open, barren nondescript stretch or are there ruins/burial grounds/etc that could be unearthed?

The Sioux say that recent archaeological evidence suggests the site is a burial ground. The Sioux are also concerned as the construction site is right upstream from their reservation and represents a public health risk. The controversy exists because the Sioux have been trying to prove that the site is a national historic place deserving of protections, and instead of waiting for the results of trial,Dakota Access decided to start construction anyway. Now they've got their heavy equipment on top of the supposedly sacred site and are probably destroying whatever evidence is there.



Thanks for the info. Any idea what the arch findings said? The reason I ask is because my do archeological surveys for new cell sites at my job and we have a team on staff that actually digs stuff up, does reports, and works with local tribes. That being said I have seen photos of some of the stuff they find and it seems sort of bewildering to me as they're things like "bi-facial scrappers" which are essentially rocks they unearth that they claim could be ancient tools but they looks like frickin rocks. With all due respect to the cultures of Native American tribes the archeology I've seen in my line of work that holds up projects seems frustratingly subjective.

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #121 on: November 04, 2016, 05:57:29 PM »
No expert there, but one thing I've read is a big dipper rock formation that suggests chief burial nearby.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #123 on: November 07, 2016, 07:23:05 AM »
They actually do have a lawyer out there helping. But as its been said, they don't want to listen. We can shout in their ear, but they're ears are full on gnomes they dont want to hear it.
That's the part that makes Dakota Access look the worst, in my opinion. They knew that the Sioux were going to try and take legal action, and they decided to send the dozers in before any of that could be investigated.

Short of doing something illegal, and in contravention of any regulations or decisions set forth by the regulating authority, why do they have to do anything different?  I know what you'll say - a football game is not a sacred 1000 year-old burial ground - but it's like the NFL; as a coach I have until the next snap to challenge a play, and the other coach can hustle his team to the line and snap as fast as is legal (they have to be set for a period of time, and in proper formation).    I honestly don't know why we're assuming that Dakota Access has all the burden to be accommodating and diligent here, to make up for the Sioux' shortcomings.   

Quote
The contractor is NOT obligated to do your due diligence for you. The contractor is NOT obligated to incur costs and delays (including, in some cases, liquidated damages) to cover someone else's inability to adequately articulate their position.   
The contractor knew full well the sensitivity of the issue and decided to plow on ahead. Setting aside what the legal "obligations" are for a moment (and, by the way, the Sioux seem to believe they have a case there as well). If, like Romney says, "corporations are people, my friend" Dakota Access just proved to the world that they're one bad hombre. The general public are well within their rights to protest, and call DA out on being bad corporate citizens. You seem to have a bone with people calling DA out as "greedy". If DA aren't greedy, they could prove it. Prove it with their response to this sensitive, controversial issue. Sorry to say their response says it all.

Your one phrase says all: "setting aside legal "obligations" for a moment".  NO.   When you have two parties at odds over an issue, that's the ONLY thing that matters.  That's the ONLY objective thing by which you can measure both parties.  The "corporations are people" comment is almost as hideously misconstrued as "separation of church and state".  It ONLY means that a corporation can be sued in court.  Under the Constitution, that is the way in which courts get jurisdiction over corporations; you wouldn't, I presume, want it that corporations are sovereign and therefore can't be sued, would you? 

Again, provided that DA followed the dictates of the regulations and the statutes, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT.   If they dug without asking, if they dug after 24 hours and they law calls for a 48 hour moratorium, then they could be called "greedy".   If the law - that EVERYONE presumably is held to, and EVERYONE knows about - is followed, there IS no "greedy".   The Sioux should have had their ducks in a row, had their case ready, and had the request for injunction filed. 

You seem to want to make this into some subjective, emotional case, and it's not.    Those things DON'T MATTER in the context of figuring out what steps each party should take.  I really have no dog in this hunt other than as a observer of process, and that's unfortunately how the system is set up, ON PURPOSE.   EVERYONE has a bleeding heart story, and the context of the law is such that it provides a framework to ameliorate that aspect so that every case doesn't devolve into who can cry the biggest tears.   We set parameters.  We set time frames for comment and dissent and discussion.  We set time frames for responses to same.   Unless DA contravened those, there is no other argument, from a legal perspective.  If that's not the perspective to be followed, how can we expect society to function?   

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #124 on: November 07, 2016, 08:14:26 AM »
Stadler, no offense, but you seem to be having trouble making the distinction between "DA did something illegal" and "DA did something that makes them look bad". You seem more interested in promoting this idea that corporations are blameless as long as they stick within the confines of the law. I'm asking you to try and understand why people are upset about the situation.

« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 08:20:01 AM by Skeever »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #125 on: November 07, 2016, 08:23:51 AM »
Stadler, no offense, but you seem to be having trouble making the distinction between "DA did something illegal" and "DA did something that makes them look bad". You seem more interested in promoting this idea that corporations are blameless as long as they stick within the confines of the law, than you do trying to understand why people are upset about the situation.

None taken, at all, but you misunderstand.  I fully understand the distinction. I don't care one bit about "looking bad", and neither do the corporations.  In that sense, they are not "persons".  Yeah, there's "publicity" but for a company like DA (as opposed to, say, Tylenol, or Wal-Mart) that's not a really big concern. 

I am ABSOLUTELY more interested in the idea that corporations are blameless*** as long as they stick within the confines of the law.   The rest is just something to talk about, but it's not definitive or actionable.   I know it's lacking the moral weight, but sports is the best analogy.   The spirit of the rules are that no athlete take ANYTHING to artificially improve their performance, but how do you draw the line?  What's the difference between a regulated diet with nutritional supplements and other supplements?   So to be objective, we have a list.  You take the things on that list, BAD, and if you take things not on that list, ACCEPTABLE.   That's why we have regulating bodies.   If you don't like DA actions, don't cop to bumper sticker, meaningless (and in some cases, flat out misinformed) things like "CORPORATE GREED!".   CHANGE THE REGULATIONS.  In our society the lines are drawn such that we all know what our boundaries are; you don't have to like when someone walks right up to the boundary, but we have to acknowledge that they are well within their rights to do so, and screaming things like "Corporate greed!" do nothing but absolve those on the other side of the line of any responsibility they might otherwise have, and that's the real crux of my problem with this. 

*** I wouldn't use the word "blameless", but I would say that argument against them is orders of magnitude less effective.   

Offline Skeever

  • Posts: 1062
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #126 on: November 07, 2016, 02:26:23 PM »
I understand what you are saying, but I think the question remains "what is the appropriate response now?" I get that there are long-term things that can be done (by the Sioux, the gov't, DA), but what about now? The reality is, you still have a heckuva lot of pissed off people. I take your point about elevating the discourse beyond "Corporate Greed!", but I'm not sure what the immediate alternative could be. Seems like we're talking about two different things here: 1.) who failed the reservation (the gov't? DA? the tribe? all 3?) and 2.) what should be done about it now? I'm just inclined to believe that dealing with protesters is part of the cost of doing business when a company like DA decides to slam through a sensitive project like this.


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #127 on: November 08, 2016, 09:59:19 AM »
I understand what you are saying, but I think the question remains "what is the appropriate response now?" I get that there are long-term things that can be done (by the Sioux, the gov't, DA), but what about now? The reality is, you still have a heckuva lot of pissed off people. I take your point about elevating the discourse beyond "Corporate Greed!", but I'm not sure what the immediate alternative could be. Seems like we're talking about two different things here: 1.) who failed the reservation (the gov't? DA? the tribe? all 3?) and 2.) what should be done about it now? I'm just inclined to believe that dealing with protesters is part of the cost of doing business when a company like DA decides to slam through a sensitive project like this.

Go to court and get an injunction.   Stop the process until everyone can catch their breath.  I think your question is the crux of the matter for me:  the reservation failed the reservation, and no one else.  That's the point; the protest and the social media efforts obfuscate that simple fact, and yet that fact is the most important thing in the world for me. 

And your last sentence is true as a 90 degree angle; it is part of the cost of doing business, and they are moving forward accordingly (which is what I would do if I was in charge of that company).   

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #128 on: November 15, 2016, 01:46:44 PM »
What's your excuse for this?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pipeline-worker-plows-standing-rock/

Why? Just, why are we being ignored? Why, are we being silenced?
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9268
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2016, 06:37:29 PM »
Because people are still freaking out about Trump.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #130 on: November 15, 2016, 11:03:16 PM »
Why? Just, why are we being ignored? Why, are we being silenced?

BJ, I am trying to learn more about what is going on here, after my wife informed me my world view is too restricted. (:-\) Let me do some research and give you my thoughts later.

My initial thought is that the tribes are making it an Us vs Them issue, and if the majority aren't part of the tribes, or the companies involved, so it is easy to ignore. It is getting some press here as there are tribe members in the PNW who have been protesting.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #131 on: November 16, 2016, 07:36:45 AM »
Do your research, Cool Chris, and arrive at your own conclusion.  I don't want to color this, but I know for me, it's not "being distracted with Trump", it's "not being ignored", it's more that I don't agree with the entire underlying premise.  "Why are we being silenced?"  I don't see "not getting my way" as being "silenced".  The process was, for the most part, followed, and the answer was not acceptable to a small segment of the population.   So be it. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #132 on: November 16, 2016, 01:04:54 PM »
Relevant:

US Army Corps of Engineers - Statement Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline

Quote
The Army has determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossessions of lands, the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe, our government-to-government relationship, and the statute governing easements through government property.

Quote
The Army invites the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to engage in discussion regarding potential conditions on an easement for the pipeline crossing that would reduce the risk of a spill or rupture, hasten detection and response to any possible spill, or otherwise enhance the protection of Lake Oahe and the Tribe’s water supplies.

Quote
While these discussions are ongoing, construction on or under Corps land bordering Lake Oahe cannot occur because the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant an easement...We fully support the rights of all Americans to assemble and speak freely, and urge everyone involved in protest or pipeline activities to adhere to the principles of nonviolence.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8153
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #133 on: November 16, 2016, 01:09:26 PM »
Now, in support of Ben_jamin, let's hope the tribe steps up and drives a rigorous, fact-based, defensible case and can feel heard. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40221
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #134 on: November 16, 2016, 01:25:33 PM »
Now, in support of Ben_jamin, let's hope the tribe steps up and drives a rigorous, fact-based, defensible case and can feel heard.
Surely.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #135 on: November 21, 2016, 04:40:43 PM »
Dude...

Look what happened...

They doused people in water in freezing temperatures.

I don't care, you have to be heartless to not see these effects.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #136 on: November 21, 2016, 04:57:32 PM »
Was going to comment on this and see it was bumped.

I know there are layers to this, but on the surface, what I see are people who are peacefully demonstrating, yet as part of this, they are blocking access afforded to the work crews, and/or other access. Is that fairly accurate? I am having a hard time understanding how the bridge is involved, but that seems to be just a portion of the impasse.

While I know your ultimate desire would be for the companies and work crews to just pack up their things are leave, if you accept that isn't going to happen, then what is the nest best possible solution? I am not asking rhetorically, I genuinely want to know from someone who is deeply concerned about this.

"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline 73109

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • Gender: Male
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #137 on: November 21, 2016, 05:28:07 PM »
As someone with honestly no concern for the religious aspects of this whole thing—I'd be just as happy to see a project tear up a Christian or Jewish graveyard for what it's worth—best case scenario is that the protests go on long enough to move a certain portion of the pipeline.

The pipeline has been able to circumnavigate, through a few technicalities, a number of environmental legislations, which isn't good. The EPA and the Department of the Interior have asked the company to halt production until they perform a better assessment of the pipeline's impact on the surrounding environment, which includes drinking water very near by. They have so far refused to do this.

Like I said, religion means nothing to me, so if they went ahead and took the time to make sure they weren't seriously fucking with the environment (aside from the fact that the thing is an oil pipeline) I'm fine with continued production. Well, not really, considering the entire production of the thing didn't go through a genuine analysis of environmental cost, but being the realist that I am, it's going to happen. The vast majority of the thing is already completed.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4623
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #138 on: November 21, 2016, 05:43:02 PM »
Thank you 73109 for the "bystander" assessment.

...I'd be just as happy to see a project tear up a Christian or Jewish graveyard for what it's worth...

Those graveyards would be on private property, so eminent domain would need to come in to play, correct? Tribal grounds may be sacred, but that is more nebulous, unless of course it is on privately owned property, which it doesn't seem to be in this case (correct or not, Ben-Jamin?)
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7305
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Native Americans?
« Reply #139 on: November 22, 2016, 10:31:14 AM »
Right now, it's more than the pipeline. They have crossed into the boundaries of inhumane acts.


The company could've stopped and investigated the possibilities of the pipeline, yet they decided to say Fuck it.

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh