Liquid Communism posted:

That's been somewhat the point I'm trying to make. The last time the Standing Rock were asked to cooperate with the ACoE, they lost thousands of acres of farmland, flooded under a new lake.

quote:

THIS IS NOT A FESTIVAL. It’s an indigenous movement on indigenous land, and is a prayer camp. Please don’t come thinking it’s a camp-out or festival, or just a place to hang out with people. There’s many festivals designed just for that. Unfortunately there has been some festival & alternative non indigenous people already at Standing Rock who have not respected the ways of the indigenous people and have been perceived as colonial and disrespectful. We invite you to align yourself in how to behave & be in right relationship to the indigenous people of these lands - please take the time to read the rest of this letter & this information - https://www.protectorsalliance.org/read-me/

Stickarts posted:

Dead Reckoning posted:

A couple of points here:

-First, even if we assume that the Standing Rock's recalcitrance is entirely due to a wholly justified distrust of the government, it doesn't matter, because the tribe and the government are not the only parties involved in the dispute. I think it would be difficult to argue that the people building the pipeline do not have a lawful and legitimate interest in its construction. In this case, the government is acting as an arbitrator and moderator between the Standing Rock and the DAPL, attempting to balance both of their interests and the larger interest of public safety. The people constructing the pipeline have, as far as anyone can tell, been compliant with their obligations as spelled out under the law, including procedures explicitly put in place to allow other stake holders to have a say. The Standing Rock have not. Given that we are a nation that prizes equality under the law, it is entirely reasonable for DAPL to expect the government to protect them from those who would unlawfully impede them from carrying out their lawful business.

-The Standing Rock's failure to engage with either the Corps or the company was not an unsophisticated refusal. If the tribe believes that the government's laws will be inevitably warped against them, why did they file a lengthy request for an emergency injunction (one of several, apparently) in DC Circuit Court, and argue with the Corps of Engineers about the question of the Corps' jurisdiction? The fact that the tribe chose tactically when to engage with the government gives lie to this idea that they simply can't trust the process. In addition, the fact that other tribes did engage with the company and the corps, who were apparently able to address nearly all their concerns about cultural sites, (as spelled out in the DC Circuit's denial of the motion) indicates that a distrust by natives of government and corporate structures is an insufficient explanation.

Dead Reckoning posted:

A couple of points here:

-First, even if we assume that the Standing Rock's recalcitrance is entirely due to a wholly justified distrust of the government, it doesn't matter, because the tribe and the government are not the only parties involved in the dispute. I think it would be difficult to argue that the people building the pipeline do not have a lawful and legitimate interest in its construction. In this case, the government is acting as an arbitrator and moderator between the Standing Rock and the DAPL, attempting to balance both of their interests and the larger interest of public safety. The people constructing the pipeline have, as far as anyone can tell, been compliant with their obligations as spelled out under the law, including procedures explicitly put in place to allow other stake holders to have a say. The Standing Rock have not. Given that we are a nation that prizes equality under the law, it is entirely reasonable for DAPL to expect the government to protect them from those who would unlawfully impede them from carrying out their lawful business.

-The Standing Rock's failure to engage with either the Corps or the company was not an unsophisticated refusal. If the tribe believes that the government's laws will be inevitably warped against them, why did they file a lengthy request for an emergency injunction (one of several, apparently) in DC Circuit Court, and argue with the Corps of Engineers about the question of the Corps' jurisdiction? The fact that the tribe chose tactically when to engage with the government gives lie to this idea that they simply can't trust the process. In addition, the fact that other tribes did engage with the company and the corps, who were apparently able to address nearly all their concerns about cultural sites, (as spelled out in the DC Circuit's denial of the motion) indicates that a distrust by natives of government and corporate structures is an insufficient explanation.

Dead Reckoning posted:

A couple of points here:

-First, even if we assume that the Standing Rock's recalcitrance is entirely due to a wholly justified distrust of the government, it doesn't matter, because the tribe and the government are not the only parties involved in the dispute. I think it would be difficult to argue that the people building the pipeline do not have a lawful and legitimate interest in its construction. In this case, the government is acting as an arbitrator and moderator between the Standing Rock and the DAPL, attempting to balance both of their interests and the larger interest of public safety. The people constructing the pipeline have, as far as anyone can tell, been compliant with their obligations as spelled out under the law, including procedures explicitly put in place to allow other stake holders to have a say. The Standing Rock have not. Given that we are a nation that prizes equality under the law, it is entirely reasonable for DAPL to expect the government to protect them from those who would unlawfully impede them from carrying out their lawful business.

-The Standing Rock's failure to engage with either the Corps or the company was not an unsophisticated refusal. If the tribe believes that the government's laws will be inevitably warped against them, why did they file a lengthy request for an emergency injunction (one of several, apparently) in DC Circuit Court, and argue with the Corps of Engineers about the question of the Corps' jurisdiction? The fact that the tribe chose tactically when to engage with the government gives lie to this idea that they simply can't trust the process. In addition, the fact that other tribes did engage with the company and the corps, who were apparently able to address nearly all their concerns about cultural sites, (as spelled out in the DC Circuit's denial of the motion) indicates that a distrust by natives of government and corporate structures is an insufficient explanation.

Shooting Blanks posted:

Are you loving high? It makes sense to file those requests/complaints if for no other reason than to avoid accusations that they failed to use the system in place.

Liquid Communism posted:

Since this has apparently never entered your programming logic : It is fully possible to distrust the system and try to engage with it anyway if it suits your goals, or is the only source of power those you seek to oppose will respond to.

Shooting Blanks posted:

Are you loving high? It makes sense to file those requests/complaints if for no other reason than to avoid accusations that they failed to use the system in place.

Stickarts posted:

I'm not in a position right now to respond meaningfully and - as previously stated - this isn't my bailiwick; however, I think covers my response to this sentence pretty well when the context of the conversation is "First Nations' relationships with the American government".

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35

Dead Reckoning posted:

Entering into a court proceeding implies that you consent to abide by the court's decision, or at the very least to only contest it to the extent that the legal system allows, especially when you are the one initiating the court proceeding.

twodot posted:

This is really untrue, if North Vietnam arrests me, I'll work with their court system as much as I'm able, but I'll also take a rescue.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Before I respond, did you mean North Korea?

Dead Reckoning posted:

If you get arrested in Germany for doing something that is legal in America, Delta Force is not coming to get you, and all the Embassy will do is try to ensure you have access to adequate legal counsel. Saying that you would prefer to be tried in American courts will get you laughed at.

Gobbeldygook posted:

What's your point? They had more territory in 1851. They no longer had that territory as of the 1868 treat of Fort Laramie. In 1851, Poland was just a part of Russia. Does that mean everything east of Warsaw is rightfully Russia?

CommieGIR posted:

Because, the US Courts ruled the land had been seized illegally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

In fact, the SPECIFIC photo you posted shows the land that was taken illegally, and the Tribes refused to accept the payment, instead insisting that the land was still theirs. Again: your photo only proves how much we've hosed the Native's and your post only proves that point.

Dead Reckoning posted:

No, I'm saying that your apparent belief that you get to pick and choose when laws apply to you is unethical.

Gobbeldygook posted:

That court case concerned the seizure of the Black Hills. It did not, as you seem to want to imply, invalidate the 1868 treaty. The picture shows the boundaries of the 1868 treaty which they agreed to. Even if we gave them back every single bit of land taken from them since that treaty, they still would not have the land the pipeline is built on. In fact, if we went back to the 1868 borders (the pink line) their land would be even farther away from the pipeline. Are you arguing that the 1868 treaty is entirely invalid because (reasons) and the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie is the One True And Holy Treaty?

Gobbeldygook posted:

Again, please explain how their claim on land that has not been theirs in almost 148 years is different from Russia claiming Poland (which they controlled much more recently than that) as part of Russia just because in 1851 Poland was part of Russia.

CommieGIR posted:

Because, the US Courts ruled the land had been seized illegally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

In fact, the SPECIFIC photo you posted shows the land that was taken illegally, and the Tribes refused to accept the payment, instead insisting that the land was still theirs. Again: your photo only proves how much we've hosed the Native's and your post only proves that point.

Dead Reckoning posted:

If you are referring to the photo you posted earlier showing the path of the pipeline, no, it doesn't. That is the 1851 boundary. If you are referring to the photo gobbledygook posted, that shows the 1868 border and subsequent cessions. The pipeline is wholly outside the 1868 borders, pre-cession. The Souix claim with respect to the 1877 cessions of the Black Hills, (which are yellow shaded part on the west of gobbledygook's map, clear on the other side of the reservation,) was adjudicated based on the 1868 Treaty of Ft Laramie. The pipeline is wholly outside of both the Souix territorial claims under the 1868 treaty and the current reservation.

CommieGIR posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sioux_War_of_1876

coyo7e posted:

It's pretty plain which photo he was referring to, why are you still muddying the water?

Dead Reckoning posted:

What does a 1876 war have to do with borders established in 1868?

Earlier commie posted a HuffPo article claiming that the pipeline was on native territory based on a map of the borders set by the 1851 Treaty of Ft Laramie. I'm asking why he thinks the 1851 treaty should be the controlling law instead of the 1868 treaty, or any subsequent establishment of property rights. I used the Mexican Cession as a similar example. I'd like him to clarify his position on the matter.

quote:

The Dawes Act had a negative effect on American Indians, as it ended their communal holding of property (with crop land often being privately owned by families or clans[26]), by which they had ensured that everyone had a home and a place in the tribe. The act "was the culmination of American attempts to destroy tribes and their governments and to open Indian lands to settlement by non-Indians and to development by railroads."[27] Land owned by Indians decreased from 138 million acres (560,000 km2) in 1887 to 48 million acres (190,000 km2) in 1934.[28]
Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado was one of the most outspoken opponents of allotment. In 1881, he said that allotment was a policy "to despoil the Indians of their lands and to make them vagabonds on the face of the earth." Teller also said,
"the real aim [of allotment] was "to get at the Indian lands and open them up to settlement. The provisions for the apparent benefit of the Indians are but the pretext to get at his lands and occupy them. ... If this were done in the name of Greed, it would be bad enough; but to do it in the name of Humanity ... is infinitely worse."[29]
The amount of land in native hands rapidly depleted from some 150 million acres (610,000 km2) to a small 78 million acres (320,000 km2) by 1900. The remainder of the land once allotted to appointed natives was declared surplus and sold to non-native settlers as well as railroad and other large corporations; other sections were converted into federal parks and military compounds.[30] The concern shifted from encouraging private native landownership to satisfying the white settlers' demand for larger portions of land.
By dividing reservation lands into privately owned parcels, legislators hoped to complete the assimilation process by forcing Indians to adopt individual households, and strengthen the nuclear family and values of economic dependency strictly within this small household unit.[31]
Given the conditions on the Great Plains, the land granted to most allottees was not sufficient for economic viability of farming. Division of land among heirs upon the allottees' deaths quickly led to land fractionalization. Most allotment land, which could be sold after a statutory period of 25 years, was eventually sold to non-Native buyers at bargain prices. Additionally, land deemed to be "surplus" beyond what was needed for allotment was opened to white settlers, though the profits from the sales of these lands were often invested in programs meant to aid the American Indians. Over the 47 years of the Act's life, Native Americans lost about 90 million acres (360,000 km²) of treaty land, or about two-thirds of the 1887 land base. About 90,000 Native Americans were made landless.[32]

Dead Reckoning posted:

Earlier commie posted a HuffPo article claiming that the pipeline was on native territory based on a map of the borders set by the 1851 Treaty of Ft Laramie. I'm asking why he thinks the 1851 treaty should be the controlling law instead of the 1868 treaty, or any subsequent establishment of property rights. I used the Mexican Cession as a similar example. I'd like him to clarify his position on the matter.

CommieGIR posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sioux_War_of_1876

Because the Treaties were a regressive rollback so the land could be siezed and taken for settlers. Its a problem. Pretending it can be hand-waved away is party why its particularly disgusting that you think its a-okay.

Poland is a really bad example for you to choose, because Poland had sovereignty prior to 1851. Its, again, how hilariously easy you are willing to wipe away sovereign rights when it pleases you. Its very....American.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Stop evading my question. Why is the Sioux's claim on land that hasn't been theirs for 148 years good, righteous, and valid while China's claim on Tibet is invalid? Or do you think China's territorial claims on parts of all of their neighbors are good and just?

Gobbeldygook posted:

A treaty is not invalid just because you don't like all of the terms. Sometimes you sign a treaty and have less land than you started with.

CommieGIR posted:

Cool. More "Might Makes Rights" bullshit. Treaties made at the point of a gun or a knife or threats of starvation are a-okay with Gobbeldygook

CommieGIR posted:

Because the US courts ruled that their claim was valid and simply tried to hand-wave it away with a big cash payment? Oh, I guess that legal quandary doesn't matter, only the current one.

quote:

The Fort Laramie Treaty [of 1868] was considered by some commentators to have been a complete victory for Red Cloud and the Sioux. In 1904, it was described as

"the only instance in the history of the United States where the government has gone to war and afterwards negotiated a peace conceding everything demanded by the enemy and exacting nothing in return."

Robinson, supra, n 1, at 387.

CommieGIR posted:

It was used as a way to pressure Indians into accepting future land siezures like the Dawes Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act

Specifically, they threatened to starve any Native's who didn't agree to the treaty immediately that gave the US government immense power over when/where/how the Indians could hold land:

CommieGIR posted:

Mexico is not currently trying to reclaim New Mexico and the Seceded portions, nor do they continue to hold claims over such.

CommieGIR posted:

Cool. More "Might Makes Rights" bullshit. Treaties made at the point of a gun or a knife or threats of starvation are a-okay with Gobbeldygook

Gobbeldygook posted:

The Lakota are the moral equivalent of Israeli settlers who want to unjustly take over their neighbors land. Fortunately, the Lakota are too weak to actually do what they clearly wish they could do.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm aware of the history of the Black Hills cession. I'm just not clear on what relevance you think it has to the path of the DAPL or native claims of sovereignty over the territory of the same. Do you agree with the author of that HuffPo piece you posted?
If they did make such a claim, would you consider it valid under the framework you are using to assess the Standing Rock's claim? Why or why not?

CommieGIR posted:

Because: In legalese, the Lakota never accepted the financial offering for the land siezed (which included the seizures west of the river, which covers the currently desired pipeline area), because they were smart enough to realize that if they accepted the settlement, they'd forfeit the right to the land. They never accepted, and therefore they do still legally claim to own the land. That hasn't changed at all.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The pipeline doesn't pass through any land that was part of the 1877 cession though, which is what the court case you keep referring to is about, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. Are you confused about the path of the pipeline, or the territory of the 1877 cession?

CommieGIR posted:

Look, it doesn't matter because you have their weird idea that the treaties were all somehow justified despite immense evidence that it was just simply a slow annexation of territory by the US that did, ultimately, result in the US achieving what it wanted over the long run: The destruction of the tribes and access to their land.

Dead Reckoning posted:

For reference, both sides in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians agreed that the 1868 treaty was the controlling law at the time of the cession... And the current path of the pipeline is wholly outside the borders of Souix territory under the 1868 treaty.

emdash posted:

D&D has consistently, for years, had this problem where some posters are only interested in what is legal (or at least rely on that when it's convenient for them) and others are interested in what is ethical from a given perspective. This thread reads exactly like every thread about cops shooting black people; actions being taken against the oppressed group may be legal, or at least un-prosecutable, but that doesn't make them right. (Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are here to plead the oppressors' case.) C'mon, people. If everyone just acted in compliance with law all the time, no progress would ever be made.

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35

CommieGIR posted:

The problem with your appeal to the legal reality of the treaties ignores the true purpose of the treaties and the true purpose of the re-negotiations that occurred time and again. This was not some stable agreement that the US never changed, it was readily changed whenever the US Government felt it suited them, and the Lakota/Souix were told "Agree and suck it up, because we'll just burn your villages if you don't sign"

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35

emdash posted:

D&D has consistently, for years, had this problem where some posters are only interested in what is legal (or at least rely on that when it's convenient for them) and others are interested in what is ethical from a given perspective. This thread reads exactly like every thread about cops shooting black people; actions being taken against the oppressed group may be legal, or at least un-prosecutable, but that doesn't make them right. (Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are here to plead the oppressors' case.) C'mon, people. If everyone just acted in compliance with law all the time, no progress would ever be made.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The argument is not that the law is just because it is the law, it is that the law must be consistent to be just, and that obedience to a just law is necessary even in cases where it produces unjust outcomes, in order to avoid the greater injustice the law prevents. For example, if a criminal gets off because they prosecution was unable to introduce unequivocal evidence of his guilt due to the evidence being improperly obtained, we accept that unjust outcome to avoid sanctioning the greater injustice of tainted evidence being used in trials.

Dead Reckoning posted:

If the treaties between the U.S. government and native Americans have no legal or moral value, why did you post this appeal to the 1851 Treaty of Ft Laramie:
and then spend several posts harping on a U.S. court decision about the legality of the 1877 Black Hills cession, based in part on a 1868 treaty? It is nonsensical to accuse me of appealing to the legal reality of treaties when it was you who originally cited a treaty to make your point.