|
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. Yea, I know I'm not the first in the thread to make those points. Just trying to contribute to a discussion I feel is awfully lacking in context.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 15:05 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 13:30 |
|
Apparently the Standing Rock camp is getting tired of hippies showing up and being hippies.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/ Given that I've seen a lot of posts on Facebook from some of my more extra-granola Burning Man acquaintances talking about heading to Standing Rock because that job they were hoping for fell through and they might as well "help with the fight", I'm hoping that this letter puts them off that.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 17:22 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 17:45 |
|
Actually, when desperate, most will try a variety of tactics, regardless of whether they mesh perfectly with their politics. Also, in a world where 's can lazily drop "well why didn't they try x and y", it's easier to just try everything even if you know it won't work, just to save you the hassle of having to explain to someone why you didn't think it would work anyway when their context for resolving dispute is usually deferrence to an authority that doesn't hate them. wearing a lampshade fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 18:36 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A couple of points here: This thread continues to be the loving worst at nuance. 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 18:45 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A couple of points here: 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". Also what liquid communism and albany academy said.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 19:14 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A couple of points here: 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 19:16 |
|
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. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 19:20 |
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-nodapl-map_us_581a0623e4b014443087af35
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 19:48 |
|
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". And the 1851 Treaty of Ft Laramie should be controlling instead of the subsequent 1868 Treaty of Ft Laramie, or for that matter any other previous or subsequent territorial claim because...?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:09 |
|
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?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:16 |
|
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 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:17 |
|
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. Before I respond, did you mean North Korea? Or are you posting from 1975?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:19 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Before I respond, did you mean North Korea?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:21 |
|
Okay, first off, there is no basis for comparison between the courts in any modern, developed democracy and the courts of the last Stalinist single party tolitarian dictatorship. Just to get that out of the way. Second, setting foot in a country includes consent to be bound by their laws and courts, (outside some very specific exceptions,) it's a cornerstone of sovereignty and the international order. This is why the State Department warns people in no uncertain terms against visiting countries like North Korea, and more generally warns tourists about assuming that local laws are similar to American laws. 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:40 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:46 |
|
No, I'm saying that your apparent belief that you get to pick and choose when laws apply to you is unethical.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:51 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 20:51 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Because, the US Courts ruled the land had been seized illegally: 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:14 |
|
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development Authoritarians are people who can't make it past stage four, enjoy your stay.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:17 |
|
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? 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. 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. 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:23 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Because, the US Courts ruled the land had been seized illegally: 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:36 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:38 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:39 |
|
What does a 1876 war have to do with borders established in 1868?coyo7e posted:It's pretty plain which photo he was referring to, why are you still muddying the water? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:43 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What does a 1876 war have to do with borders established in 1868? 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: 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] Including laws that outlawed Indian traditions and religions. 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. Mexico is not currently trying to reclaim New Mexico and the Seceded portions, nor do they continue to hold claims over such. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:52 |
|
CommieGIR posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sioux_War_of_1876 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?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:55 |
|
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? 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. 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. 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
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 21:57 |
|
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 Now let me tell you why its wrong when those filthy savages threaten the slightest bit of force against an oil company.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:01 |
|
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. 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. edit: From one of the footnotes in the Supreme Court's decision: 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 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:15 |
|
CommieGIR posted:It was used as a way to pressure Indians into accepting future land siezures like the Dawes Act: 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
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:20 |
|
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. No, that's us you dingbat. "We'll respect your borders...this time" "Oh look, gold in them there hills. We'll try to half-heartedly enforce your land rights, and then widely announce the Gold discovery around the country and take if from you anyways" "Well, we need to re-negotiate, so we're gonna just tweak the borders a bit. You guys TOTALLY have a say in this, but realize if you do not accept, you will starve, kay?" "Nevermind, you guys only need the land that your family resides on. Let's just free up that land for us to sell to settlers at a drastically reduced price" We're the Invaders. If you are going to be so daft as to use an Israeli/Palestinian comparison, the Palestinian's were the Natives. WE'RE the Israelis. Are you sure you are not the Eliza bot? Because you sure do enjoy making very broken comparisons. For fucks sake, we were responsible for the settlers. We were responsible for the seizure of territory. We're the invaders. 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? 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. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 29, 2016 |
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:24 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:36 |
|
We are the Palestinians and the Natives are the Israelis.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:47 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 22:49 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 23:00 |
|
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. We'd have to pretend that the Great Sioux Reservation wasn't slowly axed left and right for the convenience of the US government when it suited them to buy that. Or that the US government didn't arrest Lakota leaders and then basically force them to give up horses and land whenever they felt it suited them, or re-negotiate the treaties at whim. To continue with the ill-fated Israeli-Palestinian comparison: This is like saying that while the Palestinians agree that they have controlling rights in the territory they still hold, we'd have to ignore all the new seizures and settlements left and right whenever it suits the Israeli Government. 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"
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 23:07 |
|
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. The protestors aren't just wrong legally but also morally. Yeah and? This is the same point debated previously, but now in Huffpo shitpost form rather than D&D shitpost form.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2016 23:47 |
|
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" 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. 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.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2016 00:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 13:30 |
|
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. You realize this is a pretty poor example because of the number of cases where its become apparently that Prosecutors and Police regularly coerce admissions of guilt through unjust means in order to meet quotas and give the artificial feel of justice being done through quota rather than actual justice being meted out. Seriously, that's a terrible example, especially considering how increasingly apparent it has become that our justice system is essentially broken. What are you, Judge Dredd? 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: Because the point of highlighting the treaty was to demonstrate: 1. That, yes, the land likely IS the Natives 2. We have a legacy of SCREWING the natives 3. That we implement a legal system that regularly ALSO screws the natives even when it sides with them, so why should we pretend that the court ruling even vaguely recognize the larger issues with that land? 4. Pretending that the law is always just and right even when it has a legacy of not being so kind of highlights a bigger issue: That the Justice System is broken and perverted in favor of for profits. This is beyond arguing about, its been demonstrated time and again.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2016 00:14 |