|
CommieGIR posted:Bullshit. If these people suddenly ended up in Lakota Sovereign Territory, they wouldn't suddenly lose their American Rights nor their land. Sounds like the plot of a Chuck Tingle book. Pounded in the Pipeline by the Proud Lakota Nation.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Thanks for contributing more racism to the thread. edit: fixed link Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:EDIT: I just want to add that I really enjoy Brainiac and Commie insistently maintaining the fiction that we don't have to consider the issues around property confiscation because nothing will change for the land owners, and then VS accidentally breaks kayfabe with "well when the tribe confiscates their property, it will all be tidy and legal  I was repeating your own argument back to you, you dunce.You really are a black hole of un-selfawareness. You've spent how many weeks now whiteknighting the government taking private land to give to an oil company, whiteknighting an oil company bulldozing religious sites, and cheering them to bulldoze over people in the way of their profits because all the proper legal procedure was followed. And then you melt down into rivers of  when even contemplating the idea of a government using its own proper and tidy legal procedures to arrive at an outcome you don't personally like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
"
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Look at you continuing to be a dumbass. That's what their laws actually say (PDF, pg 2). The maximum punishment for any criminal offense under Standing Rock Sioux tribal law is one year and/or up to a $5,000 fine. Do you think everyone in Rapid City, South Dakota should be forced to live under Standing Rock Sioux's tribal laws, ruled by a tribal council they are not allowed to vote for? It's a really simple question. You can say yes, no, or continue to troll. Well judging by your other posts in this thread, as long as the theoretical treaty that allowed this were approved by the senate according to proper channels, you would be fine with it so who cares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:They're going to move the pipeline. The protestors won. If you were anti-pipeline because you believe that no new oil infrastructure should be built, having the pipeline routed to go through somewhere else really isn't much of a victory at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you were anti-pipeline because you believe that no new oil infrastructure should be built, having the pipeline routed to go through somewhere else really isn't much of a victory at all. you're a loving retard
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Look at you continuing to be a dumbass. That's what their laws actually say (PDF, pg 2). The maximum punishment for any criminal offense under Standing Rock Sioux tribal law is one year and/or up to a $5,000 fine. Do you think everyone in Rapid City, South Dakota should be forced to live under Standing Rock Sioux's tribal laws, ruled by a tribal council they are not allowed to vote for? It's a really simple question. You can say yes, no, or continue to troll. You don't know a thing about the situation of tribal laws. The majority of serious crimes on reservations are handled by the federal government, due to crushing lack of resources. In addition, the sovereignty of tribal governments is extremely limited, because crimes committed on tribal land by non-citizens must be tried by the state. So tribal legal codes are incomplete because there's no real reason for them to be completed since they are unlikely to be used. In the event for full sovereignty, where you could be tried for your many crimes against the reservation's people, they would by necessity be brought up to the standard level, because there would be a need for them. Or you can insinuate that American Indians are rape monsters while you jack off to porn of Amerindian women. That works too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Yeah, governments and property owners being duly entitled to do what they do has been my point, which is why I was pointing out that transferring sovereignty/ownership over the former Indian territories back to the tribe would be confiscatory, or at the very least entitle the new sovereign to confiscate the land, and those proposing such a thing need to grapple with the ramifications of that. Commie was the one insisting that we didn't need to discuss those ramifications because the new sovereign would somehow not have those rights, or would never exercise them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Man, Gobbeldygook is turning into a pillar of salt right before our very eyes
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
I mean, poo poo, are we going to whine about Algeria handled it now? Or Haiti? It's solvable, especially if we go ahead and expropriate racist land and resettle them in other parts of the country to be reeducated via love and compassion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really sure what sick own you think you're going for here. Doesn't matter, the Constitution provides that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If the President and US Senate transferred sovereignty to the Lakota government it would be 100% legal and constitutional and there would be no legal recourse for anyone complaining it constitutes a "taking" because of something the Lakota might theoretically do. And well, all you care about is that proper legal procedure is followed so what's the problem. And if the new government decided to take land or impose taxes, well the current government already does this and you're totally fine with it as long as all the paperwork is filled out correctly, I'm sure the Lakota government would have nice-looking paperwork too so again what's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You don't know a thing about the situation of tribal laws. The majority of serious crimes on reservations are handled by the federal government, due to crushing lack of resources. In addition, the sovereignty of tribal governments is extremely limited, because crimes committed on tribal land by non-citizens must be tried by the state. So tribal legal codes are incomplete because there's no real reason for them to be completed since they are unlikely to be used. In the event for full sovereignty, where you could be tried for your many crimes against the reservation's people, they would by necessity be brought up to the standard level, because there would be a need for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I appreciate the information on tribal laws. It's good to know that the tribes can't even handle their own criminals. While you succeeded in insinuating that I've committed many crimes against the reservation's people, you still failed to answer my very simple and straight-forward question. Do you want everyone living in Rapid City, South Dakota to be forced to move or live under the rule of the Standing Rock Sioux (or similar's) tribal council? If not, what exactly does turning their land over to the Lakota even mean? No, I want them to have the free choice to pack up and leave or stay. Obviously the process of gaining tribal citizenship would need to be refined away from racist blood quantum laws, and assistance should be provided in relocating them, especially you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
The arguments against the pipeline which involve property claims from the 19th century of the Standing Rock Sioux or trumped-up claims that the pipeline is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, a ticking time bomb waiting to go off which will wipe out the reservation are pretty weak IMO. The strongest argument against the pipeline is that by opposing the construction of ALL oil infrastructure, and ensuring low supplies of oil and high oil prices, there will be more incentive to use and develop alternate technologies, and we'll wean ourselves off of oil. It will come at great cost to everybody in the US, especially the poor who can't afford it, but some think that it'll be worth it. If that's really your point of view, I don't think that getting the pipeline moved is that great of a victory. There's not going to be as great of a turn-out for the next protest for the re-routed section of pipeline which is not somewhat vaguely sort of near an Indian reservation when you won't be able to make the protests all about identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
I mean okay, but "the Army Corps of Engineers decides no pipelines ever again and the government agrees to just let them have that authority" is an outcome that's clearly beyond the power of the protesters to achieve so I don't know what you want here. Oil is still being used guys, let's all give up and die then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:opposing the construction of ALL oil infrastructure Turns out insurance is cheaper than improvement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Senator Heitkamp has given a statement on the decision:quote:It’s long past time that a decision is made on the easement going under Lake Oahe. This administration’s delay in taking action -- after I’ve pushed the White House, Army Corps, and other federal agencies for months to make a decision -- means that today’s move doesn’t actually bring finality to the project. The pipeline still remains in limbo. The incoming administration already stated its support for the project and the courts have already stated twice that it appeared the Corps followed the required process in considering the permit. For the next month and a half, nothing about this project will change. For the immediate future, the safety of residents, protesters, law enforcement, and workers remains my top priority as it should for everyone involved. As some of the protesters have become increasingly violent and unlawful, and as North Dakota’s winter has already arrived – with a blizzard raging last week through the area where protesters are located -- I’m hoping now that protesters will act responsibly to avoid endangering their health and safety, and move off of the Corps land north of the Cannonball River. Emphasis mine: "more money for us," and "gently caress you," if not in that order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm glad the oil company is being hosed, if only briefly. gently caress oil companies. gently caress them and their oil spills. Native americans are the chillest people on the planet despite centuries of being hosed. loving NAMBLA could be protesting DA and I'd still be supportive. gently caress oil companies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Doesn't matter, the Constitution provides that treaties are the supreme law of the land. If the President and US Senate transferred sovereignty to the Lakota government it would be 100% legal and constitutional and there would be no legal recourse for anyone complaining it constitutes a "taking" because of something the Lakota might theoretically do. And well, all you care about is that proper legal procedure is followed so what's the problem. Also, no matter how many times you repeat the bolded part, it isn't true. I care about laws being just, but I don't think that every legal outcome has to be just.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
lmao at people defending the pipeline. Even if it's construction is just delayed, anything that wastes the money of an oil company is good. Although ultimately the construction of any new oil infrastructure should be halted for obvious reasons. Also no one gives a poo poo about legal arguments since they are effectively meaningless in the face of global warming so gently caress off with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, no matter how many times you repeat the bolded part, it isn't true. I care about laws being just, but I don't think that every legal outcome has to be just. OK well the law would be just by definition because the US government also taxes property owners and steals their land to give to private companies on a whim and you already agree that's just so no change in the powers of government here. You could argue that a specific outcome of these just laws might be unjust if it's the tribe making the decisions instead of people you like such as politicians owned by oil companies, but that's irrelevant because outcomes don't have to be just so what's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, I want them to have the free choice to pack up and leave or stay. Obviously the process of gaining tribal citizenship would need to be refined away from racist blood quantum laws, and assistance should be provided in relocating them, especially you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK well the law would be just by definition because the US government also taxes property owners and steals their land to give to private companies on a whim and you already agree that's just so no change in the powers of government here. What's your position on Gobbeldygook's question? Do you think the U.S. has an obligation to return the 1868 treaty land to the tribes? If so, what do you think distinguishes that from the Mexican cession around the same time? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I appreciate the information on tribal laws. It's good to know that the tribes can't even handle their own criminals. While you succeeded in insinuating that I've committed many crimes against the reservation's people, you still failed to answer my very simple and straight-forward question. Do you want everyone living in Rapid City, South Dakota to be forced to move or live under the rule of the Standing Rock Sioux (or similar's) tribal council? If not, what exactly does turning their land over to the Lakota even mean? They can't handle their own criminal case loads because the tribal courts are drastically underfunded and under-resourced. Like was posted, most of the serious crimes are handled in federal court. I lived the first 22 years of my life on a Lakota reservation, do you want to know how tribal law affected me? -Columbus Day is celebrated as Native American Day -Earth Day is celebrated as Unci Maka (Grandmother Earth) Day Non-tribal members are not subject to tribal law. Tribal jurisdiction only applies to tribal members on tribal land. So in your hypothetical where the Lakota reservation was extended to the old treaty borders, absolutely nothing would change for the white people living there because they are not tribal members. This also extends to land ownership, the tribe doesn't automatically own all the reservation land or have eminent domain over it. My family and many of our neighbors own privately deeded land on the reservation or lease it from the tribe. This is some pretty silly concern trolling, especially considering you don't appear to have the slightest understanding of how tribal sovereignty actually works. Gobbeldygook posted:If the process of gaining tribal citizenship was made not racist, eventually white people would outnumber and outvote the Native Americans on the reservations fuckin loooool
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:lmao at people defending the pipeline. Even if it's construction is just delayed, anything that wastes the money of an oil company is good. Although ultimately the construction of any new oil infrastructure should be halted for obvious reasons. Unless you've beaten Tesla/God-Emperor Musk to a practical, affordable electric car then no you won't be halting poo poo. Doc Hawkins posted:Senator Heitkamp has given a statement on the decision: Yeeeeahhhh anyone claiming the pipeline team has lost is speaking prematurely. Most likely DAPL will continue after the ACE re-reviews the poo poo they already reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:28
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
laughing so hard at the morons in this thread frantically trying to shift the goalposts so it looks like they aren't retarded for spending hours arguing that the protestors are wrong and will never affect anything
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The population of Rapid City alone is roughly equal to all of the reservations in South Dakota combined. If the process of gaining tribal citizenship was made not racist, eventually white people would outnumber and outvote the Native Americans on the reservations. Eventually the reservations would become just another US political system controlled by white voters. Is that really the outcome you want? Or do you not think that would happen for some reason? this is a real gem of a post
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
The people won for once. I'll be damned
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Fansy posted:The people won for once. I'll be damned Good timing, too. It's been unseasonably "warm" and the first big Arctic front is moving in so the weather at the camp is about to get absolutely hellish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The population of Rapid City alone is roughly equal to all of the reservations in South Dakota combined. If the process of gaining tribal citizenship was made not racist, eventually white people would outnumber and outvote the Native Americans on the reservations. Eventually the reservations would become just another US political system controlled by white voters. Is that really the outcome you want? Or do you not think that would happen for some reason? Wow. You're a special kind of aggressively stupid aren't you? What exactly are you even arguing at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The population of Rapid City alone is roughly equal to all of the reservations in South Dakota combined. If the process of gaining tribal citizenship was made not racist, eventually white people would outnumber and outvote the Native Americans on the reservations. Eventually the reservations would become just another US political system controlled by white voters. Is that really the outcome you want? Or do you not think that would happen for some reason? lol at this post
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
they want to feel like they've "won" and were expecting to be able to gloat about the protest being removed since that was taken from them they're still desperately trying to find a way to "win" through argument and nuance, which they suck at and lack respectively
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Alright alright. Tell you folks what. To get the maximum amount of human suffering out of this clusterfuck, I will be willing to toxx that this pipeline will ultimately be completed after the ACE review so long as someone else is willing to toxx that it won't be. Winner gets to mock the living poo poo out of the loser ITT of course. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
wow I wasn't expecting to be proven right so quickly edit: I guess that doesn't count as argument or nuance but Got Damb
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Non-tribal members are not subject to tribal law. Tribal jurisdiction only applies to tribal members on tribal land. So in your hypothetical where the Lakota reservation was extended to the old treaty borders, absolutely nothing would change for the white people living there because they are not tribal members. This also extends to land ownership, the tribe doesn't automatically own all the reservation land or have eminent domain over it. My family and many of our neighbors own privately deeded land on the reservation or lease it from the tribe. Clearly the Standing Rock Sioux tribal council would reject an oil pipeline running through a reservation, so I'm sure there are other things they would variously allow or forbid on the reservations. I'm just struggling to understand how expanding Lakota territory can simultaneously mean both nothing changes for anyone who lives there and that they would now have the ability to stop oil pipelines from running through their now-expanded territory. Pellisworth posted:fuckin loooool Raerlynn posted:Wow. You're a special kind of aggressively stupid aren't you? What exactly are you even arguing at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Sorry Gobbeldygook but you are on the objectively wrong side of this issue since the complete stop of all oil infrastructure is the only sane one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're not really understanding my position regarding the relationship between the law and justice at all. It isn't relevant to the post you quoted though, which is merely a question of facts, not justice. Maybe you could explain it again because it sounds completely incoherent to me, since you abandon your "morality and unjust outcomes are irrelevant" legalism the moment someone suggests a legal course of action that may lead to outcomes you don't like, now suddenly you want to talk about morality. Dead Reckoning posted:What's your position on Gobbeldygook's question? Irrelevant. It would be legal to do, and both he and you agree that as long as legal processes are followed the morality and justice of the outcome is irrelevant, so why do you suddenly want to talk about morality now? Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think the U.S. has an obligation to return the 1868 treaty land to the tribes? They obviously don't have a legal obligation to do so (because the US makes the laws), but I think it would be the right thing to do. And if the US did do that (which they never would lol), it would be legal. And I don't see why "but they might use eminent domain against landowners" is an argument against that, both because the US government already does this for corporate welfare purposes, and also because there's already a billion dollars in an account marked for the Sioux which could be used to pay off landowners. But I'm going to guess that magically a government-determined payout as compensation for that government abrogating landowners' *~*~  God-given property rights*~*~ is not acceptable to you in this case for some mysterious reason even though it's perfectly okay by you to do to natives.Dead Reckoning posted:If so, what do you think distinguishes that from the Mexican cession around the same time? Well for one thing, the descendants of the people living there at the time of the cession don't actually want to live under the control of the Mexican government, whereas the descendants of the Sioux whose lands were stolen did go to court to get that land back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Wow. You're a special kind of aggressively stupid aren't you? What exactly are you even arguing at this point? I guess he should have said "if franchise is not limited to those who are recognized by the government as members of the tribe, the way it is now" but is he wrong? If the 1868 territories were reincorporated into the reservation, the tribes would either have to deny representation to the majority of citizens who are not members of the tribe, find some means of ensuring a demographic majority in the territory, abolish democracy, or find their government run by a white majority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I guess he should have said "if franchise is not limited to those who are recognized by the government as members of the tribe, the way it is now" but is he wrong? If the 1868 territories were reincorporated into the reservation, the tribes would either have to deny representation to the majority of citizens who are not members of the tribe, find some means of ensuring a demographic majority in the territory, abolish democracy, or find their government run by a white majority. maybe the white people should be forcibly relocated somewhere else. or is that something thats only ok to do to natives
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Cnidaria posted:lol at this post I mean not only is it really blatantly racist and stupid, dude also has no idea how tribal governments and sovereignty work in reality. They are theoretically "sovereign" nations but they basically function as slightly special county-level governments. Anything of actual importance is governed by state and federal law. Yeah sure, this means they can have casinos, no cigarette taxes or whatever in some places but that's a pretty laughable amount of sovereignty. Education? Well, I went to tribal schools and we had three hours a week of Lakota language and culture. All the state and federal level education standards apply. Taxes? Federal and state taxes apply. The tribe gets to set local sales taxes, just like any other county-level government. Law enforcement? The tribe has their own police force and court system, but it only applies to tribal members on reservation land. All crimes by non-members and most serious crimes are handled in federal court. Infrastructure? All our roads are maintained by the state and not the tribe. Land ownership? Most of the reservation is owned by the tribe but there is a lot of privately-owned or leased land that is legally ON the reservation but NOT owned by the tribe. I could go on, but the bottom line is tribal governments are totally subject to federal law and mostly to state law. If you extended the reservation to the treaty borders it would have almost no impact on the white people living there, unless you radically changed the power and jurisdiction of tribal governments. They can't actually do anything unless you're part of the tribe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:03
|
|