|
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. There are plenty of ways this could be handled. A power-sharing agreement like in Northern Ireland. A constitutional protection for cultural heritage sites and waterways and w/e the tribe cares about with strict enough supermajority requirements that it's defacto impossible to amend them away without the tribe agreeing with you. An upper house with regions having equal representation instead of representatives proportional to population, like the US Senate has. There are all sorts of examples of systems deliberately designed to protect a minority from a majority while preserving democratic principles, it's not like some new and unprecedented problem that's never been handled before anywhere ever. The US Constitution itself contains safeguards against majority rule. I mean as long as we're spitballing theoretical governments in the impossible world where the US actually upholds its historical treaty obligations.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:So in my hypothetical, you believe this would not actually affect anyone living there who is not a Lakota? People would continue to vote on their city councils, county prosecutors, etc, which would continue to have all the same powers and authority they have now, only the signs at the new reservation border would say WELCOME TO THE LAKOTA NATION, POPULATION BLAH? Uh, YES. That is exactly what I'm saying. That is how tribal sovereignty works. Ok, let me lay this out really explicitly. I am a white dude. My family has owned privately deeded land on a Lakota reservation in the Dakotas for five generations. I went to tribal schools, I have a ton of cousins who are mixed-race and tribal members. When I drive home, I am greeted by a sign that says PELLISWORTH COUNTY POPULATION A FEW THOUSAND LOL Welcome to the Pellisworth Sioux Reservation The tribe ONLY has jurisdiction over tribal members. If, hypothetically, the reservations were extended to all the treaty area, it would effectively mean their county-level governments would be run by the tribe, and most of it wouldn't apply to non-members. Seriously dude, my family has lived on a Lakota reservation as non-members for 100+ years. Unless tribal sovereignty was drastically changed from what exists today, extending the Lakota reservation to the treaty borders would barely impact the white people living there. Tribal governments are incredibly weak and limited in jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Can I just point out for a minute how ignorant Dead Reckoning and the guy with the retard avatar is. Do either of you have a a morsel of understanding of what indian status even is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
btw I am aware my family are literally the rear end in a top hat colonists here e: when the Lakota were originally settled on reservations, most families were given an allotment of land. But, they didn't have a concept of land ownership and they weren't ranchers or farmers, so many of them sold their allotments to white settlers. As I recall, the core of our ranch was originally owned by a fellow named Blue Nose, sold to some white guy, then to our family. The result is about 10% of the population on the rez are white ranchers. Still dirt poor, but honestly better off than most of the tribal members who don't even have a job. No joke, 85% or worse unemployment 
Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted: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 Right. This is pretty much a textbook example of why direct action can be a very effective way of achieving political change. Here you have a company doing something unpopular: most people if you ask them aren't in favor of corporate welfare, they don't want oil companies using eminent domain and bulldozing historical sites for a bit of extra profit, and they want investments in green energy instead of doubling down on more fossil fuel infrastructure for a commodity that's killing the planet. But most people are also busy and don't have the time/inclination/patience to actually call their reps and fight and win endless political campaigns against the oil lobby every time they pull this poo poo, so politicians can take the money and count on people not noticing or resigning themselves to the outcome. But a few hundred or thousand people go stand in front of bulldozers and suddenly instead of just quietly taking campaign donations and letting some permits go through, those politicians have to be publicly a-ok with oil companies murdering a bunch of ordinary people for profit and poo poo it's an easy call to back down from that, no one wants to be the blood for oil guy at reelection time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. VitalSigns posted: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. VitalSigns posted:There are plenty of ways this could be handled. A power-sharing agreement like in Northern Ireland. A constitutional protection for cultural heritage sites and waterways and w/e the tribe cares about with strict enough supermajority requirements that it's defacto impossible to amend them away without the tribe agreeing with you. An upper house with regions having equal representation instead of representatives proportional to population, like the US Senate has.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, you aren't understanding me. I'm not arguing for or against returning the territories to the tribe at the moment, I'm arguing that returning the territories to the tribes would inherently involve taking them from the present owners based on the way tribal lands are currently administered by the U.S. government. Would you agree with me? Well, as currently constituted no the tribal governments wouldn't have this power. Even if the tribal governments were theoretically made completely sovereign they wouldn't inherently take anything from the present owners, and even if they did the US Government also has and exercises that same power all the time so really all you're complaining about here is that people you don't like might have that power. Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that, if a majority of Mexican-Americans living in the Cession wished to return the territory to Mexico, you would be in favor of it? Self-determination is a pretty significant difference. If Mexican-Americans were so abused by the current California government the way Indian tribes are by state and federal governments that they created a representative government for themselves and sued for self-determination in court I'd say the situation would be significantly different enough from our current reality that their complaints should at least be considered. This is just a red herring, no one wants what you're talking about except maybe an insignificant number of weirdos, why bring it up. Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, unfortunately political arrangements designed explicitly to protect the voting power of a minority ethnic group against an ethnic majority have a rather inauspicious history, and aren't really compatible with American ideas about democracy. It's different when you are talking about protecting civil rights, but when you're talking about actively suppressing the voting power of the majority in order to retain political power for one ethnic group, well, I don't think it's a good idea. So you're against the US Senate then? It's blatantly anti-democratic and suppresses the voting power of the majority in order to retain political power for certain minority groups (the residents of less populous states). You're against the 3/4 of states requirement to amend the constitution, which again allows a minority of the country to actively suppress the will of the majority? It would not be hard to write a constitution that protects the rights of a minority and de facto requires their consent to abrogate those rights: that's literally what large parts of the US Constitution were created to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, you aren't understanding me. I'm not arguing for or against returning the territories to the tribe at the moment, I'm arguing that returning the territories to the tribes would inherently involve taking them from the present owners based on the way tribal lands are currently administered by the U.S. government. Would you agree with me? You don't understand how tribal sovereignty works in practice. If, magically, the Sioux reservations were to expand to include all the treaty areas, all of their laws would only apply to tribal members. Tribal governments are subservient to state (mostly) and federal (entirely) governments, and the laws they make only have jurisdiction over tribal members. Tribal governments have next to no jurisdiction on non-tribal members.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Uh, YES. That is exactly what I'm saying. That is how tribal sovereignty works. Pellisworth posted:You don't understand how tribal sovereignty works in practice. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, as currently constituted no the tribal governments wouldn't have this power. Even if the tribal governments were theoretically made completely sovereign they wouldn't inherently take anything from the present owners, and even if they did the US Government also has and exercises that same power all the time so really all you're complaining about here is that people you don't like might have that power. VitalSigns posted:Self-determination is a pretty significant difference. If Mexican-Americans were so abused by the current California government the way Indian tribes are by state and federal governments that they created a representative government for themselves and sued for self-determination in court I'd say the situation would be significantly different enough from our current reality that their complaints should at least be considered. VitalSigns posted:So you're against the US Senate then? It's blatantly anti-democratic and suppresses the voting power of the majority in order to retain political power for certain minority groups (the residents of less populous states). You're against the 3/4 of states requirement to amend the constitution, which again allows a minority of the country to actively suppress the will of the majority?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is one of things where I'm not entirely clear on what people are advocating. Since apparently the title to all land on federal Indian reservations is held in trust by the federal government rather than the tribes, is the idea that the feds would seize the title to all land within the 1868 borders but let everyone already there keep doing whatever they're doing? If there isn't any change in the status quo, if the tribal government doesn't actually have any sovereignty over land, and wouldn't be granted it by this new arrangement then what exactly is the purpose? OTOH, if the tribal government now has a much larger area from which to collect sales tax, but isn't extending franchise to those areas, doesn't the representation issue rear its head again? How do property taxes work, both currently and in this hypothetical? who cares? in what timeline do you foresee this happening? explain to me how the Lakota and Dakota peoples might reasonably regain some sort of jurisdiction over the original treaty lands, given the near-term political climate in the US? it's the same dumb legalistic rabbit hole which is not currently and most probably never will be relevant
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because you aren't actually drawing a legal distinction, or even a universally applicable moral one. You're saying that Indians are disadvantaged enough that the law should respect their ancient claims to territory, but in your opinion Mexican-Americans are not. Self-determination is a very important concept in law, actually. My argument isn't that Mexican-Americans aren't disadvantaged enough, my argument is that they literally don't want this to happen (and the reason they don't is because they're not disadvantaged enough to prefer Mexican rule to US rule). It's a total red herring. In an alternate reality where they did have enough grievances to organize a government and demand self-determination yeah sure I think it would be good to at least consider what they had to say. If California government were so bad that millions of people wanted Mexican rule of all things then gently caress at the very least we need to fix a lot of poo poo, stat. Dead Reckoning posted:The Senate isn't explicitly designed to maintain the political power of one ethnic group, so it isn't relevant. But anyway eh you could write a theoretical constitution facially neutrally that still has the desired effect: "three quarters of the local governments must agree to any construction that imposes on these culturally significant sites" *local boundaries just happen to be drawn that 1/3 of them have majority Sioux populations* or whatever. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:who cares? I think their intention is to have you to admit that it would be bad, and that therefore the world is a better place thanks to past and ongoing oppression of native peoples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I think their intention is to have you to admit that it would be bad, and that therefore the world is a better place thanks to past and ongoing oppression of native peoples. Unless the natives seized the territory by force and imposed a treaty on the US Government that ensured they'd be able to genocide the white population, then they would have the Mandate of Heaven and the treaties and genocide would be a sound moral basis for the Sioux nation's private property rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
I deleted my Facebook account a few weeks ago, but a former coworker had headed out to join the protests and had been posting updates. I'm sure they're over the moon about this. This was their first fray into protesting. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
It makes me really happy to see Native American rights getting some attention. Nowhere in my lifetime have they gotten more media play, though it's still pretty lovely. hanhepi waste
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unless the natives seized the territory by force and imposed a treaty on the US Government that ensured they'd be able to genocide the white population, then they would have the Mandate of Heaven and the treaties and genocide would be a sound moral basis for the Sioux nation's private property rights. I'm having a hard time believing that he'd really keep consistently to his principles if they became a burden to oil extraction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
I can't find the actual news over all the slapfights. So the construction was delayed? Any articles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Jesus gently caress, 172 new posts and still just people replying to Gobbeldygook and Dead Reckoning  I can't make heads and tails of the situation - Anyone know where the pipeline is being rerouted too? Will the protests have to continue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Does this decision have any legs or is it just the Obama admin kicking the can down the road so the Trump admin has to make the call? In the latter case it's hard to see how this substantially changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Here's some grade A crying by the way:quote:Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics Partners Respond to the Statement from the Department of the Army Did you know that "policy decision" is Washington code for "political decision"? Now you know!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Tias posted:Jesus gently caress, 172 new posts and still just people replying to Gobbeldygook and Dead Reckoning It seems they are just taking more time to conside reroute possibilities and further evaluate the environmental impact. But the outcome could be the ACoE approving the same crossing. If I had to guess it seems that the ACoE saw that the protests weren't going to die down for the winter and it could turn ugly. The oil company already is going to reneg on their contracts even if the permits were approved so a further delay to get it into spring makes sense. An actual reroute would be interesting because it would still end up crossing the Missouri river and the new pipeline built would have the potential to disturb new historical sites. Raldikuk fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161204005090/en/Energy-Transfer-Partners-Sunoco-Logistics-Partners-Respond This isn't over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161204005090/en/Energy-Transfer-Partners-Sunoco-Logistics-Partners-Respond Of course it isn't. Trump has already said he'll force it through, and he's personally invested in the project. That's the hilarious part about the guy asking someone to toxx and all the people crying over the pipe: You'll get your damned pipeline, and it'll be under the guise of possibly one of the most corrupt US presidents ever to hold office. And you'll be okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:An actual reroute would be interesting because it would still end up crossing the Missouri river and the new pipeline built would have the potential to disturb new historical sites. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:45
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
quote:DAPL: water protectors defeat coward pipe I'd prefer "Black Snake stunned for 1d3 months", but this works!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
imo, the dapl should be built, but only if it's routed through the richest and most affluent neighborhoods
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the February "we're gonna build a pipe. A big beautiful pipe. And the Natives Americans are going to pay for it" speech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, the dapl should be built, but only if it's routed through the richest and most affluent neighborhoods I don't think you'll get much opposition in this thread to that. Although it's not likely, with rich people's NIMBY game being way stronger than the Standing Rock Sioux's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:I'm waiting for the February "we're gonna build a pipe. A big beautiful pipe. And the Natives Americans are going to pay for it" speech. I mean, anyone who isn't expecting that is probably too stupid to remember to breathe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't think you'll get much opposition in this thread to that. Although it's not likely, with rich people's NIMBY game being way stronger than the Standing Rock Sioux's. I support building it through every single NIMBY's backyard and then decomissioning the day after it's done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Who keeps buying the avatars? Daym.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Who keeps buying the avatars? Daym. I want to know that too, to be honest. There seem to be around three distinct "styles" of red texts around, so either we have three very wealthy goons throwing money at stuff or the admins are trying to get additional revenue by getting people to spend money on avatar change certificates 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
botany posted:I want to know that too, to be honest. There seem to be around three distinct "styles" of red texts around, so either we have three very wealthy goons throwing money at stuff or the admins are trying to get additional revenue by getting people to spend money on avatar change certificates One is effectronica five, because effectronica is easily outraged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:One is effectronica five, because effectronica is easily outraged. What's his current name now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
botany posted:What's his current name now? Brainiac Five I was putting my money on that being the source of the AV purchases based on the fact they quickly slid into all having suicide solicitations and Eff's shown willingness to throw money at getting banned and reregging over and over (specifically for telling people to kill themselves).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Well, that and the utter lack of humor or creativity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, that and the utter lack of humor or creativity. but enough about your posting
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
So are we just gonna reserve this thread for trading lukewarm burns until Obama or Trump gets this show back on the road?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
No sense in closing it when we're going to be right back here in February or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:23
|
|
