|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux/index.html Ahahaha look at this propaganda. I was actually at Standing Rock and met tons of Standing Rock Souix opposing the pipeline and living in the camps. "Where you from?" was a common question and likely as not the answer was "Right here." The Sacred Stone camp is built on local, native owned land with the full blessing and support of actual Standing Rock Souix. CNN most likely got locked out of the camps for being corporate fuckfaces and went to find the only native folk who were willing to talk to them. I particularly love the part where they quote that guy saying that if Dave Archimbault "had any balls, he'd tell the protesters to go home" and somehow CNN studiously avoids mentioning that Dave Archimbault went to the United loving Nations to testify against the violation of native land and to try and get recognition for the opposition to the pipeline. He fully supports the protesters. What a bunch of lying shitheads. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with what's going on and native people aren't a monolithic hivemind but from my experience as someone who was there talking to actual locals, there is very clearly tons of local support.
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
xrunner posted:The two events are fundamentally different. One was a gaggle of armed guys upset they can't do whatever they want with the land and might have to consider other stake-holders. The other is an unarmed group who live in the impacted watershed and are opposed to the degradation of their watershed, ancestral land, and heritage in order to make a bunch of outsiders rich. I mean, the two events are superficially similar, but the underlying concerns couldn't be more fundamentally different. In fact, in a lot of ways, what the Bundy's wanted to do to Oregon is exactly what the Standing Rock Sioux want to prevent in North Dakota. Yup, the Burns-Paiute specifically told those hicks in Malheur to gently caress off and they fully support the water protectors in NoDak. Weirdly, when the Bundyites were yammering about returning the land the gubmint stole to its rightful owners, they never even considered that gee maybe that might mean non-white natives. It never occurred to them that it shouldn't be given to whites. Both situations, Malheur and DAPL, are clearly racist land grabs where white people feel completely entitled to steal even more from native people and poo poo all over them with impunity. The opposition to DAPL is partly about protecting water, which is very important, but its also about people who are sick of being marginalized and run down by white supremacists who feel like everything in the world is theirs for the taking. That's why so many tribes have been coming from all over North America to fight this thing - for solidarity in opposing this institutionalized racist theft and poisonous resource extraction anywhere it happens. fake edit: I'm been hopping loving mad hearing about the acquittal of those psycho, nazi terrorists while cops lob concussion grenades and fire rubber bullets at unarmed, peaceful protesters for "trespassing" on lands that are theirs by treaty. The contrast in treatment these two groups got/are getting by law enforcement is loving infuriating and baldly racist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
This was a cool thing that happened: https://vimeo.com/189299392
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Captain Beans posted:On what land is this contested portion of the pipeline being built? Tribal land or private land that is adjacent to tribal land? Its not really cut and dry. The pipeline is being built on private and federal land and isn't technically on tribal owned lands. However, a lot of that land is disputed by the tribe as being traditionally theirs by treaty, in particular the piece of land where most of the direct action is taking place. Some private land was seized with imminent domain from people who definitely did not want to sell. Also, some of the land contains sacred sites but the federal government doesn't recognize them as such. Additionally, the pipeline cuts across the Missouri river upstream of the reservation and there are extremely valid concerns that any problems in the pipeline will poison the reservation water supply. This was literally the reason that white people gave for demanding that the pipeline be moved from its original planned path north of Bismark.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So, not on tribal land then, at least legally speaking. Well, that's actually not a super clear thing either. The treaties weren't just setting up reservation plots and calling it a day. They also granted access to traditional sites for hunting, fishing and religious purposes on land that the tribes didn't necessarily own. So they are allowed to hunt and fish in areas that other people can't, like national forests and such but it also gives them a legal foothold to try and preserve land. There have been a lot of lawsuits filed that argue that development of land that tribes have access rights to by treaty effectively bars them from exercising that right. Some of the lawsuits have been successful and others haven't. I am in no way an expert on this and I don't know the specifics in NoDak but the people out there feel very strongly that they have a claim on that land. Knowing what I do about the history of the government's relationship with native people, I'm inclined to trust them on that. But it really doesn't matter what the law says about it. That has been their land for 10,000 years. White folk have been using laws that they made up to steal land for centuries. Its also useful to point out, again, that the original plan had the pipeline running north of Bismark. White people complained and they moved it. They didn't shoot the white people with rubber bullets and sic dogs on them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 03:16
|
|