DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Listening to the American government gets you death marched hundreds of miles away.The audacity of these people to distrust their government!!!

Also, this thread taught me that, technically, the vast majority of any given city is unoccupied. Go to the window and look outside. Do you see people standing crammed shoulder to shoulder as far as the eye can see? If not, that land is unoccupied and subject to potential land claims and reparations.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 20:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:00

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Oh come on. The legal system is 100% used and abused by those in a position of power to extract a desireable outcome. Corporations spending obscene amounts of wealth to draw out the legal process in transparent attempts to outlast either the bank account or the Iifespan of the poor/sick individual taking them to court isn't "justice", and your completely context-less defence of "b-b-but the law works!!!" is laughable and inane.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 16:25

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Those poor, plucky little multi-billion dollar TNCs. How do they ever survive?

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 16:26

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Yea but define brutality.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 01:35

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

From known protestor-shill rag the Smithsonian, a little much-needed historical context:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 02:53

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

blowfish posted:

This is all ~~well and good~~ terrible and bad, but with the American claim on the Black Hills literally set in stone, the Black Hills are never going back to the Lakota as a practical matter.

I'm Canadian and while Treaty rights and education are one of my focuses I simply don't have enough grounding in American history to wade into this discussion to any great degree. However, if my understanding of American-Indigenous historical relations is "like Canada's but worse" is roughly correct just bear with me. Note that this isn't necessarily directed at you.

What I think that article shows above all else is the dysfunction that exists between First Nations and the federal jurisdictions they find themselves under. Everyone in this thread sussing and tut tutting about the letter of law are being willfully blind to the violent and genocidal history that those laws were formed in and bound to. A law is only as effective as the degrees of trust and good faith the people impacted by it have in it.

Why would the Lakota place any degree of trust in a system that, for 200+ years, has consistently and inevitably warped and twisted itself to pursue it's own self-interest, regardless of whatever was on the books and almost blanket-terms came at the expense of their people? "The law" has unquestionably been a tool of oppression for centuries for these peoples. And this is not ancient history with no impact on contemporary life. People are alive today, or remember family members, who were directly and negatively impacted by manipulative, self-serving, and genocidal interpretations of "the law".

You don't get to say "but they didn't follow the law!!!!!" and not understand following the law has been used explicitly as a tool of oppression against them for literally the entirety of history post-contact. To suggest otherwise is to betray an understanding of historical context that is either non-existent, broken and warped to serve particular political needs, or willfully dishonest. So yea you can sit there and act indignant and concerned about their lack of engagement with army corps all you want, and on some level completely devoid of any context, nuance, or understanding, you might be right. But you're loving wrong. They literally have no reason to trust a government that has put 200 years of history into proving that its word, its institutions, and its laws are all tools if subjugation and oppression to be used at their discretion as they deem fit.

Stickarts fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Nov 29, 2016

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 13:17

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Tias posted:

Can I put this in the OP? I'm working on a revamp of it, you see.

For what it's worth, of course. That Smithsonian link is pretty clutch and worthy of inclusion too, then.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 13:36

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

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

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

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.

I'm not in a position right now to respond meaningfully and - as previously stated - this isn't my bailiwick; however, I think :ironicat:

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

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Shut the gently caress up, pipeliners. No one is buying your lovely wares and tortured legalisms. Your flabbergasting lack of nuance and sycophantic approach to American law is simply too perfect for this thread. You can keep whatever arbitrary high ground you have painted yourself into and go away to it and stay there.

Frankly it is staggering the amount of time and level of commitment you pipeliners have put into defending the moral and legal integrity of an oil corporation on a dying comedy forum on the internet. Day after week after month of circular bullshit arguments. No one cares. Go away.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 03:42

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

This thread needs to be immersed in various corrosive acids.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Dec 10, 2016 13:59

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

How large is the site at present? Are people leaving or what?

# ¿ Dec 17, 2016 05:10

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Is anyone there right now? What's the thoughts on the future of this on the ground?

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 04:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 01:00

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

Why would the flooding warning be bullshit? The refuse of a thousand person campsite isn't exactly something you want in your waterway, especially when your protest is about preserving water.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2017 15:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors