|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux/index.html 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.
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which brings us back to the point that an expansive definition of "ancestral land" is an absurdity with no basis in law or precedent. Deferring to strict legalism is a great way to justify oppression without feeling like an rear end in a top hat. That law and precedent was brought in at gunpoint and maintained at gunpoint. At some point, while you can't undo the crimes that happened 150 years ago, you have to find a way forward that probably involves renegotiating the terms of the conquest in a way that is beneficial to the survivors of the conquest. Falling back on a strict reading of our laws and precedent isn't going to move anything forward.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's kind of my point, really. I'm not denying that people have tried to use the law to push a moral agenda in the past, I'm saying that is a bad thing when people do, whether they are conservative Christians or hardcore leftists. Laws pushing morality can be good and they can be bad. Let's not pretend that they're always bad. Anti-miscegenation laws and public accommodation laws are both laws that push morality. The former is clearly bad, the latter is clearly good. On the more specific topic of native peoples' rights to their land, it's hard to fall back on "well the law says..." because in this case, the law is broken and also strained by the context that surrounds it (conquest, residential schools, crushing poverty, urban relocation, etc...). The law has historically been structured to wipe out what remains of the indigenous population, whether that is through direct violence or the weight cultural indoctrination. The intent and effect of the legal structure has historically been to reduce native peoples to a historical curiosity. Until this changes, you can't use the legal structure to defend actions taken against native people. The legal structure is designed to oppress these communities, and they're justified in resisting oppression.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 19:46
|
|