|
Tias posted:If anyone knows more about the events at Standing Rock, I know a couple protesters but haven't heard anything that isn't in the news already. Things could potentially get pretty ugly, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident edit: I forgot there was a Native American militia called GOONs quote:The rate of violence climbed on the reservation as conflict opened between political factions in the following three years; residents accused Wilson's private militia, Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs), of much of it.
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 23:47
|
|
it would be much appreciated!
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:More importantly, what could I do to support the Natives? The construction site and protesters are extremely in the middle of nowhere so it's hard to do something material to directly support them. Post about it on your social media, raise awareness, donate to charities which benefit development and education on reservations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Tias posted:Regarding the pipeline itself, I'm not sure. As Pellisworth says, it's such a remote location that directly participating in the blockade is impossible for most of us. Also, the protestors may or may not be interested in you as a (likely) white urban forums poster supporting them. Native Americans in the region have a history of being extremely prideful and hardcore when protesting, again see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident But they tend to be firmly in the "gently caress white people and the US government forever" camp for very legitimate reasons. It's not that aid isn't appreciated, but the Lakota and other Plains Indian tribes really loving hate the federal government and by extension white people who forced their current lovely life situation on them. The best you can do is respect their culture and sovereignty and donate to funds that improve education and jobs so Native Americans can advance in society and return to benefit their tribes. If you want to help out, donate a few bucks to charities that send Native Americans to college, and go nuts on social media to raise awareness. The fundamental obstacle most Native groups run into in these situations is that they're a tiny fraction of the population and no one in the larger media gives a poo poo. Edit: for context I grew up on a Lakota reservation which is well-represented in the protests. This clip is a great distillation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuZcx2zEo4k&t=340s That's what a native speaker sounds like and they are completely willing to fight. Edit2: for what it's worth, a lot of arguments from the protesters are about water quality. "Mni" in Lakota means water, Minnesota, Minneapolis, and many other place names are derived from that. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
LiterallyTheWurst posted:Cold weather gear is a big one, there are several out of state protestors at the camp who don't know what they're getting into. I need to check out this charity but if it seems legit this is probably one of the best to donate to, winters in the Dakotas are brutal and if the occupation and protest are to continue they'll need a winter encampment. edit: removed some dumb ranty poo poo Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I think it's both in this case, as isn't part of the argument eminent domain abuse to get the land in the first place? This has happened forever, state and federal governments have taken every opportunity to renege on treaty agreements and confiscate land promised to the reservations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sioux_Reservation I actually don't know how tribal sovereignty plays into eminent domain but as long as you're stealing land from Natives who gives a gently caress??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Did u know the Lakota eat dogs?? It's actually the doggies who should be scared.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
For what it's worth, just got off the phone with my mom who has taught for decades at a tribal college on a reservation in South Dakota. I asked about the DA Pipeline protests and how her students and the locals were reacting, some quick thoughts: -Unsurprisingly it's a huge topic of conversation and many Lakota are very passionate and fired up about it. Two of her top students went on leave for the semester to protest. -The local tribe has been supplying emergency services and other support to the protesters-- healthcare, porta-potties, food. -Originally, the pipeline was to be built very near Bismarck, ND (the state capital) and locals protested that it might harm the water supply (Missouri River). So route it through the reservation and risk contaminating their water supply, who cares about Natives lol. The general impression is that the ND state government is incredibly contemptuous and dismissive of Native Americans. "Not in my backyard" said the white people, "gently caress over the Indians instead, no one cares about them lazy drunk Prairie N_____." -She echoed my concerns that this could get very violent. There are daily prayers for peace on campus, but the (very justified) anger and resentment towards state and federal governments runs deep. These people are absolutely willing to fight, the situation is taken as an attack on the sovereignty, dignity, and identity of Native Americans in general. There are a lot of people who are anxious this will turn into another Wounded Knee. e: and regarding my last post about dogs, the Lakota do actually eat puppy stew (moreso historically than now, but it still persists) ceremonially. Racist assholes will make jokes about how Lakotas eat dogs because they're poor or whatever. Dogs are highly valued and sacred animals (only behind buffalo and horses) and eating puppies in particular is part of ritual healing and other ceremonies. They're not consumed strictly as food, and very rarely in modern times. Prior to the introduction of horses, dogs (sunka) were used to pull travois and in many other working roles. Horses are called sunka wakan, literally "sacred/holy/powerful dog." Dogs are integral to traditional Lakota society. There's probably some symbolic importance in how attack dogs were being used against the protesters. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
PoorMoralCompass posted:Those poor armed law enforcement officers and corparate 'security firm' with attack dogs. They're getting getting horses ridden NEAR them. I dunno man horses are smart and bitey assholes, I'm worried. More seriously, gently caress the media coverage of this. Just go ahead and call them uppity Prairie N______ already. Horses like to inhale a bunch of air and puff up while you're saddling them. So that when you go to mount the saddle it's loose and you fall off like a dumbass, then the horse bites you and steps on your feet. 
Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
A bit of a crosspost, but just a reminder:Wikipedia yeah I know a lovely source posted:The population on Pine Ridge has among the shortest life expectancies of any group in the Western Hemisphere: approximately 47 years for males and 52 years for females. Everything is fine, what are these Indians mad about??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
The legalist / jurisdictional argument is really loving stupid for any number of reasons. The following is all you need for "justification" to protest: The pipeline was originally to cross the Missouri River on private land north of Bismarck. There were concerns about risks to the water supply, so the project was moved to the current location near the Standing Rock reservation. The pipeline is currently being built across the Missouri River on private land just north of the Standing Rock reservation. There are concerns about risks to the water supply as well as to sacred and archaeological sites but gently caress you, get out of the way or we'll send in more cops. Gosh, I wonder why the people of Bismarck get to have a say in protecting water resources near their city while the Native Americans don't. HMMM. As an aside the term "Sioux" is not preferred by many tribal members as it's a French adaptation of a name used by other tribes, not the name they call themselves. Lakota, Dakota, or if you know their nation/band that's even better (Sicangu, Oglala, Hunkpapa, Yankton, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Tias posted:Any truth to the claims that Trump is deeply invested in the DAP? Because if so the cause is probably in deep poo poo. I spoke with my mom (instructor at a Lakota tribal college) last night, she had a lot of students and other people she knows who participated in the protests and occupation and of course it's a huge topic of debate on the reservation. The occupation is basically over, done, finished by Trump being elected President. There was some hope that Obama in his lame duck term (after the election) or Clinton would intervene, but with Trump there is zero chance. According to her everyone is despondent and gloomy and have basically admitted it's now a lost cause.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Tias posted:Only if you get to decide what constitutes reasonable. The Lakota have gotten killed by lying members of the US government since the birth of the states, it is in no way unreasonable to assume that they are under risk from the actions of the DAP companies and the US government, and it's actually pretty insane that you extend the benefit of the doubt to them, given all of recorded historical interaction between the Lakota and the state. Reminder that it wasn't the US Army that beat the Lakota, they were starved into submission by deliberate extermination of the buffalo herds. A lot of posters are arguing from a legal perspective and they have good points in that regard, but you have to realize many/most of the protesters reject the legal framework as invalid or unjust, and for good reason. Take for example the refusal of the Sioux to accept the $1.3 billion settlement for the confiscation of the Black Hills and other treaty lands. First, that money is maybe a couple months of expenses for each recipient, it's a pittance. Second and more importantly, the Black Hills are sacred ground for the Sioux and central to their creation myths and culture. Their response is "gently caress you, you broke your word and stole the Black Hills that you guaranteed us, we don't want your drat money rear end in a top hat." It would be like seizing Rome or Jerusalem in violation of treaties and then offering the Italians / Israelis a couple billion bucks, we're sorry but take this cash and we're cool? The history of Native Americans in the US is genocide and broken treaties all the way down. This isn't about whether the land the pipeline is on is technically under the jurisdiction of Standing Rock or whether the tribal government did their due diligence* in fighting the pipeline. It's about Native American rights, environmental issues and water rights, and now with the increase in violence it's about free speech and police brutality. *To be blunt, the tribal governments are not very competent and have huge problems with corruption and nepotism in my experience. I can't speak to Standing Rock specifically, but what sort of government do you expect from a desperately poor, isolated, undereducated community of 8,000 people where politics is based largely on family connections? Just understand there's a vast difference in resources, power, and influence of the 8,000 Standing Rock members vs. the oil company, state government, and federal agencies. wateroverfire posted:Like...long term, their best option to gain leverage with the USA is to assimilate while maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity,then work the system from within. Those are mutually exclusive right now because the reservations do not get the education or infrastructure support they need to assimilate or gain any power in the system. I'm also not sure what you mean by assimilate here, do you think they still live in tipis or something? Because they're all thoroughly assimilated into modern society. Some of them speak the language and dance in traditional costumes, love sweat lodges, and camp out in a tipi during the summer. Like, you realize many Native Americans were forcibly shipped off to boarding schools where they had their traditional culture and language literally beaten out of them? That lasted through the 1980s. As a result, a large proportion of Lakota are at least nominally Catholic and were taught to be ashamed of their culture. For many decades it was illegal for them to practice traditional dances and ceremonies, again in an effort to stamp out their culture. We already "assimilated" them pretty effectively. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Fun fact, there used to be more Lakota operating ranches on the reservation I grew up on, but during WW2 the Bureau of Indian Affairs discovered an arcane law that allowed them to seize land "unoccupied" for more than a couple months (3-4, I forget). So all those Lakota who drafted or volunteered to fight in WW2? A bunch of them had their "unoccupied" land confiscated and sold to white people. BIA makes a quick buck by stealing the livelihoods of veterans 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Ah yes, the Natives are the bad guys here, not respecting the rule of law. They need to pull up their pants, stop being so uppity, and play by the rules. The US government, having always respected its treaty agreements and obligations toward Native Americans, holds the moral high ground. The entire legalistic argument is really dumb, it's tone-deaf internet navel-gazing that ignores the actual issues being advocated by protesters and is meaningless outside of internet forum debates.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The occupy protestors, while too ineffective and disorganised to accomplish anything and eventually overrun by crazies, at least were protesting an actual systemic issue worth protesting. The DAPL protestors are protesting a single issue that isn't actually bad in the way they're claiming it's bad while pretending a mess of pre-existing opinions are additional valid reasons, and in the process they're doing a pretty good job out-assholing the oil company. No, they aren't, but it's a lot easier to win internet arguments by pretending this is all about the strict legality of the pipeline. Are the protesters assholes for advocating Native American and environmental rights, free speech, and against police use of force?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Now tell us how you feel about Black Lives Matter. There's a lot of hilarious whitesplaining going on in this thread but telling protesters what they are/aren't actually protesting might take the cake. Have you spent any significant time on a reservation or spoken with any Native Americans on these topics? Don't open your mouth to tell them what they should or shouldn't be protesting when you have no knowledge of and zero empathy towards their situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
For the holidays I'm back on the Lakota reservation where I grew up (not Standing Rock, similar conditions). Fun fact I learned from the tribal chief of police: about 80% of all traffic stops and domestic disturbances they respond to involve meth. I know we've PM'd some about this MIGF, nepotism is a problem for sure but it's rooted largely in economics. The reservations around here have 80-85% unemployment. If you're one of the lucky few Native Americans who can get a job or position of power, you do what you can to get your extended family and friends jobs. It's all about the money. There is none, but if you happen to catch any table scraps you share them with your family. That's not really a unique flaw within tribal kinship systems, it's a result of the desperate economic situation and basic human social dynamics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 05:19
|
|