Standing Rock

[Stosh]

Native Americans actually have a different situation. As humans they are citizens just like the rest of us. But as far as their land goes it's actually sovereign within our territories -- much like a 'state' would be but a bit moreso.

 

RC

Do you consider the inhabitants of that land to be subject to american laws? Like labor laws. sales tax, can they vote in US elections? ,, to a degree its expected that they do , but they are exempted from some of the impositions that the rest of us have to sustain. They have special privileges , and whether one considers those to be just , is precisely the issue one should decide, and I think theres ample evidence to suggest that The US govt can indeed Do certain takings.. the issue resolves to whether its just - or legal. I can have sympathy for individuals, but not a state. I can deem what I feel is just , but not what is to be judged legal, which is determined in the court. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Stosh

[redcairo]

Do you consider the inhabitants of that land to be subject to american laws? Like labor laws. sales tax, can they vote in US elections ,, to a degree its expected that they do , but they are exempted from some of the impositions that the rest of us have to sustain. They have special privileges , and whether one considers those to be just , is precisely the issue one should decide, and I think theres ample evidence to suggest that The US govt can indeed Do certain takings.. the issue resolves to whether its just - or legal. I can have sympathy for individuals, but not a state. I can deep what I feel is just , but not what is to be judged legal, which is determined in the court. 

 

I was referring to the legal status of the lands. The status of the citizens is no different than ourselves as far as I know. To whatever degree it may be, it would be in accordance with prior treaties. Considering how few treaties our government has truly upheld in its time, I support upholding whatever pieces of whatever is left.

 

That is why when I lived in CA I voted against the english requirement bill. I would have voted for it in any state except CA. Because the Treaty of Guadalupe where the lands were ceded was clear that the language would always be welcome in those lands. And although making english the 'government' language was not really saying you could not speak spanish, it is very easy to see it going that way such as in schools. So I voted in accordance with what I felt was the existing law that should be maintained.

 

I support existing law regarding their lands whatever it may be. Actually I support existing law everywhere, since there is no way to really see what the law IS, if it's not enforced, at which point it can be challenged if inappropriate. I am utterly against legal arbitraryism by weak management.

 

However, that being said, I have observed the corruption and abuse of issues such as "eminent domain" which originally were designed simply to allow our nation to say, put a railroad in, but have been horribly applied to simply allowing a city to wipe out a whole swath of homeowners in a rundown part of town, in order to build pricey newer homes or businesses the city could make more tax money off, and which nearly always ends up evidencing that people on the voting board own land, property or business that ends up making a boatload off that "dispossessing a ton of people from the homes/properties their families have owned for eons." So I am skeptical these days, any time I see E.D. being used for just about anything other than highway "expansion" (meaning literally widening a highway that already exists) or the rare highway connectivity project.

 

Nearly anything else, particularly huge-long things like pipelines, can be run anywhere you want them to run. There are usually tons of choices about how and where. Some may require it be a bit longer to 'go around' something like native land, but IMO then that's just the way it is. As far as I'm concerned, when any project is a potential threat to either non-owned territories -- such as Canada, Mexico, or Tribal lands -- or to critical elements in our own territories (such as water sources, nuclear plants, and so on) -- I think it would be fair if people protesting demanded justification for "why" the routing "has" to go the way it has been planned rather than another way.

 

RC

[Stosh]

-- I think it would be fair if people protesting demanded justification for "why" the routing "has" to go the way it has been planned rather than another way.

 

RC

Agreed. and I need to hear what impact it would have on the reservation as well, Ive read they dont have much gainful employment , govt services and so forth which a pipeline might help more than hurt. Maybe give them the option to pay the cost difference of rerouting.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Stosh

[Brian]

Agreed. and I need to hear what impact it would have on the reservation as well, Ive read they dont have much gainful employment , govt services and so forth which a pipeline might help more than hurt. Maybe give them the option to pay the cost difference of rerouting.

My understanding is that the project is expected to create approximately 14 durable jobs total and the workers are almost entirely being brought in from outside the area.

[Brian]

Property ownership in the US means one can use the land with exclusivity , but it doesn't mean that the US cannot override said ownership, just like you not having the right to exclude firefighters law enforcement officers and so forth. While within our own statutes the US can try to reimburse for this type of 'taking' it doesn't have to, for the general welfare.  To me that land is within the US protected by US military and is subject to the laws of the US. Just like my own home would be , or yours for that matter. There are those who feel the situation is special for people of certain skin colors families traditions etc. But I favor 'equal before the law' and think its problematic to discriminate whether a group wants to be discriminated about or not.

That's a very interesting position, Stosh. Might makes right and all power comes from the barrel of a gun? You do realize they are recognized by US law as sovereign people, right? So if the US decides to roll tanks in and just take Quebec next year against the will of the citizens, it would be OK with you as long as they get some services (regardless of whether they wanted them)? I mean, we would give them Obamacare and Social Security and military protection so they oughta just shut the fuck up, eh?

[redcairo]

I don't think he realized they are legally sovereign. Most people I know don't know that, I suspect.

 

RC

[Stosh]

Treaties , and rights are just mental constructs,, like racism. Americans can collectively choose whether or not to extend certain privileges or not.

Might doesnt make right , it however IS the means by which a nation preserves its exclusivity to administer land. And it always has been. just like the Clovis people displaced and killed off the Kennebunk people of the new world before europeans got here.. and how they divided the land between themselves! I do get that you might think people of one skin color deserve special treatment, special regard, and that mental constructs like states have rights. It just takes too much effort to disabuse folks of all that. Just like its the norm to consider them as not having individual opinions which may not coincide withe the tribal conclusion.

Youall might want to protect peoples rights, but these arent rights equal to Other american citizens.

The Tribe isnt concerned as much with the welfare of everyone else, deeming infrastructure important, as it is with preventing use by people of other persuasions.

[redcairo]

Treaties , and rights are just mental constructs,, like racism.

I disagree... a treaty is a legal construct. It's more than an opinion, it's a contract with consequences.

 

Americans can collectively choose whether or not to extend certain privileges or not.

Sure. We already did. It's not like this is still up in the air, "whether we deem native lands theirs."

 

I do get that you might think people of one skin color deserve special treatment, special regard, and that mental constructs like states have rights. It just takes too much effort to disabuse folks of all that.

?? How do you come up with this? Has anybody on this thread said this? They have spoken only of environmental risk and tribal land.

 

Just like its the norm to consider them as not having individual opinions which may not coincide withe the tribal conclusion.

I don't even know what that means in the context you said it.

 

Youall might want to protect peoples rights, but these arent rights equal to Other american citizens.

? We are not protecting their rights, just observing the fact that it is legally their land, and also that it is reasonable for anybody to be concerned of environmental risk to important waterways.

It's not like we are patronizing them as special snowflakes we need to protect because "they have rights." It's really not like that. E.g. We don't avoid landing on Russian lands because of their rights. We avoid it because it is their land, not ours. (And because in Russia's case, they might shoot us if we do. :-))

 

The Tribe isnt concerned as much with the welfare of everyone else, deeming infrastructure important, as it is with preventing use by people of other persuasions.

Tribal lands are not about the benefit of the USA. The entire USA is about the benefit of the USA -- the tribal lands are the tiny tradeoff for what made that possible. The tribal lands, such as they are -- not where the natives began for the most part -- are for the benefit of the people who own them, yes this is true. Just like we have doors on our houses and fences around our yards solely to prevent use by people who aren't us. I don't see any of this as a bad thing.

 

RC

Edited November 24, 2016 by redcairo

[Stosh]

I will narrow to the first point,, and If we cant reach concensus ,theres no point in moving to point two.

Legal constructs, are mental fabrications. Whether they have consequences, depends upon the decision of someone to do something about what they consider a violation of the thing. One honors potentially the rights of others in an expectation that this honoring will likewise be done ,for onesself.

The things Done ,actually happen, but the legal construct is essentially an agreement , and as such its a mental fabrication. Before Columbus, indians killed other indians over who got to use what land, so the same logic was used by Natives here , as was used by US troops. Sometimes they made treaties among themselves, but in the lack of ability to enforce ones interests,, those interests were abrogated, and eventually nobody was willing to try and overturn the loss. The new power ,becomes the owner, and the right to the land moves to the party that won it. The idea that lines on a map mean anything beyond ones power to defend that distinction, is really a modern convention.

[redcairo]

From the armchair this is agreed, but what point does it have in the practicality of the current discussion topic, unless you are suggesting the government ignore or rescind native lands' sovereignty?

 

RC

[Stosh]

From the armchair this is agreed, but what point does it have in the practicality of the current discussion topic, unless you are suggesting the government ignore or rescind native lands' sovereignty?

 

RC

my point revolves around whether there is a side that is right vs one thats wrong. Yeah convention suggests that there is a wrongness of transgressing rights bestowed. But it can be equally stated that theres a need for infrastructure, that regular americans have interests as well. It would be great if no impact was had anywhere, but there will be some. What folks think of as fair ,varies. I think that if they truly are american citizens then their responsibilities rights and laws should be the same as everyone elses and the liability to eminent domain based takings of Souix land would have the same valid rationale. ... That to provide for the common welfare, property rights can be abrogated. The effects on People should be the issue ALl the people impacted not just ones with particular skin tones or family associations..or even based on location . Edited November 24, 2016 by Stosh

[redcairo]

So you actually are making that point. OK. I kept thinking you couldn't possibly be going there with it and I must be misunderstanding.

 

As a larger topic beyond this situation -- perhaps, but the issue of the rivers stands regardless of their land.

 

I think, sometimes the natives care more than others BECAUSE it is their land. For the same reason, way back when, government only wanted landowners to vote -- they wanted people with something vested, who cared about the land and its future.

 

How much does the average person care about the land? I have to say I don't think it's much, if any public event I go to is any indicator. Because people don't individually own it, don't even think about it.

 

So when someone is going to do something that affects something like waterways, do people protest? Sometimes. Most the time, not. Not unless some environmental group happened to have noticed. The natives protest because they noticed, and they noticed because it is THEIR land affected.

 

Their land has certain elements in place that non-native lands don't. They can't just move 150 miles west like we can and be in a nearly indistinguishably different place. They have only got so much land and something that damages the natural resources of that land is a big deal -- you can't get it back, it can't be undone or fixed once a river is polluted or things like that.

 

The movie "Thunderheart" was fiction but it was based (loosely) on the wounded knee situation in the early 1970s. Not the greatest movie but a decent example for this same kind of thing.

 

Anyway, aside from all that, I see a larger issue here, that being the government operating as a military enforcement for corporate interests over the good of the people.

 

I fail to see how a pipeline for natural gas to go to china is about the good of our people. If we were keeping it and using it, then I could see it as being so. But all I see this doing is enriching a few already rich people. The jobs resulting are pathetically few and probably zero to the tribe anyway. The collateral damage for something our country is NOT benefitting from -- just some shareholders in a corporation -- seems inappropriate to me, and that's even if it wasn't threatening something so vulnerable.

 

So, the logic that eminent domain should be equally applied to sovereign lands within our borders, such as native lands, because "it's for the greater good," I just don't see this. I don't see where the greater good is, when it is simply about some company making money, not about the government "really NEEDING this for everyone's good." It isn't the government building it. It isn't the good of our people at all that it's involved with.

 

So I don't think government has any justification for being the weaponized enforcement team for corporate interests, particularly when as part of doing so they are apparently ignoring environmental issues, and simultaneously violating sovereign lands.

 

Would we do it to Canada? Would that be ok too? Canada's just a border. Borders are mental constructs in the same way.

 

RC

[Stosh]

You got the part about borders being mental constructs , great. How ,in your opinion, is the greater good preserved , by sending the pipeline though more valuable real estate, to satisfy the desires of Some people rather than others? When services are rendered, and money made, at lower cost, the tangible benefit to the consumer and provider, and all this kind of activity in the US is done by private hands. The gov has always had a mission to make it possible for business to be done, and the american people always have a stake in seeing to it that business can do its thing. The seminoles seem to like their Casinos, which operate according to rules made favorable by govt actions, and the public enjoys the service, I dont see a problem with that. Your just saying screw consumers, theyre asian , screw business, they are all geedy and dont give free stuff out, screw the people on adjacent lands ,screw americans they dont need businesses to run the economy.. the only thing that anyone should be concerned about is the tiny amount of footprint the pipline might have. Nobody should do anything, noone should have jobs or clean burning affordable natural gas!

[Stosh]

That a product has a price, doent mean it doesnt mean the consumer gets no net benefit from it. If that was the case no one would buy anything. In this economy, money needs to circulate, meaning that goods and services change hands.Even If youre out of the immediate loop, and linked in on another one, that exchange gets to you. You are included you have a productive job. Its when a chunk of society is not linked in that theres poverty in that community. Preserving rules or a border which discourages integration into the economic community creates an impoverishment due to noninclusion. If you can largely self sustain on all levels , that can work to your advantage.. otherwise , youre an economic backwater.

[redcairo]

 Hello Stosh,
 

 

How ,in your opinion, is the greater good preserved , by sending the pipeline though more valuable real estate,

Since real estate is privately owned one must ask: more valuable to whom? So whoever is richest automatically is favored? But never mind that --

As mentioned... repeatedly... we do not own the real estate of the natives (aside from 99% of the continent). It is not ours to put anything through or to wipe out critical water sources for even upstream.

If I have to make a decision about where I'm going to park my car with the leaking oil, my options do not include parking it in my neighbor's driveway because for me that's cheaper, cleaner, and hence more convenient. Because... that land is not mine so it shouldn't even be in the list I give myself of possibilities.

Native lands are sovereign. Acting like this is not so because treaties or borders are "just a mental construct" is an incredible kind of casual, arbitrary moral relativism (-- a complete lack of integrity).
 

 

to satisfy the desires of Some people rather than others?

I understand you are basically implying in several ways now that those greedy natives have no right to that land being considered theirs anyway, and that granting any recognition of natives apart from "the rest of us on this continent" is an injust thing.

But this is not about arbitrary desires, or people imagining "rights" others don't deserve. It's simply that it is not appropriate to casually decide in 2016 that we don't really care about those borders anyway. The land is not our land any more than Canada.

If they needed to go through native land, an agreement should have been made with the tribal leaders about it up front.

If they were arranging it in some way that genuinely endangers multiple water sources, then they should have paid for a study on that to ensure it was either ok or to work out another routing or approach up front.

That's part of the cost of doing business.
 

 

Your just saying screw consumers, theyre asian ,

So... if I suggest that wrecking the environment is not ideal, or violating the sovereign lands of neighboring peoples is not ideal, and all for something a corporation is making money off by selling to a foreign country -- as opposed to doing something for our own that would at the least have a lot of jobs or an end-product that helps us more directly -- it's because I'm a racist? You've essentially implied that here.
 

 

screw business, they are all geedy and dont give free stuff out,

I've been in business all my life. Much like I have no reason to reject asians, I have no reason to reject business. I'm a fiscal conservative -- I'd say I'm more friendly toward business than half the voting base of the country.
 

 

screw the people on adjacent lands ,

If the pipeline is so damaging that it is a threat to any lands where it runs, then the problem is not merely what land it runs through, but the project itself. I don't know that it is that dangerous or damaging, only that I haven't yet seen (it might exist) appropriate best-practices any such business should pursue that would include environmental assessment for the planned routing.
 

 

screw americans they dont need businesses to run the economy.. the only thing that anyone should be concerned about is the tiny amount of footprint the pipline might have. Nobody should do anything, noone should have jobs or clean burning affordable natural gas!

I am thinking your ability to see one reasonable comment, and invent for it a huge parade of irrational rant and racism you then project upon someone else, explains a lot about the current social situation in our country on a larger level than just this issue...
 

 

In this economy, money needs to circulate, meaning that goods and services change hands.

Yes, yes, I do have some idea of how these things work. Fact remains that when a big corporation does environmentally-affective stuff in country X, in order to sell to country Y, usually country X pays in environmental damage and the corp benefits in shareholder profits, but unless there are substantial jobs generated by the project, the locals in X aren't usually benefitting all that much.

I do agree that sales to foreign markets do matter to the economy on a larger scale, of course. I am not against oil pipelines and we're going to get a lot more of them soon if the new President has his way. I simply believe that business has its own responsibilities which include investment in appropriate research, and appropriate measures taken when there are unavoidable issues.

When these people complain of how it will likely affect multiple rivers and water supply, the biz should have been able to whip out an environmental report and say, "We knew we had to drill under a river and we had an environmental impact study done and here is the information about it and the reason that complaint should not stop progress." This should already exist and should have been part of the plan proposed to the government of the state in question when arranging for permits. Acting like people complaining now is wrong is missing the point -- people don't SEE what is coming until it's there -- the people responsible for that planning, that study, are the people running the business. It is part of the responsibility of operating in that industry and especially at the level of really large projects like that.

I might add that I used to work in the oil industry. I managed administration for a corp for the western region of the country, plus alaska and mexico, and although my work was related to a combination of rig servicemen, pipe threading, inventory sales of all kinds, and general business stuff -- so I was not physically standing on a rig getting my hands dirty -- still I learned a decent amount about the industry, and volunteered for a nonprofit that educated the public on all the things petroleum is actually used for (it's in tons of products). I truly am not against this industry.

I am against doing business so badly that you intrude on lands you don't own ONLY because some conflict-of-interest vested-interest party in or related to the company arranges it to spare their own land; against doing it so badly that you can't even plan ahead for the route you planned ahead; and against my government operating as the jackboot military for private interests, of which this is not the only example.
 

 

Its when a chunk of society is not linked in that theres poverty in that community. Preserving rules or a border which discourages integration into the economic community creates an impoverishment due to noninclusion. If you can largely self sustain on all levels , that can work to your advantage.. otherwise , youre an economic backwater.

This is a radically different topic than everything else under discussion. I actually agree that total segregation -- as well as mass murder, mass displacement, and more -- contributed to economic devastation for the native tribes and the lands they ended up stuck on (since we'd taken the better ones). While they were still trying to find enough to eat, we on a larger scale were building infrastructure. Now we live in the 21st century and a shocking number of people on reservations don't even have utilities, and in some cases even running water.

Reagan once said, observing the situation, that "humoring them" with segregation was something that shouldn't have been done -- he would have had to spend months of effort coming up with any more insulting way to put it. But fundamentally, in terms of infrastructure and economy, it's true it did not work out well for them at all. However I don't think observing this makes it ok to simply pretend their lands are not sovereign when we decide it's more convenient to ruin their land instead of our own. That really is adding insult to injury.

 

RC

Edited November 24, 2016 by redcairo

[Stosh]

If they want to be be considered a Them, then they seem to have convinced you. I agree with Reagan ,though humoring isnt the right word. Segregation is a problem you appear to be in favor of continuing. To not have it, those mental lines have to go away. I suppose the natives want to keep those lines too.

If those lines were gone, what would you have left as argument other than to halt development of resources altogether, or agree with me.

[redcairo]

No, you create polarized strawmen neither of which are reasonable. The choice is not "do no business whatsoever" or "care nothing for the environment or for lands of neighboring peoples" as if those are the only two choices in the world.

 

Environment impact studies exist for a reason, every business in that industry knows, and this argument over whether something is going to destroy waterways should not be coming up at the last second. This reflects an abysmal failure of the business, not the people.

 

I am not against development of in-country resources although I would prefer they be used for our own people, rather than selling them offshore so that we can then pay money to import the same stuff in. But that is preference and not an argument I am making, simply a mention.

 

I am aware that most energy resources have environmental impacts and this is something we have to deal with, but as noted, this is a known factor, there are ways of looking into it and planning for it.

 

You pointedly never address the responsibilities of the business.

 

You pointedly never address government using militarized authority on behalf of a corporation.

 

You only want to address that the natives shouldn't be allowed to have their lands because it would be economically more convenient if they weren't in the way and it's fine 'cause they'd be better off anyway.

 

The number of issues with that argument kind of exceed the ones about the pipeline.

 

RC

Edited November 24, 2016 by redcairo

[thelerner]

Hopefully we can all see this as good news.

Oil Company Surrenders 15 Land Leases on Sacred Native American Land McKinley Corbley - Nov 19, 2016  http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/oil-company-surrenders-drilling-leases-sacred-native-american-land/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_medium=weekly_mailout&utm_source=23-11-2016

During a ceremony in Washington, DC this Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Interior announced it was canceling 15 energy exploration leases on land that is sacred to Native Americans.

 

The Badger-Two Medicine area is an expanse of wilderness stretching along the Montana mountain line that is home to the Blackfeet people. For the last 10,000 years, Blackfeet members have found cultural identity in the 130,000 acres of the Badger-Two Medicine land. The tribe has vehemently protested and opposed the land leases since they were signed without their consultation almost thirty years ago.

 

The oil and natural gas company in question, Devon Energy Corp, acquired the land leases after merging with another company. Company president David Hager surrendered the land after acknowledging that the pristine landscape was not theirs to invade. The process of fracking that would have gleaned the natural gas could also have harmed the water supply which is in close proximity to the leased parcel.

 

RELATED: Farmer Returns 700 Acres of California Coast to Native American Tribe

 

There are two land leases left on the holy land that are still owned by other energy companies, but the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary, Sally Jewell, is determined to prevent them from drilling on the Blackfeet territory.

 

MORE: Clint Eastwood Donates Oceanfront Land to Preserve Open Space for Public

 

“This is the right action to take on behalf of current and future generations,” said Secretary Jewell. “Today’s action honors Badger-Two Medicine’s rich cultural and natural resources and recognizes the irreparable impacts that oil and gas development would have on them.”

[liminal_luke]

All of the law is a "mental construct."  And history shows that violent pirates can do away with any one mental construct and substitute another more to their liking.  Stosh seems to think that`s a good thing though I can`t for the life of me imagine why.

[redcairo]

Hopefully we can all see this as good news.

Oil Company Surrenders 15 Land Leases on Sacred Native American Land

...There are two land leases left on the holy land that are still owned by other energy companies, but the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary, Sally Jewell, is determined to prevent them from drilling on the Blackfeet territory. ... “This is the right action to take on behalf of current and future generations,” said Secretary Jewell. “Today’s action honors Badger-Two Medicine’s rich cultural and natural resources and recognizes the irreparable impacts that oil and gas development would have on them.”

 

Wait: edited to add: but how does this relate to South Dakota where Standing Rock is? This is about Montana isn't it? SR is the Sioux. M is the Blackfoot.

Edited November 24, 2016 by redcairo

[zerostao]

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/corps-gives-eviction-notice-to-protest-camp/article_0ec9c215-df59-51bb-bffd-fd174ae45208.html

 

http://abc13.com/news/veterans-stand-for-standing-rock/1625443/

Edited November 26, 2016 by zerostao

[redcairo]

Thanks.

 

That bismark site should be boycotted. I'm getting so fed up with internet sites that you can barely get to they have so many ads and when they finally load, ads literally block the screen in more than one place, and they're not just for a moment you have to click to get rid of them, and half the time other junk is still popping up so sometimes you click and it's on something that just popped and now it takes you out of the page (not just to a new window) for some ad, and then you finally get back, and then the entire page is blocked while you try to figure out how to close some add that completely took over it, and then in that case I finally got to the "story" which was nothing but a series of grey lines as if someone used a grey highlighter 'over' an article. When inspected for the text that might be hidden under the grey lines, it was just dashes. Geez.

 

The other link worked ok for me. Brief but interesting: I wonder if the news will ignore this until it can be DJT's problem. Since his corps own pieces of energy projects all over, it'd probably then be His Evilness Destroying The Indians or something lol.

 

RC

[zerostao]

Thanks.

 

That bismark site should be boycotted. I'm getting so fed up with internet sites that you can barely get to they have so many ads and when they finally load, ads literally block the screen in more than one place, and they're not just for a moment you have to click to get rid of them, and half the time other junk is still popping up so sometimes you click and it's on something that just popped and now it takes you out of the page (not just to a new window) for some ad, and then you finally get back, and then the entire page is blocked while you try to figure out how to close some add that completely took over it, and then in that case I finally got to the "story" which was nothing but a series of grey lines as if someone used a grey highlighter 'over' an article. When inspected for the text that might be hidden under the grey lines, it was just dashes. Geez.

 

The other link worked ok for me. Brief but interesting: I wonder if the news will ignore this until it can be DJT's problem. Since his corps own pieces of energy projects all over, it'd probably then be His Evilness Destroying The Indians or something lol.

 

RC

i tried using credible sources like the local bismark newspaper and then abc news. what it shows is that the us army intends on evicting the "protesters" on december 5

and that former us army/veterans are showing up december 4-7 to guard the water protectors. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by zerostao

[zerostao]

 

This seems almost surreal except it is too real. It is like looking at Freud's version of the "uncanny", where something looks familiar but very out of place. This is just wrong on so many levels. I can't help but to think that North Dakota is more like North Korea than it is being part of America.

Edited November 26, 2016 by zerostao

[redcairo]

And still nothing in mainstream media?!