Standing Rock

[gatito]

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. 

 

I think you'll probably find that The Guardian's credible (and mainstream).

 

See: www.theguardian.com/us-news/dakota-access-pipeline

[redcairo]

I think around Dec 5 is also Italy's big "bring in the army" deadline (for forcibly accepting immigrants into private properties that don't want them).

 

December could end up being a pretty happening month

 

RC

[Stosh]

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.

Because at the time these  'agreements' were developed ,racism was considered the natural order. Segregating the community into skin colors seemed the reasonable thing to do. That doesn't mean the agreements should be perpetuated forever. Such things should be maintained only as long as they serve the general welfare, and when the time for that is over , it should be tossed. 

[redcairo]

You think the native lands exist solely because they had a different skin color?!

[Stosh]

You think the native lands exist solely because they had a different skin color?!

Not really the pigment content  but , Essentially , Yes, they were considered inferior and being of another culture.

Why do you think they were relocated to other places in the United States of America , being segregated rather than integrated ? 

I'm just suggesting that segregation and racism are wrong. 

 

Lets say You were out driving to work , and there's a tortoise in the road,, you have three choices, 1) run over it,, 2) put it in the car with you ,, 3) put it off on the side of the road and leave it there. 

I think They chose # 3.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Stosh

[ralis]

Because at the time these  'agreements' were developed ,racism was considered the natural order. Segregating the community into skin colors seemed the reasonable thing to do. That doesn't mean the agreements should be perpetuated forever. Such things should be maintained only as long as they serve the general welfare, and when the time for that is over , it should be tossed. 

 

Reasonable? Hardly! Natural order by whom?

[redcairo]

Were they different? Yes. Was that part of the antagonism between peoples? Yes. Was that all of it? Well of course not...

 

The English and Scottish had the same problem and they were the same skin color. (An entire island of people who desperately need a tan. I'm joking. Sorry, California-girl humor.) And the reason Scotland is Scotland instead of a corner of England is because they fought back over someone wanting their land and their rule, and they got to keep some of it. Of course, they got to keep it because it was at the far edge of a bloody miserable climate -- had their territory literally been "in the middle of" the competitors land it probably would have been different.

 

In those cases it's either genocide, integration, or a stand-off of sorts where everyone warily agrees that this your area and this is ours. In this case we did some of the former, tiny bit of the middle, and a bunch of the latter, followed in some cases by things like the Trail of Tears -- so some tribes ended up 'with land to call their own' but it wasn't the land they began with at all.

 

Native land is sovereign for the same kind of reason any country or territory is sovereign. Not because the people living there look different and we used to fight over that although I do agree it contributed!... but because there were people "already here" when others arrived, they fought about who got to live where, and ended up with "borders."

 

As another example, lots of different groups of people were 'founders' on this continent. Nearly every european country had a good chunk of people, often together, that built competitive military forts and more. As recently as a couple decades ago I remember hearing about a few small towns here and there that still spoke a lot of Russian for example. When I was a kid we used to go to a small city that was still so heavily Dutch there was a lot of the language and most the buildings looked like something from Holland. (They eventually capitalized on this, see Solvang - omg they have the most awesome breakfasts!.)

 

Some of the settlements from various countries (now 'naturalized north americans' but prior to those territories being part of the growing USA from the east) fought (with weapons) against each other. In the end, their "sovereignty" was lesser, but still somewhat existent: they maintained settlements and forts that became towns, even things as big as nation-states, including what became Quebec.

 

People into history of this region might like that huge book series where each one has a state name exclamation mark like "OREGON!" -- they are fiction, but they're based on fact, tons of historical fiction woven into each.

 

Anyway, I agree that "the way in which" the segregation played out has been an absolute, abysmal disaster for the native tribes for the most part. If we knew then what we knew now -- all of us, on both sides (my ancestors are literally on both sides!) -- maybe it could have been gone about differently. But, here we are.

 

At this point, the land is theirs just like Quebec is not-ours and it would be nearly as much a declaration of war for the US gov't to try and take it from them. There is some caveat to this, due to their people having automatic USA citizenship, due to their lands being "right in the middle of" the USA, and due to the complete "melting pot" effect of all the natives so there is not really a 'them' vs. 'them' anymore -- aside from the people literally "on the rez" -- there's so much blending.

 

(A very large chunk of the 'white' people in the city I live in right now are at least a fraction native, so even a conversation where I say "their" feels funny to me, because in a way I am not one of them and they'd be the first to tell me so, but in a way I am one of them because it's part of my bloodline. I look mostly-white so I grew up with no bias to me, but I grew up having been told only that I was 'indian,' and actually resented white people half my life for killing off my ancestors (and good gods the cowboy movies made me cry) (I still think 'Little Big Man' is a hilarious, horrific, wonderful movie though).)

 

RC

[ralis]

Were they different? Yes. Was that part of the antagonism between peoples? Yes. Was that all of it? Well of course not...

 

The English and Scottish had the same problem and they were the same skin color. (An entire island of people who desperately need a tan. I'm joking. Sorry, California-girl humor.) And the reason Scotland is Scotland instead of a corner of England is because they fought back over someone wanting their land and their rule, and they got to keep some of it. Of course, they got to keep it because it was at the far edge of a bloody miserable climate -- had their territory literally been "in the middle of" the competitors land it probably would have been different.

 

In those cases it's either genocide, integration, or a stand-off of sorts where everyone warily agrees that this your area and this is ours. In this case we did some of the former, tiny bit of the middle, and a bunch of the latter, followed in some cases by things like the Trail of Tears -- so some tribes ended up 'with land to call their own' but it wasn't the land they began with at all.

 

Native land is sovereign for the same kind of reason any country or territory is sovereign. Not because the people living there look different and we used to fight over that although I do agree it contributed!... but because there were people "already here" when others arrived, they fought about who got to live where, and ended up with "borders."

 

As another example, lots of different groups of people were 'founders' on this continent. Nearly every european country had a good chunk of people, often together, that built competitive military forts and more. As recently as a couple decades ago I remember hearing about a few small towns here and there that still spoke a lot of Russian for example. When I was a kid we used to go to a small city that was still so heavily Dutch there was a lot of the language and most the buildings looked like something from Holland. (They eventually capitalized on this, see Solvang - omg they have the most awesome breakfasts!.)

 

Some of the settlements from various countries (now 'naturalized north americans' but prior to those territories being part of the growing USA from the east) fought (with weapons) against each other. In the end, their "sovereignty" was lesser, but still somewhat existent: they maintained settlements and forts that became towns, even things as big as nation-states, including what became Quebec.

 

People into history of this region might like that huge book series where each one has a state name exclamation mark like "OREGON!" -- they are fiction, but they're based on fact, tons of historical fiction woven into each.

 

Anyway, I agree that "the way in which" the segregation played out has been an absolute, abysmal disaster for the native tribes for the most part. If we knew then what we knew now -- all of us, on both sides (my ancestors are literally on both sides!) -- maybe it could have been gone about differently. But, here we are.

 

At this point, the land is theirs just like Quebec is not-ours and it would be nearly as much a declaration of war for the US gov't to try and take it from them. There is some caveat to this, due to their people having automatic USA citizenship, due to their lands being "right in the middle of" the USA, and due to the complete "melting pot" effect of all the natives so there is not really a 'them' vs. 'them' anymore -- aside from the people literally "on the rez" -- there's so much blending.

 

(A very large chunk of the 'white' people in the city I live in right now are at least a fraction native, so even a conversation where I say "their" feels funny to me, because in a way I am not one of them and they'd be the first to tell me so, but in a way I am one of them because it's part of my bloodline. I look mostly-white so I grew up with no bias to me, but I grew up having been told only that I was 'indian,' and actually resented white people half my life for killing off my ancestors (and good gods the cowboy movies made me cry) (I still think 'Little Big Man' is a hilarious, horrific, wonderful movie though).)

 

RC

 

If part of this was directed as a response to my statement; http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42358-standing-rock/page-6#entry721930, I was urging Stosh to provide evidence, but it was no way a naive statement on my part.

[liminal_luke]

Not really the pigment content  but , Essentially , Yes, they were considered inferior and being of another culture.

Why do you think they were relocated to other places in the United States of America , being segregated rather than integrated ? 

I'm just suggesting that segregation and racism are wrong. 

 

Lets say You were out driving to work , and there's a tortoise in the road,, you have three choices, 1) run over it,, 2) put it in the car with you ,, 3) put it off on the side of the road and leave it there. 

I think They chose # 3.

 

Speaking as a tortoise, I`ll thank you very much for leaving me on the side of the road.  I remember a time when there were no roads and no cars, a time when I crawled free.  If I could destroy all this so-called civilization I would -- and it still might happen -- but, barring that, the side of the road is the best I`ve got.  At some point in the future I might well choose to get in your car with you, but that will be by my choice.

 

Cheers,

 

Liminal "snapper" Luke 

Edited November 29, 2016 by liminal_luke

[redcairo]

If part of this was directed as a response to my statement; http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42358-standing-rock/page-6#entry721930, I was urging Stosh to provide evidence, but it was no way a naive statement on my part.

 

No, I was working today, and so by the time I had time to respond, I was sorta responding to everything and everyone and "the topic at large." I actually think my first line was in response to Stosh, but I forget now, and the rest was just rambling on. :-)

 

RC

[MooNiNite]

So, wait, it's actually legal to spray protesters with water at night when it's freezing cold?

[redcairo]

Where's CNN in all this? Wait do I hear a pin dropping?

[Stosh]

Reasonable? Hardly! Natural order by whom?

By the people who did it , Obviously. 

 

"In those cases it's either genocide, integration, or a stand-off of sorts" Rc

Edited November 29, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

 grew up having been told only that I was 'indian,' and actually resented white people 

 

And still having that Us vs Them attitude is problematic to say the least ! 

[Stosh]

If part of this was directed as a response to my statement; http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42358-standing-rock/page-6#entry721930, I was urging Stosh to provide evidence, but it was no way a naive statement on my part.

Im sorry I missed that , what evidence are you requiring me to present , and if I present it , what will You do in return?

[Stosh]

So, wait, it's actually legal to spray protesters with water at night when it's freezing cold?

Legal is -what legal permits , , but that isnt exactly whats pleasant or moral , or what suits everyone. Would bullets suit you? 

[Brian]

As is so often the case, cultural differences are being attributed to "race." It is a particularly pernicious tactic though often done unconsciously.

 

In modern times, bullets are typically used in an overt invasion by force of another sovereign nation so they wouldn't be surprising here. More subtle approaches are becoming increasingly common in these days of ubiquitous video, though, as they allow invaders to deny the act of invasion ("Look! No bullets so this can't be an invasion, right?")

[Stosh]

As is so often the case, cultural differences are being attributed to "race." It is a particularly pernicious tactic though often done unconsciously.

 

In modern times, bullets are typically used in an overt invasion by force of another sovereign nation so they wouldn't be surprising here. More subtle approaches are becoming increasingly common in these days of ubiquitous video, though, as they allow invaders to deny the act of invasion ("Look! No bullets so this can't be an invasion, right?")

I think there's fair reason to call it a race issue, , Someone who claims they have a stake because they have Native american blood is making it so. Especially people who really haven't grown up in the stone age culture of their ancestors, watching CNN voting in US elections, work in our economy , or maybe accept welfare ,then get food at a grocery store,  and speak English. That 'culture' is all but gone, and the descendants really only have -some blood ties -and anecdotes , in general. You think they live in tee-pees and eat dinner with flint knives ? 

[Brian]

I think there's fair reason to call it a race issue, , Someone who claims they have a stake because they have Native american blood is making it so. Especially people who really haven't grown up in the stone age culture of their ancestors, watching CNN voting in US elections, work in our economy , or maybe accept welfare ,then get food at a grocery store,  and speak English. That 'culture' is all but gone, and the descendants really only have -some blood ties -and anecdotes , in general. You think they live in tee-pees and eat dinner with flint knives ?

Have personal familiarity with the Lakota culture, do you?

 

I encourage you to continue posting, Stosh, even if I don't choose to interact with you much. I find what you say to be of great interest.

[Stosh]

Have personal familiarity with the Lakota culture, do you?

 

I encourage you to continue posting, Stosh, even if I don't choose to interact with you much. I find what you say to be of great interest.

There was a question at the end of that , did you choose not to answer it so you could make an ambiguous reference which sounds defiant instead ? Go ahead , tell me how they eat with stone tools , don't know how to write , or use a chain saw ,, go ahead describe that. Learn me about it. 

I think youre blowin smoke. 

If some folks call the grandparents up for the big yearly pow wow,   I Presume  they call em on a cell phone, rather than use smoke signals , because I presume they arent stupid. Then I presume they all show up in Silverado pickup trucks , and presume some of the guys consume a few pilsners and talk about nascar or the low paying job they have at the casino, or whether the tribe is planning to start one IF that state permits it. None of which has anything to do with pre-Columbian native culture , but there you have it. 

I read one study which said that the effect of Starting the casino is an increase in adult employment of 29 percent ! which means that on average the effect is that around a third of all adults ends up working in a casino , not exactly hunting and gathering is it. It also may draw back 10 percent increase in population for those created jobs. Which means those people weren't making a living on reservation shooting beavers. And since those are usually low paying jobs , I think its reasonable to presume , that even to a native american that a low paying job is better than pounding acorns. 

There was indeed a North American method of tending to the land , that was called burning everything , so the things they liked having around Like deer were more plentiful. So much so and for so long that down here in Florida when the burnings stopped vegetation began to change and fire adapted species have had difficulty.

This posed a certain difficulty between Europeans and Natives living side by side in places because the Europeans had this idea of having stable farms maintained by crop rotations and so forth , whereas the Natives felt on their part of the valley it was time for everything to get burned to the ground. You can see the problem with having the local natives burning the whole Hudson valley homesteads included right?

It came down to having higher population growth rates due to many 'technologies' , that natives were never going to even have a chance to maintain cultural dominance in North America. Not 'faulting' anyone for the outcomes , it was just the push of one culture which had developed at a different pace from the other which decided which way the chips were going to fall. 

I'm sure the natives have just as many wonderful people just as much vibrance and potential to contribute to what America has become as anybody else, it just doesn't seem like they want to be included in the larger scope, in part , because of reservations , and casinos etc. But I dont think on-reservation communities are thriving hubs of opportunity having those things. Its the idea of tribal affiliation  which segregates that community , to a degree. The tribal profiteers can rely on their ability to drum up racial history , cry about injustices to ancestors and so forth ,, and thereby maintain their own situation . They are the mirror of corporations on the other side of the line. 

Now a days everyone can do an ancestry DNA search , and say to themselves who they should think they affiliate with. Im  25 % Green , I need to be sympathetic with other green people , and oppose people who are 25% blue ! I can now have pride in events I took no part in and take umbrage over things I never even knew happened!

Its still racial -regardless of what side of the reservation border your grandparents happened to be cruelly relocated to.

 

 

My family name is on a town in what is now Russia , I dont claim that eastern Europe is mine , nor even the town is mine. And so some smartie says well your ancestors left , and we were forced from our lands,, well I return that all the Native americans who left Also terminated their rights to any claim on reservation land by that reasoning. And if one is not on a reservation , then who's land is it they think they are on? because it was indeed taken by force in large part, by one means or another., the sovereign lands of the souix would then be ... everywhere in the midwest? 

 

And the state Does Indeed have the right by law to permit or not permit gambling according to the Supreme court ( if they allow gambling elsewhere in the state then it is extended to the tribes of some but not all states) then this sovereign 'right' isn't really that at all. Im thinking that if the State illegalizes gambling they can legally shut down every casino in their state. 

 

These reservations are at the mercy of american lawmakers , there's no Sovereign 'right' that they cant take,  unless they are granted to the people as rights of Americans in general. To me, it makes more sense to offer them collectively full statehood. That is the paradigm of the UNited States.  Then they are part of the system with full rights and representation befitting them , as good for the subdued as it is for the nation that warred against them. They aren't some alien non English speaking primitive culture,, , like all Americans , yes , they have roots -but they also have affiliations with the culture as it stands. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Stosh

[gatito]

Tuesday 29 November 2016
 
Standing Rock protesters hold out against extraordinary police violence

Apprehension and distrust pervade North Dakota protest site as promises from state that there are no plans to forcibly remove people does little to assuage fears

 

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/standing-rock-protest-north-dakota-shutdown-evacuation

[gatito]

30 November 2016

'Bogus charges': Standing Rock activists say they face campaign of legal bullying

Native American protesters claim that threats of fines and criminal charges, many which later unravel in court, are designed to silence their efforts

 

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/standing-rock-protest-north-dakota-shutdown-evacuation

[MooNiNite]

obama is no where to be found.  what a garbage corporate interests president. 

[Stosh]

Oh, and the proposed pipeline isnt even on reservation land, the sacred site to be protected is an anonymous litte pile of rocks Off reservation.

The court did require permission seventy five percent of land holders to ok the easement, over 90 percent did, and that did indeed allow the ruling of Eminent domain to prevail.

The idea was to take the flammable stuff off of railways where it can kill people, whereas the peaceful demonstrators have caused millions of dollars of damage by arson. When its all in, you wont even be able to see it being five feet underground and all tidied up above.

[MooNiNite]

i mentioned that earlier how the pipeline was barely even touching reservation land. Seems people are mostly concerned about water contamination. THere has been something like 100 pipeline breaks