Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6072
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 05 Dec 2016, 12:48

I check Google News every morning, and the pipeline stuff has had a top headline every day for weeks.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Sandy » 05 Dec 2016, 13:23

I mostly encountered it on Twitter and to a lesser extent on Facebook. It's popped into news occasionally, but I have one person I follow for professional reasons who changed their name to "NO DAPL" and posts incessantly.

I haven't dived into it enough to see whether or not there is a real point there, but given who's doing most of the complaining, I'm willing to bet it's an overblown white people activism thing. "Water protectors"? GTFO.

But the government and the Army Corps in particular have done terrible things before, so I've just stayed out of it.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 14:02

It has definitely struck me as strangely absent most of the time from my two newspapers (Denver Post and Wall Street Journal), my Yahoo news feed and BBC World News. Not to say it was completely absent all of the time, but only a trickle here and there (until the last several days). Seems like even 100 people protesting somewhere in the world is always a big deal to the BBC, but not so much for this. Whereas yes, on my FB feed full of lefties, it was practically Pearl Harbor.

So of course the lefty folk were all about corporate media coverup. And of course I'm skeptical, but not quite sure how to respond, either. Regardless of what you think of the cause and the protest, etc, the level of contentiousness and police reaction seems to have merited more than a little blurb here and there.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 05 Dec 2016, 14:17

fyodor wrote:It has definitely struck me as strangely absent most of the time from my two newspapers (Denver Post and Wall Street Journal), my Yahoo news feed and BBC World News. Not to say it was completely absent all of the time, but only a trickle here and there (until the last several days). Seems like even 100 people protesting somewhere in the world is always a big deal to the BBC, but not so much for this. Whereas yes, on my FB feed full of lefties, it was practically Pearl Harbor.

So of course the lefty folk were all about corporate media coverup. And of course I'm skeptical, but not quite sure how to respond, either. Regardless of what you think of the cause and the protest, etc, the level of contentiousness and police reaction seems to have merited more than a little blurb here and there.
I have no reason to think "coverup," but I do think national news outlets completely fell down on the job considering there were hundreds of protests being attacked by dogs, sprayed with water cannons in subfreezing temperatures, and hit (literally) with flashbangs.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 05 Dec 2016, 14:18

Sandy wrote:I mostly encountered it on Twitter and to a lesser extent on Facebook. It's popped into news occasionally, but I have one person I follow for professional reasons who changed their name to "NO DAPL" and posts incessantly.

I haven't dived into it enough to see whether or not there is a real point there, but given who's doing most of the complaining, I'm willing to bet it's an overblown white people activism thing. "Water protectors"? GTFO.

But the government and the Army Corps in particular have done terrible things before, so I've just stayed out of it.
What has seemed impossible to find is anyone covering whether the central claim of the Native Americans was true: that they own this land according to treaty with the USG.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22714
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Mo » 05 Dec 2016, 14:19

D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly. Army Corp of Engineers sounds blandly good because it has the word "Army" in it and people love the Army and "Corp of Engineers" sounds like people that build bridges and stuff. Plus, gas prices are so low that no one gives two shits about energy policy anymore.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25938
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by thoreau » 05 Dec 2016, 14:26

Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly.
Frankly, it reads like an impeachable offense to me.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2791
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jasper » 05 Dec 2016, 14:33

nicole wrote:
Sandy wrote:I mostly encountered it on Twitter and to a lesser extent on Facebook. It's popped into news occasionally, but I have one person I follow for professional reasons who changed their name to "NO DAPL" and posts incessantly.

I haven't dived into it enough to see whether or not there is a real point there, but given who's doing most of the complaining, I'm willing to bet it's an overblown white people activism thing. "Water protectors"? GTFO.

But the government and the Army Corps in particular have done terrible things before, so I've just stayed out of it.
What has seemed impossible to find is anyone covering whether the central claim of the Native Americans was true: that they own this land according to treaty with the USG.
What little coverage I've seen, mostly from FB links, confirms that the pipeline doesn't go through res land, but just north of it. The protest is about how the pipeline will contaminate the water source of the res.

Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 05 Dec 2016, 14:37

Jasper wrote:
nicole wrote:
Sandy wrote:I mostly encountered it on Twitter and to a lesser extent on Facebook. It's popped into news occasionally, but I have one person I follow for professional reasons who changed their name to "NO DAPL" and posts incessantly.

I haven't dived into it enough to see whether or not there is a real point there, but given who's doing most of the complaining, I'm willing to bet it's an overblown white people activism thing. "Water protectors"? GTFO.

But the government and the Army Corps in particular have done terrible things before, so I've just stayed out of it.
What has seemed impossible to find is anyone covering whether the central claim of the Native Americans was true: that they own this land according to treaty with the USG.
What little coverage I've seen, mostly from FB links, confirms that the pipeline doesn't go through res land, but just north of it. The protest is about how the pipeline will contaminate the water source of the res.

Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Ah, well that explains one part at least.

Up until September 2014 or thereabouts, the pipeline was supposed to cross north of Bismarck, though, instead of near these people. http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... c933c.html
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12829
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Highway » 05 Dec 2016, 14:47

Jasper wrote:Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Lying in an empty field doesn't do much to stop construction unless there are bulldozers there to be in front of.

I guarantee that a small amount of noisy people protested the alignment of the pipeline, no matter where it was, from NIMBYs trying to get it put somewhere else to BANANAs trying to stop it altogether. And I'm sure there were court cases against the decisions made to permit it.

The 'contaminated water' bit is a red herring, if you ask me. If you put a pipeline ANYWHERE, it's going to have the chance to contaminate water if it leaks. If that was a reason to not have a pipeline, then there wouldn't be any pipelines. So to me, the difference is "here the risk of contamination is the water supply of over 50,000 people, there the risk is the water supply of a couple thousand" and that's exactly why you do impact statements. It's not "Oh, it's not ok to poison their water, but it *is* ok to poison our water?" That's just dumb. It's more what is the risk.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17854
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 Dec 2016, 14:57

thoreau wrote:
Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly.
Frankly, it reads like an impeachable offense to me.
That's because you're not a Republican Congressman.

Also, I agree that a "cover-up" is unlikely, I'm just not sure it's of high news value to most 'Muricans. Fucking over Indians isn't exactly unprecedented.

Anyway, it won't be Trump personally but the Secretary of the Army or Energy or the like who reverses the decision. The COE is, if anything, too deferential to Native American claims from time to time. There was a proposed excavation of some sort in the Pacific Northwest or thereabouts some years ago where the indigenous population, as it were, were opposed because, among other reasons, it might uncover evidence contrary to their religious beliefs. Sure, I know. Happens elsewhere around the globe all the time. The only point I'm making, and I only know about this because I know one of the JAG officers handling the matter, is because everyone, probably including the advocates for the tribe(s), knew they were bogus objections, but the Corps decided in their favor, nonetheless.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jennifer » 05 Dec 2016, 15:00

thoreau wrote:
Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly.
Frankly, it reads like an impeachable offense to me.
According to Trumpster fans, I'm pretty sure that makes you a "cuck."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22276
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by JasonL » 05 Dec 2016, 15:07

Highway wrote:
Jasper wrote:Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Lying in an empty field doesn't do much to stop construction unless there are bulldozers there to be in front of.

I guarantee that a small amount of noisy people protested the alignment of the pipeline, no matter where it was, from NIMBYs trying to get it put somewhere else to BANANAs trying to stop it altogether. And I'm sure there were court cases against the decisions made to permit it.

The 'contaminated water' bit is a red herring, if you ask me. If you put a pipeline ANYWHERE, it's going to have the chance to contaminate water if it leaks. If that was a reason to not have a pipeline, then there wouldn't be any pipelines. So to me, the difference is "here the risk of contamination is the water supply of over 50,000 people, there the risk is the water supply of a couple thousand" and that's exactly why you do impact statements. It's not "Oh, it's not ok to poison their water, but it *is* ok to poison our water?" That's just dumb. It's more what is the risk.
To be honest, I don't know much about the specific actions the police may have taken here, but this whole thing has reeked to me of grandstanding over perfectly normal government action. It is a case where I don't trust anything I've seen.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jennifer » 05 Dec 2016, 15:18

I too got the majority of my DAPL knowledge from social media, and .. it's hard to know what to think. I don't want to do the knee-jerk "Anything the government does must be evil, because it's the government doing it" -- that's no better than "Anything the government does must be virtuous, because it's the government doing it" -- but there were a few things which, if true, definitely put the feds in a bad light: indications that StingRay was used to cut off phone reception, the allegations ("Mostly true," per Snopes) that anyone attempting to bring supplies to protestors would be fined for it ... all looks bad enough on its own, but arguably looks even worse in such contexts as "Hmmm, so, when overly entitled white men take over federal land and threaten federal agents with guns because they think they have the 'right' to free cattle feed to support their business, the government handles them with kid gloves, but when Indians protest a threat to their water supplies, the gloves come off."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Sandy » 05 Dec 2016, 15:19

Yeah, finding not completely biased sources was not possible with a cursory look.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 15:30

nicole wrote:
Jasper wrote:
nicole wrote:
Sandy wrote:I mostly encountered it on Twitter and to a lesser extent on Facebook. It's popped into news occasionally, but I have one person I follow for professional reasons who changed their name to "NO DAPL" and posts incessantly.

I haven't dived into it enough to see whether or not there is a real point there, but given who's doing most of the complaining, I'm willing to bet it's an overblown white people activism thing. "Water protectors"? GTFO.

But the government and the Army Corps in particular have done terrible things before, so I've just stayed out of it.
What has seemed impossible to find is anyone covering whether the central claim of the Native Americans was true: that they own this land according to treaty with the USG.
What little coverage I've seen, mostly from FB links, confirms that the pipeline doesn't go through res land, but just north of it. The protest is about how the pipeline will contaminate the water source of the res.

Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Ah, well that explains one part at least.

Up until September 2014 or thereabouts, the pipeline was supposed to cross north of Bismarck, though, instead of near these people. http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... c933c.html
Yeah, this is a major talking point for the claiming of discrimination.

And as Nicole also pointed out upthread, the Native folk claim they were railroaded out of the land in question which by treaty should belong to them. I haven't heard any details about this claim either way, not even from screaming FB posts, which seem to buy the story without question.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 15:35

Highway wrote:
Jasper wrote:Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Lying in an empty field doesn't do much to stop construction unless there are bulldozers there to be in front of.

I guarantee that a small amount of noisy people protested the alignment of the pipeline, no matter where it was, from NIMBYs trying to get it put somewhere else to BANANAs trying to stop it altogether. And I'm sure there were court cases against the decisions made to permit it.

The 'contaminated water' bit is a red herring, if you ask me. If you put a pipeline ANYWHERE, it's going to have the chance to contaminate water if it leaks. If that was a reason to not have a pipeline, then there wouldn't be any pipelines. So to me, the difference is "here the risk of contamination is the water supply of over 50,000 people, there the risk is the water supply of a couple thousand" and that's exactly why you do impact statements. It's not "Oh, it's not ok to poison their water, but it *is* ok to poison our water?" That's just dumb. It's more what is the risk.
Heh, well a lot of people joining the protest would probably say, Well of course we don't want a pipeline built ANYWHERE, duh! Some of them see it as part of the fight against AGW. Naturally this is the contingent that most here would have the least sympathy for, and I'm certainly not trying to cast a shadow on the entire enterprise (anti-enterprise?), just sayin' that yeah, they're there. Actually, I remember seeing one FB post in which some Native guy supposedly wanted to make the point that protestors who joined them should look at it more in terms of discrimination (or Native rights) than AGW, based on aforementioned move from nearer Bismark....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 05 Dec 2016, 15:36

I think Jasper was saying that the land in question wasn't ever actually theirs? At least that's what I thought and that's what I was saying "that explains one part at least" about.

Regardless of whether the Bismarck thing is discrimination-related, it does mean they only had about two years to protest the pipeline
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 15:38

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
thoreau wrote:
Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly.
Frankly, it reads like an impeachable offense to me.
That's because you're not a Republican Congressman.

Also, I agree that a "cover-up" is unlikely, I'm just not sure it's of high news value to most 'Muricans.
Okay, I'll just tell my lefty friends it wasn't a cover-up, the papers intentionally didn't cover it cause most Americans don't give a rat's ass.

Not sure if they're gonna see the difference there..... ;)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 05 Dec 2016, 15:46

nicole wrote:I think Jasper was saying that the land in question wasn't ever actually theirs? At least that's what I thought and that's what I was saying "that explains one part at least" about.

Regardless of whether the Bismarck thing is discrimination-related, it does mean they only had about two years to protest the pipeline
Oh, I didn't actually understand that line of yours at first.

I interpreted the applicable part of Jasper's post to be about the "is" rather than the "should" that the tribe is apparently claiming.

Jasper, if you've seen reliable "confirmation" that the tribe has no viable claim to the land (ethically in addition to legally), I'd be curious to know what you could describe of that (I realize it's stuff you've seen on your FB feed over time, making specific links unlikely).

I should add that I realize that regaining ostensibly stolen land is best done through the courts and you shouldn't wait till a crisis maybe makes it a big fucking deal that it wasn't before, but then maybe that's easy for me to say, and again, I would love to know more about this than I do, assuming there's really more to know....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2791
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jasper » 05 Dec 2016, 15:47

Highway wrote:
Jasper wrote:Another link that came across my feed pointed out that projects like this take years of planning and meetings and hearings. Where were the protesters a decade ago when the plans were first laid?
Lying in an empty field doesn't do much to stop construction unless there are bulldozers there to be in front of.

I guarantee that a small amount of noisy people protested the alignment of the pipeline, no matter where it was, from NIMBYs trying to get it put somewhere else to BANANAs trying to stop it altogether. And I'm sure there were court cases against the decisions made to permit it.

The 'contaminated water' bit is a red herring, if you ask me. If you put a pipeline ANYWHERE, it's going to have the chance to contaminate water if it leaks. If that was a reason to not have a pipeline, then there wouldn't be any pipelines. So to me, the difference is "here the risk of contamination is the water supply of over 50,000 people, there the risk is the water supply of a couple thousand" and that's exactly why you do impact statements. It's not "Oh, it's not ok to poison their water, but it *is* ok to poison our water?" That's just dumb. It's more what is the risk.
The same article that pointed out the long timelines also pointed out there's like 8 pipelines already crossing that river. Whether up- or downstream of the reservation, they did not say.
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22276
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by JasonL » 05 Dec 2016, 15:49

It's not a cover up for the same reason almost nothing is a cover up, at least not in the conspiracy with the entire media landscape sense. Just can't do it.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25938
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by thoreau » 05 Dec 2016, 15:50

thoreau wrote:
Mo wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:You can bet the coverage picks up when Trump reverses the ACE decision.
Especially because he owns shares in the company. The optics of overruling them are pretty terrible. "Trump overrules Army Corp of Engineers to benefit company he owns shares in," reads badly.
Frankly, it reads like an impeachable offense to me.
CNBC is reporting that he sold his shares in the company:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/trump-se ... loper.html
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2791
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Jasper » 05 Dec 2016, 15:57

fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:I think Jasper was saying that the land in question wasn't ever actually theirs? At least that's what I thought and that's what I was saying "that explains one part at least" about.

Regardless of whether the Bismarck thing is discrimination-related, it does mean they only had about two years to protest the pipeline
Oh, I didn't actually understand that line of yours at first.

I interpreted the applicable part of Jasper's post to be about the "is" rather than the "should" that the tribe is apparently claiming.

Jasper, if you've seen reliable "confirmation" that the tribe has no viable claim to the land (ethically in addition to legally), I'd be curious to know what you could describe of that (I realize it's stuff you've seen on your FB feed over time, making specific links unlikely).

I should add that I realize that regaining ostensibly stolen land is best done through the courts and you shouldn't wait till a crisis maybe makes it a big fucking deal that it wasn't before, but then maybe that's easy for me to say, and again, I would love to know more about this than I do, assuming there's really more to know....
Well, the article I saw was "liked" by a moderately republican friend and the article was from a conservative opinion site. There' weren't any links in the article to back up its claims, but it seems like "not their land to begin with" and "8 other pipelines" could be easy things to check on. I'm afraid my posts here may have only added to the noise rather than add clarity. Like Sandy mentioned, finding unbiased sources for a cursory look is tough.
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8800
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 05 Dec 2016, 16:11

Jasper wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:I think Jasper was saying that the land in question wasn't ever actually theirs? At least that's what I thought and that's what I was saying "that explains one part at least" about.

Regardless of whether the Bismarck thing is discrimination-related, it does mean they only had about two years to protest the pipeline
Oh, I didn't actually understand that line of yours at first.

I interpreted the applicable part of Jasper's post to be about the "is" rather than the "should" that the tribe is apparently claiming.

Jasper, if you've seen reliable "confirmation" that the tribe has no viable claim to the land (ethically in addition to legally), I'd be curious to know what you could describe of that (I realize it's stuff you've seen on your FB feed over time, making specific links unlikely).

I should add that I realize that regaining ostensibly stolen land is best done through the courts and you shouldn't wait till a crisis maybe makes it a big fucking deal that it wasn't before, but then maybe that's easy for me to say, and again, I would love to know more about this than I do, assuming there's really more to know....
Well, the article I saw was "liked" by a moderately republican friend and the article was from a conservative opinion site. There' weren't any links in the article to back up its claims, but it seems like "not their land to begin with" and "8 other pipelines" could be easy things to check on. I'm afraid my posts here may have only added to the noise rather than add clarity. Like Sandy mentioned, finding unbiased sources for a cursory look is tough.
It has seemed to me bizarrely hard to figure out what's up with the treaty stuff. Like, at all.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dead_elvis and 8 guests