Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 12:29

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
Fin Fang Foom wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Meh. Just about every nation on Earth gained whatever territory it did as a result of title by conquest. Not saying Europeans didn't fuck over Native Americans; of course they did. But they weren't even slightly unusual in that regard. At some point, the Angles and Saxons had to just get over it and stop bitching about 1066.
This is a bad comparison. The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the English. The Indians were almost wiped out.
The Anglo-Saxons that survived are the same as the English, albeit with healthy percentages of Norman blood in them by now.

It's true the Normans didn't slaughter them, but they sure as hell took their land and were indifferent to what happened to the ones they didn't use as serfs.

Doesn't matter, though. Go back far enough and they got there either by being pushed out of somewhere else or swooping in and taking over from someone else.
Mexico is more comparable to what happened in England, i.e.Mexicans are largely Indian.

Near complete annihilation of an indigenous population, through disease or genocide, is historically very rare.
Not worth arguing as far as I'm concerned. The key word is "historically." Not only do the winners write the history books, as the saying goes, but the bottom line as far as title to land goes remains the same. Some of that indigenous population did survive, but their rights to whatever gawdforsaken land we moved them to are still only as good as the European immigrant created nation that surrounds them says they are.

That's another rule of history. Treaties exist so long as they remain in the best interests of the parties and/or all the parties are relatively equal in strength. Neither of which is the case here.
Might makes right? Sophist's view of justice?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17907
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 12:36

Just a fact of history and law. Go back far enough and most land deemed to be part of a nation today was the result of kicking out or killing off someone who was there first. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's so.

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 12:43

D.A. Ridgely wrote:Just a fact of history and law. Go back far enough and most land deemed to be part of a nation today was the result of kicking out or killing off someone who was there first. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's so.
I'm not sure why it's relevant unless you're saying it justifies things as they are or unless someone said American Indians are the only ones to ever be kicked out or killed off. Well, I guess someone did say something slightly like that, after you first brought this up....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17907
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 13:07

fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Just a fact of history and law. Go back far enough and most land deemed to be part of a nation today was the result of kicking out or killing off someone who was there first. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's so.
I'm not sure why it's relevant unless you're saying it justifies things as they are or unless someone said American Indians are the only ones to ever be kicked out or killed off. Well, I guess someone did say something slightly like that, after you first brought this up....
I'm not making any ethical claims one way or the other. But people squabble over which people or nation or tribe or whatever "rightfully" owns what property or territory and the only historically consistent answer is whoever wins. Because the winner gets to make the rules. And because the winner has a better army or whatever to enforce its will.

I'm not at all sure that any treaties signed by the U.S. and this tribe or that has any serious binding authority except insofar as everyone decides to "play nice" for a little longer. But every time Native Americans try to assert their sovereignty on their land in some way the U.S. seriously disapproves of, they lose. And every time the U.S. decides that changes or new interpretations are necessary (read: in the best interests of parties other than the Native Americans), the changes get made.

Should we feel any differently as an objective matter about the European conquest of the Americas than we do about the European conquest of Australian and New Zealand? No one is seriously talking about giving the land back. And if you trace the history of Europe or Asia or anywhere else, it's either historically documented or at least the evidence points to the fact that at some point no matter how many centuries ago, Team A kicked Team B's ass and took their land and, in many cases, took them, too. That's how nations get territory. It always has been and, the occasional treaty here or there between or among nations that aren't willing, for whatever reason, to go to war for now isn't contrary evidence, it's just the exception to the rule.

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 15:22

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Just a fact of history and law. Go back far enough and most land deemed to be part of a nation today was the result of kicking out or killing off someone who was there first. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's so.
I'm not sure why it's relevant unless you're saying it justifies things as they are or unless someone said American Indians are the only ones to ever be kicked out or killed off. Well, I guess someone did say something slightly like that, after you first brought this up....
I'm not making any ethical claims one way or the other. But people squabble over which people or nation or tribe or whatever "rightfully" owns what property or territory and the only historically consistent answer is whoever wins. Because the winner gets to make the rules. And because the winner has a better army or whatever to enforce its will.

I'm not at all sure that any treaties signed by the U.S. and this tribe or that has any serious binding authority except insofar as everyone decides to "play nice" for a little longer. But every time Native Americans try to assert their sovereignty on their land in some way the U.S. seriously disapproves of, they lose. And every time the U.S. decides that changes or new interpretations are necessary (read: in the best interests of parties other than the Native Americans), the changes get made.

Should we feel any differently as an objective matter about the European conquest of the Americas than we do about the European conquest of Australian and New Zealand? No one is seriously talking about giving the land back. And if you trace the history of Europe or Asia or anywhere else, it's either historically documented or at least the evidence points to the fact that at some point no matter how many centuries ago, Team A kicked Team B's ass and took their land and, in many cases, took them, too. That's how nations get territory. It always has been and, the occasional treaty here or there between or among nations that aren't willing, for whatever reason, to go to war for now isn't contrary evidence, it's just the exception to the rule.
So... This would be entirely irrelevant to a discussion of who in the Standing Rock dispute has either ethical considerations or the rule of law on their side?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17907
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 15:30

Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't put too much weight on the rule of law deciding the matter, though, regardless.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22546
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by JasonL » 06 Dec 2016, 15:35

The treaty of 18whatever taking land seems like one thing, the current pipeline seems like something else entirely. I get that the Dakota may not feel that way, but pretty much everyone else should. Resolution of takings from tribes is more like slavery reparations than anything else, while this issue is more a matter of administrative procedures clearing NIMBY hurdles, just like every large project ever.

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 15:47

D.A. Ridgely wrote:Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't put too much weight on the rule of law deciding the matter, though, regardless.
What would you put weight on in its stead?

@Jason, point appreciated, up to a point. If the tribe by right owns the land, I would think that would affect the outcome of the administrative procedure. As I said earlier, my sympathy is tempered to at least some degree by the fact that it shouldn't have taken this matter for the tribe to have made claim to the land at some previous point, particularly if they really find it sacred and all. But then again, human nature, other things on the plate, I don't know if I'd want that kind of argument used against me....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17907
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 15:57

fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't put too much weight on the rule of law deciding the matter, though, regardless.
What would you put weight on in its stead?
Money. Power. Public sentiment (the public likes Indians but it likes cheap energy even more, so...).

In short, the usual suspects.

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 16:01

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't put too much weight on the rule of law deciding the matter, though, regardless.
What would you put weight on in its stead?
Money. Power. Public sentiment (the public likes Indians but it likes cheap energy even more, so...).

In short, the usual suspects.
Oh, you were still in "is" versus "should" mode, I misunderstood you.

Do you apply that formula to every public policy question, or only to ones involving indigenous peoples?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17907
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 06 Dec 2016, 16:26

fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
fyodor wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Yeah, pretty much. I wouldn't put too much weight on the rule of law deciding the matter, though, regardless.
What would you put weight on in its stead?
Money. Power. Public sentiment (the public likes Indians but it likes cheap energy even more, so...).

In short, the usual suspects.
Oh, you were still in "is" versus "should" mode, I misunderstood you.

Do you apply that formula to every public policy question, or only to ones involving indigenous peoples?
I try to keep how things work from how they should work irrespective of the topic. Were we really having a discussion about what should happen before I made my first cynical comment? Because my initial "should" position here is that we should have lots more information than we have.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6179
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 06 Dec 2016, 19:26

To give the claims far more analysis than are probably warranted: viewed in a favorable light, the protesters and tribe are claiming that the proposed pipeline route passes upon lands that belong to them under the 1851 treaty. They are apparently claiming the 1868 treaty and subsequent Congressional Acts affecting reservation lands are invalid.

Here is the text of both the 1851 and 1868 Laramie treaties.

I don't know the geography of the area, so I don't know whether the boundaries of the described land in the 1851 treaty include the disputed land. Assuming they do, I would also assume they are included in the 1868 treaty. I haven't seen any reason why the 1851 treaty should be considered valid but the 1868 treaty would be invalid. The 1868 treaty has this language:
Article XI, 6th wrote:They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte river and westward to the Pacific ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States. But should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of the said commissioners to be a chief or headman of the tribe.
I don't know the definition of "utility or necessity" in 1868, but that seems awfully broad, and even assuming all subsequent Congressional Acts are invalid, it would be easy to argue that treaty requires the tribe to allow an easement for the pipeline.

Now, Congress can abrogate an Indian treaty at any time. To do so, they must specifically say they are doing so (here is a 1975 law review article talking about judicial review of such abrogation; it also talks about negotiation of treaties and how they are interpreted). Without reviewing every single Congressional Act that has altered Indian lands near the proposed pipeline, it's possible that some Acts since 1868 have been arguably invalid by shrinking the Indian lands without specifying that the treaty is being abrogated. Even then, the tribes might only be entitled to just compensation--getting the land back that's now in private hands is an unlikely remedy.

This timeline of the legal disputes over the land in the area is quite slanted, but still useful. It was written pre-pipeline and includes information about the lawsuit the Sioux won regarding the Black Hills. In that one, they were only awarded just compensation.

As far as I can tell, the tribe has to argue the 1851 treaty gave them those lands, the 1868 treaty somehow doesn't apply, and all Congressional Acts shrinking the reservation were invalid, thus requiring the remedy of giving private lands back to the tribe instead of compensation. I would need to survey way more Indian law cases than I feel like, but I'm betting I can count on one hand the number of cases where tribes have prevailed in getting private land back instead of getting compensation.

Now, I'd be much more impressed if the protesters wanted to go full-Lysander Spooner and argue those treaties and laws don't apply to them because they weren't signatories and never consented, but I haven't heard any making that argument...
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13438
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Kolohe » 06 Dec 2016, 19:35

As far as I know, everyone's serious plan prior to Nov 8 was to draw attention to the issue of the pipeline, and push the Obama and Clinton administrations to withhold federal authority for the pipeline to be constructed - i.e. the same thing everyone did with Keystone XL, but with different lead agencies/departments.

Now, it's hoping that the lame duck Obama administration throws as many wrenches in the works as it can, count on bureaucratic inertia, and be part of a broader anti-Trump coalition. (This last thing has been a problem, because the tribe hasn't particularly liked the hippies that have shown up)
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

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

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by fyodor » 06 Dec 2016, 23:13

Andrew wrote:To give the claims far more analysis than are probably warranted: viewed in a favorable light, the protesters and tribe are claiming that the proposed pipeline route passes upon lands that belong to them under the 1851 treaty. They are apparently claiming the 1868 treaty and subsequent Congressional Acts affecting reservation lands are invalid.

Here is the text of both the 1851 and 1868 Laramie treaties.

I don't know the geography of the area, so I don't know whether the boundaries of the described land in the 1851 treaty include the disputed land. Assuming they do, I would also assume they are included in the 1868 treaty. I haven't seen any reason why the 1851 treaty should be considered valid but the 1868 treaty would be invalid. The 1868 treaty has this language:
Article XI, 6th wrote:They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte river and westward to the Pacific ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States. But should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of the said commissioners to be a chief or headman of the tribe.
I don't know the definition of "utility or necessity" in 1868, but that seems awfully broad, and even assuming all subsequent Congressional Acts are invalid, it would be easy to argue that treaty requires the tribe to allow an easement for the pipeline.

Now, Congress can abrogate an Indian treaty at any time. To do so, they must specifically say they are doing so (here is a 1975 law review article talking about judicial review of such abrogation; it also talks about negotiation of treaties and how they are interpreted). Without reviewing every single Congressional Act that has altered Indian lands near the proposed pipeline, it's possible that some Acts since 1868 have been arguably invalid by shrinking the Indian lands without specifying that the treaty is being abrogated. Even then, the tribes might only be entitled to just compensation--getting the land back that's now in private hands is an unlikely remedy.

This timeline of the legal disputes over the land in the area is quite slanted, but still useful. It was written pre-pipeline and includes information about the lawsuit the Sioux won regarding the Black Hills. In that one, they were only awarded just compensation.

As far as I can tell, the tribe has to argue the 1851 treaty gave them those lands, the 1868 treaty somehow doesn't apply, and all Congressional Acts shrinking the reservation were invalid, thus requiring the remedy of giving private lands back to the tribe instead of compensation. I would need to survey way more Indian law cases than I feel like, but I'm betting I can count on one hand the number of cases where tribes have prevailed in getting private land back instead of getting compensation.

Now, I'd be much more impressed if the protesters wanted to go full-Lysander Spooner and argue those treaties and laws don't apply to them because they weren't signatories and never consented, but I haven't heard any making that argument...
Heh, thanks!
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6179
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Andrew » 30 Jan 2017, 19:11

Has anyone here tried bullet journaling or something similiar? I'm pretty good about to-do lists, but a little more organization might help with medium-term tasks and help keep some things from slipping through the cracks.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12340
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Eric the .5b » 30 Jan 2017, 20:01

Andrew wrote:Has anyone here tried bullet journaling or something similiar? I'm pretty good about to-do lists, but a little more organization might help with medium-term tasks and help keep some things from slipping through the cracks.
I haven't tried that technique, but reading through it, it's more than a bit over-ritualized for me. When I want that much context to a bullet point, I open Emacs and create an org-mode file (which does everything you see here, but also puts it in outline form, can generate agenda views, is fully searchable and taggable, and eight million other things). When I write notes on paper, I just put a subject and (when applicable) a date at the top of the first blank page and then just start writing items and details. If what I write down is work-related, I'll copy it into a todo or project file.

(I am trying out using a steno book for meeting notes. Not for using shorthand, which I've never learned, but putting topics on the left column and details on the right. It's a nice size notebook for that.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15429
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by dhex » 30 Jan 2017, 20:57

I use freedcamp and Google Calendar. Bullet journal is too hard for me.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 6616
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Pham Nuwen » 19 Jul 2017, 23:11

Hey. Where is stevo lately?
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8980
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 19 Jul 2017, 23:26

Twitter
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

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

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12937
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Highway » 20 Jul 2017, 00:01

Grylliade is blocked at his work, so it's very inconvenient for him to read and post here.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15985
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by lunchstealer » 20 Jul 2017, 00:23

He's on the bookfaces, but said he was going on an off grid vacation for a couple weeks.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7753
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Taktix® » 20 Jul 2017, 08:02

Highway wrote:
20 Jul 2017, 00:01
Grylliade is blocked at his work, so it's very inconvenient for him to read and post here.
Wait, he can get to Facebook and Twitter but not here?

You guys smell that?
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12937
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Highway » 20 Jul 2017, 08:04

Taktix® wrote:
20 Jul 2017, 08:02
Highway wrote:
20 Jul 2017, 00:01
Grylliade is blocked at his work, so it's very inconvenient for him to read and post here.
Wait, he can get to Facebook and Twitter but not here?

You guys smell that?
Yeah, it's really weird corporate firewalling, apparently.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8980
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by nicole » 20 Jul 2017, 08:47

He works in journalism right? FB and Twitter are pretty much required.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

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

Dangerman
Posts: 6239
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Questions for the Grylliade Non-Hive Mind

Post by Dangerman » 20 Jul 2017, 08:58

He works in a health care related field, so personal devices are probably limited because of exposure to PII. He might be able to take a quick peek at Twitter but not have enough time to browse a forum and reply.

My GF amd I are having an issue because she's a data analyst for a health care company, and her phone and laptop are basically locked up if they're in the premises. So it's a PITA to chat during the day.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests