Right but, and correct me if I’m wrong, it does enter land that was by treaty controlled by the tribe, but which was illegally taken from them when the government saw fit to violate the treaty. So they still see the land as legally theirs even if there’s nothing they can do to enforce that claim.
Certainly he has a point about the problems being caused by some of the protestors but that says nothing one way or the other about whether the cause itself is just.
What says whether the cause is just is due diligence which the oil company and government engineers did. You can’t say the same for the protestors who are actually fouling the area. Without any credible evidence they move from the category of environmentalists to anarchists. They’re gone in a week so it’s a moot point.
Suppose I think my neighbors house belongs to me because of a 100 year old title irregularity. I hear he wants to work on cars, so I’m afraid he might spill oil and contaminate my well. So I feel have the right to occupy his garage, smash up his car, and get a bunch of people to help by portraying myself as a victim.
Do you seriously believe that a title irregularity is comparable to what was done to native Americans? I don’t even know how to respond to that.
No one here is justifying hooliganism. The bad actions of some are not logically connected to the justness of the cause. A cause can be just in spite of the bad behavior of some of its advocates.
In any case, from what I’m hearing, the problems are mostly being caused by outsiders rather than tribe members.
Please explain what happened with regard to the treaty. While you’re at it, please explain why they haven’t tried to find a remedy through conventional remedies such as the courts? Perhaps, the most famous native American that I can think of Elizabeth Warren could take up their cause in the Senate. Why has she been so silent on this issue?
If you’re genuinely interested in details, I’ll provide them. But as a general rule, redress through the courts, today, for treaties that were executed between the United States and various Native American tribes, and then unilaterally abrogated by the United States, is not possible for a number of reasons that don’t rest on the legality of the abrogation.
In shorter words: you cannot argue that the lack of a remedy now, present day, means that what happened then was appropriate.
Same as it ever was. That’s pretty much exactly what happened in the “shanty towns” see up on college campuses during the apartheid protests in the 80s.
Anti-war protests in the 60s and 70s too. We should be able to look past that and focus on the issues. Protesters should also be serious about the issues and the goals too. At first it will look good to have the most people around to draw attention to the issue but trying to relive the Woodstock experience is not the issue and the well-meaning ought to do a better job, and the good-timers should just stay away because they are not going to help in the long run.
There’s always political relief. The Federal government could buy the land in dispute with eminent domain and give it to the Lakota tribe. How much could it be worth?
Seriously, the only complaints I read in that article were that white people showed up and one of them played a guitar. Oh yeah, and two white people stood off to the side and talked about Australia while the smoked. The horror! “Oh my god! There’s more than one white person here! Do I hear someone strumming a guitar? It’s JUST LIKE BURNING MAN!” :smack:
I’m sorry but I don’t recall a cite from you about this, just that you’ve posted it repeatedly. Could you (re)post your cite that there was no involvement during the approval process by people opposed? Thanks.