What is rampant? White people and guitars? What’s wrong with burners?
How is it helpful to piss off your allies because they are not the right race or their hobbies annoy you?
So, if all the out of staters take their guitars and their burning privilege and go home, who would be left?
The best way to make sure that no one protects your rights is to attack the people on your side trying to protect them.
If they are not wanted, I would say that they should all pull up stakes, clean up the area, and head home. Make sure to clean up really well though, that way, the construction workers have a nice environment to work, while the locals look on impotently.
I took it as kids who are there to party and behaving as if they are at Burning Man. I’m not there so this is all second hand.
Back in the 80’s the big thing to protest among hippie-like college aged kids (of which I was one) was Apartheid, specifically getting the Universities to divest endowment funds from businesses that did business in South Africa. I was an engineering student with a part time job so I had very little free time. I did participate a little bit though. In my estimation, 20% were well versed on the issues and truly concerned, 10% were homeless taking advantage of the tents and free food and 70% were affected kids who were there for the party and thinking that “this is just like the 60’s, man.” There is value in big numbers of people just being there but those 70% were annoying as fuck.
Does anyone know if the violent confrontations that have happened were on public land, private land or road rite-of-ways?
They’re doing that already, even with the help of the “Burners”.
Worth noting that not all the locals - not even all the NA locals - support these protests.
So? Unless your point is that no locals support the protest, and that the only people protesting are the people coming in from out of state, I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make.
Can you offer cites that support your assertion that there have been protests against pipelines in general?
[/QUOTE]
This is the most recent one, at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, which I was particularly thinking of:
Police issue 99 citations during pipeline protest on Parliament Hill
At this pipeline protest, it was clear that the protestors opposed pipelines generally, and argued that the federal government should not approve any new ones.
There have been others in Canada. There is often a local element to them, that the protestors are simply opposed to having the pipeline built in their area. But in tandem with that local theme, increasingly there has been opposition to pipelines generally, because of disapproval of fossil fuels and the danger of climate change.
The three proposed pipelines that I’ve been following to some extent are the Enbridge pipeline in British Columbia, the Energy East pipeline in Quebec, and the Keystone XL, from Canada to New Orleans.
In one of the most dramatic protests, the National Energy Board of Canada, which has to approve a pipeline for one to be built, had to shut down two days of hearings into a proposed pipeline in Quebec after protesters disrupted the hearings.
Here’s a few links:
Hundreds Rally Against Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline
NEB cancels 2 days of Energy East hearings in Montreal after ‘violent disruption’
Dozens Arrested at White House Protest of Keystone XL Pipeline
If you google “Enbridge Northern Gateway protests” “Energy East pipeline protests” and “Keystone XL pipeline protests” you’ll get lots more hits.
My point was that your depiction of these outside people being benefactors of “the locals” is misleading, and that many locals would like nothing better than for all of them to leave.
Then I should agree that they should leave. Nothing is more frustrating and leaves you feeling dumber than offering help when it isn’t wanted.
Of course, when the locals start wondering why no one cares about or is willing to help them with any future problems they have, they won’t have far to look.
It’s wanted by some locals, and not by others.
Nothing simple in this world …
Here’s a link to the decision of the District Court for the District of Columbia, 2016: STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants (Civil Action No. 16-1534 (JEB)).
i’m not an American lawyer, but it appears, to me that the Standing Rock Tribe applied for an interlocutory injunction. The District Court denied the application. Injunctions are discretionary relief, and one of the factors in assessing whether an injunction should be granted is the conduct of the party seeking the injunction. In this case, the Court reviewed the attempts by the Army Corps of Engineers to involve the Tribe in the consultation process and concluded that the Corps made every effort to get the Tribe’s views. The Tribe did not participate in the consultations leading to the decision, and therefore did not have a strong case to seek an injunction after the decision had been made.
The Court gives a lengthy review of the Corps attempts to get the views of the Tribe, at pp. 40-41:
[QUOTE=District Court for DC]
As an initial matter, the Tribe’s assertion that the Corps did not engage in any NHPA consultations prior to promulgating NWP 12 is false. Before issuing NWP 12, the Corps, in November 2009, sent an early notification to tribes, including Standing Rock, containing information pertaining to its proposed NWPs. See ECF No. 21, Exh. 14 (Letter from Ruchs to Brings Plenty on Nov. 9, 2009). The letter contained a graphic depiction of the types of activities that were most often authorized by nationwide permits in the Omaha District. Id. In addition, in 2010, the Corps proceeded to hold “listening sessions and workshops” with tribes to discuss their concerns related to the proposed nationwide permits. See ECF No. 21, Exh. 13 (Tribal Information Fact Sheet). In March 2010, the Corps contacted Standing Rock personally to discuss the permits and any additional regional conditions that the Tribe thought might need to be included to protect their cultural resources. See Chieply Decl., ¶ 5.
Then, on February 10, 2011, the Corps sent a letter to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman and THPO Young, notifying them of its plan to publish a proposal in the Federal Register to reissue NWP 12. See ECF No. 21, Exh. 13 (Letter from Ruchs to Murphy on Feb. 10, 2011). Attached to the letter, the Corps provided a description of the proposed NWP 12, as well as a draft of the current Omaha District regional conditions that would apply to the permit. Id. The Corps requested that the Tribe “consider this letter our invitation to begin consultation on the proposal to reissue the NWPs.” Id. It went on to say that the Corps “look[s] forward to consulting with you on a government-to-government basis on this issue” and requested that the Tribe notify the Corps if it was “interested in consulting.” Id. The Corps further committed to provide a “Corps representative at consultation and fact-finding meetings” and to “fully consider any information you wish to provide.” Id. In an email on March 9, 2011, the Corps followed up on the offer. See Chieply Decl., ¶ 7. The Corps also seems to have conducted district-level tribal listening sessions and workshops. See Tribal Information Fact Sheet at 1. There is no indication in the record that the Tribe responded to the Corps’ invitation to consult, but was ignored. The Tribe, in fact, concedes that it did not participate in the notice-and-comment for NWP 12 at all. See Reply at 2. When it actually promulgated NWP 12, moreover, the Corps included a section on its compliance with the NHPA, noting that GC 20 “requires consultation for activities that have the potential to cause effects to historic properties” prior to those activities’ proceeding under the general permit. See ECF No 6, Exh. 1 (Nationwide Permit 12 Decision Document) at 10 (emphasis added).
To the extent that the Tribe now seeks in this Motion to launch a belated facial attack against NWP 12, then, it is unlikely to succeed. The Corps made a reasonable effort to discharge its duties under the NHPA prior to promulgating NWP 12, given the nature of the general permit.
[/QUOTE]
To me, it certainly looks like the Army Corps of Engineers was actively trying to get the Standing Tribe to be involved in consultations, but the Tribe for whatever reason did not, and that contributed to the District Court concluding that it should not issue the discretionary relief of an injunction.
I understand that there is nothing simple.
That’s why I didn’t break it down into something simple.
You did break it down into something simple, and in the process it was no longer relevant.
As I am not aware that there has been a vote from the local residents that showed a plurality wanted the pipeline built without any further obstruction, I would say that there are valid reason for some of them to go and try to block it from being constructed.
If there are some local residents trying to prevent the pipeline from being built, then it helps them out to have greater number opposing the project than just their numbers.
Even if it is a lost cause (which it probably is) then bringing more attention to the cause is useful for the future.
The people complaining most about the protesters are people that don’t care if the pipeline is built. Obviously, if you are not against something, then you find protesters who are to be annoying. If you are for it, then you find them annoying and obstructing.
But yeah, they want the protesters gone, they should hold a vote to no longer interfere with or obstruct the pipeline or any other encroachments onto their land, their ancestry, and their way of life, and the protesters will go find something else to do.
As the NA have a pretty terrible history of getting the short end of the stick on all of these sorts of treaty renegotiations, I can understand their reluctance in taking part in what essentially would just be a briefing on the next way they are going to get screwed over.
Did you miss the whole “Keystone XL” controversy that was ongoing for the last few years? It only recently got replaced on my news feed with the DAPL protests we’re now discussing.
And quite often I see “anti-pipeline” people post videos of pipeline explosions, spills, leaks, and articles about the harm they cause.
I don’t buy it, because the alternative – boats and trains – also leak, spill and explode, and I’ve yet to see any evidence that pipelines are worse.
But I’ve noticed a pretty significant trend of general “pipeline protestors” speaking up over the last few years. No cites or hard numbers, but I’m surprised you haven’t noticed it. If nothing else from the few threads that have shown up here over that time frame.
Really hard to find cites so FWIW from what I’ve read and having grown up in the area. The campground is on Corps of Engineer land, most of the conflicts have been on Highway 1806 which would be government land, and where the protesters & construction workers clashed is private, non-reservation land.
Close to the river and quite a ways “inland” along tributaries, the land belongs to the Corps of Engineers. When the Oahe Dam was built, the Corp bought up land up to some elevation that would be the highest possible water line but the Corps doesn’t do anything with the land and most landowners (this includes white & Indian landowners and the tribes) use it as their own. The ranch I grew up on the Cheyenne River Reservation had fence posts way out in the pastures that marked the limits of the Corps land.
As far as the pipeline being on broken treaty land, where do you draw the line? All of North America was taken from the Indians. Do we give it all back? How many of the white protestors are willing to give their homes to the Indian tribes that used to own the land that those homes were built on. Another thing that doesn’t get talked about much is that the Lakota were very late-comers to the area. They took the land from the Arikara, Mandan, and Hidastu and any sacred sites along the river very likely are from those tribes.
As far as whether the tribe participated in the hearing process, I will offer this cite and personal experience that the tribal government is very ineffective even for things in their best interest.
I have sympathy for the initial protests and applaud the tribes uniting around each other. But I wish all this effort was being used for more pressing concerns on the reservation and this is a lost cause. The world we and they live in requires oil and as long as the pipelines are built well and legally and are well regulated we need them and eventually this one will probably be built. I have friends and family who are tribal members and white friends and family who all drink out of the Missouri River so lets hope there is a peaceful resolution and that the oil that WE ALL use gets transported safely.
I know many white supporters of the protests and I lose respect for them more and more every day. Just reposting of whatever they see on Facebook. They have little regard for facts and no pragmatic solutions to a very complex problem. Just black & white thinking and pie-in-the-sky ideas of “how the world should be”.
standingwave stands with standingrock.
I am not sure about this. Already, the US has a glut, with oil in the price under $48/bbl. The oil companies, obviously, want better access to international markets, which DAPL will help facilitate. From a “I want cheap gas” perspective, this pipeline will not have that effect.
Where is Stands with a Fist when we need her?
And do you know if they are at full capacity or not? are they able to carry the projected traffic? are some of them nearing the end of their planned life, and have to be taken off stream because they may pose an environmental hazard?
These are all questions that can’t be answered just by looking at a map, any more than you can look at a street or highway map and conclude that no new roads are needed.
As Rickjay commented, it would be awful reckless for a company to spend $100 million on something it doesn’t need…