SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to an article at Snopes.com:
The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.
More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."
From a report in Al Jazeera :
The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.
The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.
"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.
[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.
"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:39PM
Man do you talk a lot of shit.
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
> Soros paid them to attend and fund the protests
Where'd you learn that? Breitbart?
> They're just all dirtbags, all of them, on both sides. All of them.
And you most of all. Your entire post was nothing more than "social-signalling" to the max. Accusing everybody of being hypocrites while proclaiming yourself the one true honest person is the ultimate hypocrisy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @03:51PM
AC, whoever you are, THANK YOU. Things like this need to be said, and people like VLM need to have them said to their faces.
As to you, VLM, it's interesting we found your "I'll do anything for love (but won't do that)" moment. So you stop JUST short of slow extermination by environmental poisoning. But only just. And everyone who was protesting is a "dirtbag" too including the people who would end up drinking shit in their water that makes Flint look like a Catskills reservoir. Nice. Fucking nice.
As they say, when someone shows you who they are in the dark, believe them the first time :/ I've always hated you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:06PM
So are you saying that the tribe wasn't paid for access to their land?
I think he made a pretty good case for calling out the hypocrisy in all parties involved. I can't say I agree with his Soros statements, but he is spot-on about the SJW's who are basically defined by the desire to elevate their own feelings of self-worth by finding a cause to protest. They don't give a shit about what they are protesting about. All they care is that they have something to protest because they need to define themselves in some sort of simplified good-vs-evil world where they can live out the Hero Saga all the while feeling frustrated that they were born suburban white and not some sort of "cool" minority like Native American (but it has to be "Dances With Wolves" cool Native American, not real-life rampant alcoholism Native American). "SJW" is a dirty word because it exemplifies the self-absorbed selfish moralizer. They are the TV evangelists who are in it for themselves and not for the cause they are pushing. "Don't worry my brave little unfortunate, although you may not be intelligent enough to know you are being wronged, I will take up your cause in your name and save you!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:18PM
> So are you saying that the tribe wasn't paid for access to their land?
He made a claim that indulges in the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans with exactly no proof.
Hitchen's razor applies. Absent that, he's just another dirtbag.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:40PM
He made a claim that indulges in the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans with exactly no proof.
Well, no, not really.
They get dumped on for being genetically predisposed to alcoholism and they get dumped on for twisting their hunting/fishing special permissions to an extreme, but I've never before seen them picked on for selling the same land twice or demanding payment multiple times for land or pretending land their grandparents sold is still theirs. That's total white guy stereotype fraud like selling the brooklyn bridge to multiple people or Florida swamp land swindles in the 20s.
I'm not saying there's never been an indian or indian tribe ever involved in a land dispute, but at least at this high level its unique behavior as far as I know.
Their grandparents lost control of that land in the 50s and didn't get much money in exchange but its water under the bridge now.
Conceptually it is an interesting idea that best case governmental response could be something like gimmie back the roughly $100M and you can have your land back and decide who runs what pipes where. Or the tribe could purchase solely pipeline and mineral rights for substantially less, probably.
My grandparents sold a suburban house in the 60s that could sell for quite a bit more today, but I don't get to tell the current owners where I permit them to lay garden hoses in 2016. They may have gotten a good deal, maybe not, but either way it isn't 1960 anymore.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:45PM
Are you fucking joking?
You are now arguing whether "indian giver" is the most well-known racial stereotype of native americans as a defense of your use of that stereotype?
Jesus christ you are a dirtbag.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @05:10PM
Normally there's no point in arguing with AC but WRT
your use of that stereotype
Obviously either we disagree on the definition of "indian giver" or disagree on the facts of the situation and I'm mildly interested in which. Could just be trolling or there might actually be something interesting behind it.
Clearly their grandparents sold some land in eminent domain at a ripoff price so they feel ownership is at least partially invalid so they still have some ownership rights. At least any historical definition of "indian giver" seems to involve giving something away thus an excessive implied debt is owed by the gift recipient, but this was more of a land swindle than a gift situation. Unless the definition of indian giver has dramatically changed it would not apply. From what I read of the original 50s dispute over building the dam in the river the locals did not exactly happily gift it away.
Possibly you have some historical reinterpretation and additional facts or possibly 2010's urban dictionary redefinition either way I'm sure it'll be interesting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:26PM
> At least any historical definition of "indian giver" seems to involve giving something away
Oh jesus fucking christ.
A retreat to literalism is no defense of the odious.
The idea that they voluntarily gave up the lands in trade and now want to unjustly claim sovereignty on them is core of your argument. And its the same old stereotype.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @05:31PM
I guess you haven't logged into Breitbart for a few days so you're not up to speed, you obviously missed the memo:
You can stop posting about "SJW"s now. Now you have to use the phrase "identity politics" in every third sentence.
You're welcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:35PM
Well actually, SJW refers to those people who rampage for illiberal causes. Identity politics refers to broad classifications of people based upon superficial commonalities promoting division, not specific to liberals.
Even some one as dense as you should be able to figure that out.
I'm personally trying to get Social Jihadist Warrior accepted into parlance to describe the left beyond all reason and taste to self-destruct, especially after Trump's election :)
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @10:44PM
> beyond all reason and taste to self-destruct, especially after Trump's election
This bit I can agree with - Trump's election was certainly beyond all reason and taste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:19PM
So I suppose if your neighbor gets paid to let them store radioactive materials in barrels. You know the same ones that have a history of leaking but these don't leak today. You would be ok with this because someone was paid for the use of their land?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @05:32PM
So you stop JUST short of slow extermination by environmental poisoning. But only just.
Rather than the absolute, for me its a relative fairness thing although what triggers me doesn't really matter. Its about equally hard to cross the river upstream of the white people, upstream of the indians, or downstream where none of this matters so naturally they move it upstream of the indians when the white people merely ask, and won't move it downstream of the indians even after massive protests, and its like wow could you possibly be more overtly racist for no apparent reason holy cow. Its just a freaking pipeline like zillions that cross rivers, the engineers should just close their eyes and pretend the rez is a white people exurb and move it downstream so it doesn't matter anymore, but no they gotta make the point that indians haven't been screwed over by the white people quite enough so maybe they can "get them" one more time.
When its "us or them" I support my team every single time, so to speak, but this is just embarrassing engineering where nobody need take any hit, therefore they screw them over just to stir the pot. Really dumb strategy. No need for a racial fight so lets pick one via careful pipeline placement because the fight will benefit... who?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @05:41PM
Ah, so if I'm reading you right, the problem is that the evildoers lacked style and made it a little too obvious what they were doing, then...?
Jesus. Motocrossing. Christ. You are, as has been said about a zillion times on this thread, an utter dirtbag.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:24PM
Ah, so if I'm reading you right
Naw not really, but I am enjoying trying to simplify my message so we have a mutual understanding.
How about something aphoristic, like "if there's no reason to be unfair, never do something unfair". That seems hard to argue against. If you take that as a starting point, then the area of disagreement must be in the complicated task of applying that to the situation...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 05 2016, @07:02PM
Okay, now go back and apply that maxim to your entire life and worldview. I won't hold my breath while you finish; if anything I'll be dead of old age by the time you do. ...yeah, didn't think so. It's only for certain, VLM-defined values of "unfair" and "reason to" isn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @04:23PM
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.
$12M in '58 and $91M in '92 in recognition that the $12M payment was a ripoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%E2%80%93Sloan_Missouri_Basin_Program [wikipedia.org]
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/406 [nativeamericannetroots.net]
On one hand the inflation adjusted equivalent of a years decent pay per family is generous for 10% of your undeveloped land. On the other hand if you're trying to live off that land and you no longer have it and it was the best land you had, it is kinda a ripoff. On one hand they didn't get a terribly good price, on the other hand they accepted payment, twice, so at some point ya gotta admit its sold and move on.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:32PM
> so they paid off the indians
Really? Come on. You can't just accuse them of being indian-givers without some evidence.
Their Pick-Sloan settlement was kind of a ripoff, twice, sorta.
What is it with people like you who cite things that say the opposite of your claims as support for your claims?
The Pick-Sloan "settlement" was the result of the government condemning indian lands. They didn't agree to it, they had it imposed on them.