Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

According to an article at

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."

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @03:53PM (#437197)

    It's like the loudest "protesters" against the Washington Redskins team name (or the other sports teams) are white trying to score the social consciousness points as well. The majority of the indians aren't offended, or don't care. The Redskins issue was all the rage a couple of years ago, but I guess the fad has moved on.

    A good percentage of your typical college-aged "protester" is made up of women who are (or want to think they are) socially conscious, and guys, most of whom don't know or care what the issue is, but they want to look socially aware and sensitive because they're trying to lay the protester chicks. It is like the glorification of the 60s protests. I have had several colleagues who were of that prime age at the time and they all have said that pretty much what I just said. Different ages, but the same thing.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday December 05 2016, @06:57PM

    by edIII (791) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:57PM (#437307)

    "Redskins", or red-skins, greatly offends all native Americans, if you cared to look into what it refers to.

    I don't object to Redskins because I'm virtue signalling, or any of those pathetic attempts here to tear down protestors and their motivations. Fuck ALL OF YOU that are doing that especially you VLM. The objection came after I decided to LEARN about it. Superficially, it would seem to be a reference to native Americans themselves through skin color, but that is NOT true.

    Redskin is not a term of racism to indicate skin color. It's a disgusting and horrifying reference to the mass murders of native Americans during the time in which the U.S government (among others) paid for SCALPS. Yeah, the native Americans were not the only people taking scalps! You ever hear about some regiments that prided themselves that some of their leather equipment was MADE FROM HUMAN SKIN? It became a sick industry, and the RED portion of Redskin referred to the BLOOD layered all over the SKIN.

    So THAT is where that name comes from. Do you still feel all good about it? Does it make you want to watch fucking baseball?

    The original term was 'red-skin' []. Notice the hyphen, it's fucking important. Ignore the website, because the article you can ignore. It's all in the photographed portion of The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863. An additional explanation comes from native Americans themselves [].

    History and facts though might be inconvenient to your narratives painting all of us liberal protestors as idiots without principles wholly lacking in any sophisticated understanding of our positions......

    Yep. I just want to impress some college pussy with my sensitivity :)

    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:20AM (#437595)

      Offense cannot be given - only taken.