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: 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.