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: 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.