Chump for President

[R3Z3N]

And I would actually challenge the assertion that democracies have a history of genocide. Most nations that have committed genocide have been behind dictatorships.

Add to that: gun control.

[2mAn]

I don't expect anyone to read the full article, but it is interesting. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

Tried to read it on my lunch break and got distracted a bunch, but if I got the jist of the article its saying that Europeans shouldnt really be given "credit" for the genocide of Natives because a) they cant really decide if there was 1 million or over 10 million of them, and b) because a ton of Natives died from the smallpox Europeans brought over with them?

[marshallnoise]

Tried to read it on my lunch break and got distracted a bunch, but if I got the jist of the article its saying that Europeans shouldnt really be given "credit" for the genocide of Natives because a) they cant really decide if there was 1 million or over 10 million of them, and b) because a ton of Natives died from the smallpox Europeans brought over with them?

I think the numbers issue was not really that relevant as the article went on. But there was no organized effort like genocides of past. There is a lot more in the article you haven't gotten to if you are citing those two things from it.

[marshallnoise]

Add to that: gun control.

Absolutely.

[mrsleeve]

The natives in N/A were at war with each other long before the birth of the Greek civilization and would slaughter their neighbor tribes if given the opportunity, some were more aggressive than others no different than the different "tribes of Europe" in the 5th-20th centuries

[decay]

The natives in N/A were at war with each other long before the birth of the Greek civilization and would slaughter their neighbor tribes if given the opportunity, some were more aggressive than others no different than the different "tribes of Europe" in the 5th-20th centuries

as you've said... the whole world was like that. why single out native americans?

[marshallnoise]

as you've said... the whole world was like that. why single out native americans?

Seriously? The whole discussion started about you traveling to support Native Americans. Then it has been stuck there the whole time. Native Americans were the topic du jour.

[decay]

Seriously? The whole discussion started about you traveling to support Native Americans. Then it has been stuck there the whole time. Native Americans were the topic du jour.

i think you might have missed the boat on the whole "that's how the whole world was" thing- maybe you can catch the next one.

[marshallnoise]

i think you might have missed the boat on the whole "that's how the whole world was" thing- maybe you can catch the next one.

I seriously don't get how comparing Native American activities to the remainder of the world since the beginning of tribal existence is somehow singling them out. If anything, its the exact opposite.

[kickinindian]

Not even close to the Holocaust but nice try. What the US didn't do but should have done is conquered each tribe like a separate nation and then forced them to become US citizens. Imperialism is an ugly business but if you are going to do it, do it right.

You can't fund assimilation, you force it and demand it. Instead we said, sure, be your own nation with your own laws and own justice system and have zero way to compete in the emerging world economy.

Native Americans were extinct before we moved west, they just didn't know it yet. Traditions are fine, customs are fine, food is fine, but there was no way to be a hunter and gathering nomadic people in the modern world. The world changed and left their way of life in the dust.

have you even read the history of america besides what was in a school textbook? Andrew Jackson was a huge racist against Natives he promoted the death of our whole race. As well as all the land stolen by multiple broken treaties and exploitation of our renewable resources. im not even going to bother arguing with you since your 99.8% troll.

my personal take on the matter is return the land taken from the tribe in the 1800's. Then offer to give the tribe a tariff per barrel for all oil transferred through the pipeline. which would help promote a mostly poor tribal government. or just do what Alaska does

[marshallnoise]

have you even read the history of america besides what was in a school textbook? Andrew Jackson was a huge racist against Natives he promoted the death of our whole race. As well as all the land stolen by multiple broken treaties and exploitation of our renewable resources. im not even going to bother arguing with you since your 99.8% troll.

my personal take on the matter is return the land taken from the tribe in the 1800's. Then offer to give the tribe a tariff per barrel for all oil transferred through the pipeline. which would help promote a mostly poor tribal government. or just do what Alaska does

Of course I have. And I don't give a crap.

Good idea, create Saudi America right on our own soil. Stupid.

[decay]

Of course I have. And I don't give a crap.

Good idea, create Saudi America right on our own soil. Stupid.

the fact that you are conflating Saudi culture with Native American, makes very clear how ignorant you are.

one of the two has gotten rich exploiting natural resources, and the other has a culture built around respecting mother earth.

you really should just shut the fuck up, dude. you've made it very clear you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just the alt-right equivalent of a keyboard-social-justice-warrior.

[gwb72tii]

so here's a link to what's behind the pipeline

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-dakota-access-pipeline-is-really-about-1481071218

and here's the point decay

for the last 8 years of obama the law has been selectively enforced. the parties involved in the pipeline followed the law, crossed the t's, dotted the i's, and get rejected at the last possible moment in contravention of existing rules. how the heck is any company supposed to do business when the rules are not followed by the us government?

and the article points out that the Sioux currently obtain drinking water a mile downstream from a source of potential contamination today while the pipeline will be 70 miles upstream.

the protest is complete bullshit. the Sioux would do better to follow the law and promote their views during the permitting process as everyone else did, and as they were invited to do.

and in the big picture it would be nice to have everyone follow the law, even if you don't like it.

[decay]

i hit the paywall because i read wsj too, so can't read, copypasta would be appreciated if you can.

but- a leak 70 miles upstream still sounds like a bad thing? if a leak is really not a concern, why was the pipeline routed away from bismarck?

"there's already a minor risk in the area, so let's go ahead and build a major one too" is not an argument that carries a lot of weight for me.

edit: and if we're going to go with "rule of law" here, we should review the past 150 years of violations of the laramie treaty.

[gwb72tii]

i hit the paywall because i read wsj too, so can't read, copypasta would be appreciated if you can.

but- a leak 70 miles upstream still sounds like a bad thing? if a leak is really not a concern, why was the pipeline routed away from bismarck?

"there's already a minor risk in the area, so let's go ahead and build a major one too" is not an argument that carries a lot of weight for me.

viola....

A little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the “prayerful” and “peaceful” protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Escalating tensions were temporarily defused Sunday when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the direction of the Obama administration, announced it would refuse to grant the final permit needed to complete the $3.8 billion project. The pipeline, which runs nearly 1,200 miles from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota to Illinois, is nearly complete except for a small section where it needs to pass under the Missouri River. Denying the permit for that construction only punts the issue to next month—to a new president who won’t thumb his nose at the rule of law.

Like many North Dakotans, I’ve had to endure preaching about the pipeline from the press, environmental activists, musicians and politicians in other states. More often than not, these sermons are informed by little more than a Facebook post. At the risk of spoiling the protesters’ narrative, I’d like to bring us back to ground truth.

• This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

• Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.

• Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.

• This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.

Further, the pipeline will be installed about 100 feet below the riverbed. Automatic shut-off valves will be employed on either side of the river, and the pipeline will be constructed to exceed many federal safety requirements.

Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe’s intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.

• This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

So what is the pipeline dispute really about? Political expediency in a White House that does not see itself as being bound by the rule of law. The Obama administration has decided to build a political legacy rather than lead the country. It is facilitating an illegal occupation that has grown wildly out of control. That the economy depends on a consistent and predictable permitting regime seems never to have crossed the president’s mind.


There is no doubt that Native American communities have historically suffered at the hands of the federal government. But to litigate that history on the back of a legally permitted river crossing is absurd. The Obama administration should enforce the law, release the easement and conclude this dangerous standoff.

Mr. Cramer, a Republican, represents North Dakota in the U.S. House. As a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission (2003-12) he helped site the original Keystone Pipeline completed in 2010.