Putting the concerns of a large number of white people above a smaller number of native people isn’t exactly a novel situation. It pretty much describes most of our country’s shameful history toward those people.
If nobody in the area wants the pipeline then maybe the project shouldn’t be allowed to proceed at all.
There was a fair amount of hate thrown in as well.
Maybe so, I don’t know the specifics of this community. In either case indifference can be just as harmful as active hatred.
Active hatred usually filters in when people start pushing for their rights in any meaningful way.
But somewhat, yeah, it can be true. At least with active hatred one knows where one stands.
Indeed. The attack dogs, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, water cannons, and tear gas weren’t tokens of affection.
That’s not hate, that’s LAW AND ORDER! Totes different! /s
Do you really think race is behind the routing of this particular pipeline though?
If Bismarck had a population of a million people, would your opinion change? If not is there some ratio where protecting the interests of a large group of people that happen to be 90% white outweighs the interests of a smaller group of Native Americans? If Bismarck had a 10,000 rather than 3,000 Native American residents, would that change anything?
I’m not sold on the idea of the pipeline project at all, and I don’t believe most of the protesters are either.
What I’m objecting to is the idea that we should continue to screw over a group of people who have been screwed over continuously for the entire history of European colonization of the Americas. The very reason they are so badly outnumbered is that their ancestors were subjected to centuries of genocide under the rationale that it was for “the greater good.”
The main point we disagree on, I think, is whether or not the routing of the pipeline near the Reservation is another act of screwing them over.
If forcing them to accept it is not an act of screwing them over, then why do you suppose the people of Bismarck (successfully) objected to it?
But you yourself have framed this situation as “the concerns of 8,000 people in Standing Rock versus the concerns of 60,000 Bismarckians” so you seem on-board with the concept that somebody is going to end up getting stuck with something they don’t want if the project goes forward.
ETA: What @anon15383236 said.
That’s a good question so I went back to look for the stories of Bismarck protests and I can’t find any. AFAIK, the Army Corps of Engineers were the ones that eliminated that route of their own volition. They selected a route to minimize cost, complexity, and potential harm. I don’t believe race was something they considered.
I believe I was wrong about that. The concerns of Bismarckians didn’t seem to be a factor.
I am permanently skeptical of the motives of oil companies. But after reading the full narrative from the federal court ruling, I am leaning in their favor. New information could change that. But whether the pipeline is a good or bad thing, legal protest needs to be protected. If the police are using illegal tactics or excess violence, that becomes the issue.
I would not want a giant pipeline running through my land. I would be very concerned if they routed a river crossing just upstream from me. I have great sympathy for the Standing Rock tribe, and the local landowners.
That much is true; as reported an early proposal to cross the Missouri near Bismarck was rejected for several reasons, including length, proximity to high consequence areas, and potential threat to municipal water supply. The people didn’t actually have to protest to have their security considered.
How one could take this to mean that instead putting it past the water supply of the reservation – who have been demonstrating that they do not want that risk forced on them – is not short-changing their interests, I have no idea.
I don’t believe you.
I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. /s
You have a funny way of showing it. Sympathy means actually understanding their point of view, and feeling pity or sorrow for their misfortunes… not agreeing with the people trying to screw them over and finding any excuse, up-to-and-including taking an “archeological perspective”, in order to delegitimize them and their concerns.
It’s all trade-offs. If there was one route that was clearly better in every way, then the only protestors would be the ones that just don’t like pipelines no matter where they go or how safe they are. I don’t think that’s the case here though.
From your link, the Bismarck route was a wetter route. So perhaps it came down to weighing a higher possibility of a leak due to corrosion with lower (human) consequences against a lower possibility of a leak but with higher consequences. Actuaries are pretty good at stuff like that, even if their calculations are very cold blooded. They have no problem assigning a dollar value to human life and the lives of poor people worth less than rich people.
So you know what - if that was the case here - the route was chose because Native American lives are worth less - then I would flip my position on this because that’s too cold even for a ignoramus like me.
#blackgoldmatters
I think this position has been made abundantly clear throughout the past several hundred years.
Do you know anybody that works for the Army Corps of Engineers?
Considering the pipeline is actually being diverted to run through their backyard instead of the original route it was supposed to take (which would have been cheaper and had less side effects) as a result of NIMBYism, it could certainly be read as a protest against NIMBYism and its tendencies to fuck over largely powerless minorities in favour of the wealthy, so yes?
Edit: I missed someone else bringing up this argument and you responding, so feel free to ignore this I guess and focus on moving the conversation forward.
