Log in

View Full Version : U.S. government tramples on the Sioux (again)



Brandon's Impotent Rage
18th November 2014, 21:22
From The Daily Kos: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/17/1345551/-Congress-Commits-an-Act-of-War-Against-the-Great-Sioux-Nation?detail=email)


When Congress voted to approve the Keystone Pipeline they committed an act of war against the Great Sioux Nation. Apparently they completely forgot to check with the Sioux who live on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, who in February adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project. Or maybe Congress didn't forget but rather chose to ignore them.


Of course the U.S. government has hardly ever taken Native American concerns seriously, so it would be a surprise if that happened now, but Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) Tribal President Scott said his nation has yet to be properly consulted on the project, which would cross through tribal land. Concerns brought to the Department of Interior and to the Department of State have yet to be addressed, he said in a statement. http://summitcountyvoice.com/... (http://summitcountyvoice.com/2014/11/15/environment-south-dakota-native-americans-describe-house-vote-on-keystone-xl-pipeline-as-an-act-of-war/) Congress apparently also neglected to consider possible legal issues like, I don't know, maybe a treaty or two.


The proposed route of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline crosses directly through Great Sioux Nation (Oceti Sakowin) Treaty lands as defined by both the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties and within the current exterior boundaries of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation and Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. Tribal president Scott articulated the position of his people quite clearly.

“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren,” Scott said. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people,” he said . Oh, snap!
But wait! The borders of a sovereign nation have never really been an impediment to the ambitions of oil companies and their bought and paid for U.S. government representatives. Until, perhaps, now. This seems like a problem that won't be going away anytime soon. It gives President Obama all the more moral and legal authority to veto the project if and when it is approved by both houses. And if there happen to be enough turncoat Democrats to override a veto then surely the issue will be taken up in court, probably all the way to the SCOTUS, where it would be hard to imagine Roberts wanting to soil his legacy any further by breaking a treaty with a sovereign nation. I can't wait to see how this all plays out.
I end this diary with the words of the Sicangu Lakota Oyate Tribal President Scott of the Great Sioux Nation.


“The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land. We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future.”


So, once again, the United States government has completely ignored treaties previously made with an American Indian tribe, and is now willingly violating the tribal sovereignty of the Lakota nation by building Keystone pipeline right through the middle of the Lakota reservation.

Imperialism: shedding blood from sea to shining sea since 1492.

Sinister Intents
18th November 2014, 21:26
Hopefully this leads to a domino effect of efforts against the state

Sasha
18th November 2014, 23:33
Considering the example set by Canadian native people set in resistance against similar projects that could become interesting. I hope as broad coalitions can be formed as in the idle no more campaign.

Sasha
19th November 2014, 00:12
the bill was just defeated in the senate, so they at least have to wait till next congress to try again...

The Intransigent Faction
19th November 2014, 22:15
the bill was just defeated in the senate, so they at least have to wait till next congress to try again...

I never would have expected that.

Slavic
20th November 2014, 01:40
I never would have expected that.

The bill received the majority vote 59-41, but the Democrat minority threatened to filibuster and Obama was posturing to veto the bill if it made it out of congress.

A 60 vote majority is required to block filibusters and to override a veto.

Illegalitarian
20th November 2014, 01:51
Reformism can pull through, sometimes. Good stuff

John Nada
20th November 2014, 08:10
I'd hate to bust everyone's bubble, but I'm not sure if the bill failed because of concern for the public. The US government doesn't do shit unless someone's making money of it. Activist may have helped, but oil prices have dropped a lot. It might not have been as profitable as it would have once been. At least something good came out of that. Hence my thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/falling-rate-oil-t191108/index.html

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages
20th November 2014, 14:49
The bill failed for partisan reasons. This is the lame duck session, the bill will pass when all the newly elected republicans take office (and then be vetoed by Obama probably). The democratic party line is that this is an executive decision for Obama to make not congress, the democrat who introduced the bill is trying to win a runoff in Louisiana which is where most of the jobs from this project will be created. So just politics as usual, nothing to feel good about.

The Intransigent Faction
21st November 2014, 00:09
I'd hate to bust everyone's bubble, but I'm not sure if the bill failed because of concern for the public. The US government doesn't do shit unless someone's making money of it. Activist may have helped, but oil prices have dropped a lot. It might not have been as profitable as it would have once been. At least something good came out of that. Hence my thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/falling-rate-oil-t191108/index.html

Yeah, that was my first thought. It seems like it still would be profitable overall, but the price drop means it would be somewhat less so.

It's easy to take it at face value that this is a success for reformism, but the moment the state suddenly claims to be doing something for benevolent reasons in spite of the overall pattern of disregard for the environment, there's a subtext they're obscuring one way or another. It has to do with ruling-class interests, not some Senators waking up one morning and suddenly caring about the harmful environmental effects of oil as a problem in itself.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
21st November 2014, 22:39
Democrats are often in a catch 22 on these kinds of issues. They maintain liberal support by suggesting that they are the means of preventing unwanted developments like Keystone XL or large military invasions, yet they also represent the same institutions which depend on these kinds of developments.