Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote on Keystone Pipeline XL an "Act of War"

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I worked on the Keystone project for 2.5 years or so. The part I worked on was never completed all the way to Texas, but we surveyed where it was going to go.

A 2,000 mile long pipeline thats 3.5 feet across filled with the most dirty Bitumen filled crude that runs under multiple rivers, streams, canals, wetlands and cow pastures is a bad idea. I think the real reason the that part of the project was pulled was a money thing. Still, Imminent domain will be used on the indians and they can protest about it all they want.

I've been to landowners properties to survey for Keystone and been threatened with bodily harm a few times. Most people are happy to make some money for their land but some talk about how they will "stop the pipeline coming through". They never do though in the end the pipeline comes through and hey get nothing anyway.

It will be the same with the indians.

This will be interesting to see where this goes....my fathers side of our family has a small amount of " Abenaki " in our bloodline ...I still have some beautiful old baskets that were hand woven along time ago. ....I feel for the Sioux .

Wounded Knee Pt 2? The Sioux vs Big oil?
I believe they will back up their claim with force.
Tribal pronouncements of this nature are very serious.
Actually, as an opponent of the pipeline myself I'm glad to see this.
I doubt it will get the attention Ferguson has but it deserves as much and more.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

But at least you are aware of what kind of toxic mess is going to be pumped through as well as the um, I won't say potential because it's not the right word - inevitability of leaks happening and the destruction of surface waters and underground aquifers. Once done those waters will be unfit for any life for many years, some underground sources ruined for thousands of years.

Is it worth it? No. Very few jobs will be created from it and the income will go straight to the pockets of those already burdened with too much money. The people and nature are the big losers in this equation.

Two things:

- If their main objection is the alarmist worry that the pipeline will sign their "death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren," then they're obviously not thinking rationally, and

- If the gov't tries to force them to accept the pipeline through their land, that would be a pretty piss-poor decision.

The problem lies in the "sovereignty" of the NA's lands--it's not full sovereignty, as if it were a completely separate nation, so there are certain things that they would have to accept the federal government doing on their land, even if they don't like it. From what I understand, they are treated more of less like a state, and the 10th Amendment applies to them as much as it does to Texas or Maine. So, I don't really think that the federal government has the authority to force them to accept the pipeline, but I would wonder if it's the same as the federal government declaring areas of states as national parks--can it be as simple as the Feds coming in and saying they declare the area needed for the pipeline as the Keystone National Park?

I don't know...I'm interested to learn, though, but too apathetic at the moment to seek out the answer. Anyone know?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

East fix to this...destroy the pipeline....

Won't be surprised if the Native Americans get screwed here.

What I am surprised about is that they successfully sued the Federal government previously.

I personally hope the pipeline isn't approved because it will force the price of oil even lower and mess with my oil stocks...

originally posted by: Jomina

originally posted by: skunkape23

originally posted by: solarstorm

originally posted by: skunkape23
It is a mistake to underestimate the warrior spirit of the Red Man.
Just because they have refrained from battle for some time, and wisely so, does not mean they are a bunch of push overs.

Ya watch...money talks and the Red Man will walk...count on it!

You may be right. I'll put 20 to 1 and a bottle of whiskey on it. Want to bet?

You didn't just make a "drunk Indian" stereotype remark, did you? Just making sure... the wording was a bit strange.




Want to know an Indian's take on it all (I am one, BTW)?

This is a wonderful way for you guys to be celebrating "Thanksgiving."

Great timing, America.

If I did, I was stereotyping myself...I have a grandparent on both sides of the family that is Native American.
Florida Choctaw and Tennessee Cherokee. Throw some Irish in the mix and, well...let's just say there may be something to the stereotypes. I wasn't trying to be offensive.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Still, Imminent domain will be used on the indians and they can protest about it all they want.

Imminent domain only works on American land. This is Sioux land and does not have to follow the laws of America so if they don't want the pipeline then they don't have to accept it.

a reply to: buster2010

Not in S. Dakota at least.

They can always find a reason. Never has stopped people before.

If owners do not accept Washington’s offer (expected to be a meager one), the land can be acquired at no cost because the measure has waived all appraisal rights and stipulates that Washington can simply take Indian land by force under ‘eminent domain’.

canadafreepress.com...

Look into the term "Indian giver". Some think it's a slur against American Indians, but it's a reference to the white's ability to uphold treaties.

Maybe they should rise up once and for all and settle the old scores. Do it all the way though. Don't show up with five guys in three pick up trucks and then sue for $20 million when it goes south.

Don't back peddle and say it's a fight you can't win either. The way of the warrior demands fighting all fights. Easy, hard, or impossible, anything less makes you a coward. Especially if "the lives of your children and grandchildren" are at stake.

I would support them in their cause. Not because they are Indians, not because I am against the pipeline, and not because I think they are in the right about all that they say. I would support them with blood, sweat, and tears because I believe Imminent Domain is unjust no matter who it is used against. It is simply wrong on every level to take by force what is not yours. That and that alone is reason enough to stand behind these people. Regardless of politics or race their cause is just. Everything else is simply trappings and theater.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
I hope it is political posturing but I"m not sure.

Why in the world would you hope it's just posturing? I hope they don't back down.

If this became an actual conflict, the people who would join their cause are countless. Not only would unaffiliated tribes join the cause but we are a nation filled with native blood and many of us know where our roots truly lay. And any person with an ounce of morality would know what's right and what's wrong.

It's the real American way.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Thanks for chiming in. Maybe you can shed some insight on a question I've got. I was looking at the map on the TransCanada Corporation site last night (located here--transcanada.com...#) and noted that there was already a completely Keystone oil pipeline that runs just North of the Texas border. The proposed Keystone XL is basically a diagonal shortcut from Alberta to the Keystone pipeline already in existence. If they already have a massive pipeline cutting the US in half, why build another?

I am actually very not thrilled with the use of this as a case of "imminent domain". Imminent domain is typically applied when there is an express and clear pubic purpose. So expanding a roadway, a military base and etc all would fall under proper use of imminent domain. My family business actually had to shut down a site of operation due to imminent domain taking half of the property to expand a road. I'm fine with that as I drive down that road a lot and it needed expanded. Badly.

However, for Keystone XL, it doesn't seem to have a direct and immediate benefit for the public. The claim is lowering gas prices but really that still is not the equivalent of seizing land to expand a road. One has an immediate and direct affect. The other is without guarantee and quite frankly, knowing the oil industry like I do, I seriously doubt they're going to be dropping gas prices in any meaningful amount to do this. I don't even see how it is in the US government's interest to utilize imminent domain to push through what is essentially a business matter. TransCanada is a corporation and they will own the pipeline--not the US. If they can't get people to sell their land to them or the use of it, then that's too bad. It's called doing business. Sometimes one doesn't get their way and one can't go crying and running to Congress about it to force the hand of many landowners and sovereign tribes.

a reply to: Cuervo

Because I have a kid who is half Nat Am and I'd rather not have war break out between the tribes and the US government? You do know, of course, what happens during wartime to American citizens who may not be participants? I really don't want my youngest interred.

I'd want it to be useful political posturing. I don't want the tribe to be doing this because they can make a buck out of it. I don't want Keystone XL crossing through their lands and I want their sovereignty respected. Reminding the US government, however, that they can declare war because they do have partial sovereignty is an excellent way of reminding the same aforementioned government that the tribes should not be trifled with.

Unless they want possible war zones cropping up across the US. I don't think anybody wants that.

Food for thought links:

Fort Sumner at Bosque Redondo
Trail of Tears
Japanese American Internment Camps

Why is the keystone pipeline so important for republicans? It will create a lot of temporary jobs, but not that many long term jobs. Back in Obama's early presidency I heard republicans talking about the jobs it would create and how it would help us be more energy independent from the middle east, but we already have that with the pipeline in place.

The oil companies want this pipeline to connect to ports to ship overseas for profit, at great risk to our environment.

With more groups opposed to our federal government Tea Party, Occupy Wall street, Bundy ranch, Ferguson, now a potential Indian uprising seems that conditions are ripe for a general uprising of the people. Now the patriot act that is a group of laws claimed to protect us from terrorist is really a group of laws based on putting down a popular uprising of the people, makes me wonder if this was the republican plan all along?

Why is this such a issue and important for republicans? Where supposedly in a boom for natural gas, but have you seen your utility bills decline or go up? I have to assume the entire republican party is doing the bidding of the oil industry because they have been paid to do so.

How dare the people speak out against things that doesn't benefit them!! WTG my Sioux brothers and sisters stand up against the group that will attack, marginalize, and destroy your way of life for profits for the few!

a reply to: WhiteAlice

That's just the thing, though: a literal war wouldn't break out. The government couldn't risk that. They may push and try their dirty tricks but if people stood up and fought, there's no way our government would gain any leverage and would know it would turn into a laughing stock on the world stage for the ultimate finale of pure hypocrisy.

We live in an age where another Ruby Ridge or Wounded Knee could not happen. If it did, the UN would respond as well as several other nations... not to mention most of our citizens. Social media has given people immense amounts of power against governments and it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to do things that just completely fly in the face of ethics and morality.

So no, I don't want a war anymore than you do but I just don't see that as a possibility. Instead, if people resolve to fight a war, the government will have no choice but to cave. I believe the same would happen if any state tried to forcefully demand secession from the union in this age.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Thanks for chiming in. Maybe you can shed some insight on a question I've got. I was looking at the map on the TransCanada Corporation site last night (located here--transcanada.com...#) and noted that there was already a completely Keystone oil pipeline that runs just North of the Texas border. The proposed Keystone XL is basically a diagonal shortcut from Alberta to the Keystone pipeline already in existence. If they already have a massive pipeline cutting the US in half, why build another?

The original Keystone pipeline took the path that it did because of the 864 km section (Canada) that was a conversion of an existing pipeline (Canadian Mainline NG). Since Keystone XL will be a new pipe, they are trying to run in the most efficient path, which is as straight as possible.

As for why a new pipeline? Pipes can only carry so much. The current requests are for far more than the existing can carry. The solution is a new pipe or alternative shipping methods.

a reply to: Cuervo

I actually do agree with what you're saying. If the US government went in and used military force against the tribes, there would be a pretty significant outcry both within the US and without.

Ruby Ridge? I might be mistaken but I think you meant Pine Ridge as Ruby Ridge involved Aryan extremists, didn't it?

Aside from that, yes, you'd think that but at the same time, we also know that the media is really good at driving the hate machine. That's exactly what was used in the Great Sioux War to paint the Sioux as being "hostile savages" instead of depicting them as a people who were simply defending their lands from invasion. Propaganda is very powerful and very real stuff. I do think that there is going to be a sizable enough presence on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation to make the government really consider their actions.

The UN has spoken up against us a few times in the past about what goes on within our borders and it didn't do much. I would hope that most Americans would find this to be inappropriate to do but honestly, I'm not so sure. Either they don't know, argue that it's going to make for cheaper gas, or are just concerned on how it'll affect them. Pretty depressing.

a reply to: peck420

Thanks, peck420. Makes more sense to me now why they are looking to build it. However, this shouldn't be the US government's business. TransCanada needs to either find an amenable route or pay up enough to make it so that people are amenable to this kind of usage of their private property instead of trying to force people's hands. As it is, it'd be like telling people in a neighborhood that they have to move because imminent domain demands that a new shopping mall be put in.

originally posted by: skunkape23
It is a mistake to underestimate the warrior spirit of the Red Man.
Just because they have refrained from battle for some time, and wisely so, does not mean they are a bunch of push overs.

that's because they haven't been taken on by the right-wing...just wait, they will make the native Americans into the new jihadist, communist, Nazi, socialist, terrorist of America....and of course, people will believe it after endless hours of play on FOX NEWS, Limbaugh, and others.