Native American Tribe Says Oregon Armed Occupiers Desecrating Land

a reply to: Domo1

Expound on that for me. How are people from out of the area (the ones being a pain in the ass) being affected, why are they trying to use two people that want nothing to do with them as martyrs, and what does this have to do with the little slice of land they've taken over?

I do agree that it's strange that the militia is taking the stance they are without the support of the Hammonds. I think that Ammon bundy is using this latest case of BLM overreach to bring public attention to not only the Oregon issue but the issues that ranchers and miners are facing in many different areas. This is why the 2nd amendment was created, not for violence, but as an equalizer.

a reply to: MystikMushroom
Indian people who still depend on the feds for their very livelihood, health care, housing and education are not going to stand against the feds. Nothing has changed since the modern day Wounded Knee incident. Corruption has free reign and the recipients of the feds' crumbs aren't going to rock the boat. It is called biting the hand that feeds you and the majority of people in this world will NOT do it.
These men are attempting to draw attention to the horrid injustice being done to two good men. Now maybe it isn't the way you or I would chose to get the media's attention but they are speaking the truth---which is more than can be said for the msm.
As I said in another thread, if you haven't personally dealt with the agencies and seen them in action, you can't even begin to imagine how they operate. They have the complete resources of the federal government at their beck. No individual (except possibly Gates) or even group of individuals can stand against that onslaught. When they want to depict you in a bad light, they will search until they find something----even if they have to go back to your high school (confidential) records to do so.
Why do I say this? Because I have firsthand experience. Twenty years after I was kicked out of high school (for three days) because I was wearing a black arm band on Vietnam Moratorium Day, a federal employee involved in one of these land grabs brought it up as a sign that I had always been "anti-government." That was the "dirt" he could dig up on me. The worst thing the other employee could say was that I was a "radical Constitutionalist." These were the things they used to attempt to discredit the information I had brought forth in a public meeting. Information that proved that they were breaking federal law.
Demonize the opposition is the watchword of the day. Threaten those that might on the fence. Send the media out to interview people to see who is a good boy or girl and who isn't bending over quickly enough.
While this might not be the way I would go about it, these men are saying things that need saying and I think it's time to put politics on a back burner and stand together on the things upon which we can agree. If we see injustice we must do whatever we can to seek a remedy. If we fail to do that---quite simply, we fail and the nation fails.

I was only a few days past my sixth birthday when I watched John Kennedy take the oath of office and give the speech in which he said:

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.

Two good men who are no threat to society and assets to their community are now confined and costing taxpayers' money for housing, food, clothing and health care in a federal "corrections" facility. It just might be lawful but there is nothing just or right about it. They are serving time for obeying their natural instincts to protect themselves from fire and being successful.
One of our most famous founding documents makes clear that our nation's citizens have an unalienable right to life. Any law that prohibits me a means of protecting life is unconstitutional. Any regulation used to prohibit me a means of self protection is unconstitutional.
But when the BLM decides to make an example of a resister to their demands, isn't it convenient that he happens to live in what was once one of the richest counties in Oregon but now is one of the poorest? Where the primary income in most households is from one government agency or another because government regulations have left them with only the service of others as their "industry."
Take a look at the county census facts. quickfacts.census.gov...
The median income hovers right about the poverty line. Eighteen percent of the population live below the poverty level. The feds know these people can't fight back.... The Indians know that even if you win the court battle, the feds will still do as they please.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'm kicking them, too. I could be running the local extension gulag of the Kremlin right now instead of pondering how low the price of oil is going to go.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: MystikMushroom
Are you of European ancestry?

I was asking because you used the Racist term "white European". But none of those occupying the building and the land have probably never stepped foot in Europe.

What if we did this in England or Europe. What if we said, "this land (any country in Northern Europe or the British Isles) belonged to the "so and so Tribe" long before those Romans came north and took the land away from them. Rome should pay money to those tribes because they took the land away, and they should restore the land to those tribes. What if those tribes in Europe started demanding Romans go home and give the land back to them.

Yet I never hear that about the practice of taking land away and pay retribution except when it comes to the United States. I don't even hear anyone saying it to France for taking the land away from the natives in Canada. Or the Spanish for taking away the land in Central or South America, or the British for colonizing Australia or New Zealand. Only about those White Europeans who took the land away from the Natives in the United States of America.

Never hear it about the Musims who took away the land from the natives in Indonesia and colonized those tribal lands and wiped out many tribes there or in Sabah Malaysia? No only about white Europeans taking away the lands of the United States form the Natives.

There must be some kind of agenda behind statements like that.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This whole thing thing is getting zanier and weirder by the minute. What does ATS think about this latest development? Should these guys listen to the Native Americans?

Why should they? Right Wing Conservatives consider Native Americans a conquered people. Thus SOL....Take your casino money, stay on the Rez and stfu.

Thanks for telling me what I think !

You know being half Comanche, and a right wing conservative
I'm sure my grandfather on my mothers side full blood Comanche, and also a conservative would love to be told what he thinks too

The left really needs to get over their bigoted white washing

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: tothetenthpower

These guys are a bunch of idiots. They are either going to leave peacefully, after nothing gets accomplished, or it's going to be another WACO.

Were you as outraged when the BLM stole the land from the people, why is it so crazy that they want the land to benefit the people and not big business?

They want to give the land to loggers, ranchers and miners. That's not big business?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I have some native American in me a few generations back, not enough to qualify for benefits though.

a reply to: DelMarvel
They want to give the land to the states, the constitutional custodian of public lands other than the federal lands allowed by the constitution, mostly military-related installations.
IF there is to be land held by the public, the "commons" of the colonial era, the proper owner of that property is state or local government.
Making one set of rules for an entire country as geographically, economically, and ecologically diverse as the US is simply an exercise in futility. Holding the states accountable is far easier than holding DC accountable.

There are jobs to be had in logging, ranching and mining. Jobs mean an improved economy. If the state is over-seeing the distribution of the resources, it is far easier to make needed changes at the state and local level. State senators don't have bottomless war chests as a rule. Federal representatives do.
Ranching provides food and clothing. Logging and mining provide construction materials. If ever there was a place that could use some construction jobs, this county would be it. In 2014 there were only two building permits issued in the entire county!

Ranching is certainly not wholly-controlled by BigAg---but they're in there attempting to gain control every day, using the feds as their weapons. It takes a certain level of corporate financial assets to mine for minerals responsibly so there certainly will be large corporate interests in that industry. Logging doesn't necessarily involve transnational corporations, it can certainly be done most efficiently by accessing the local, available, trained labor force.

Nobody is desecrating anything by being in the buildings and parking lot. If the BLM followed federal law when they build that facility or when any change to the landscape was made, they did extensive archaeological surveys to determine if that area contained an occupation site. If they found one, and followed federal law, they excavated the site and reported it.
If the protesters are desecrating the site, the BLM employees are guilty of same each day.

a reply to: diggindirt

Why should we turn over vast national resources to a small group of people in the west? How is that fair to the rest of us?

Anyone with half a clue can see this would result in a small handful of individuals and corporations profiting from exploiting the resources and the rest of us would no doubt have to pick up the tab in the end anyway.

a reply to: diggindirt

by what I have read, the proof that it was an occupation site is contained within that building in the form of documents and possibly artifacts. there's a giant national forest a little further north of that site, if they want to cut trees, mine, raise cattle whatever, maybe they can find a site in there to occupy and claim as their own that isn't an archeological site.

The native americans were removed from lands that the settlers thought were the most profitable and located to lands that they could barely live on. now that we are starting to see value in those lands, we want them also.

there are certain areas of this country that different tribes hold dear to their hearts, they view them as being sacred. if we can accept the idea that the palestinian lands are Isreal's based on bibical texts and artifacts that are thousands of years old so much that we spend tons of money year after years preserving their right to be there, then we should be just as accepting that these tribes don't want these particular swaths of lands destroyed for profits... we are spending way more money preserving Isreal's right to occupy palistinian lands that we lose by leaving these lands alone!!!

a reply to: MystikMushroom Fortunately for Bundy, et al., it's Paiute grounds and not Comanche or they'd be staked out over a few ant hills. It seems that none of the locals want these guys around and that alone should be enough to have them go. I think that they'll stay for a while longer, claim victory, and march off pretending to be heroes of some sort.

www.fws.gov...

it seems that they have quite a bit of knowledge about who inhabited this land going back over 9000 years. and it was established as a refuge in 1908 because well, the bird population was being decimated by hunters wanting their feathers, making a profit!! The tribe still is allowed onto this land to gather various plants that they use.

so, well.... no white man, has been evicted from this land in our lifetime. no living white man has lost their source of income from losing this land. So why are they occupying this land??

Of course the natives are going to side with the government. It's where all their free stuff comes from!

a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace

of course they're gonna side with the gov't on this....
at least while the gov't holds the land, they have a better chance of getting it back, and well it's left as a wilderness refuge instead of being raped for profits!!!

but, tell me, just what claim does anyone in the bundy clan have on this particular piece of land?? can anyone in it's ranks even claim to be a descendant of someone who claimed this land the short time it was not being inhabited by the tribe or being protected as a wilderness refuge? which if my memory is right and my facts are correct, maybe a whopping 50 years or so>

If it was the mohawks claiming this land, I'd just about guarentee there would have been violence by now.

Holy # on a sandwich! I can't believe some of the comments on here. The ones that get me the most are the ones about Indians getting all the "free stuff". Go visit a reservation or do some research. If you think they've got it so good, why don't you look up the high infant mortality rates, crushing poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, broken families, and high suicide rates. Yeah, things are just groovy in Indian country.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: tothetenthpower

These guys are a bunch of idiots. They are either going to leave peacefully, after nothing gets accomplished, or it's going to be another WACO.

Were you as outraged when the BLM stole the land from the people, why is it so crazy that they want the land to benefit the people and not big business?

They want to give the land to loggers, ranchers and miners. That's not big business?

The government is the epitome of big business!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

If anyone deserves to have the land reclaimed from the USGOV it is the Tribal community. Period, this charade has gone on long enough for these guys to know when they have been defeated. They have zero backing from anyone.

They need to slink off and go lick their wounds because this is not a fight, it is a fiasco!

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: MystikMushroom

This whole thing thing is getting zanier and weirder by the minute. What does ATS think about this latest development? Should these guys listen to the Native Americans?

Why should they? Right Wing Conservatives consider Native Americans a conquered people. Thus SOL....

How do you know that those who are standing up for their rights are all right wingers? Democrats used to think "negro's" were second class humanoids, so do you really want to be ignorant enough to make it left versus right, when regardless of political party a point in time comes where some decide to hold their government to the law they are supposed to represent?

Which rights do you think they are standing up for? The rights of two men (who want nothing to do with this group by the way) who's previous conviction was subject to an appeal that the sentence was too lenient and the appeal was successful? I think that was due legal process.

a reply to: dawnstar
Take your complaints about Israel to the appropriate thread or to feds. This conversation is about the US federal government and their tactics to run ranchers off the land or incarcerate them for daring to save their lives and livelihood.

If there is a building on the site, it has already been "desecrated" by building activities. You can't build a modern building without wiping out the site. Any construction on federal lands or using federal funds requires an archaeological survey and mitigation of any sites discovered by the survey.

How exactly is simply occupying the building a desecration? Have you seen anyone destroying anything? This claim is as silly as the initial reports of "armed, violent takeover" of the talking heads on tv. There are more media folk there than protesters!