Oil and Water Don’t Mix: Why the ACLU Is Standing Up for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

On December 4, the Army Corps of Engineers did the right thing by refusing to give Energy Transfer Partners permission to build a portion of the nearly 1,200-mile-long Dakota Access Pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The corps’ decision to perform an environmental impact assessment and explore alternative routes for the pipeline fulfilled the U.S.'s treaty obligations with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which vigorously protested the pipeline out of a credible fear that it could rupture and destroy its water supply, as well as acted in accordance with this nation's environmental protection laws. It was a big win for the tribe and its supporters.

But it didn’t last long.

Days after President Trump took office, he issued a memorandum and an executive order asking the corps to expedite its consideration of the company’s application for an easement to start construction. Soon after, the corps withdrew its call for the environmental study, and Energy Transfer Partners began drilling the next day. The reversal was a slap in the face of the tribe and its treaty rights with the United States. Quickly, the Standing Rock Sioux asked the courts to intervene and stop the pipeline so its impact on the environment could be assessed.

The courts are now the Standing Rock Sioux’s last hope to get the pipeline routed around its land.

That’s why this week the ACLU signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief with 34 Indian tribes and other organizations in support of a case filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in federal court against the Army Corps of Engineers. The tribe’s lawsuit seeks to halt further drilling and construction of the pipeline until the corps conducts a proper environmental impact statement consistent with federal statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the federal government’s responsibility to protect the tribe’s rights and sovereignty under the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. 

The federal government has once again betrayed the Standing Rock Sioux.

As outlined in our brief, the pipeline should be halted immediately consistent with the Standing Rock Sioux’s treaty rights as well as to prevent, for good, any chance a pipeline leak or rupture could despoil the tribe’s land and water. Energy Transfer Partners, however, claims that the chance of a rupture in the river is low, but there are three responses to that claim.

First, the chance of a rupture isn’t that low. In July 2015, the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force issued a comprehensive report of pipeline failures. The study found “hundreds” of pipeline ruptures “that have occurred throughout the U.S. pipeline system.”

The report cites many examples of ruptures over the last few years. In May 2015, a pipeline failed off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, releasing 105,000 gallons of oil into the Pacific Ocean. A few months earlier, another pipeline spill released 42,000 gallons of oil underneath the Yellowstone River. Two years earlier, a pipeline ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas, releasing 134,000 gallons. In July 2010, a pipeline break released 840,000 gallons of oil, fouling 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

Second, the possibility of a rupture — whether low or not — must be considered together with the consequences of a rupture.  Even a “moderate” release of oil into the Missouri River would have profound and devastating consequences, a subject that the company’s press releases ignore.

Lastly, it is fair to ask: Who would suffer the most by a rupture? The immediate victims of a rupture of the pipeline would be the members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, now that the pipeline has been moved into their watershed. But the degradation of the water would also impact some 18 million people downstream who depend on water from the Missouri River.

Since 1974, it’s been the ACLU’s national policy to support Native Americans’ right to a tribal land base and its natural resources as well as support tribes who press their treaty rights with the U.S. government. Under treaties the Standing Rock Sioux made with the U.S. government as well as under federal statutes, the tribe has the right to protect its land, its heritage, and its water from contamination by a possible pipeline rupture. The treatment of the Standing Rock Sioux by Energy Transfer Partners and all levels of government compel us to help the tribe as they fight to stop the pipeline construction from proceeding so that a simple environmental impact assessment can be conducted.

The federal government has once again betrayed the Standing Rock Sioux and made a mockery of its obligations to the tribe while jeopardizing the drinking water of over 18 million Americans. We hope our brief helps convince the courts that a great injustice is taking place on federal land just north of the Standing Rock Sioux’s territory and that it should be stopped immediately.

Stephen L. Pevar’s book, “The Rights of Indians and Tribes” (Oxford 2012), is available here.
 

View comments (67)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

During WW2, the Chinese lost 19 to 40 million people. USSR lost 20 + million. Yet we hear most about estimated 6 million Jewish Holocaust deaths when other ethnic groups lost as many or more. All wars are about exterminating enemies until 1 gets what they want be it land, water, etc. During WW2, we bombed German, Italian & Japanese cities believing they would surrender. The 3 year old German, Italian & Japanese kids are innocent even if parents were guilty. The side with the better weapons & military strategies wins the war. If Germany, Italy & Japan had the atom bombs, they would have used them against us & we’d possibly still be dealing with them today.

My view always will be that the atom bombs should have been dropped in other places in Japan with fewer civilians death but admit that there is no guarantee there would be surrender. There are only wrong and bad choices which President Harry S. Truman had. There was no guarantee that Japan would surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they had not surrendered after Tokyo and other cities were bombed with so many civilian deaths. If it goes to an invasion, many more civilians get killed and Japanese would have used women and children soldiers. Japanese boys would fly planes in kamikaze missions. In Okinawa, families committed suicide such as Japanese women with their children would jump off of cliffs to their deaths.

zaPHod242

It's horrifying to read some if the above comments as it shows how unreflected some people here are. Without any empathy they talk about things they claim happened 130 years ago. So the drama of boarding schools, when the Children were taken away from their parents and got abused and sometimes beaten to death, the prohibition of their language, their religion and culture.. the sterilizations without consent, the wrongful arrests by police force to this day as we have seen on many videos covering Standing Rock. One could go on and on but these people do not understand what that means. These people only care for themselves and ask natives to man up while they claim they won a war and it's all theirs. Well may I remind you of the genocide you caused and the deaths if millions... that was no war. That was the same thing that the Germans did to the Jews but thanks god they lost the war... these horrible jews killing people. Well maybe the US should have lost the genocide described as war in order to create people who know what decency is. These people think they brought a better culture to these heathens, instead they brought greed, bigotry and selfishness. It's all indian land, these people live on stolen property made possible by genocide. There is nothing to be proud of, or do you think the germans should be proud killing 6 million jews? And making laws in order to take the last bit of land from them is not honorable. But these stupid people will see that after they come for the minorities for oil money and else, they will come for them and their children maybe for water.... and then there will be noone to have their back. This Ignorance is sad and speaks for better ethics education system. Idea if the day: maybe these people should man up and their wives should be sterilized without consent in order to prevent them from raising children as stupid and empathyless as they are? Just sayin. And as it us clear now, the culuture of the anerican indian maybe not state of the art the last hundred years but their culture is state of the art now and for the future... if we don't want to destroy the earth for our children. And to the presebce: denying them equal rights - the same with the black and hispsnic community - is a horrible deed that happens every day. But again people without empathy and ethics values don't care here either as they are not object of these crimes. The law is not every time in favor of the native cause I agree but it's not all against the native people either. So people who have good values should not be a pu**y and man up for justice as the arguments pointed out by some ProDAPL people above are straight out of a Nazi handbook. The native neughbors of the ND people need help becaus when the pipeline breaks or leaks their water resource is contaminated. And most of these people cannot move elsewhere. And why shouln't they? So decent persons should understand the obligation they have... help securing the water resource of the reservation. Then they wouldn't have been bothered by the eco terrorists from all over the world that came in support for standing rock because then there wouldn't have been any need for them to com. And if you think again about the terrorist term and compare the activists mentioned above as eco terrorists - as many ND people call them - with the genocide comitting people of serveral hundred years... I am sure that a not 100 per cent dumb human would see who the real terrorist is or was. That being said quoting laws made to suppress natives and to steal their land without any remorse or understanding is not christian, is not intelligent ... and us a life that has only one purpose to serve itself... and hereby is worth nothing, not to a native community, not to a white community, not to any community. But thank god there are others out there as I have seen in the comments and I salute you!

Anonymous

Did Holocaust happen because of Holodomor ? Among the millions who were starved & worked to death in Soviet Gulags in Holodomor, this includes thousands of Germans living in USSR. Adolf Hitler, Goebbels used words like eye for eye & tooth for tooth. 1 could say that Hitler went with view that since Commie Jews sent Aryans, etc. to starvation deaths in Soviet Gulags, that Nazis would put millions of Jews in concentration camps & ghettos where they were starved & worked to death such as building Trans Saharan railroad (Africa campaign), the same way as Volga Germans in 1930s were starved & worked to death working on Trans Siberian railway. Soviet Gulag eg. would be Dubno, Kolyma & Krasnogorsk .

Yes, Jews were a group involved in committing Soviet Holocaust called Holodomor 10 years before Nazi Holocaust. Nazi Holocaust was wrong as it’s wrong to send millions of people to death in ghettos & concentration camps. Only saying that Jews were not always innocent & Nazis believed they committed Holocaust because of Holodomor.

During lebensborn, Heinrich Lutipold Himmler pushed things such as Nazis taking Czech children, Polish children during war and having them raised by German families-Germanized. Don’t believe Adolf Hitler approved of this since Poles, Czechs, etc. would be Slavs and do not believe Adolf Hitler would want Germans to raise Slav children as Slavs would be Untermensch, so think this part of Lebensborn was done without Hitler’s approval but by Himmler.

Anonymous

With history, it’s best to read history as a juror. I think it’s best that US Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, etc. ask visitors what do they think happened or do you believe all that I’m telling you? If a person visits Holocaust Museum in Washington DC & they have a different conclusion to what the Holocaust Museum said, then find out why they think this. Usually I have found that most people who have different conclusions about what the Holocaust was usually are shy as they don’t want to be called neo-Nazi.

What I wonder with Holocaust is how many people say they agree with eg. all of US Holocaust Museum’s conclusions because they believe this & how many don’t agree with all of US Holocaust Museum’s conclusions but don’t talk because they don’t want to be condemned as Nazis? I believe only a few were killed by gassing & it’s more common for Nazi soldiers to have raped Jewess & Gypsy women in the ghettos & concentration camps which is bad by itself.

I read Prof RJ Evans book 3d Reich @ war for second time & my thoughts. I agree with most of what Prof. RJ Evans says when he talks about Adolf Hitler wanting lebensraum or living room & Nazi Germany’s invasions of Poland, former Yugoslavia & USSR were to do things for Germany’s interests @ expense of Slavs. Germans would settle in these places, Slavs would have limited education & do things for German’s interests. Adolf Hitler knew many would die in WW2 & he didn’t care if Slavs starved to death, etc.

With did Nazi Germany have plans to exterminate Jews, Prof. RJ Evans in book among other things talks of radio broadcasts given by Adolf Hitler, Paul J. Goebbells diary, along with Henrich Luitpold Himmler’s comments where they talk of Jewish deaths, so Adolf Hitler along with many Germans would have known about Nazi soldiers Wehrmacht, Einsatzgruppen, German militias & in some cases Ukrainians & others shooting and killing Jewish men, women & kids on Eastern Front.

Adolf Hitler made no secret about fact that many Jews would die in concentration camps & ghettos because if you put millions of people in camps, don’t give enough food, H20, etc. many die. Prof. RJ Evans is right that Nazis believed Gypsies, Slavs, Jews, etc. were subhumans & that highest ethnic groups were Germans and Scandinavians. January 23, 1942, Hitler told his associates: The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans restrict myself to telling them they must go away. If they break their pipes on the journey, I can’t do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination. Hitler added: A good three or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They return first of all as commercial travelers, then gradually they become emboldened to settle here the better to exploit.

While the Wannsee Conference was written in codes and codes such as resettlement and reservation were made instead of extermination, in this speech, Hitler doesn’t talk in codes and admits an exterminating war. But it sounds here to be exterminate if they refuse to leave but not exterminate no matter what. Hitler’s view would be that if let’s say the Jews & Gypsies lived in India (Gypsies originally are from India) that he wouldn’t care, but that they would be exterminated if they refused to leave places of Nazi power. An exterminating war, but I don’t think it’s exterminate no matter what.

Adolf Hitler refused to use nerve gases such as Sarin, Tabun and Soman which are deadlier than Zyklon B and carbon monoxide. Now do I think Nazis killed people in gas vans? I believe the Nazis in some cases did kill people in experimental gassings & I can believe the Nazis killed 200 people in gas chambers. But I don’t believe the #s are hundreds of thousands, because Nazis had easier ways to kill people such as starving & working people to death, shootings, beatings & lethal injections. There are hundreds of cases where Nazis killed prisoners in experiments such as cooling, high altitude, malaria & wounds. Sometimes prisoners survived such as seaH20 tests. Nazi Drs. took pictures of these experiments. & the Nazis tried to justify the experiments such as saying the people killed in experiments were Communists.

But there are no photos of Nazis taking pictures of prisoners being gassed which is why I don’t believe hundreds of thousands were killed. Prof. RJ Evans in book says that Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess and Heinrich Luitpold Himmler witnessed people being gassed & that Nazis destroyed gas vans, but it’s odd that they wouldn’t photograph this while photographing experiments & it’s odd Nazis wouldn’t destroy proof of things like experiments. I think the Nazis if anything would try to justify the gassing deaths by saying they killed Commies, Soviet Commisars, etc. in the gas vans and that the Commies were thugs.

Nazi Alois Brunner in 1987 (hiding in Syria) interview said that he did not know of gas vans until he read newspapers after war. Alois Brunner said that he would do it again in that he would send Jews & others to concentration camps & ghettos where many would die of starvation (if you put millions & not enough food many starve to death which is bad by itself), but he didn’t know of gas vans. Alois Brunner believed that Germans were the greatest with Slavs doing things for German interests. Alois Brunner knew again that many Jews would die of starvation deaths in concentration camps & ghettoes. Alois Brunner also knew that Wehrmacht, Einsatzgruppen & their allies shot and killed Jewish men, Jewess women & kids such as Babi Yar. But Alois Brunner said that he didn’t know of gas vans until he read newspapers after war.

Alois Brunner said he’d do it again because he believed that since Soviet Jewish Commie henchmen & henchwomen could send millions of people to starvation deaths in Soviet Gulags like Dubno, Kolyma, Krasnogorsk, then Nazi Germans could put Jews in concentration camps & ghettos where people starve to death & in some cases, people were worked to death. Alois Brunner also knew that German soldiers raped Jewess women.

Professor RJ Evans talks about other things about how Hitler & other Nazis talk of how Germany lost WW1 because of Jews and that it was war against Bolshevik Jews, with Slavs being tools working with Churchill & Roosevelt. Professor RJ Evans didn’t mention this but some Soviet henchmen & henchwomen were Jewish & millions of people were starved & worked to death, killed by shootings, etc. in Soviet Gulags because of Commies such as LM Kaganovitch, GG Yagoda, etc. in 1930s called Holdomor. & some of Lenin’s henchmen such as Leon Davidovich Trotsky were Jewish.

Anonymous

Adolf Hitler’s diet from 1931 onwards was vegetarian. Nazis did pass animal welfare laws which were advanced for it’s time such as Hitler signed law to protect the eagle (Eagle on Swastika is Nazi symbol) and Hitler signed laws which created rules on hunting and Hitler signed laws on fastest way to kill crustaceans. In the end Hitler, his mistress Eva Braun and their dog Blondi all committed suicide.

Adolf Hitler had fascination with these animals. Adolf Hitler fascinated by birds such as ravens, crows & eagles with eagle being national symbol of Germany. Adolf Hitler also had fascination with dogs, wolves, deer & if you look @ German tanks there were Panthers & Tiger tanks. Adolf Hitler & his wife Eva Braun both fascinated with animals & Wagner operas.

Adolf Hitler knew that risk was too high for his dog Blondi to become food for a Soviet soldier, so his mistress Eva Braun and Blondi committed suicide by taking Prussic pill while he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. So it was a mercy killing and 1 could say the dog committed suicide to avoid being food for Soviet soldiers.

Red Army in Germany was killing many people, committing rapes & Soviet soldiers esp. Soviet Mongolians were eating family pets including dogs. Many cases where Germans committed suicide including with their pets because they believed this was lesser evil to having a 10 year old girl raped & murdered by a Soviet soldier and their pets being eaten by Soviet soldiers.

Anonymous

With indoctrination or brainwashing. When things are bad, then it’s easier to brainwash or indoctrinate. The fact Germans living in Poland and Czechoslovakia were mistreated by their Pole and Czech neighbors long before Adolf Hitler was born made it easier for Adolf Hitler and teh Nazis to justify lebensraum greed. It made it easier for Nazis to brainwash or indoctrinate because they exploit the bad things happening to Germans living in Poland and Czechoslovakia to justify invading Poland in 1939 and taking Czechoslovakia by war declaration threat (violating 1938 Munich Agreement with Sudeten).

Germans living in Poland & Czechoslovakia were poorly treated by their Polish & Czech neighbors (Germans sometimes took Polish & Czech names to try to avoid persecution) & in some cases there was violence committed by Poles & Czechs against their German neighbors in Poland & Czechoslovakia. While most Czechs and Poles didn’t commit violence against their German neighbors, Czechs and Poles were likely to think poorly of Germans and while most Czechs and Poles didn’t commit violence against ethnic Germans, they’re more likely to tolerate that. If a Pole or Czech adult abused a 6 year old German girl- many Poles and Czechs would not think much of that or they’d tolerate the abuse. The right thing to have done was boycott Poland and Czechoslovakia, until Poland and Czechoslovakia better treats Germans living there.

Hitler exploited fact that Poles & Czechs mistreated German neighbors to justify his greed. Of course most Germans living in Czechoslovakia & Poland supported Nazis because among other reasons, they no longer wanted to be mistreated by their neighbors. In worst cases, ethnic violence was committed by Poles & Czechs (more so by Poles)against their German neighbors for years. Polish writings from 1848 talked about how Germans are lower than dogs, among other things. If Poles & Czechs better treated their German neighbors, then instead of 95% of Germans living in Poland & Czechoslovakia supporting Nazis, the # would have been less. Hitler would have still invaded, but @least there would’ve been more Germans opposing the Nazis than supporting their invasion.

Anonymous

Julius & Ethel Rosenberg gave atomic or nuclear weapons secrets to Commie USSR & thus we had cold war with former USSR. Other things, it’s not controversial to say that the last time PM Ariel Sharon made love was in 1971 or that Golda Meir was womenopausal (menopausal) when she was PM. It’s also not controversial to say that Menachem Begin was impotent. Yet the Holocaust is a topic where if you say Holocaust isn’t much different from other war atrocities, then controversy.

I don’t want any ethnic group exterminated. There are many talented Jewish people such as Stephen A. Spielberg, those who created Marvel & DC Comics, 3 stooges, Twilight Zone & as posters know I have watched all episodes of Bewitched, I dream of Jeannie, Honeymooners, Twilight Zone & Incredible Hulk-those shows often had Jewish producers & sometimes Jewish actors such as actor who played Abner & Gladys Kravitz on Bewitched, JE Gleason of Honeymooners & Rodman Edward Serling of Twilight Zone. When I was a boy in 1970s & early 1980s, I liked watching Laverne & Shirley along with Happy Days, Jewish & Jewess actors.

I listen to music by Ariana Grande, Meghan Elizabeth Trainor, Lady Gaga, Justin Drew Bieber etc. who often have Jewish music executives. I don’t want Jews exterminated, because then we lose so many talented people. But I don’t think I’m a Nazi because I don’t think Holocaust is much different from other war atrocities & I don’t think I’m a Nazi because I support the Commissar Order. Most people who were killed by the Nazis were not Jewish. I also didn’t say that most Soviet henchmen & henchwomen were Jewish as most of the Soviet henchmen & henchwomen were non-Jewish Slavs & most people who the Nazis killed were Slavs.

With history, it’s best to read history as a juror. I think it’s best that US Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, etc. ask visitors what do they think happened or do you believe all that I’m telling you? If a person visits Holocaust Museum in Washington DC & they have a different conclusion to what the Holocaust Museum said, then find out why they think this. Usually I have found that most people who have different conclusions about what the Holocaust was usually are shy as they don’t want to be called neo-Nazi.

What I wonder with Holocaust is how many people say they agree with eg. all of US Holocaust Museum’s conclusions because they believe this & how many don’t agree with all of US Holocaust Museum’s conclusions but don’t talk because they don’t want to be condemned as Nazis? I believe only a few were killed by gassing & it’s more common for Nazi soldiers to have raped Jewess & Gypsy women in the ghettos & concentration camps which is bad by itself.

Krish

i know this might seem overly basic but, cant it be argued that since they denied it from Bismark because of the possibility of a leak that it might be safe to argue that any humans below the path of the pipeline are also at risk of harm? that not only the Native Americans count but all the millions of people living south of them count just as greatly as Bismark? or is Bismark some kind of God city where it towers over all the human lives in its southern path? Im sorry {not sorry} but if its not good enough for Bismark then it's simply not good enough for any of us.

Anonymous

to say a Native American tribe (for eg. Cherokees) own the entire USA (or the North American continent) is like saying that China owns all of Asia because they're Chinese. American Indian or Native American tribes are distinct. You define let's say Cherokee territory by where they lived, raised their families, buried their dead, hunted for food and waters where they fished.

With was land stolen from Native Americans or American Indians? Wars were used by Whites to take lands from American Indians, only this topic is more complex and complicated. Yes, you have Europeans taking territory from Native Americans who were the original owners, who always had the territory without taking it from other tribes, so that would be stealing from original owners.

In some cases, Europeans took away Native American conquests such as los conquistadores conquest of the Aztecs and Incas would be taking away Native American conquests. Los conquistadores would not be the original owners, only the Aztecs and Incas would also not be the original owners as Aztecs and Incas got their lands conquering other Indian tribes before they were conquered, so that could be called taking American Indian conquests. Of course, the Spanish and Portuguese in conquering Iberoamerica & colonization did things for Spain and Portugal's (Brazil being a Portuguese colony) interests against that of Native Americans.

With territory, in some cases you have Native American tribes voluntarily abandoning a territory, because they found it of no use. If a territory is abandoned, then it would not be stealing if some1 else (Native American or White) settles on the territory as it's whoever wants it and arrives there first, gets it.

In some cases you had virgin territory in the Americas-lands which were not even touched. If a land had never been lived on (or even known about), then whoever finds it and settles there gets the territory (be they White or Native American). Here it would not be taking Native American lands.

With Solutrians or Solutrians-is it possible there were Europeans who immigrated to the Americas during the Ice Age? As they have found DNA mummied remains of Whites in the Americas and as some Native American art depicts people with light skin, it's possible that individual Whites could have immigrated to the Americas during the Ice Age, though it would be a small #. Solutrians or Solutreans would not own all of the Americas just as Cherokees would not own all of the USA. That also wouldn't change the fact that treatment of Native Americans or American Indians was sometimes arrogant, but it's possible individual Europeans or Solutrians could have immigrated to the Americas during the Ice Age.

Before continuing, will say that I am OK with American Indian reservations not paying property taxes and I am OK with Indian reservations only allowing Native Americans to live on reservations, it is their house.

With stealing American Indian or Native American territory-is it because wars were used to take land from them or is the main meaing of this that the Whites were better @ being greedy ? When American Indians or Native Americans wanted territory, they used wars to get it from a neighboring tribe. In some cases, American Indian or Native American tribes would kill a neighboring tribes men in a war and then take the women and girls as their wives. Quanah Parker was the last Comanche chief-his mom was kidnapped when she was 9 years old and forced to become a Comanche chief's wife.

I’ve found with Native Americans or American Indians is that many times when they talk of ‘stolen land’ what they imply is ‘you did what I wanted to do.’ There was greed & arrogance on both the Whites & Native American sides. Yes, this nations treatment of American Indians was arrogant & wars were used to take land from American Indians. Truth about greed is that Whites were just better in greed. Before the Whites, American Indians when they wanted land be it living grounds, hunting grounds, burial grounds & fishing waters got it from other tribes by wars. When the Whites came, they wanted the same things & more be they metals such as iron, gold, silver, copper & bronze.

Truth is that when people get advanced & complicated in their technologies, the more they want. People are just potentially greedy. If American Indian tribes (esp. tribes like the Sioux, Comanches, Apaches, Aztecs, etc.) had better weapons & capabilities, they would have been conquering other places in the world & imposing their laws on others. Whites ( I’m not White) had better military capability or capacity, but when it comes to thinking, they’re the same. People are the same everywhere-Whites, Blacks, American Indians, etc. That doesn’t excuse fact this nation’s treatment of American Indians was arrogant but when you have the view of ‘you did what I wanted to do’ then you’re no better than what you say to be against.

Anonymous

While I don't always agree with American Renaissance in their ethnicity discussions (I believe all ethnic groups deserve to be treated the same), American Renaissance's Samuel Jared Taylor is right in this https://www.amren.com/videos/2017/02/whites-stole-land-from-the-indians/. Samuel Jared Taylor admits wars were used by Whites to steal American Indian land and Samuel Jared Taylor says that American Indians or Native Americans used wars to steal other Native American land, before the Whites took it from them. Samuel Jared Taylor is right about the dual standard with regard to stealing land.

With stealing American Indian or Native American territory-is it because wars were used to take land from them or is the main meaning of this that the Whites were better @ being greedy ? When American Indians or Native Americans wanted territory, they used wars to get it from a neighboring tribe. In some cases, American Indian or Native American tribes would kill a neighboring tribes men in a war and then take the women and girls as their wives. Quanah Parker was the last Comanche chief-his mom was kidnapped when she was 9 years old and forced to become a Comanche chief's wife.

I’ve found with Native Americans or American Indians is that many times when they talk of ‘stolen land’ what they imply is ‘you did what I wanted to do.’ There was greed & arrogance on both the Whites & Native American sides. Yes, this nations treatment of American Indians was arrogant & wars were used to take land from American Indians. Truth about greed is that Whites were just better in greed. Before the Whites, American Indians when they wanted land be it living grounds, hunting grounds, burial grounds & fishing waters got it from other tribes by wars. When the Whites came, they wanted the same things & more be they metals such as iron, gold, silver, copper & bronze.

Truth is that when people get advanced & complicated in their technologies, the more they want. People are just potentially greedy. If American Indian tribes (esp. tribes like the Sioux, Comanches, Apaches, Aztecs, etc.) had better weapons & capabilities, they would have been conquering other places in the world & imposing their laws on others. Whites ( I’m not White) had better military capability or capacity, but when it comes to thinking, they’re the same. People are the same everywhere-Whites, Blacks, American Indians, etc. That doesn’t excuse fact this nation’s treatment of American Indians was arrogant but when you have the view of ‘you did what I wanted to do’ then you’re no better than what you say to be against.

Pages

Stay Informed