Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    14 Jan '16 23:57 / 7 edits
    http://www.diversityinc.com/news/stealing-indian-land-copper-mine/

    Should this be allowed? Arizona is kicking the Apache off their land that they hold by treaty with the USA in order to mine it for copper.

    Stealing the valuable land instead of using the free market to buy the copper...shameful.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/selling-off-apache-holy-land.html?_r=0

    Three hundred people, mostly Apache, marched 44 miles from tribal headquarters to begin this occupation on Feb. 9. The campground lies at the core of an ancient Apache holy place, where coming-of-age ceremonies, especially for girls, have been performed for many generations, along with traditional acorn gathering. It belongs to the public, under the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service, and has had special protections since 1955, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower decreed the area closed to mining — which, like cattle grazing, is otherwise common in national forests — because of its cultural and natural value. President Richard M. Nixon’s Interior Department in 1971 renewed this ban.

    Despite these protections, in December 2014, Congress promised to hand the title for Oak Flat over to a private, Australian-British mining concern. A fine-print rider trading away the Indian holy land was added at the last minute to the must-pass military spending bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. By doing this, Congress has handed over a sacred Native American site to a foreign-owned company for what may be the first time in our nation’s history.


    Anglos pissing me off again
  2. 15 Jan '16 01:44
    http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-protect-native-american-place-of-worship/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-native-americans_563b9e9de4b0411d30700508
  3. 16 Jan '16 09:43
    So instead of mining for copper you'd have the land saved so a couple hundred indians can gather acorns?
  4. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    16 Jan '16 10:49
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    http://www.diversityinc.com/news/stealing-indian-land-copper-mine/

    Should this be allowed? Arizona is kicking the Apache off their land that they hold by treaty with the USA in order to mine it for copper.

    Stealing the valuable land instead of using the free market to buy the copper...shameful.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/sel ...[text shortened]... mpany for what may be the first time in our nation’s history.

    Anglos pissing me off again
    This discussion even goes beyond these immediate concerns.

    This is at the heart of the problem of states claiming they own all the land within their state, to use as they see fit. If the Feds sold all the land they hold to individual states, we'd see much more of this, plus land simply being sold to the highest bidder to strip-mine or to exploit it in other ways until this once-great country has no more pristine wild areas left.

    Do these idiots who forcibly occupied the National Park land in Oregon actually think they would see any of the Federal land in this country given to them? Ha-ha, dream on. Like I said, if states were to get ownership of these lands tomorrow, it would just end up sold to the highest bidder, and the rape of America would begin in earnest.
  5. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    16 Jan '16 11:08
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    So instead of mining for copper you'd have the land saved so a couple hundred indians can gather acorns?
    What is wrong with you? Seriously.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '16 12:49
    Originally posted by vistesd
    http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-protect-native-american-place-of-worship/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-native-americans_563b9e9de4b0411d30700508
    Don't hold your breath; a bill was introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 to do the same thing and has languished in committees with no votes taken as of this date.
  7. 16 Jan '16 13:06
    The notion that some citizens should have different rights from others is ludicrous and should be rejected. I am 1/4 Frisian so possibly I have some ancestors who were subjects of the Frisian kingdom that was defeated by the Franks in the 8th Century AD. Should I demand compensation from the French government?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '16 13:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The notion that some citizens should have different rights from others is ludicrous and should be rejected. I am 1/4 Frisian so possibly I have some ancestors who were subjects of the Frisian kingdom that was defeated by the Franks in the 8th Century AD. Should I demand compensation from the French government?
    From the NY Times article:

    If Oak Flat were a Christian holy site, or for that matter Jewish or Muslim, no senator who wished to remain in office would dare to sneak a backdoor deal for its destruction into a spending bill — no matter what mining-company profits or jobs might result. But this is Indian religion. Clearly the Arizona congressional delegation isn’t afraid of a couple of million conquered natives.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/selling-off-apache-holy-land.html?_r=1

    The Apache aren't requesting "different rights"; they are insisting on the same treatment as others.

    Somehow I doubt that the French government would tear down Notre Dame Cathedral for a strip mine no matter how much copper was there.
  9. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Jan '16 13:26
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    So instead of mining for copper you'd have the land saved so a couple hundred indians can gather acorns?
    We are witnessing here an example of the "godlike wisdom" of government, in terms of Locke's Treatise on Government and the neoliberal idology that derives from this. From the outset, it was always abhorrent to see native Americans squatting on natural resources in their primitive manner at the expense of economic exploitation. Notice the peculiar use of the term "liberty," another standard feature of the neoliberal project. This was the logic of genocide and it has not changed. Naturally enough, on this occasion it comes from the mouth of this forum's most committed / explicit racist.

    34. God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit and for the greatest conveniences of life they could get from it, he can’t have meant it always to remain common and uncultivated. He gave it for the use of the reasonable and hard-working man (and labour was to be his title to it), not to the whims or the greed of the man who is quarrelsome and contentious.

    37 .....So he who encloses land, and gets more of the conveniences of life from ten ·cultivated·acres than he could have had from a hundred left to nature, can truly be said to give ninety acres to mankind. For his labour now supplies him with provisions out of ten acres that would have needed a hundred ·uncultivated· acres lying in common. I have here greatly understated the productivity of improved land, setting it at ten to one when really it is much nearer a hundred to one.

    40. It isn’t as strange as it may seem at first glance that the •property of •labour should be able to outweigh the •community of •land. For labour affects the value of everything. Think of how an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with wheat or barley, differs from an acre of the same land lying in common without being cultivated; you will see the improvement brought about by labour creates most of the ·extra· value ·of the former·.

    42 .....the great art of government is to have the land used well, and that any ruler will quickly be safe against his neighbours if he has the wisdom—the godlike wisdom—to establish laws of liberty to protect and encourage the honest industry of his people.....

    44. All this makes it clear that •though the things of nature are given in common, man had in himself the great foundation for ownership—namely his being master of himself, and owner of his own person and of the actions or work done by it; and that •most of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and skills had made life more comfortable, was entirely his own and didn’t belong in common to others.
  10. 16 Jan '16 13:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder

    Somehow I doubt that the French government would tear down Notre Dame Cathedral for a strip mine no matter how much copper was there.
    Comparing Notre Dame Cathedral to an open unimproved patch of desert they gather acorns off of once in awhile and hop around on when a girl turns 12 or whatever is a retarded analogy.
    And I really doubt they gather acorns , they got government food stamp debit cards for that. I see indians all the time at the supermarket with shopping carts full of soda chips cookies and other garbage and using their gubmint free food cards for it. Never seen 'em buying acorns.
    Do people even eat acorns?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '16 13:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    We are witnessing here an example of the "godlike wisdom" of government, in terms of Locke's Treatise on Government and the neoliberal idology that derives from this. From the outset, it was always abhorrent to see native Americans squatting on natural resources in their primitive manner at the expense of economic exploitation. Notice the peculiar use of ...[text shortened]... ade life more comfortable, was entirely his own and didn’t belong in common to others.
    [/quote]
    It's not worth replying to your endless ignorant BS on that topic.

    Locke was referring to the initial appropriation of property from nature not justifying the seizure of already owned property. There is nothing in Locke justifying wars of conquest or oppression of minorities.

    EDIT: Your cherry picking is rather shockingly dishonest; here's a section you skipped:

    . 35.↩

    It is true, in land that is common in England, or any other country, where there is plenty of people under government, who have money and commerce, no one can inclose or appropriate any part, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact, i. e. by the law of the land, which is not to be violated. And though it be common, in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind; but is the joint property of this country, or this [223] parish. Besides, the remainder, after such inclosure, would not be as good to the rest of the commoners, as the whole was when they could all make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling of the great common of the world, it was quite otherwise. The law man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property which could not be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we see are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions.

    (emphasis supplied)
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    16 Jan '16 13:51
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Comparing Notre Dame Cathedral to an open unimproved patch of desert they gather acorns off of once in awhile and hop around on when a girl turns 12 or whatever is a retarded analogy.
    And I really doubt they gather acorns , they got government food stamp debit cards for that. I see indians all the time at the supermarket with shopping carts full of sod ...[text shortened]... eir gubmint free food cards for it. Never seen 'em buying acorns.
    Do people even eat acorns?
    No one really cares about your bigoted beliefs; what is sacred to the Apache is just as deserving of protection as what is sacred to Roman Catholics.
  13. 16 Jan '16 13:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No one really cares about your bigoted beliefs; what is sacred to the Apache is just as deserving of protection as what is sacred to Roman Catholics.
    Not if they stand in the way of progress.
    We need the copper, acorns are all over the place.
    They can find another section of sand to dance on, there's nothing magic about the hunk of dirt they like to mill around on once a year for all the girls that started having their periods. .
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Jan '16 14:09
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Not if they stand in the way of progress.
    We need the copper, acorns are all over the place.
    They can find another section of sand to dance on, there's nothing magic about the hunk of dirt they like to mill around on once a year for all the girls that started having their periods. .
    Progress = the social and environmental wasteland of uncontrolled capitalist appropriation and exploitation.

    Liberty = property. It certainly does not include freedom of religious belief, let alone minority rights, or even observation of treaties entered into by the US government. Liberty is the untrammelled enjoyment of property. That is all.

    Nothing is sacred in the country where so many seem to believe the bible is literally true (and some also believe that what Locke wrote is literally true).
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    16 Jan '16 14:15 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's not worth replying to your endless ignorant BS on that topic.

    Locke was referring to the initial appropriation of property from nature not justifying the seizure of already owned property. There is nothing in Locke justifying wars of conquest or oppression of minorities.

    EDIT: Your cherry picking is rather shockingly dishonest; here's a secti ...[text shortened]... our and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions.

    (emphasis supplied)
    Yes I could have included that; notably "So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions." Property is both God given and natural, and as such beyond political challenge. Right in property is established by "labour" and those who fail to make full (maximal) use of natural resources forfeit any assumed rights, communal or otherwise. Therein is the justification for expropriating land and resources from native peoples and it has been explicitly cited by imperialist on many occasions.

    Or I might have gone further, to

    45......Even after all this, however, there are great tracts of ground that still lie in common ·and so could legitimately be claimed on the basis of labour·. These are in territories whose inhabitants haven’t joined with the rest of mankind in the consent of the use of their common money [Locke’s exact words, starting with ‘joined’], and are lands that exceed what the inhabitants do or can make use of.

    How explicit do you need this to be? How much need I quote to avoid seeming too selective?