-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Standing Rock Warriors and the Black Snake
- Thread starter Genghis Kush
- Start date
Genghis Kush
Active member
"The camp rejoiced Sunday when the Army announced that it would not issue an easement for the pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe, but it's unclear what might happen when pipeline supporter Donald Trump enters the White House in January. The dispute also could be decided by a federal judge.
"We are not in the clear by any means whatsoever," Iron Eyes said. "This is not a time for celebration. If it's a time for anything ... it's a time to honor all the sacrifices that have been made" by camp occupants. More than 500 have been arrested since August.
The camp began as a peaceful, prayerful protest of the pipeline. It has since drawn in people who believe the dispute represents an overall stand for American Indian rights."
"We are not in the clear by any means whatsoever," Iron Eyes said. "This is not a time for celebration. If it's a time for anything ... it's a time to honor all the sacrifices that have been made" by camp occupants. More than 500 have been arrested since August.
The camp began as a peaceful, prayerful protest of the pipeline. It has since drawn in people who believe the dispute represents an overall stand for American Indian rights."
Your lucky this thread is still up and not binned. And you banned For obviously not reading this sites TOU
14. Politics/Religion: Threads or posts pertaining to political and religious discussions, by their very sensitive nature, can incite or flame others due to the wide and varying personal beliefs that naturally exist in a global community and will be deleted. ICMag is an international site attracting members from a multitude of religious and political backgrounds. We do this in favor of harmony and unity, rather than the divisions created by permitting open discussions of politics and religion requiring an opinion from such a global community. Political discussions pertaining specifically to cannabis laws/legalization are only accepted in the appropriate forum.
12-09-2016 10:03 PM Genghis Kush Your lack of intelligence education is evident . Best to keep comments to things you comprehend. That way you won't look so dumb.
By By reported ??? i have a right to voice my opinion with out prejudiced, Just because i do not believe in God or i believe some religion that i should feel threatened or demeaned
Maybe places like RIU might suit your needs better.
Genghis Kush
Active member
This thread was created out of concern for human rights.
No Political parties or religion have been discussed.
"Together with the Hunkpapa and Blackfoot bands, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is part of the Great Sioux Nation. In 1868 the lands of the Great Sioux Nation were reduced in the Fort Laramie Treaty to the east side of the Missouri River and the state line of South Dakota in the west. The Black Hills, considered by the Sioux to be sacred land, are located in the center of territory awarded to the tribe. In direct violation of the treaty, in 1874 General George A. Custer and his 7th Cavalry entered the Black Hills and discovered gold, starting a gold rush. The United States Government wanted to buy or rent the Black Hills from the Lakota people, but the Great Sioux Nation, led by their spiritual leader Sitting Bull, refused to sell or rent their lands. The Great Sioux War of 1876, also known as the Black Hills War, was a series of battles and negotiations which occurred between 1876 and 1877 between the Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne and the government of the United States. Among the many battles and skirmishes of the war was the Battle of the Little Bighorn, often known as Custer's Last Stand, the most storied of the many encounters between the U.S. army and mounted Plains Native Americans. That Native American victory notwithstanding, the U.S. with its superior resources was soon able to force the Native Americans to surrender, primarily by attacking and destroying their encampments and property. The Agreement of 1877 (19 Stat. 254, enacted February 28, 1877) officially annexed Sioux land and permanently established Native American reservations. The Agreement of 1877 allotted Native American lands into 160 acre lots to individuals to divide the nation and the U.S. government took the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation."
In February 1890, the United States government broke a Lakota treaty by adjusting the Great Sioux Reservation, an area that formerly encompassed the majority of the state, and breaking it up into five smaller reservations.[4] The government was accommodating white homesteaders from the eastern United States; in addition, it intended to "break up tribal relationships" and "conform Indians to the white man's ways, peaceably if they will, or forcibly if they must".[5] On the reduced reservations, the government allocated family units on 320-acre (1.3 km2) plots for individual households. Although the Lakota were historically a nomadic people living in tipis and their Plains Native American culture was based strongly upon buffalo and horse culture, they were expected to farm and raise livestock. With the goal of assimilation, they were forced to send their children to boarding schools; the schools taught English and Christianity, as well as American cultural practices. Generally, they forbade inclusion of Native American traditional culture and language. They were beaten if they tried to do anything related to their native culture.
No Political parties or religion have been discussed.
"Together with the Hunkpapa and Blackfoot bands, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is part of the Great Sioux Nation. In 1868 the lands of the Great Sioux Nation were reduced in the Fort Laramie Treaty to the east side of the Missouri River and the state line of South Dakota in the west. The Black Hills, considered by the Sioux to be sacred land, are located in the center of territory awarded to the tribe. In direct violation of the treaty, in 1874 General George A. Custer and his 7th Cavalry entered the Black Hills and discovered gold, starting a gold rush. The United States Government wanted to buy or rent the Black Hills from the Lakota people, but the Great Sioux Nation, led by their spiritual leader Sitting Bull, refused to sell or rent their lands. The Great Sioux War of 1876, also known as the Black Hills War, was a series of battles and negotiations which occurred between 1876 and 1877 between the Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne and the government of the United States. Among the many battles and skirmishes of the war was the Battle of the Little Bighorn, often known as Custer's Last Stand, the most storied of the many encounters between the U.S. army and mounted Plains Native Americans. That Native American victory notwithstanding, the U.S. with its superior resources was soon able to force the Native Americans to surrender, primarily by attacking and destroying their encampments and property. The Agreement of 1877 (19 Stat. 254, enacted February 28, 1877) officially annexed Sioux land and permanently established Native American reservations. The Agreement of 1877 allotted Native American lands into 160 acre lots to individuals to divide the nation and the U.S. government took the Black Hills from the Sioux Nation."
In February 1890, the United States government broke a Lakota treaty by adjusting the Great Sioux Reservation, an area that formerly encompassed the majority of the state, and breaking it up into five smaller reservations.[4] The government was accommodating white homesteaders from the eastern United States; in addition, it intended to "break up tribal relationships" and "conform Indians to the white man's ways, peaceably if they will, or forcibly if they must".[5] On the reduced reservations, the government allocated family units on 320-acre (1.3 km2) plots for individual households. Although the Lakota were historically a nomadic people living in tipis and their Plains Native American culture was based strongly upon buffalo and horse culture, they were expected to farm and raise livestock. With the goal of assimilation, they were forced to send their children to boarding schools; the schools taught English and Christianity, as well as American cultural practices. Generally, they forbade inclusion of Native American traditional culture and language. They were beaten if they tried to do anything related to their native culture.
so, the various massacres reliably recorded throughout our nations history are all a pack of lies in spite of the eyewitness accounts? the buffalo were not senselessly slaughtered to remove their source of sustenance & destroy their entire way of life so we could steal their land? who knew? sure glad you came along & set us all straight on this matter...
Genghis Kush
Active member
"If You Cared About Standing Rock, You Need To Know About West Papua"
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/13435172
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/13435172
We all sit here and think the Native american indian was one of the earth lets go over the myths about this true LIE
Again it sickens me when you here how the indians and there soil were as one not so Black and white but todays genders know actually little on what kind of impact the indians really did
Over the past three decades, the environmental movement has promoted a view of American Indians as the "original conservationists"--that is, "people so intimately bound to the land that they have left no mark upon it" (White and Cronon 1988, 417). References to this image abound:
"The Indians were, in truth, the pioneer ecologists of this country," said Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall.(1)
"I think most people in Indian country hold a set of ideals we should all learn from," said law professor Charles Wilkinson in a recent speech.(2) According to Wilkinson, these ideals teach human harmony with the natural environment.
Calling for an environmental ethic patterned after that of Native Americans, Senator John H. Chafee recently quoted words allegedly spoken by Chief Seattle: "Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand of it."
"For many thousands of years, most of the indigenous nations on this continent practiced a philosophy of protection (first) and use (second) of the forest," says Herb Hammond in the Sierra Club book Clearcut. "In scientific terms, we recognize that their use of the forest was ecologically responsible--meaning that it kept all the parts."(3)
Appealing as this image of a Native American environmental ethic is, it is not accurate. The spiritual connection attributed to Native Americans frequently does not mesh with the history of Indian resource use. By focusing on this myth instead of reality, environmentalists patronize American Indians, disparaging their rich institutional heritage which encouraged resource conservation. By missing this history of Indian institutions, the environmentalists' interpretation deprives Indians and non-Indians alike of a full understanding of how we can conserve our natural heritage.
Again it sickens me when you here how the indians and there soil were as one not so Black and white but todays genders know actually little on what kind of impact the indians really did
Over the past three decades, the environmental movement has promoted a view of American Indians as the "original conservationists"--that is, "people so intimately bound to the land that they have left no mark upon it" (White and Cronon 1988, 417). References to this image abound:
"The Indians were, in truth, the pioneer ecologists of this country," said Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall.(1)
"I think most people in Indian country hold a set of ideals we should all learn from," said law professor Charles Wilkinson in a recent speech.(2) According to Wilkinson, these ideals teach human harmony with the natural environment.
Calling for an environmental ethic patterned after that of Native Americans, Senator John H. Chafee recently quoted words allegedly spoken by Chief Seattle: "Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand of it."
"For many thousands of years, most of the indigenous nations on this continent practiced a philosophy of protection (first) and use (second) of the forest," says Herb Hammond in the Sierra Club book Clearcut. "In scientific terms, we recognize that their use of the forest was ecologically responsible--meaning that it kept all the parts."(3)
Appealing as this image of a Native American environmental ethic is, it is not accurate. The spiritual connection attributed to Native Americans frequently does not mesh with the history of Indian resource use. By focusing on this myth instead of reality, environmentalists patronize American Indians, disparaging their rich institutional heritage which encouraged resource conservation. By missing this history of Indian institutions, the environmentalists' interpretation deprives Indians and non-Indians alike of a full understanding of how we can conserve our natural heritage.
For example, where land was abundant, it made sense to farm extensively and move on.
It was common for Indians such as the Choctaw, Iroquois, and Pawnee to clear land for farming by cutting and burning forests. Once cleared, fields were farmed extensively until soil fertility was depleted; then they cleared new lands and started the process again (see White and Cronon 1988, 419-21).
From New England to the Southwest, wherever Indian populations were dense and farming was intense, deforestation was common. Indeed, the mysterious departure of the Anasazi from the canyons of southeastern Utah in the thirteenth century may have been due to depletion of wood supplies used for fuel (see Ambler 1989).
Similarly, where game was plentiful, Indians used only the choicest cuts and left the rest.
When buffalo were herded over cliffs, tons of meat were left to rot or to be eaten by scavengers (see Baden, Stroup, and Thurman 1981).
Samuel Hearne, a fur trader near Hudson's Bay, recorded in his journal in the 1770s that the Chipewayan Indians would slaughter large numbers of caribou and muskox, eat only a few tongues, and leave the rest to rot.
Indians also manipulated the land to improve hunting.
Upland wooded areas from east to west were burned to remove the undergrowth and increase forage for deer, elk, and bison. Indeed, because of this burning, there may have been fewer "old growth" forests in the Pacific Northwest when the first Europeans arrived than there are today.
In some cases, however, the improvements sought by burning were short term because these human-caused fires altered the succession of forests. In the Southeast, for example, oak and hickory forests with a higher carrying capacity for deer were displaced by fire-resistant longleaf pine which supported only limited wildlife.
Generally, the demand for meat, hides, and furs by relatively small, dispersed populations of Indians put little pressure on wildlife. But, in some cases game depletion resulted from what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." This term, coined by biologist Garrett Hardin, describes what happens when no one has ownership of a resource and anyone has access to it.
Wild animals represented a "commons." They belonged to no one until they were killed. If anyone left an animal, in the hope that it would be there later, someone else was likely to kill it. Without ownership, no one had an incentive to protect the animals. Thus, they were overhunted, and wildlife populations fell.
Anthropologist Paul Martin (1968 and 1984) believes that the extinction of the mammoth, mastodon, ground sloth, and the saber-toothed cat were directly or indirectly due to "prehistoric overkill" by exceptionally competent hunters.
With the advent of the Europeans, who wanted furs, Indians were able to trap furs and trade them for European goods such as beads, cloth, knifes, and firearms. Where there were no institutions that limited entry into the common trapping grounds, fur-bearing populations were decimated (see Carlos and Lewis 1995).
Have a read for your self
http://www.perc.org/articles/conservation-native-american-style-full
It was common for Indians such as the Choctaw, Iroquois, and Pawnee to clear land for farming by cutting and burning forests. Once cleared, fields were farmed extensively until soil fertility was depleted; then they cleared new lands and started the process again (see White and Cronon 1988, 419-21).
From New England to the Southwest, wherever Indian populations were dense and farming was intense, deforestation was common. Indeed, the mysterious departure of the Anasazi from the canyons of southeastern Utah in the thirteenth century may have been due to depletion of wood supplies used for fuel (see Ambler 1989).
Similarly, where game was plentiful, Indians used only the choicest cuts and left the rest.
When buffalo were herded over cliffs, tons of meat were left to rot or to be eaten by scavengers (see Baden, Stroup, and Thurman 1981).
Samuel Hearne, a fur trader near Hudson's Bay, recorded in his journal in the 1770s that the Chipewayan Indians would slaughter large numbers of caribou and muskox, eat only a few tongues, and leave the rest to rot.
Indians also manipulated the land to improve hunting.
Upland wooded areas from east to west were burned to remove the undergrowth and increase forage for deer, elk, and bison. Indeed, because of this burning, there may have been fewer "old growth" forests in the Pacific Northwest when the first Europeans arrived than there are today.
In some cases, however, the improvements sought by burning were short term because these human-caused fires altered the succession of forests. In the Southeast, for example, oak and hickory forests with a higher carrying capacity for deer were displaced by fire-resistant longleaf pine which supported only limited wildlife.
Generally, the demand for meat, hides, and furs by relatively small, dispersed populations of Indians put little pressure on wildlife. But, in some cases game depletion resulted from what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." This term, coined by biologist Garrett Hardin, describes what happens when no one has ownership of a resource and anyone has access to it.
Wild animals represented a "commons." They belonged to no one until they were killed. If anyone left an animal, in the hope that it would be there later, someone else was likely to kill it. Without ownership, no one had an incentive to protect the animals. Thus, they were overhunted, and wildlife populations fell.
Anthropologist Paul Martin (1968 and 1984) believes that the extinction of the mammoth, mastodon, ground sloth, and the saber-toothed cat were directly or indirectly due to "prehistoric overkill" by exceptionally competent hunters.
With the advent of the Europeans, who wanted furs, Indians were able to trap furs and trade them for European goods such as beads, cloth, knifes, and firearms. Where there were no institutions that limited entry into the common trapping grounds, fur-bearing populations were decimated (see Carlos and Lewis 1995).
Have a read for your self
http://www.perc.org/articles/conservation-native-american-style-full
white man speaks with forked-tongue, Kemosabe
Genghis Kush
Active member
The point your trying to make has nothing to do with the subject of this thread..
Your wasting your energy trying to send this thread off In some other direction.
No one is taking your bait slipknot
Your wasting your energy trying to send this thread off In some other direction.
No one is taking your bait slipknot
Native elder talking
North Dokottta it wuss a fozen hostile waste lund.An Dare was mauch wuk to be dun, If we wure to survive, the elements.
After boring a hule threw the ice to find food,
My good friends mantuk and i would built a Te pee. To pertact our sulfs
Frum boofullo And when mantuk wus rudy he tell me about the great wolf
Genghis Kush
Active member
"Pipeline spills 176,000 gallons of crude into creek about 150 miles from Dakota Access protest camp"
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipe...50-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipe...50-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html
_tessarecting
ஓ
-_-
so, the various massacres reliably recorded throughout our nations history are all a pack of lies in spite of the eyewitness accounts? the buffalo were not senselessly slaughtered to remove their source of sustenance & destroy their entire way of life so we could steal their land? who knew? sure glad you came along & set us all straight on this matter...
Hey hippy, I went on a family vacation when I was 12, back in 71-72. We went around the entire Western US. Took about 3 months. I liked reading the historical markers that were strung along the roads and highways back then. I made mom stop at all of them. lots of them are gone now. I read about massacre after slaughter after more massacres and more slaughters of white settlers by Indians. Hundreds of them.
And no, they don't teach about it in schools anymore. So everyone can forget or deny.
Buffalo were shot from trains by travelers for sport. By buffalo hunters for the money for the hides.
Spare me the white guilt
Last edited:
Genghis Kush
Active member
Your education on the matter comes from reading road signs as a child?
That explains a lot.
That explains a lot.
there were a hell of a lot more indians killed by whites than the reverse. we killed them with diseases, firearms, starvation, you name it. if they had killed as many settlers as the white folks killed indians, the Mayflower folks would have gotten back on the Nina, the Pinta, & the Santa Maria & gone the fuck back to Europe...if there were enough folks left alive to sail them. white guilt? we ARE guilty. deny it all you want, it will not change the facts...
St. Phatty
Active member
Had to look that up, the Indians & smallpox thing.
"Two instances of biological warfare by the British against North American Indians during Pontiac's Rebellion (1763–66) are well documented, but the actual effectiveness is unknown. In the first, during a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief enclosed in small metal boxes that had been exposed to smallpox, hoping to spread the disease to the Natives in order to end the siege."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare
Genghis Kush
Active member
"While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 5 million people to a high 18 million people "
Amount of settlers killed most probably not more than 2000
Amount of settlers killed most probably not more than 2000
