|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 9, 2003, 8:44 PM
Post #1 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Just curious what folks think of their claim (like at Devil Tower) of pre-existing access and prority?
I just posted this over at injuries (Guy wanted to know why it was the "Grand" Teton. It got me to thinking about the people here before the Europeans came. They're still here in case anyone hasn't noticed.
But aren't we all just Americans now? Or does that not apply to desendants of those who were here before my ancestors?
Bill, post from injuries follows:
DUUUUUDE!! To add to ARF's post: what cachet would there be to summiting the "tiny, petite, backwater Teton" or "insignifigant pissant Teton"?? Dude, we're talking the "GRAND" Teton. Just so you know, Tetons is the cutsey way the French say Tits. Ahem, pardon moi French as they say. Named "Teton" by those lonely early French Trappers in fact, imagine, all those forigners running around the rockies and the LouisianaTerritory long before the regular white people came and stole it all from the existing inhabitatants. And thinking the mountains looked like womens breasts.
Hmm, this arguement is going on over on another thread about taking a quickdraw from a route: theft or cleaning the trash up is the dicussion points. It's getting fairly passionate. I wonder what the "natives" said when they were told to get the hell off of or pay for the land thay were living in. Kind of puts the "who stole my quickdraw issue" in perspective.
So when you think Tetons, think ""GRAND". Because Tetons are. You are welcome and we ain't giving it back in case you're interested so don't even ask:
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jul 9, 2003, 8:52 PM
Post #2 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
They have a valid claim in many cases just like I have a claim to my car stereo after someone else stole it from me. Some land in the US was bought for insignificant amounts but much was just taken. I know almost nothing on that subject.
Of course, I think that the government needs to decide if it is going to be given back somehow or not. If not then the Native Americans should not get preferential treatment over others. I dislike the fact that places like Cave Rock NV will be closed to climbers only because of the religious beliefs of one group of land users.
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 9, 2003, 10:05 PM
Post #3 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
In most cases, their claims are valid. Regarding Devils Tower, this is and has been for centuries a cathedral to them, many plains indians have their creation stories surrounded around the "Bear's Den". For over a hundred years, we forced these people into government schools to take the indian out of them, to take their cultures from them, to re-educate and make them into the judeo-christian culture of their oppressors. I have seen many a climber around the Tower (Andy Petefish comes to mind) completely and utterly disregard their religious beliefs, with malice and their own sense of hatred.
Frankly, if many of you haven't noticed, the Department of the Interior is in the process of handing over control of many national monuments, parks and refuges to native people's for them to control. A recent Federal Register notice announces this fact. The Tower should be one of those places (in my mind). http://www.peer.org/refuge/Fed_Register_Bison_Range.pdf Note: JTree is on this list.
And, to add fuel to the fire, places like the Tower were set aside for secular reasons as well, to protect them from destruction. Piton scars and folks climbing on the Westminster or some LDS Temple would not be tolerated. Then, why the Tower? A double standard based on racisim is how I see it.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
climbjs
Jul 9, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #4 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2002
Posts: 379
|
While living about 30 miles from Devil's Tower, I remember when the voluntary closure was initiated. At first, I was shocked at the rights that were being stripped away from me, as a climber. If you remember, there were other access/closure issues pending about that time which seemed threatening to climbers. I mean, who's to tell me that I can't climb on the Tower in June, right?
Then, I familiarized myself with the issues. The Native Americans were requesting a month of reprival from climbing. Now, if you've ever visited Devil's Tower, you are probably somewhat aware of the significance of Devil's Tower to the Sioux, Crow, Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Indians. It's important to recognize that not only is Devil's Tower sacred, but so is Crow Peak, Bear Butte, and Spearfish Canyon, which are all within 80 miles of Devil's Tower. In particular, the town of Sundance, Wyoming, (30 miles from the Tower)has hosted sundances for a long,long,long time. In short, this whole area is very sacred to Native Americans. There are signs of the religious significance of the area to the Native Americans all over: prayer flags around the Tower and Bear Butte.
When the voluntary closure was initiated, a Devil's Tower local guide, Andy Petefish, took the case to court, claiming: How can the NPS allow one religious group (Native Americans) to practice during June, while excluding another religious group (climbers)? Now, we could debate the terms of this particular case for years, and never agree, but let's just stick to facts. Obviously Andy had a financial stake in the case, as June tends to be one of the busiest months at the tower for guiding. He didn't win the case, but the VOLUNTARY closure remains.
From my experience, I was managing a climbing shop in Spearfish, SD at the time. People from all over the world came in on their way to the Tower and I made them aware of the voluntary closure. Most people respected it. In fact, in talking to the NPS, there was (in 1998) a 95% compliance rate!
It's important to understand why the Native Americans had qualms with climbing on the Tower. Both Native Americans and tourists, alike, disliked the deifcating, bolting (yeah, it's there, thanks inpart to Andy Petefish..), yelling, and even rescues that take place there. (But you should see what the tourists do to the area!)
Anyway, to my opinion............
I respect the voluntary closure. Both Devil's Tower and Native Americans have been there a lot longer than I. In fact, while my ancestors were chasing chickens in Ireland, the Sioux were sundancing at the base of Devil's Tower. If you've ever climbed at the tower, then you know the beauty and "aura" that surrounds the tower. For me, I think it would be bad karma to climb during June. I don't want to disrespect anoyne's religious beliefs (except, maybe mormons..).
And, the plethora of stellar climbing not far from the Tower. The Black Hills' Needles, Rushmore and Spearfish Canyon offer lifetimes of excellent climbing during June, and any other month.
So, I say respect it. Not only for your personal beliefs, but out of respect for other's.
|
|
|
|
|
angelaa
Jul 24, 2003, 7:30 PM
Post #5 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2003
Posts: 598
|
In reply to: I respect the voluntary closure. Both Devil's Tower and Native Americans have been there a lot longer than I. In fact, while my ancestors were chasing chickens in Ireland, the Sioux were sundancing at the base of Devil's Tower. If you've ever climbed at the tower, then you know the beauty and "aura" that surrounds the tower. For me, I think it would be bad karma to climb during June. I don't want to disrespect anoyne's religious beliefs (except, maybe mormons..). And, the plethora of stellar climbing not far from the Tower. The Black Hills' Needles, Rushmore and Spearfish Canyon offer lifetimes of excellent climbing during June, and any other month. So, I say respect it. Not only for your personal beliefs, but out of respect for other's.
I couldn't have said it better climbjs :D :D :D
I agree with you 100% - especially on the "Andy" issue!
|
|
|
|
|
veggieclimber
Jul 24, 2003, 7:51 PM
Post #6 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 27
|
I think js has alot of valid points as far as the use of Devil's Tower and other Native American holy grounds. I also believe that during the "winning", otherwise known as slaughtering, of the west, many injustices were served to people of all races, unfortunetly most often it was the native people. I believe it is our responisbility to try and make some amends for the wrong doings of our fore father's but it is also not entirely our responsibility. How can one be held accountable for the actions of another? Even if that person is a relation? Currently places like Devil's Tower, among others are national monuments, or parks, or forests. While this does not allow unfettered access to these areas, the reason these places were set aside by the government was to preserve these places, for the enjoyment and wonder of future generations. I respect the voluntary ban on the Tower during June, however, I believe that should be a personal choice, and the ban should remain voluntary there as well as other places. My reasoning is this, when someone asks for me to take action, or not to take action, I am willing to please that person as long as the request is not unreasonable. However when access to a public federal area is restricted due to the religous beliefs of a few I am compelled to complain. The supreme court has upheld the seperation between church and state more than once, and I think this example applies. Allow open access and respectfully request a voluntary ban and I will listen.
It is of course far more complex than, "ask nicely", but it may extend well to this situation. Also this isn't simply a matter of church and state, as it is also defined by property rights, but I think both play a large part in the use of Devil's Tower and other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 24, 2003, 7:59 PM
Post #7 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Maybe we should just give the native Americans the entire country back--and move back to Europe.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jinn
Jul 24, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #8 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2002
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: ... While this does not allow unfettered access to these areas, the reason these places were set aside by the government was to preserve these places, for the enjoyment and wonder of future generations. ...
the fact that most dont acknowledge is that the land is not the governments to do anything with. thats like someone setting aside your house for their grandchildren. they cant do it because the house doesnt belong to them.
i seriously doubt that those who take their religion seriously would have similar views about buildering on their places of worship.
"dude, that church totally looks like itll go!"
how well do you think that would be recieved?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jul 24, 2003, 8:48 PM
Post #9 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
I am a bit jaded about this whole issue and probably have a greater background in this than many of you commenting. I lived in Eastern Washington most of my childhood through Highschool years. During that time, I lived right on the border of the Spokane Indian tribe's reservation. Most of my friends were full blooded indians. My local highschool's enrollment was about 50% indian, maybe slightly higher. I have never met more destuctive and people w/disregard for the law (including tribal law) than many of my friends. I dated and almost married a full blooded Spokane Tribe member, and my brother actually did marry one.
These people would have 365 days of hunting on the Res but would still go off res to shot deer/moose/bear and drag them back across the boundary when it suited them. These people made it illegal for "whites" (yes that was their official term for us) to fish from their beaches on the res, but I could always find them fishing off of the many public popular fishing holes north of the Res.
Drunk driving is an EVERY weekend occurance, and it is a joke in the local Indian Community on how many DUIs you can get. And this is not from the indians being "poor" and living in poverty. The indians get damn near free housing. Yeah you heard me right. There was not one of my Indian friends who did not own a house (bought for seriously around $2000) by the time they were 18 years old. Many of them took the close to free tribal housing, then rented out to "white families" despite it being illegal and just bought another tribal house and lived in it for free and collected $$ from the "whites". This is still going on to this day.
IMO, indians only care about the land when it comes down to the "whites" who want to use it. I am not anti-indian, in fact many of my best friends are indian and still live in that area, its just the truth as I see it. If the Indians want to have exclusive rights to all "Indian-related" objects, lands, monuments, then (this is not meant as racial but rather as a point) they should not be allowed off of the res. You cannot have the best of both worlds: Exclusive rights to all Indian Lands, but then also free reign on the lands outside of that. If Indians want to act as sovergn nations, then they should be denied all Government Assistance, which includes giving "our" lands, taken by the age old "might is right", back to them.
Now the above is meant as a Quid Pro Qo kind of resolution, and is not really what I would advocate. I personally feel that climbers and indians SHOULD be able to comprise to allow for mutual use and respect for these sights. Voluntary Closures for periods of time which are traditional uses for Indian members is a perfectly viable option (ala Devil's Tower). Simply closing down Cave Rock to climbing is not a compromise, it is once again Indians taking advantage of "white guilt". I'm sorry but my ancestors were just as repressed and "poor" (some of you would cringe to see the conditions I grew up in while I lived in Eastern Washington) as the indians.
Enough of this, "lets bend over backwards because we bent them over hundreds of years ago" kind of attitude. These issues are the very thing that perpetuates hard feelings about race in todays society. We are far enough removed that pretty much no one actually involved in the past injustices is still at the helm of government issues. Its time to put this crap behind us and move forward as people of the United States, not as "a collective group of independent societies all sharing a same common land". Retaining heritage and culture is important, but theirs does not take precedent over my own and the legacy I want to pass down to my kids, which to me climbing plays an important part of.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jul 24, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #10 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
I too respect the voluntary June closure at Devils Tower. But the situation at Devils Tower is far different than at Cave Rock where there has been a total ban on climbing. The Cave Rock total ban promotes and prefers one religious practice over secular use on public property and as such steps over the line both as far as good management and Constitutionally.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 24, 2003, 9:00 PM
Post #11 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
i dunno about this one. one one side of the coin is the fact that they were here first. The land holds certain sentimental and religeous value to them, and thats understandable. Up here in AK, much of the native-owned land is used so that the natives can hunt game without having to compete with trophy hunters and the like. This is all good and justifiable.
On the flip side of the coin, they were here first-but we are here now. Does it matter that a few hundred years ago the natives were here all by themselves? I say certainly not. I can't help that my ancestors saw fit to move to the New World, and I certainly don't feel like I owe the natives of this fine land anything to make amends for any behavior (indecent or not) on the part of my ancestors. The bottom line is that its "OUR" land now, the natives, the whites, the blacks, the otherwise. If you live here, then its your land. Withholding the use of land because you used to own it is a form of holding onto the past in denial of the future and present. Its not like we are going to tear down Devil's Tower and put up a minimall.
Much land is protected for religeous reasons. I don't want to sound like a prickled pear here, but I personally feel that their ancient spiritual beliefs are, how to put this in a politically correct manner, wrong and silly. I mean, yeah its beautiful that these people have such a rich and diverse culture, but the world was not made by a raven and people did not come from corn. And if someone tells me that I need to stay off the land because some incredible belief system tells me that "this land is sacred" I have little in the way of respect for that.
My point, roundaboutly, is that native americans should loosen their grip on certain landmarks. However, as long as they cling to the (in my opinion) backwards beliefs that they are the only ones who should get to enjoy certain great features of the american wild, I guess we should be mature and respect that.
|
|
|
|
|
jinn
Jul 24, 2003, 9:24 PM
Post #12 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2002
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: These people ... These people made it illegal for "whites" (yes that was their official term for us) to fish from their beaches on the res, but I could always find them fishing off of the many public popular fishing holes north of the Res.
Those people, those people.... they sound just like those blacks, and those Mexicans...silly people.
In reply to: Drunk driving is an EVERY weekend occurrence, and it is a joke in the local Indian Community on how many DUIs you can get. And this is not from the indians being "poor" and living in poverty. The indians get damn near free housing. Yeah you heard me right. There was not one of my Indian friends who did not own a house (bought for seriously around $2000) by the time they were 18 years old. Many of them took the close to free tribal housing, then rented out to "white families" despite it being illegal and just bought another tribal house and lived in it for free and collected $$ from the "whites". This is still going on to this day.
still going on to this day??? OMFG!!!!!
just like THOSE blacks and mexicans and their welfare. and just like those middle to upper class whites taking advantage of the tax loopholes.
every group has people who abuse this system. every group has people who do not.
In reply to: IMO, indians only care about the land when it comes down to the "whites" who want to use it. I am not anti-indian, in fact many of my best friends are indian and still live in that area, its just the truth as I see it. If the Indians want to have exclusive rights to all "Indian-related" objects, lands, monuments, then (this is not meant as racial but rather as a point) they should not be allowed off of the res.
yeah, we should just build big fences around them. maybe put them in internment camps too huh? so just because theyd like to have control of land that has religous/sprititual importance to them, and has for hundreds of years, they shouldnt be allowed off the reservation?
In reply to: You cannot have the best of both worlds: Exclusive rights to all Indian Lands, but then also free reign on the lands outside of that. If Indians want to act as sovergn nations, then they should be denied all Government Assistance, which includes giving "our" lands, taken by the age old "might is right", back to them. Now the above is meant as a Quid Pro Qo kind of resolution, and is not really what I would advocate. I personally feel that climbers and indians SHOULD be able to comprise to allow for mutual use and respect for these sights. Voluntary Closures for periods of time which are traditional uses for Indian members is a perfectly viable option (ala Devil's Tower). Simply closing down Cave Rock to climbing is not a compromise, it is once again Indians taking advantage of "white guilt".
In reply to: I'm sorry but my ancestors were just as repressed and "poor" (some of you would cringe to see the conditions I grew up in while I lived in Eastern Washington) as the indians.
your ancestors were already here when foriegn peoples came and slaughtered then en masse? then you must be native american, because i dont know of any other group that went through systematic murder, theft, and repression such that they endured. only blacks, but that was much later.
In reply to: Enough of this, "lets bend over backwards because we bent them over hundreds of years ago" kind of attitude. These issues are the very thing that perpetuates hard feelings about race in todays society. We are far enough removed that pretty much no one actually involved in the past injustices is still at the helm of government issues.
that is irrelevant. certain acts commited by the us goverment, and sanctioned by the majority resulted in traumas being visited upon these people that affect them to this day. how do you pay back all the money that was made off of lands stolen from them? how do you quantify what that money gained back then, and invested would net them now???
In reply to: Its time to put this crap behind us and move forward as people of the United States, not as "a collective group of independent societies all sharing a same common land". Retaining heritage and culture is important, but theirs does not take precedent over my own and the legacy I want to pass down to my kids, which to me climbing plays an important part of.
sorry, but you dont just say "hey, sorry about all that murder, theft and slaughter, but neither me or my parents had anything to do with that, quit your bitching. get on with it." and it makes everything alright. things dont work that way. thier rights do take precedent over yours and mine when it comes to thier land. regardless if they are drunks, and violate housing and hunting laws. this matter is about lands sacred to these people. lands that were sacred before they were stolen from them. im sure youd like to pass along climbing to your kids. i want the same for mine. but once again, you cannot pass along to others, that which is not yours to give.
|
|
|
|
|
jinn
Jul 24, 2003, 9:32 PM
Post #13 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2002
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: On the flip side of the coin, they were here first-but we are here now. Does it matter that a few hundred years ago the natives were here all by themselves? I say certainly not. I can't help that my ancestors saw fit to move to the New World, and I certainly don't feel like I owe the natives of this fine land anything to make amends for any behavior (indecent or not) on the part of my ancestors. The bottom line is that its "OUR" land now, the natives, the whites, the blacks, the otherwise. If you live here, then its your land. Withholding the use of land because you used to own it is a form of holding onto the past in denial of the future and present. Its not like we are going to tear down Devil's Tower and put up a minimall. Much land is protected for religeous reasons.
so would you hold that same opinion if some were to come in your house and remove you forcefully? you want to go back to possesion being 9/10s of the law huh? so whomever has the force to take something, they should own it huh?
In reply to: I don't want to sound like a prickled pear here, but I personally feel that their ancient spiritual beliefs are, how to put this in a politically correct manner, wrong and silly. I mean, yeah its beautiful that these people have such a rich and diverse culture, but the world was not made by a raven and people did not come from corn. And if someone tells me that I need to stay off the land because some incredible belief system tells me that "this land is sacred" I have little in the way of respect for that.
my beliefs are right, and yours are wrong and stupid. i thought one of the things this country was founded on was religous freedoms?
to all those who think the native americans are shiftless, drunk, backwards louts....tell me how you would feel to see them come and start climbing your place of worship?
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
Jul 24, 2003, 9:40 PM
Post #14 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
This is an interesting topic. But in general I think the government needs to insist on strict seperation of church and state. A nasty can of worms awaits if we start restricting public access based on religious beliefs.
I also see a fair amount of hypocrisy amongst many indian tribes in invoking "sacred land" arguments. In Arizona the local tribes have extinsively developed their lands to include golf courses, casinos, landfills, industrial parks and a host of other uses, "sacred land" never seems to be an issue in any of these cases. However if they seek to gain some type of control over a piece of land outside the reservation borders, there it is, the culturally significant, sacred land argument.
Many local tribes came out vehemently against the expansion of a ski resort in the San Francisco Peaks in Flagstaff, due to cultural reasons, but none of these tribes seem to have any problem with expansions at another Arizona ski resort run by the Apache tribe.
I also find it interesting to see the "white guilt" aspects that seems to seep into some peoples posts on this issue. While I don't condone some of the acts carried out against indian tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries, I also am realistic enough to realize that prior to the arrival of Europeans there was no shortage of warfare and violence between various tribes. It wasn't a Walt disney movie like some would like to think.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 24, 2003, 10:55 PM
Post #15 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
jinn, you have missed my point by so much that its funny.
you wrote: "so would you hold that same opinion if some were to come in your house and remove you forcefully? you want to go back to possesion being 9/10s of the law huh? so whomever has the force to take something, they should own it huh?"
to that trite inflammation I say this; that you are what I would consider a useless person with a very useless opinion. You reject ideas based on nothing short of misconception, then offer NOTHING as an alternative. Not only that, but your opinions are painfully simple. Grow up. When did this discussion turn into a "was it ok for us to take their land" debate? It hadn't thusfar to my knowledge. By your logic, the natives stole the land right out from under the poor buffalo! They should be ashamed of themselves!
My point is that I did not force them to do anything. Whether my relatives forced them off of their lands does not matter. I did not. And futherfore, since I was born here, I am also native. This land is as much mine as it is theirs because I've lived on it and worked it my whole life. Yet if I were to say "Mt. Yukla in the Chugach is sacred and no one can climb on it!" people would ignore me. Look, we're all here now (in the US), so we may as well make the best of it and stop beating ourselves and each other up about people who didn't get along 150 years ago. Like I said, I'm here now, I was born here, that justifies my being here. I can't claim a mountain for my own and tell everyone that "its mine because I was here first" even though I'm no longer the only one interested in the mountain.
you wrote again "my beliefs are right, and yours are wrong and stupid. i thought one of the things this country was founded on was religous freedoms?"
Does that mean that no one is wrong? Grow up man. Taste an ounce of realism. Just because people believe something and adapt their culture to such a belief doesn't mean they aren't rediculously wrong. If I were to tell you that my dad was being chased by a bear, and he stood on this here rock and the rock suddenly grew hundreds of feet tall to protect him from that bear, and thats why you can't climb on this rock, your first reaction would be "thats preposterous!" Well, that is why our freedom to enjoy Devil's Tower is being badgered! Bottom line, people did not come from corn, ravens don't talk to us and give us advise, Devil's Tower did not grow hundreds of feet to save a guy from a bear, and I don't think that I should have to bite my tongue and go "ok, yeah, I won't climb here-it might upset the sacredness of the rock." That translates to an obviously incorrect belief structure impeding on my personal freedom to enjoy life responsibly. And religious freedom? Are you high? When did I challenge religeous freedom? Did I say that the practice of ancient indian religeons should be outlawed or the followers of such belief systems persecuted? No. Didn't think so.
Please think less like a dirty stink hippie and more like a functional member of a society that is trying to progress forewards rather than retain old foolishness for the purpose of warding off change.
PS-wow, I read some of your other posts, and despite using up a fair bit of room here on this thread, you've managed to say very, very little.
|
|
|
|
|
bluto
Jul 24, 2003, 11:20 PM
Post #16 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 1525
|
Jinn has contributed precious little to this discussion other than inflammatory comments and false accusations of racism.
I also have a bit of a hard time swallowing his diatribe given the fact that resides in Cleveland, Ohio. Lots of reservations around Cleveland Jinn? Had a lot of personal interaction with native americans? I didn't think so. Now if Jinn wants to spout about declining rust belt cities of the Great Lakes region I'm all ears.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 24, 2003, 11:22 PM
Post #17 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
in the timeless words of Danny Glover...word
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jul 24, 2003, 11:26 PM
Post #18 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
In reply to: Just because people believe something and adapt their culture to such a belief doesn't mean they aren't rediculously wrong
Just because you believe something different doesn't mean that your sorry ass religious beliefs are true either!?!?! Maybe they are right? Maybe the mountain did grow tall to stop a bear and maybe their religious beliefs are just as plausible as any other such as the one that states that the earth was created in 6 days. I'm not arguing for it or against it but it is silly to argue that they are wrong just because YOU think their beliefs are silly. Stick to facts and proof when arguing or you will always come away pissed off and a loser.
But the more important topic that has nothing to do with beliefs is the topic about if the native-Americans should have some "extra" rights because of their original cultural property (the USA). Since they performed their religious and cultural activities before us, they have the first-come first-served rights to certain areas such as Devil's Tower and Cave Rock. Of course the Devil's Tower voluntary closure one month of the year was a very reasonable compromise and it is totally fair to give others the opportunity to excercise their religion.
One the other hand, the FS decided that Cave Rock is a site that needs to be culturally maintained in a way to keeps it's use at the level that was appropriate during it's cultural peak. In other words, there were tunnels through it, litter, hikers, Indians, etc... 100 years ago but there were no climbers and no women. So the Natives convince the FS to close it to climbers. At least the FS had some logical arguments although the only real cultural activity there was the act of worship by the natives. The rest of what went on was not really cultural at all including the digging on one of the tunnels (the other came after the cultural period but the FS cannot return the rock to it's previous state).
It is a very gray area when it comes to the native-Americans having "extra" rights. That post about the tribal use of non-tribal land but the tribal land was not available for use by the non-tribal local population was interesting. Especially since the local indians probably don't pay federal taxes that pay to maintain a lot of the area such as roads, etc... But they do pay gas tax and sales tax on the items they buy outside of the reservation and that tax money is used to provide some form of access so some of the stuff they use.
The only real danger I see in all of this is that some people will make it a purely religious issue or a historical "our ancestors were evil" issue while ignoring the issue of our federal government making it a habit of closing areas to rock climbers only. There is no way to win a religious argument and there is no way to make up for what our ancestors did because we are not them and should not be accountable. We can only be fair and honorable in the current situation while fighting to keep our right to access public lands.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 24, 2003, 11:55 PM
Post #19 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
"stick to facts and proof?" yet in making the same psuedo-point you say "maybe the mountain did grow." Make up your contrary mind, my friend. I am sticking with facts and proof. I can prove that Devil's Tower is volcanic basalt and did NOT grow suddenly to save a guy from a bear. I can prove that the earth was NOT created in 6 days. I can prove that the sun burns by means of fusion. There is alot I can prove. Furthermore, I don't believe I even interjected any of "my sorry-ass religeous beliefs." Did I even say I had any to begin with? Anyhow, we were in agreement until you mentioned the possibility of the mountain growing. And since that violates the very point I think that you were trying to make, I can summarily disregard the whole shpeel. Yes shame on me, I am a realist. I make the world go round despite all of those who would die to see it flat (or floating on the back of a turtle). By the way, the very fact that you would insist I adhere to proof and logic, yet suggest of the Devil's Tower story that "maybe it is true" speaks very poorly of your capabilities to reason. Silly, just silly.
You do make a decent point about some of these places being closed "to keep its use reasonable." Certianly closing down places to climbers/hikers/whomever based on the projected nagative impact they will have (or have had) on an area's ecosystem or achaeological quality seems reasonable.
As far as "extra rights" go, I think its a bad idea to give any group "extra rights" or "reduced responsibilities" etc. Just like affirmative action, hate-crime legislation, or anything else that requires people to classify themselves as different from others, I think that "extra rights" just serve to split people into groups and slow subcultures down. Without respite from federal taxes, many native americans would leave the reservations (which are often little more than ghettos) and be compelled by the rest of american society to "better themselves." Actually, I would say that it is the reservation, coupled with the fact that our oppresive midninteenth century government forced them to habitate such reservations, that is the main cause of trouble for the native american people. At this point the more they can intergrate themselves into society as the modern working machine that it is, the better off the native people will be for it. Its the disintegration of their group from the populus that causes alot of trouble. We need to stop splitting people into groups.
As far as "fighting for the use of the land," we do have to understand that, however illogical, these people have a close emotional tie with the land in question. Certainly we can't sway anyone by saying "you're wrong, here's why." We would do much better, as climbers, by setting a good example to the NFS, to local tribal governments, etc and showing them that climbers can enjoy nature without marring it. Being good stewards of the land is a very important aspect of native american culture anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jul 25, 2003, 12:18 AM
Post #20 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Jinn,
I would respond to your reply, but as others have pointed out, you have tried to turn this into a "racism" thread. That is not the basis of my argument. My point is the hypocrisy that indians have exhibited in my own personal experience and it looks like others have had similar.
As I said earlier, I have many indian friends and we remain friends to this day. And what I found really ironic was when you asked snidely if I was native american, funny answer to that is yes, well partially. My great Grandmother on my father's side was full blooded cherokee.
At some point in time don't you think that the native indians took their land from other cultures or indian tribes? Are those same tribes now respecting competing claims for retribution from past injustices?
The whole world's history has been defined by human conquest. At some point in time, this type of crap is best left for arguments between history professors. I say "MOVE ON" and lets become "one" people of the United States. Continually catering or creating special circumstances (or excuses as some would say) to one "class" will only continue to further divide our diverse nation into different racial classes.
Do you think that is whats best for our country?
|
|
|
|
|
vulgarian
Jul 25, 2003, 12:22 AM
Post #21 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 381
|
Read "Nits Make Lice" in the book, A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 - Present by Ward Churchill. It will make you sick what we did and are STILL DOING to the natives of this continent. "Better themselves"?? Give me a break. We killed over 95% of the indians. Gave them land (that was theirs to begin with), then took it back when we discovered resources on it, then relegated them to places where they couldn't even grow food. We forbade them from speaking their language. Wholesale massacre of women and children ("nits make lice") And we bitch because they want to set aside some time on land we stole from them. What a bunch of whiney little punk-ass babies. We put them on the welfare state. They didn't want it.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 25, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #22 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
dinstinction (made over and over again) WE did not do anything to the indians. I have many native friends. What have I done to the indians? I regularly give them rides places, money for things, etc. That's what I have done to the indians. Everyone seems to think that I, as a white person, have herded those I haven't slaughtered or sold into slavery into reservations so I can spit on them as they flounder at the bottom of the social rung. Funny, I don't recall doing that at all. In fact, the last time I hung out with an indian, I smoked him a bowl. I am truly evil.
Quit telling me that "WE" did it, and quit pretending that its a good reason to hold a grudge. That's as close-minded as "WE" were when "WE" stripped them of their land.
Oh, by the way, as a result of ME taking their lands on the north slope of Alaska for the oil resources (oooo-so evil!) the local native populations have been compensated with money for their villages and towns, countless jobs for their locals, resources such as medicinal clinics and means of better transportation. This "stealing of their land for resources" has been close to the best thing for many of the native groups on the north slope of AK since crossing the land bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
rockvoyager
Jul 25, 2003, 12:53 AM
Post #23 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 84
|
In reply to: my beliefs are right, and yours are wrong and stupid. i thought one of the things this country was founded on was religous freedoms? ?
Religious freedom also means freedom from religion. Until land is given back to the Native Americans it is public land. When it is closed for religious reasons it steps on my right to be free from religion
In reply to: to all those who think the native americans are shiftless, drunk, backwards louts....tell me how you would feel to see them come and start climbing your place of worship?
Jinn, don't pull a Rush Limbaugh here. You are exaggerating what they said to make your point. At least admit there is a difference between a private church and public land.
I admire your compassion, your empathy, but how far back do we go? Iraq invaded Kuwait because of some historical connection to the land. Was that OK, and if not why is the Native American claim any more legitimate? Go back to the Romans, the Greeks, Ghengis Khan. At one time each of them owned the known world. Do we find their relatives and give it back? I don't think so, they took the land from someone else and had the land taken from them. Agree or disagree, that's the way it is. Let's go back way back. The Neanderthal had the whole world taken by the Cro-magnon. What do we do about that?
Payback is a tough thing. Am I responsible for what your relatives did? My relatives came from Canada in the late 1800's so I shouldn't have to pay, right? As history fades away the lines get blurred and the idea of payback gets exceedingly complicated. Native Americans today, have more rights than any other group in the US. They fish and hunt when/where we cannot, their reservations are not subject our laws, they have Gaming Casinos in states where you and I couldn't. Will this repay them for what was lost? No, but it's the better than nothing which is the only other choice.
The Hopi Indians have a wonderful message called
In reply to: Wisdom of the Elders There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart and will suffer greatly. Know the river has is destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open and our heads above water. And I say, see who is in there with you and celebrate. At this time in history we are to take nothing personally. Least of all ourselves. For the moment that we do our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt. The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves! Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary. All this we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. We are the ones we've been waiting for.
I greatly admire all Aboriginals and their beliefs. The Australian natives belief in the Great Crocodile is just as powerful and fundamental to them as the Christians belief in Jesus. But these beliefs should NEVER entitle anyone to exculsionary use of public property.
I was born in the United States and because of that I to am a Native American and should have all the rights that everyone else has......Let's ALL gather in the river.
Brad
|
|
|
|
|
pt
Jul 25, 2003, 1:04 AM
Post #24 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 400
|
The Tower is sacred to me, therefore, I should be able to climb on it whenever I want. The Indian people could make the case that every natural feature in the country is sacred to them, does that mean everyone but them is allowed near it? They should not have any special rights.
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Jul 25, 2003, 1:06 AM
Post #25 of 120
(12047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
in the unforgettable words of Mel Gibson-"word Rog"
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
