undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFireBeyond9y ago0 comments

This is very valid. But I think there's _also_ an important symbolic goal here.

"This pipeline was moved because local communities feared the risk to the water supply. So the company felt it was appropriate to move it into the tribal community area."

"Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

0 comments

criddell9y ago

> "Water risk to white people? No no no. Water risk to Native communities? Well, we can live with that."

I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt. I'm guessing it went more like "Water risk to 50,000 people or water risk to 5,000 people?"

This history of the US government relations with native people makes any object assessment suspect though.

dragonwriter9y ago

> I don't think the Army Corps is that corrupt.

I'm not sure the Army Corps was involved until after the reroute, and, in any case, it had publicly announced that it would not approve the easement on the current route because of the issues raised relating to Standing Rock and was conducting environmental impact reviews of alternative routes prior to the Trump executive order directing approval of the current route, so, yes, I'll agree that the Army Corps of Engineers itself is not indicated to be the source of the problem.

charia9y ago

It also has to do with the fact that local communities had a significant population in comparison to the native american m tribes who lived in the area.

Declanomous9y ago

It's a good we got out in front of that issue ahead of time by killing Native Americans and then moving them away from their ancestral homeland.

lostlogin9y ago

credit where credit is due - I blame the British empire. NZ, Australia and other former colonies have done it as well, getting slightly less vicious and slight more manipulative with time. Dodgy treaties with locals etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse