• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For those who supported the McCloskeys...

Who would be justified in using deadly force?

  • Both the Sioux and the McCloskeys

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • The McCloskeys, but not the Sioux

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • The Sioux, but not the McCloskeys

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Neither

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • Total voters
    9

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"The lands on which that mountain is carved and the lands he's about to visit belong to the Great Sioux nation under a treaty signed in 1851 and the For Laramie Treaty of 1868 and I have to tell him he doesn't have permission from its original sovereign owners to enter the territory at this time."

Oglala Sioux vote to ban Trump from Mount Rushmore – hours before controversial fireworks event

Trump is planning an event at Mount Rushmore for several thousand people on Independence Day. The legal owners of Mount Rushmore have made it clear that these visitors are unwanted on their land.

Members of the tribe have blocked the road to Mount Rushmore. The National Guard has been deployed against them:

Protesters in Keystone arrested after blocking road to Mount Rushmore for hours

Recently, in the discussion of the incident with the McCloskeys ("Ken & Karen" of Portland Place, who brandished firearms at BLM protestors), several members here argued that deadly force is justified against trespassers.

South Dakota is a "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" state. Apparently, no Sioux tribe members have been killed (yet), but they have been violently attacked, with members of the tribe pepper sprayed and detained.

Those of you who thought the McCloskeys would have been justified in using deadly force against trespassers: do you think that Sioux tribespeople would also be justified in using deadly force?

If your answer is different for the two cases: why?
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
The fact that the Sioux are being detained and pepper sprayed again, just like during the building of the keystone pipeline, is absolutely pathetic. How much lower can our country go? I think we have quite a ways, and we are sure going to head that way with four more years of Lord Trump.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Oglala Sioux vote to ban Trump from Mount Rushmore – hours before controversial fireworks event

Trump is planning an event at Mount Rushmore for several thousand people on Independence Day. The legal owners of Mount Rushmore have made it clear that these visitors are unwanted on their land.

Members of the tribe have blocked the road to Mount Rushmore. The National Guard has been deployed against them:

Protesters in Keystone arrested after blocking road to Mount Rushmore for hours

Recently, in the discussion of the incident with the McCloskeys ("Ken & Karen" of Portland Place, who brandished firearms at BLM protestors), several members here argued that deadly force is justified against trespassers.

South Dakota is a "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" state. Apparently, no Sioux tribe members have been killed (yet), but they have been violently attacked, with members of the tribe pepper sprayed and detained.

Those of you who thought the McCloskeys would have been justified in using deadly force against trespassers: do you think that Sioux tribespeople would also be justified in using deadly force?

If your answer is different for the two cases: why?

But I thought the US National Park Service tends the land of Mt. Rushmore. So how can a national park also belong to the Oglala Siux?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Because it goes against their preconceived biases, and they are unable to introspectively exam themselves.

It's weird that the tribe attempts to ban Trump from the park but not the US park rangers and other US government staff.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
But I thought the US National Park Service tends the land of Mt. Rushmore. So how can a national park also belong to the Oglala Siux?
The land belongs to the Oglala Sioux. By treaty and U.S. law. The Supreme Court confirmed that.

It's weird that the tribe attempts to ban Trump from the park but not the US park rangers and other US government staff.
It doesn’t matter if that seems weird to you. This is their land, they should be free to decide what to do with it. Who to allow on their land and who not to allow on. And if you, or even Trump disagrees with what they decide, it shouldn’t matter at all. Legally it is their land.

 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
It's weird that the tribe attempts to ban Trump from the park but not the US park rangers and other US government staff.

Probably because the other govt staff are performing some other essential functions besides acting as a showpiece. Park staff are respectable people who help care for the park and land. But the president has no respect for either the Natives (or anyone w/on power/money) or their land (EPA regulation cuts come up in my mind).
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
About a month back, the Oglala installed checkpoints to their lands, in order to try and protect themselves from COVID, and the Governor ordered them removed (which the Sioux resisted, passively as far as I know).

Dispute over South Dakota tribal checkpoints escalates after Gov. Kristi Noem seeks federal help

There's a long history of Indian rights being adjusted or removed when they become inconvenient. Legally, it's a little tricky in some cases, although Federal law seems to take precedence.

Still, I don't think trying to work out a calm and mutually agreeable way forwards here seems in Trump's plans. We'll see.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The land belongs to the Oglala Sioux. By treaty and U.S. law. The Supreme Court confirmed that.

Hi mate...
Is it is clear as that? Can you link me to something? My sympathies here lie with the Native Americans, but I've found more information on their ability to supercede State rights than Federal.

Any info or credible direction gratefully accepted. I'm happy to trawl through and read myself.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hi mate...
Is it is clear as that? Can you link me to something? My sympathies here lie with the Native Americans, but I've found more information on their ability to supercede State rights than Federal.

Any info or credible direction gratefully accepted. I'm happy to trawl through and read myself.
Native Americans and Mount Rushmore | American Experience | PBS
According to this article, the land doesn't belong to the Sioux,
its theft by the federal government notwithstanding.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But I thought the US National Park Service tends the land of Mt. Rushmore. So how can a national park also belong to the Oglala Siux?
It was made a national park illegally. Legally, the land still belongs to the Sioux.

Effectively, the National Park Service has been squatting on Sioux land.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It's weird that the tribe attempts to ban Trump from the park but not the US park rangers and other US government staff.
Is it any weirder than how the McCloskeys tried to ban BLM protesters from their property but not couriers, servants, garbage collectors, etc., heading to their neighbours?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You really, really don't like having the double standards of the right exposed and scrutinized, do you. Makes you sweat and squirm.
I would be especially amused if they ended up arguing that the labour and "improvements" put into the land caused it to change ownership (IOW, if they argued for the Marxist theory of private property).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Are you reading a different article than the one you linked to?
"In the Treaty of 1868, the U.S. government promised the Sioux territory that included the Black Hills in perpetuity. Perpetuity lasted only until gold was found in the mountains and prospectors migrated there in the 1870s. The federal government then forced the Sioux to relinquish the Black Hills portion of their reservation."
Notice the underlining I added to that last sentence.
 
Top