The forum is in read only mode.
July 2017 ~ Archival of WFS Public Forums (18 Jul 2017)

Archival & restoration complete!
After two weeks of intense attention these forums are restored and my job is done, only two days late.
New moderators and admin will be introduced after this years General Assembly.

Members are encouraged to attend WFS General Meeting 2017.
Contact and Linking information available on wfs.me

Is 'White People TV' Hiding Coverage of Standing Rock?

  • verynewtothis
  • verynewtothis's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Freeman on the Land
  • Freeman on the Land
1 year 3 months ago #144812 by verynewtothis
verynewtothis replied the topic: Is 'White People TV' Hiding Coverage of Standing Rock?

verynewtothis wrote:

TYT Politics reporter Jordan Chariton ( twitter.com/JordanChariton ) did a Facebook Live discussing how new disclosed memos show that Dakota Access officials excluded Native American Reservation data from their environmental assessment given to the Army Corps of Engineers.

DAPL's DECEPTIVE Memo On Standing Rock

Published on Mar 6, 2017


This is a partial EXCERPT from page one of this very thread:

Is 'White People TV' Hiding Coverage of Standing Rock?

YES, most definitely!!

Published on Oct 31, 2016

Thom Hartmann talks about the disparity in media coverage between the Standing Rock Protest and the Bundy Boys taking over public land in Oregon and asks whether the difference is an example of institutional racism.


This IS for informational purposes:

Terra Nullius and the History of Broken Treaties
at Standing Rock

by Kiana Herold / November 14, 2016


If treaties are the supreme law of the land, as the U.S. Constitution states,
then how is it that treaties can be so easily broken by a government that claims to uphold a respect for the law?
An even more unsettling question:
how is it that the trail of broken treaties has been able to span generations under an outdated, imperial logic unknown to the majority of the U.S. citizens?
The founding of the United States is predicated on this painful contradiction between principles of equality and rule of law on one side, and the colonial appropriation of land from native peoples who have inhabited them for millennia, on the other.

The current resistance against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is inscribed in this contradiction, making evident the non-rule of law when it comes to appropriating native lands.

The history of Standing Rock is marked by the history of colonization predicated on the Doctrine of Discovery. The progressive erosion of its Sioux territory goes hand in hand with the logic of terra nullius, which framed land in the Americas asemptyin order to justify settler colonization.

The Sioux Nation:
http://www.snowwowl.com/peoplesioux.html has historically engaged in sovereign government-to-government relations with the US government. The first treaty in which the two parties engaged as diplomatic equals was the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm It was the U.S. government who sought the treaty to allow for safe passage of the influx of settlers travelling west through Sioux territory during the Gold Rush from the east coast to California.


Instead of adhering to the terms of the treaty, the U.S. government attempted to negotiate another treaty more preferential to its interests. Treaty making, instead of a diplomatic engagement between two equally powerful sovereign nations had turned into a destructive means of grabbing land and resources from native people; a form ofconquest by law: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Conquest_by_Law.html?id=f-P7bE4YY1AC&redir_esc=y as per the book by Lindsay G. Robertson.

The result was a second treaty of Fort Laramie signed in 1868. This new treaty shrank the territorial boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation: http://www.ndstudies.org/resources/IndianStudies/standingrock/historical_gs_reservation.html in exchange for the U.S. federal government’s removal of all existing forts in the Powder River area, among other specifications. Yet it was a flawed treaty from the start. Most importantly, it stipulates that no changes can be made to the legally binding agreement unless ¾ of all adult Sioux males consent. Many members of the Sioux nation, particularly those within the boundaries of the territory signed the treaty. But many more bands residing north of the Bozeman Trail, such as the
Hunkpapa and Sihasapa bands, did not.
The treaty was not signed by three quarters of all adult Sioux males.


In 1958, a federal court ruled that Lake Oahe was part of the Standing Rock territory according to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. In this ruling the court said: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/160/193/1952617/ ,
"Where there is a treaty with Indians which would otherwise restrict the Congress, Congress can abrogate the treaty in order to exercise its sovereign right. "
The court openly articulated the self-arrogated right of the U.S. government to go back on treaty obligations with Native Americans to unilaterally exercise its sovereign power.

The U.S. did just that, taking the Lake Oahe land from the Standing Rock tribe through legislation passed by Congress in September 1958 [Public Law 85-915].

Legal abrogation, or repealing legislation, dispenses with any idea of fair treaty making between equals.
It undermines native sovereignty, following a racist logic of colonial elimination.
It dispenses with numerous prior legal precedents that granted Native Americans some rights,
such as the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, which declared that no treaty obligation with an Indian nation before March 3, 1871 can beinvalidated or impaired .”
It puts into question the idea of the “federal Indian trust responsibility ,” articulated in
the Seminole Nation v. United States case of 1942,
which entailed an obligation:
https://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ on the part of the U.S. government to protect tribal treaty rights, land, assets and resources, per the Department of the Interior Indian Affairs branch.

As a federally recognized tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is legally entitled to these obligations: http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#nd However, as history has shown, U.S. principles and laws do not seem to have the same meaning when it comes to Native Americans.


The last paragraph I (verynewtothis) ALSO REMOVED simply because Trump is now Americas NEW President.

An YES, we should trust everything that the U.S. government says and puts into writing...they are trust worthy...RIGHT!?!
Sadly, I have to laugh at this point!!



TYT Politics` 'Native Americans Fight Dakota Access Pipeline' Playlist:

  • verynewtothis
  • verynewtothis's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Freeman on the Land
  • Freeman on the Land
1 year 2 months ago - 1 year 2 months ago #144858 by verynewtothis
verynewtothis replied the topic: Is 'White People TV' Hiding Coverage of Standing Rock?
As I stated ABOVE: 'we should trust everything that the U.S. government says and puts into writing...
they are trust worthy...RIGHT!?!

Please check-out this video to see how TRUE that/MY statement is:

Native Americans Lakota Sioux History Documentary 2017

Last Edit: 1 year 2 months ago by verynewtothis.
Moderators: UserAbuser
Time to create page: 0.162 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum