[JumpCrisscross]

> This is going through tribal lands because the tribes are poor and legally limited

The pipeline runs close to, not "through tribal lands" [1]. The environmental concern is fair. If my neighbor builds a 300 dB speaker on their property, I have a reasonable claim to damages.

The "sacred lands" and threat to "way of life" claims, however, seem disingenuous. It amounts to laying claims based on hypotheticals on someone else's property.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline#Tribal_...

[beat]

"Disingenuous" is unfair. But symbolic, certainly. What this is really about, what I'm getting at, is that this is being done because no one actually gives a shit about the tribes, except the tribes. The state is more or less free to steal from the tribes, or endanger them. If anything of value is found in whatever land they have left, it's taken from them.

So this is symbolism. Standing in front of a bulldozer and saying "NO" is all they have left.

[cloakandswagger]

"Disingenuous" seems fair to me. The land is suddenly sacred and inviolable when someone asks to build a pipeline near it (not on it), but the massive casinos these tribes erect on their "sacred" land isn't an issue.

I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.

[beat]

Now that is disingenuous. There's no casino there. Not all land is sacred, but some is. Casinos aren't built on land that might face internal opposition within a tribe.