Lately there has been many contradictions on the North Dakota pipeline constructions . It has been said that the pipeline is being built on sacred land . Should the pipeline be stopped?
The North Dakota and Keystone pipeline leaked and a majority of oil spilled and caused a lot of damage . The governor of Dakota and two other congressmen have let Obama build the new pipeline on The Standing Rocks Sioux . The pipeline is being built on sacred land granted to The Oceti Sakowin (Sioux )Tribe by treaty. Although some people believe that the pipeline will do a great cause and help create jobs ; Meanwhile others believe that this will have a big effect on the peoples water supply and cause more problems than actually helping the circumstances
…show more content…
. The construction site barely reaches the Sioux tribe so individuals believe that the pipeline should be constructed on the site . The continuing construction of the pipeline will help create jobs and allow the U.S to be more energy dependent . The pipeline will help by transporting oil to North Dakota making major refining markets safer and cost effective. As stated earlier , this will supposedly help the economy and allow jobs , although most of them will be minimum wage , which is not great for people who are supporting a family . What they have not considered is that this big change could cause damage to the people in the Sioux tribe and other people in the area , as well as the animals and their habitats.
They have not thought about the treaty which guaranteed the land to the people in the tribe.
The North Dakota Keystone pipelines continued construction is being built close to sacred land for the Sioux tribe. The people of the tribe are afraid that the continued construction could eventually end up destroying the last of their water source . The sioux people are afraid the pipes will fail once again and cause destruction to their land . The destruction could lead to damaging the environment and wildlife . As well as the people who live downstream, their only water source would be destroyed.
People who aren’t opposing have failed to understand that this is not right , they don’t understand how this will affect everything and in the community around it. The pipeline should be halted because it is unfair for the people in the Sioux tribe and the environment . Continuing the construction of the pipeline could cause problems in the near future
…show more content…
. Many argue that the access pipeline will contribute to safely transporting oil into North Dakota but it could also end up having many flaws . For example , by doing this they could actually be worsening the climate. When burning fossil fuel , It releases C02 and this could truly end up harming everyone in the area. CRS estimates that oil going through the keystone pipeline could result an increase on emissions of greenhouse gases equally or more so between 770,800 and 4.3 million commuter vehicles . Overall transporting the oil and the construction itself will have a negative effect on the people and on the location where the people stand . The Sioux people argue that the pipeline should not be continued close to their land , the area is sacred to them and they refuse to let their guard down.
They should not be constructing the pipeline if that land was given to the native people . The land is sacred to them and by doing this to them it could cause them to be emotional because they feel highly spiritual about the land. This is all about the rights about the Native American people and the ability to calling a place home. The general public fails to understand that the land has a special meaning to the tribe .
It has cultural meaning and they are ignoring that specific factoid.
Over 1,000 people participated at a small protest . If the construction continues our Native American society in North Dakota will be raged or possibly disappointed and heartbroken at the site of mankind destroying so close to their property .
Although some people believe that the pipeline will do a great cause and help create jobs ; While others believe that this will have a big effect on the peoples water supply and cause more problems than guaranteeing a good solution. They presume it is a good idea to do construction in that specific area , believing it will do good for the economy , it could also cause great damage to the land and habitats of animals . As well as the water from the stream . Transporting fossil fuel could cause bad climate change and could end up harming the
environment. The land is sacred for the people in the Sioux tribe and continuing construction there could really cause emotional and environmental destruction between the natives. The only thing we can ask ourselves is the pipeline construction going to be stopped? Will there be another way to place the pipelines without causing any harm?
The proposal has been heavily criticized by native groups. Groups like the Yinka Dene Alliance have been organized to campaign against the project. In December
“Urge the Senate to Stop the Risky Keystone XL Pipeline”. Letter. League of Conservation of Voters. Change.org. Web. 10 December 2013
The people against the pipeline believe that the pipelines would cause the release of gases into the air that could be harmful to other people. A utilitarian approach to this situation would be to not create the pipelines because there are more cons than pros.
Many tribes resisted this policy. Wars were fought as a result. The Sac and Fox Indians in Wisconsin and Illinois reoccupied their lands after having been forced to move west of the Mississippi. They were defeated. The Seminole Indians refused to sign a treaty to give up their lands. They, too, fought and lost a bitter war to remain on their land.
After the treaties were signed it was voluntary for the tribes to move to the new lands that were “their” but only a small number of them
and Henry David Thoreau’s ideas of how government should not be followed if laws are morally unjust according to religion are reflected in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at Standing Rock, South Dakota. They are a form of independent action and nonconformity that are quite distinct in their nature because they truly mirror ideas of great transcendentalist thinkers, unlike other protests in this era that seem to be unorganized and without clear purpose. The protests at Standing Rock are over the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline that would have to run through Sioux territory. The nonconformity seen at the Standing Rock protests is due to a feeling of a greater purpose due to religion. As a part of the Sioux religion, the people “[attach] religious and cultural significance to properties with the area” (Bailey). Therefore, any changes to the land around them goes against their morals and their religion, so action must be taken. This applies the principles of Thoreau because people are protesting the naturally unjust government, and the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. can be seen because people are making their own decisions over whether or not the rule of government is just. Furthermore, it is not just the Sioux who are protesting, but also “religious communities such as the United Methodist Church and the Nation of Islam” (Bailey) This is because people of other religions also recognize the plight of unjust laws and act independently. They also
Over the years Glen Canyon Dam has been the spark for hundreds of debates, rallies, and protests. These debates have been going on for almost forty years now. The fact is that the dam created a huge lake when it was built, this is what bothers environmentalists. This lake is called Lake Powell and thousands of people depend on its tourists for income. The lake also filled up a canyon called Glen Canyon, some people say it was the most beautiful place on earth. The anti-dam side of the debate has its basis in the fact that Lake Powell is currently covering Glen Canyon. It was very remote so few people got to witness its splendor. This is probably the reason the dam was built in the first place, ignorance.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
The Keystone Pipeline started construction in 2008 for the main purpose of connecting Canadian and American oil refineries to transport crude oil from the oil sands of Canada faster and more efficient. So far the first three phases of the pipeline have been completed but the proposed and most controversial is Phase IV. It connects Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Oklahoma which requires a presidential permit and it also connects the 485-mile southern leg known as the Gulf Coast Project between Steele City and Port Arthur, Texas, which is now operating (Eilperin). The benefits of the pipeline include an increase in jobs, contribute $3.4 billion to the U.S economy and also save time and money from transporting the oil by pipeline instead of tanks and rails. At the same time it would be a great harm to the environment, making the climate unstable, and could cause possible future oil spills. The articles covering the Keystone Pipeline generally list out the same points, covering the same benefits and consequences of building the pipeline. Sources like Fox News and CNS have more of an opposition towards the pipeline and narrow in on the risks and of the effects it would have on the people. Whereas news stations such as CNN and The Washington Post address both sides of the controversy but are subtle about being in favor of the pipeline. The international sources such as Al Jazeera and Reuters oppose the pipeline and are more open with supporting the environmentalists.
Recently, TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has become a hot debate topic. Those who oppose the Western United States oil pipeline are misled and uniformed. The US Government should authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline that would import tar sand oil from Canada. The pipeline would generate jobs and help to remove foreign oil dependency, is the safest transportation option being considered and finally will not harm or affect the environment as opponents claim.
These native people have rights, just the same as every person living in America, and therefore should not be evicted from their land. When
The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
The people who are being asked permission to transform their land into drilling sites for natural gas have more reason to be concerned than most because it will affect them more directly than people who do not live in that specific area (although it does affect people who do not live in the vicinity as well). Although fracking may seem to concern to only a small group of people, it should also concern anyone who cares about doing what is safe for our country's citizens. The truth is, fracking is extremely dangerous, not only because of the negative effects on the environment, but also because it could make people ill.
The once great tribes of Native Americans are now all gone from the land in which their forefathers were born in. This act of ethnic-cleansing was called the Indian Removal Act. This law authorized the removal of Native Americans to move to the west of the Mississippi River in exchange for land. Although this act lead to the growth of America, the Native Americans shouldn’t have had to relocate. The Native Americans shouldn’t have relocated because they were becoming more civilized, because they were on the land first, and they were not safely transported as the government promised.
Many Native groups, because they were nomadic, didn't see land as belonging to one person. The idea that someone could come in, claim a piece of land and ban them f...