Lance wrote:MM_Dandy wrote:I have a bit of an issue with the definition of sacred Indian lands.
Okay, they may have been my words. It's been a few weeks so I don't remember exactly what was said.
How about we substitute "crude oil pipeline" instead?
Well, sure, most crude oil pipelines win on sheer volume, and so have the wider potential repercussions, at least environmentally. On the other hand, is it really that unreasonable to say that both have the potential to have a negative impact on the environment and our safety?
Farming pretty much anywhere in the new world almost certainly has the same negative qualities as crude oil pipelines. Farming practices are relatively more environmentally friendly than they used to be, but it's a given that the environment isn't as "good" as it would be without farming at all. Natural habitats have been and continue to be irrevocably changed while fertilizer and livestock waste runoff pollutes ground water sources. It's also not uncommon to turn up native American artifacts, especially along creeks and rivers. It's almost always mundane stuff like arrow heads, tools, and the like, but occasionally the artifacts are more significant. Native Americans were forced onto reservations which are generally poorly well-suited for agriculture - and, at least in my region, they lie mostly outside of the reachable oil fields. And so, these residents can only benefit by way of consuming the product, and rarely as producer. We need food, and we depend on oil. In the end, I find it very hard to defend one and rebuke the other.