The governor's proposal to create a no-develop buffer zone around Bear Butte has grabbed the SD blogosphere's attention (see Powers, Epp, Schaff, Blanchard, Newquist, Ross,... whew! anyone else?). Arguments for and against range through the Establishment Clause, the Fort Laramie Treaty, even eminent domain.
The Madville Times is on record opposing the intrusion of biker bars and other commercial exploitation around Bear Butte. Now astute readers will note a potential contradiction: The Madville Times has been expounding vigorously on the sanctity of individual property rights and the scourge of eminent domain foisted upon us by rapacious foreigners. How can one oppose trampling on the property rights of South Dakota farmers for the practical purpose of building an oil pipeline yet support infringing on the property rights of landholders around Bear Butte to protect less tangible spiritual and cultural significance of a lump of rock? (After all, as I've been told, "America runs on hydrocarbons," not spirit or culture.)
It is perhaps awkward to discuss the "property rights" of us settlers in the context of our relations with somewhat more "Native" Americans. My Lakota readers may look upon my outrage over TransCanada's land grab with a scornful laugh: "So how do you white folks like it?" TransCanada at least has the courtesy try stealing our land through our own court system. The majority of South Dakotans live on land obtained through trickery, treaty violations, and the Winchester method of conflict resolution.
Land is as sacred to the Lakota and other tribes as it is to farmers, ranchers, and Mrs. Madville Times, probably more so. The whole earth, not just landmarks like Bear Butte, are much more sacred than the ephemeral boxes of brick and stick which we crown with crosses and gather in weekly to pray.
We need not recite the history of bad relations between white settlers and the tribes we met here. We offer just a gentle reminder that, when today's Christian majority bemoans their persecution at the hands of a the minority secular humanists, they should ask our neighbors in Flandreau, Pine Ridge, Standing Rock, and elsewhere about real religious persecution (see also this script -- big download, PDF format -- of "Tribes of Dakota" from SDPB).
We have as much right to fight the encroachment on our property rights by a foreign power as the Lakota had to fight our invasion 150 years ago. TransCanada would be hard-pressed to defend its land-thievery by saying, "Well, you did the same thing to the Indians!" But when we ourselves turn to face our native neighbors, from whom we stole what we now call our rightful property, the moral equation needs some rebalancing.
The Madville Times isn't calling for reparations. Even if it were, a no-development zone around Bear Butte is darn little compensation for all the sins of our past (you do not want to be around when that bill comes due). The governor's plan won't even put more money in Indian hands; compensation goes to current landowners who lose out on commercialization and development opportunities.
Clever lawyers can argue that the buffer zone constitutes an establishment of religion. Clever lawyers can also argue that the buffer zone is simply constitutional protection of the tribal people's right to exercise their religion (actually, you don't have to be too clever to figure that one out). But it might be easier to simply state that we have an obligation to do right by the people we cheated to get where we are now. Governor Mickelson recognized this and tried to promote reconciliation efforts between us and the tribes. His three successors have done little in that direction. Preventing further commercial encroachment on a place of natural beauty and cultural significance is a very small and very welcome gesture on the part of Governor Rounds to perhaps revitalize Governor Mickelson's vision.
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
Or a clever lawyer could argue that the state is simply protecting one of the crown jewels of the state park system from urban encroachment.
ReplyDelete"What, some people worship that hill? Well I'll be. Imagine that."
I have to agree with Pat Powers' posting in wondering why state government is stepping in to establish this buffer.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't this be a local zoning issue for the county affected whereby they simply state in the local comprehensive plan and zoning regulations that development in this area is not encouraged?
State park -- good point, NN! There's a demonstrable public good for every citizen, whether they are seeking spiritual or natural inspiration.
ReplyDelete