Lawsuit alleges solar projects would harm sacred Native American sites

[XemaSab]

Stepping gingerly across a small mesa of manganese-stained stones, Alfredo Acosta Figueroa explained how the giant image of the creator etched into the earth guides the souls of mothers and children west toward Old Woman Mountain.

The image of Cicimiti, more detectable from the sky than on foot, is just one of many geoglyphs, Native American burial sites and ancient relics that Figueroa says are threatened by solar projects being fast-tracked near Blythe and other remote expanses in the Southern California desert.

"There's no way these people can circumvent all the sacred sites out here, and no way to fix it when the damage is done," said Figueroa, 77. "How can you mitigate Mother Earth?"

The Native American group La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle, which Figueroa founded, has joined with environmentalists in a federal lawsuit to block six mammoth solar projects approved by the Department of the Interior.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-suit-20110224,0,539145.story

[inademv]

1. Like all other religions

take your shit and get out of the way.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Are you talking about La Cuna de Aztlan or the solar projects?

:shrug:

[inademv]

4. La cuna de Aztlan

The idea of setting aside a plot of land for a reason other than explicitly environmental reasons is just silly.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Give me a list of all those other religions

[inademv]

5. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

[Angry Dragon]

8. Yes fine, you gave me a list of religions

now how your list of what other religions have given up

Still waiting for that list of religions having to give up parts of their religion 1;19

Fail on your part
If you put boundaries on one religion you put boundaries on them all. 1:43

[inademv]

11. I don't put boundries on any of them

They can all fuck off.

[damntexdem]

6. If you're referring to those who want to preserve the site, remember:

the whole damn country was stolen from the native peoples. It makes sense to preserve sites still extent that native peoples revere.

[inademv]

12. Yes and it is reprehensible

But that isn't a reason to hold back what little progress we are making toward a world that can survive past oil.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. If they do not own it, they should not control it

If they want to control it, then they should take steps to acquire ownership

[Dead_Parrot]

15. What, like round up all the white guys at gunpoint...

...and put them into "reservations"?
:shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. How long should historical claims be good? Consider the middle east before your answer

Also there are very different views of property ownership in the scenario

[Dead_Parrot]

18. I wasn't aware the European settlers *had* any historical claims

I though it was settled by who had the most guns.

And yes, I am considering the ME fully here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Then you have no issue with Israeli settlements...

[Dead_Parrot]

20. It's clear that you don't

After all, the Israelis wanted to control the land, and took steps to acquire ownership. If the Palestinians want to control it, then they should take steps to acquire ownership.

Or would you like to clarify your position?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. The comparision is of interest since it depending on how far back should

historical claims be good for drives a lot history in the world.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. In that case, throw in a value

Remember to show your math.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. I am not one those supporting ancient claims...

At a practical level the problem is:

- If your grandfather took my territory by force, do I have a claim to get the property back?
- What about if it was your great great great great grandfather?
- What if it was the former government of the territory
(West Germans reclaiming previously owned property seized by East Germany)

Jerusalem was a Jewish city for generations. Does the PA really have the right to claim it as its capital since from a long term historic view they are johnny-come-lately. Rome controlled Jerusalem continuously longer than any single group. Should it belong to Italy or the Vatican?

The Soviet Union/Russia has never returned territory seizned from Japan in WWII. Does Japan still have a legitimate claim to it?

Jerusalem and other territory was part of the state of Israel when it was originally declared. They were taken by force by neighboring nation. Israel has retaken them and held them for more years than those who originally took them. Who's claim is the more legitimate?

If the nationality/ethnicity of current residents is the driver, then the Sudetenland being ceded to Germany was legitimate and Argentina have no legitimate claim to the Falklands/Malvinas Islands

The reality is that legitimacy of historical claims is really an unsettled issue. It varies between locales in some cases and there are no solid guiding precedents. The UN has been nothing if not inconsistent. Historical wrongs were in deed done to many parties, but that does not mean that those of us alive today are responsible for them and need to make them right.

To return to the main thrust of this thread, public land needs to be used in the best public interest. Blythe is prime solar country. Not sure I would like all the contract terms, but conceptually using it for solar power it is the right thing to do.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Well, let me know if find a line to draw.

Otherwise, we'll go by gunpower.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Interesting choice

[bdibuz]

28. primacy

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

Consider this: if our nation supports (both politically and militarily) the right of Israel to reacquire and hold land that they once lost based on the principle that it is sacred to them, how do we justify withholding land from Native Americans who consider it sacred and would like to reclaim it?

If it is simply a matter of might, fine. I can accept that. But would I then be unpatriotic, even treasonous, to lend my (albeit puny) weight to the side I consider worth supporting? In this case, Native American claims for sovereignty over lands they consider sacred?

I actually have a religious/spiritual basis for my support of their position: I consider all land to be sacred and beyond human jurisdiction. In other words, I think the issue is about our relationship to the land per se, not to specific cultures who have historically occupied it. With regards to the development of solar power plants on vast tracts of desert (these won't stop spreading while our needs keep increasing), I propose the following:

There is no such thing as free energy. Until we learn to curtail our desire for more convenience and indulgence, we will trample some part of the earth or another, all of which should be treated as sacred, in order to satisfy our endless appetite. This suit (against BLM and solar energy projects) should be about protecting our grandmother earth, not just specific sites. New sacred sites may be necessary for future generations as well, not just as a memory of those who lived here in respect in the past.

[kristopher]

7. Trying to deflect from the massive subsidies for nuclear?

Seven minutes before you posted the OP you read this story by the Union of Concerned Scientists about the massive subsidies that nuclear power has and continues to receive. The timing makes it appear that your reaction to that new knowledge was to scurry off and try to find something (anything) that was critical of renewable energy sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881

[XemaSab]

9. Yeah, I was so annoyed by your article

that I decided to go read the LA Times to mellow out.

There's a similar article in the New York Times. Would your east-coast self prefer that I had posted that one?

[inademv]

13. What exactly is the problem

with modern nuclear power plants?

[abqmufc]

14. The mining the transport and storage

One only needs to look at the legacy of the nuclear era on the Colorado Plateau. Cancer clusters are plentiful from Flagstaff to Albuquerque b/c of the uranium mining. There is no place to store nuclear waste. I personally don't want it at WIPP within New Mexico.

The thought of 150 shipments of nuclear waste a day through Albuquerque to a storage facility will result in some serious risk. DOE estimates 1 major accident per 500 shipments. We already drink tainted water and the landscape has for every been altered by mining and mineral extraction.

To answer the first question, it comes down to Federal Indian Law. Trust have the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which protects there rights, just as the first amendment protects most Americans (as at the time American Indians were not given the protection of the 1st Amendment.

[inademv]

16. I said modern

To the mining part, one cannot really avoid the impact of that beyond proper protection for miners (proper suits, robotics, etc...). The stuff is already there and bringing it up doesn't do much more to any area between removal and placing in a shielded container for transport.

To the transport part, the casks for transporting nuclear material are obscenely durable and safe. Trials included burning them for hours in a jet fuel fire, testing in a mock train collision, and others. So I don't see how exactly that is a problem

To the waste part, new generation reactors can be made that use a low blend fuel which includes spent fuel from older reactors (see: Bill Gates at TED).

When DOE estimates 1 major accident, they do not cite that as having any spillage or loss of nuclear material. Additionally the raw ore and even the spent fuel is not an immediate threat in terms of radiation.


In respect to the Federal Indian Law, if this land is not on a reservation (because reservations have sovereign rights), then I see absolutely no reason why the request should be honored on religious grounds alone.

[hunter]

25. I'd like to see modern plants built that use already mined fuel.

We might recycle "nuclear waste" produced in current reactors, we might use thorium already dug out of the ground and left for waste, we are already destroying nuclear weapons by turning them into fuel, and we might also convert our huge stores of depleted uranium into energy.

Our rush to build nuclear weapons was so insane and our current nuclear plants are so inefficient that we've already mined huge amounts of nuclear fuel that is simply sitting around and sometimes causing problems.


depleted uranium storage (wikipedia)

I'm against solar power plants on undeveloped desert and I support the Indians here. There is no reason to destroy vast areas of our natural environment to solve entirely imaginary problems. The cults of solar power and capitalism ought to have no standing here.

[slackmaster]

27. Rooftop, grid-tied solar avoids that kind of conflict

Because not every homeowner and business can afford the capital outlay to install locally-generated solar power sources, the oft-stated problems with lack of storage vs. peak power consumption will never materialize.