Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
I disagree with this assessment. It seems very simple to me. Best quote of the article right here:Canyonram wrote:a complex issue with no easy answers.
And to think this is being "planned" by one of the groups participating in the lawsuit for the so-called protection of the SF Peaks/Snowbowl. It reeks of hypocrisy."It's not Disneyland," said Lynn Hamilton of the Grand Canyon River Guides, a canyon advocacy and environmental group. "It's one of the seven natural wonders of the world. To mar that somehow with such commercialism right there, in your face would just seem contrary to what the value of Grand Canyon is."
Or perhaps, if you are offended by this statement you should put about a days worth of thought into why it offends you and how that "misconception" could be changed among the public, and how you can put forth a positive change for your people. Crying over being offended and burying the offense under a rug does nothing to better anyones cause.paulhubbard wrote:This post is NOT intended to offend any members who belong to the Navajo Nation, if it does let Joe know and he can remove it.
Idolizing polluting environmentalist is ludicrous....some guy I hiked with said that about the author of The Monkey Wrench Gang..... He also says...land is only sacred if you can't put a casino on it.berkforbes wrote:I think its time for a new Monkey Wrench Gang to be assembled
I agree with this. They have every right to develop their land, just as the Hualapai tribe has done with Skywalk on the western side. But as the article states, there will be a legal fight to determine who actually owns the land that they wish to develop. If the development authority wishes to engage in that battle, I'm all for it. Once the land-ownership dispute has been settled in the courts, and if they win and determine that the land up to the banks of the river belong to the tribe, then they can begin the environmental studies necessary to do any development. There are decades of environmental studies required, right? :roll:Tough_Boots wrote:Why is everyone so upset about them developing on their land? I mean, when everyone was fighting about Snowbowl it seemed like the big argument was that the indigenous people have no right because its not their land and that's how America works.
Unfortunately your childhood view of Native Americans is quite false. That man crying in the commercial was actually an Italian actor. The reservations have been dirty since day one-- they are basically third-world. Its unfortunate but true. I would also not say that the rich and powerful on the reservation always reflect the views of the others-- just like in the rest of the world.Outdoor Lover wrote: I still remember a commercial as a child, of the Indian shedding a tear about all of the littering and trashing of the country. Now, the areas around the communities on the Reservations in the Southwest, are some of the trashiest, dirtiest places imaginable. It's like the Native American community has done a 180 as far as being stewards and respecting the land in which they live.
Unfortunately, it's not just the rich and powerful that no longer care for the land....Tough_Boots wrote:I would also not say that the rich and powerful on the reservation always reflect the views of the others-- just like in the rest of the world.
True, but this seems to be the case in many poverty stricken communities-- I'm not sure why Native Americans get picked on more for it. Maybe it has something to do with their culture being decimated, growing up watching your elders become depressed and chemical dependent, and not seeing much of a life outside of that. There isn't that kind of all-encompassing poverty anywhere else in the country. The friends of mine that grew up on the Rez and left are all either much luckier or much stronger than most people. Unfortunately, the more unsightly the issue becomes-- the less we want to see it.Outdoor Lover wrote:But just because you're poor, doesn't mean you have to live like a slob.
I don't think it's a matter of being picked on, at least not by me. I have absolutely nothing against Native Americans...'Tough_Boots wrote:I'm not sure why Native Americans get picked on more for it.
I totally agree. There are areas in every metropolitan area in the country that have serious poverty, but it's just not 99% of the entire population of that metropolitan area, like it is on the Res. So it's alot more noticeable on the Res because it's everywhere you look...Tough_Boots wrote:There isn't that kind of all-encompassing poverty anywhere else in the country.