(On a request by A86, I have returned the blog to it's original background colors. I am still screwing around with the header thing a ma jig. So that might change)
I have always been fascinated by the "we were here first" argument. I have been hearing that argument made in one form or another, my entire life.
The popular television series "Yellowstone" was based on the premise that a ranch which had been homesteaded long ago, was under siege by airports and developers. Thus, our protagonists are the Duttons' versus the antagonists- greedy out of state development interests.
Imagine sitting around your teepee in the 1850's and watching white European settlers' stream in and take giant tracts of land, land that you used to freely roam around on and hunt. Of course you are angry. However, you are essentially powerless. You can't communicate your concerns; you are facing overwhelming numbers and advanced weaponry. You can fight but you will be at a disadvantage. In the end, you are going to lose your land and your way of life.
That is what happened to the American Indian. They were here first but as it turns out, that argument fell on unsympathetic ears.
So we have "reservations" now. Large tracts of land inhabited by native Americans. This is where we put the Indians after the Indian wars were over. Are the Indians still pissed some 150 years later?
Oh yea. Last year, I was on the Pine Ridge Reservation at Wounded Knee and I tried to ask a tribal cop a few questions about a ceremony going on at the cemetery. Not only would he not look at me or answer my questions, he told me he had things to do. As I departed, I noted that he did not move at all.
Which brings me to the latest, "we were here first" argument.
Here in my little town in Southern Utah- we have another evolving "we were here first" saga going on between four surrounding subdivisions and a gravel pit or mining operation right smack dab in the middle. The gravel pit and it's owners are seeking a special designation which would essentially protect their operations from interference by local governments. They would be free to strip sand and gravel from their 177 acres and at some futuristic point- turn the whole site into a subdivision.
The problem for them is that they are surrounded by four subdivisions of people who don't particularly care to be subject to back up alarms, rock crushers, dust and debris, and crumbling roads. Never mind that the gravel pit will destroy the terrain and hills- the landscape itself seems to be some secondary concern not even worth mentioning.
The city in which this gravel pit operates in is governed by relatives of the owners of the mining operation. Where I come from, we call that the "good ol boys" and from every early indication- it appears that the gravel pit operators and the good ol boys have the upper hand.
Remember, townsfolk aren't asking them to stop their operations. We are simply asking the city not to grant them a special designation that will allow them to operate with little or no oversight.
So a clash between the gravel miners and the surrounding homeowners is developing. The homeowners are attending the planning and zoning meetings, council meetings, and they are arming themselves with lawyers. That is how we do battle in the 21st century.
So, it remains to be seen how this will end. I don't think anyone will be asking native Americans for their advice.
