Nebraska town with population of 11 sells four million beer cans a year

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...beer-year.html

The native American Indians deserve better than this.Alcoholism in the native communities is out of control.Also the Aborigini have the same curse of easy alcohol addiction.They are being exploited not for the 1st time in there history.

Alcohol is banned on the reservation and the tribe has accused the nearby stores as well as manufacturers: Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors Brewing Company, MillerCoors LLC and Pabst Brewing Company of illegally selling millions of cans of beer to members of the tribe.
Alcohol is a very serious problem for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. One in four children born on the reservation suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and the average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years - the shortest in the Northern Hemisphere except for Haiti. The average American life expectancy is 77.5 years.


Last week a federal judge dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the tribe can try again, provided it take its claims to the state court.
'There is, in fact, little question that alcohol sold in Whiteclay contributes significantly to tragic conditions on the reservation,' U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard wrote in his ruling.
'And it may well be that the defendants could, or should, do more to try to improve those conditions for members of the tribe.'

[Vanoi]

Daily Fail.

[I WUB PUGS]

Daily Fail.

Heard it on NPR like 2 days ago. Great sound clips of Indians begging for money so they can buy booze.

Not illegal, but piss poor business ethics. Someone must have failed that course.


Do as the Seminoles do. Open casinos on I4 between Tampa and Orlando for the whiteman to piss his money away.

[Lord Thesaurian]

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/ogl...9bb2963f4.html

This is actually true, however White Clay is not really a town. It is an unincorporated municipality that is listed in the US Census as part of Pine Ridge. Basically its just a state line pit stop the local tribe set up to get around the alcohol ban. That's why it sells so much alcohol to the natives. My grandfather drives truck to Pine Ridge all the time and passes whole caravans of beer runners on the way to White Clay. It's the way it's always been. Definitely not newsworthy. Plus, the US already tried Prohibition, and the only folks who benefited from it were the criminals smuggling alcohol. Alcohol bans, gun bans, drug bans, prostitution bans.....they don't work. When sufficient demand for a product exists, a market will respond to supply that product, regardless of legal obstacles.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Should conditions be improved for the tribe?
Does the government do enough for these people who are the the right full owners of the state.
Could Obama do more for them?
Why are Indians and Aboriginis getting addicted to alcohol easier than white men?
Is it DNA or is it that they are fed up and have no jobs?

[Col. Tartleton]

Should conditions be improved for the tribe?

No. The tribes should be dissolved.

Does the government do enough for these people who are the the right full owners of the state.

We're the rightful owners of these states. They lost the wars they started. They choose not to integrate. That's their problem.

Could Obama do more for them?

Why don't they leave the reservation?

Why are Indians and Aboriginis getting addicted to alcohol easier than white men?

Because they're bums. Why do bums drink so much? It has nothing to do with race.

Is it DNA or is it that they are fed up and have no jobs?

The latter.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some of these reservations are huge enclaves. Maybe they need financing, but why haven't they done anything with all that land?

[tarvu]

No. The tribes should be dissolved.


We're the rightful owners of these states. They lost the wars they started. They choose not to integrate. That's their problem.


Some of these reservations are huge enclaves. Maybe they need financing, but why haven't they done anything with all that land?

They totally started them, Europeans would have been content to stay in Jamestown if it weren't for those damned natives provoking them into a series of hundreds of wars after which we had no choice but to annex their land...they are just naturally violent people. Unlike Europeans.

[Col. Tartleton]

They totally started them, Europeans would have been content to stay in Jamestown if it weren't for those damned natives provoking them into a series of hundreds of wars after which we had no choice but to annex their land...they are just naturally violent people. Unlike Europeans.

Look at the records. Almost every USA vs Indian conflict was started by Indian attacks on American civilians.

Obviously European-Americans sporadically committed heinous crimes against the native peoples, but the government and thus Americans as a collective did not. The worst thing we did was ethnically cleanse the south unnecessarily and deport the 5 Civilized Tribes to Oklahoma, followed by us not leaving it as an indigenous enclave and making it into another white majority state.

We dealt with the Indians tribe by tribe. There wasn't an evil plot to get rid of them. I think if there was it would have been far more successful. Someone would do something that pissed them off, they'd get their guns and tomahawks and attack settlers, and it we'd retaliate in kind. Our societies learned not to trust each other. Americans didn't feel safe near the Indians and Indians didn't want us on "their land."

Plenty of Indians moved on and became successful. The ones on the plantations have clung to their booze, their religion, and their poverty. They're no more victims of society than the trailer park white trash of this country.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Look at the records. Almost every USA vs Indian conflict was started by Indian attacks on American civilians.

I would argue they started when settlers started rocking up on land that had been populated for generations by Indian tribes and claiming it as their own...

[justicar5]

No. The tribes should be dissolved.



We're the rightful owners of these states. They lost the wars they started. They choose not to integrate. That's their problem.





Some of these reservations are huge enclaves. Maybe they need financing, but why haven't they done anything with all that land?

wait so armed robbery is fine? If you can list the differences between colonial expansion and armed robbery I would be shocked.

Look at the records. Almost every USA vs Indian conflict was started by Indian attacks on American civilians.

Obviously European-Americans sporadically committed heinous crimes against the native peoples, but the government and thus Americans as a collective did not. The worst thing we did was ethnically cleanse the south unnecessarily and deport the 5 Civilized Tribes to Oklahoma, followed by us not leaving it as an indigenous enclave and making it into another white majority state.

We dealt with the Indians tribe by tribe. There wasn't an evil plot to get rid of them. I think if there was it would have been far more successful. Someone would do something that pissed them off, they'd get their guns and tomahawks and attack settlers, and it we'd retaliate in kind. Our societies learned not to trust each other. Americans didn't feel safe near the Indians and Indians didn't want us on "their land."

Plenty of Indians moved on and became successful. The ones on the plantations have clung to their booze, their religion, and their poverty. They're no more victims of society than the trailer park white trash of this country.

so you admit it was armed robbery then? European settlers pouring into land they had no right to, and attacking those that resisted, then blaming them for the war?

[Slaytaninc]

The only way to disband the reservations without the tribes' consent is to break the treaties. That's beyond wrong on so so so many levels.

Let's keep in mind that the whole reason they are on reservations in the first place is because of wars caused by broken treaties.

[Dr. Croccer]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some of these reservations are huge enclaves. Maybe they need financing, but why haven't they done anything with all that land?

Maybe because they're completely useless pieces of wasteland? You do realize that reservations were created primarily to get rid of Indians in places which the government or colonists wanted and move them out to locations with little to no value? That's sort of the reason why the mineral rich Black Hills were taken anyway, and the local tribes now live in the Badlands. There's nothing of worth there, hence why there's no economy and the Indians have to spend their money outside of it.

Because they're bums. Why do bums drink so much? It has nothing to do with race.

Not really.

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

The quest for genes that influence alcohol abuse follows two paths. One goal is to locate genes that predispose a person to alcoholism. The other is to identify genes that help to prevent this from happening. Li and his coworkers have made important advances in this latter category. "We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes. The one that is particularly effective is a mutation of the gene for the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, which plays a major role in metabolizing alcohol. The mutation is found very frequently in Chinese and Japanese populations but is less common among other Asian groups, including Koreans, the Malayo-Polynesian group, and others native to the Pacific Rim. "We've also looked at Euro-Americans, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and they don't have that gene mutation," says Li. Thus, incidentally, the study of genetic mutations and alcoholism links native North-American populations to central Asian ancestors, not to those from China and Japan.

tl;dr, Indians have genes that make them intolerant to alcohol.

That having been said, it obviously isn't the only factor. Poverty and misery is easily the biggest reason for alcoholism or any other form of substance abuse.

We're the rightful owners of these states. They lost the wars they started. They choose not to integrate. That's their problem.

Bit hard to intregrate when the US refused to regard Indians as legal persons and didn't offer citizenship to any until the 1830s, and even then they were treated like . The 'Five Civilized Tribes' who developed a form of writing, centralized modern government and were often given citizenship were treated no different from the 'uncivilized' tribes. The attempts by the Cherokee to westernize and cooperate with the whites ultimately didn't save them from losing their lands either. They could've all adopted every European trait possible and they'd still be forced into reservations, because it wasn't their civility that mattered but the fact that they wanted to be a political force with their own lands, which both the Federal government and the states disliked.

Europeans in general seem to have a rather romantic view of Native Americans, and I wonder if such was not the primary motivation behind the UN suit against the US government to return the Black Hills to the Sioux. All hilarious nonsense. The US can no more "compensate" the endangered races of natives than can the Latin Italians compensate the Gallic French or the Hellenic Greeks. All this talk of race has no place in a modern discussion. There are only people, and some people make poor choices.

I stopped taking your post seriously after you compared a period of poor treatment that is still within living memory to events that happened over 2000 years ago, and pretended that race and ethnicity isn't an issue anymore (or back then, and pretending that suddenly centuries of collective punishment and discrimination don't matter anymore)

Mainly because it was illegal at the time. The 'romantic view of Native Americans' (as human beings with at least some rights, really) existed long before any colonial self-government did. The central governments in Europe were practical but often also idealistic in their beliefs that the natives could be civilized or that they should be left alone to a degree. Which didn't sit well with colonists, who primarily wanted more native land that wasn't being granted to them. Hence why the new American government forcefully took over Mohawk land which had earlier been protected by British treaties. You can see the disparity between the treatment of Aboriginals in Australia and those of Indians in the US, with the British government trying to act as arbitrator in the former and the federal government at best being half-hearted and contradictory in its treatment of natives. That's probably the reason why the current Aboriginal population probably isn't much lower than it was when colonization started, whilst those of the natives surely was.

The US made a mockery of its own constitution by refusing to recognize Indians as legal persons, and later by refusing to treat tribes as foreign governments (even though the Constitution seems to view that as such, and the Founders had at least some respect for Indian autonomy)

You're also forgetting to mention that the US government signed a treaty in regards to the Black Hills, hence why the UN has singled it out, because it's a blatant violation by the government of its own agreements and laws. The US specifically signed several treaties which it then violated by not paying the tribes what it had promised. Especially the 1877 Treaty was harsh because it was unprovoked and practically erased any rights the natives had. The compensation money the US was supposed to pay never materialized. So the issue with the land has a pretty strong legal basis.

It's amusing how you're trying to defend blatant violations of human rights you supposedly believe in by a state when it's Americans doing it. Interesting doublethink there.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I stopped taking your post seriously after you compared a period of poor treatment that is still within living memory to events that happened over 2000 years ago, and pretended that race and ethnicity isn't an issue anymore (or back then, and pretending that suddenly centuries of collective punishment and discrimination don't matter anymore)

It doesn't matter if it was 50 or 500 or 5000 years ago; what's done is done, and blaming alcoholism on things that happened 5 generations ago is especially ridiculous. I am not excusing any behavior on either "side," I simply don't buy the rubbish about the "noble savage" undone by evil white men. Just as societies have fallen in the past, so did the native peoples of America. Racism and slavery are certainly terrible evils that the US has had to confront, but as I said, that is past. The only fools still talking about it are those who would victimize or be victimized. I suppose, based on your above line of thinking, that Germany ought to be making penance tribute to Israel for the Holocaust?

Mainly because it was illegal at the time. The 'romantic view of Native Americans' (as human beings with at least some rights, really) existed long before any colonial self-government did. The central governments in Europe were practical but often also idealistic in their beliefs that the natives could be civilized or that they should be left alone to a degree. Which didn't sit well with colonists, who primarily wanted more native land that wasn't being granted to them. Hence why the new American government forcefully took over Mohawk land which had earlier been protected by British treaties. You can see the disparity between the treatment of Aboriginals in Australia and those of Indians in the US, with the British government trying to act as arbitrator in the former and the federal government at best being half-hearted and contradictory in its treatment of natives. That's probably the reason why the current Aboriginal population probably isn't much lower than it was when colonization started, whilst those of the natives surely was.

The US government has engaged in countless illegal acts over the years. The Mexican American War was nothing but US aggression due to Manifest Destiny, as was the Spanish American War. The Progressive Party built concentration camps in Cuba, "Christianized" the Phillipines, fomented the Red Scare and McCarthyism, and passed the Patriot Act and a series of executive orders allowing the President to imprison anyone without trial. Herding members of a fallen society into "reservations" is old news. Besides, the tribes are still living on reservations and they like it that way. The tribal leaders grow rich off federal subsidies and the rest waste away. You're posts don't seem to condemn that. Did you even read the linked essay? It explains all this first-hand. If handouts and intrinsic reparations are the answer, then as I said, everyone had better start handing out money to everyone until we're all broke. I say disband the reservations ad allow to the tribes to assimilate at long last. Isn't that real "equality?"

The US made a mockery of its own constitution by refusing to recognize Indians as legal persons, and later by refusing to treat tribes as foreign governments (even though the Constitution seems to view that as such, and the Founders had at least some respect for Indian autonomy)

Yes. The Constitution also banned the slave trade as of 1820, but Southern smugglers still managed to import at least a quarter million by 1860 thanks to the sorry shape of the US Navy. I suppose we ought to introduce "Reconstruction, Part Deux" and force the former slave states to make reparations to the descendants of those slaves?

You're also forgetting to mention that the US government signed a treaty in regards to the Black Hills, hence why the UN has singled it out, because it's a blatant violation by the government of its own agreements and laws. The US specifically signed several treaties which it then violated by not paying the tribes what it had promised. Especially the 1877 Treaty was harsh because it was unprovoked and practically erased any rights the natives had. The compensation money the US was supposed to pay never materialized. So the issue with the land has a pretty strong legal basis.

The UN is nothing but a globalist whorehouse; funded and governed by elitist pigs who think themselves masters of mankind. What right, legal or otherwise, do they have to usurp the sovereignty of any nation?

It's amusing how you're trying to defend blatant violations of human rights you supposedly believe in by a state when it's Americans doing it. Interesting doublethink there.

I have not contradicted my statements or principles in the least bit. The term "human rights" is nothing but a modern concoction of the UN. It has no basis in philosophy, academia, or empirical data. It is a pile of political tripe arbitrarily spewed out like so many UN mandates. I believe in natural rights; long studied by the same men who rebelled against papal and feudal tyranny in the name of the mind, and engraved as the legal foundation of the United States: Life, Liberty and Property. These rights were obviously violated by the US government countless times and continue to be today. How exactly is some kind of retroactive reparations supposed to improve or rectify anything?

[justicar5]

The UN is nothing but a globalist whorehouse; funded and governed by elitist pigs who think themselves masters of mankind. What right, legal or otherwise, do they have to usurp the sovereignty of any nation?

The irony is thick with this statement. What right did america to usurp the sovereignty of the Native Americans? It was armed robbery, pure and simple, like most wars. What right does the US (or any nation have) to break treaties? (Whether this means there descendants should be getting compensation now is a whole nother thing)

[Squiggle]

I guess its the price of segregating yourself from the greater society, ensuring theres really no hope for upward mobility [nevermind helpful genes from other populations!].

Why are Indians and Aboriginis getting addicted to alcohol easier than white men?

Genes. They have basically no ability to handle their alcohol. Thought that was common knowledge?

[MathiasOfAthens]

How can you have a town of 11 people? That is not a town. Not even a village.

[Gaidin]

How can you have a town of 11 people? That is not a town. Not even a village.

They don't. Technically it's a community that's a part of another town. It has no government of it's own.

[Imperial]

I think they meant to say family.

[Vítor Gaspar]

Tartleton's posts gave me brain cancer, I'll refrain from making any more posts in this thread. Good job on over-simplificating the issue and putting the blame solely on the Indians.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Tartleton's posts gave me brain cancer, I'll refrain from making any more posts in this thread. Good job on over-simplificating the issue and putting the blame solely on the Indians.

We can all go round and round about Whitey "oppressing" the natives or we can acknowledge the present facts. It doesn't matter what happened what happened a century and a half ago. The people alive today have fully functioning brains and can make their own choices. If I am Native American, the fact that my grandfathers lost a war and therefore their land does not give me an excuse to drink myself to death. Same goes for any minority. The blacks can't blame slavery for their problems, etc. It is self-loathing and misanthropy that drives the modern conceptions of social justice, and all this tripe about the natives drinking away their sorrows because of the "pale faces" is nothing but racism and ignorance.

Europeans in general seem to have a rather romantic view of Native Americans, and I wonder if such was not the primary motivation behind the UN suit against the US government to return the Black Hills to the Sioux. All hilarious nonsense. The US can no more "compensate" the endangered races of natives than can the Latin Italians compensate the Gallic French or the Hellenic Greeks. All this talk of race has no place in a modern discussion. There are only people, and some people make poor choices.

For those of you who seem to think otherwise, I suggest you read "Superman and Me" by Sherman Alexie. Tis an excellent first-hand analysis of the idiocy of modern social justice. Any "oppression" minorities experience is primarily due to their own complacency and the velveteen racism of those who call themselves "activists" for social justice. The child of a minority community is disadvantaged from the start by fellow members who waste away in a caste system of entitlement; bound to repeat the cycle of their parents who told themselves their primary goal in life was to be compensated by "the White Man." That child is also kept down by the racist self-important elitists who cultivate for themselves an air of superiority by confining the next generation of minority children to the stereotypical mode.

My mother's side is Native Hawaiian. I'm certainly not marching around demanding compensation and plotting to blow up the Dole Corporation for staging a coup and annexing Hawaii under duress so Dole and his cronies could trash the local ecosystem and work the natives like slaves to farm fruit. Why? Because it doesn't matter anymore, and whining about it isn't constructive in the least bit.

In the case of Alexie, this meant teachers who expected nothing from him; that he would grow up a hooligan who would spend his miserable and brief adulthood drinking like all the others. But this child was different. He taught himself to read and never looked back. Now he has assimilated into society and looks to help other children like him break free of those who would continue the caste system on account of "broken treaties."

I'm sick of hearing this garbage about "exploitation" and "who deserves what." It's the twenty first century. Anyone in Western Europe or the US has ample opportunity to succeed. Even if that's not the case, government intervention is the last thing on earth that will fix it, as the failed "War of Poverty" and crippling entitlement costs prove.

How can you have a town of 11 people? That is not a town. Not even a village.

It is an unincorporated municipality that is listed in the US Census as part of Pine Ridge. Basically its just a state line pit stop the local tribe set up to get around the alcohol ban.