"I am defending grandmother earth and I am chasing peace."
November 19, 2014 11:15 AM   Subscribe

Crow Creek Lakota member Greg Grey Cloud interrupted the Senate to sing a victory song after the Keystone XL pipeline was defeated. (Scroll down for video)
posted by femmegrrr (52 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
I don't really oppose the pipeline at all but I'm always proud of people peacefully standing up for what they believe like that even when they risk arrest. Thanks for the link.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:20 AM on November 19, 2014 [7 favorites]


From the sounds of it the victory is likely to be short lived.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:33 AM on November 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


From the sounds of it the victory is likely to be short lived.

The right may have a majority, but that isn't filibuster-proof, even if Landrieu is voted out, right? Perhaps the Democrats can grow a spine about climate change and do some obstructionism that Republicans are renowned for.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:42 AM on November 19, 2014 [4 favorites]


I don't think they will have enough votes to override a veto, so it's still going to come down to Obama. If he plays it how he usually does, he will hold it up as a bargaining chip, offer the Republicans a relatively decent deal, and they will refuse to give an inch.

They may change their tune now that they control both houses, but it's hard for me to see that happening. They still just want to destroy him.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:44 AM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


There just was violence on the Senate floor. As an American I don't like the behavior of the security people and the disrespect shown to the singer. Look at the gawdawful hole in Alberta, the wound to the earth and the waters is pathetically, criminally, short sighted.
posted by Oyéah at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2014 [29 favorites]


Yeah - if XL passes/starts construction (and lets face it - there is an awful lot invested in this already - there's no way the full might and power of the USG is going to not do this), violence is an understatement. We've already got tribes calling it war. I called that a day before the Rosebud tribe said it. It is going to be probably the most massive environmental civil action the US has seen in a loooooong time.

I look forward to all the great wonders the NSA and their ilk have in line ready and waiting for activists. You just know dirt has been dug up and is continuing to be dug up right now.

There will probably be a mysterious death of a reporter or two.

Definitely "accidents" on some protestors while chaining themselves to things. Some grandmas prosecuted by the FBI who went to a little Lutheran Church Meeting and some other various things.

And the machine keeps moving on.
posted by symbioid at 11:59 AM on November 19, 2014 [8 favorites]


I thought he was mocking Elizabeth Warren.
posted by republican at 12:00 PM on November 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


As a point of information. There is already a pipeline from Hardisty Canada through Steele City to the Gulf of Mexico. What is proposed as the Keystone Pipeline is a larger flow pipeline which goes through Baker MT. Map here.
posted by vapidave at 12:01 PM on November 19, 2014 [3 favorites]


There will be violence before any major work commences on this stupid fucking pipeline.

I don't see why. It seems kind of an odd thing to make that kind of stand about. The pipeline itself, I mean; as I understand it the tar sands are going to get dug up one way or the other, and this is primarily a debate about whether the oil is shipped through the US to the Gulf of Mexico or across Canada to the Pacific. If there were any way to actually prevent the tar sands extraction from going forward, that would be a great idea, but it doesn't seem like obstructing the pipeline will actually get that done.

Which is not to say I think it's a GOOD idea, but why does this merit violent protests? Why this? When coal extraction proceeds apace every day in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, without violent opposition; when fracking is still expanding dramatically, which not only extracts yet more fossil fuels (and vents methane into the air - 25 times as bad as CO2) but also wastes fresh water which will probably be more valuable than the gas itself within a few decades. If one is really up for violent opposition, why not start there?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 12:07 PM on November 19, 2014 [5 favorites]


If one is really up for violent opposition, why not start there?

I don't think anyone in this thread who has mentioned the possibility of violence is advocating it, just pointing out that the possibility is there.

As for why-this-and-not-that - well, a lot of reasons (like any other why-this-and-not-that protest). The article here in the WaPo talks about and with (some) American Indian tribes and tribal members objecting to the pipeline.
posted by rtha at 12:16 PM on November 19, 2014


Well -here's one example of why it's an issue
...the fourth and final phase, is controversial because it runs through some environmentally sensitive areas, including the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest known freshwater aquifers in the world, which supplies water to a large portion of the Great Plains.
...
For tribe president Scott, concerns are both environmental and cultural.

The pipeline would violate the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, an agreement between the Sioux and the US government, that allocated parts of the Dakota territory to the Sioux, Scott said. He also said he was not consulted by the US government or TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the pipeline.

“We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation," Scott said in a statement. "We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”
posted by symbioid at 12:19 PM on November 19, 2014 [44 favorites]


Well- that's ... Tribal Sovereignty and the Oglala Aquifer.
posted by symbioid at 12:19 PM on November 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


This may be common knowledge, but I didn't know it until recently: there is an existing pipeline across the US from the tar sands to the Gulf Coast, called Keystone, which Keystone XL was going to be an addition / expansion to.

Keystone XL basically cuts a corner off of the existing route by going through Montana and South Dakota, rather than east across Canada and then due south through North and South Dakota, but it's not as though there isn't a pipeline from points A to B already.

The XL pipeline lets the miners dig up the tar sands faster, and might raise the market value somewhat by reducing the losses involved in hauling them to processing facilities, and of course it's a boon to the processing companies and to the economies of the US Gulf-coast states, but it doesn't seem as though a victory against the pipeline is a victory against the tar sands, and certainly not against global warming, in any meaningful way.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:25 PM on November 19, 2014 [2 favorites]


The other question is: Why do you think protests will be violent, and not the reaction of the corporations/state.

The protesters will be, I assume, mostly peaceful. It's not that they will be the violent ones. It is the reaction from the corporate-state alliance when their interests are threatened that will result in violence.

This doesn't necessarily mean it will come as an order from the top. Low level grunts, working in the field, will become frustrated by the refusal of those who resist to move out of the way. Accidents happen. A common example is David "Gypsy" Chain, or witness the bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. You can believe the State's version of events, but history has shown time and again that there are indeed actions perpetrated against protesters, whether cointelpro style, or, as I said - just grunts/blokes on the front lines trying to do their jobs, and maybe out of anger, snapping.

It may not happen, but as big as this is, I have a hard time believing this pipeline will end up being built without something horrible happening to some subset of the American population.
posted by symbioid at 12:26 PM on November 19, 2014 [4 favorites]


Aren't we sick of every last American Vista marred by power companies in one way or another? These big boy projects and the cavalier destruction they wreak on the land and peoples dishearten many of us. I don't think they should be able to get rights of way this large that block the migrations of game, and people for that matter. They get a huge swath of land on either side of a pipeline like that, they may legally, lethally defend at the whim of private mercenaries. That is a huge chunk of the US rendered unavailable to Americans.
posted by Oyéah at 12:28 PM on November 19, 2014 [9 favorites]


It's not just West Virginia and Pennsylvania where coal mining is happening. For more than four decades, Peabody Coal mined the Black Mesa, pumping three million gallons of water every day from the Navajo aquifer to wash the coal. I'm pretty sure the Navajo protested that. When that deal was cut, by the way, the lawyer for the tribes was on the Peabody payroll.
posted by Anitanola at 12:45 PM on November 19, 2014 [7 favorites]


I've never quite understood why they don't just twin up the existing Keystone pipeline to increase its capacity rather than taking a new route from Alberta south—I guess it's shorter, but the acquisition costs of the land have to cost more than a few extra miles of steel pipe—but I maintain that choosing Keystone XL is an odd hill to die on if you're an environmentalist.

It seems suspiciously like a cause célèbre that has attracted an outsize amount of attention, given that the country is already covered with oil pipelines (and those are only large ones!), most of them uncontroversial.

I am concerned that a "victory" over the pipeline will make Americans think they made some sort of great strides against Big Oil, when in reality it's barely a speed bump as far as carbon extraction goes.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:53 PM on November 19, 2014 [8 favorites]


the acquisition costs of the land have to cost more

Cost, shmost. They're seizing it through eminent domain, on the grounds that it's a public pipeline that anyone can use. They get it at fair market value. (What having a dotted line on your property marked GIANT OIL PIPELINE GOES HERE does to its "fair market value" is anyone's guess.)
posted by Sys Rq at 1:10 PM on November 19, 2014 [5 favorites]


...the fourth and final phase, is controversial because it runs through some environmentally sensitive areas, including the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest known freshwater aquifers in the world...

You know, this is a good point and one that doesn't receive enough attention (as well as the tribal sovereignty issue).
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 1:10 PM on November 19, 2014 [3 favorites]


I wouldn't mind if Keystone XL became some leftist rallying point if that's what it took for people to get engaged in climate change. I agree probably we're all fucked at this point because the tar sands will be extracted one way or another and doesn't that mean we're well on the way to a 4 degree Celsius change, but you know what I just depressed myself into apathy and can't finish the rest of this comment coherently.
posted by angrycat at 2:01 PM on November 19, 2014 [9 favorites]


Kadin2048: I am concerned that a "victory" over the pipeline will make Americans think they made some sort of great strides against Big Oil, when in reality it's barely a speed bump as far as carbon extraction goes.

At this point, the left in general and environmentalism in particular just needs to put some points on the board, even if they're ultimately more symbolic than substantive. Morale is as low as I can remember it being, so a victory could energize rather than placate the movement.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:05 PM on November 19, 2014 [10 favorites]


Metafilter: I just depressed myself into apathy
posted by symbioid at 3:06 PM on November 19, 2014 [3 favorites]


It was a brutal piece of political theater.

The bill was going to be vetoed and the veto was not going to be overridden. (The real game comes next year when the Republicans attach it to renewal of some social or renewable energy program that Obama will be reluctant to kill.)

The whole point was to enable Landrieu to show oil field and refinery workers in Louisiana that she can deploy enough influence with (usually) anti-hydrocarbon Democrats to be worth re-electing. Instead, her fellow Democrats handed her that calculated one vote defeat. Knowing that would be the result, Reid could have just quietly refused to allow the vote. But by allowing the vote, the Democratic Senators were able to make a very nice show to their deep-pocketed environmentalist donors: "look at how we are willing to humiliate our colleague who dared stray from the party line."

Any Democrat whose election depends upon supporting firearms rights or the energy industry now knows the score, if they didn't before.
posted by MattD at 3:08 PM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


I don't understand why people are so complacent with the horrors we are doing to native people and the earth herself.

This land does not belong to the people that exploit and harm it.
posted by xarnop at 3:13 PM on November 19, 2014 [4 favorites]


That was amazing. Well done, Mr. Grey Cloud.
posted by MissySedai at 3:38 PM on November 19, 2014 [6 favorites]


One potential solution to oil companies overstepping their welcome: Copyrighting land as art

“I’m not trying to get money for my land, I’m just trying to relate to these companies on their level,” says Tiesenhausen from his home near Demmitt, Alberta. “Once I started charging $500 an hour for oil companies to come talk to me, the meetings got shorter and few and far between.”
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:02 PM on November 19, 2014 [5 favorites]


I am concerned that a "victory" over the pipeline will make Americans think they made some sort of great strides against Big Oil, when in reality it's barely a speed bump as far as carbon extraction goes.

This has been the MO of the Republican party for decades now. Circle the wagons on the "pipe" dream issue just to control/change the debate and move/distract the American public from their base concerns. The people who control republicans only want to make sure they still get their massive government subsidies. It would be quite refreshing one day that when Republicans pick up on a bullshit issue like XL for Democrats to counter with - not only aren't you getting your pipeline but we are going to cut Big Oils billion dollar subsidies by 5% every day you stump for it.
posted by any major dude at 5:15 PM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


MattD: The whole point was to enable Landrieu to show oil field and refinery workers in Louisiana that she can deploy enough influence with (usually) anti-hydrocarbon Democrats to be worth re-electing. Instead, her fellow Democrats handed her that calculated one vote defeat. Knowing that would be the result, Reid could have just quietly refused to allow the vote. But by allowing the vote, the Democratic Senators were able to make a very nice show to their deep-pocketed environmentalist donors: "look at how we are willing to humiliate our colleague who dared stray from the party line."

Meanwhile, back here on Earth-1218:

(a) Reid was going to allow the vote whether it passed or failed, because Obama had already signaled he would veto it if it passed, and wanted Landrieu to get a chance to show her support (even though we all know she's toast.)

(b) Reid had no reason to be very confident that the bill would survive a cloture vote. Fourteen of his caucus members supported it, and indepdendent Angus King was the 60th vote. King did signal toward the end that he was going to vote no, but Senators switch votes all the time if they get a good enough offer. Meanwhile, Tim Johnson, Jay Rockefeller, and Mark Udall were all in play from big fossil fuel states, and two of them are lame ducks who don't have any reason to listen to Reid.

Still, I would love to live in the version of reality you've constructed where Harry Reid and the Democrats are brass-knuckled enforcers who punish caucus members who step out of line, so if you've got any spare tickets, please hook a brother up.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:35 PM on November 19, 2014 [4 favorites]


"I am chasing peace":
"I wasn't chanting. It wasn't an outburst. It was a song of honor, honoring the senators, the hard work and courage for standing up and saying no to Big Oil," Grey Cloud, 28, said in an interview. "I did it for a good cause."

The idea to sing, regardless of the outcome of the Keystone decision, came on Tuesday a few hours before the vote. Tribal elders and others signed off on the idea. Grey Cloud then scrambled to find a song that would be appropriate, and after talking with a native song keeper, settled on one composed during the 1980's in opposition to coal mining.

The words, sung in the Lakota language in the Senate chamber, went as follows: "Tunkasila wamayanka yo, le miye ca tehiya nawazin yelo. unci maka nawacincina wowahwala wa yuha waun welo" The English translation: "Grandfather look at me, I am standing here struggling, I am defending grandmother Earth and I am chasing peace."

Grey Cloud, wearing his Indian feathers, began singing shortly after the vote totals were announced. He said he was carried outside chambers by Capitol police, thrown against the wall and arrested, while singing the song throughout the incident. He was detained in the D.C. jail for five hours for interrupting the Senate, and given a Dec. 10 court date.

"We have time, time to keep fighting time," he said. "As a singer I know only one way to honor someone and that's to sing. I didn't mean to disrupt (the) Senate, only to honor the conviction shown by the senators."

He has not decided yet how he will plead to the misdemeanor charge, which will most likely carry a fine.
posted by stbalbach at 5:47 PM on November 19, 2014


I dunno, tony you and I have not seen eye to eye on all things lately but I think MattD isn't off there. I don't think the Democratic leadership did not know the exact results of that vote before it happened. They aren't 100% great at whipping everybody into line, but they don't ignore reality either and take into account what the vote is going to be before it happens. I think the entire point was to give Landrieu her moment to prove she would fight for the issue but without ever a moment's risk that it would ever actually pass. I think "Political Theater" is the most accurate description of what happened in this thread so far.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:48 PM on November 19, 2014


The consequences were exactly the same whether it got 59 or 60 votes. Landrieu gets her moment, Keystone XL bill doesn't get signed. In fact, I'm pretty sure Obama, who's been on his "fuck it, I'm going to make a big show of doing stuff" kick lately, would have happily smiled for the cameras vetoing such a bill. The Senate vote meant nothing, and in fact, if Reid didn't put the bill on the floor, he would have had the Heitkamps and Manchins of the world talking about how it deserved a vote because [mythical job numbers], [mythical impact on foreign oil dependence], etc.

So no, Reid had every incentive to put it on the floor regardless, but the idea that it was to punish Landrieu is absurd.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:53 PM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


the idea that it was to punish Landrieu is absurd.

I dunno. Any democrat who was asked how this would turn out ahead of time knew it would turn on this way, right? So why let it happen? We may want to encourage the voters in LA to give her another term...but why do it with a doomed to failure vote? It's a cluster, whatever the long term analysis comes up with to figure how exactly it went wrong...it's a cluster.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:59 PM on November 19, 2014


Drinky Die: Any democrat who was asked how this would turn out ahead of time knew it would turn on this way, right?

You keep saying this as if it's self-evident. The pre-vote analyses I read all seemed to suggest there were still gettable 60th votes in the moderate wing of the Democratic caucus, and we all know nays can become ayes with the right incentives. And, again, you're ignoring that if it got 60 votes, that wouldn't have embarrassed Landrieu at all but the result would have been the same. Plenty of other petro-Senators wanted the vote. All of these factors aren't things you can explain a way with vague assertions that everyone knew with zero margin of error what the outcome would be.

It's a cluster, whatever the long term analysis comes up with to figure how exactly it went wrong...it's a cluster.

I've read this a few times and I have no idea what you're saying here, sorry.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:36 PM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


Drinky Die: Any democrat who was asked how this would turn out ahead of time knew it would turn on this way, right?

You keep saying this as if it's self-evident. The pre-vote analyses I read all seemed to suggest there were still gettable 60th votes in the moderate wing of the Democratic caucus,


Err yeah, I always put question marks after stuff I think is self evident. Link me.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:41 PM on November 19, 2014




Jebus, that seriously convinced you this was seriously at risk of passing? I mean, why?!
posted by Drinky Die at 6:57 PM on November 19, 2014


You understand if the Democratic leadership allowed this to pass they would have been facing down a confrontation with their own President, right?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:01 PM on November 19, 2014


Jesus fuck, I already outlined several factors that explain why, and even if it were a fait accompli, the theory that it was being done to punish Landrieu rather than help her is totally ridiculous. You can disagree, but you've made no logical argument as to why it's a valid theory and just keep repeating your premises, so I'm just going to step away from the derail and let others talk about the more important issues pertaining to the FPP.

On preview: The fourteen of them who voted for this wanted that confrontation, and Obama would have been fine with giving them that opportunity by vetoing the bill. Seriously, you're just not making an argument that I haven't responded to already.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 PM on November 19, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry, can we go back to the assertion that Democrats actually have "deep-pocketed environmentalist donors"? Because that sounds awesome.
posted by lydhre at 7:10 PM on November 19, 2014 [6 favorites]


Jesus fuck,

Charming.

the theory that it was being done to punish Landrieu rather than help her is totally ridiculous.


What I am saying to you is that the theory that it was going to help her is equally as ridiculous as they theory that it would punish her because there was no universe in which it was gonna pass. Passing it would be a lame duck Senate on the way out openly rebelling against their lame duck President who opposed passage. As a Democratic party and two party system opponent, that level of dysfunction is something I would gleefully love to promote, but it didn't occur here. They left her out to dry knowing they were gonna shoot down the bill. Everyone on the planet with half a brain knew it.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:11 PM on November 19, 2014


lydhre: I'm sorry, can we go back to the assertion that Democrats have "deep-pocketed environmentalist donors"? Because that sounds awesome.

Yeah, the Koch Brothers are no match for the mighty Sierra Club and Clean Water Action. PHEAR THE GREEN, BITCHES.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:12 PM on November 19, 2014


While I think the singing was great, I'm not a big fan that he did it in the chambers. It sets a bad precedent and that's why other gallery members starting shouting at Democrats (specifically the ones who voted for the bill). I think he should've gone right outside the chambers to sing. It still would've been heard by a lot of people without getting in legal trouble.
posted by Deflagro at 9:15 PM on November 19, 2014


Meh, He sang where we all heard him sing. Can't fault him for choosing that point.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:30 PM on November 19, 2014


I'd just like to take my time machine back in history and bring a member of the First Nations to sing on the Senate floor around the time of every major decision that affected their people. Those are hard voices to ignore.
posted by gusandrews at 9:43 PM on November 19, 2014 [5 favorites]


I'm not a big fan that he did it in the chambers

The notion that someone from a nation that's been absolutely royally fucked by the United States government at every possible turn owes the Senate any respect or decorum at all is ridiculous.
posted by 1adam12 at 11:46 PM on November 19, 2014 [11 favorites]


It sets a bad precedent

That is true; it would be a pretty grim business if every major vote were followed by victory songs from one side and songs of defiance from the other. Although I also imagine we could also identify occasions when the Senate spent its time in worse ways.

On preview; if we only offer courtesy to friends, we never really offer courtesy at all.
posted by Segundus at 11:57 PM on November 19, 2014


Who can forget the time when the Republicans' lacklustre atonal chant of We are the Champions was suddenly interrupted by Senator Hubert T. Fuddlesworth, who rose to his feet, eyes blazing, and delivered a magnificent Nessun Dorma in that resonant tenor, rising to a long crescendo which silenced his opponents, sending a tidal wave of sound over that sturdy embonpoint and transforming defeat into moral victory?
posted by Segundus at 2:51 AM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm a bit fuzzy on Keystone's specifics, but given what's happening with shale oil in the US, is it possible that sheer economics will ruin the pipeline's business case?

Between the US and Saudi Arabia (and OPEC - and everything else that could happen) the oil price is being hammered down, which is rendering unconventional drilling marginal, and I have to assume tar sands even less economic (based on what I know).

Could this not be a situation like all those LNG import terminals y'all were going to build a decade ago, wherein the market moves on?
posted by Mezentian at 3:42 AM on November 20, 2014


Actually I think it would be great if assholes who make shitty decisions for vulnerable people were reequired to listen to a 2 or 3 hour art presentation in any form (song/visual/speech/video footage of impacted people) before and after their decisions.

Also UGH why the fuck do we give assholes not effected by the harms of their actions so much power to shit on vulnerable people? Why do we afford them any respect or rights at all? Just because it's done by the government does not mean we should accept it. We absolutely should stand up against wrongful actions by the government, and practice totally defying their authority when they are abusing it. No one should agree to be ruled by tyranny or follow directions/rules dictated by human rights abusers and those who are destroying the earth for profit or convenience.
posted by xarnop at 5:13 AM on November 20, 2014








« Older Butter Wars, squatting with Sid, and £10,000...   |   Greil Marcus and Don DeLillo discuss Bob Dylan and... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments