Social Question

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

What are your thoughts on selling off Apache Holy Land in Arizona?

Asked by Pied_Pfeffer (28141points) July 29th, 2015

This article was posted by a friend who found it online from The New York Times.

Based upon the article’s content, it seems sneaky and wrong. Am I missing something here?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

10 Answers

Here2_4's avatar

I’m thinking buck the rider.
I’m unclear on the legality of such a move to begin with. Does the American government own the land, or the apache? If the Apache own it, then no contract of sale would hold up.
Either way, it is a huge breech of trust, and to me seems an event inviting war.

elbanditoroso's avatar

If it is on Apache land owned by the tribe via a treaty, then they have full rights to it. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

If it is on US land (leased to Apaches) then the terms of the lease are important. Have you read the lease? I haven’t.

As for the ‘holiness’ of the land – big effing deal. So what. The land is not inherently holy; it is tradition and belief, neither of which impress me a lot.

I imagine that the Apaches do not have legal right to this land, which is why there is such a public brou-haha about it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It doesn’t impress me either, any more than cemeteries, but that doesn’t give me the right to be disrespectful of other people’s beliefs.

josie's avatar

Most people on this site think that such ancient voodoo is nonsense. And other people as well.

Very few here would bat an eye if the world negotiated away the Israeli’s claim to God’s promised land and gave it to the Palestinians.

In that case, what is so special about the Apaches? Screw them and the Israeli’s. Right?

Same principle of indifference. With the same potential consequence. Who mentioned war?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Oh come on.

The early treaties with Indian tribes screwed the Indians, no doubt about it. But the last 50–60 years have brought significantly better treatment to the tribes than previously, with much greater respect being paid to tribal holy lands.

So if this is not legally Apache land, then I would ask – why not?

JLeslie's avatar

My first reaction is I think it’s awful.

Here2_4's avatar

Um, what happened to respecting other people’s beliefs? Maybe nothing is holy to some of us, but I wouldn’t piss on somebody else’s beliefs, especially if they asked for help. I have trouble with reading so many jellies have no respect at all for these people or their traditions and beliefs.

rojo's avatar

Yes it is wrong. It is a typical sneaky underhanded donor payback we have all come to expect from our public officials and the reason I have always advocated that bills should be clean with no riders or attachments allowed. Every matter of public policy should be put forth in a stand-alone bill that is approved or disapproved on its own merits, not stuck into some completely unrelated bill so that is is passed without review or comment.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@elbanditoroso Would it be different if the government wanted to claim the land your mother and father were buried in? (Don’t get technical with me. This is just a “What if…”)

Dutchess_III's avatar

From the article, and I think this says it all: “If Oak Flat were a Christian holy site, or for that matter Jewish or Muslim, no senator who wished to remain in office would dare to sneak a backdoor deal for its destruction into a spending bill — no matter what mining-company profits or jobs might result.”

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther