Fun Fact:

History is a blood bath. If you are alive today you can bet there is blood on the hands of your ancestors. I wonder what a world based on peace would look like...



♥

Also one Native American from one tribe doesn't speak for all tribes and all of his own tribe.

The US government broke up tribes as a social unit a long time ago. Some are mad, as dreamer said that DOESNT necessarily mean all feel this way. I think there is assumptions being made on the opposition that Rainbow is nothing more than drug taking hippies. I don't think they took the time to look into the Rainbow Family... I can't say I'm not really that familiar with Rainbow nor am I a Lakota

I certainly don't speak for my tribe, or any others just sayin is all. My dad was a supporter of AIM in the 70s when violence last erupted there. Almost 100 years before that they had the massacre at Little Big Horn. I do think some sensitivity should be paid to what they have been through, but threats of violence is no response that is ever necessary.

Also Sioux is Chippewa for Snake. They were named this as an insult

"Does that mean that we should make the bakers serve gay people, or use legal force to keep the Rainbow Family off the land? No, I'm opposed to state control, BUT it is disingenuous to pretend that all demographics are treated equally because it ignores the complex history of violence and oppression that majority groups have inflicted on minority ones, including Native Americans and LGBT people."

But this is not really different from what I said. Backassward idiots and backassward idiots..but so what? Do I have the right to say that a person who worked hard to build they're own business HAS to serve a gay person if they don't want to?

Calling them out, or asking for them to act in a different way is VERY different from demanding with force(laws) that they change they're actions..

and in a previous post oil companies were mentions and this idea that "I can do whatever I want even if it hurts others etc"...well I covered that part, in saying that once your own actions begin to actually inflict upon another persons ability to live how they see fit, then yes other people SHOULD take action. Destroying land is unfair to the rest of us, as we all have to live here..companies like BP should be forced to change...but a gay person unable to buy a cake at a certain store is not in that category IMO..

People should call out such actions, and the owner will look like the ass backwards fool they are, and likely loose business...that's how it goes.

I know that people wear headdresses at festivals etc..I have seen it..I think it is tacky and culturally insensitive and I have called out that kind of behavior..but it is not for me to say that a person absolutely cannot act this way...they are free to do that and I am free to think what I think about it.

I find it kind of distasteful when I see people portraying norse people as all wearing horns on they're heads and acting like dumb barbarians with swords raping and pillaging..and yes my tribe of people was raped and pillaged by the catholics who are responsible for a lot of that imagery..so if say some Romans dress up as vikings and dance around in horned helmets getting smashed and I find it kind of tacky or culturally insensitive, does that mean that I have the right to use force to stop them from acting this way? IMO, no. I can ask them to stop, or tell them I think they are fools etc..

The individuals who left the comments in question are not representative of the entire community, nor are they representative of the collective opposition to the gathering. There are plenty of people politely expressing their disdain, and yes--there are also those who don't mind and even welcome the event. But when that many people are clearly uncomfortable (and when there is a potential for conflict), how does it make sense to just have the gathering anyway? A world based on peace might look like people from different walks of life coming together and holding hands, sure, but it certainly doesn't look like one group of people forcing themselves onto another when it's clearly not wanted.

In my opinion it's not really about whether we as individuals agree with either side, or whether or not we think that the Rainbow family has a right to gather where they want. But we can very clearly see that the community is in conflict over this issue, so why do it? If the point is to pray for peace, how in the world does it make any sense at all to do so when you full well know that your actions are creating conflict and making people angry? That seems like a poor strategy for peace and reconciliation. I think it would make more sense to pray in a place that doesn't make people angry.

jamie, if I can ask you a question, why is it OK for a heterosexual baker to deny an LGBTQ person service because they're a bigot and yet at the same time it's unwarranted for large groups of people to refuse to accommodate a gathering that they feel is offensive and insensitive? Where is the distinction here? Do they not also have the right to "refuse service", to use your analogy?

What about the members of the tribe who welcome the gathering? Perhaps they even look forward to the event.

One person refuses to sell a cake to homosexuals, while others encourage it.

Rather than polarize, wouldn't it make sense to resolve the source of conflict and tension?

And if there are those who oppose resolution, maybe they are no better than the ones who they criticize.

Harm reduction. Resolution is a process. It's been made clear that there will be protests if the event happens. Of course there are two sides to everything and every perspective should be considered, but it also makes sense to be strategic about how resolution is reached. In this case it would be really easy to avoid a lot of angry protesters and potentially uncomfortable confrontations. Had the Rainbow Family been explicitly invited then perhaps the situation would be different, but they weren't. So in the interest of harm reduction it seems to make the most sense to have the gathering elsewhere, at least until some kind of conflict resolution can be reached.

As for the source of conflict...as I understand, a lot of it has to do with cultural insensitivity. Everyone here I'm sure is going to have different ideas as to what constitutes cultural insensitivity, and my point isn't to debate that. But to be frank, the Rainbow Family has been reached out to on many occasions, and this would not be the first time that their activities have raised alarm and incited protest. It's not like this anger is out of the blue without any kind of context, people have been speaking out for as long as these gatherings have been happening and their concerns have yet to be acknowledged.

Furthermore, and lastly, James Swan has apologized for his aggressive comments and has re-written the content of the petition. In his words, "On a personal note I have no issues with your group! It’s a free world as long as you don’t push your ways on mine! And you did!"

Anyways, as dreamer said, if you have an opinion on the matter it can be voiced at the Council--and/or you can call into the conference call taking place this Sunday.

I don't have any opinion on the matter, other than which I voice here. I won't be going to the gathering, so there really is no skin off my back (or scalp) if the gathering happens or not.

The protests of the rainbow gathering, to me, are more than protests and petitions. It's a manifestation of this conflict which is more important, IMO... If there are tensions, shouldn't it be healed rather than inflamed or ignored?

The rainbows could see this under a new light. Rather than fight their way into the Native land so that they can hold a gathering, perhaps they could aim their attention at resolving some of these ancient conflicts that the generations have been draggin behind them, year after year.

Yes, resolution takes time.... I wouldn't expect it to be done in a day, or a single meeting... it takes effort from BOTH sides. Many people want to get along.... only a few still feel the need to divide.

"jamie, if I can ask you a question, why is it OK for a heterosexual baker to deny an LGBTQ person service because they're a bigot and yet at the same time it's unwarranted for large groups of people to refuse to accommodate a gathering that they feel is offensive and insensitive? Where is the distinction here? Do they not also have the right to "refuse service", to use your analogy?"

If it is taking place on that tribes land, yes.

The fact that it is all stolen land at this point, complicates things. Do you have a definitive answer for these issues? I don't.