-
-
-
- Photo by Rui Alves on Unsplash I don’t have any dogs. I’m not a great dog parent, all things considered, so I wouldn’t inflict myself on man’s best friend, but I do like dogs just fine. Some more than others, but that’s true of anything, especially living things.
However, I do recognize that many people have dogs and, because of their nature, they need a place to take their dogs so they can get the exercise they need. Cats can live fine sleeping 90 percent of the day away and then running around inside the house, but most dogs need a little more.
Tilting At Windmills is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. That’s why many communities have created dog parks.
However, one Minnesota community is closing its, and the reason why is easily the most retarded one I’ve ever heard.
From The Post Millennial : Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board voted to close the Minnehaha Off-Leash Dog Park because it is on Indigenous sacred land. The decision passed 8-1 and will end off-leash dog access at the Mississippi River site by the end of the year. During the meeting, speakers supporting the closure described the area as a Dakota sacred site and referenced historical violence tied to colonization. One supporter, Mike Forcia, said: "Imagine that area before the white man, before the pilgrims, pioneers and settlers, the extreme white Christian terrorists." Forcia's full comments were: “Um, we all know what's gonna happen. This park is gonna be closed. Um, it's gonna happen. … And to all you all, imagine that area before the white man. Before the Pilgrims, Pioneers, and Settlers. The extreme white Christian terrorists who showed up on this land. … That park is being closed. Sorry about that. Get used to it. But you have no say. Imagine what the Dakota were going through. Beautiful. And then they hit. Turned it into a concentration camp. And, um, you think of... Auschwitz, and Birkenau. Would you like to see a dog park in those places? Those are sacred places now. So really, you guys have no say in this whatsoever. That park is being closed. Sorry about that. Get used to it. But you have no say. Of course, the Dakotas haven’t held that land for 160 years, and they’re not giving up the park at all, just the part that allows dogs to run off their leashes, so apparently it’s not that sacred.
This is really just an attempt to flex, to pretend you’re respecting a native culture while actually doing nothing at all.
Plus, people like Mr. Forcia here want to make this about the actions of “white Christian terrorists” from days gone by, but it should be remembered that the Dakotas didn’t just magically appear there. The Iowa and the Cheyenne lived on that land previously and were displaced by the Dakotas.
They either co-opted the previous residents’ sacred lands or created their own, but it why is it only a problem when we showed up and did what the Dakotas did centuries before?
Look, the American Indians got a raw deal, but we also have to remember that most of these people who say they are trying to right the wrongs of the past are the same people who trust the government to always do what’s right. That would, of course, be the government of the same country that screwed over the American Indians time and time again, signing treaties and making deals, then reneging on the deal the moment someone discovered gold or something else the government wanted.
Yes, American people were knee-deep in it, but rather than enforce the treaties, the government let them, and these same people want the state to have even more power, not just over the same American Indians, but over everyone.
Instead of recognizing what was done to them, though, and taking steps to make sure the government has no such power ever again, they just want to make it so you can’t let your dog off the leash in a dog park because of some prayers a few hundred years ago.
For me, the issue is the blatant inconsistency here, not just in Forcia’s attacks against white settlers, calling them “terrorists” when most of them were just trying to get a better life, but in being the same gaggle that likes to empower the same government that screwed the Dakota people over in the first place.
I’ll be the first to admit we didn’t hold up our end with a lot of the native tribes. It doesn’t change the fact that we were the ones who were victorious at a time when conquering countries was simply something you did if you were strong enough, and you didn’t have to give them back if you didn’t want to. Share Which is what most of those same tribes did to one another before we got here. The only difference was that treaties weren’t with the American government. That’s about it.
So, in honor of the sacred land of the Dakotas, if your dog is going to take a dump on that sacred land, it must be leashed versus running free. Because the problem isn’t dog crap on sacred land, but that the dog might be able to run about on its own first.
Then again, the leftists who pushed this nonsense are the same kind of leftists who don’t want any of us to be able to run about free, either.
I guess for once, there’s some consistency from them.
--- Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here . Either would be greatly appreciated at a time when I know good and well I’m about to have some serious expenses coming.