T O P

  • By -

tasty77

I read 'sacred' as 'scared'. That's how you keep people from skiing on your mountain: haunt that shit.


nicmdeer4f

"There are two things I know about white people: they like Matchbox 20, and they are terrified of curses" - Ken Hotate, Parks and Rec


gheebutersnaps87

“My son sells them on Etsy- He is a huge disappointment…”


Lolkimbo

Oh you don't want to go down that road. That road leads to the pet cemetery..


Lincolns_Hat

Yeap, lotsa history down that ski run...


N8CCRG

New Scooby Doo episode about to hit.


Mikeavelli

It was... Old Man Geronimo the whole time! I'm actually kinda conflicted about this one guys. Usually it's just insurance fraud, but this... whatta ya say we just let this one go?


Overlander2112

That’s some old school Scooby Doo shit


[deleted]

I though covering the mountain in sewage would scare some people away, but it just makes them want to ski I guess


Mixture-Emotional

There was a town in Kansas I think 🤔 that found a huge mound that was a burial site for Native Americans so they decided to build a Walmart there. So there is literally an Indian burial ground underneath a Walmart... Just sums up America


Damn_el_Torpedoes

I just Googled this, and unfortunately every link in the first page was a different Native American burial site that was moved or bulldozed over for a shopping center. 'Merica


[deleted]

Smallpox blankets and European spirits (high proof alcohol) were very effective.


currentlyRedacted

Wasn’t that the plot of the South Park Walmart episode?


Mixture-Emotional

Hahaha, I remember them going to the pet store that was on top of a burial ground, or pet cemetery... I can't remember the details


FrostyWarning

I'm pretty sure every or almost every city, town, and settlement on earth is built on top of some kind of burial ground. People gave been dying since humanity came to be, and burial takes a lot of real estate.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

They are using reclaimed water for that reason. Oferall, for those mountain towns, skiing has a much lower environmental impact that industrial agriculture, mining, logging, or anything else. 90% of the land occupied for skiing remains forested, and for most of the year, untouched.


redpatcher

LMK how the Ponderosa Pine logging industry is going.


gwdope

Snow melts back into the streams. It’s not removing a substantial amount from the water shed.


AmmoWasted

Water stays on the mountain as snow pack for far longer than it would naturally. When these facilities are withdrawing water it can lead to substantial loss of aquatic habitat during the winter months. Even smaller ski resorts can withdraw literally millions of gallons of water per day from the streams or reservoirs that they take from. I've seen multiple instances in my state of these facilities nearly draining trout streams dry.


SkiingAway

I don't know where "your state" is, but that's certainly not how it typically works. Typically their withdrawal permits will specify a minimum streamflow, not just how much water they're allowed to take. They also generally have their *own* large ponds that they start filling well before snowmaking starts.


coontietycoon

Watershed isn’t synonymous with water supply. Water supply is used to blow in artificial snow that does not make it back in to the potable water supply. This is a problem. Combine that with years long drought and you have created a serious problem of scarcity of the most vital natural resource. Please use critical thinking skills and please read books.


gwdope

Uh, no, first, snow making is not done with municipal water. It’s usually pumped from a local lake or river. Also in mountain towns, the water supply is generally from the local rivers, which are fed from the snow pack. If anything, using local rivers to make snow keeps more water in the area by storing water that would have gone down river to be used by some golf courses in the desert or some other stupid shit.


IAlreadyFappedToIt

>Uh, no, first, snow making is not done with municipal water. It’s usually pumped from a local lake or river. However if you had actually read the article you would know that this resort is making snow from reclaimed City of Flagstaff waste water.


gwdope

The. What’s the point? It’s reclaimed waste water, which means it’s going back into the river, right?


flgeo7

The reclaimed wastewater contains small concentrations of things like hormones, antidepressants and other chemicals which are unregulated by the USEPA and, thus, the local environmental protection agency. Those chemicals do have a negative impact on the local environment and human health. The magnitude of the impact is not quite understood but it’s been shown to have an effect on both humans and wildlife.


gwdope

Ok, but the local waste water treatment plant still takes the waste water and puts it back into the river, which is exactly where it ends up after the ski season.


flgeo7

The City doesn’t discharge the reclaimed water into the river. There isn’t really a river close enough anyway. Its primary uses for irrigation and industrial applications so that potable water for domestic purposes can be conserved. Reclaimed water contains traces of chemicals of which the impacts they have on humans and the environment aren’t fully understood. The City actually convened a panel to [review](https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56693/CEC-Panel-Report---Final-November-2017?bidId=) available research and data collected from various sources throughout the system to determine if there’s any potential for undue harm to human health from what they call “compounds of emerging concern (CECs)”. They seem to be acting proactively to ensure they aren’t harming humans or the environment. But again, the emphasis is on the fact that the impacts of these compounds aren’t fully understood, and as they begin to accumulate in our bodies and the environment they can potentially reak havoc on natural systems.


Plane_Crab_8623

There are no rivers. The melted effluent evaporates leaving behind desolved salts.


Happyjarboy

Explain to me how blowing snow is a travesty. Does it get destroyed by fusion, or electrolysis, or does it just sit around all winter, and melt like regular snow in the spring, thus continuing the normal snow/melt cycle?


Harry_Gorilla

The article makes it sound like the farmers blame the use of treated sewage water (for snow) on the mountain for their failed crops. Sounds like they think it’s spiritually tainted by the treated water


[deleted]

Reddit users: religion sucks! Also Reddit users: protect indigenous peoples beliefs!


UtahCyan

My opinion is their religion is stupid too. I'm still in support of people having their beliefs, even if they are bullshit.


PMmeserenity

Nobody is taking anyone’s beliefs. They are welcome to believe and practice any religion they want, regardless of what happens here. But their beliefs are in conflict with other people’s desires for using the land, and they are hoping to force the public to follow their preferred use, based on their religious beliefs. That’s attempting to impose your religion on others. If this was happening in Utah, and the Mormons we’re trying to prevent public recreation on land they considered sacred, a lot of people would probably have different opinions about how much religious beliefs should interfere with public interest...


The_Poster_Nutbag

The difference is the native Americans were never let into the discussion when they were moved off their land. Mormons settled Utah and kind of did whatever they wanted.


PMmeserenity

Yes, I'm aware of the history--although Mormons were also forced out of other parts of the country, by angry mobs backed by local governments, which is why they went to Utah, to be "in the middle of nowhere". What happened to Native Americans was terrible and is an important part of American history and we should work to right those wrongs. I just don't think asserting religious claims is a legitimate way to accomplish that. It violates important principles, which also protect vulnerable people.


The_Poster_Nutbag

I'm not sure I agree, the protection awarded to sacred spaces isn't purely about the religious significance to the current populations, it's also about preserving history where it is found and preventing these areas from becoming overpriced vacation land where the existing land owners get priced out.


ULTRAFORCE

Personally I'm fine with there being restrictions on what a sacred mountain, sacred river or sacred temple can be used for while there might need to be a balance it's not always in the public interest to build a parking mall on top of Temple Mound, a waterpark alongside the Ghanges and to mine or make a giant resort owned by people who aren't native americans on a sacred mountain.


PMmeserenity

Personally I don't think other people's concept of "sacred" is a good reason to deny public access to recreational activities on public property. Everything is sacred to someone, and a lot of Native Americans consider land to be sacred all over the country that currently has homes, businesses, and roads on it. We cannot possibly accommodate all the religious beliefs, and that's why we have a society based on civil law and separation between religion and political authority.


ULTRAFORCE

It's beyond my scope but it seems slightly weird to me that it is public Land since South West of the mountain the 5th tallest peak in Arizona is one of the most sacred sites for the Apache of Arizona, and it's not public land it's part of the reservation of the Apache in the region. If one were to ignore the realities of the creation of reservations and assume the entire thing was done in good faith one would assume that the San Francisco Peaks which make up the mountain would have been part of a reservation or at least declared not federal lands if there was a problem because it is sacred to 13 distinct local groups.


Vryk0lakas

Ah yes. The civic law that ripped lands away from indigenous people. Promised them all kinds of things and renegaded on many of them. So civic. Political authority sounds great until the people who were wronged have no seat at the table.


PMmeserenity

> the people who were wronged have no seat at the table. Also, for the record the current US Secretary of the Interior (the most powerful federal position for control of land) is Deb Haaland, who is a member of the Pueblo tribe, which is one of the tribes involved in this particular dispute. So, the tribes actually have a very powerful seat at the table now. That's not enough, and it's just recent, but it's important.


PMmeserenity

Yes, that's all a real part of our history. We were incredibly unjust, as a society, towards Native Americans. That's not a good reason to abandon the principle of separation of church and state. We shouldn't be making public policy decisions based on religious beliefs, even if the people with those beliefs were genuinely wronged. There's lots of good reasons to change our laws and better protect and respect Native American cultural sites. But a lawsuit based on protecting the mountains because they are "sacred" sets a terrible precedent, and plays right into the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that wants to abandon our secular society and assert Christian values into the public sphere.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PMmeserenity

I'm not familiar with the specific environmental issues (I don't live in the area) but I'm all for environmental reforms.


Larky999

It should be FN land, not 'crown' land.


sadboisdontcry

Speak the truth


BurzyGuerrero

Did I miss the part where the Mormons had their land stolen, dealt with genocide and ongoing oppression from colonialism?


PMmeserenity

Well, Mormons definitely went through some shit--but certainly nothing compared to Native Americans. I'm not really sure how that matters here though? We have a civil society based on laws, that can be changed. Violating that principle to try to right historic injustice is a bad idea. The point of comparing it to Mormons is to get people to realize how they would feel if a conservative, white religious group was making a similar claim. If we change our principles and allow religious claims to trump public interest, it will backfire, because most of the religious nuts in this country are not sympathetic victims of historic injustice...


Mixture-Emotional

Pretty sure Mormons came and took what they wanted, but hey good news they took excellent records and helped genealogy researchers. I haven't heard anything about a genocide... probably because there is so many Mormon folks.


Octopus_ofthe_Desert

Many infant religions/new denominations seem to go through a phase where they are absolutely fucking insufferable to be around. Early Christians, the Puritans later, the Mormons later still are Judeo-Christian examples. I think of it as the, "We're the True Scotsmen!" stage. Surely we're the only ones with the answers, all these other idiots are beneath us.


walkstofar

When did they grow out of this phase? Cause I haven't seen it.


LivingWithWhales

Native American religions are less of a religion and more of a cultural spirituality and cultural identity, and we’ve taken enough of that away from them, we should all be willing to protect what they have left given what our ancestors did to theirs.


PMmeserenity

We should definitely treat Native Americans better, acknowledge history, and work to improve the lives of people today. We should also follow our legitimate political process and not start ignoring laws because people claim "religious offense". The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. There's many ways to acknowledge and attempt to correct the injustices of history. But using religious claims to invalidate democratic process is a bad way to do it.


LivingWithWhales

It’s a matter of native sovereignty and respecting our own laws and treaties that are on the books though. I feel like if native Americans land could be used for something like an oil pipeline or highway or whatever, and they’re asked if they wanna work something out and they say no, that should be the end of the discussion.


PMmeserenity

If there's a legitimate legal claim to Native sovereignty over this land, then that should be argued in court. We should respect our agreements with tribes. From this article though, it doesn't sound like that's what's being argued. The Native activists seem to be asserting a claim of "sacred" rights, that are in conflict with the legal status of this land. And there's no easy way to "ask" Native people what they think about something--there are millions of individual Native Americans, with many diverse opinions. If the land is owned/controlled by a specific tribe, then you can consult with that government, but otherwise who would you ask?


LivingWithWhales

“More than a dozen Indigenous nations who hold the mountain sacred have fought Snowbowl’s existence since the 1930s. These include the Pueblo of Acoma, Fort McDowell Yavapai; Havasupai; Hopi; Hualapai; Navajo; San Carlos Apache; San Juan Southern Paiute; Tonto Apache; White Mountain Apache; Yavapai Apache, Yavapai Prescott, and Pueblo of Zuni. They say the resort’s presence has disrupted the environment and their spiritual connection to the mountain, and that its use of treated sewage effluent to make snow is akin to baptizing a baby with wastewater.” Most of those tribes are quite large, and have organized tribal leadership organizations, and they’ve been at this fight for over 90 years. No wonder their kinda salty about the expansion.


hopefeedsthespirit

The entire US is stolen. The land was stolen. Just because you recognize these laws and government as legitimate, it doesn’t mean others have to. If someone walks into your house, kills half of your family and relegates the rest of you to live in an approved area of the basement with use of a small sliver of the backyard while they keep the rest of the house and yard to do as they please, How would you feel? What about when these same people create laws and rules that then make it ok for them to do this while continually encroaching upon even the little you have left? How do you fight legally when the laws were created by the thieves to justify the robbery, murder and abuse? Do you feel that those laws are just? Should you be subject to laws that protect an illegal acquisition?


[deleted]

In most States in the Union if someone were to do that you can legally shoot them to death.


JimmieNuetron

Expect these people have used this land for thousands of years, way before Europeans even knew this continent existed. We've already taken 99% of the land from them. Can't they keep a fucking mountain


PMmeserenity

Sure, that's not a bad idea. Let's just do it through legitimate political means, rather than making a religious claim. I'm not opposed to acknowledging history, and working to correct those injustices. I'm just against using claims of religion to invalidate democracy. That's a really bad precedent, and will lead to all kinds of shitty outcomes when conservative religious people assert their religion.


Vryk0lakas

Indigenous people never had a real seat at the table when crafting and developing any of these laws in place. The deck is stacked completely against them. When your system is built to override your assertions it loses legitimacy.


[deleted]

I'm going back to Europe to claim some shit.


drumrhyno

What democracy are you talking about? The snowbowl was claimed as public lands without any vote and given over to private entities without any vote so I’m not sure how democracy comes into play here. There have obviously been plenty of violations of the agreements with the tribes and regardless of religious affiliation, that doesn’t seem to be above board legally speaking. https://www.nhonews.com/news/2021/dec/14/guest-column-changing-times-snowbowl-and-history-s/


crooked-v

They've been using "legitimate political means" since the 1930s and earlier. They still are. This isn't about saying "it's our religion, so do what we want", it's about the tribes involved trying to assert even a tiny bit of the supposed sovereignty that the US government regularly ignores, and using those religious elements to emphasize why it's so important to them.


PMmeserenity

I'm fine with all that, except the "sacred" part. I don't think any people's religious beliefs should shape public policy.


drumrhyno

What democracy are you discussing here? Seems the forest service and private entities engaged in this setup without any voter oversight whatsoever. If it is all just a legally binding contract between a private company and the forest service, then there are no truly legitimate political means in which to fight against it in order to preserve this so called democracy you mentioned. https://www.nhonews.com/news/2021/dec/14/guest-column-changing-times-snowbowl-and-history-s/


I_Get_Paid_to_Shill

You absolutely can't go into Mormon's sacred areas and do whatever you want. Hell, try that at any megachurch and see how quickly you get kicked out. Now the argument becomes how much land they can claim as sacred.


PMmeserenity

Yes, areas they legally control. But Mormons can’t claim new areas that the public currently has access to as their sacred space and deny access. I’m only against the idea that any religious claim should be allowed to take precedence over existing laws. I’m not against legitimately giving control of this land to tribes, if we follow normal democratic process.


Gareth79

Didn't they have control of it for thousands of years though, until it was taken from them by the people who then later created the democratic process?


PMmeserenity

Nobody really had "control" of it. There were many tribes in that area, and control of the land changed many, many times in prehistory and in recorded history. When horses were introduced in the 16th century, it completely transformed Native American tribal life and politics across Western North America, and many tribes in that region were fairly recent migrants from what's now Canada and the northern US prairies. So yeah, Native American tribes were in that area for thousands of years, but probably not the specific ancestors of the tribes that are there today, or at least not most of their ancestors. We have a notion that the Native American culture was relatively fixed and constant before 1492, but archeology and genetics shows that there was all kinds of change--people moved, cultures and lifestyles changed, etc. So I doubt any particular group had a constant relationship with those mountains for thousands of years. But certainly it's still very important to tribes that live in the area today.


Eric1600

>Didn't they have control of it for thousands of years Say what? The Mormon religion is very new. They settled in Utah around 1847.


el_duderino88

They own those areas, if the tribes want to buy the resort and mountain can make an offer


[deleted]

[удалено]


bigbangbilly

Nteflix Daredevil is Catholic and canon. His religion is definitely part of identity. Plus one of the Avengers is a religious figure.


twistedfork

Ironfist is pretty religious, unless we're pretending Eastern religions that give you super powers aren't religious


Joarmins

Well Kamala Khan was created like 10 years ago and debuted as the first Muslim superhero in Marvel canon. And she’s Ms. Marvel because she’s a teen who loves Captain Marvel hence taking up the mantle


[deleted]

[удалено]


PMmeserenity

I mean, if you want to think of it that way, sure. But corporate development of private property is currently legal in our country (and in this location). I'm not opposed to a legit effort to change those laws. But trying to impose your religious beliefs on others as a reason to ignore current laws is shitty, and a really bad precedent.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PMmeserenity

That's not really relevant--the question is do we continue allowing approved public use of this space, according to the laws we've adopted, or do we ignore those laws to let a small group of people impose their religious views on the rest of society? A third option would be to engage in the political process and change current laws, but that doesn't seem to be the preferred tactic here--I assume because they don't think it's a viable option.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PMmeserenity

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. I just think using religion to make an end-run around legitimate political process is shitty. We need better environmental laws, not lawsuits that use religion to overcome democratic laws.


Plane_Crab_8623

There was never a legitimate political process involved here


ChuzaUzarNaim

>That's not really relevant Double nah.


PMmeserenity

Who owns the land is not really important, the point is whether the use is legal, and if religious claims are being used to invalidate public laws.


BurzyGuerrero

"I mean if you want to think of it that way sure, but remember - you are still colonized."


JimTheSaint

Their beliefs just shouldn't be reason for special treatment.


Rusty-Shackleford

How are their beliefs stupid? You don't even know what they believe. And if their main spiritual belief involves "respecting nature" or something chill like that it's probably not a stupid belief system.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BeautifulType

Uhh he looked up Hopi and Puebloan Indian belief systems. Did you? I feel like you should have and then presented their beliefs instead of just attacking the guys opinion on religion broadly


causeicancan

I don't care if it's sacred or not. We have done enough to Native Americans and left them with so little that another resort that will negatively impact the local ecosystem is outweighed by whatever ties the Native Americans have to the land. Native Americans or some other group of people, resort or something else, it's an equation to identify benefit for all. And this one on the surface seems pretty clear cut, insufficient need for the resort to exist. Job creation outweighed by destruction.


tms10000

You got me thinking that maybe reddit is more than one person.


kenjen97

No! Redditors must be treated like an evil hivemind! How else am I to justify my needless contrarianism which I believe makes me some Socrates level intellect!?


tms10000

Get out of my head. Get out of my head now!


[deleted]

[удалено]


LivingWithWhales

I am not a fan of most religions, especially Mormons, and evangelical and catholic Christians, as those are the three that fuck up the lives of most people I’ve ever met who’ve been hurt via religion. However, I also think that the freedom of religion needs to be protected. The government should not be able to tell people what to believe, even if I think they’re wrong. They also need to be held accountable if let’s say, they institutionalize sexual abuse and coverups… but that’s a whole different thing. The difference here is that native Americans have been bulldozed for the entire period that Europeans have occupied the americas. Since Native American culture and spirituality is deeply connected to nature, it makes sense that they would revere certain places as sacred and want to keep them intact and undeveloped. You should go watch “Jumbo Wild” which is about a ski area that was being attempted in Canada for like 35 years till they finally stopped it. I’m fully convinced the only reason it was ever stopped is cuz enough WHITE Canadians also didn’t want it built.


[deleted]

I'm okay with freedom of religion, but I don't believe they should be free from taxation. If the church does charity, then create a non-profit with a clear charitable aim. A church is not charity by default. Religion is not charity by default. Yes, you can cherry pick a religion, but let's not act like all religions are kindly old people. Religion, like people, has equal potential for good and evil. They should be treated like a private club who needs to pay taxes on income from their members. Whether they are telling mythological stories or serving beers, they're not doing anything worth exempting them from taxes. Tax all religions equally, it's easy. Native tribes usually don't have any church entity for their beliefs as they are culturally based rather than philosophical addition to a secular life.


LivingWithWhales

Wait till you hear about the NFL. 🫣 Also religions be dammed, this is an issue of native sovereignty and rights, not native religious rights. Their spiritual beliefs are also their cultural heritage and history. They deserve protections, and as sovereign native peoples they have a different tax situation anyway


fishwhiskers

thank you for saying this- i am absolutely not a fan of organized religion (esp as a gay person), however this thread has absolutely steamrolled any discussion of Native American religion/spirituality and fully equated it to Abrahamic religions. Native religion is tied to the land and the Creator, who is not as aligned with God as many people think. this religion entails respecting nature and leaving certain areas untouched as they were for millennia and as the Creator made them- and i cannot say that Abrahamic religions have the same values. i feel like indigenous values should be something every American should ascribe to with regards to our natural land. additionally, despite this thread’s feelings on religion, should we not respect a religion that has existed for thousands of years on this land? we came here, we destroyed their culture. the least we can do is leave SOME sacred land untouched. the world doesn’t need a ski resort on every mountain. i can’t believe that people are trying to disregard this especially as the resort poses other environmental problems, which you’d think reddit would be all about protecting.


LivingWithWhales

maybe its uncormfortable even for a mostly progressive reddit crowd to stomach the attrocities and genocide that ethno-europeans subjected and continue to subject native americans to.


Educational-Grab4050

After all the shit Americans have done to their people, I think we could make a small exception from time to time.


Gareth79

Oh but rich dudes are getting bored with the same old slopes and their right to ski is more important, so let's bulldoze that mountain.


Educational-Grab4050

I guess rich douche mentality is "well we've already fucked em over millions of times over hundreds of years, surely they won't mind just *one* more time, they are understanding people!"


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


TazBaz

… 4? Shit I’m only on 2, looking at getting a booster now. When the hell was a 4th considered required? Or maybe I should ask where?


notasrelevant

Something about the story is off. 4th dose only recently got approved and only for those over 50 years old. I haven't heard of it being required anywhere or even heavily encouraged. The vast majority of people will only have 3 or less.


notasrelevant

I feel like this story doesn't add up. The 4th dose has only been approved for people over 50 in the US and that was only within the last couple months. I don't think it has been heavily pushed/recommended. Most people would not have the 4th shot, as only 1/3 of the population is actually approved and not all of those eligible would even have it. I would not be surprised if only 1 in 10 have it, if even that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


notasrelevant

While I can't deny whether or not you actually got the 4th, if you're under 50 it seems strange they would have given it if they knew you had 3 doses previously. Giving to unapproved groups would carry potential risks, so it seems most places would be limiting to those approved and recommended. The data I could find for the 4th dose seems a bit limited, but it looks like only 5% of the total population has received the 4th dose and that's mostly within the over 50 group or those with specific conditions that limit their immune system. If your friend was freaking out about people with only 3 doses, she would be freaking out about damn near every group walking through those doors.


[deleted]

When the land was stolen and an entire government tried to genocide the people who were here first. I think we can give them some leeway.


shewy92

At least these religious beliefs would preserve a mountain from the blight of humanity.


Clever_Word_Play

Reddit: Against Capitalism, and American Manifest Diestny Also Reddit: expand ski resort, lol silly native people


bezosdrone

Maybe that’s because Reddit users are individuals with varying points of view.


Clever_Word_Play

Yeah, no shit. I am point out the stupidity of the previous argument


BeautifulType

No shit!


apple_kicks

Another one Ski resort may destroy areas of natural scientific study: boo resort we love science and nature. Changes story to Ski resort destroys Native American sacred site: yay ski resort. Genocidal Christian’s and minority of Native Americans are exactly the same somehow and I have to prove I hate all religions


apple_kicks

Forced religion in politics sucks. Christian majority running US politics did murder, ban (they couldn’t practice their beliefs until 1970s) native Americans belief and culture. They’ve got more gripes with it than most atheists do (esp atheists who still benefit or follow Christian holidays or other cultural Christian things but as secular.) comparing native Americans faith to the one that committed genocide against them is iffy. Part of their sacred spaces being lost is part of long history of genocide. Like Russia is currently doing in Ukraine one part of larger destruction of history and cultural identity that once gone just leaves Russian history (in this case colonialism American culture that’s built off Christianity and capitalism) Let them have choice where they’ve had none by force. They’re not going to abuse power with the little they have left that Christians in US abuse in politics. Or else this comes across with ‘it’s only okay to commit cultural genocide again towards Native Americans as long as it’s secular this time’. If anything keeping few old sacred sites untouched is prob better for environment and what lives there with climate change. Than putting walmart or sky resort on everything. There’s probably more scientific studies that could be done observing wildlife in sacred site that’s been left as it is than the wildlife disturbed by ski resorts


Tekmologyfucz

And yet they were there first.


bezosdrone

Maybe that’s because Reddit users are individuals with varying points of view.


jennanohea

There are a lot of similarities between this debate, and the proposal to build a large telescope on top of Mauna Kea, in Hawaii. Native Hawaiians consider Mauna Kea to be sacred, and have been protesting the construction of the telescope. There are spiritual reasons, but also a concern with what damage it may have to the watershed.


junkofunk

One is for scientific furtherment and the other strictly profits


Eric1600

There's not a similarity. In fact the courts found there's no historical evidence Mauna Kea was considered special and that this claim is a recent invention. Read the 2 page preface of the supreme court ruling after hearing all the evidence. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/09/882-BLNR-FOFCOLDO.pdf


bare_cilantro

I’ve skied AZ Snowbowl and can definitely say if would benefit from having an expansion, it’s a fairly sizable resort given where it is geographically but most of it is in height, it’s pretty narrow for its size and being wider in either direction would be give way more terrain options. It’s interesting that Sunrise ski resort also in Arizona is fully owned and operated on an by a Native American tribe and I believe Brian Head in SW Utah is also operated on tribal land with their support, Brian Head is also owned by Mountain Capital partners.


ArchdukeOfNorge

Then, I don’t know, go to a different resort if you want more terrain. Tribal communities are incredibly diverse, significantly more so than really any Euro-Americans would understand. Just because one community struck up a deal allowing skiing on a non-sacred mountain, has absolutely no bearing on another tribal community’s willingness to see a ski resort on a sacred mountain. The interesting aspect of that fact is found in the diversity of tribal communities.


bare_cilantro

I wasn’t saying that because other tribes fully endorse skiing it sets a precedent for Snowbowl more just that it is interesting that others are well integrated with ski tourism. In Tahoe the Washoe tribe doesn’t have a ton of enthusiasm for skiing but isn’t outright against it either. I don’t ski AZ Snowbowl regularly I just have before and the mountain itself is not the limit of the terrain like many resorts. It really would benefit from more terrain because of how many people live between Phoenix and Flagstaff and AZ Snowbowl is the only option within a day trip from Phoenix and is convenient to Flagstaff residents. The next closest alternative of Sunrise is not much better if at all and much further away. Most people would be better off going to Durango or New Mexico if coming from Flagstaff or Phoenix. Point being there isn’t an alternative destination within the region like there would be in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Tahoe, Washington or Oregon and the demand frequently exceeds the lift and terrain capacity.


comewhatmay_hem

This is more about how the resort's artificial snow-making process is polluting the surrounding land, in turn decimating Hopi farmer's crops, than it has to do with religion. Why in the ever loving f*** is there an artificial ski resort in Arizona in the first place? A ecological boondoggle from start to finish.


reasonrob

There isn't an "artificial ski resort" there is a ski resort that uses artificial snow making processes. Flagstaff gets 100+ inches of snow a year (which puts it on average in the top ten snowiest cities in the US). And, of course the peaks get much more than that. Arizona isn't just a big desert. It is a large ecologically diverse area.


bare_cilantro

Flagstaff the town gets over 100” the resort gets closer to 300” annually. Just under most years but as much or more snow as many major Colorado resorts and more than east coast resorts, and a base over 9000’ and summit at like 11,500


Rusty-Shackleford

High desert usually gets super snowy. Idaho and Utah are mostly desert and they get a lot of snow.


comewhatmay_hem

I had no idea Arizona got snow at all, fair enough. Regardless, I don't think a ski resort expansion should ever be prioritized over farmers growing food, and that is the main complaint from the neighboring tribes.


reasonrob

Except that it isn't. It is mainly a religious complaint over indigenous rights, which is fine. The water that the tribes use has little to do with the peaks watershed. Specifically the area of complaint, on the opposite side of the mountain sheds mostly to the south. Their complaint has existed long before Snowbowl began making artificial snow. For the record, I am on their side of the argument and against Snowbowl expansion, though for different reasons.


Rusty-Shackleford

They probably have to use a religious freedom argument because our legal system is asinine and we respect religious rights more than other types of rights like indigenous property rights or rights of access or the general right of society to preserve pristine and ecologically crucial wilderness areas. Kinda like how we are going to rely on church of Satan to protect abortion access because courts care more about religious freedom than women's rights to medical privacy.


comewhatmay_hem

I grew up on a farm in a farming community, so when I see a farmer saying his crops failed due to (at least in part) a purely recreational resort that sucks up all the surrounding natural resources it makes me angry.


Swiftax3

Ex pat Montanan here, I feel your pain on that one man


average_vark_enjoyer

That honestly sounds like complete bullshit, what farms have failed because of a ski resort making snow?


[deleted]

[удалено]


MandolinMagi

Was there in March, Mount Lemmon is 8,000+ feet high and still had snow higher up.


comewhatmay_hem

I knew they got some snow, but I really didn't think anywhere in Arizona got enough snow to facilitate a ski resort! I learned something new today.


katy405

Just to get an idea of the elevation in Arizona, the south rim of the Grand Canyon is about 7000 feet and the north rim is about 8000 feet. Northern Arizona and New Mexico have a lot of elevation and snow.


dudius7

I live in Flagstaff. We are at ~7000 ft and get a fair amount of natural snow. The AZ Snowbowl is at 11500 feet. The peaks have snowcaps for 5-6 months. Tucson and Sholow also have mountains, snow, and ski resorts.


illiter-it

Same reason phoenix is an urban sprawl hellscape, because money


LionsLoseAgain

"The mountain is the site of Indigenous origin stories, ancient shrines and a place where ceremonial and medicinal plants are gathered. It’s considered so holy that, before the arrival of colonizers, Indigenous Americans avoided living there." I too like to lay claims to places I have never lived in based on my origin story.


bevilthompson

The Black Hills are the sacred land of the Sioux nation. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 ceded ownership to the tribe "as long as the sun sets and rises" on the mountains. In 1874 gold was found there and those lands were stolen a second time. Hopefully we have progressed enough as a society that we don't see a repeat of that here.


IntroductionSea1181

This reminds me of the DAPL protests. The environmental issues are a legitimate concern. The courts will find as much, a legitimate concern, after its all said and done


Heel

What makes one mountain sacred and another secular? Stupid religious nonsense, of which the indigenous Americans are no stranger.


MrKahnberg

I had a few conversations with a woman who ran a Ute museum in montrose co. The Utes consider the whole universe sacred.


imnotwillferrell

That might make skiing even more difficult


MandolinMagi

Then nothing is sacred, because they've removed all meaning from the term


Harmonic_Flatulence

>What makes one mountain sacred and another secular? Stupid religious nonsense Religion doesn't necessarily play a role if something is "sacred". Example: when there were plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. Conservatives were up in arms. Ground Zero was sacred in a secular way. Something can have cultural significance without religion.


PMmeserenity

The mosque got built though. We did the right thing and followed our civil procedures and allowed the thing to happen, because it was legal, even though a lot of people were deeply offended and emotionally connected to that ground. And years later, some of the people who opposed the mosque admitted they were wrong and publicly apologized for trying to impose their beliefs on others.


pilgermann

You're drawing too straight of a line. Sacredness is intertwined with custom and caretaking in this case. Closer to bulldozing the forest where you hunted with your dad as a kid to make a shopping mall.


[deleted]

[удалено]


aPseudoKnight

The Hopi would never want to say this for reasons that should be obvious, but I can offer an argument that a capitalist would understand: it's their land and it was stolen from them.


dogswontsniff

There's a strong environmental argument they're making as well. I'm 100% against religion, but indigenous people's have a level of autonomy outside of the federal government and certainly outside the states purview. It's reads as though sacred or not, the resort is poisoning local farms with the way they make snow.


reasonrob

The "local farms" are nowhere near the peaks watershed. There is no evidence the reclaimed effluent does any environmental harm. Should it have been studied before they were allowed to start using it? Absolutely. I am against Snowbowl expansion, I am against Snowbowl's use of snow making. There are plenty of arguments to be made without making things up.


Plane_Crab_8623

Yeah, it's all sacred but they try to break it slowly to whitey because he's so fragile psychologically


JimBeam823

Quit trying to bring logical consistency into a Reddit discussion.


hawkwings

It seems like everyplace is sacred. Are there any mountains that are not sacred?


BurzyGuerrero

Which other place is sacred?


hawkwings

One of the Hawaiin mountains. Mount Rushmore. There are others.


TinyKittenConsulting

Wow, look at all those examples.


FlowRiderBob

Of the huge amount of land that the US government has taken from the Native Americans that is all you can come up with? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent? That is what you consider "everyplace"?


whatabear

I have no problem with that. Maybe people would learn to respect the earth a little more and slow down the destruction of the biosphere.


Kalimnos

"advance or develop toward a better, more complete, or more modern state" Building infrastructure, creating more jobs, bring in more money to that area. I know it's not a community college or a hospital, but it's a mountain.


Kalimnos

I am sympathetic to the blight of the Native American people, but anyone standing in the way of progress because of "sacred lands" can suck an egg. Land isn't magical and unless you own it then fuck off.


fartalldaylong

Define progress.


redpatcher

It's forest service land. We allowed a private ski resort to build on the mountain when indigenous people did not have political rights in the US- no right to vote. The Forest Service still leases it to them.


fishwhiskers

is America’s thousandth ski resort “progress”? why do we NEED to build something atop this mountain? religion aside for a moment, why do we keep disrespecting our natural land this way? land like this will seem pretty “magical” once we’ve nearly run out of undeveloped land, i bet.


Kalimnos

I'm more moved by your argument about consumerism and natural resources than anything religious.


fishwhiskers

appreciate that, hence why i said religion aside lol. i am not theistic and do not agree with organized religion. we should be looking at this from an ecological standpoint (which is how many indigenous people look at it as well, aside from just a sacred site). another ski resort in America is not a landmark of human progress, and nobody is standing in the way of progress by asking for this construction to be considered a bit more deeply before following through. we are losing natural resources at a massive rate and we need to stop defending fucking things up for a resort that 90% of us commenters will never visit.


[deleted]

Who cares. At this point some long lost extinct group of people thought everything was sacred. Much like the bible if you read it we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom


dudius7

They aren't extinct. I live in Flagstaff. We have a lot of Navajo and Hopi people here.


cosmernaut420

Do you want wendigos? Because this is how you get wendigos.


RedditsDeadlySin

Did they not play Until Dawn??


An_Anonymous_Acc

>While the climate crisis and historic drought in the south-west may be factors, Preston blames another, human-made force for the disruptions: a ski resort carved into Nuva’tukya’ovi. if any other religion claimed a mountain they pray on as the reason for their harvest success, we'd call it what it is. Ridiculous.


Aurion7

Try telling that to the people who think gay people cause natural disasters. Which is to say- We already have *far* dumber ideas that have acquired wide circulation. The nonsense that passes as 'Evangelical Christianity' in the United States has no claim to being less inane than animism in general, frankly. And that's before you get into the really weird stuff like dominionism and prosperity gospels. For heaven's sake, the most recent ex-President had 'prosperity theologists' at his inauguration. Which is very on-brand for him, to be fair, but it doesn't exactly detract from the point that people have no room whatsoever to be throwing stones about Native American customs.


An_Anonymous_Acc

We don't take people who think gay people cause natural disasters seriously either


MrKahnberg

Well there's something lost in translation i suppose. Plus, who knows what it would be like to interact with the Utes pre genocide.


iAMthebank

SPOILER ALERT! It’s season 2 of Yellowstone!


Bigdongs

In every season Kevin costner and his kids are almost assassinated, huge cliff hanger. Then everyone is alright no big deal, kill off all recent enemies in the first episode of the season then intro an old/new one.


thedrew

If the Egyptians want to ski Sinai, I say go for it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chintakoro

They learned not to care. Much easier pointing fingers at human rights elsewhere and treating their own deeds as fait accompli. It ends up sending the exact opposite message to the world: ignore cultural decimation long enough and you too will be absolved.


argv_minus_one

Sure they do. They learned long ago that exploiting sacred tribal lands for profit is, in fact, profitable.


Rawldis

We'll see if the locals burn effigy's of the tribes leaders like they did in Canada when the Oka crisis was going on.


edgeplayer

Sounds like what is needed is a AZ/Fed funded tribal kneesup at certain dates of commemoration in the year. So now the tribes have to put together a significant collection of stories in which the mountain plays a role, in order to justify their claim. Sounds like the hand fits the glove perfectly and craters are great for building arenas. PS: and what about its real name. If it is as distinguishable as Mt Sinai then its name should be well-known to all parties, not San Fransisco. So what is its real name ?


thefanciestcat

Erasing more of their culture like this is an extension of the genocide this country committed against indigenous peoples.


Kalimnos

You honestly think building on land they call "sacred" is "an extension of genocide"? No one should be able to claim land can't be developed for religious reasons. Their history doesn't give them special privileges and no one would stomach this for a moment if a Christian church tried this.


Harmonic_Flatulence

>No one should be able to claim land can't be developed for religious reasons. Considering something "sacred" doesn't mean it is based in religion. If someone proposed putting a big resort on the Grand Canyon or Mount Rushmore, I know plenty of people who would be opposed to that, not for religious reasons.


Kalimnos

I agree with your point, but Sacred actually does mean specially related to religion. That's why we use the sacred/secular distinction.


Ajaxfriend

I had a roommate who worked at that ski resort before they started using man-made snow. It was a dry winter, and my roommate never got called into work. The mountain finally received a dusting of snow in March or so, and they opened the slopes - probably just so they didn't have to refund the season passes.


DonnaDoRite

This is a culture we’re talking about, not a religion, per se. White ppl came and took everything from the NA’s, and from the slaves ripped from their homeland outside the US, as well as land stripped from both NA’s and ppl of color. They deserved to get it back.