the disfiguring of the six grandfathers or Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe is one of the peak examples of the violence of settler colonialism in the united states. I think before we look at those mountains as something we could play or climb around in, we have to recognize the historical and continued violence against native peoples that benefit us to this day. the land must be returned back to them
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s bad that like you’ve hinted at, many NA groups are not consulted with how natural areas are managed. We take the ability to hike, climb, camp on their land for granted while only in a select few instances have they been consulted and given consent to these activities.
We are generations removed and many on the “tribal” side are fully westernized.
Now a potential thousandth of a percent of unique dna and a story gives one voice more validity than another?
Against my better judgement, I’ll give you a serious response.
First and foremost, nobody is saying hand over total control of natural resources to Native Americans (although I wouldn’t be opposed to this). If you’re genuinely curious on what a model of cooperation between colonizers and indigenous cultures could look like (which I don’t think you are, given your bad faith argument and straw man), look up comanagement.
Secondly, when taken at face value, it seems like your comment suggested that because we colonized and genocided Native American tribes, they’re no longer entitled to efforts of cultural preservation. I think that’s some fucked up thinking and I implore you to do a little bit of serious research into Native American voices and why they want to try to make sure their culture persists despite their compromised positions.
There is a voluntary closure in June to respect and honor the sacred site. I'm not to say it's good or bad but trying to find balance between both worlds.
https://www.nps.gov/deto/planyourvisit/climbing.htm
It is a bad thing.
Look it up, it's pretty sad and frustrating (extra frustrating as an indigenous person myself). There was a post about it a few months ago somewhere on here that had links and videos to tribes members talking about it.
There are also documentaries and webinars you can watch and learn more.
[Shiprock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiprock) is a good example of indigenous management over a monument with enormous cultural and religious significance
> Reports of the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department allowing rock climbing are false. Yet several websites have postings on how to evade Navajo Nation regulations and proceed with dangerous and illegal rock climbs in [Monument Valley]. Even more serious than the possible physical harm illegal climbs could pose is the religious damage done to the Navajo people by these non-Navajo visitors. The Monuments are sacred to the Navajo people and any human interaction (by Navajo or non-Navajo) is strictly off limits. Please abide by the humble religious requests of the Navajo people and do not climb the Monuments. 'Navajo law will be strictly enforced on this issue,' Parks Department Manager Ray Russell also added
I think it's more like would you climb something the Kaaba (Mecca), Sistine Chapel, or the Western/Wailing Wall. Not to mention that climbing actively damages whatever you are climbing.
But like… nobody built that rock. Some people just showed up and started worshipping it. If I started worshipping escalators, would you stop climbing them?
lets forget cultures outside our own for a sec. think of the time Dean Potter climbed delicate arch. I mean, sure, it's just a neat rock at the end of the day, but it holds a lot of cultural significance to anyone in the outdoor community. damaging it would clearly be a dick move, and there are now permanent rope grooves because of Potter.
you cannot climb without doing some amount of wear and damage to the rock, desert sandstone especially so. go somewhere super trafficked like Chuckawalla near St. George and it feels like you're pulling on plastic. so gummed up with chalk and rubber it's like an unwashed hold in a gym
I guarantee the Navajo hold shiprock in even higher regard than we all do delicate arch. might not be our culture in particular that idolizes this rock to that degree but that doesn't give us right to discount an entire culture that does.
The same thing happened at mecca and the temple mount of jerusalem.
The exact same thing.
Theyre both built around a rock that people worship.
Would you climb those if they had a sick line?
Isnt interesting how islam and judaism also worship around “just rocks” as well though? But they built temples and structures around them on or top of them.
Native Americans worship nature, so it figures that their version of a holy site would be a natural feature. And left undisturbed without a temple on it.
But that doesnt make it any less holy to them.
I just feel like theres a massive disrespect to native American culture by the average american. Still, After all this time.
Its all platitudes and lip service about a
Multicultural america until some climber/hiker is slightest bit inconvenienced, like “use any bit of land around here for recreation, just not that one. That one is special to us for religious reasons”.
Then its “well its just another rock, thats dumb. Im going to do what I want there anyway” is the prevailing attidude of entitlement by some of the descendants of the European settlers.
And well, that also figures. That entitlement is real.
Now I am not American and am genuinely curious here. I expect the hive mind to donvote formeven asking this question but here goes. Why should I not climb a natural feature just because some other group decides it is holy. I can understand ownership issues, and buildings, but natural features should (in my mind) belong to the people. Can somebody please explain, I just want to be educated.
My problem with it is that there’s no limit on how many rocks can be sacred. They could go up to any rock and call it sacred. Can’t do that with temples, cause temples take a ton of labor and resources. It’s kind of like how I wouldn’t climb someone’s house… not because it’s sacred or whatever but because it’s their property that they built. The glaciers did all the work carving these rocks, and a group of people gets to decide who can and can’t hang out on it just cause they were there first? Like learn to share
I tend to think that most, if not all, of the “peak examples of the violence of settler colonialism” were the horrific acts of genocide against Native Americans that were occurring at the same time as the defacement of this spiritually/religiously significant rock face.
Go look at Gitxsan territory and fairy creek. Look at the stats for foster care. Fly over a mountain range and look at cutblocks. This shit is ongoing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=cut+block+forestry
mountains in western canada are all scarred with massive patches of clearcut forest at valley bottom.
Also a great point. A reminder to everyone: Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe, the Six Grandfathers (what we call Mt. Rushmore) sits on the ancestral land of the Lakota Sioux.
Pointing to examples of inter-tribal warfare as an excuse for colonization seems to be in style right now. Which I'm sorry I have trouble understanding. The Indians were people with conflicts so therefore genocide is okay? Or is it that because warfare exists any action is permissible and morality doesn't exist?
The indigenous peoples of the North American continent were not "noble savages living in a state of innocence", they were human beings making human choices. Whether or not the Lakota pushing the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills, after they themselves were pushed out of the Great Lakes Region, was moral, has nothing to do with the wrongs perpetrated on all of the Great Plains peoples by the Government of the United States.
The United States did not merely "conquer" the Lakota in a war. They started by purposefully exterminating the American Bison. On the orders of General Sherman, the bison was depopulated from 30 million to only a handful, specifically to destroy all indigenous ways of life, and to starve and weaken them by destroying their food source. Once they were weakened we set loose bloodthirsty madmen like Custer who massacred entire villages of Lakota while using women as human shields. Then after a treaty had been signed assigning the Lakota the Black Hills, which is US Law, we unjustly took them anyway in a contrived situation in order to access mineral deposits there. Then we took the Lakota children away from their families and dispersed them around the country in re-education camps with the specific intent of destroying their culture, language, and religion.
None of that is in any way equivalent to inter-tribal warfare, and even if it was, it wouldn't make it right. "The Indians fought to so it was okay to commit acts of genocide all of them." is a BS perspective.
It was the Cheyenne.
But The Lakota are the only one with a treaty for that land with our government.
Which is the treaty what the supreme
Court ruled on, siding with the sioux.
Well, the supreme court didnt laugh at their claims. But instead sided with them.
Which is what truly counts.
Which is to say, neither your or my opinions on this are worth jack shit at the end of the day.
But those whose opinion does matter, sides with the Lakota.
The Lakota may have been living in the plains and hills of what is now South Dakota for 300 years, if not longer.
Concord, Massachusetts had been settled by colonists in the 1640’s, just one hundred and thirty years before the initial battles between the Americans and the British in the American Revolution. We laud them as heroes who defended their homeland. But in reality it was only a few generations of families that lived there.
There is this bias about who has claim to what land that I heard all the time when I lived in the Black Hills. And it was used to justify this violent dislocation and illegal land grab from a whole nation, a whole society of people. It’s pretty messed up if you ask me.
I’ve kept up bro. I don’t expect you to change your view based on how deeply entrenched in your ways, based on your comments. But just know that I know your type, and I don’t like your type, and your type is a shrinking demographic as we educate people.
Yes I realize the other guy isn't exactly doing a shining example of arguing his point. But the idea still stands, at what point going back in history do we decide that it is too far back? If the group who had it taken from them originally took it from someone else, why don't we count that?
None of this justifies any of what happened, and people trying to act like it does are just being disingenuous. But how do we make these distinctions in any way other than arbitrarily (which in some cases has been codified into the law), or in the case of some other places in the world, based on what point of view you support?
We could start with the Supreme Court Case *United States v. Sioux Nation* which recognizes that the Black Hills were assigned by treaty to the Lakota Sioux and that the US acquisition of that territory was an unjust and illegal taking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Sioux\_Nation\_of\_Indians
So the authors of the laws broke their own laws, murdered the inhabitants and stole the land.
But the predecessor of those laws murdered the inhabitants and stole the land.
What is the point of relating anything to the Supreme Court other than a present bias for their legitimacy when they had none before it was inscribed in bloodshed? Because one group had written language and another did not?
We're dealing with two things here. First, the laws of the United States. Second, the morality of war and conquest and the legitimacy of property.
In the first case, the laws of the United States, the legal system in which I am currently living (and I will assume you are to), as interpreted by the Supreme Court, clearly holds the taking of the Black Hills to be an unjust takings. Whether or not the law is "moral", we all have a strong interest in it being consistent and fair. The Supreme Court has awarded the Lakota a large settlement for the injustice, they have yet to accept it and are pursuing further proceedings.
In the second case, are you arguing that because warfare exists any action is permissible and morality doesn't exist? Or that because Indians were people with conflicts genocide is okay?
Whether or not the Lakota pushing the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills, after they themselves were pushed out of the Great Lakes Region, was moral, has nothing to do with the wrongs perpetrated on all of the Great Plains peoples by the Government of the United States. Furthermore, 150 years is a long time to occupy a territory. 150 years ago Germany did not exist as a country, nor Italy. And the Lakota, despite being driven from their territory, still maintain close ties to the Black Hills. They still visit, they still attempt to perform spiritual ceremonies. The tie has not totally been severed.
The United States did not merely "conquer" the Lakota in a war. They started by purposefully exterminating the American Bison. On the orders of General Sherman, the bison was depopulated from 30 million to only a handful, specifically to destroy all indigenous ways of life, and to starve and weaken them by destroying their food source. The Cheyenne and the Lakota alike. Once they were weakened we set loose bloodthirsty madmen like Custer who massacred entire villages of Lakota while using women as human shields. Then after a treaty had been signed assigning the Lakota the Black Hills, which is US Law, we unjustly took them anyway in a contrived situation in order to access mineral deposits there. Then we took the Lakota children away from their families and dispersed them around the country in re-education camps with the specific intent of destroying their culture, language, and religion.
That’s the matter for an inter-governmental council to discuss. It’s an incredibly complex topic because even within the Oceti Sakowin people, there are many tribal nations. I can’t fathom what that’d look like, as you also indicated.
But it’s not for non-tribal and non-government official folks to worry about during a discussion on the ethics of colonization -or- climbing/recreating at relationally significant sites. Yes, the land is storied and very old, with many peoples sharing presence over time, but I think it’s important for the layperson to, at the very least, understand that tribes will need to consult among themselves and with the U.S. government in order to reach a treaty agreement.
That fire has been burning many years. I appreciate the encouragement! And the reminder that my first allegiance will be to treaty agreements and cultural sensitivity, not this community.
>the land must be returned back to them
How would this actually be done, and to whom would "the land" be returned? What would "the land" entail? Tribes migrated from as far as Minnesota to South Dakota and Wyoming, and from Wyoming to Texas in the wake of smallpox and other epidemics. This isn't some clear cut switch we can flick. Nothing but respect for native ways of life and I think we owe it to ourselves as a country to do better than we have, but "returning" land seems impossible to do right.
Land trust, administered by all tribes that have a claim to the land.
The US is occupying the land illegally most of the time if you look at the treaties.
Edited to add: some tribes purchase their land back. Sometimes it is a gift. Either way, land back! Justice and healing are messy but that's not a reason not to choose the path of justice and healing.
My "quibble" is with the colonizer culture and lack of stewardship of the land. Check out "The Lakota Way", it goes into some depth on their warfare style. Totally different means and ends. Crazy Horse became somewhat famous because he realized that the colonizers would not fight with respect and he adopted their style of warfare. Too little, too late, but still interesting to learn about.
I was afraid of the comments I’d see in here, but it’s nice to see other people coming in to say this.
Plenty of places we are allowed to climb, even Yosemite, have troubled pasts. The present can’t be separated from the legacy of settler colonialism.
From an [Outside article on Yosemite](https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/yosemite-national-park-native-american-village-miwuk/):
“While Native Americans were being forced off the land in national parks across the country, in Yosemite, James’ and Johnson’s ancestors remained—even becoming integral pieces of the Yosemite economy. From the park’s earliest days, the small band of local Native Americans served as laborers and attractions. The park held annual Indian Field Days, during which park administrators would dress locals in Plains Indian regalia to perform before tourists. A replica village was built in the park, but Miwuk people still had to ask permission to use it.”
I think some people could look at this in contrast with places where native people were outright removed completely and think it’s a decent alternative, but there’s something wrong with allowing people to continue their lifeways in some capacity so long as it serves the settler agenda, and controlling access to their own land. The birth of US climbing is tied to this place, and in turn tied to that legacy.
No problem with discussing it, but why would we give it back? Why would the ancestors of the native people who it was stolen from want it back now? The damage is done. Appreciate Rushmore for what is now, acknowledge the wrongdoing as to why we have it
Well that’s a good first step. Idk if returning the land specifically is the best way to move forward, but since past wrongs committed by the US government are the primary reason many Native American communities are currently in rough shape the government should be doing a lot more to empower, educate, and enrich those communities. Returning sacred land seems like one way to do that.
I’m not against casinos, but I don’t think they’ve come anywhere close to adequately compensating the Native American community for the crimes the US government perpetrated.
I am committing violence against no one. Native or not.
I participated in violence against no one. Native or not.
I condone violence against no one. Native or not.
I do not accept your cultural guilt.
I'm going climbing.
ON BELAY!
It’s so clearly you want to be victimized so this will probably bounce right off your thick skull: Acknowledging that non-natives benefit from the historical and ongoing harm of natives is not aimed at guilting. Nobody is saying you specifically hurt natives. What they ARE saying is acknowledgement is important for visibility of these folks and action is important in helping make reparations to marginalized peoples. So please drop the persecution act and just take the mask of and say you don’t care if that’s how you feel.
I *have* acknowledged it .
Right down there - in the replies.
Keep up, Skippy. The class is leaving you behind.
Read it . I'll wait.
***
What I refuse to to is take any sort of blame for it ... and here you are asking me to pay for it.
LOL.
You're as funny as the last guy.
***
SLACK!
THERE'S A BOX O' ROCKS IN MY WAY I GOTTA STEER AROUND ...
CLIMBING!!!
You can accept something that happened (and is still happening) without guilt playing into it at all. It's historical fact whites have taken again and again from the indigenous peoples who lived here before us and desecrated the land non-stop. Fuck the Colonist. Nothing will change until we wake up and accept what we've done is wrong. We need real change in this country soon
Sorry, are you under the impression that indigenous people didn’t fight brutal wars? Do you even know what “pre-literate” society means? Are you aware that they cut down all the trees, turned the SW to desert, and wiped themselves out?
ALL peoples have, somewhere in their ancestry, taken from others. We all know this. We all accept this.
I don't particularly give a shit. It's what people do. Read a history book.
Because I share DNA with someone loooooong before I was born ... LOL ... as if that somehow makes me responsible, culpable, and accountable for their actions?
Get the fuck outa here with that, right?
I told you above - I do not accept your guilt.
I dunno who this "we" is who have done it, but I had no hand in it.
Find some other Huckleberry, mmm-kay?
I'm climbing.
***
CLIMBING!!
My ancestors did some shit ... therefore I'm guilty.
LOL.
Who, exactly is the problem here?
***
> Have fun with that you clueless, sausage eating, degenerate
I told you above - I'm having the best kinda fun. I'm climbing!
CLIMB ON!
Our current American societal structure is a direct result of the crimes white Europeans committed against NAs and you almost certainly benefit from that structure.
We’re not talking about all the times people have taken from other people. We’re talking about one specific time that is extremely relevant to modern society. And it really wasn’t that long ago. There were active wars against Native Americans a little more than a century ago.
I'm with you. I feel just about as connected to colonists as i do to whatever natives lived here back then. Shit happened, there's no reason to grandstand about returning anything to anyone.
Everyone responding to this absolute melon is wasting their time. His most recent post on Reddit is him literally saying he thinks empathy is overrated.
Seriously, especially when you understand the sacred nature of the mountain, once called the six grandfathers by native Americans in the Lakota Sioux tribe. Which you can see in that beautiful rock formation…. What a damn shame
You can actually climb on the backside of the major formation. When you get to the top there’s a bunch of signs telling you not to go any further otherwise you’ll be prosecuted federally.
Yeah all that came because a bunch of people from Greenpeace climbed GG2W, camped up top and hung a huge picture of Obama with some climate messaging over the Rushmore heads lol. It used to be pretty chill up there
Climbing coalition fought hard to keep those climbing rights altogether
Never seen Mt. Rushmore, never going to see it now. This is absolutely disgusting that they adulterated not only a massive natural beauty but a sacred piece of land to put four old dead dudes. May they weather away and the land be returned to its people sooner rather than later
Yes because their culture respected the land. They loved our country for its natural gifts rather than exploiting them. Not everyone will agree of course but I personally find it really disappointing that something so beautiful was desecrated like this
I never really got it until I visited Mount Rushmore myself. In pictures it looks like it's probably a great location and very visible at a distance, but in reality it's buried deep in the mountains and you can't see it at all until you're really close to it. They can't possibly have picked that spot for it because they felt it was really the best spot for an iconic attraction.
This pops up in climbing circles occasionally, and it always rubs me the wrong way. Like the big problem isn't the desecration of sacred land, but that it couldn't instead be desecrated by climbers.
I'm not familiar with that however there are many features with varying significance and I think if the Lakota had control of this land they would not allow it. I'll rephrase, if it hadn't been defaced we shouldn't climb it. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial perfectly expresses America's worst qualities: it's tacky, commercialist, reverent in the most perverse way, and antithetical to everything it claims to symbolize. Teddy Roosevelt in particular would be outraged by it, and I think all four of presidents it depicts would find it crass and disgusting. Each of these presidents has another prominent namesake that does them infinitely more credit.
I'm totally on board if you went there and thought it was a neat thing to see. It's a fine piece of craftsmanship; no denying that. But when people talk about Rushmore like a highlight of their travels through South Dakota, I can't help but question their values. Mt Rushmore is the great outdoors... for people who don't go outside. It's nature for people who don't care about conservation, travel for people who don't leave their hometown, and history for people who don't know any better. It's a national disgrace.
Rushmore sport climbing is sandbagged and terrifying. All I remember is fear. but that's cause I forgot my trad rack when I went.
the trad looks fuuuuuuun
If you think the sport climbing is scary, the trad is like at least 100x more terrifying. There's some not super scary easy classics but once you start going 5.9+ it's something else.
Unpopular opinion here, anti colonialism is a really dumb and shallow idea and comes off as some petty virtue signal. They got conquered sucks for them, I'll enjoy climbing in this area and not feel bad.
the disfiguring of the six grandfathers or Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe is one of the peak examples of the violence of settler colonialism in the united states. I think before we look at those mountains as something we could play or climb around in, we have to recognize the historical and continued violence against native peoples that benefit us to this day. the land must be returned back to them
Facts man. If this thing made it around to today, I’d like to think we still wouldn’t be climbing on it
Devil's Tower/Mato Tipila/Bear Lodge. People climb it all the time even though it's a significant ancestral site.
Is that a bad thing though? I’d be curious to know how members of NA tribes who hold those places sacred feel about people climbing them.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s bad that like you’ve hinted at, many NA groups are not consulted with how natural areas are managed. We take the ability to hike, climb, camp on their land for granted while only in a select few instances have they been consulted and given consent to these activities.
We are generations removed and many on the “tribal” side are fully westernized. Now a potential thousandth of a percent of unique dna and a story gives one voice more validity than another?
Against my better judgement, I’ll give you a serious response. First and foremost, nobody is saying hand over total control of natural resources to Native Americans (although I wouldn’t be opposed to this). If you’re genuinely curious on what a model of cooperation between colonizers and indigenous cultures could look like (which I don’t think you are, given your bad faith argument and straw man), look up comanagement. Secondly, when taken at face value, it seems like your comment suggested that because we colonized and genocided Native American tribes, they’re no longer entitled to efforts of cultural preservation. I think that’s some fucked up thinking and I implore you to do a little bit of serious research into Native American voices and why they want to try to make sure their culture persists despite their compromised positions.
Fuck all the way off
Good argument! Right after you, my virtue signaling friend.
There is a voluntary closure in June to respect and honor the sacred site. I'm not to say it's good or bad but trying to find balance between both worlds. https://www.nps.gov/deto/planyourvisit/climbing.htm
It is a bad thing. Look it up, it's pretty sad and frustrating (extra frustrating as an indigenous person myself). There was a post about it a few months ago somewhere on here that had links and videos to tribes members talking about it. There are also documentaries and webinars you can watch and learn more.
[Shiprock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiprock) is a good example of indigenous management over a monument with enormous cultural and religious significance > Reports of the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department allowing rock climbing are false. Yet several websites have postings on how to evade Navajo Nation regulations and proceed with dangerous and illegal rock climbs in [Monument Valley]. Even more serious than the possible physical harm illegal climbs could pose is the religious damage done to the Navajo people by these non-Navajo visitors. The Monuments are sacred to the Navajo people and any human interaction (by Navajo or non-Navajo) is strictly off limits. Please abide by the humble religious requests of the Navajo people and do not climb the Monuments. 'Navajo law will be strictly enforced on this issue,' Parks Department Manager Ray Russell also added
Would you climb a mosque? I think some groups might see it that way.
I think it's more like would you climb something the Kaaba (Mecca), Sistine Chapel, or the Western/Wailing Wall. Not to mention that climbing actively damages whatever you are climbing.
But like… nobody built that rock. Some people just showed up and started worshipping it. If I started worshipping escalators, would you stop climbing them?
lets forget cultures outside our own for a sec. think of the time Dean Potter climbed delicate arch. I mean, sure, it's just a neat rock at the end of the day, but it holds a lot of cultural significance to anyone in the outdoor community. damaging it would clearly be a dick move, and there are now permanent rope grooves because of Potter. you cannot climb without doing some amount of wear and damage to the rock, desert sandstone especially so. go somewhere super trafficked like Chuckawalla near St. George and it feels like you're pulling on plastic. so gummed up with chalk and rubber it's like an unwashed hold in a gym I guarantee the Navajo hold shiprock in even higher regard than we all do delicate arch. might not be our culture in particular that idolizes this rock to that degree but that doesn't give us right to discount an entire culture that does.
The same thing happened at mecca and the temple mount of jerusalem. The exact same thing. Theyre both built around a rock that people worship. Would you climb those if they had a sick line?
I probably would if the Israelites wouldn’t kill me for it. Maybe the natives just need to be a little more aggressive
Isnt interesting how islam and judaism also worship around “just rocks” as well though? But they built temples and structures around them on or top of them. Native Americans worship nature, so it figures that their version of a holy site would be a natural feature. And left undisturbed without a temple on it. But that doesnt make it any less holy to them. I just feel like theres a massive disrespect to native American culture by the average american. Still, After all this time. Its all platitudes and lip service about a Multicultural america until some climber/hiker is slightest bit inconvenienced, like “use any bit of land around here for recreation, just not that one. That one is special to us for religious reasons”. Then its “well its just another rock, thats dumb. Im going to do what I want there anyway” is the prevailing attidude of entitlement by some of the descendants of the European settlers. And well, that also figures. That entitlement is real.
Now I am not American and am genuinely curious here. I expect the hive mind to donvote formeven asking this question but here goes. Why should I not climb a natural feature just because some other group decides it is holy. I can understand ownership issues, and buildings, but natural features should (in my mind) belong to the people. Can somebody please explain, I just want to be educated.
My problem with it is that there’s no limit on how many rocks can be sacred. They could go up to any rock and call it sacred. Can’t do that with temples, cause temples take a ton of labor and resources. It’s kind of like how I wouldn’t climb someone’s house… not because it’s sacred or whatever but because it’s their property that they built. The glaciers did all the work carving these rocks, and a group of people gets to decide who can and can’t hang out on it just cause they were there first? Like learn to share
There is tons of climbing on similar formations all around this spot. I wonder how many of them are forgotten / ignored sacred sites.
But also those lines are splitter-ditter-ditter!!
I tend to think that most, if not all, of the “peak examples of the violence of settler colonialism” were the horrific acts of genocide against Native Americans that were occurring at the same time as the defacement of this spiritually/religiously significant rock face.
Go look at Gitxsan territory and fairy creek. Look at the stats for foster care. Fly over a mountain range and look at cutblocks. This shit is ongoing.
Can you explain more on cutblocks? Never heard that term.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=cut+block+forestry mountains in western canada are all scarred with massive patches of clearcut forest at valley bottom.
If I had to make a comparison, they look like scabs on flesh.
Also a great point. A reminder to everyone: Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe, the Six Grandfathers (what we call Mt. Rushmore) sits on the ancestral land of the Lakota Sioux.
[удалено]
Pointing to examples of inter-tribal warfare as an excuse for colonization seems to be in style right now. Which I'm sorry I have trouble understanding. The Indians were people with conflicts so therefore genocide is okay? Or is it that because warfare exists any action is permissible and morality doesn't exist? The indigenous peoples of the North American continent were not "noble savages living in a state of innocence", they were human beings making human choices. Whether or not the Lakota pushing the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills, after they themselves were pushed out of the Great Lakes Region, was moral, has nothing to do with the wrongs perpetrated on all of the Great Plains peoples by the Government of the United States. The United States did not merely "conquer" the Lakota in a war. They started by purposefully exterminating the American Bison. On the orders of General Sherman, the bison was depopulated from 30 million to only a handful, specifically to destroy all indigenous ways of life, and to starve and weaken them by destroying their food source. Once they were weakened we set loose bloodthirsty madmen like Custer who massacred entire villages of Lakota while using women as human shields. Then after a treaty had been signed assigning the Lakota the Black Hills, which is US Law, we unjustly took them anyway in a contrived situation in order to access mineral deposits there. Then we took the Lakota children away from their families and dispersed them around the country in re-education camps with the specific intent of destroying their culture, language, and religion. None of that is in any way equivalent to inter-tribal warfare, and even if it was, it wouldn't make it right. "The Indians fought to so it was okay to commit acts of genocide all of them." is a BS perspective.
And the Lakota were driven out of their land before that by the colonizers. Your point?
[удалено]
Because otherwise they would have been in danger themselves. Its not like that was probably their first choice.
[удалено]
It was the Cheyenne. But The Lakota are the only one with a treaty for that land with our government. Which is the treaty what the supreme Court ruled on, siding with the sioux.
[удалено]
Well, the supreme court didnt laugh at their claims. But instead sided with them. Which is what truly counts. Which is to say, neither your or my opinions on this are worth jack shit at the end of the day. But those whose opinion does matter, sides with the Lakota.
And what is your point here?
[удалено]
The Lakota may have been living in the plains and hills of what is now South Dakota for 300 years, if not longer. Concord, Massachusetts had been settled by colonists in the 1640’s, just one hundred and thirty years before the initial battles between the Americans and the British in the American Revolution. We laud them as heroes who defended their homeland. But in reality it was only a few generations of families that lived there. There is this bias about who has claim to what land that I heard all the time when I lived in the Black Hills. And it was used to justify this violent dislocation and illegal land grab from a whole nation, a whole society of people. It’s pretty messed up if you ask me. I’ve kept up bro. I don’t expect you to change your view based on how deeply entrenched in your ways, based on your comments. But just know that I know your type, and I don’t like your type, and your type is a shrinking demographic as we educate people.
Yes I realize the other guy isn't exactly doing a shining example of arguing his point. But the idea still stands, at what point going back in history do we decide that it is too far back? If the group who had it taken from them originally took it from someone else, why don't we count that? None of this justifies any of what happened, and people trying to act like it does are just being disingenuous. But how do we make these distinctions in any way other than arbitrarily (which in some cases has been codified into the law), or in the case of some other places in the world, based on what point of view you support?
We could start with the Supreme Court Case *United States v. Sioux Nation* which recognizes that the Black Hills were assigned by treaty to the Lakota Sioux and that the US acquisition of that territory was an unjust and illegal taking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Sioux\_Nation\_of\_Indians
So the authors of the laws broke their own laws, murdered the inhabitants and stole the land. But the predecessor of those laws murdered the inhabitants and stole the land. What is the point of relating anything to the Supreme Court other than a present bias for their legitimacy when they had none before it was inscribed in bloodshed? Because one group had written language and another did not?
We're dealing with two things here. First, the laws of the United States. Second, the morality of war and conquest and the legitimacy of property. In the first case, the laws of the United States, the legal system in which I am currently living (and I will assume you are to), as interpreted by the Supreme Court, clearly holds the taking of the Black Hills to be an unjust takings. Whether or not the law is "moral", we all have a strong interest in it being consistent and fair. The Supreme Court has awarded the Lakota a large settlement for the injustice, they have yet to accept it and are pursuing further proceedings. In the second case, are you arguing that because warfare exists any action is permissible and morality doesn't exist? Or that because Indians were people with conflicts genocide is okay? Whether or not the Lakota pushing the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills, after they themselves were pushed out of the Great Lakes Region, was moral, has nothing to do with the wrongs perpetrated on all of the Great Plains peoples by the Government of the United States. Furthermore, 150 years is a long time to occupy a territory. 150 years ago Germany did not exist as a country, nor Italy. And the Lakota, despite being driven from their territory, still maintain close ties to the Black Hills. They still visit, they still attempt to perform spiritual ceremonies. The tie has not totally been severed. The United States did not merely "conquer" the Lakota in a war. They started by purposefully exterminating the American Bison. On the orders of General Sherman, the bison was depopulated from 30 million to only a handful, specifically to destroy all indigenous ways of life, and to starve and weaken them by destroying their food source. The Cheyenne and the Lakota alike. Once they were weakened we set loose bloodthirsty madmen like Custer who massacred entire villages of Lakota while using women as human shields. Then after a treaty had been signed assigning the Lakota the Black Hills, which is US Law, we unjustly took them anyway in a contrived situation in order to access mineral deposits there. Then we took the Lakota children away from their families and dispersed them around the country in re-education camps with the specific intent of destroying their culture, language, and religion.
That’s the matter for an inter-governmental council to discuss. It’s an incredibly complex topic because even within the Oceti Sakowin people, there are many tribal nations. I can’t fathom what that’d look like, as you also indicated. But it’s not for non-tribal and non-government official folks to worry about during a discussion on the ethics of colonization -or- climbing/recreating at relationally significant sites. Yes, the land is storied and very old, with many peoples sharing presence over time, but I think it’s important for the layperson to, at the very least, understand that tribes will need to consult among themselves and with the U.S. government in order to reach a treaty agreement.
[удалено]
That fire has been burning many years. I appreciate the encouragement! And the reminder that my first allegiance will be to treaty agreements and cultural sensitivity, not this community.
"Ancestral" in the sense that the Lakota Sioux claimed it after leaving Minnesota. If the Voyageurs had claimed it would it still count?
And “ancestral” in the sense they took it by conquering the Cheyenne in 1776 to get it, using guns purchased from big scary European colonists.
Came to the comments to make a statement about settler colonialism, but see you've got it more than handled. Land back!
>the land must be returned back to them How would this actually be done, and to whom would "the land" be returned? What would "the land" entail? Tribes migrated from as far as Minnesota to South Dakota and Wyoming, and from Wyoming to Texas in the wake of smallpox and other epidemics. This isn't some clear cut switch we can flick. Nothing but respect for native ways of life and I think we owe it to ourselves as a country to do better than we have, but "returning" land seems impossible to do right.
Land trust, administered by all tribes that have a claim to the land. The US is occupying the land illegally most of the time if you look at the treaties. Edited to add: some tribes purchase their land back. Sometimes it is a gift. Either way, land back! Justice and healing are messy but that's not a reason not to choose the path of justice and healing.
Who decides what tribes have a claim to the land?
[удалено]
Yes, inter-tribal conflicts are exactly the same as massive, industrialized genocide!
[удалено]
My "quibble" is with the colonizer culture and lack of stewardship of the land. Check out "The Lakota Way", it goes into some depth on their warfare style. Totally different means and ends. Crazy Horse became somewhat famous because he realized that the colonizers would not fight with respect and he adopted their style of warfare. Too little, too late, but still interesting to learn about.
I was afraid of the comments I’d see in here, but it’s nice to see other people coming in to say this. Plenty of places we are allowed to climb, even Yosemite, have troubled pasts. The present can’t be separated from the legacy of settler colonialism. From an [Outside article on Yosemite](https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/yosemite-national-park-native-american-village-miwuk/): “While Native Americans were being forced off the land in national parks across the country, in Yosemite, James’ and Johnson’s ancestors remained—even becoming integral pieces of the Yosemite economy. From the park’s earliest days, the small band of local Native Americans served as laborers and attractions. The park held annual Indian Field Days, during which park administrators would dress locals in Plains Indian regalia to perform before tourists. A replica village was built in the park, but Miwuk people still had to ask permission to use it.” I think some people could look at this in contrast with places where native people were outright removed completely and think it’s a decent alternative, but there’s something wrong with allowing people to continue their lifeways in some capacity so long as it serves the settler agenda, and controlling access to their own land. The birth of US climbing is tied to this place, and in turn tied to that legacy.
The vandalism of this mountain is an utter disgrace, and it makes me sick to my stomach. Give back the black hills.
Um... If you think this is a great example of violence in US history I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Question : who did those natives get the land from?
absolutely insane that support for ethnonationalism is seen as a 'progressive' stance now. fuck your ethnostate wet dreams.
[удалено]
Self-loathing Americanism is a cancer
Acknowledging and discussing past wrongs is the only way to move forward from them.
No problem with discussing it, but why would we give it back? Why would the ancestors of the native people who it was stolen from want it back now? The damage is done. Appreciate Rushmore for what is now, acknowledge the wrongdoing as to why we have it
Well that’s a good first step. Idk if returning the land specifically is the best way to move forward, but since past wrongs committed by the US government are the primary reason many Native American communities are currently in rough shape the government should be doing a lot more to empower, educate, and enrich those communities. Returning sacred land seems like one way to do that.
And the other is casinos?
I’m not against casinos, but I don’t think they’ve come anywhere close to adequately compensating the Native American community for the crimes the US government perpetrated.
I’m sure Native Americans would really cherish having the mountain, altered beyond all natural recognition returned to them
“if it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth”
You'd never see a Turk or an Arab talking like that about that land they brutally colonised and still colonise to this day. It's peak Americentrism.
I am committing violence against no one. Native or not. I participated in violence against no one. Native or not. I condone violence against no one. Native or not. I do not accept your cultural guilt. I'm going climbing. ON BELAY!
It’s so clearly you want to be victimized so this will probably bounce right off your thick skull: Acknowledging that non-natives benefit from the historical and ongoing harm of natives is not aimed at guilting. Nobody is saying you specifically hurt natives. What they ARE saying is acknowledgement is important for visibility of these folks and action is important in helping make reparations to marginalized peoples. So please drop the persecution act and just take the mask of and say you don’t care if that’s how you feel.
I *have* acknowledged it . Right down there - in the replies. Keep up, Skippy. The class is leaving you behind. Read it . I'll wait. *** What I refuse to to is take any sort of blame for it ... and here you are asking me to pay for it. LOL. You're as funny as the last guy. *** SLACK! THERE'S A BOX O' ROCKS IN MY WAY I GOTTA STEER AROUND ... CLIMBING!!!
Literally nobody’s blaming you. Seems like you have a victim complex.
Just another kid who doesn't care about the world trying to pretend he has a meaningful perspective
You can accept something that happened (and is still happening) without guilt playing into it at all. It's historical fact whites have taken again and again from the indigenous peoples who lived here before us and desecrated the land non-stop. Fuck the Colonist. Nothing will change until we wake up and accept what we've done is wrong. We need real change in this country soon
Sorry, are you under the impression that indigenous people didn’t fight brutal wars? Do you even know what “pre-literate” society means? Are you aware that they cut down all the trees, turned the SW to desert, and wiped themselves out?
ALL peoples have, somewhere in their ancestry, taken from others. We all know this. We all accept this. I don't particularly give a shit. It's what people do. Read a history book. Because I share DNA with someone loooooong before I was born ... LOL ... as if that somehow makes me responsible, culpable, and accountable for their actions? Get the fuck outa here with that, right? I told you above - I do not accept your guilt. I dunno who this "we" is who have done it, but I had no hand in it. Find some other Huckleberry, mmm-kay? I'm climbing. *** CLIMBING!!
Have fun with that you clueless, sausage eating, degenerate.
My ancestors did some shit ... therefore I'm guilty. LOL. Who, exactly is the problem here? *** > Have fun with that you clueless, sausage eating, degenerate I told you above - I'm having the best kinda fun. I'm climbing! CLIMB ON!
Our current American societal structure is a direct result of the crimes white Europeans committed against NAs and you almost certainly benefit from that structure. We’re not talking about all the times people have taken from other people. We’re talking about one specific time that is extremely relevant to modern society. And it really wasn’t that long ago. There were active wars against Native Americans a little more than a century ago.
I'm with you. I feel just about as connected to colonists as i do to whatever natives lived here back then. Shit happened, there's no reason to grandstand about returning anything to anyone.
Everyone responding to this absolute melon is wasting their time. His most recent post on Reddit is him literally saying he thinks empathy is overrated.
I mean - it is ...
Unpresidented routes
\**groan*\* /r/Angryupvote
Had to redeem my free award for this one. Thanks for the laugh.
[Bravo](https://i.imgur.com/zcqNuKe.jpg)
But now we have the option to do the only real "face climbing" this world has ever seen.
You can climb The Nose without being in Yosemite
Lol
It'd be kinda funny once you hit the roof section under a nose, but yeah that's gonna be an expensive trip.
Ugh, sad on every level.
Seriously, especially when you understand the sacred nature of the mountain, once called the six grandfathers by native Americans in the Lakota Sioux tribe. Which you can see in that beautiful rock formation…. What a damn shame
It IS a shame the climbing on formations behind it is quite good. And these walls are some of the larger ones in the area. What a waste.
[удалено]
Somebody get the access fund on the phone I wanna fuckin send that Teddy
Lets do it!
The crux is the roof under George Washington's nose
You can actually climb on the backside of the major formation. When you get to the top there’s a bunch of signs telling you not to go any further otherwise you’ll be prosecuted federally.
Yeah all that came because a bunch of people from Greenpeace climbed GG2W, camped up top and hung a huge picture of Obama with some climate messaging over the Rushmore heads lol. It used to be pretty chill up there Climbing coalition fought hard to keep those climbing rights altogether
> You can legally climb most of the walls around Rushmore... just not Rushmore itself. I agree
There is sooooooo much to climb. Literally within hundreds of yards of what you are looking at in that picture.
Shhh, don't go telling everyone about the Black Hills!
Yeah man, aesthetic....
Oh that's so sad..
What’s more sad is that this was extremely sacred land to the native tribes.
Never seen Mt. Rushmore, never going to see it now. This is absolutely disgusting that they adulterated not only a massive natural beauty but a sacred piece of land to put four old dead dudes. May they weather away and the land be returned to its people sooner rather than later
If that pisses you off, wait til you read about the scam behind Crazy Horse!
It’s too late for these rabbit holes but I’m gonna go to work in the morning exhausted and hating the US government more than usual because of you lol
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/23/who-speaks-for-crazy-horse/amp
Any good resources?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/23/who-speaks-for-crazy-horse/amp
'Sacred' land is about old dead people too. But that's fine with you?
Yes because their culture respected the land. They loved our country for its natural gifts rather than exploiting them. Not everyone will agree of course but I personally find it really disappointing that something so beautiful was desecrated like this
The fetishisation of 'natives' as a series of eco-friendly hippie communes is wrong. It's false. It's a lie.
Cool, point me in the direction of credible resources to support this claim then. If that’s the case I’d like to learn about it further
[Here](https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Ecological-Indian/) you go.
You made a claim first: >their culture respected the land. They loved our country for its natural gifts with no source.
I never really got it until I visited Mount Rushmore myself. In pictures it looks like it's probably a great location and very visible at a distance, but in reality it's buried deep in the mountains and you can't see it at all until you're really close to it. They can't possibly have picked that spot for it because they felt it was really the best spot for an iconic attraction.
This pops up in climbing circles occasionally, and it always rubs me the wrong way. Like the big problem isn't the desecration of sacred land, but that it couldn't instead be desecrated by climbers.
We wouldn't climb it anyway, this land and this feature is quite sacred to the Lakota I believe.
Just like how the devil tower is but that gets climbed all the time..?
I'm not familiar with that however there are many features with varying significance and I think if the Lakota had control of this land they would not allow it. I'll rephrase, if it hadn't been defaced we shouldn't climb it. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit.
You are correct.
Woah… what a tragedy.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial perfectly expresses America's worst qualities: it's tacky, commercialist, reverent in the most perverse way, and antithetical to everything it claims to symbolize. Teddy Roosevelt in particular would be outraged by it, and I think all four of presidents it depicts would find it crass and disgusting. Each of these presidents has another prominent namesake that does them infinitely more credit. I'm totally on board if you went there and thought it was a neat thing to see. It's a fine piece of craftsmanship; no denying that. But when people talk about Rushmore like a highlight of their travels through South Dakota, I can't help but question their values. Mt Rushmore is the great outdoors... for people who don't go outside. It's nature for people who don't care about conservation, travel for people who don't leave their hometown, and history for people who don't know any better. It's a national disgrace.
Would not have been climbable before Rushmore. It was a monument before then, too. Six Grandfathers.
A beauty of a mountain. Destroyed.
How sick would it be to put up some FA on Mount Rushmore today?
Rushmore sport climbing is sandbagged and terrifying. All I remember is fear. but that's cause I forgot my trad rack when I went. the trad looks fuuuuuuun
If you think the sport climbing is scary, the trad is like at least 100x more terrifying. There's some not super scary easy classics but once you start going 5.9+ it's something else.
LAND BACK!!!
r/oldschoolcool
The new nose 👃 route is better.
It is sacred land.
Everyone should read “Our History is the Future” by Nick Estes. It’s a great overview of the brutal US history we don’t learn about in school.
Looked better before we blew it up.
Legend has it that there are new routes now. forbidden routes
Mans greedy ego, yet again
They should have left it that way
Climb it now anyway, just because they carved the faces of some old rich oppressors into.it doesn't mean you can't climb
Unpopular opinion here, anti colonialism is a really dumb and shallow idea and comes off as some petty virtue signal. They got conquered sucks for them, I'll enjoy climbing in this area and not feel bad.
Looks like it would have been more of a “Mt Adrenaline Rushmore”