5 ms·
It was relatively secluded. Federal agencies already owned and controlled 90% of the land needed for the site and the local residents were mostly homesteaders
by soderfoo 3y ago
It was relatively secluded. Federal agencies already owned and controlled 90% of the land needed for the site and the local residents were mostly homesteaders granted grazing permits by the Federal government. Landowners for the remaining 10% were compensated through the process of eminent domain.
Utilities and roads were built to access the seized land.
Maybe the process could have been more humane, but it is easy to sit back in the comfort of the 21 century and feign outrage. The nation was facing existential challenges and the war machine required sacrifice from all civilians.
This kind of context would go a long way in fostering better conversations. In regards to this tweet, it would have been nice for the author to acknowledge that while the Hispanos' grazing permits for the land were withdrawn, it was their sacrifice for the war effort.
- rakoo 3y agoI don't understand how the government can force something upon its citizens and call it a "sacrifice". It's not a sacrifice if it doesn't come from you.
- AwaAwa 3y ago"Sacrifice" is the term used to whitewash such actions. Just ask the japanese-americans in who availed of Camp 'Sacrifice'.
- pjc50 3y agoYeah, this sort of thing happened a lot. The UK confiscated the remaining village within the Salisbury Plain training ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imber Then there's all the Pacific islanders and the post-war nuclear tests, all the way up to the French government carrying out a lethal terrorist attack against New Zealand in 1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior