Lakota Natives Withdraw Treaties with U.S.
Johnny says:
Excerpt:The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday. Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licenses, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.LinkA delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.
They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.
the latest
Yeah, this will end as foreseen...
Yes, we're preparing the smallpox-ridden blankets as we speak.
Wow - that is a pretty bold move. I'm impressed.
Hey - the US government broke plenty of treaties with them. It's about time.
That's pretty cool that anyone can live there as well, though I'm not ready to give up my citizenship personally.
I wonder how this would affect immigration. Would some type of wall or fence be built around the Lakota territory? Would current undocumented immigrants find asylum there?
Interesting.
Without stating any personal opinion as to who is right or wrong, this will end exactly one of two ways:
1. The US Govt says "ok that's fine, if you're out we don't have to honor the treaties either. we don't recognize your sovereignty. we don't recognize your right to any of this land. you're now just regular US citizens, on Federal land, and we don't recognize your right to secede from the Union." The Lakotas say, "hmmm, I kind of liked it when the Feds at least partially honored our sovereignty." The US Govt is nice enough to reinstate the previous treaties. Everything goes back to exactly how it was.
2. War. Bloodshed. Your land is only sovereign as long as you can defend it. The US isn't going to let you carve out your own nation in its midst without a fight.
Xopl (#4): You forgot an option.
3. The US Govt decides that this is just a few activists making a loud noise, and ignores them.
Go Team Lakota!
Do they have a lot of casino money? They might hire an army with that.
Right on, right on.
CKD... I agree. 3 options.
Rock on, Lakotas.
Though I also believe the feds will laugh at the sovereignty, it's not like they ever took the native rights in the treaties seriously.
I guess maybe I'm still naive about politics and corrupt government to actually think the Lakota would have a chance to get what is rightfully theirs.
In a perfect world, I'd let them split Utah with the Mormons, and the Israelis. And of course, broadcast it all as the greatest reality TV show ever.
However; with my wonderful world of jetpacks, free grilled cheese sandwiches, and magical talking tapirs being rather slow to arrive-- I'd like to remind these folks that human history is chock-full of one group sh*****g on another, with native Americans surely possessing a shocking history of violence among their own tribes/peoples as well.
If any progress is going to be made towards some sort of peace or civility, I seriously doubt it will come from yet another nation being formed. Best of luck!
Anyone have an idea of how big an area this is, or a link to a map?
Yamara (#7), do you know how tiny the income of even an enormous casino is compared to the US military budget? A few hundred million dollars versus $532 billion - plus some of the DOE funding - plus emergency funding requests.. :-(
I admire the spirit, but don't see it ending well for the Lakota. Who knows.
There's also a fourth option, which I think is the most likely:
4. The U.S. government shovels some money at the Lakotas to get them to sign a new treaty, or honor the old one. The Lakotas decide they'd much rather take our money to fix their roads, fund their schools, etc. than to make a stink.
are there many somewhat substantial separatist movements in the usa ?
can they join forces ?
I just hope they're not sitting on any oil.
Go Lakotas!
Can't really say how this will end, but anyone who thinks the USA will keep their word or honor their treaties is painfully naive.
The Lakota have a lot of money (nearly a billion dollars) sitting in trust in payment for the Black Hills; they have never taken it. The #4 option isn't likely.
That's funny: US + UK governments pay (a lot of money to) entities to say that here in South America we have some "indian nations" that have the rights for the Continental Amazon. Let's say, about 40% of South America for about 1.5 million "indians" (many living in the stone ages).
Now, let's see what they do to the "rogue" Lakotas and see if we can do the same around here... (that's black joke. Except for the flu, small pox, sifilis and alcohol we haven't killed our Indians for a long time).
Billy (#16), I've heard there's a relatively active separatist movement in Alaska.
Frankly I'm a bit skeptical that this is actually happening. Do we have any external links or other proof?
With at least a billion dollars in the bank the Lakota nation is already financially better off than the US...
we haven't killed our Indians for a long time
Our Indians? And they are what, occupying our land right??
You see, I think that is the problem right there.
Anyone have a mirror for activists' site: http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ ? It's "bandwidth exceeded" and the Google cache version is a week old and contentless.
It looks like the Lakota people as a whole are not in agreement on this, btw. This (fairly "dismissive") article in the SD Argus Leader quotes some rez folks who say they're keeping the status quo: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001
Noen@24 I think he used the term "our" to differentiate between the indigenous people in her/his region (South America) as opposed to "our" region (North America).
Sort of like saying our self-righteous people versus their self righteous people ;P
Having just finished Brian Wood's comic DMZ, I opened Boing Boing to be shocked at what I hope isn't life imitating art.
Well done, Lakota. Good luck.
Yeah. In my text "our" means "our in Latin America". Not as "your in North America" :D
But US and UK governments do pay organizations to cause trouble with "native Americans" around here (South America).
thanks dculberson (21) !
i've heard of movements in texas and vermont and am assuming there are a bunch of small grassroots movements, some kooky ones and some bigger.
and yes, go lakota !
Map.
Awesome. I look forward to not having to pay for their subsidies any more.
The question is, how much can we argue with the Lakota claims without contradicting our policies in Kurdistan?
Crash, you shouldn't imagine it amounts to much.
#27 "Having just finished Brian Wood's comic DMZ"
There's also The Bird is Gone: A Manifesto" by Stephen Graham Jones (1573661090)in which an independent Native nation has already been established on Lakota land. I'm only a few chapters in but it's pretty dang funny so far.
Mmmm, donuts
In 1992, I was going to school in Lawrence, KS, when five (or more) counties wanted to secede from the STATE. The funniest thing about it to me was that in the middle of five seceding counties was a county that did not want to secede. So, had the secession been successful, the new state would have been a donut! Sorta like South Africa but with a much larger donut hole. When it came to a new state name, they weren't the most creative people, either:
Oh, does this Lakota secession include the land surrounding Mount Rushmore? That'll go over well.
@ #34 posted by isadrone , December 20, 2007 11:40 AM
There's also The Bird is Gone: A Manifesto" by Stephen Graham Jones (1573661090)in which an independent Native nation has already been established on Lakota land. I'm only a few chapters in but it's pretty dang funny so far."
you a Velvet member?
"Do they have a lot of casino money? They might hire an army with that."
If you have a problem, and if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...
From another article I read on it:
As if real estate wasn't already screwed up enough.
They just need to hook in with Petoria and they got it made.
In other news I've just declared that my cubicle is its own soverign nation and its called Selfdelusionalavacia
According to my contacts on the rez at Pine Ridge in South Dakota, Russell Means means to further the agenda of Russell Means. The tribal governments (there are at least seven of them) are NOT on board.
Ever see an ant run over by a tank?
In other news, some dude in a cubicle was just hauled off to Guantanamo, never to be seen again, shouting "I was just kidding!!!!!!"
I'd rather like to seem them pull it off.
#16 - There's a longstanding feud between the northern and southern regions of New Jersey, and there's been a couple abortive attempts at separating.
Not exactly secession, though.
"They just need to hook in with Petoria and they got it made."
Unlikely, seeing as how that nation desecrated a burial ground by wearing the chiefs skull as an athletic cup (among other things).
As stated earlier, it looks like this is more of a PR move than anything else. (See comment thread here)
I think it's brilliant. They could become the USA's very own Taiwan. Go, Lakotas!
Mark, I was typing so fast and furious to beat you on posting this. Kudos!
This is very exciting news. I hope it doesn amount to more than a PR move.
My only regret is that Mt. Holly falls 200 miles outside of the new territory(specifically, South Lakota). I said it before: vigilante homesteading is the only way we can change America. If you don't fit in, drop out.
Let's think this out.
The US says OK.
Then everyone moves out and we seal the borders. No one gets in, no one gets out. Everybody moves their plants and equipment out and destroys the rest.
How does that improve anything?
The more I read about this, the more it seems like a fantasy of Russell Means'.
This is sure to end well.
I've done some looking around on this story. It's being credibly reported in a lot of publications. It's clear from that story in the Argus-Leader that they don't like this development one bit -- they're already putting "freedom-loving" in scare quotes in their lead.
That odd group of supporters -- South Africa, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Chile -- makes sense. Bolivia and Chile have large surviving populations of downtrodden Indios. South Africa knows from wholly surrounded ethnic enclaves. And for Venezuela, it's a peaceful and benevolent way to get up our noses.
Wonkette has a good theory:
Since the Lakota have been going through some fierce hard times while the Department of the Interior's been illegally withholding money due them (not subsidies, Crash), I'd say this move isn't just grandstanding.Jody (41), that's one of the first things the opposition says about any leader of a suddenly assertive political movement. It's Politics 101. Besides, the same is known to be true of the opposition's leader.
Jordan (47), the same goes for your comment thread. Have you noticed that they haven't said anything substantive? All they're doing is smearing Russell Means, and claiming that they know better; but they haven't said what it is they supposedly know. Zero points scored until they do.
For now, I'm going with Wonkette's clear, plausible explanation plus supporting evidence: the Bureau of the Interior has been brazenly holding out on the Lakota, and they're ticked about it. Since even the Argus-Leader and Jordan's comment thread admit that Russell Means isn't a complete idiot, which is what he'd have to be to think the Lakota can win a war with the United States, I think he's trying to do something real.
I'd like to remind these folks that human history is chock-full of one group sh*****g on another, with native Americans surely possessing a shocking history of violence among their own tribes/peoples as well.
Difference being that the true history of the indigenous peoples of the America's has been deliberately ignored, downplayed or completely fabricated throughout most of our lives.
Amen, Neon Tooth (54). No matter how much you sentimentalize it, people who are depicted as living in a timeless changeless state of nature are being classed as animals.
3 of the 10 lowest income counties in the US are in Lakota territory. I think independence would only be realistic if the territories were remotely sustainable first.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people#Reservations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
@ #16 billy & #21 dculberson
Some people in the New Hampshire Free State Project also believe in seceding from the Union, they are a major influence in NH political issues, so they would be a good group to have on their side.
Tensegrity
"Noen@24 I think he used the term "our" to differentiate between the indigenous people in her/his region (South America) as opposed to "our" region (North America)."
"Sort of like saying our self-righteous people versus their self righteous people ;P"
One: I am a she not a he.
Two: I still object the the use of "our". Words make a difference.
I made a map that shows roughly what many Lakota consider their territory to be.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=43.802819,-101.645508&spn=9.687136,20.566406&z=6&om=1&msid=105990635611814430241.000441c00f46c79e6ed2c
I lived on the Standing Rock Reservation for about three months, and many of the people I met hold a deep resentment toward the government for taking the Black Hills. There is a desire among many to pursue this type of independence, but the reservation system has put the people in such a state of poverty and dependence that they have lost hope.
I seriously doubt that the current reservations could survive without support from the feds. If they are going to run a self sustaining country, they'll need to take more land back.
This is the same Russell Means that occupied Alcatraz Island for 19 months back in the late 1960s.
This isn't just some random Lakota guy, this is a big figure!
More on Russell Means: http://imdb.com/name/nm0575184/
russell means is no stranger to this sort of controversy. didn't the lakota do this before, though? i could swear i heard about them doing this years ago. either way, GO LAKOTAS!
My lovely and talented roommate nee-wom found a really neat map.
http://ishgooda.org/oglala/1868lnd.htm
she's trying to get us a better one.
So, how exactly do they plan on supporting themselves as a stand alone nation?
Without diplomatic relations there's no visas, which means no travel outside the Lakota nation. It also means no trade, and no imports (e.g. the 99.9999% of stuff not made in the Dakotas).
If the US Federal gov't wanted to be real a-holes about the issue, they'd allow them to withdraw, refuse travel and trade, and then wait for everyone to come crawling back. At which point they annex the land and the Lakota tribe vanishes from the face of the earth.
Re: Eericson, although the 'screw natives over' policy worked pretty well for the US government in the polls throughout history, I think people, when they hear about it, tend to frown on that sort of thing now. Most likely, the move will be largely symbolic, with the Lakota able to go to a shop should they want to, although one likes to think, however naively, that the Lakota also have some knowledge, at least, on living off the earth. I didn't see any federal response in the article tho...
Sorry for pointing that out, but it seems like you still have a bit of a way to go to get over your civil war.
These days, a secession would hardly be answered by military action - unless your federal government were willing to risk roits and mass demonstrations, not to mention the shattered remains of international credibilty. No more than a modest amount of bullets will be fired over that issue. People in the US would surely sympathise with the Lakotas (as indeed many do here), as would indiginous peoples around the world in Latin America, Australia, Papua New Guinea and other countries.
I think that whole thing is going to come out as most of you expect - some political hubhub, perhaps a bit of news coverage on TV if the Lakotas are lucky, but probably not in a serious or sustained way.
No taxes? I'm in.
The modern government will not act the same way it had during the expanding era. It will simply act with political pollicies. Basicly the Lakota Nation will become Cuba. We will not allow commerce with any Lakota party. This will bankrupt the new nation. They will have no way in or out of thier territory other then air lift, much like West Berlin surrounded by Soviet Territory. If citizens of the Lakota Nation are required to renounce their United States citizenship then they will simply not be allowed on US soil. There is nothing wrong with this policy considering that (a) after 9/11 all forign nationals need special visas these days and (b) the Lakota nation is being openly hostile with the United States. Just as we would not let North Koreans or Iranians into the country without close scrutiny. I believe this was really a bad move by the Lakota leadership. It will be extreemly difficult for this government to maintain diplomatic relations with other forign countries as it will only hurt relations with the United States. (Whose side would you pick if you were a Nort American Nation?)
Here's another map: http://users.dma.ucla.edu/~estevancarlos/images/lakotanation.jpg
I'm really surprised that nobody's mentioned the fact that if these people make too much noise, they'll be considered "terrorists" along with all of the joys that implies - at best, free room and board in secret prisons in anonymous eastern european countries. Just because *they* consider themselves to be a nation doesn't mean that the United States won't consider them illegal combatants.
"I look forward to not having to pay for their subsidies any more."
Subsidies? Welfare? Nonsense. Those payments were negotiated in perpetuity for land ceded to the US -- which made similar deals across the country (that it apparently never intended to keep). Millions of Americans live on stolen land.
To the north and east of the Lakota, Red Lake Nation has long been sovereign and has its own license plates and passports.
Not nearly enough people have been commenting on the fact that this is NOT a statement or decision made by any Lakota tribal leadership of any kind. This is a publicity stunt by a group of activists who do not represent the Lakota, lead by Russell Means, perhaps the best known Native American activist. It will come to nothing, although hopefully it will achieve the intended result of calling atention to their cause.
New genetic evidence, however, backs up a chilly northwestern arrival to North America from Siberia about 12,000 years ago, via a temporary land bridge spanning the Bering Strait. The findings further challenge an alternative idea that humans sprinkled in to both North and South America on open sea voyages 30,000 years in the past.
http://www.livescience.com/history/071127-genetic-bridge.html
Looks like they got here first, Spock.
"looks like they got here first spock"
Open a history book pal, this is what happens. Nobody gets mad about other ethic groups. Should we hate the Romans for taking the Etruscans land
@Noen
One: I am a she not a he.
Two: I still object the the use of "our". Words make a difference.
One: I'm nearly 100% confident that the commenter was referring to the other person as he, not you.
Two: So does this mean I can't refer to my neighbors, my coworkers, or my siblings anymore?
I think you're misreading. On both one and two.
Without the white buffalo blessing this is doomed to fail.
Just sayin'
Great-- now I'll have to be searched by the TSA or Border Patrol every time I drive through the Dakotas. "Badlands" indeed.
First, I want to say that the Lakota have pretty much been screwed by the federal government for a very long time. Having said that, Russell Means and his band of loud mouths do not represent the Lakota people. He is not the leader of any tribe, nor does he hold any office. In fact, when he tried to become a tribal president he lost the election. There is a saying in South Dakota, "Its dangerous to stand between Russel Means and a TV camera." I am not Native American, but I have heard this sentiment loud and clear from Native American friends on more than one occasion.
Having grown up in the area, I can tell you that *all* of the Native Americans I know are against any type of succession from the US. They consider themselves Americans. Of course this is a small sampling of just my friends and acquaintances, so take that statement as such. They do, however, want the millions of dollars owed to the various tribes by the federal government.
For good or bad, the press release for the event [http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm?loc=interstitialskip] makes it quite clear this was a decision on the part of the tribal government, not Russel Means, who apparently acted only as a member of the Lakota delegation to Washington, which delivered notice of secession.
Really, I'm not sure of the relevance of the lessons in American civics posted above. The press release states the Lakota seem to have legal claims on any number of properties in the area, which they plan to act on should the US government cause problems. To me, suing your immediate neighbours isn't the greatest public relations strategy, but I suppose they have to hold some kind of cards and that's all they have. Does anyone know if there is legal precedent here?
Again, we all remember the disaster that was Waco, and I expect people will more quite a lot more sympathetic with Lakotas. Also since the story already broke, any action on the part of the government will be highly publicised, bringing more attention to the Lakota's situation, not to mention that, since I doubt there will be any immigration or shipping channels other than through the US, the Lakotas pose no threat either real or imaginable, so it simply wouldn't make sense for the US to sever ties over the loss of few people's taxes. Best of luck to 'em.
As an afterthought, re: Joe Jance, a point on language, not only do North American Indians think of themselves as Americans, but Mexicans, Venezuelans, Argentinians, etc, all think of themselves as Americans as well. The term describes a continent, two actually, not a country.
Scottfree, good point on the use of "American".That does actually describe a couple of continents. I guess most US Citizens say that because it is a shortening of United Stated of American. However, I still disagree with you on the fact that this group Means has put together legally represents the Lakota. Some of these individuals may be some tribal leaders from various reservations, but if this were serious it would have come from the presidents of the various Lakota Sioux groups, not Means or some delegation that he has assembled.
This would not be the first time he has claimed to speak for all of the tribes and nations without any real authority. From scouring several local news sources such as kotatv.com, RapidCityJournal.com, and a couple of other local papers, I have only found information supporting the fact that he is not formally speaking for the Lakota.
I lost respect for Means a long time ago. He never manages to bring about any positive change for his people. At best he is radical that doesn't get that his actions hurt his people more than help them. At worst he is an attention whore. He is certainly no MLK.
Scott- If you read this article: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712200347 you will notice that he does not speak for all the Lakota. His delegation represented of members of AIM, not the general population of the Lakota.
I really, really want to ask the fine journo minds over at the Argus Leader what the deal is with the "scare quotes" around the phrase freedom loving and why they don't do that to, say, any other "freedom loving" politician.
I have the sinking feeling that you'll find most of the media either ignoring it, or spinning it into something purely symbolic and therefore ineffective.
And you'll get a bunch of non-native people pontificating like Spike did in that one episode of Buffy about Romans and Etruscans and conquered people, and not once paying attention to what the Lakota nation's representatives are saying: the United States has repeatedly screwed over treaties and legal agreements.
And as far as I can tell, we still have the right to seek redress in this country.
Hmm...thanks for the refrence Scoburn, and Joe. Pretty bold move for someone who carries no real juristiction. If the tribal government doesn't endorse Mean's actions then the whole thing can only be a publicity stunt, or an empty threat, and anyone hoping to get a sweet tax break is going to be more than slightly disappointed. Given the whole debt situation, for which the Lakota seem to have legal backing, a little publicity can hardly be called a bad thing. Saying that, I know very little about Means but what's been posted and reported regarding this story, in other words, enough to be suspicious of his politics, but that's another argument.
What would probably only be right, although this is a pretty far cry from what will actually happen under the current administration, is a Congressional or Presidential committee dedicated to drafting a bill to resolve the issue of what the tribes are owned once and for all. Some sort of installment plan for the government seems infinitely preferable to granting casino licenses, which, at the end of the day, probably do more harm than good. Maybe some congressman from the area can endorse something and yada yada yada.
And, Glossolallia, if you recall, Spike was contradicting everything Buffy said at the time, and was simply warning against messiness of the 'bleeding heart' variety. You're right in that the tribe seems to have a strong enough legal standing without having to make an ethical issue of it. You can argue ethics till you're blue in the face, but the law is the law is the law. I have suspicions the Romans never signed any treaties dictating compensation with the Etruscans, let alone the Ostrigoths, Vandals etc.
#20 with her comments is iggnorant indeed.
If the Lakota are serious about this I think they will succeed as they did in everything until us Europeans showed up. Yes of course they had some warfare, but their integrity far surpasses those in the White House, can't argue with that, sorry conservatives.
If they pull this off, think of all the support they will get, not to mention thousands ready to move there and join them, including my family!
Being once in the military I've been all over the world, America is close to the middle east when it comes to honor.
This is NOT Means' gig.
The four member Lakota delegation traveled to Washington D.C. culminating years of internal discussion among treaty representatives of the various Lakota communities. Delegation members included well known activist and actor Russell Means, Women of All Red Nations (WARN) founder Phyllis Young, Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr., and Garry Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders. Means, Rowland, Martin Sr. were all members of the 1973 Wounded Knee takeover.
No tribal government has stepped up to debunk this.
If there were a reputable voice anywhere that could be summoned to discredit this, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be coming out; the national security state would see to it. The idea that someone can secede with that much territory from the United States is not one that those in power can afford to have spread. Much smaller efforts than this but of similar nature have been crushed immediately with tanks and helicopters, among other things, indicating that the U.S. government believes that ANY such effort is a threat.
Organizations and non-organized progressive outfits all over the world, and especially in America, are merely sitting back to see how this pans out and this lack of taking a stand may be what kills it. The media-military complex, I assure you, intends to ignore this and wait for the novelty of this particular news item to wear off but rest assured that potential plans to disrupt, intimidate, and even take out key people regarding all of this are in progress.
I can’t believe, to tell you the truth, that in this day and age I have to explain to people (as I have done for days at a variety of forums online) that sitting back and being a spectator in all of this will end up functioning as complicity with the undoing of this movement. They are taking the lead and the only media people or groups expressing solidarity, except for the considerable din of collective individuals online, are from other nations.
Of course this is typical. After all we sit fat in our own retirement-nation. If we just sit back and watch, forfeiting involvement, we ensure the continuation of the status quo.
I think too many of us think this is too good to be true and are looking for that, “Oh yeah…that’s the flaw!” It unburdens us from acting. Let us all sit and do nothing, including as many of the Lakota as can be convinced to do just that, and then marvel at how right we were that it didn’t materialize into anything. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Key facts regarding all of this:
1. This is not a rumor; Putin has even chimed in on the side of the Lakota! The president of Bolivia has said that nation is intensely interested in this and Hugo Chavez has expressed solidarity. The Bush junta says it "opposes the measure."
2. The four member Lakota delegation traveled to Washington D.C. culminating years of internal discussion among treaty representatives of the various Lakota communities. Delegation members included well known activist and actor Russell Means, Women of All Red Nations (WARN) founder Phyllis Young, Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr., and Garry Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders. Means, Rowland, Martin Sr. were all members of the 1973 Wounded Knee takeover.
3. “We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,” Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.
4. Russian legal experts further state that of all of the United States Indian Tribes, the Lakota Sioux are the best positioned to have their declaration of independence from the American government recognized by the United Nations as they remain the only indigenous peoples in the US to have refused to accept payment for their lands, estimated to be nearly $1 billion, which they consider their ‘sacred grounds’ and have stated they would never relinquish.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/21/lakota_indians_work_to_secede_from_us/3796/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2007/12/898423.shtml
It is amazing how many people are not wanting to believe this. Some sites are automatically rejecting comments left by folks that are disputing their claim that this is nothing. I should know; this one did.
Many insist Russel Means does not represent the Lakota but in each case, these people refuse to address the fact that this is not Russel Means' gig but that there are four spokespeople that say they've met with many people for years about all of this and foreign heads of state are taking this very seriously.
My understanding is that it is Lakota tradition dictates that no one speaks for the people yet if we are to say that it is legitimate for representatives of the Lakota to sign such treaties, then it is legitimate for representatives to nullify and if it is the representation itself that is being deemed illegitimate then that, in itself, nullifies all the treaties.
Incidentally, Means will always speak more accurately for the TARGETED among the indigenous, i.e. those attempting to retain their culture and not become fully colonialized, than will any tribal council or any other outfit that answers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is a call to action.
I EXPECT some or many tribal councils to challenge this, as do all that have struggled against the oppressor. Its importance is directly proportional to the corruption that is the prerequisite for being in league with the United States government. You accept its dictates and that is where the power of most of these councils come from. I know there are Indians all over that might want to hit me on the head with a bat for that one but it is precisely such people whose opinions I am not interested in.
Uh....I did a little experiment. I took a file I have for missle silo locations and superimposed it on the approximate map of the Lakota lands given above.
Regardless of ideas, hopes, dreams or visits to minor nations embassies, I sincerely doubt that the US Air Force is going to hand over Ellsworth AFB. http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/
Where the 28th Bomb Wing is located. Kinda doubt the guys in Washington will be wanting to hand over the little red keys.
Not saying I don't support the idea behind what they are doing. But from a realpolitik standpoint. It ain't gonna happen.
Obviously, not many of you live where the Lakota is claiming to be their territory. I mean, it sucks what happened to them a while ago, but you can't say that non-Lakota peoples don't have the same right to be a 'native' on the same land if they were born there too.
Someone mentioned Israel earlier, and that's like the same situation a hundred years in the future; most people are content to say things like 'Israel and Israelis are unjustly occupying Palestine,' but most Israelis were born and raised there too. Why should group b leave group b's home, or give it up when at this point they've lived there just as long as group a?
In all seriousness, the people living here before Europeans showed up were shat upon, but let's face it: you can't say "Go team Lakota" and tell everyone living in five states to just pack up and move, or submit to the will of a new government.
LMAO.....keep thinking it is Means looking for glory....the more we're under estimated..the easier it will be...the Backing of many countries..and millions of people....fincially..is enough to stable us...believe when i say this....we wouldn't be doing it if we didn't think it would risk to much....It will be a struggle...but nothing good comes...without struggle...."If a bear is too strong to kill, Then use the bear's strength to kill itself"......tok-sa..'ake....stay blessed all
I kind of like the thought of the Lakota becoming a major nuclear power.
Scottfree,
The fact that the Lakota nation are legally in the right isn't helping them much - 150 years has shown what US governments think of the treaties, and Gitmo and the NSA wiretapping fuss & the current attempts to let the telecoms companies off the hook show what the current administration think of the rule of law.