The Lakotas withdrawn from the USA, proclaimed new country

Today, December 20, the Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the US.

"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 said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the US, some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

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 licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the US were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said. "This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

``It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,' said Means.

All they need is more money, obviously.

i wonder if they will take me.

ummmmm... what for really? The land they are on now is theirs, we don't do anything to it... the US has no rights to tell them how to live within the boundaries anyways... all they are losing is the monthly check the government sends them for reperations and gaining more costs for passports, drivers licenses and everything else a sovereign country needs to survive.... sounds pretty idiotic to me since we could starve them out (since they are surrounded) and what would they do then?

let 'em seperate, ain't gonna make me loose any sleep...

The Federal Government pays the Indians off for the crimes of the unjust past, thinking that miserable pittance would keep their gobs shut.

Either the Goverment admits the entire guilt, or it should not subside a dime.

It reminds of the situation with Germany: their leaders keep expressing signs of repentance during WWII commemmorations or whenever they visit Israel. The same with EU politicians ritually offering obtuse apologies to their former colonies in Africa. In this respect, I second Nicolas Sarcozy's policy.

Anyway the problem with the Lakotas is their own poor management that cannot make living out what they've got (unlike the Dakotas, Apache and Comanche).

Great!

US Civil War 2!

Do they have WMD in their territory?

Indeed!

What's odd is that I don't see any mentioning of this in the US press. I see alot in Australian, Russian, French, but not American.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: The Federal Government pays the Indians off for the crimes of the unjust past, thinking that miserable pittance would keep their gobs shut.

Either the Goverment admits the entire guilt, or it should not subside a dime.

It reminds of the situation with Germany: their leaders keep expressing signs of repentance during WWII commemmorations or whenever they visit Israel. The same with EU politicians ritually offering obtuse apologies to their former colonies in Africa. In this respect, I second Nicolas Sarcozy's policy.

Anyway the problem with the Lakotas is their own poor management that cannot make living out what they've got (unlike the Dakotas, Apache and Comanche).

I agree... at what point do these apologies end? Granted they should never be forgotten in history (doing so would only ensure they are repeated), but when the people that did the crimes have passed away at least a half a century ago, at what point does it stop?

The main crime with this is how those receiving the apologies react. Its obvious when someone offers apologies to something they were not born, no where near, and idealistically never would have commited/approved of. The reaction to this can be fatal for a society. Most societies react negatively to this... either with violent anger or allowing themselves to be downtrodden.

Personally I think the circle needs to be stopped.

Indian tribes in California are doing quite well... so well they are actually helping Cali get out of its enormous debt... and the tribes have helped and worked with the neighboring communities, they really have been good neighbors... not sure why the Lakotas can't do something similar...

Even I reckon there's been enough paying. Nothing will excuse or compensate for what was done to those poor sods, and the reparation psyche is a very dangerous one for a people to slip into.

Still, fair play and all the best to the Lakota in this endeavour. And besides, they can't really pull out of treaties long ago broken by the other party, they were surely free of them in all but declaration anyway.

Well Done my redskin brothers (Yes, my blood is Red [Indian] too!) Now if only my tribe would tell the thieving lying corrupt bastards in Washington where to stick the worthless treaties that stole our land, and send the pale faces back to where they came from, then we could once again have a land where private ownership was an unknown; and a fucking joke!

Geronimo!

Ya Bass!

don't yanks consider there land as canada anyway???

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Anyway the problem with the Lakotas is their own poor management that cannot make living out what they've got (unlike the Dakotas...).

That's very interesting, considering that Lakota and Dakota are the same nation.

EdelBrock wrote: I agree... at what point do these apologies end? Granted they should never be forgotten in history (doing so would only ensure they are repeated), but when the people that did the crimes have passed away at least a half a century ago, at what point does it stop.

At what point do the people who are making profit off of those stolen Indian lands stop making a profit?

I'm fairly certain that the tribes would just as soon have Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota back, and let us keep the pittance we've been paying them.

Something tells me we'd rather keep paying them the pittance.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm fairly certain that the tribes would just as soon have Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota back, and let us keep the pittance we've been paying them.

Something tells me we'd rather keep paying them the pittance.

or we could just stop paying them, taken them completely over, and then there wouldn't be any 'pittance' to worry about. Granted a harsh comment, but their society only exists because our society allowed it to remain...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm fairly certain that the tribes would just as soon have Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota back, and let us keep the pittance we've been paying them.

Something tells me we'd rather keep paying them the pittance.

or we could just stop paying them, taken them completely over, and then there wouldn't be any 'pittance' to worry about. Granted a harsh comment, but their society only exists because our society allowed it to remain...

In other words, break every agreement we ever made, presumably so we won't have to bother with the enormous injustice that's been visited upon us.

Ever hear of the saying "What goes around comes around"?

Or "You meet all the same people on the way down that you met on the way up"?

I'm not saying we SHOULD do it, but that at any point they could have been wiped out, enslaved or any other attrocity that prior civilizations have imposed upon the conquered people.
They survived, aren't taxed, given land, allowed to create thier own rules (even if contradictory to the State they live in), and are given a monthly check.

How are we screwing them TODAY?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: That's very interesting, considering that Lakota and Dakota are the same nation.

They are two subgroups or subtribes of a greater tribe, Sioux.

EdelBrock wrote: I'm not saying we SHOULD do it, but that at any point they could have been wiped out, enslaved or any other attrocity that prior civilizations have imposed upon the conquered people.

True, the Lakota survived. Barely. Other tribes weren't so fortunate. Still, I wouldn't call near-genocide a plus, nor would you, I suspect, if it was you and your family on the receiving end of things.

EdelBrock wrote: They survived,

Again, barely, and only some survived at that. For those who did survive, their economy was crushed, their religion and their language suppressed, their children taken from them. They were confined to the most unproductive lands, under penalty of death or imprisonment, and left there to "survive."

EdelBrock wrote: aren't taxed,

That would be news to Native Americans.

EdelBrock wrote: given land,

Only in America...

...could we steal an entire continent, and then claim that we "gave them land."

EdelBrock wrote: allowed to create thier own rules (even if contradictory to the State they live in),

They don't live "in" a state, they live "on" a reservation. That's why they have their own rules.

EdelBrock wrote: and are given a monthly check.

I'm not sure how many tribal members-- if any-- receive a monthly check, but as I said, I'm fairly certain they'd let us keep the monthly check in exchange for the return of their land.

EdelBrock wrote: How are we screwing them TODAY?

As much as you'd like to, you can't separate the past from the present. The social ills that exist TODAY are the direct result of past and present U.S. policy towards the tribes.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: That's very interesting, considering that Lakota and Dakota are the same nation.

They are two subgroups or subtribes of a greater tribe, Sioux.

There's probably the same amount of difference-- or less-- between them than there is between someone from New York and someone from Boston.

I have a nephew who is Sioux. He could receive $3000 each month (his tribe has casino and other ventures; they distribute the profit among all official members of the nation; some profit was used for schools and other social institutions). His grandmother is the president of the tribe and seems to be a good manager.

Until they built the casinos-- something the states detest and regularly try to stop-- they had virtually no economic development on tribal lands, and unemployment rates above 50%. Even with casinos, the unemployment rates remain high, but as you noted, the profits are distributed to tribal members.

Comrade, you're right, there was a genocide and some tribes completely ceased to exist. And their culture and land was gone, too. But you can't restore it right now. By paying them off, you support that connotation of "inferior" people that need support. I don't know the subject too well to suggest any plans to improve it, but something else should be done.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Until they built the casinos-- something the states detest and regularly try to stop-- they had virtually no economic development on tribal lands, and unemployment rates above 50%. Even with casinos, the unemployment rates remain high, but as you noted, the profits are distributed to tribal members.

I can't speak for other States, but California hasn't any issues with the Indian casinos. They regularly help the communities they are around. They aren't taxed, but yet they are very generous. For instance, I live 5 minutes away from one of the nicest Indian casinos I've ever seen (its like a small Las Vegas casino). They have voulantarily donated funds that built the new (and really nice) library, among other things. So that States are not trying to close them down.

Also, the unemployment is so high because the stipulation for the government support is that they live and work within the reservation. As soon as they live or work outside the reservation the government support stops. The reasoning is to support their way of life that might have difficulties surrounded with a society based on capatalism.

The main issue people have had is that the casinos are not the 'Indian' way of life, so does it mean that they should still receive government support? Also some wish to tax the casinos, but that is really those that lack knowledge of the assistance the tribes give voulantarily (which is probably way more than any tax would bring in).

The tribes I know live in harmony with their surrounding communities. I don't see why the Lakotas can't do the same...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Until they built the casinos-- something the states detest and regularly try to stop-- they had virtually no economic development on tribal lands, and unemployment rates above 50%. Even with casinos, the unemployment rates remain high, but as you noted, the profits are distributed to tribal members.

I can't speak for other States, but California hasn't any issues with the Indian casinos.

You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.

EdelBrock wrote: They regularly help the communities they are around. They aren't taxed, but yet they are very generous. For instance, I live 5 minutes away from one of the nicest Indian casinos I've ever seen (its like a small Las Vegas casino). They have voulantarily donated funds that built the new (and really nice) library, among other things. So that States are not trying to close them down.

I didn't say they're trying to close them down. They're trying to stop them before they are built...

EdelBrock wrote: Also, the unemployment is so high because the stipulation for the government support is that they live and work within the reservation. As soon as they live or work outside the reservation the government support stops.

Unemployment is so high because there's little-to-no economic development on the reservations. Tribal members are often faced with a choice of leaving the reservation to find work, or staying on the reservation, to keep their ties to their culture and their families, with the price often being unemployment.

EdelBrock wrote: The reasoning is to support their way of life that might have difficulties surrounded with a society based on capatalism.

The reasoning is treaty obligations we incurred in exchange for taking their lands. Which, once those treaty obligations are violated as you and Mr. Barcode advocate, probably gives the tribes a legal basis for taking their lands back. In the case of the Lakota, that would mean a claim to 5 states.

EdelBrock wrote: The main issue people have had is that the casinos are not the 'Indian' way of life,

Anybody who thinks that gambling isn't part of the "Indian way of life" should really take the time to learn something about Indian culture.

EdelBrock wrote: so does it mean that they should still receive government support? Also some wish to tax the casinos, but that is really those that lack knowledge of the assistance the tribes give voulantarily (which is probably way more than any tax would bring in).

The tribes I know live in harmony with their surrounding communities. I don't see why the Lakotas can't do the same...

Reading In the Spirit of Crazy Horse would be a good start to gaining some understanding.

Just give all of North and South Dakota to them, why not. Then make Iraq and England the 49th and 50th states.

pumped full of drugs wrote: Just give all of North and South Dakota to them, why not. Then make Iraq and England the 49th and 50th states.

Well. 3 of those choices make a lot of sense...

But who'd want England?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm fairly certain that the tribes would just as soon have Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota back, and let us keep the pittance we've been paying them.

Something tells me we'd rather keep paying them the pittance.

or we could just stop paying them, taken them completely over, and then there wouldn't be any 'pittance' to worry about. Granted a harsh comment, but their society only exists because our society allowed it to remain...

What an astonishingly ignorant and racist thing to say.

no reason to get excited, the thief he kindly spoke

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I'm fairly certain that the tribes would just as soon have Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota back, and let us keep the pittance we've been paying them.

Something tells me we'd rather keep paying them the pittance.

or we could just stop paying them, taken them completely over, and then there wouldn't be any 'pittance' to worry about. Granted a harsh comment, but their society only exists because our society allowed it to remain...

What an astonishingly ignorant and racist thing to say.

Yes, but sadly it is also 100% accurate, AND in line with general US polocy. I think the gist of what Edel is saying is, "praise us, for we've acted just a teensy weensy bit better than the Nazi's" (Mind you, I don't think the SS used plague infected charity donations).

The Treaies between the natives and the christian invaders are the world's greatest proof of Burroughs' wisdom..... "if you do business with a god fearing sonofabitch, GET IT IN WRITING, his word aint worth shit, not with the good lord tellin' him how to fuck you on the deal".

Course the DID get it in writing, but what court could they take it to when they got fucked.

Smallpox-infected blankets? Donated by the British.