The Lakotas withdrawn from the USA, proclaimed new country

Today, December 20, the Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the US.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

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

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...

not really a reply to the above comment....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

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.

Again, not sure how your affirming my comment is a retort?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

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.

Neither of us are 'advocating' to take thier lands or break treaties, only mentioning the reality of the situation, instead of taking a 'warm and fuzzy' approach that doesn't have real world applications....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

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.

Such is the ignorance of society... but that doesn't change the issue people have with the casinos in the first place...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

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.

This article is also in response to the 2 year old article you posted earlier as well.... ignorance can be overcome, and both CAN work together....

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415045

Doctor? wrote:

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.

Pope, ignorant... maybe.... racist.... my comment has nothing to do with race, only that a conquered society is allowed to exist because the conquering peoples have decided to allow it to survive....

Cambo, though you have the basic gist of what I was trying to get across, I think we apply 21st century standards to 19th century people... and that's simply not fair. Attrition warfare was the rule of the world and the early policies were set by these standards... not the same standards we have today.

Yes, the Indians were screwed... I don't think anyone is arguing differently on that point... but blaming it on Christianity isn't fully correct either... what civilization throughout history hasn't screwed over the ones with less power?

Spotnick wrote: On the other hand, you have the Mohawk nation... people unable to adapt to the society they live in even 400 years later.

You say "unable to adapt," they say "unwilling to assimilate."

Speaking of which, how's that assimilation with the English working out for the Quebequois?

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

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.

Pope, ignorant... maybe.... racist.... my comment has nothing to do with race, only that a conquered society is allowed to exist because the conquering peoples have decided to allow it to survive....

That the "conquered people" were being conquered based on their race and not on their specific nationality, ideology, etc. should tell you that American policies of extermination were inherently racist. The complete appropriation of native lands was still policy until the 1940s, when the reservation system was set up proper, so it's not like this is the ancient past. And don't even tell me that the Indians didn't have to fight for their "pittance." (Better yet, try telling an AIM member that.)

Of course, following your logic, the only reason that a "conquered" people like the Puritans were allowed to survive was because the friendly Indians kept them alive during the winter. The proto-Americans would have been well and surely fucked without being given their own pittance. But, oh well, let's reward them with genocide and cultural destruction and then say, "Well, they lost the battle, so they deserve to lose their culture." Nice self-justifying racist logic and a wonderful way to whitewash history while not comprehending the deeper reasons that Indian cultures are in decline. Maybe you should spend some time talking to people on a reservation and see what they have to say on the subject, mmm?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: That the "conquered people" were being conquered based on their race and not on their specific nationality, ideology, etc. should tell you that American policies of extermination were inherently racist. The complete appropriation of native lands was still policy until the 1940s, when the reservation system was set up proper, so it's not like this is the ancient past. And don't even tell me that the Indians didn't have to fight for their "pittance." (Better yet, try telling an AIM member that.)

Of course, following your logic, the only reason that a "conquered" people like the Puritans were allowed to survive was because the friendly Indians kept them alive during the winter. The proto-Americans would have been well and surely fucked without being given their own pittance. But, oh well, let's reward them with genocide and cultural destruction and then say, "Well, they lost the battle, so they deserve to lose their culture." Nice self-justifying racist logic and a wonderful way to whitewash history while not comprehending the deeper reasons that Indian cultures are in decline. Maybe you should spend some time talking to people on a reservation and see what they have to say on the subject, mmm?

What exactly are you on about?

How am I 'whitewashing history'?

I have no issue with Indians or reservations... and if you noticed my other posts, I mentioned how we can live in harmony... as it DOES happen.

And there are two Indian reservations where I live now, one was the home to many I went to high school with... so to assume I'm an 'ignorant, whitey out for all races other than my own' is an ignorant comment in itself...

I'll state AGAIN, I agree the Indians got screwed... most policies of late have been trying to correct this... but in the end the conquering group is the one that makes the policies and writes history... it doesn't make it right, but that's life... we can either keeping looking in the past, or we can move forward, I prefer moving forward....

EdelBrock wrote: we can live in harmony... as it DOES happen.

Before you launch into a chorus of Ebony and Ivory—and who ever figured you for a Macca and Jacko fan -- you really should learn something about relations between the Lakota, the surrounding white communities, the State of South Dakota, and the Federal government. And yes, those relations are rooted in events begun in 1866-- events the result of which continue to reverberate today, despite your blind insistence that the past and the present are severable.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse is a good place to start if you want to understand why singing Ebony and Ivory doesn’t work in South Dakota—aside from the fact that Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy is more popular there. A pair of films address the same events covered in Matthiessen’s book. One, Incident at Oglala, is a documentary, while the other, Thunderheart, is a fictionalized portrayal of the same events. British filmmaker Michael Apted directed both films, which were released concurrently.

EdelBrock wrote: I'll state AGAIN, I agree the Indians got screwed... most policies of late have been trying to correct this... but in the end the conquering group is the one that makes the policies and writes history... it doesn't make it right, but that's life... we can either keeping looking in the past, or we can move forward, I prefer moving forward....

They’re still getting screwed, EdelBrock . You can’t separate the past from the present and move forward when the racism, violence, and exploitation of the past is still occurring today.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Brock 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.

Aye about par form the course from someone who's spent way to much time playing little boy soldier and nowhere near enough time gaining an education and understanding of the world.

But Edel, here's a wee hint; Leaders Lie.
That is why it's called propaganda, and Hollywood is notorious for it's bastardising and rewriting of history! Real thinking isn't referred to as using your critical faculties for nothing! As someone who comes from a long line of auto-didactic Scotsmen, and is proud of his Chippewa/Ojibwa blood: get an education before you spout biased racist prejudice as in any way having a bearing on reality!

WE, (on the other hand) believe in the Land of Love!

And in Insight...

One of these days I'll manage to work out how you can listen to NO &/or JD and still "get these words wrong every time."

Or do you just ignore the lyrics?

MIMX wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Brock 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.

Aye about par form the course from someone who's spent way to much time playing little boy soldier and nowhere near enough time gaining an education and understanding of the world.

But Edel, here's a wee hint; Leaders Lie.
That is why it's called propaganda, and Hollywood is notorious for it's bastardising and rewriting of history! Real thinking isn't referred to as using your critical faculties for nothing! As someone who comes from a long line of auto-didactic Scotsmen, and is proud of his Chippewa/Ojibwa blood: get an education before you spout biased racist prejudice as in any way having a bearing on reality!

WE, (on the other hand) believe in the Land of Love!

And in Insight...

I'm still confused how that was a 'racist' remark

Something tells me you didn't read much of the other posts?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: we can live in harmony... as it DOES happen.

Before you launch into a chorus of Ebony and Ivory—and who ever figured you for a Macca and Jacko fan -- you really should learn something about relations between the Lakota, the surrounding white communities, the State of South Dakota, and the Federal government. And yes, those relations are rooted in events begun in 1866-- events the result of which continue to reverberate today, despite your blind insistence that the past and the present are severable.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse is a good place to start if you want to understand why singing Ebony and Ivory doesn’t work in South Dakota—aside from the fact that Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy is more popular there. A pair of films address the same events covered in Matthiessen’s book. One, Incident at Oglala, is a documentary, while the other, Thunderheart, is a fictionalized portrayal of the same events. British filmmaker Michael Apted directed both films, which were released concurrently.

EdelBrock wrote: I'll state AGAIN, I agree the Indians got screwed... most policies of late have been trying to correct this... but in the end the conquering group is the one that makes the policies and writes history... it doesn't make it right, but that's life... we can either keeping looking in the past, or we can move forward, I prefer moving forward....

They’re still getting screwed, EdelBrock . You can’t separate the past from the present and move forward when the racism, violence, and exploitation of the past is still occurring today.

Like I mentioned earlier... I can't speak for how reservations are in other States, I can only mention what I have seen here in California. My only point is that it is possible to live in harmony. There is a vicious circle or hatred on both ends, and at some point it needs to stop for it to get better... but forcing one side to stop while the other keeps going won't fix it either.

You can seperate past from present, though it is very difficult to do... its the only way to break that vicious circle... saying that it's not possible only sets up for excuses for people to hate each other further.

It is sort of reparations towards the indian tribes, except for actually giving land and nationality back. Why not tax breaks and special business opportunities for African slave descendants then?

Maybe it would be for the best for the governement to be less involved and just treat these Indian descendant people as people, as american citizens, and let them group or move as they like just like other citizens. Maybe I'm insensitve, and I do live far away from casinos and reservations, but it's hard to understand that there is that much left of these cultures except facades. What is left of European mixed cultures from those whose descendants immigrated from Europe in the 1800s or of African descendants of people who were stolen from Africa.

Then you get to issue of race, which is such a fuzzy idea.... the idea of a "pure" race is absurd and false. How are people really members of a "nation" based on race?

EdelBrock wrote: Like I mentioned earlier... I can't speak for how reservations are in other States, I can only mention what I have seen here in California. My only point is that it is possible to live in harmony. There is a vicious circle or hatred on both ends, and at some point it needs to stop for it to get better... but forcing one side to stop while the other keeps going won't fix it either.

You can seperate past from present, though it is very difficult to do... its the only way to break that vicious circle... saying that it's not possible only sets up for excuses for people to hate each other further.

You seem content to continue to misunderstand the situation.

I noticed that the entire Indian subject is a taboo in American media and that's understandable. Few Americans can admit that their country was built on Indian bones and blood, that they had to "clean up the space" by termination of the aboriginals, because it would ruin the patriotic harmony.

As for drawing parallels with Negroes, yes, both Indians and blacks, up to 1960s, had been completely neglected by WASP society. But Negroes had sympathetic ideologists among whites as well as black spiritual leaders and political activists who had clearly stated demands. Unluckily for Indians, they didn't have political leaders (due to the multitribal nature of their race and federal policy to deal separately with tribes causing subsequently unhelpful intertribal rivalry). Furthermore, the nature of the relationship between whites and Indians was antagonist, while Negroes were considered either being slaves/servants or being equal citizens albeit rather uneducated and undeveloped (according to the prevailing point of view among "progessive" intellectuals of 1890-1910s). Negroes have eventually conquered their right to be mentioned in US history books and to take a bigger part in social life. The Indians' voice was barely heard.

pumped full of drugs wrote:

Then you get to issue of race, which is such a fuzzy idea.... the idea of a "pure" race is absurd and false. How are people really members of a "nation" based on race?

Exact-a-mundo*!*** PFD (The Only Way To Be***!***)

The very issue that neither the Nazi's, nor South Africa in the Apartheid era, could ever settle satisfactorily. There's only one "race" left and that's Homo-Sapiens; who came out of Africa about 200,000 years ago!

So when the N.F/Combat 18 or whatever your regional half-witted racist idiots call themselves say "send them back" the African Continent would quickly become evermore crowded as the rest of the world empties. Rant against the Ignorant...... assholes....an OrderofJoyProduction By MIMX

a.k.a

[black]MALCOLM X[/black]