Lakota Nation!

[Maggyie]

I think the Feds will probably ignore this. The Lakota nation declaring itself independent will have approximately the same effect as that one dude who declared himself Czar of the American Empire or whatever the kingly title was.

[Paladin D]

I can't access page 1.

[Aloysius]

I didn't intend to say anything about WACO one way or the other, just referring to the tragic ending.

I firmly believe in the states' right to secede from the union, including the confederate states. now before anyone jumps on me about slavery: every other country in the civilized world was able to do away with slavery without a war. the civil war was about taxes more than slavery (there were other propositions at the time for how to end slavery which would have been effective, as similar ones were in other countries). in any event, the Supreme Court is wrong to say that Texas does not have the right to secede, it is in the Texas Constitution and is part of the agreement made when they were annexed that they could choose to withdraw from the union at any time. the Federal Government is absolutely wrong to claim it illegal for states to secede.

And again, sanctions against the reservation would be an absolutely immoral abuse of federal power. The free market does so much better at solving situations than sanctions anyway... I feel like we have perpetuated communism in Cuba by our sanctions, if they were trading with capitalist forces communism would crumble in that country faster than bread can be sliced. It would be terrible to enforce some sorts of sanctions against the Lakota's water and electricity.

[quote]I mean, history shows quite the opposite. If they were to all up and leave the reservation tomorrow no one would bat an eye. So why not leave and just integrate into our society?[/quote]
because they have a culture which deserves to be defended and preserved. and no matter how many tokens they tried to keep, total integration into our society the way you suggest would mark the end of that culture. having their own independent nation ensures something very important. it is their right to self-determination, their right to their ancestral lands (you say we won a war and thus they are ours, I say we had no right to take their land in that fashion even if wars happened because of aggression on both sides; a people does not lose their right to self-determination when they lose a war; we have permitted Germany to have their country back, we have permitted Japan to have their country back, we ought to give the Palestinians their country back, Ireland ought to get their whole island back)

what kind of a ridiculous statement is it to say people should give up on their dreams of self-determination because they'll have more success in our society if they just shut up and take it?

[Laudate_Dominum]

What I wonder about is why this particular organization presumes to represent the Lakota people. I know that Russell Means is a famous activist but since when did he become the chief of the Lakota Nation? I don't understand all this.. And isn't he buddies with Ward Churchill? The other version of AIM (they split a long time ago) despises Ward Churchill and considers him to be a white guy pretending to be Native. As I understand it the earlier treaties involved a real council of elders that spoke on behalf of the nation but Mean's group is just one of many activist organizations. I'm sure I'm just ignorant and am way behind the times on this.. Still seems weird.

[Aloysius]

It's not just Russel Means, from what the stories say:

"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 U.S., some of them more than 150 years old."

I presumed that these "Lakota leaders" were representing the legitimate leaders of the reservations.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1437260' date='Dec 21 2007, 06:52 PM']It's not just Russel Means, from what the stories say:

"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 U.S., some of them more than 150 years old."

I presumed that these "Lakota leaders" were representing the legitimate leaders of the reservations.[/quote]
I am curious to see how this unfolds and would love more details. The articles I've read just seem to scratch the surface. For example, what delegation of Lakota leaders? Who were they exactly? They could say "Lakota leaders" and be talking about self-appointed activists.

If anything does come of this I doubt that the US government will not exactly roll with it. Bush will probably declare it a terrorist threat, haha.

[Laudate_Dominum]

But seriously, John Yellowbird Steele is the president of the Oglala not Means. I have yet to see his name in any of the articles. I assume their lands are a part of this dispute.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://www.lakotafreedom.com/"]http://www.lakotafreedom.com/[/url]

They claim to have been asked to do this by the cheifs and councils, this appears to be a legitimate action not just of a rogue few Lakota, but of the Lakota leadership

"For more than a year and a half prior to this December announcement, Lakota delegates have been meeting with the traditional treaty councils of Lakota to build critical mass for this action. " [url="http://www.lakotafreedom.com/why.html"]http://www.lakotafreedom.com/why.html[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

I would be curious as to what happens come tax time... Native Americans as citizens of the Untied States just like the rest of Americans must pay federal and state income taxes.

[Theoketos]

I support the Lakota Souix in their actions concerning this matter.

[kafka]

Custer must be rolling in his grave

[Norseman82]

I wonder if this is another Key West/"Conch Republic" type ploy where they declare independence, then war, then immediately surrender and apply for foreign aid?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_republic"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_republic[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/soc/355lect12.htm"]http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/soc/355lect12.htm[/url]

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1437264' date='Dec 21 2007, 07:01 PM']They claim to have been asked to do this by the cheifs and councils, this appears to be a legitimate action not just of a rogue few Lakota, but of the Lakota leadership[/quote]
Why wouldn't the chiefs and councils do so then, instead of delegating it off.

[rkwright]

How is this going to help them?

On their page they cite a number of reasons, I'll post them here.

[quote]In the face of the colonial apartheid conditions imposed on Lakota people, the withdrawal from the U.S. Treaties is necessary. These conditions have been devastating:

* Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
* Lakota death rate is the highest in the United States.
* The Lakota infant mortality rate is 300% more than the U.S. Average.
* More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and disease.
* The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
* Alcoholism affects 8 in 10 families.
* Median income is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.
* 1/3 of the homes lack basic clean water and sewage while 40% lack electricty.
* 60% of housing is infected with potentially fatal black molds.
* 97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.
* Unemployment rates on our reservations is 85% or higher.
* Federal Commodity Food Program provides high sugar foods that kill Native people through diabetes and heart disease.
* Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.
* Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.[/quote]

How are items 1-11, 12 going to change by forming a new 'country'. If the people are unemployed now, how does starting a new nation help things. Are they going to 'attract' businesses to move up there? What business would want to take that risk. I guess they won't pay Federal Taxes, but is that going to be enough to cure all the problems.

I don't see how this will make their living conditions any better. But I'm willing to listen\learn how?

[rkwright]

I read their declaration of continued independence which lays out much better reasons than the above. It sounds to me that they're not wanting some sort of permenant nation as much as they're trying to make some noise to gain back some rights and land lost to the US.

From that document:

[quote]This conference directs the Treaty Council to open negotiations with the
government of the United States through its Department of State. We seek these
negotiations in order to establish diplomatic relations with the United States. When these
diplomatic relations have been established, the first order of business shall be to deal with
U.S. violations of treaties with Native Indian Nations, and violations of the rights of those
Native Indian Nations who have refused to sign treaties with the United States.[/quote]

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1437206' date='Dec 22 2007, 07:25 AM']It would be terrible to enforce some sorts of sanctions against the Lakota's water and electricity. because they have a culture which deserves to be defended and preserved. and no matter how many tokens they tried to keep, total integration into our society the way you suggest would mark the end of that culture.[/quote]
Indian cultures weren't as nice and free-loving as our liberal "social studies" books would like us to believe. There actually was way more genocide committed by Indians between tribes then whites ever committed against them. I'm really not sure if bringing back their culture is exactly worth it.

And really, do these people even retain enough of the Lakota national culture to even continue it? What are going to do, exchange their brick houses with flush toilets for tepees, and their shirt and jeans for loin-cloths? Any sort of Lakota nation is going to be extremely Westernized, and for that reason the Lakotas are most accurately an ethnic group within Americana. When they accept this status then, in my opinion, the problems they seem to be facing as a group will be lessened.

[quote]having their own independent nation ensures something very important. it is their right to self-determination, their right to their ancestral lands (you say we won a war and thus they are ours, I say we had no right to take their land in that fashion even if wars happened because of aggression on both sides;a people does not lose their right to self-determination when they lose a war; we have permitted Germany to have their country back, we have permitted Japan to have their country back, we ought to give the Palestinians their country back, Ireland ought to get their whole island back)[/quote]
Perhaps you have a point in theory, but realistically there comes a time when it is better for a people to accept that what has happened in the past cannot be reversed, and to integrate with the society that conquered them.

[quote]what kind of a ridiculous statement is it to say people should give up on their dreams of self-determination because they'll have more success in our society if they just shut up and take it?[/quote]
What kind of ridiculous statement is it to say a group of people should sacrifice the lives of their children all to make a last stand in the claim of land?

Ultimately Al, this is about what really matters to the Indians most: making a last stand in ownership of land which will lead to their death, or integrating into our society and therefore still being able to at least continue on a line.

[Aloysius]

I never claimed that Native American cultures were angelic... nor do I claim that they should freeze their culture in time and never evolve or adapt to the times. But that doesn't mean they ought to be integrated into our society to the point of exterminating their culture. Native American culture was never perfect; nor was any culture on earth, there are faults in all of them... but all cultures have the right to be carried on into the future. they ought to be Christianized (the Lakota are largely unopposed to the idea of Christianization), of course, but they should be carried on. a distinct language, a distinct worldview (fascinating worldview especially its post-colonial forms), a distinct way of life. "integration" as you describe it is nothing short of an attack on self-determination, an attack on personal liberty, and an ethnocentric attack on a legitimate culture.

the Lakota culture is as much a continuation of the Lakota culture as our current American culture is a continuation of the culture of the United States, as much as it is a continuation of European culture, as much as it is a continuation of Judeo-Christian culture. no, our culture is not identical to the culture that existed in Medieval Europe, and nor is the Lakota's culture identical with that which existed before the troubled history between them and the United States government.

I'm sorry, but by your logic, the Irish ought to have given up and integrated into English society, ie their conquerors.

We do not have any obligation or right to continue the conquering of this people just because historically this occurred at one point in history. if they wish to withdraw from the treaties because they feel we have not met our end of the bargain, then that is their right. of course, because the treaty has been thusly rescinded, the United States does not have an agreement of peace with them and theoretically could wage war against them. but it wouldn't be a just war. the Lakota are not doing anything that would remotely justify our conquering of them in the modern age. thus, we ought to negotiate a new peace treaty with them, we ought to negotiate agreements to deal with them as a sovereign nation in peace and cooperation.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1437451' date='Dec 22 2007, 05:59 PM']I never claimed that Native American cultures were angelic... nor do I claim that they should freeze their culture in time and never evolve or adapt to the times. But that doesn't mean they ought to be integrated into our society to the point of exterminating their culture. Native American culture was never perfect; nor was any culture on earth, there are faults in all of them... but all cultures have the right to be carried on into the future. they ought to be Christianized (the Lakota are largely unopposed to the idea of Christianization), of course, but they should be carried on. a distinct language, a distinct worldview (fascinating worldview especially its post-colonial forms), a distinct way of life. "integration" as you describe it is nothing short of an attack on self-determination, an attack on personal liberty, and an ethnocentric attack on a legitimate culture.[/quote]
Not if by doing so they are killing their children and their own numbers as anyone can see is happening by looking at what goes on Indian reservations. Further segregation is not going to solve any of these serious social problems which is what they really want. No matter how fascinating a particular perception on the post-colonial world a culture may have no one would want to deal with life expectancy of 44 years, 30% higher infant mortality rates, and 150% higher teenage suicide rate just to continue it on. The best hope that the Lakota have to continue on a line is off the reservation.

[quote]the Lakota culture is as much a continuation of the Lakota culture as our current American culture is a continuation of the culture of the United States, as much as it is a continuation of European culture, as much as it is a continuation of Judeo-Christian culture. no, our culture is not identical to the culture that existed in Medieval Europe, and nor is the Lakota's culture identical with that which existed before the troubled history between them and the United States government.[/quote]
How can they continue on a culture when they're killing themselves?

[quote]I'm sorry, but by your logic, the Irish ought to have given up and integrated into English society, ie their conquerors.[/quote]
The Irish in no way have the social problems the Lakotas do, and your comparison is therefore ridiculous. However, many of the Irish, from what I have heard, have already given up on the hope of reunification. I remember someone from the Republic of Ireland telling me few really care any more about a united Ireland, and some in the south aren't sure if they even want the northern counties to come back even if England were to grant their independence.

[Justin86]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1437265' date='Dec 22 2007, 09:03 AM']I would be curious as to what happens come tax time... Native Americans as citizens of the Untied States just like the rest of Americans must pay federal and state income taxes.[/quote]
If annual income is as low as they say it is the Lakotas aren't paying income taxes.