ForumGarden

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"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 U.S., 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.



Rest of article



I told my mom about this today, her opinion is that the U.S. is headed toward another civil war? :-2

Good. If they don't like "being mere facsimilies of white people" then let them do something about it. It's about time.

this could be interesting. i don't know that it would lead to a civil war, but some violent uprisings certainly aren't out of the question

It might also revolve around them asking for the Black Hills back, they did not take the settlement offered to them through the Indian Claims Commission of the 1950s-decided finally in the 80s.

Jester;743702 wrote: So what?

I'm not saying that lightly either. If the Lakota's chose to leave the protection and rights thier citizenship affords them then they have that right. They should have all the land they currently own. And they can stay on that land and live off of it, they can use thier drivers licenses etc. But their drivers licenses are only valid on thier land, they cannot drive on US roads without a state or federal license. If they claim other lands then they have to pay the current owners market value.

My point is that it works both ways, The Lakota nation can't sustain themselves independent of the US. They will place themselves in worse shape than they already are, but it will be of thier own doing so I can understand thier point. Die under what they feel is tyranny or live freely and die on thier own. It is thier choice. Sad way to end a people.

I wonder what a Lakota dollar will look like? I wonder if it will be an acceptable payment for goods and services off the reservation? Will the local energy company accept a Lakota dollar?

Sounds like from the news article they are trying to seek the aide of other nations. I can't figure out what kind of help though?


Moral support perhaps? After most other conquered and colonised indigenous peoples have regained their independence why not the American Indian? Sounds a bit like the want the kind of arrangement in New Zealand but i don't know very much about that.

Why would it lead to war? Why assume there will be violent uprisings? Surely nowadays you can settle things amicably. Nice moral dilemma for the US government though.

Jester;744437 wrote: Too much time has passed to make reperations in my opinion. I don't see war coming to them though on the part of the government, but if they choose to push the issue in civil disobedience it will be interesting to see what happens. What if they decounce US citizenship and gain another country's citizenship? they they might get deported!


I assume you're being facetious. They have more claim to america than you do. In fact they were declared to be illegal aliens at one point in your history were they not? You live on conquered lands and the lakota are a conquered people however much you care to rationalise it. If they declare independence what would you do?

Most nations are all a mix of of what once were different tribes with the original inhabitants either wiped out or so intermarried you can't tell they existed. Another thousand years or so maybe the racial differences won't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright ... of_America

American Indian tribal members are not covered by the constitutional guarantee, but they were granted citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.


The equivalent would be the white south africans declaring the zulus illegal immigrants where would they deport them to?

My problem with this issue just mentioned is most if not all of us do live on someone else's land. Whether owned fair and square or by blood treaty, America is not the only big bad guy here as much as people love to paint us such. It's the collective tribal failure to rise above, instead preferring to complain and instill complaint in their kids. The Jews were put in concentration camps and yet rose above it. The Chinese were put in containment camps and yet today they continue to kick our collective a.ss in many ways, they have risen above the shoddy treatment given them. Unlike the blacks who still collectively claim a sense of entitlement. The tribes are the same way- "we're an independent sovereign nation! But you need to give us..."

You can't have it both ways. You can't ask for your independence and still be holding your hand out and call it entitlement.

I'm with Jester on this- it's too late for paybacks, And just how does anyone propose a value on a person's loved one's life anyway? That's an insult! You don't buy people off with money in a situation like this! And since I didn't do it, I'm not paying for it. I don't believe I need to pay for my ancestors' wrongdoings. How are the tribes going to pay for scalping or gutting one's grandfather? Are they even being asked to?

I realize gmc, you were addressing Jester so I apologize in advance if I'm out of line replying here. I felt this needed to be said.

ETA: I am speaking of these peoples in a collective manner. Not individually as there are many Indians, Blacks, Etc who have sought or are seeking to better their lives on an individual basis.

Jester;744437 wrote: Too much time has passed to make reperations in my opinion. I don't see war coming to them though on the part of the government, but if they choose to push the issue in civil disobedience it will be interesting to see what happens. What if they decounce US citizenship and gain another country's citizenship? they they might get deported!


The official government period of reparations ended by the end of the 1950s for the filing period under the Indian Claims Commission. Individual grievances against the federal government are now pursued on a case per case basis in the upper courts. In the Lakota case, dockets 74 A & B, they chose not to accept the settlement offered by the Commission, and it sits in the Treasury, or other designated area, until today. (collecting a lot of interest, I think it is over 100 million at last count) It was the point of not accepting it-if you took it, then the land was irretrievably lost with the conditions set within the settlement. (for example, the California Indians did sign, and the value of the land in California was set at 37 cents per acre, for the acreage they allowed them to sue for. Of course, prime real estate properties like Los Angeles and San Diego were not considered-the Commission would not consider those areas! Very gallant of them. My dissertation topic was on this one case, and my research continues in related areas)

The reason the Lakota have chosen to go to other nations, United Nations, etc. to plead their case revolves around the issue of sovereignty. They want to be recognized as a sovereign nation again, which is not the status of Native Americans today. These rights were taken away under various Supreme Court cases that slowly eroded over time their status as sovereign nations, until they became legally dependant wards by the 1870s, and at this point in time have slowly regained some sovereignty back. But it is not total self-control like before, it is a very complicated and complex issue. I will pull up the relevant cases if asked, but it is a lengthy list and timeline.

Dear Far, the issue is pertinent today, since Canada is currently concluding their series of cases at settling this issue with their First Americans. It is handled in a totally different manner, and will be interesting to see where it goes in the next few decades. So this is no surprise the Lakota have brought it up, it is not the first time they have.

RedGlitter;744538 wrote: My problem with this issue just mentioned is most if not all of us do live on someone else's land. Whether owned fair and square or by blood treaty, America is not the only big bad guy here as much as people love to paint us such. It's the collective tribal failure to rise above, instead preferring to complain and instill complaint in their kids. The Jews were put in concentration camps and yet rose above it. The Chinese were put in containment camps and yet today they continue to kick our collective a.ss in many ways, they have risen above the shoddy treatment given them. Unlike the blacks who still collectively claim a sense of entitlement. The tribes are the same way- "we're an independent sovereign nation! But you need to give us..."

You can't have it both ways. You can't ask for your independence and still be holding your hand out and call it entitlement.

I'm with Jester on this- it's too late for paybacks, And just how does anyone propose a value on a person's loved one's life anyway? That's an insult! You don't buy people off with money in a situation like this! And since I didn't do it, I'm not paying for it. I don't believe I need to pay for my ancestors' wrongdoings. How are the tribes going to pay for scalping or gutting one's grandfather? Are they even being asked to?

I realize gmc, you were addressing Jester so I apologize in advance if I'm out of line replying here. I felt this needed to be said.

ETA: I am speaking of these peoples in a collective manner. Not individually as there are many Indians, Blacks, Etc who have sought or are seeking to better their lives on an individual basis.


I realize gmc, you were addressing Jester so I apologize in advance if I'm out of line replying here. I felt this needed to be said.




No problem. It's an interesting issue though. Unlike the other peoples you mention the native indians were actually there first. What happened is no worse or better than happened all around the world. In tasmania the British completely wiped out the aboriginal people that were living there and came close in australia as well, in another age they might just have done it as a matter of course. If the US had remained a British colony I suspect ultimately things would have gone the same way. I don't actually know what happened in Canada.

Like the blacks the native americans they are not in the united states by choice but were put there by force. Maybe that's the difference.

I don't see the point in taking the blame for what our ancestors did-they were after all men of their times and acted accordingly. Tony Blair apologising for the english starting the slave trade was ridiculous, learn from the past and move on. it would have been better if he had introduced measures to combat modern slavery.

Most of the nations in europe the individual tribal identities have been wiped out. Russia was one of the last empires and now the various people's are starting to pull away.

chonsigirl;744592 wrote: The official government period of reparations ended by the end of the 1950s for the filing period under the Indian Claims Commission. Individual grievances against the federal government are now pursued on a case per case basis in the upper courts. In the Lakota case, dockets 74 A & B, they chose not to accept the settlement offered by the Commission, and it sits in the Treasury, or other designated area, until today. (collecting a lot of interest, I think it is over 100 million at last count) It was the point of not accepting it-if you took it, then the land was irretrievably lost with the conditions set within the settlement. (for example, the California Indians did sign, and the value of the land in California was set at 37 cents per acre, for the acreage they allowed them to sue for. Of course, prime real estate properties like Los Angeles and San Diego were not considered-the Commission would not consider those areas! Very gallant of them. My dissertation topic was on this one case, and my research continues in related areas)

The reason the Lakota have chosen to go to other nations, United Nations, etc. to plead their case revolves around the issue of sovereignty. They want to be recognized as a sovereign nation again, which is not the status of Native Americans today. These rights were taken away under various Supreme Court cases that slowly eroded over time their status as sovereign nations, until they became legally dependant wards by the 1870s, and at this point in time have slowly regained some sovereignty back. But it is not total self-control like before, it is a very complicated and complex issue. I will pull up the relevant cases if asked, but it is a lengthy list and timeline.

Dear Far, the issue is pertinent today, since Canada is currently concluding their series of cases at settling this issue with their First Americans. It is handled in a totally different manner, and will be interesting to see where it goes in the next few decades. So this is no surprise the Lakota have brought it up, it is not the first time they have.


So all the tribes were offered retributions? Who accepted them, who did not?

posted by chonsgirl

The reason the Lakota have chosen to go to other nations, United Nations, etc. to plead their case revolves around the issue of sovereignty. They want to be recognized as a sovereign nation again, which is not the status of Native Americans today. These rights were taken away under various Supreme Court cases that slowly eroded over time their status as sovereign nations, until they became legally dependant wards by the 1870s, and at this point in time have slowly regained some sovereignty back. But it is not total self-control like before, it is a very complicated and complex issue. I will pull up the relevant cases if asked, but it is a lengthy list and timeline.


didn't see this-we must have been posting at about the same time.

That's the key point isn't it? the sovereignty was taken away not given up voluntarily.

Sheryl, I will look up the list of who accepted the claims, the majority did. It was considered the "last chance" to have some form of retribution for the land. For the California case, the payment to an individual was $600 or so, many never cashed the checks-they still hang on the walls of their homes, a silent refusal to accept the compensation and give up title to the land. (although it is officially sold, according to federal law) There are many future cases ahead, on land and water rights alone, it will take decades or more to settle them.

GMC, I do think we posted at the same time. The issue is sovereignty, and it is still an issue in court cases today. The Lakota issue revolves around this.

Best article on background to the ICC-Jo Carillo's....http://books.google.com/books?id=nMW6Wi ... wwcy-F9J-E

If you want a shorter version, PM me and I'll send you a 6 page link for a condensation of the ICC and it's impact.

Jester;743702 wrote: I'm not saying that lightly either. If the Lakota's chose to leave the protection and rights thier citizenship affords them then they have that right.


That "protection and rights" you refer to conspicuous mainly by it's absence, take look at these:-

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm

http://www.lakotafreedom.com/

Are they going to pay taxes to keep up the roads and highways they will undoubtedly be traveling on?

chonsigirl;744791 wrote: Sheryl, I will look up the list of who accepted the claims, the majority did. It was considered the "last chance" to have some form of retribution for the land. For the California case, the payment to an individual was $600 or so, many never cashed the checks-they still hang on the walls of their homes, a silent refusal to accept the compensation and give up title to the land. (although it is officially sold, according to federal law) There are many future cases ahead, on land and water rights alone, it will take decades or more to settle them.

GMC, I do think we posted at the same time. The issue is sovereignty, and it is still an issue in court cases today. The Lakota issue revolves around this.

Best article on background to the ICC-Jo Carillo's....http://books.google.com/books?id=nMW6Wi ... wwcy-F9J-E

If you want a shorter version, PM me and I'll send you a 6 page link for a condensation of the ICC and it's impact.


Thanks Chronsi. The whole idea just boggles my mind. Do the Lakota's run casinos like other tribes?

They pay state taxes, and federal taxes-although they are adjusted according to reservation/state/and a multitude of laws. It varies from reservation/rancheria, and some modern conveniences-such as paved roads, sewage systems, electricity, etc. are still not present on their land.

In California, when gaming was legalized, the reservations lacking in those resources put them in on their own, with the profits.(which are not as much as most think) I do remember when certain areas were paved for the first time, and they finally had electricity. This was in the late 1990s. Modern conveniences we have been used to, since we were born.

I guess that's what boggles my mind Chronsi. The horror stories you hear about life on the Reservations. The high number of those addicted to alcohol, and such. I just dont' understand how making themselves their own nation is going to help make life better for them.

Jester;744437 wrote: Too much time has passed to make reperations in my opinion. I don't see war coming to them though on the part of the government, but if they choose to push the issue in civil disobedience it will be interesting to see what happens. What if they decounce US citizenship and gain another country's citizenship? they they might get deported!






Like the US govt ever honored a treaty in the 1st place. :rolleyes:

Far, they don't make that in profits. Now, you know me, and I personally am not for gambling. In California, the big gambling groups from Vegas are now involved in running several of the casinos, so that decreases the profit margin immensely.

From what I last knew, from the southern California tribes, the profits mostly went for wages, public improvements, education, and the rest into the tribal funds. Only a few of the casinos made large profits-and actually it became an inter-tribal war of the casinos, for who would get the best location, and maybe prevent the smaller groups from running one at all.

The final settlement was for $29,100,00, divided among individuals at around $660 per person. I went back into my notes, it was 47 cents per acre.

Even if an individual chose not to cash the check, the land is legally reverted to the federal government, and current land owners.