NationStates Jolt Archive

Its fox news, but I think it is trust worthy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html



WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.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

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. 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.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.


Kick ass! About time Native Americans stick it to the man! I hope all the other Indian Nations do the same thing. :D

Its fox news, but I think it is trust worthy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html



Kick ass! About time Native Americans stick it to the man! I hope all the other Indian Nations do the same thing. :D

Good for them.

Wait! So now there's another nation in the world. The US won't take this sitting down.

This is going to end well...

Wait! So now there's another nation in the world. The US won't take this sitting down.

Sure we will.
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft/images/bush_goofy/george_w_bush_sitting_uncomfortably.jpg

So how long will it be until we bring freedom back to them. I'll give them a good 10 years before we carry in the grand cape of democracy and soar down to save them.

Also, kudos for them.

Sure we will.
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft/images/bush_goofy/george_w_bush_sitting_uncomfortably.jpg

And look like you are going to vomit while sitting down.Interesting.

Hah, that's awesome. I mean, obviously it'll be by and large just ignored, but I like their...moxy? Does that work here? Anyway, I like it.

And look like you are going to vomit while sitting down.Interesting.

Appearances are everything.

I heard a few years ago that parts of the upper Plains States (North & South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, more or less) had fallen in population density to the Interior Department's definition of "frontier." I don't know what that density is, off-hand, but that's what I heard.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
My question is this: would somebody have noticed them seceding without them telling? It's right in the middle of nowhere.

Fox news shows their source as "news.com.au".

I'm going to call bullshit until more sources come out.

If this isn't fake, then, I am interesting in what will happen next.

I have it on good authority through the moccasin telegraph that this is in fact true.

Well....um...*has nothing to say*

More sources:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Descendants_of_Sitting_Bull_Crazy_Horse_1220.html
http://www.umaproductions.com/2007/12/20/lakota-freedom-movement-we-are-our-own-country/
and their own website:
http://www.lakotafreedom.com/

Gee, I wonder what will happen to their casinos? After all, it was the US government that enabled them to exist in the first place...get rid of those and they're broke.

Its never going to happen, large amounts of money will be shifted around to the Indians, and they'll shut up.

If it was up to me I'd send an Army division, and then ask them if they'd still like to secede. If they don't want to be a part of the United States- then get the hell out... go to Canada or Mexico.

I think, while we're at it, we should all just secede from the oppressive motherland, travel across the ocean, fight a revolution, and oppress the local people for hundreds of years in so much as they eventually secede what little land we give them to form their own country.

Wait. I think someone's done that before...

Its never going to happen, large amounts of money will be shifted around to the Indians, and they'll shut up.

If it was up to me I'd send an Army division, and then ask them if they'd still like to secede. If they don't want to be a part of the United States- then get the hell out... go to Canada or Mexico.

I think they are trying to get the hell out,you know as part of the whole seceding thing.

Its never going to happen, large amounts of money will be shifted around to the Indians, and they'll shut up.

If it was up to me I'd send an Army division, and then ask them if they'd still like to secede. If they don't want to be a part of the United States- then get the hell out... go to Canada or Mexico.

Too bad most of our army divisions are busy fighting other brown people worldwide. And, you know, by secession, they mean that they want to get away. Dummy.

Yeah, not like sending in an Army division wouldn't be bad PR or nothing...Nothing at all....

If this isn't fake, then, I am interesting in what will happen next.

http://www.archives.gov/education/history-day/bright-ideas/images/nagasaki.gif

It's a tax free country...I'm having visions of all of America's wealthiest moving to Lakota country and giving it a bunch of economic clout. It'd be very funny, though I'd have to find a new place to live, I suppose. =\

Gee, I wonder what will happen to their casinos? After all, it was the US government that enabled them to exist in the first place...get rid of those and they're broke.

Not true. They can produce and export arthritis medication (http://www.lakotaherbs.com/).

I'm looking at CNN and BBC...I'm not seeing anything on this. I think I'll withdraw judgment until I do see something.

I'm looking at CNN and BBC...I'm not seeing anything on this. I think I'll withdraw judgment until I do see something.

Cnn isn't real news...For proof:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_SDqU7KTqq1M/R2n2xTnhXKI/AAAAAAAAAHc/P-Ry9yr_QF8/s1600-h/cnn-britney.jpg

And Kyronea, I forgot to mention, but one of the other sources i posted was the Lakota's Freedom site, which has right on the front page the story.

And Kyronea, I forgot to mention, but one of the other sources i posted was the Lakota's Freedom site, which has right on the front page the story.

But the BBC is.

As much as I would like to believe the Lakota Freedom website, I just want to make sure it really is happening.

Because if it is, this is a very serious situation. The last time this happened we had a full out civil war...

But the BBC is.

As much as I would like to believe the Lakota Freedom website, I just want to make sure it really is happening.

Because if it is, this is a very serious situation. The last time this happened we had a full out civil war...

This is a very different situation. The Lakota are only part of America through treaties it signed 150 years ago. They didn't enter into the Union as the state do, so for them to leave, is very different than having states leaving the Union. This is perfectly legal, and there is no question of constitutionality.

The last time this happened we had a full out civil war...

Go Confederate states of Lakota!!! Oh, maybe Robert E. Lee will make an appearance.

Its never going to happen, large amounts of money will be shifted around to the Indians, and they'll shut up.

If it was up to me I'd send an Army division, and then ask them if they'd still like to secede. If they don't want to be a part of the United States- then get the hell out... go to Canada or Mexico.

Since they were there first... I think it's the US that needs to get out...

This is a very different situation. The Lakota are only part of America through treaties it signed 150 years ago. They didn't enter into the Union as the state do, so for them to leave, is very different than having states leaving the Union. This is perfectly legal, and there is no question of constitutionality.
No it's not legal. Even if the citizens could secede--which they can't--they are taking pieces of many states with them, which is essentially a gigantic case of stealing.

It's a very serious situation indeed.

Now, with that said, I have no opinion either way yet about this conflict when it comes to a side to support or what have you. I'm simply stating that this sort of "Oh okay" attitude isn't going to cut it.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA

From the AFP. To bad it has no legal authority for they are attached to five different states.

Since they were there first... I think it's the US that needs to get out...

Yeah, a few hundred years ago. If they want that land, they need to repay the US for all expenditures made by the government on their people and their land since that treaty was signed, and they need to allow us to dismantle all infrastructure built by the government within their territory. They can keep that crappy, deserted wasteland if they want, but they'd better be ready to pay for everything the government has invested in their territory. And they'd better be ready to build up their new infrastructure from scratch, because there's no way in hell I'd allow them to keep it.

Hmmm... this one is more debateable than the Civil War. Although I still maintain that the states have no right to unilateral secession, I'm not sure if the NA nations doing would even count as secession to me...

They have a unique status within the US, outside of the states which they inhabit. Not a state, but still possessing their own sovereignty... It might be that I could be convinced of their right to independence.

But I do suspect some BS here. It does not seem entirely true...

No it's not legal. Even if the citizens could secede--which they can't--they are taking pieces of many states with them, which is essentially a gigantic case of stealing.
Delicious.

Seriously though... if this were as major an event as some people seem to be saying, I'd have expected some more news sources by now. Anyone got any to add?

Kudos to the Lakota, but if our blockhead of a president hears of this, things could get messy.

Is this actually legal...? This has to be a publicity stunt, otherwise why didn't they secede years ago? Why now?

ca un is...so be it

Delicious.

Seriously though... if this were as major an event as some people seem to be saying, I'd have expected some more news sources by now. Anyone got any to add?

I don't know. It could be the media is convinced it's a publicity stunt and is thus being gigantic asses and ignoring them, but I don't think that's the case(that being the idea of it being a publicity stunt.)

Or maybe they just don't feel like reporting on it because they think no one will really care, which in my mind is a stupid attitude to take.

Is this actually legal...? This has to be a publicity stunt, otherwise why didn't they secede years ago? Why now?

Some UN declaration in September apparently gives them the legal backing they need for this. I hope this is real because the interesting thing that could happen here is whether or not the US even responds. If the US responds and takes the claim to court, it validates international laws and the rule of international law. However, if the US just ignores it, it would be a major blow to international law, I'd imagine, lending support to the might makes right de facto law of the land type of ideology. The precedent such an event would set is more interesting than any silly land claims for one side or the other.

Is this actually legal...? This has to be a publicity stunt, otherwise why didn't they secede years ago? Why now?

According to an article I read:

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence -- an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA

Some UN declaration in September apparently gives them the legal backing they need for this. I hope this is real because the interesting thing that could happen here is whether or not the US even responds. If the US responds and takes the claim to court, it validates international laws and the rule of international law. However, if the US just ignores it, it would be a major blow to international law, I'd imagine, lending support to the might makes right de facto law of the land type of ideology. The precedent such an event would set is more interesting than any silly land claims for one side or the other.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5568302/Dakota-Indians-announce-secession-from-United-States

The problem however is that the UN Declaration is a non-binding declaration. Much like the Human Rights Declaration that did eventually lead to the Human Rights Treaties.

Way to go Lakota! I am so glad that someone has finally stood up to the Federal Leviathan and told them basically to fuck off, especially considering all of the evil the Feds have done to the Indians over the centuries. As to whether the Indians are 'stealing' for taking infrastructure that was constructed, in part, through my tax money- I do not think so. The Feds took my money for their own aggrandizement, and the Lakota are just taking hot property. They can keep it, as they are the first legitimate occupants of those assets, and since they cannot return the assets to me personally.

Yeah, a few hundred years ago. If they want that land, they need to repay the US for all expenditures made by the government on their people and their land since that treaty was signed, and they need to allow us to dismantle all infrastructure built by the government within their territory. They can keep that crappy, deserted wasteland if they want, but they'd better be ready to pay for everything the government has invested in their territory. And they'd better be ready to build up their new infrastructure from scratch, because there's no way in hell I'd allow them to keep it.

No... Simply no.... We didn't honor the existing treaties... Therefore we loose all rights to material expenditures on that land... Your argument is as retarded as stealing someones car, installing a $4,000.00 sound system in it; and then think you have some right to this "addition" after the owner gets it back...

Way to go Lakota! I am so glad that someone has finally stood up to the Federal Leviathan and told them basically to fuck off, especially considering all of the evil the Feds have done to the Indians over the centuries. As to whether the Indians are 'stealing' for taking infrastructure that was constructed, in part, through my tax money- I do not think so. The Feds took my money for their own aggrandizement, and the Lakota are just taking hot property. They can keep it, as they are the first legitimate occupants of those assets, and since they cannot return the assets to me personally.

Problem is, they can't legally do what they are proclaiming.

I still believe its perfectly legal. They are part of the US only by treaty. They do not wish to fulfill the terms of the treaty anymore, so therefore they have the legal right to nullify the treaty and have their own nation.

No... Simply no.... We didn't honor the existing treaties... Therefore we loose all rights to material expenditures on that land... You're argument is as retarded as stealing someones car, installing a $4,000.00 sound system in it; and then think you have some right to this "addition" after the owner gets it back...

Perhaps you missed the "few hundred years" part of the post? I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Way to go Lakota! I am so glad that someone has finally stood up to the Federal Leviathan and told them basically to fuck off, especially considering all of the evil the Feds have done to the Indians over the centuries. As to whether the Indians are 'stealing' for taking infrastructure that was constructed, in part, through my tax money- I do not think so. The Feds took my money for their own aggrandizement, and the Lakota are just taking hot property. They can keep it, as they are the first legitimate occupants of those assets, and since they cannot return the assets to me personally.

We'll see. To be honest I'm stuck between the patriotism the thrice-damned American educational system ground into me that loudly claims "ONE NATION!" and opposes entirely this secession and the crying Cherokee inside shouting "Let them go free!" and, obviously, wishes to allow the Lakota their secession.

I don't know what opinion to take!

I still believe its perfectly legal. They are part of the US only by treaty. They do not wish to fulfill the terms of the treaty anymore, so therefore they have the legal right to nullify the treaty and have their own nation.

Except for the part that they encompass five states...no. This is highly illegal. Anyways...they won't get far. We can block all of their accesses to everyone.

Except for the part that they encompass five states...no. This is highly illegal. Anyways...they won't get far. We can block all of their accesses to everyone.

But what if the Canadians send a couple of armored divisions straight down US 281 from the border, then branch out along I-94, east and west? They could be in Bismarck in no time!

silly Indians still thinking us white men follows "treaties"

honestly though I can't side with this stupidity, especially since they seem to be under the impression they can just activate their magical law powered time machine too go back before things like modern medicine, police and a fire brigade

Except for the part that they encompass five states...no. This is highly illegal. Anyways...they won't get far. We can block all of their accesses to everyone.

Their claim gives them quite a bit of direct access to Canada. Like I said, the most interesting part of this case is the legal precedent it could set.

Perhaps you missed the "few hundred years" part of the post? I don't think that's a valid comparison. Is there some sort of statute of limitations for such a thing? I'm not being snide, I actually don't know and that's the only way you can determine the validity, or lack thereof, of such a claim.

But what if the Canadians send a couple of armored divisions straight down US 281 from the border, then branch out along I-94, east and west? They could be in Bismarck in no time!

For starters, that would be highly illegal (just as this secession is highly illegal). For another, the people would not take to being invaded kindly.

But what if the Canadians send a couple of armored divisions straight down US 281 from the border, then branch out along I-94, east and west? They could be in Bismarck in no time!

That erroneously assumes that a couple of Canadian armoured divisions are some kind of threat. ;)

But what if the Canadians send a couple of armored divisions straight down US 281 from the border, then branch out along I-94, east and west? They could be in Bismarck in no time!

Why would the Canadians invade?

For starters, that would be highly illegal (just as this secession is highly illegal). For another, the people would not take to being invaded kindly.

If the secesion turns out to be legal and America tries to exert authority through military means, I'd imagine it would fall under the category of foreign aggressor and I don't think Canada offering defensive aid to Lakota land would be considered illegal.

For starters, that would be highly illegal (just as this secession is highly illegal). For another, the people would not take to being invaded kindly.

Okay, so what if they just put a bunch of guys in pick-ups, with their rifles on the gun-racks? No one would even notice. And they'd just be supporting the aspirations for self-determination of the peace-loving Lakota people, after all. ;)

We'll see. To be honest I'm stuck between the patriotism the thrice-damned American educational system ground into me that loudly claims "ONE NATION!" and opposes entirely this secession and the crying Cherokee inside shouting "Let them go free!" and, obviously, wishes to allow the Lakota their secession.

I don't know what opinion to take!

You are either Cherokee, or your not. There is no part Cherokee. I love that saying, you know? It says so much to me, in so many different ways.

Anyways, I know what my opinion is on this, as a Cherokee, and that is that I want the Lakota, as well as all the other Indian nations, to have their freedom, to try and return to a some what normal life.

Perhaps you missed the "few hundred years" part of the post? I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Nope, didn't miss the "Few Hundred Years" part at all.... Perhapse you missed the "were there first" part... Simple fact is, we (the US) are the violators in this case... We have no claims to expenditures we made, because we did not obey the terms of the various treaties we made with them over the years... If someone owes money for the expenditures, it's the US government itself, to its taxpayers... If anything the fact that it's been an extended period exasperated the situation way beyond my limited comparison...

Why would the Canadians invade?
UN Security Council resolution, break out the baby-blue helmets.

If the secesion turns out to be legal and America tries to exert authority through military means, I'd imagine it would fall under the category of foreign aggressor and I don't think Canada offering defensive aid to Lakota land would be considered illegal.
I was actually just kidding. I have to remember to use smileys more when I do that.

Except for the part that they encompass five states...no. This is highly illegal. Anyways...they won't get far. We can block all of their accesses to everyone.

It is their land! How can they not have the right to remove THEIR land from a union in which they do not wish to be in?

You are either Cherokee, or your not. There is no part Cherokee. I love that saying, you know? It says so much to me, in so many different ways.

Anyways, I know what my opinion is on this, as a Cherokee, and that is that I want the Lakota, as well as all the other Indian nations, to have their freedom, to try and return to a some what normal life.

I've never liked that statement. It smacks of elitism.

And I am genetically part Cherokee, as I have a Cherokee ancestor on both sides of my family.

UN Security Council resolution, break out the baby-blue helmets.
Oh dear...

Anyways, I know what my opinion is on this, as a Cherokee, and that is that I want the Lakota, as well as all the other Indian nations, to have their freedom, to try and return to a some what normal life.

Yes. Damn those British colonialists. ;)

It is their land! How can they not have the right to remove THEIR land from a union in which they do not wish to be in?

Wasn't there some discussion of that sort of thing about 150 years ago in another part of the US? Didn't turn out real well, as I recall.

Problem is, they can't legally do what they are proclaiming.

What, because the magical scrap of paper that their conquerors worship doesn't allow them to?

We'll see. To be honest I'm stuck between the patriotism the thrice-damned American educational system ground into me that loudly claims "ONE NATION!" and opposes entirely this secession and the crying Cherokee inside shouting "Let them go free!" and, obviously, wishes to allow the Lakota their secession.

I don't know what opinion to take!

Take the Lakota side. They were the ones butchered by the government that made the American educational system.

Take the Lakota side. They were the ones butchered by the government that made the American educational system.

If it was that easy, I would...and yet...and yet that patriotism ground into me cannot be denied so readily.

If the secesion turns out to be legal and America tries to exert authority through military means, I'd imagine it would fall under the category of foreign aggressor and I don't think Canada offering defensive aid to Lakota land would be considered illegal.

The problem is, I was not even talking about us doing anything militarily. The problem here is that this fake nation (and that is precisely what it is and I am not talking about the tribe) is attempting to steal land from five different states. For some, that can be considered a threat to security. If we do not do anything but peacefully stop them, there is no way an invasion by our neighbors to the North can be considered legal. It would be seen as an hostile invasion of the US and that would not bode well for Canada.

Now care to show me where this "secession" is actually legal?

UN Security Council resolution, break out the baby-blue helmets.

HAHAHA!!! VETO!!! you lose.

I was actually just kidding. I have to remember to use smileys more when I do that.
Meh, I thought you were kidding but I wanted to make the point anyway. Allowing that the Lakota secession is entirely legal, Canada giving military aid to defend them from "foreign" aggressors doesn't seem like it could be considered illegal, I think.
What, because the magical scrap of paper that their conquerors worship doesn't allow them to?

The magical scrap of paper is part of the legality of this move. Old claims to old lands are irrelevant compared to whether or not we can consider international law to wield any true authority. Honestly, I don't care either way, but I hope it is addressed as a court matter because of the implications such an action would carry with it.

It is their land! How can they not have the right to remove THEIR land from a union in which they do not wish to be in?

because legality is meaningless in international politics when one side has all the guns whilst the other is a bunch of non-cuddly natives

or you' know I'd like to see a vote taking place as well seeing as how a few proclaiming it doesn't make it true

Take the Lakota side. They were the ones butchered by the government that made the American educational system.

I'm sorry the US government is not the same US government of the 20th, 19th, 18th or 17th centuries

It is their land! How can they not have the right to remove THEIR land from a union in which they do not wish to be in?

Because the land they sit on is part of FIVE STATES!!

HAHAHA!!! VETO!!! you lose.

Damn, I forgot that stupid veto! :headbang:

Because the land they sit on is part of FIVE STATES!!

It is indeed. Secession was pretty much decided in the mid-19th century.

Didn't we have a thread about secession in general at some time? I seem to recall one.

Because the land they sit on is part of FIVE STATES!!

I'm sorry, Corny, but those lands were only ceded due to treaties. Withdrawal from the treaties means withdrawal from U.S. ownership of the lands, according to the law.

The problem is, I was not even talking about us doing anything militarily. The problem here is that this fake nation (and that is precisely what it is and I am not talking about the tribe) is attempting to steal land from five different states. For some, that can be considered a threat to security. If we do not do anything but peacefully stop them, there is no way an invasion by our neighbors to the North can be considered legal. It would be seen as an hostile invasion of the US and that would not bode well for Canada.

Now care to show me where this "secession" is actually legal?

You seem to be mistaking my stance as one in support of either side. It isn't. I'm supporting the rule of law and couldn't give less of a shit if it falls on either side so long as sovereignty through force is held subservient to international law.

If this act is declared legal and valid, then this nation is no longer fake and these lands are no longer being stolen. As such, our actions are limited to perhaps sanctions and such, maybe, but that has a bunch of legal restrictions in and of itself. But, anyway, assuming the Lakota claim is valid (and again, I'm not saying it actually is, but for the sake of the following point it must be assumed here to be so) they have the right to allow any military force they choose to traverse through their lands so long as those forces aren't actively participating in a war of aggression against us. If such were the case, Canada could put a tank every five feet along the Lakota-US border and we couldn't legally do anything about it.

Damn, I forgot that stupid veto! :headbang:

Yeah, the veto screws EVERYTHING up. :(

I'm sorry, Corny, but those lands were only ceded due to treaties. Withdrawal from the treaties means withdrawal from U.S. ownership of the lands, according to the law.

And accordingly, it is illegal for them to be doing this because of where the land is currently situated. An interesting conundrum.

Because the land they sit on is part of FIVE STATES!!

And this has to do with the price of tea in China, how? I could care less how many states were carved from areas of their territory.... From my standpoint (which is called "CORRECT" and "HONEST" and "JUST") it doesn't matter if it was 1 state or 10, or 20.... We had access through a treaty.... We violate the treaty..... They leave the treaty.... We lose the land.... Any other viewpoint is criminal and will be ignored by me...

And this has to do with the price of tea in China, how? I could care less how many states were carved from areas of their territory.... From my standpoint (which is called "CORRECT" and "HONEST" and "JUST") it doesn't matter if it was 1 state or 10, or 20.... We had access through a treaty.... We violate the treaty..... They leave the treaty.... We lose the land.... Any other viewpoint is criminal and will be ignored by me...


:fluffle: times a million, for this post. :)

And accordingly, it is illegal for them to be doing this because of where the land is currently situated. An interesting conundrum.

There is nothing which makes it illegal for a recognized "nation" (which they are, since the US MUST recognize them as such, having had SEVERAL TREATIES with them and all) to terminate treaties which WE (the United States of America) have violated.... In the process, WE (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) loose all claims we have upon lands we have gained access to through these treaties.... They go back to the original nation (the one we have recognized, as mentioned before)... It would be illegal for those STATES to secede... We're not talking about States which are members of the Union from seceding.... States cannot at present.... We're talking about a separate nation withdrawing from treaty and taking back its land (perfectly legal)....

As far as I am concerned, they are part of the United States now. We have treaties with other nations that are no longer in existence.

Oh, to hell with you, Corny. I've decided my position, and I am firmly in FAVOR of the Lakota secession. They have every right to be free if they so choose.

As far as I am concerned, they are part of the United States now. We have treaties with other nations that are no longer in existence.

:fluffle: times a million, for this post. :)

Hey, I have stray NA blood running through me... :) Alot of these morons remind me of a joke I heard once:

(Native American Speaking):"Once I was walking through town, and this racist guy jumps out and tells me to go back where I came from.... So I built a tee-pee on his front yard...."

As far as I am concerned, they are part of the United States now. We have treaties with other nations that are no longer in existence.

Too bad your opinion doesn't matter. The legality of this matter is simple, as Tekania has pointed out.

Gee, I wonder what will happen to their casinos? After all, it was the US government that enabled them to exist in the first place...get rid of those and they're broke.

Um...considering they'd be exerting sovereignty over their territories, the casinos would remain. Duh.

Hah. Russell Means. :p

Really though, sounds like a bit of a joke. I doubt we're headed toward another Waco, or another '70s-style FBI-sponsored Indian turkey-shoot, although I'll bet there's some gov't sharpshooters with some itchy fingers right now. :D

Hey, I have stray NA blood running through me... :) Alot of these morons remind me of a joke I heard once:

(Native American Speaking):"Once I was walking through town, and this racist guy jumps out and tells me to go back where I came from.... So I built a tee-pee on his front yard...."

:D reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, where it had a redneck saying to a Mexican "Go back to Mexico"; then to an African American, "Go back to Africa"; then it comes to an NA, and he has a dumbfounded look on his face. I wish I could find it, because its one of my favorite ones.

Not true. They can produce and export arthritis medication (http://www.lakotaherbs.com/).

No relation to the Lakota (http://www.lakotaherbs.com/about.html). The founder is Metis/Cree, and completely not affiliated with the Lakota Sioux. In fact, they were rather pissed at him for appropriating their name.

What...no one sees the irony in unilaterally refusing to recognise the Treaties?

*shakes head*

Hmm... my bet is that the Federal government simply refuses to recognise their claims and continues as normal. If anyone attempts to deprive any US citizen or state or property in their name then they'll just send in the police and arrest the trouble makers.

Also I don't see any country wanting to continue having friendly relations with the US recognising the Lakota's country as independent. At most countries will berate the US for harsh treatment of the Lakota (if it comes to them being arrested).

What...no one sees the irony in unilaterally refusing to recognise the Treaties?

*shakes head*

Yes, Sin, we see the irony.

As far as I am concerned, they are part of the United States now.
Corneliu being pompous and jingoistic. Color me not surprised.

Honestly guys, this isn't what you all seem to think it is. Nor is it the first time a First Nation has 'declared its independence'. The Mohawk are fond of doing it. You know, printing out their own ID/license plates etc.

It's an attempt to focus attention on treaty breaches.

Honestly guys, this isn't what you all seem to think it is. Nor is it the first time a First Nation has 'declared its independence'. The Mohawk are fond of doing it. You know, printing out their own ID/license plates etc.

It's an attempt to focus attention on treaty breaches.

And yet no one seems to care except for us. Not surprising.

Damn but I wish they actually meant for full out and out secession instead of calling attention to treaty violations. Maybe people would actually pay attention to them.

Hmm... my bet is that the Federal government simply refuses to recognise their claims and continues as normal. If anyone attempts to deprive any US citizen or state or property in their name then they'll just send in the police and arrest the trouble makers.

Also I don't see any country wanting to continue having friendly relations with the US recognising the Lakota's country as independent. At most countries will berate the US for harsh treatment of the Lakota (if it comes to them being arrested).

Law breakers deserve to be in jail.

Honestly guys, this isn't what you all seem to think it is. Nor is it the first time a First Nation has 'declared its independence'. The Mohawk are fond of doing it. You know, printing out their own ID/license plates etc.

It's an attempt to focus attention on treaty breaches.How was the treaty breached this time?

It's an attempt to focus attention on treaty breaches.

it just scares me because of the 0% taxes really either they are living in wonderland or libertarianism is reaching what pokemon had with all the stabbings

It is their land! How can they not have the right to remove THEIR land from a union in which they do not wish to be in?

"THEIR land"? Defined on the basis of race no doubt.

"THEIR land"? Defined on the basis of race no doubt.

I would say its more cultural but really I do have to ask the logic behind the concept of "owning land"

it just scares me because of the 0% taxes really either they are living in wonderland or libertarianism is reaching what pokemon had with all the stabbings

I think the idea is that the government need not to be overly complicated or anything. They wouldn't have to form an Army, for instance, because they could just rely on the U.S. for defense like Canada does.

"THEIR land"? Defined on the basis of race no doubt.

No, defined on the fact that the land they live on has been theirs for hundreds of years, and they can do what they wish with it. Race has no factor in this. Legality does, however.

Honestly guys, this isn't what you all seem to think it is. Nor is it the first time a First Nation has 'declared its independence'. The Mohawk are fond of doing it. You know, printing out their own ID/license plates etc.

It's an attempt to focus attention on treaty breaches.

Bah, don't ruin the excitement. I really want something like this to happen. It brings so much to the table, and it puts one more sword in the side of this dying nation.

And accordingly, it is illegal for them to be doing this because of where the land is currently situated. An interesting conundrum.

What about it makes it illegal? You are aware that Indian reservations are not part of those states that they're located, yes? For example, I live near the Isabella Indian Reservation in central Michigan. The tribe allows the state to exert authority over certain parts of the reservation (such as where I live), but they maintain a part where the state has no authority whatsoever. In this area Michigan police have exactly as much authority as they have in Canada or Ohio: none. They don't pay state income taxes, and do not follow Michigan laws on their land.

As far as I am concerned, they are part of the United States now. We have treaties with other nations that are no longer in existence.

It's a good thing it's not up to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

And yet no one seems to care except for us. Not surprising.

Damn but I wish they actually meant for full out and out secession instead of calling attention to treaty violations. Maybe people would actually pay attention to them.

I'm not saying they don't want it. I'm saying they aren't stupid. They won't get it. But they might be able to bring enough international attention to bear on the issue that they force the gov't into negotiations, rather than continuing down the long, long, long road of litigation over Treaty breaches.

The Lubicon Cree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Cree) did something somewhat similar...not declaring independence (because they had no land base at all), but going to the UN over Treaty breaches. It embarrased the Canadian government to no end, and at least got the fuckers to the negotiating table. Not that much has come of it yet.

As I said, the Mohawk have done similar things, purporting to issue their own passports etc. The fact of the matter is, no way in hell will the US or Canadian government recognise allodial title to aboriginal lands via succession, not with the legal fiction of 'Crown sovereignty'.

Nor is the Lakota nation entirely one side with this. Various Lakota activists have spear-headed this declaration, and whether it is even legitimate internally is up for question.

Law breakers deserve to be in jail.

What about treaty breakers?

Corneliu being pompous and jingoistic. Color me not surprised.

Be even less of a surprise if Corny thinks China has no right to reclaim the "renegade province" of Taiwan at the same time. Bushevik Doublethink reigns supreme!

"THEIR land"? Defined on the basis of race no doubt.

Defined on the basis of citizenship in a nation.

Law breakers deserve to be in jail.

And what law are they breaking? Be specific, if you would.

How was the treaty breached this time?

Generally treaty breach claims stem from failures to allocate reservation lands in accordance with the treaty, as in, not enough acres were actually handed over, or land speculators were allowed to snap it up despite the Proclamation of 1763 which made this illegal. As well, oral promises are alleged, and remember, aboriginal treaties are sui generis which means they are neither purely contractual nor purely international treaty but rather something entirely unique...the 'four corners' doctrine is no longer used when interpreting these treaties. There can be other breaches as well such as unjustified expropriations without compensation, which was huge in the 70s...etc etc etc. Not all to do with land, might do with services etc.

it just scares me because of the 0% taxes really either they are living in wonderland or libertarianism is reaching what pokemon had with all the stabbings
You know, taxes are a means to an end. If they don't have the same ends as the US government, why the hell would they want to employ the same means?

Anyways, good for them. I don't think anything will come of it, and they'd perhaps be better off just making sure their kids go to school and university and do well in the wider society, but they have a legitimate cause.

I think the idea is that the government need not to be overly complicated or anything. They wouldn't have to form an Army, for instance, because they could just rely on the U.S. for defense like Canada does.

education would be interesting as would medicine

it just scares me because of the 0% taxes really either they are living in wonderland or libertarianism is reaching what pokemon had with all the stabbings

Uh...0% taxes? Indians pay taxes, just not income tax for earnings on reservation. They generally have their own sales tax on Reserve, and pay goods and services taxes off reserve like anyone else, including state or other sales taxes.

"THEIR land"? Defined on the basis of race no doubt.

Culture. The US government and the Canadian government are the ones who came up with the racial/blood requirement. And actually, that's just determining who is entitled to it now, not the reason behind the title itself.

education would be interesting as would medicine

Interestingly enough, self-government models here in Canada, in particular the Nisgaa nation, have included governance over healthcare, education and social services, with a phasing out stage, funded first by the Feds, then over a period of time, entirely taken up by the nation itself.

Interestingly enough, self-government models here in Canada, in particular the Nisgaa nation, have included governance over healthcare, education and social services, with a phasing out stage, funded first by the Feds, then over a period of time, entirely taken up by the nation itself.
Which is fine as long as there are people willing to take responsibility and able to actually do what is required and who actually enjoy some sort of respect within the community. It's not always the case, looking at the Australian situation. I mean, what do you do with a community that has basically ceased to exist because of alcohol and drug abuse? You can't really go and tell them "go govern yourself" and then throw money at them.

I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach works here. It's gotta be done on a case by case basis, by figuring out the actual capabilities of the nation we're talking about.

This can't end up being good for these tribes. It's very simple. They annoy the US. The US lets them have their own little countries in the middle of America. The US then blocks American citizens from visiting them (same rules as Cuba), and doesn't allow flights to use it's airspace to go to these places. They stop all exports into the area from America (including power, but not including medical supplies), stops all welfare, and starts a border patrol. In 6 months to a year, they come crawling back to the table. They didn't don't have the ability to play hardball with the US, no matter your opinion on it.

You know, taxes are a means to an end. If they don't have the same ends as the US government, why the hell would they want to employ the same means?

because this isn't the 19th century anymore and no matter how much local know how they have it doesn't build schools and hospitals

then again we could just look at how anarchist communes have done when surrounded by policed zones

Uh...0% taxes? Indians pay taxes, just not income tax for earnings on reservation. They generally have their own sales tax on Reserve, and pay goods and services taxes off reserve like anyone else, including state or other sales taxes.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

the numbers worry me really

honestly though I can't side with this stupidity, especially since they seem to be under the impression they can just activate their magical law powered time machine too go back before things like modern medicine, police and a fire brigade

That, or they've realized they don't need to be part of the US to have these things.

the numbers worry me really

You can't ever be completely tax free unless you are completely self-sufficient, which would not be the case. They would be working with zero income taxes, not zero taxes period.

You can ALREADY pay no income tax if you live on a reserve or do business there, whether you're native or not.

That, or they've realized they don't need to be part of the US to have these things.
Seeing as they're very quickly going to run out of money... yeah, they kind of do.

Seeing as they're very quickly going to run out of money... yeah, they kind of do.

Bah. Casinos, bitches! Put the revenue into building up infrastructure and creating more sustainable employment.

Bah. Casinos, bitches! Put the revenue into building up infrastructure and creating more sustainable employment.

On top of that, gambling outside of U.S. jurisdiction. That'll bring in more people and thus more money.

Only in America they can make an issue of secession a business opportunity for the lawyers. :D

The legality is IMO secondary, the more important factors are the possible economical consequences of secession and the ego loss of the Patriotic American Citizens. If these are negotiable and there's goodwill for Lakotans among the general populace of USA the idea might fly.

Considering the people in power...I seriously doubt it: At best it's considered a 'poor joke' at worst the area and the people within are imperialistically subjugated.

Bah. Casinos, bitches! Put the revenue into building up infrastructure and creating more sustainable employment.
Or indeed weapons trading. Buy fully automatic rifles, sell them at inflated prices to hicks from the nearby area!

No, defined on the fact that the land they live on has been theirs for hundreds of years, and they can do what they wish with it. Race has no factor in this. Legality does, however.


Rubbish. Race has everything to do with it. The usual ethnocentrism:

"Too bad most of our army divisions are busy fighting other brown people worldwide." Like the brown people of the former Yugoslavia?

"our Native sisters and brothers in Hawaii" http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ Hmm, kinship bond by...race?

Can't wait to hear a white politican talk about our indigenous brothers and sisters in Europe. Though I realise that the term "indigenous" has virtually been trademarked to mean non-white.

"You are either Cherokee, or your not. There is no part Cherokee. I love that saying, you know? It says so much to me, in so many different ways.

Anyways, I know what my opinion is on this, as a Cherokee, and that is that I want the Lakota, as well as all the other Indian nations, to have their freedom, to try and return to a some what normal life." i.e. free of whitey.

Corneliu being pompous and jingoistic. Color me not surprised. What "color" would that be?

If it's not about race I expect we'll be seeing plenty of blond-haired, blue-eyed individuals who were born in the United States (and are therefore Native Americans) moving into the People's Republic of Lakota. No-one will even notice, nor comment upon them. Especially not the "Native Americans", "First Nations", "Aboriginals" et cetera

because this isn't the 19th century anymore and no matter how much local know how they have it doesn't build schools and hospitals
It's not the 20th century anymore either. If they have casinos, they can make money with that. They can make money with tourism, or other investments.

It all depends on how the income streams are managed, and in a close-knit community there are certainly alternatives to coercive taxation.

Also, about casinos:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9006591

And what law are they breaking? Be specific, if you would.

Sedition...treason...

If it's not about race I expect we'll be seeing plenty of blond-haired, blue-eyed individuals who were born in the United States (and are therefore Native Americans) moving into the People's Republic of Lakota. No-one will even notice, nor comment upon them. Especially not the "Native Americans", "First Nations", "Aboriginals" et cetera

Did you miss the part where non-aboriginals were invited in as long as they renounce US citizenship?

Probably not. Too busy frothing at the mouth accusing people of racism as a justification for governent-supported racism against those same people.

Yeah. Also, are you saying they shouldn't have the right to determine their own immigration policies? I see, you'll be supporting open borders in the US then?

Only in America they can make an issue of secession a business opportunity for the lawyers. :D



And Scotland?

Bah. Casinos, bitches! Put the revenue into building up infrastructure and creating more sustainable employment.

scamming people out of money FTW!

scamming people out of money FTW!

Pah, you think just whiteys can do that? We were gambling 40,000 years ago cracka. :D

So what if they seperate? how valuble to the US could they posibly be?

And Scotland?
No, that's for political success.

I got a good laugh from this. We will see how far they take this. There is a point where the government will stop ignoring and step in and take action. I just wonder what the trigger will be.

Sedition...treason...

That is what ultimately they will be charged with if they take this to far. That is of course they survive the assault by the ATF and FBI.

I got a good laugh from this. We will see how far they take this. There is a point where the government will stop ignoring and step in and take action. I just wonder what the trigger will be.

*sigh*
So, so lost on you people.

Keep in mind, without ratification through the tribal courts, this 'declaration' by a small group of activists isn't even necessary 'legal' internally.

That is what ultimately they will be charged with if they take this to far. That is of course they survive the assault by the ATF and FBI.

:rolleyes:
Get a grip.

Did you miss the part where non-aboriginals were invited in as long as they renounce US citizenship?

Probably not. Too busy frothing at the mouth accusing people of racism as a justification for governent-supported racism against those same people.

Yeah.

I think you were too busy "frothing at the mouth" to notice your grammar and your drivel. "Did you miss the part..." "Probably not." Bit of a non-sequitur methinks.

Which "governent-supported racism" was I justifying again?

Maybe the Lakota nation's motto could be "Diversity through exclusivity!"

Yeah! Right on!

*sigh*
So, so lost on you people.

Coming from someone who likely bitched about Ruby Ridge and Waco, that jingoistic talk is even more hilarious isn't it?

"our Native sisters and brothers in Hawaii" http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ Hmm, kinship bond by...race?


So what race is it that the polynesian people of Hawaii and the Lakota are both supposed to be part of? The human race?


Can't wait to hear a white politican talk about our indigenous brothers and sisters in Europe. Though I realise that the term "indigenous" has virtually been trademarked to mean non-white.

Not so. Some Caucasian peoples have been recognized as indigenous.


If it's not about race I expect we'll be seeing plenty of blond-haired, blue-eyed individuals who were born in the United States (and are therefore Native Americans) moving into the People's Republic of Lakota. No-one will even notice, nor comment upon them. Especially not the "Native Americans", "First Nations", "Aboriginals" et cetera

Well, actually in many native communities you will actually see blond haired blue eyed people who are considered community members because they were raised there, have married in, learned the language or whatever else it might take to gain acceptance in that particula community.

No, that's for political success.

I would have thought that being currently over-represented in a larger political entity was political success.

I think you were too busy "frothing at the mouth" to notice your grammar and your drivel. "Did you miss the part..." "Probably not." Bit of a non-sequitur methinks.

Which "governent-supported racism" was I justifying again?

Maybe the Lakota nation's motto could be "Diversity through exclusivity!"

Yeah! Right on!

When you actually know anything on the subject, such as tribal membership versus tribal status, or the constitutional and legal issues at play here, then perhaps you'll be worth talking to.

Until then you're just a knee-jerk reactionary with nothing useful to add to the conversation.

Coming from someone who likely bitched about Ruby Ridge and Waco, that jingoistic talk is even more hilarious isn't it?

It's justified when I say it is damnit! :P

I would have thought that being currently over-represented in a larger political entity was political success.
Yes, but that's not how to gain success, that's the end result ;)

I would have thought that being currently over-represented in a larger political entity was political success. Over-represented? Right, I'll just go lobby all of the Lakota members of Congress.

:rolleyes:
Get a grip.

I have a grip. Apparently the Lakota don't. "Crazy" horse is alive and well in spirit at least. When the ATF and FBI bust up the party I won't say I told you so. The US government doesn't like rogue elements within it's borders.

If they cant actualy force people in the midwest out of their homes there isnt much damage done I figure. I hope they dont expect much of a stir in this news.

*sigh*
So, so lost on you people.

Keep in mind, without ratification through the tribal courts, this 'declaration' by a small group of activists isn't even necessary 'legal' internally.

That point is not lost at all. I understand full well how US tribal governments work with the US government. These guys if they get enough fire water in them may just pull a stunt like Alcatraz and find themselves neck deep in Buffalo shit.

If they cant actualy force people in the midwest out of their homes there isnt much damage done I figure. I hope they dont expect much of a stir in this news.

I think that's precisely what Elgregia is worried about. It certainly explains the knee-jerk reaction.

I have a grip. Apparently the Lakota don't. "Crazy" horse is alive and well in spirit at least. When the ATF and FBI bust up the party I won't say I told you so. The US government doesn't like rogue elements within it's borders.

What you need to 'grip' is the barest understanding of what is actually going on here, instead of reacting to it on a paucity of information, and a complete lack of background in the area of aboriginal treaty history/law.

I've already explained, in brief what this is. And it is not what you think it is.

That point is not lost at all. I understand full well how US tribal governments work with the US government. These guys if they get enough fire water in them may just pull a stunt like Alcatraz and find themselves neck deep in Buffalo shit.

Be a little more racist, why don't you?

And come back when you have something of subtance to say.

When you actually know anything on the subject, such as tribal membership versus tribal status, or the constitutional and legal issues at play here, then perhaps you'll be worth talking to.

Until then you're just a knee-jerk reactionary with nothing useful to add to the conversation.

OMG! But you've been talking to me for ages now. Plus I've been listening to the reservation rubbish since the 70s.

Bit of an infantile argument you're putting forward. Goes on the lines of:

"I don't like what you're saying, you don't understand. You horrid man!"

Anyway have to head off, it's getting late this side of the Atlantic amongst us "whiteys" and "crackas" you mentioned earlier. Must make sure to put the bolt on the door so that the commissars don't kick the door in and extraordinarily rendite me in a couple of hours.

OMG! But you've been talking to me for ages now. Plus I've been listening to the reservation rubbish since the 70s.

Bit of an infantile argument you're putting forward. Goes on the lines of:

"I don't like what you're saying, you don't understand. You horrid man!"

Anyway have to head off, it's getting late this side of the Atlantic amongst us "whiteys" and "crackas" you mentioned earlier. Must make sure to put the bolt on the door so that the commissars don't kick the door in and extraordinarily rendite me in a couple of hours.

Actually, I was referring to your lack of knowledge in regards to (as mentioned) the constitutional and legal issues involved, as well as the history of aboriginal Treaties. You've done nothing to disabuse me of the assumption that you know absolutely nothing about this area.

But yes, thank you for removing your lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point or argument from the thread. Less clutter I say.

Be a little more racist, why don't you?

And come back when you have something of subtance to say.

Lol, honey I'm part native myself. So I guess that is self hate eh? Anyway I don't spare any group for a bit of humor.

Substance? The fact is that this rogue group is batshit insane. How's that for substance?

I think that's precisely what Elgregia is worried about. It certainly explains the knee-jerk reaction.

Just before I go. I'm not worried about being forced out. I wouldn't travel to the US in a fit. Bye.

Just before I go. I'm not worried about being forced out. I wouldn't travel to the US in a fit. Bye.

Well, that enlightened approach certainly explains your lack of anything resembling firsthand knowledge of these issues.

Well, that enlightened approach certainly explains your lack of anything resembling firsthand knowledge of these issues.

Yes...at least Marrakech can actually put forth a somewhat informed argument when he gets off his arse.

You seem to be a great fan of repetition.

Disabusing you of anything is immaterial. Find the focal point in your paragraph, videlicet, "assumption".

Still here?

Going to address aboriginal title? Or perhaps international implications? How about the legal arguments? No? The assumption could be easily rebutted, by I am confident that you lack the ability.

Take care.

Actually, I was referring to your lack of knowledge in regards to (as mentioned) the constitutional and legal issues involved, as well as the history of aboriginal Treaties. You've done nothing to disabuse me of the assumption that you know absolutely nothing about this area.

But yes, thank you for removing your lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point or argument from the thread. Less clutter I say.

You seem to be a great fan of repetition.

Disabusing you of anything is immaterial. Find the focal point in your paragraph, videlicet, "assumption".

Well, that enlightened approach certainly explains your lack of anything resembling firsthand knowledge of these issues.

While getting up on your supposed moral high-horse may bring you physically closer to the sun. It doesn't make you enlightened dear boy.

Still here?

Going to address aboriginal title? Or perhaps international implications? How about the legal arguments? No?

Take care.

Actually, I was referring to your lack of knowledge in regards to (as mentioned) the constitutional and legal issues involved, as well as the history of aboriginal Treaties. You've done nothing to disabuse me of the assumption that you know absolutely nothing about this area.

But yes, thank you for removing your lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point or argument from the thread. Less clutter I say.

You seem to be a great fan of repetition.

Disabusing you of anything is immaterial. Find the focal point in your paragraph, videlicet, "assumption".

Actually, I was referring to your lack of knowledge in regards to (as mentioned) the constitutional and legal issues involved, as well as the history of aboriginal Treaties. You've done nothing to disabuse me of the assumption that you know absolutely nothing about this area.

But yes, thank you for removing your lack of anything remotely resembling a valid point or argument from the thread. Less clutter I say.

You seem to be a great fan of repetition.

Disabusing you of anything is immaterial. Find the focal point in your paragraph, videlicet, "assumption".

Lol, honey I'm part native myself. Bah who isn't these days. Also, call me honey again and I'll cut you :P

So I guess that is self hate eh? Anyway I don't spare any group for a bit of humor.

Substance? The fact is that this rogue group is batshit insane. How's that for substance?
Russell Means is not the Lakota Nation. Nor does his group represent the Lakota Nation in any official capacity.

I do find their tactics interesting, and I'm referring not to the declaration, but to the intention to file liens on all real estate transactions within their tribal lands. It would certainly cause delays and up transactional costs, and most likely put a halt to any real estate transactions at all until the matter is resolved.

Sometimes nations have used litigation to force the government into negotiations. It appears this group is attempting to inconvenience the government into negotiations.

You seem to be a great fan of repetition.

Disabusing you of anything is immaterial. Find the focal point in your paragraph, videlicet, "assumption".

Uh...huh.

When this little post repition of yours is all you have to add...you wish to be taken seriously why?

Sorry. We don't hold your hand around here and coddle you until you learn to actually debate. Shucks junior.

Bah who isn't these days. Also, call me honey again and I'll cut you :P

*raises hand*

I'm a completely different sort of reddish-brown person.

*raises hand*

I'm a completely different sort of reddish-brown person.

Yes yes, dot not feather :)

Yes yes, dot not feather :)

Precisely.

Bah who isn't these days. Also, call me honey again and I'll cut you :P

.

You know you remind me of this crazy girlfriend I had when I was in the military. Come to think of it she was probably native too. :D

Man, analzye this, do you think that they regard treaties with foreign governments or internal powers then they are wrong as the orginal purpouse of it was to serve to empower the Consititution of the United States so as to help make it clear that the central government of the United States was the governing power of the naiton. Furthermore, people should consider the older meaning of treaty which was a negtaition to come to an agreement about issues.

Man, analzye this, do you think that they regard treaties with foreign governments or internal powers then they are wrong as the orginal purpouse of it was to serve to empower the Consititution of the United States so as to help make it clear that the central government of the United States was the governing power of the naiton. Furthermore, people should consider the older meaning of treaty which was a negtaition to come to an agreement about issues.

Huh?

Huh?

You can say that again.
Literally, I mean it, feel free.

Huh?

Hi sexy.

But what if the Canadians send a couple of armored divisions straight down US 281 from the border, then branch out along I-94, east and west? They could be in Bismarck in no time!

3 pickup trucks with semi-automatic rifles attached to them (AKA technicals) does not a couple of armored divisions make. :D

The magical scrap of paper is part of the legality of this move. Old claims to old lands are irrelevant compared to whether or not we can consider international law to wield any true authority. Honestly, I don't care either way, but I hope it is addressed as a court matter because of the implications such an action would carry with it.

I was referring to the Constitution, actually, not the treaty. Treaties should be followed.

I'm sorry the US government is not the same US government of the 20th, 19th, 18th or 17th centuries

Now it's a militarized police state with an all-powerful executive and an infinite number of parasitic bureaucracies. And it STILL keeps many regions, including the Indian nations, under occupation established by its conquest years ago.

Oh, to hell with you, Corny. I've decided my position, and I am firmly in FAVOR of the Lakota secession. They have every right to be free if they so choose.

Correct choice, if I may say so.

Hi sexy.

You should hang out with me in the other place:)

3 pickup trucks with semi-automatic rifles attached to them (AKA technicals) does not a couple of armored divisions make. :D

Oh, come on. You know just as well as I do that if the Canadians had to, they'd bring to bear a very powerful and sensibly sized military, and they'd fight just as well as those from the United States. The only reason they don't do that is that they rely on us for defense, saving them billions of dollars a year.

Plus who wants to invade Canada anyway? So why would we waste untold billions maintaining a standing army? Thats probably why the US goes to war every few years.. justification for military allocation.

I know. Overly simplified, but the dig was there. Had to take it.

That Lakota arthritis company is headquartered not far from me, in a small mountain town called Dawson Creek. Its a Canadian company, methinks. The US branch came after.

Neesika, I am not surprised that the Lakota were mad about a Metis/Cree doing that. I imagine there was a law-Sioux-t over that...

Nor is the Lakota nation entirely one side with this. Various Lakota activists have spear-headed this declaration, and whether it is even legitimate internally is up for question.

Keep in mind, without ratification through the tribal courts, this 'declaration' by a small group of activists isn't even necessary 'legal' internally.

Russell Means is not the Lakota Nation. Nor does his group represent the Lakota Nation in any official capacity.

Took me about 10 minutes on Google to learn all that myself.

I'm not seeing anything on any websites from any Lakota tribal government either, just Means' activist group website.

It really sounds like this is being blown way out of proportion by the media. Not to say that Means doesn't have a valid argument, or that the US Federal Government won't work to alleviate the issues...

...but secession? Such is wild speculation, given the facts at hand.

The only reason they don't do that is that they rely on us for defense, saving them billions of dollars a year. Except when you guys are relying on us. Which you certainly are doing in Afghanistan. And did for a good chunk of World War I and II.

I hope the United States crushes this little nation and I hope it ruins things for every other tribe.

Man, analzye this, do you think that they regard treaties with foreign governments or internal powers then they are wrong as the orginal purpouse of it was to serve to empower the Consititution of the United States so as to help make it clear that the central government of the United States was the governing power of the naiton. Furthermore, people should consider the older meaning of treaty which was a negtaition to come to an agreement about issues.

I think he is suggesting that these treaties were not with foreign governments but with internal powers, that their purpose was to make clear the central government of the US was the governing power, and that they are not treaties within the modern meaning in international law. I think.

Of course, that totally fails to explain how the US Central Government acquired sovereignty over someone else lands other than by treaty.

In principle I support the independence of any 'nation' but I don't think this will amount to anything more than demanding concessions from the govt.

'Separatism' is a nice little racket by elites where I come from.

*sigh*
So, so lost on you people.

Keep in mind, without ratification through the tribal courts, this 'declaration' by a small group of activists isn't even necessary 'legal' internally.

Indeed.

Good, hopefully this will start a trend.

Took me about 10 minutes on Google to learn all that myself.

I'm not seeing anything on any websites from any Lakota tribal government either, just Means' activist group website.

It really sounds like this is being blown way out of proportion by the media. Not to say that Means doesn't have a valid argument, or that the US Federal Government won't work to alleviate the issues...

...but secession? Such is wild speculation, given the facts at hand.

What he said.

Too much wild speculation, wait until some kind of an official statement is released.

Except when you guys are relying on us. Which you certainly are doing in Afghanistan. And did for a good chunk of World War I and II.

Well, the Afghanistan bit isn't exactly defensive, but we certainly did rely on you throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and I for one am very, very grateful.

(If it were up to me we'd have a lot more troops in Afghanistan so you didn't have to have any if you didn't want them there. We should clean up our own messes, damn it.)

Sounds like a good reason to send the Guard in to bust some heads for training. Indians are still acting up.

FYI, this was an Indian Jesse Jackson and not an actual tribal leader. This is like Fred Phelps announcing that his county in Kansas was seceding. It's bs.

No it's not legal. Even if the citizens could secede--which they can't--they are taking pieces of many states with them, which is essentially a gigantic case of stealing.except that it's not. some of these people had grandparents who were slaughtered at wounded knee. the men who did the butchering got medals of honor. they aren't "Stealing" anything that wasn't theirs in the first place - and it was only legally part of the US through treaties which the US repeatedly violated. the Lakota have every right to do this - I already wrote my senators and congressman demanding they be recognized.

and as for the people claiming this is an uppity activist...this has been in the works since 1974 and the activists (there are several, with titles given them by the tribal government...designated expert speakers, I forgot the Souix word for it) are speaking for an organization that actually represents 97 separate tribes in both north and south america. I'm pretty sure not even the most insane activist would lie through their teeth about this.

Sounds like a good reason to send the Guard in to bust some heads for training. Indians are still acting up.

FYI, this was an Indian Jesse Jackson and not an actual tribal leader. This is like Fred Phelps announcing that his county in Kansas was seceding. It's bs.A patriotic american who's first solution is to go in and kill them.:mp5: Nice.

Oscar Wilde, "patriotism is a virtue of the vicious"

So I guess all the allied veterans of the world wars are vicious fools who should have just stayed home and be intellectual about war.

But I love how the defenders of xenophobic groups like this are always the first to start spouting idiotic quotes about patriotism.

So I guess all the allied veterans of the world wars are vicious fools who should have just stayed home and be intellectual about war.

But I love how the defenders of xenophobic groups like this are always the first to start spouting idiotic quotes about patriotism.

I like patriotism, but not the brand you're currently using.

This story gave me my laugh for the day :D

I've got news for the Lakota Freedom movement, all other like-minded Indians, and all white members of the Wannabe tribe: the White Man won. The Red Man lost. Treaties or no treaties, you are conquered peoples. You aren't ever getting the land back. Crazy Horse will reincarnate into that mountain top they're carving in his likeness before you get anywhere. You have no chance of succeeding/seceding. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. :headbang:

And considering what happened to other conquered nations throughout history, like the Avars, Gepids, Etruscans, Meroites, Phrygians, etc., you ought to thank the Great Spirit that the White Man didn't do the same thing to you and that there are any of you left today to do things like running web sites or taking billions of dollars from the White Man by operating casinos, which is your best revenge.

Deal with it and move on.

except that it's not. some of these people had grandparents who were slaughtered at wounded knee. the men who did the butchering got medals of honor. they aren't "Stealing" anything that wasn't theirs in the first place - and it was only legally part of the US through treaties which the US repeatedly violated. the Lakota have every right to do this - I already wrote my senators and congressman demanding they be recognized.

and as for the people claiming this is an uppity activist...this has been in the works since 1974 and the activists (there are several, with titles given them by the tribal government...designated expert speakers, I forgot the Souix word for it) are speaking for an organization that actually represents 97 separate tribes in both north and south america. I'm pretty sure not even the most insane activist would lie through their teeth about this.
I know. I altered my position since that post.

New Mitanni: I've got two words for you: FUCK. YOU.

I am absolutely sick of your constant racist, homophobic, sexist bigotry(and every other piece of bigotry you've got too.) You need a good hard lesson in tolerance, Mitanni, you stupid fuckwad.

Yes, that's right. I called you a fuckwad. Deal with it. You seem to be happy to tell others to do the same.

This is damn straight. More power to them for sticking it to the feds. Even if this is just a few activists, the feds still need to see that, well they suck. At everything. Lets see, who'll secede next, California will be come its own country, with the strictest environmental regulations in the world, South Carolina will lead the south once again, I'm raising the Confederate flag now, Alaska will be ruled by the Intuits! Yea!

So all the Australians, Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders and etc... were the vicious patriotic fools since the war wasn't at their doorstep?

So I guess all the allied veterans of the world wars are vicious fools who should have just stayed home and be intellectual about war.
For the French and British, it was more "erk, the Germans might stab us if we don't beat them", not patriotism that won the day.

This story gave me my laugh for the day :D

I've got news for the Lakota Freedom movement, all other like-minded Indians, and all white members of the Wannabe tribe: the White Man won. The Red Man lost. Treaties or no treaties, you are conquered peoples. You aren't ever getting the land back. Crazy Horse will reincarnate into that mountain top they're carving in his likeness before you get anywhere. You have no chance of succeeding/seceding. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. :headbang:

And considering what happened to other conquered nations throughout history, like the Avars, Gepids, Etruscans, Meroites, Phrygians, etc., you ought to thank the Great Spirit that the White Man didn't do the same thing to you and that there are any of you left today to do things like running web sites or taking billions of dollars from the White Man by operating casinos, which is your best revenge.

Deal with it and move on.

Well that's bound to convince the Native Americans to move away.:rolleyes:
What exactly did the white man win? that sheer murderous nature is always the best way to take a new territory? To rip resources from the ground when they feel like it, and pump it into the sky but start complaining when horrific weather formations decimate huge areas of land?
Just accept it and move on? what like the US did with the Two towers attack? just accept that another nation has tried to attack you, but that's cool, just deal with it and move on? No of course you're going to be upset and want revenge.

So all the Australians, Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders and etc... were the vicious patriotic fools since the war wasn't at their doorstep?
No, the ANZACs and Canucks were roped in by the good old empahr, and the Yanks got involved to save their wealthier customers after it became financially sound to do so.

This story gave me my laugh for the day :D

I've got news for the Lakota Freedom movement, all other like-minded Indians, and all white members of the Wannabe tribe: the White Man won. The Red Man lost. Treaties or no treaties, you are conquered peoples. You aren't ever getting the land back. Crazy Horse will reincarnate into that mountain top they're carving in his likeness before you get anywhere. You have no chance of succeeding/seceding. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. :headbang:

And considering what happened to other conquered nations throughout history, like the Avars, Gepids, Etruscans, Meroites, Phrygians, etc., you ought to thank the Great Spirit that the White Man didn't do the same thing to you and that there are any of you left today to do things like running web sites or taking billions of dollars from the White Man by operating casinos, which is your best revenge.

Deal with it and move on.

is it your contention that once you lose, you ought surrender forever? does this apply to baseball as well?

also, i like the fact that you offer up the lack of complete and total genocide as something to be grateful for. mighty white of you.

Click Stand;13309141']Go Confederate states of Lakota!!! Oh, maybe Robert E. Lee will make an appearance.
Robert E. Lee is the greatest general ever to fight on the American continent. Unfortunately his worst mistake cost the South a shot at winning the war.

Robert E. Lee is the greatest general ever to fight on the American continent. Unfortunately his worst mistake cost the South a shot at winning the war.

I think you mean fortunately, not unfortunately. Robert E. Lee's greatest mistake was being foolish enough to fight for the Confederacy.

Hell, that whole conflict shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have had it not been for this ridiculous idea of "state's rights" that ought to have been eliminated entirely after the Civil War. I really wish it had.

Robert E. Lee is the greatest general ever to fight on the American continent. Unfortunately his worst mistake cost the South a shot at winning the war.
On the other hand, he whipped slaves to death for his own sexual gratification, which is somewhat iffy.

On the other hand, he whipped slaves to death for his own sexual gratification, which is somewhat iffy.

I love the English talent for understatement.

I didn't know that, though. Eeesh.

Hell, that whole conflict shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have had it not been for this ridiculous idea of "state's rights" that ought to have been eliminated entirely after the Civil War. I really wish it had.Not eliminated, but certainly afforded less hype than it gets today.

On the other hand, he whipped slaves to death for his own sexual gratification, which is somewhat iffy.

I've never heard that before. Proof?

I think you mean fortunately, not unfortunately. Robert E. Lee's greatest mistake was being foolish enough to fight for the Confederacy.

Hell, that whole conflict shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have had it not been for this ridiculous idea of "state's rights" that ought to have been eliminated entirely after the Civil War. I really wish it had.

I believe you have something up your ass, oh wait, you will in sec...take this post and shove it.

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.

You mean after the South launched a war of aggression against the United States by launching a preemptive attack against Fort Sumter? They were the ones responsible for starting the war, and they brought it upon themselves; quite frankly, it was the War of Southern Aggression.

I believe you have something up your ass, oh wait, you will in sec...take this post and shove it. That's some 1337 debating there, Trollgaard.

About the Lakota:

I don't know how exactly their nation would work...seems like it would create more problems than it would fix. Also, Native Americans already have a lot of breaks with the government. They go screwed over in the past, and that should never be forgotten, but they have their own schools, own laws, etc.

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.

agreed, on the condition that the former slaves wanted to do so, once they had driven off or killed all the white fucktards responsible for slavery and expropriated fucking everything down there.

You mean after the South launched a war of aggression against the United States by launching a preemptive attack against Fort Sumter? They were the ones responsible for starting the war, and they brought it upon themselves; quite frankly, it was the War of Southern Aggression.

Maybe. But I don't give a damn.

That's some 1337 debating there, Trollgaard.

:D

agreed, on the condition that the former slaves wanted to do so, once they had driven off or killed all the white fucktards responsible for slavery and expropriated fucking everything down there.

So you want to incite a race war? I do believe the White's would have won-they were better armed. Would you have really wanted all the blacks in the south to have been killed? You sound kinda-bloodthirsty.

Maybe. But I don't give a damn.

So you would support armed treason and sedition?

Yeah cuz we're so totally getting attacked all the time.

You might get pushed around by the Russians if the US didn't protect you...

Oh, come on. You know just as well as I do that if the Canadians had to, they'd bring to bear a very powerful and sensibly sized military, and they'd fight just as well as those from the United States. The only reason they don't do that is that they rely on us for defense, saving them billions of dollars a year.

Yeah cuz we're so totally getting attacked all the time.

So you want to incite a race war?

no. those are merely the conditions upon which 'letting the south go' back then would be morally defensible. as it stands, the south got off easy - far too fucking easy.

So you would support armed treason and sedition?

Now? No. At the time the question was up in the air. There was no legal reason why they could not secede (they being the South). The question was decided with the war, however. Any group wishing to secede better be able to resist the US army, or have some damned good negotiators!

Yeah cuz we're so totally getting attacked all the time.

The question is whether you would be if the US weren't there. If I were China or Russia, or any major country for that matter, and I saw a country barely a fraction of my size sitting on huge amounts of natural resources very useful to my development, I wouldn't hesitate to invade and take them.

So you would support armed treason and sedition?

nothing wrong with armed treason and sedition per se. hell, they are frequently the absolute right thing to do, and not doing so is a massive moral failure. the cause is what matters in determining when it is just.

This story gave me my laugh for the day :D

I've got news for the Lakota Freedom movement, all other like-minded Indians, and all white members of the Wannabe tribe: the White Man won. The Red Man lost. Treaties or no treaties, you are conquered peoples. You aren't ever getting the land back. Crazy Horse will reincarnate into that mountain top they're carving in his likeness before you get anywhere. You have no chance of succeeding/seceding. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. :headbang:

And considering what happened to other conquered nations throughout history, like the Avars, Gepids, Etruscans, Meroites, Phrygians, etc., you ought to thank the Great Spirit that the White Man didn't do the same thing to you and that there are any of you left today to do things like running web sites or taking billions of dollars from the White Man by operating casinos, which is your best revenge.

Deal with it and move on.Grow up.

Grow up.Remove not his raison d'être. ;)

The question is whether you would be if the US weren't there. If I were China or Russia, or any major country for that matter, and I saw a country barely a fraction of my size sitting on huge amounts of natural resources very useful to my development, I wouldn't hesitate to invade and take them.

Sure.

Whatever justifies your existence.

nothing wrong with armed treason and sedition per se. hell, they are frequently the absolute right thing to do, and not doing so is a massive moral failure. the cause is what matters in determining when it is just.

I would say fighting to preserve an archaic social structure that dehumanized millions of people through the crime of slavery, kept equally as many in poverty and ignorance due to the economic inequity forced upon them by the plantation system, and then greatly restricted human and political rights even to those who were not enslaved due to the influence of the wealthy plantation owners, is pretty damn unjust.

I mean, the Netherlands fighting for independence from Spain or the Saracens defending their territories from the Crusaders...those are pretty justified. But I have a hard time believing treason and sedition against a democratic government is justified, especially when it involves preserving an absolutely terrible system.

Sure.

Whatever justifies your existence.

WTF? How does that justify anything? He's brainstorming what might happen if the US wasn't there to protect your frosty Canadian asses. In all likelyhood Canada would be pushed around by Russia or China.

WTF? How does that justify anything? He's brainstorming what might happen if the US wasn't there to protect your frosty Canadian asses. In all likelyhood Canada would be pushed around by Russia or China.

Like I said.

Whatever hypothetical, far fetched fantasies that would justify your existence. I mean, when there is nothing you can point to that actually says 'we are needed', it's good to imagine.

Like I said.

Whatever hypothetical, far fetched fantasies that would justify your existence. I mean, when there is nothing you can point to that actually says 'we are needed', it's good to imagine.

Justify our existence? Why?

Why does Canada exist? Why does Mongolia exist? Why does grass exist?

Why do YOU exist?

No need to justify, they just exist.

And yet they fired on Fort Sumter. That's an act of war. Good day.He doesn't care.

Isn't Canada the leading tank manufacturer and exporter in the world, actually? Or, at least, one of the biggies. That seems to imply that they'd be at least somewhat able to defend themselves. Anyway, this talk of America being the big protector is somewhat asinine and has little to do with the whole Lakota thing.

I believe you have something up your ass, oh wait, you will in sec...take this post and shove it.

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.

And yet they fired on Fort Sumter. That's an act of war. Good day.

Justify our existence? Why?

Why does Canada exist? Why does Mongolia exist? Why does grass exist?

Why do YOU exist?

No need to justify, they just exist.

Wow, you're really slow.

Oh, come on. You know just as well as I do that if the Canadians had to, they'd bring to bear a very powerful and sensibly sized military, and they'd fight just as well as those from the United States. The only reason they don't do that is that they rely on us for defense, saving them billions of dollars a year.

Perhaps you missed the :D .

That means I was poking a bit of fun at our northern neighbors. :D

I would say fighting to preserve an archaic social structure that dehumanized millions of people through the crime of slavery, kept equally as many in poverty and ignorance due to the economic inequity forced upon them by the plantation system, and then greatly restricted human and political rights even to those who were not enslaved due to the influence of the wealthy plantation owners, is pretty damn unjust.

well, obviously. hence my conditions on when it would be appropriate to 'just let the south go'

But I have a hard time believing treason and sedition against a democratic government is justified

ever? even if people democratically decide that they just don't want to associate with the larger democratic society anymore and the larger one refuses to let them go?

True.What part, the first or the second? Because the first part makes me wonder why they use German tanks...

Isn't Canada the leading tank manufacturer and exporter in the world, actually? Or, at least, one of the biggies. That seems to imply that they'd be at least somewhat able to defend themselves. Anyway, this talk of America being the big protector is somewhat asinine and has little to do with the whole Lakota thing.

True.

He doesn't care.

As Abe Lincoln once said: If I can save this country and not free a single slave, I would do so, If I can save the union and free the slaves, I would do that to." or something to that effect.

except that it's not. some of these people had grandparents who were slaughtered at wounded knee. the men who did the butchering got medals of honor. they aren't "Stealing" anything that wasn't theirs in the first place

Might makes right, they lost we won.

Might makes right, they lost we won."We"? I thought you're Italian.

But I have a hard time believing treason and sedition against a democratic government is justified

What about treason and sedition against a democratic government as an act of loyalty to a different democratic government?

What about treason and sedition against a democratic government as an act of loyalty to a different democratic government?Not to be nitpicky, but the US was more democratic than the CS, if only because the CS didn't allow a larger percentile of it's population to vote.

Not to be nitpicky, but the US was more democratic than the CS, if only because the CS didn't allow a larger percentile of it's population to vote.

I would cut off an arm before defending the Confederacy. My question has nothing to do with the war to defend the most undemocratic institution imaginable.

I would cut off an arm before defending the Confederacy. My question has nothing to do with the war to defend the most undemocratic institution imaginable.Well, I guess I forgot to add the "Go for the most democratic one" bit...

Well, I guess I forgot to add the "Go for the most democratic one" bit...

Well, it seems natural to assume that, in the case of secession, all else being equal the seceding government is more democratic, because the central power is restricting the self-determination of the people of seceding region.

What about treason in wartime? Can I betray one democratic government to help another? What about espionage? Can I spy on one democratic government for another? Does it matter which one I happen to be a citizen of?

Edit: What does "democratic" mean? If the majority votes to kill off a minority, do we count that as "democratic", and prohibit armed revolution to defend the oppressed group?

Yeah cuz we're so totally getting attacked all the time.

I was complimenting your country, you know.

And just because you rely on us for defense doesn't mean you're being attacked all the time. It simply means that our military serves as Canada's protector IN CASE OF war, and in the meantime you guys don't have to worry about spending much on a military of your own, and what military you do have works directly with us to coordinate defense of North America, again IN CASE OF war.

Might makes right, they lost we won.

Hah, I'm pretty sure Socrates kicked that horse to the ground a couple millennium ago but, you know, that's cool.

Gee, I wonder what will happen to their casinos? After all, it was the US government that enabled them to exist in the first place...get rid of those and they're broke.

Um. No. You don't appear to understand the concept of tribal sovereignty or know much about the recent history of Indian law. It is because Indians live on sovereign reservations with seperate nations that they aren't stopped by state law from having casinos. Federal law merely limited and channeled this existing right.

But the BBC is.

As much as I would like to believe the Lakota Freedom website, I just want to make sure it really is happening.

Because if it is, this is a very serious situation. The last time this happened we had a full out civil war...

Click Stand;13309141']Go Confederate states of Lakota!!! Oh, maybe Robert E. Lee will make an appearance.

Meh. This is very different than the Confederacy for a long, long, long list of reasons. The first being that the tribes are already separate nations. The second being the point of this movement is not to preserve or expand slavery.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA

From the AFP. To bad it has no legal authority for they are attached to five different states.

Again, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. The tribes are sovereign within the bounds of the reservation.

Yeah, a few hundred years ago. If they want that land, they need to repay the US for all expenditures made by the government on their people and their land since that treaty was signed, and they need to allow us to dismantle all infrastructure built by the government within their territory. They can keep that crappy, deserted wasteland if they want, but they'd better be ready to pay for everything the government has invested in their territory. And they'd better be ready to build up their new infrastructure from scratch, because there's no way in hell I'd allow them to keep it.

Not that the "trade" you suggest is a fair one, but do you really think the amount that the U.S. has spent in Indian Country outweighs the value of all the land ceded to the U.S. by treaties? I don't think the U.S. would come out ahead of even as slanted a deal as you suggest.

No... Simply no.... We didn't honor the existing treaties... Therefore we loose all rights to material expenditures on that land... Your argument is as retarded as stealing someones car, installing a $4,000.00 sound system in it; and then think you have some right to this "addition" after the owner gets it back...

Exactly.

I'm currently wondering what they're seal and flag will look like...

Its fox news, but I think it is trust worthy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html



Kick ass! About time Native Americans stick it to the man! I hope all the other Indian Nations do the same thing. :D

Indeed. 'Tis awesome. Now, if Turkey could just pass a resolution condemning the Amerindian genocide.

I would cut off an arm before defending the Confederacy. My question has nothing to do with the war to defend the most undemocratic institution imaginable.

CSA =/= DPRK

Really. People, learn that. Know it. Abide by it when criticizing my country.

DPRK =~= “most undemocratic institution imaginable”

CSA = slaves. Not a fan of slavery, but the north was more wrong with what they did more than the CSA was wrong to have slaves. And if I recall correctly, at that point the USA was rather exclusive about voting rights as well. (ie: had to own land to vote, or something to that extent.)

But I digress:

On the notion of the Lakota Secession, good for them. If the government does not please the people, it should be over thrown, or in this case let them make a new one.

As Abe Lincoln once said: If I can save this country and not free a single slave, I would do so, If I can save the union and free the slaves, I would do that to." or something to that effect.

While, of course, he demanded his tarriff money for his corporatist friends. Nice to see that the Great Butcher, despite all of his talk about rights and the sanctity of magical scraps of paper, was simply out to benefit the political benefactors (white labor and farmers, bankers, public works contractors, business, etc.) he was in bed with.

I believe you have something up your ass, oh wait, you will in sec...take this post and shove it.

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.

Agreed on both counts.

-snip-

I think you should live up to your words; next time someone commits a crime against you but doesn't kill you, you should thank them for not doing their worst and 'deal with it.'