NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Figure they will use their tribal flag. The results of my search are some what ambigous between Lakota and Sioux, but I think it looks something like this (http://www.theodora.com/flags/new14/oglala_lakota_oyate_sioux_flag.gif). As for a seal, IDK.

"We"? I thought you're Italian.

Only by blood.

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

Your damned right the conflict shouldn't have happened- the north should have let the South go.
Nyet. I might agree with you had the United States been somewhat more oppressive in its governmental style and the Confederacy was actually about gaining freedom for its people and being more democratic, but in fact it was the opposite. The Confederacy did not want to stop slavery and it seceded to protect that vile institution. I do not understand why you or Venndee would support it given how you both claim to be variations upon libertarians, which presumably would care about the rights of the blacks who were enslaved.

Frankly, I would not want a world where the Confederacy exists. If Harry Turtledove's CSA sets of novels are anything to assume anything from(and given how much the man understands history and how well he researched it, I don't see why it's not a plausible scenario) it would be very horrible indeed.

Will be interesting to see if anything comes or the government just ignores it.

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

They already have a flag although I'm not sure if this is for all the Sioux/Lakota bands or just the Oglala Sioux.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Pine_Ridge_Flag.svg/576px-Pine_Ridge_Flag.svg.png

Nyet. I might agree with you had the United States been somewhat more oppressive in its governmental style and the Confederacy was actually about gaining freedom for its people and being more democratic, but in fact it was the opposite. The Confederacy did not want to stop slavery and it seceded to protect that vile institution. I do not understand why you or Venndee would support it given how you both claim to be variations upon libertarians, which presumably would care about the rights of the blacks who were enslaved.

The only real contention between the North and South concerning slavery was that the South wanted to expand slavery to the territories, whereas the North wanted to reserve it for white settlers and ship out the blacks to Liberia and make it unbearable for blacks to stay through 'black codes' that restricted their rights (such as the kind that Lincoln voted for in the Illinois legislature.) Slavery in the South was almost a non-issue; Lincoln showed this by pushing for the Corwin amendment, which would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution. They especially didn't want to free the slaves in the South, because white laborers feared that the blacks would flood the industrial North and 'steal' their jobs or lower their wages. Anti-slavery had been fairly strong in the South pre-1830, until anti-slavery in the North became associated with dominating society through temperance laws and big government. With slavery being a highly inefficient system, the removal of a polarizing enemy, and the fact that slavery was ended peacefully in all of the Western hemisphere except for Haiti, it is most likely slavery would have simply died out.

And as for oppressive government styles, Northern governance was based upon taxation of competition, favors and privileges to big business and creditors, and the extermination of Indians for the benefit of whites. Also, Lincoln trampled habeas corpus, suppressed freedom of speech and rigged elections to support his regime. So much for his purported liberalism.

I oppose slavery as a monstrous institution that infringes upon basic human dignity and the idea of justice and peace, but the North could have ended it without relying upon the scourge of war that brings nothing but suffering. The North, at the Hampton Roads Conference, could have ended the war by giving Southern independence in exchange for a promise to end slavery voluntarily, and this would have been the best outcome possible with freedom of association affirmed twice over. But there was simply no incentive for Lincoln the master politician to do so; he wanted to benefit his cronies, and with a low-tariff South competing with the mercantilist North it would have been a political catastrophe. His path was not one of liberty but of death at the hands of an all-powerful Leviathan.

I don't see why it's not a plausible scenario

Because he consciously wrote it so that events had parallels in real history?

They already have a flag although I'm not sure if this is for all the Sioux/Lakota bands or just the Oglala Sioux.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Pine_Ridge_Flag.svg/576px-Pine_Ridge_Flag.svg.pngOh, I've been doing research on this for an alternate earth. That's only the Oglala.

Oh, I've been doing research on this for an alternate earth. That's only the Oglala.

I thought it might. I know the Ojibwe tribe where I live has a different flag than an Ojibwe tribe I used to live near up north. I didn't know if the Lakota were any more unified than the Ojibwe.

I thought it might. I know the Ojibwe tribe where I live has a different flag than an Ojibwe tribe I used to live near up north. I didn't know if the Lakota were any more unified than the Ojibwe.Plenty of tribes don't have flags at all (Shoshone, par exemple) and a almost all flags date from after the US herded them in reservations. I kind of want to have flags for all the nations and/or territories on that world, which gets complicated with "The Great Sioux Nation" or "Nubia"... =S

how did this get to flags? I missed something..........

how did this get to flags? I missed something..........

At least that makes more sense than the hijack by the apologists for the Confederacy.

snip

snip

Feel free to create your own thread about how the Confederacy wasn't really all about slavery. But be prepared to be thoroughly rebutted and ridiculed.

-snip-

It is logical that, in a topic concerning secession, the matter of the CSA would arise, seeing as how it is a particularly well-known instance of its exercise. If you don't like what I have to say, fine, but don't hide behind accusations of 'hijacking' to push your opinion.

It is logical that, in a topic concerning secession, the matter of the CSA would arise, seeing as how it is a particularly well-known instance of its exercise. If you don't like what I have to say, fine, but don't hide behind accusations of 'hijacking' to push your opinion.No, he's pointing out that a thread on the Lakota "secceeding" isn't the right place to discuss the merits of the confederacy.

Because he consciously wrote it so that events had parallels in real history?

They did, yes, but who's to say they WOULDN'T have anyway? My point is that I know a hell of a lot less about history than Mr. Turtledove, and so I therefore give him his due.

Besides, not all of the events had true parallels, unless I know even less than I thought I knew.

Venndee: I said nothing about defending Lincoln or the policies of his government. I merely stated that the Confederacy was even less democratic, regardless of the reasons the situation came about, and as such you should not be a supporter of it.

It is logical that, in a topic concerning secession, the matter of the CSA would arise, seeing as how it is a particularly well-known instance of its exercise. If you don't like what I have to say, fine, but don't hide behind accusations of 'hijacking' to push your opinion.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm saying a debate over the merits of the Confederacy is not appropriate in this thread.

Even to the extent you want to compare the two, the situations are not parallel here. The Confederacy involved a secession of states that were part of the Union. Here we have a sovereign nation declaring its independence. So it really isn't apposite.

As I've done before, I'll be glad to debate the Confederacy in another thread, like I did here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13236319&postcount=75).

Venndee: I said nothing about defending Lincoln or the policies of his government. I merely stated that the Confederacy was even less democratic, regardless of the reasons the situation came about, and as such you should not be a supporter of it.

I couldn't care less about democracy; I only care about liberty. And to deny anyone the right of secession, i.e. the right of association and disassociation, is an attack on liberty regardless of who does it. This is not to say that the slaves should not have been freed (they should have, but the North basically failed to do so, first by not resolving slavery peacefully as most every other nation in the Western hemisphere had done, second by refusing to end the war early at Hampton Roads by giving political independence to the CSA in exchange for justice for the slaves, and third by refusing to redistribute the land to the slaves who had toiled on it but rather leaving them to become sharecropper slaves), but that forcing anyone to stay in a political union against their consent is morally wrong.

No, he's pointing out that a thread on the Lakota "secceeding" isn't the right place to discuss the merits of the confederacy.

I am discussing the CSA because it relates to the concept of secession, and in fact secession from the very same government. It shows how deceitful the Feds have been concerning the right of association of those under its dominion, and thus strengthens the arguments of the Lakota Indians.

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.

Please tell me you're being facetious.

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.

Having entire cities destroyed and losing hundreds of thousands of people is getting off "far too fucking easy?"

Having entire cities destroyed and losing hundreds of thousands of people is getting off "far too fucking easy?"

yes.

yes.

Man, fuck you.

If losing entire cities and hundreds of thousands of people is 'too easy', what would you have suggested?

Man, fuck you.

If losing entire cities and hundreds of thousands of people is 'too easy', what would you have suggested?
We could have oppressed their people, made them pay for the war, taken away all their rights, ect...but no, we brought them back into the union as equals and helped rebuild their economy. We left them with thousands dead and many lost cities, but we could have made things far worse on those people.

Will be interesting to see if anything comes or the government just ignores it.

You do realize that this is not even official?

It is logical that, in a topic concerning secession, the matter of the CSA would arise, seeing as how it is a particularly well-known instance of its exercise. If you don't like what I have to say, fine, but don't hide behind accusations of 'hijacking' to push your opinion.

Venndee does have a valid point here. Except that he missed 2 parts. 1) The Confederacy started the Civil War and 2) the people doing this are not part of the government.

We could have oppressed their people, made them pay for the war, taken away all their rights, ect...but no, we brought them back into the union as equals and helped rebuild their economy. We left them with thousands dead and many lost cities, but we could have made things far worse on those people.

And what would be the point in making it far worse than it already was? They lost the war, they lost slavery, they lost infrastructure, they lost everything. Seems to me they already had it worse.

The SCO and its two leaders, Russia and China, should send weapons to the Lakota to help them secure their independence.
America likes to carve up other countries, this good opportunity to carve up America.

Maybe even send Soviet forces to back the Lakota against American aggression on Lakota territory.

we brought them back into the union as equals and helped rebuild their economy.

Unfortunately, we didn't improve their education system.

Unfortunately, we didn't improve their education system.

Back then, there was no Department of Education.

Man, fuck you.

If losing entire cities and hundreds of thousands of people is 'too easy', what would you have suggested?

following a more radical plan for reconstruction than that of the radical republicans. giving the former slaves all of the property owned by their former masters and anyone who volunteered to fight to uphold and expand slavery. occupying the fucking place again anytime the kkk reared its fascist head. generally not allowing the fucktards to get away with any sort of fucking oppression ever again, instead of letting them effectively reinstitute slavery-lite for the next 100 years.

following a more radical plan for reconstruction than that of the radical republicans. giving the former slaves all of the property owned by their former masters and anyone who volunteered to fight to uphold and expand slavery. occupying the fucking place again anytime the kkk reared its fascist head. generally not allowing the fucktards to get away with any sort of fucking oppression ever again, instead of letting them effectively reinstitute slavery-lite for the next 100 years.

And have a guerrilla war for the next 20+ years? Real smart, fucking asshole.

The SCO and its two leaders, Russia and China, should send weapons to the Lakota to help them secure their independence.
America likes to carve up other countries, this good opportunity to carve up America.

Maybe even send Soviet forces to back the Lakota against American aggression on Lakota territory.

LOL.

How the hell would they get the shipments into the middle of the continent, much less troops to help? Look at a map sometime, buster brown.

LOL.

How the hell would they get the shipments into the middle of the continent, much less troops to help? Look at a map sometime, buster brown.

Canada has a border with the Lakota nation. Perhaps they would attempt to ship them through there?

Back then, there was no Department of Education.There still isn't! :p

(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.)

Maybe the new Tom Hanks movie will get Americans thinking about Afghanistan again. Then again, it looks like it is just going to celebrate America's original "intervention" without looking at the consequences ...

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.

Iraq?

And have a guerrilla war for the next 20+ years? Real smart, fucking asshole.

given a choice between that and 100+ years of further oppression, fuck yeah.

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.

Conquest by treaty. That is an interesting concept.


You aren't ever getting the land back.

To a certain degree, they already have it. It is just a question of how much sovereignty they are going to exercise over it.


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.


Well, it is precisely because they weren't really conquered that they are able to do so.

And have a guerrilla war for the next 20+ years? Real smart, fucking asshole.

Trollgaard, consider this a friendly warning. Walk away from the computer until you've gotten your temper under control.

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!

Well, if it helps we'd still be one nation. The Lakota and their land just wouldn't be part of it. I would also recommend that anyone following this with any interest try to locate the books "The Gumshoe, the Witch, and the Virtual Corpse" and "Gumshoe Gorilla" by Keith Hartman. In addition to being a good read one of the sub plots involves the Cherokee attempting to reclaim pats of Georgia.

And what would be the point in making it far worse than it already was? They lost the war, they lost slavery, they lost infrastructure, they lost everything. Seems to me they already had it worse.

Logically there isn't a point and I'm not saying there should be, but look at history and it's clear that things could have been much worse and that they, and our modern nation, should be thankful that the north was so kind.


kkk reared its fascist head
KKK is far too democratic to be Fascist.

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 recognize the words as English, I think the sentences are complete, I know what each word means . . . but taken as a whole what the hell does all that mean?

KKK is far too democratic to be Fascist.Have my ears gone bad? Did he "Not Facist"? I must surely be wrong?

So you would support armed treason and sedition?

You mean the values this country was founded on? Sometimes it seems like people forget that America was created by an armed rebellion.

Have my ears gone bad? Did he "Not Facist"? I must surely be wrong?
No, he's an actual fascist. That means he's not a Nazi, he's not into racism or any of that stuff. Think more Mussolini.

And if the KKK has democratic votes on leadership and the like, it's clearly not fascist, since fascism rejects the idea that the majority knows anything in particular that would make it a better candidate for leadership than a strong man (or woman, for that matter) who personalises the totalitarian view of the state that people would have in a fascist world.

First, a disclaimer: I am in no way expressing personal opinions, nor legal ones. This sort of argument has always been interesting, and I'd like to field thoughts that I've had on similar matters.

What I find curious here is that no one has taken the most extreme arguments of those in favor of the Lakota to their theoretical limits.

Such would be supporting the territorial rights of an ethnic group, based on the fact that the ethnic group had occupied the territory prior to its current occupants.

So! Since no one seems to think there is a statute of limitations on this, and I've never heard of a legal one...

Native Americans, yes, should probably take over the whole of their original landmasses, but...

Arabs should all be in the Arabian peninsula.

Jews should occupy a space from the Mediterranean coast to western Iraq (I don't think there are any Canaanites alive these days, are there?).

Blacks should all live in Africa.

Whites should live in a space ranging from from Europe out to somewhere in the area of the Urals and Caucus mountains.

And so on and so forth...

I'd like to see the reactions to the logical extension of such a theory.

Of course, that's the ethnic base. Some people have been arguing cultural based division. In which case, there are no claims outside the reservations, which...could be advantageous to the US. Without those treaties, and with the reservations no longer technically under any sort of US jurisdiction, we could just get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs, and save enormous amounts of money in bureaucracy.

Like I said, I'm just musing here.

I think if the Lakota secede, they could be in for a rude awakening. The US could make things very difficult for them, without even firing a shot. Picture things like import tariffs for everything that they send out of their territory, toll roads to catch people coming to/from the territory, a complete cut-off of all support/supplies, an embargo/travel ban for all US citizens (like is currently in place for Cuba), etc.

Not that I'd agree with the government doing this, but if the government wanted to, they could (in order to try to force the Lakota back into the US).

KKK is far too democratic to be Fascist.

i'm adopting robert paxton's argument that the kkk is pretty much the forerunner of later fascism, and is it's first incarnation.

i mean, look at it - it was a mass movement in reaction against democratic gains that saw violence and action against the other as goods in themselves. to quote paxton's description of fascism, it is ‘‘a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.’’

that says kkk all over it.

Like I said, I'm just musing here.
And validly so, except the Lakota would be claiming cultural rather than ethnic reasons for their claim to the land. Non-industrial cultures have much closer connections to the land than industrialised ones, so their religion, various other beliefs and rites and rituals generally have something to do with the relationship to various geographical features and so on.

It would make sense that you'd have a hard time "being Lakota" in Manhattan. You may still have whatever ethnic features, but you couldn't live like a member of the Lakota nation, since it's defined by your interaction with the land.

Of course, whether that's sufficient reason to grant exclusive sovereignty is another question - and one that might not even have to be asked considering how the Lakota may well have treaties with the US that acknowledge this sovereignty and that therefore it wouldn't be up for discussion if it wasn't for the treaty violations.

And validly so, except the Lakota would be claiming cultural rather than ethnic reasons for their claim to the land. Non-industrial cultures have much closer connections to the land than industrialised ones, so their religion, various other beliefs and rites and rituals generally have something to do with the relationship to various geographical features and so on.

It would make sense that you'd have a hard time "being Lakota" in Manhattan. You may still have whatever ethnic features, but you couldn't live like a member of the Lakota nation, since it's defined by your interaction with the land.

Of course, whether that's sufficient reason to grant exclusive sovereignty is another question - and one that might not even have to be asked considering how the Lakota may well have treaties with the US that acknowledge this sovereignty and that therefore it wouldn't be up for discussion if it wasn't for the treaty violations.

This argument brings us straight into another extension, though - wouldn't this reasoning be easily expandable to any culture wherein religion is tied to geography rather closely? I won't dive into the subject since it's so messy and slightly tangential, but couldn't we apply the same sort of reasoning to the holy sites of the Abrahamic religions? Since there is at least one nation on each side of that debate where culture, religion, and official government run extremely close together, with some of their most holy sites within a small geographic zone. (And then we could enter a debate about whether or not a lack of official government on the part of a cultural-religious group should even be a part of the equation...)

And to draw the point away from THAT particular hotbed of simmering hate - I'm trying to point out that geographical claims of ownership on cultural-religious grounds can draw the same sort of problems as making territorial claims on ethnic grounds.

And in the same regard, it seemed that there is a certain degree of 'sins of the father' sentiment in this debate thus far, and this to me presents the same problem - how far does this go, chronologically, generationally, etc? Should we decry the whole of Christianity because it's descended from churches that instigated some of the bloodiest religious wars in history? Should we decry the whole body of Islam because it too was spread by the sword? Should the Mongols, the Persians, or the Manchus be punished for centuries old slaughters of political expansion?

And while it would be wrong to suggest that the Crusades, Wounded Knee, or the Umayyad conquests were anything less than aggression, the seeming preference for vengeance founded on these sorts of events is both very apparent in this thread and abroad, and troublesome in that its theoretical implications would suggest a large majority of the human population needs to be severely punished for actions over which they had and have no control.

Some might suggest then reversing these actions, but that in itself becomes its own oppressive action by punishing those who had no part in the original actions through confiscation and deprivation of their property.

I suppose I did wander quite a bit, but I'm trying to keep things to relevant musing rather than partaking in the direct argument.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets;13314402]given a choice between that and 100+ years of further oppression, fuck yeah.[/QUOTE

And a heck of a lot more deaths? Fueling more resentment that would burst again 20 years after the first guerilla war? And so on and so on? You would want to instigate a never ending cycle of violence? WHY?

And a heck of a lot more deaths? Fueling more resentment that would burst again 20 years after the first guerilla war? And so on and so on? You would want to instigate a never ending cycle of violence? WHY?

How do you know that would happen. Any number of things could occur that would drastically change that estimation.

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_tank#Canada

ya we are pretty effective.


*imagines ba ass canadian lepord comming down a highway in a row while listening to voodoo child*

Please tell me you're being facetious.

He didn't say anything inaccurate or untrue, so why would he tell you he's being facetious?

Well, it is precisely because they weren't really conquered that they are able to do so.

You're confusing "conquered" with "exterminated." They're not the same. The latter often follows the former, however. Fortunately for the Red Man, it didn't happen to them in the US. Largely if not entirely due to the forebearance of the victors.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets;13314402]given a choice between that and 100+ years of further oppression, fuck yeah.[/QUOTE

And a heck of a lot more deaths? Fueling more resentment that would burst again 20 years after the first guerilla war? And so on and so on? You would want to instigate a never ending cycle of violence? WHY?

Because he's an anarchist, clearly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_tank#Canada

ya we are pretty effective.


*imagines ba ass canadian lepord comming down a highway in a row while listening to voodoo child*

What happens to those tanks when they get shot with Javelin missiles?

What happens to those tanks when they get shot with Javelin missiles?
same thing that happens when a Abrams get an RPG up its ass, it go boom. (we have javlins too.) wanna have a javalin fight....see you on the boarder. :P

And a heck of a lot more deaths? Fueling more resentment that would burst again 20 years after the first guerilla war? And so on and so on? You would want to instigate a never ending cycle of violence? WHY?

evidence that this would happen?

i'm adopting robert paxton's argument that the kkk is pretty much the forerunner of later fascism, and is it's first incarnation.

i mean, look at it - it was a mass movement in reaction against democratic gains that saw violence and action against the other as goods in themselves. to quote paxton's description of fascism, it is ‘‘a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.’’

that says kkk all over it.
There are a couple problems with your argument. The first is that the KKK wants democracy, they just don't think the non-whites should get it. Most Fascists are anti-democracy and those of us that are pro-democracy want a form based from the National-Syndicalist economic model. Not even close to being the same thing. The second is that Fascism is not necessarily a violent movement, however, where it has existed one would find violence among many of the far left or right win ideologies.

Not to forget that the KKK supports the idea of states rights which Fascism would most definitely oppose.

But let's argue this though telegrams. This is an argument about secession, not Fascism.

First, a disclaimer: I am in no way expressing personal opinions, nor legal ones. This sort of argument has always been interesting, and I'd like to field thoughts that I've had on similar matters.

What I find curious here is that no one has taken the most extreme arguments of those in favor of the Lakota to their theoretical limits.

Such would be supporting the territorial rights of an ethnic group, based on the fact that the ethnic group had occupied the territory prior to its current occupants.

So! Since no one seems to think there is a statute of limitations on this, and I've never heard of a legal one...

Native Americans, yes, should probably take over the whole of their original landmasses, but...

Arabs should all be in the Arabian peninsula.

Jews should occupy a space from the Mediterranean coast to western Iraq (I don't think there are any Canaanites alive these days, are there?).

Blacks should all live in Africa.

Whites should live in a space ranging from from Europe out to somewhere in the area of the Urals and Caucus mountains.

And so on and so forth...

I'd like to see the reactions to the logical extension of such a theory.

Of course, that's the ethnic base. Some people have been arguing cultural based division. In which case, there are no claims outside the reservations, which...could be advantageous to the US. Without those treaties, and with the reservations no longer technically under any sort of US jurisdiction, we could just get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs, and save enormous amounts of money in bureaucracy.

Like I said, I'm just musing here.

Ha. Whatever to happened to every ethnic group having right to self determination? If albanians have right to seperate Kosovo from Serbia, then Lakota have right to seperate the Dakotas from USA.

As for majority determination. Albanians are majority in Kosovo. Lakota are majority in the Dakotas and Montana.

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/

YAY!

BTW - nice sig, Zi.

You're confusing "conquered" with "exterminated." They're not the same. The latter often follows the former, however. Fortunately for the Red Man, it didn't happen to them in the US. Largely if not entirely due to the forebearance of the victors.

So the fact that 4, possibly 5, Native American Tribes that existed in the mid to late 1800's were completely wiped out by the American Government, thus 'Exterminating' them, doesn't count?

Ha. Whatever to happened to every ethnic group having right to self determination? If albanians have right to seperate Kosovo from Serbia, then Lakota have right to seperate the Dakotas from USA.

As for majority determination. Albanians are majority in Kosovo. Lakota are majority in the Dakotas and Montana.

He's making the point that race doesn't make a nation. Not suggesting that that is how things should be.

Ha. Whatever to happened to every ethnic group having right to self determination? If albanians have right to seperate Kosovo from Serbia, then Lakota have right to seperate the Dakotas from USA.

As for majority determination. Albanians are majority in Kosovo. Lakota are majority in the Dakotas and Montana.

I see someone has not been following the thread for if he was, he would have realized that this group does not represent all Lakota and that this does not have the authorization from the tribal government.

yes.

Bet you wouldn't say that if it were your loved ones getting killed, you fascist.

Trollgaard, consider this a friendly warning. Walk away from the computer until you've gotten your temper under control.

To be fair, FS basically endorsed genocide, and IIRC, Trollgaard is a Southerner. Can you really blame him for getting pissed off?

He didn't say anything inaccurate or untrue, so why would he tell you he's being facetious?

It's not what he said, but the way he said it.

You're confusing "conquered" with "exterminated." They're not the same. The latter often follows the former, however. Fortunately for the Red Man, it didn't happen to them in the US. Largely if not entirely due to the forebearance of the victors.

Again ... conquest by treaty? The US entered into most of the Treaties with the Lakota precisely because they lacked the military force to conquere them.

And ... forbearance? Is that what Wounded Knee was about?

Such would be supporting the territorial rights of an ethnic group, based on the fact that the ethnic group had occupied the territory prior to its current occupants.

Not just that they previously occupied the territory, but that they continue to occupy a great deal of it. And that the parts they don't occupy were only acquired by treaty, and the other side has not held up their end of the bargain, in which case they are entitled to seek restitution.


So! Since no one seems to think there is a statute of limitations on this, and I've never heard of a legal one...

When your title is invalid, under most common law systems, it doesn't matter how far back the invalidity was.


Of course, that's the ethnic base. Some people have been arguing cultural based division. In which case, there are no claims outside the reservations, which...could be advantageous to the US. Without those treaties, and with the reservations no longer technically under any sort of US jurisdiction, we could just get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs, and save enormous amounts of money in bureaucracy.


Well, no, it is precisely because of the cultural connection to lands outside the reserve that they wish to claim it. And without those treaties, the lands acquired outside the reserves are no longer within US jurisdiction.

This is all theorizing at the end of the day, because as has been repeatedly pointed out, this declaration of Independence may not even have nay validity within the Lakota legal and political system.

He's making the point that race doesn't make a nation. Not suggesting that that is how things should be.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that race makes a nation, other than a few racists that were posting on here earlier. The Lakota are claiming nationhood by virtue of their culture and history, not the nebulous concept of race.

Well, to be fair, "nation" itself is a pretty nebulous term. It just means any group with a common culture-- religion, language, customs... which the Lakota, unless I'm mistaken, do have.

Actually, they're a nation-state in the most literal sense of the term. They are a nation-- common culture plus a state-- a government with borders recognized by other states.

So the fact that 4, possibly 5, Native American Tribes that existed in the mid to late 1800's were completely wiped out by the American Government, thus 'Exterminating' them, doesn't count?

Of course not. Remember, to New Mitanni all of the tribes were the same...they were all redskinned scalp-taking, war-paint wearing, whooping shirtless savages.

evidence that this would happen?

Nazi Germany?

The only reason the Germans didn't rise up again was because the Allies helped rebuild, and did not grind them down like after WW1.

So the fact that 4, possibly 5, Native American Tribes that existed in the mid to late 1800's were completely wiped out by the American Government, thus 'Exterminating' them, doesn't count?

Tribe-by-tribe, some were. As a whole, they weren't.

As the Romans would say, "Vae victis."

To be fair, FS basically endorsed genocide

link?

Nazi Germany?

The only reason the Germans didn't rise up again was because the Allies helped rebuild, and did not grind them down like after WW1.

ah, so we let the nazi party reform, retake power, and reinstitute anti-jewish laws after the war, did we? we let them keep the property of holocaust victims, eh? and there was no such thing as denazification, right?

really?

ah, so we let the nazi party reform, retake power, and reinstitute anti-jewish laws after the war, did we? we let them keep the property of holocaust victims, eh? and there was no such thing as denazification, right?

really?

Do you know how to read? Do you know anything about history? The Germans were ground down and humiliated after WW1. That's why the Nazi's were able to come into power. After WW2 the Allies helped rebuild Germany- and guess what...another Hitler did not come into power! Is that hard to grasp?

What you called for was the humiliation and absolute destruction of the South. All that would have lead to was future bloodshed.

Not just that they previously occupied the territory, but that they continue to occupy a great deal of it. And that the parts they don't occupy were only acquired by treaty, and the other side has not held up their end of the bargain, in which case they are entitled to seek restitution.



When your title is invalid, under most common law systems, it doesn't matter how far back the invalidity was.



Well, no, it is precisely because of the cultural connection to lands outside the reserve that they wish to claim it. And without those treaties, the lands acquired outside the reserves are no longer within US jurisdiction.

This is all theorizing at the end of the day, because as has been repeatedly pointed out, this declaration of Independence may not even have nay validity within the Lakota legal and political system.

Theorizing being the point here, I had gathered, yes...

And I addressed this argument in my second post - because an initial claim is invalid, would not ethically justify inflicting penalties upon the descendants of those who made such actions. Such as potentially forcing them within a state that is not either majoritarian or pluralistic. (This would be purely in the case of an argument for the expansion of Reservation territory to the whole Lakota claim across the upper midwest/west)

Should we be demolishing the Dome of the Rock because it stands over a temple taken multiple times by military force, and being the most central cultural point in the Judaic religion? Purely as a comparison point, mind - all claims over the temple mount currently in effect could be written as invalid, seeing as the Jews conquered the area from the Canaanite and other ancient Levantine tribes, and were then subsequently driven out, whereupon their conquerors were driven out... If there is no limitation, do we apply it to the oldest? The new majority? Who?

Entitled to the claims of a treaty, yes. The invalidation of a treaty somehow resulting in the magical reversal of events within the bounds of the treaty, since the treaty's inception? Completely unethical when speaking of inhabited territory and human beings. Given the possible population centers involved, this could be argued under either absolute-rights oriented or utilitarian oriented theories.

Well, to be fair, "nation" itself is a pretty nebulous term. It just means any group with a common culture-- religion, language, customs... which the Lakota, unless I'm mistaken, do have.

Actually, they're a nation-state in the most literal sense of the term. They are a nation-- common culture plus a state-- a government with borders recognized by other states.

Well defined. It is amazing how often people confuse the terms nation and state in these discussions. So they would have been a nation-state up until the time of the final treaty, but remain a nation, and are now trying to regain their statehood (as opposed to their nationhood, which they have always hd).

Tribe-by-tribe, some were. As a whole, they weren't.

Genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. As such, the destruction of an entire tribe, or nation, would constitute genocide.


As the Romans would say, "Vae victis."

I'll bet the Romans weren't so sanguine when it was their Empire being conquered. And again, what conquest? The US government resorted to Treaties not out of benevolence but because they actually lacked the military force to completely subdue most of these tribes.

What you called for was the humiliation and absolute destruction of the South. All that would have lead to was future bloodshed.

you identify 'the south' directly with the kkk and oppressing people of color? fuck man, and i thought i had an unfavorable view of southerners...

Tribe-by-tribe, some were. As a whole, they weren't.

you are kidding, right? nobody can misunderstand the notion of genocide this badly.

you identify 'the south' directly with the kkk and oppressing people of color? fuck man, and i thought i had an unfavorable view of southerners...

I never said anything of the kind, and you did not answer my question.

You call for the humiliation and destruction of the South, of genocide against the whites in the south.

WHY?

you are kidding, right? nobody can misunderstand the notion of genocide this badly.

Never understimate the power of wilful ignorance.

I never said anything of the kind, and you did not answer my question.

You call for the humiliation and destruction of the South, of genocide against the whites in the south.

WHY?

Has anyone ever mentioned how amusing you name is? I see your posts and I must admit I've been tempted to let out a guffaw or two.

You call for the humiliation and destruction of the South, of genocide against the whites in the south.

bull-fucking-shit. link?

you are kidding, right? nobody can misunderstand the notion of genocide this badly.

Serious as a heart attack, pal. Label it however you want, the fact remains that the Red Man was not in fact wiped out. He may have been the "Disappearing American," but he never did disappear completely. Obviously

This is all a digression from the main issue anyway.

bull-fucking-shit. link?

Your earlier posts calling for harsher punishment for the South after the civil war, knowing full well it would spark renewed conflict and bloodshed??? Maybe?

Never understimate the power of wilful ignorance.

Perhaps I should take you as an example on this issue?

Serious as a heart attack, pal. Label it however you want, the fact remains that the Red Man was not in fact wiped out. He may have been the "Disappearing American," but he never did disappear completely. Obviously

This is all a digression from the main issue anyway.

So what you're alluding to is that neither the Holocaust nor Rwanda count as "gneocide" because no race or culture was completely wiped out?

Who gives a shit. I want to know more about the Lakota telling the US government to cram it.

Who gives a shit. I want to know more about the Lakota telling the US government to cram it.

:D

Your earlier posts calling for harsher punishment for the South after the civil war, knowing full well it would spark renewed conflict and bloodshed??? Maybe?

How would more punishment to the defeated Confederacy lead to genocide? Maybe more sporadic fighting would take place but how exactly would "genocide" occur?

Your earlier posts calling for harsher punishment for the South after the civil war, knowing full well it would spark renewed conflict and bloodshed??? Maybe?

and your explanation of how doing so would automatically lead to renewed conflict and bloodshed was just pointing at de-fucking-nazification, which coincidentally involved more and harsher punishment and control than was ever exercised over the south and did not spark renewed conflict and bloodshed.

and since the activities which i called for to be punished and continually forbidden were those directly involved in the oppression of people of color, and you claim this would amount to "the humiliation and destruction of the South, of genocide against the whites in the south", i see no other option but to conclude that you see the oppression of people of color as the defining feature of the south.

How would more punishment to the defeated Confederacy lead to genocide? Maybe more sporadic fighting would take place but how exactly would "genocide" occur?

i'm thinking he got confused by my rejoinder to his 'the south should just have been let go without any fighting", in which i said the only thing that would make that acceptable at the time is if the former slaves revolted and killed or drove off their former masters and then decided that they didn't wish to remain part of the union that had perpetuated, enforced, and expanded their enslavement since its founding, and now is linking that up with how i said reconstruction should have been handled.

Never understimate the power of wilful ignorance.

wise words, though i find it hard to live by them. i find myself continually thinking we've got to hit bottom at some point soon.

Who gives a shit. I want to know more about the Lakota telling the US government to cram it.

local news ftw?!

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001

WASHINGTON - A group of "freedom-loving" Lakota activists announced a plan Wednesday for their people to withdraw from treaties their forefathers signed with the U.S. government.

Headed by leaders of the American Indian Movement, including activist, actor and Porcupine resident Russell Means, the group dropped in on the State Department and the embassies of Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa this week seeking recognition for their effort to form a free and independent Lakota nation. The group plans to visit more embassies in the coming months.

The new nation is needed because Indians have been "dismissed" by the United States and are tired of living under a colonial apartheid system, Means said during a news conference held at Plymouth Congregational Church in northeast Washington. He was accompanied by a bodyguard and three other Lakota activists - Gary Rowland, Duane Martin and Phyllis Young, all of South Dakota.

"I want to emphasize, we do not represent the collaborators, the Vichy Indians and those tribal governments set up by the United States of America to ensure our poverty, to ensure the theft of our land and resources," Means said, comparing elected tribal governments to Nazi collaborators in France during World War II.

Rodney Bordeaux, chairman of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, said his community has no desire to join the breakaway nation. Means and his group, which call themselves the Lakota Freedom Delegation, have never officially pitched their views to the Rosebud community, Bordeaux said.

"Our position on that is we need to uphold the treaties, and we're constantly reminding Congress of that message," Bordeaux said. "We're pushing to maintain and to keep the treaties there because they're the basis of our relationship with the federal government."
Nation's proposals

Members of the new nation would not pay any taxes, and leaders would be informally chosen by community elders, Means said. Non-Indians could continue to live in the new nation's territory, which would consist of the western parts of North and South Dakota and Nebraska and eastern parts of Wyoming and Montana. The new government would issue its own passports and drivers licenses, Means said.

"Our withdrawal (from the treaties) is fully thought out," Means said, referring to peace treaties the Lakota people signed with the government in 1851 and 1868. "We were mandated by our elders in 1974 to do two things. First, to establish relationships with the international community... and the second mandate, of course, was to reestablish our independence."

Bolivian Ambassador Gustavo Guzman, who attended the press conference out of solidarity, said he takes the Lakotas' declaration of independence seriously.

"We are here because the demands of indigenous people of America are our demands," Guzman said. "We have sent all the documents they presented to the embassy to our ministry of foreign affairs in Bolivia and they'll analyze everything."

and your explanation of how doing so would automatically lead to renewed conflict and bloodshed was just pointing at de-fucking-nazification, which coincidentally involved more and harsher punishment and control than was ever exercised over the south and did not spark renewed conflict and bloodshed.

and since the activities which i called for to be punished and continually forbidden were those directly involved in the oppression of people of color, and you claim this would amount to "the humiliation and destruction of the South, of genocide against the whites in the south", i see no other option but to conclude that you see the oppression of people of color as the defining feature of the south.

I saw this in your early posts, but I didn't see this part later on. I thought you meant to expand harsh punishment to all Southerners for no reason other than through guilt by association.
Germany is still occupied to this day. That, along with the rebuilding of Germany by the Allies, is the reason Nazi's didn't reappear, even though they are starting to now.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that race makes a nation, other than a few racists that were posting on here earlier. The Lakota are claiming nationhood by virtue of their culture and history, not the nebulous concept of race.
I didn't either, I was only correcting Brachiosaurus who had misread a previous post where somebody suggested something along those lines.

So what you're alluding to is that neither the Holocaust nor Rwanda count as "gneocide" because no race or culture was completely wiped out?

What happened to the indians can hardly be considered genocide. It was war, if we didn't kill them they would have killed us. We fought, we had superior weapons and tactics, we won. They fought to the end and so their race began to die out.

And I addressed this argument in my second post - because an initial claim is invalid, would not ethically justify inflicting penalties upon the descendants of those who made such actions.

They are not inflicting it upon the descendants of those who made such actions. They are inflicting it on their successors in title. Who could only claim to be innocent of the wrongdoing if they are unaware that the land as taken illegally. I don't think anyone could claim to be unaware that the Lakota have legitimate claims to their land, unless they have been wilfully blind. And anyway, the legal system puts the onus on someone purchasing property to make sure it has a clear title. It is much like accepting stolen property that you know to be stolen. You may not have committed the theft yourself, but you are still guilty of possession of stolen property.


Such as potentially forcing them within a state that is not either majoritarian or pluralistic. (This would be purely in the case of an argument for the expansion of Reservation territory to the whole Lakota claim across the upper midwest/west)

The reality is that no-one would be forced within a state. A settlement would likely be reached where the Lakota would gain control over terriotty in which they form a majority, and be compensated for the loss of the rest. Which is what they are legally entitled to.


Entitled to the claims of a treaty, yes. The invalidation of a treaty somehow resulting in the magical reversal of events within the bounds of the treaty, since the treaty's inception? It is much like a contract. When the other party violates the terms of the contract, the innocent party can seek to enforce the contract or can treat the contract as being at an end in which case they are no longer bound by their obligation and can sue for damages. In this case, having spent years seeking enforcement of their treaty, the Lakota have finally given up and are treating it as being at an end, and acting accordingly.

If the majority objects, they could pressure their government to uphold the terms of the treaty, rather than expecting the Lakota to give up their legitimate claim and get nothing in return.

What happened to the indians can hardly be considered genocide.


Again, read the definition of genocide above "Genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group." Since several tribes or nations were entirely destroyed, this constitutes genocide. Further attempts were made to eradicate the culture of many of the remaining Tribes through assimilationist policies such as the Residential School system.


It was war, if we didn't kill them they would have killed us.


If you hadn't taken their land in the first place, or had offered fair compensation instead of trying to take it by force, in all likelihood, there would have been nothing to fight over.


We fought, we had superior weapons and tactics, we won.

Your "superior weapons and tactics" would have meant little if most Tribes had not been heavily eradicated by European diseases.


They fought to the end and so their race began to die out.

And you blame them for fighting to the end to protect their land?

And again ... what race?

I'd imagine that the response of the US government would be something along the lines of utilizing the mega-massive *IGNORE* function that it carries. It would not give up any sovereignty to this group in these territories, and not even give them the benefit of a response, other than the receptionist at the State Department blandly referring them to form IIIA-226 9.2c, which needs to be provided in triplicate, as well as a digital image for easy reproduction.

At most an Undersecretary of State might chuckle when he sees this flash by on Yahoo News while he's logging in to his secret email account to see if his mistress is open for Friday and Saturday night, because the wife and kids are going to be out of town.

The genocide argument is way out of line. There are millions of Indians left and there was never any kind of massive population that people try and claim either. That's completely unfounded rhetoric. They were sparse and spread out.

And I'd like to know what tribes were exterminated. You mean like the Calusa who the Seminoles completely wiped out?

And Indians engaged in imperialist wars and took land from each other. The white settlers simply had the population to do it on a larger scale. As I've said here before, the Sioux took the land they fought Custer for from the Crow. The Indians were extremely imperialistic.

And I once again love the double standard when it comes to bigoted organizations based on ethnic origin.

The genocide argument is way out of line. There are millions of Indians left and there was never any kind of massive population that people try and claim either. That's completely unfounded rhetoric. They were sparse and spread out.

I think you're missing something. Not all Indians are the same. There are a huge number of different tribes, each one existing as its own nation. Eliminate all of one nation, and you've committed genocide.

And I'd like to know what tribes were exterminated. You mean like the Calusa who the Seminoles completely wiped out?

Ah, I see. So you only count the tribes when making ridiculous rhetoric. "They did it too!" That doesn't make it right.

And Indians engaged in imperialist wars and took land from each other. The white settlers simply had the population to do it on a larger scale. As I've said here before, the Sioux took the land they fought Custer for from the Crow. The Indians were extremely imperialistic.
Again, irrelevant. Wronging a party that wrongs others in the same way is not right nor does it justify your actions. Quite the opposite in fact.

You mistake my meaning, I'm disagreeing that it's wrong. I don't condemn the Indians for taking land from each other, the same as I don't condemn the white settlers for doing the same thing. It's the way the world was.

And like I said, I'd like to list some nations that were completely wiped out?

The genocide argument is way out of line. There are millions of Indians left and there was never any kind of massive population that people try and claim either.
And there are millions of other people left who have been the victims of recognized genocides. Your argument fails.

That's ridiculous. Show me one official document that detailed a plan to exterminate the Indians. They were wars of conquest and expansionism, not genocide. You could argue genocide from that perspective in every single war there is.

Wars over land are not the same thing as an organized effort for the sole purpose of exterminating the enemy. I repeat, the Indian Wars were about land and not about genocide.

Again, read the definition of genocide above "Genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group."

But that is an incorrect definition of Genocide. By that logic any war which lasts long enough could be considered a genocide. Genocide is a systematic attempt to destroy a group of people, not just anything that causes it. The holocaust was genocide, the Indians Wars were not.

If you hadn't taken their land in the first place, or had offered fair compensation instead of trying to take it by force, in all likelihood, there would have been nothing to fight over.
I didn't say we didn't cause the war with the indians. We sure did cause the war when we colonized their lands.

Your "superior weapons and tactics" would have meant little if most Tribes had not been heavily eradicated by European diseases.

Well, this depends largely on the time period we discus, but is ultimately irrelevant for our argument.

And you blame them for fighting to the end to protect their land?
Hell no, I'd have done the same thing, but my point is that war causes casualties and their willingness to fight is what led to their people's demise, not an act of genocide.

And to be fair, you can't always look upon historical events in the same way as modern ones. The mindset of society does make a difference. And looking back I could make an argument that the Indian's xenophobic nature was the cause of the early wars between colonists and Indians and ultimately the U.S. Indian Wars. It's just as valid an argument as saying that European colonists caused the war by settling on American lands.

P.s. I hope this post is clear, I'm really tired and my mind is elsewhere at the moment.

Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance.
Religion, ahoy!

I thought that Native American tribes (such as the Lakota) were considered nations already. They should be, if not.

Still nothing from the actual leaders of Lakota? No? Ok. This will be going nowhere.

Germany is still occupied to this day.Nope.

Tribe-by-tribe, some were. As a whole, they weren't.

As the Romans would say, "Vae victis."

And you don't get it. Not all Native Americans are the same. And if you believe that then you've never met pure bloods from several different tribes like I have.


Lakota, Nakota, Dakota are Sioux. But all 3 tribes don't have the same characteristics. Ojibawa also don't share the same characteristics as the Sioux. Cherrokee also don't share the same facial structure as the other tribes I listed.

Therefore they are not the same.

What you say would be like calling Chineese and Brittish the same. It just doesn't work that way.

What you say would be like calling Chineese and Brittish the same.

more like british and french, really. but the point remains, nm's claims are stupid.

And you don't get it. Not all Native Americans are the same. And if you believe that then you've never met pure bloods from several different tribes like I have.


Lakota, Nakota, Dakota are Sioux. But all 3 tribes don't have the same characteristics. Ojibawa also don't share the same characteristics as the Sioux. Cherrokee also don't share the same facial structure as the other tribes I listed.

Therefore they are not the same.

What you say would be like calling Chineese and Brittish the same. It just doesn't work that way.

According to recent scholarship (e.g., analysis of blood groups), North America was populated in three waves of migration. These three groups correlate strongly with Greenberg's three language families in the Americas, namely Eskimo-Aleut (last), Na-Dene (next to last) and Amerind, which includes every other Indian group in North, Central and South America.

That makes Lakotas, Ojibwas, Cherokees and every other tribe other than Apaches and their relatives close enough. The three are part of the Almosan-Keresiouan group of North-Central Amerind of Greenberg's classification. Far closer than Chinese and British, to use your example.

Nice try.

more like british and french, really. but the point remains, nm's claims are stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does, pal.

According to recent scholarship (e.g., analysis of blood groups), North America was populated in three waves of migration. These three groups correlate strongly with Greenberg's three language families in the Americas, namely Eskimo-Aleut (last), Na-Dene (next to last) and Amerind, which includes every other Indian group in North, Central and South America.

That makes Lakotas, Ojibwas, Cherokees and every other tribe other than Apaches and their relatives close enough. The three are part of the Almosan-Keresiouan group of North-Central Amerind of Greenberg's classification. Far closer than Chinese and British, to use your example.

Nice try.

Until you show me proof of this 'theory', i'll just dismiss it as retoric like almost 90% of what Scientists say.

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.

You're confusing "conquered" with "exterminated." They're not the same. The latter often follows the former, however. Fortunately for the Red Man, it didn't happen to them in the US. Largely if not entirely due to the forebearance of the victors.


Serious as a heart attack, pal. Label it however you want, the fact remains that the Red Man was not in fact wiped out. He may have been the "Disappearing American," but he never did disappear completely. Obviously

This is all a digression from the main issue anyway.

Tribe-by-tribe, some were. As a whole, they weren't.

As the Romans would say, "Vae victis."

My, we are all very provocative and very nonchalant about genocide.

You don't really know very much about the history of Native Americans and of the U.S. treaties with Indian nations, do you?

Go read some history like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (http://www.amazon.com/Bury-My-Heart-Wounded-Knee/dp/0805066691/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198636220&sr=1-2) and then try to wax eloquent about the benevolence of the "White Man."

In the meantime, we'll just be amused by your combination of hubris and ignorance.

In the meantime, we'll just be amused by your combination of hubris and ignorance.

Speak for yourself. Most of us are disgusted, not amused. It disturbs me that in this day and age there are people who still think that way...

Bah, the ignorance is amusing. It just goes to show that ignorance is an active, not passive state. You honestly have to work at it.

Once again this turns into a 'the Indians were this' debate. Either we are romanticised or demonised. On one hand, there are no people who have ever existed that did so without conflict. We have never been, nor will we ever be perfect. On the other hand, neither were we horrible, unsophisticated savages who would have 'wiped one another out had it not been for the intervention of European forces'.

Anthropological 'evidence' is sketchy, poorly laid out, and contradictory...and has been since day one. Attempting to define when we 'got here', or how we actually lived by todays anthropological fad is...pathetic. Also, the vast majority of you people spouting off about us really don't have any sort of historical or social background, or the capacity (it seems) to challenge the stereotypes you parrot.

For those of you lost in a past where indigeous concerns were simply pushed aside in the name of progress...suck it. We aren't pushed aside so easily anymore. Might be time to update you 'knowledge' in the area.

What happened to the indians can hardly be considered genocide. It was war,


The two aren't actually exclusive. If your 'war' wipes out your opponent completely.. that's still genocide.

Plus, of course, it's not like native americans were innocent casualties of a dispute between two other parties... they were the directed target of a war of expansion and decimation. Again - that makes it genocide, 'war' or no.


if we didn't kill them they would have killed us.

Really? Worth pointing out that 'we' weren't here, originally? 'We' made the fight happen? Worth pointing out that not all tribes directly engaged 'us', but 'we've' pretty much gone out of 'our' way to hammer the fuck out of them all anyway?

Your excuse is pitiful... 'we think they might have hurt us.. and one guy over there hurt one of our guys... so it's not genocide if we take the sword to every man, woman and child...'

It was war, if we didn't kill them they would have killed us.
Yeah...let's just conveniently ignore the fact that aboriginal people were vital in teaching the Europeans how to survive here. Ignore the hundreds of years of trading between us, ignore the consensual interbreeding that resulted in the birth of the Metis...yeah, let's just ignore what ACTUALLY happened, and make some other shit up.

Yeah...let's just conveniently ignore the fact that aboriginal people were vital in teaching the Europeans how to survive here. Ignore the hundreds of years of trading between us, ignore the consensual interbreeding that resulted in the birth of the Metis...yeah, let's just ignore what ACTUALLY happened, and make some other shit up.

Huh...

I didn't think your kind could be taught to read...

Huh...

I didn't think your kind could be taught to read...

And we didn't think your kind could be taught to bathe.

Will wonders never cease! :D

And we didn't think your kind could be taught to bathe.

Will wonders never cease! :D

feh, MY kind were smart enough to remain across the ocean and not come to this country until all the western europeans were done cleaning up the place and "taking out the trash", so to speak.

feh, MY kind were smart enough to remain across the ocean and not come to this country until all the western europeans were done cleaning up the place and "taking out the trash", so to speak.

You should have more sympathy for those of us from the 'lost tribe'.

Sides, we all know that my kind are irresistible to your kind. And visa versa :P

But that is an incorrect definition of Genocide. By that logic any war which lasts long enough could be considered a genocide. Genocide is a systematic attempt to destroy a group of people, not just anything that causes it. The holocaust was genocide, the Indians Wars were not.

How is war not a systematic attempt to destroy something? IF a tribe had been wiped out entirely by diseases unintentionally introduced by Europeans, that might not be genocide. But a deliberate attempt to kill them to the last woman and child certainly is.



Hell no, I'd have done the same thing, but my point is that war causes casualties and their willingness to fight is what led to their people's demise, not an act of genocide.

So it is not the agressor that is responsible for the demise of the people they destroy, but rather the people that tried to defend their lands and lives? That is some pretty backward logic.


And to be fair, you can't always look upon historical events in the same way as modern ones. The mindset of society does make a difference.

If we fail to judge the events of history by today's standards then we risk making the same mistakes in the future.


And looking back I could make an argument that the Indian's xenophobic nature was the cause of the early wars between colonists and Indians and ultimately the U.S. Indian Wars. It's just as valid an argument as saying that European colonists caused the war by settling on American lands.


No it's not. Because in most cases the tribes were not xenophobic and were willing to share their lands. But they were not willing to give them all up for nothing. They gave the Europeans an inch, so the Europeans tried to take a yard, and the Indians pushed back.

But that is an incorrect definition of Genocide. By that logic any war which lasts long enough could be considered a genocide. Genocide is a systematic attempt to destroy a group of people, not just anything that causes it. The holocaust was genocide, the Indians Wars were not.

Genocide is, according to Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So sorry, you may not LIKE this definition, you may in fact DEEPLY RESENT how horribly a definition can shatter your claims, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

Stupid is as stupid does, pal.

Case in point, every single post you have ever made on this site. Including this one - I mean really, a Forrest Gump quote?

But that is an incorrect definition of Genocide. By that logic any war which lasts long enough could be considered a genocide.
No, because in most wars the objective is to conquer or subjugate your opponent, not eradicate them. But if you systematically attempt to eraidcate your opponent, it becomes a genocide.

The genocide argument is way out of line. There are millions of Indians left and there was never any kind of massive population that people try and claim either.

There are millions of Jews left as well. I suppose the holocaust was not a genocide?

No, because in most wars the objective is to conquer or subjugate your opponent, not eradicate them. But if you systematically attempt to eraidcate your opponent, it becomes a genocide.

As loathe as I am to quote fiction in circumstances like this, I think Heinlein had it right when he said this in Starship Troopers

If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.