Lakota break away from US

[Shogun]

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"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 told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

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

The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website.

The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the reborn freedom movement says.

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 US "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 US 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 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots," said Young.

"We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said, predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime.


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

I want to dedicate this thread to all of my Israel loving friends who are quick to insist that North America's Natives are apples to their zionist oranges. This goes out to you, with love, from your cheeky-when-proven-correct pal The Shogun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We'll just send some troops to put them down -- like in the good ol' days.

 

[Shogun]

You have no sympathy for the ancient claim of an indegenous people whose culture and people have been shattered by the conquest of aggressive nations?


further, do the Lakota nations not have a right to defend itself if the US were to come in and "put them down"?


I'm winking at you, Jillian...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have no sympathy for the ancient claim of an indegenous people whose culture and people have been shattered by the conquest of aggressive nations?

You try to secede from the union, you get your comeuppance.
I thought that was established long ago?

 

[Shogun]

You try to secede from the union, you get your comeuppance.
I thought that was established long ago?

The Lakota nation is not a State in the union.


Indeed, their ANCIENT CLAIM to the land is undisputed. we're talking THOUSANDS OF YEARS here, man. How can you deny them a sovereign nation considering their HISTORIC presence on that land for THOUSANDS of years? Surely you do not mean to suggest that we'd strike against a created nation on our own land with violence, eh?

(winky winky, Jillian!)

 

[Shogun]

“This is an historic day for our Lakota people,” said Native American action and activist Russell Means. “United States colonial rule is at its end!”

Means was part of a four member Lakota delegation that traveled to Washington, culminating years of internal discussion among treaty representatives of the various Lakota communities. Other delegation members included Women of All Red Nations founder Phyllis Young, Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr., and Garry Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders. Means, Rowland, Martin were all members of the 1973 Wounded Knee takeover.

The move to form an independent nation will focus on property rights in a five-state area where the treaties in question were drawn up. The states include South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana – areas that the group say have been illegally homesteaded for years despite knowledge of Lakota as the historic owners.

If the U.S. government does not immediately enter into diplomatic negotiations, the group said in a news release, liens will be filed on real-estate transactions across the region — an action it says could cloud title issues over thousands of square miles of land and property.

“In order to stop the continuous taking of our resources – people, land, water and children- we have no choice but to claim our own destiny,” said Phyllis Young, a former Indigenous representative to the United Nations and representative from Standing Rock.

Young added, “The actions of Lakota are not intended to embarrass the United States but to simply save the lives of our people.”

The group has been meeting all week with foreign leaders in an effort to gain political support for sovereign nation status, including Bolivia Indigenous President Evo Morales. Morales said his country is “very, very interested in the Lakota case.”

http://rapidcityjournal.com/blogs/editor/?p=339

 

[Shogun]

Means said the "annexation" of native American land had turned the Lakota into "facsimiles of white people."

In 1974, the Lakota drafted a declaration of continuing independence. Their cause got a boost in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The Bush administration opposed the measure.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Lakota nation is not a State in the union.

I'm sure the federal government will see it that way, as the militay rolls in and crushes them.

 

[Shogun]

The Lakota will never forget Wounded Knee 1890


The Lakota will never forget Wounded Knee 1890



12/20/2007

By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji)


I wonder if Tom Brokaw knew what was happening on the nine Indian reservations in his home state of South Dakota in 1968. I seriously doubt it.
On December 29, 1968, as they have done for many years, the Lakota people were gathered around the mass grave at Wounded Knee to pray. And on December 29, 1990, they would gather to mourn the 100th anniversary of the massacre of their people.
To the non-Indians of South Dakota and the rest of America, December 29, 1990 was another day. But to the Lakota people, December 29 was a day they commemorated every year since 1890. It was a day when nearly 300 of their relatives were shot to death in cold blood by the enlisted men and officers of the 7th Cavalry. Ironically, 21 members of the 7th Cavalry were awarded Medals of Honor for this horrific slaughter of women and children.
White people ask why we Lakota still talk about Wounded Knee as if it was not ancient history. If something terrible happened to your grandmother — that’s right, your grandmother — something so heinous that it became a part of American history, would you still consider that to be ancient history? I think not. A grandmother can never be ancient history or you wouldn’t be able to ride over the river and through the woods to her house on holidays.
Consider this. On December 29, 1890, my grandmother, Sophie, was a 17-year-old student at the Holy Rosary Indian Mission, a Jesuit boarding school just a few miles from Wounded Knee. She was called out with the rest of the students to feed and water the horses of the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry that had just rode on to the mission grounds chasing down survivors that had escaped the slaughter. My grandmother recalled seeing blood on their uniforms and she overheard them bragging about the mighty victory they had just scored at Wounded Knee.
That’s right, my grandmother, who is now deceased, remembered. Now does that make the Massacre at Wounded Knee ancient history to me? You bet that it does not. Many other Lakota still living today had grandmothers and grandfathers that were either killed or survived the massacre. No, it is not ancient history to the Lakota.
In early December of 1990, as the 100th anniversary of the massacre at Wounded Knee approached, I wrote the cover story for USA Today. I quoted an editorial that appeared in the Aberdeen (SD) Saturday Review on January 3, 1891, just five days after the massacre. The author wrote about those terrible “Redskins,” his favorite word for Indians. He wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”
That editorial calling for the genocide of the Lakota people was written by L. Frank Baum, the man who would later write, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” There have been many others before and since that called for genocide against a race of people. Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot come to mind. But then they never followed up their calls for genocide by writing a charming book for children. It appears to be unthinkable to most Americans that such a wonderful man as L. Frank Baum could be compared to other inhuman beasts that called for the extinction of a race of people.
In 2006, descendants of Baum asked the Lakota people to forgive Baum for the editorials he wrote calling for their annihilation. What do you think the Jewish people would say today if the descendants of Adolph Hitler approached them asking them to forgive Adolph for nearly exterminating all Jews? It’s a tough question because the attempted extermination of the Jews was taken much more seriously than the extermination of the Lakota people. After all, according to the white man, we were just Indians and sub-humans at that and we didn’t have the power of the press or of the free world to support our claims to life. In order for America to expand, the people of the Great Sioux Nation had to be expendable.
December 29, 2007 will mark the 117th anniversary of the slaughter of innocents at Wounded Knee. As is their custom, the Lakota people will gather at the mass grave where the bodies of men, women and children were dumped and they will pray and ask the United States government to apologize for this day of death. They will pray that the Medals of Honor handed out to the murderers be rescinded and they will pray for peace between the Lakota and the rest of America. There will be a ceremony called “Wiping Away the Tears,” and this ceremony will conclude a day of mourning, a day when the Lakota reach out to the rest of America for peace and justice.
Americans may have forgotten Wounded Knee and pushed it to the back pages of history, a bad memory to some, but the Lakota people have not nor will they ever forget this terrible day until they at last see justice.

http://nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=9195

 

[Shogun]

I'm sure the federal government will see it that way, as the militay rolls in and crushes them.

Goodness... THAT sounds like a violent reaction to a perceived usurping of land!


surely, SURELY you can see how these poor peoples DESERVE their own nation given the last 200 years of PERSICUTION by Europeans who have illegally claimed the land in light of the undisputed THOUSANDS of years they have held claim prior to manifest destinty, eh?

I mean, you wouldn't advocate a violent use of any means necessary to KILL off those who seem to be CARVING out a nation from the US homeland, eh? Would it help ease the pain of losing land in 5 states if they built a wall around their land to keep Americans out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Goodness... THAT sounds like a violent reaction to a perceived usurping of land!

A state has a right to put down a rebellion/insurrection.
That's exactly what will happen if all this hooey ever actually amounts to anything.

 

[Shogun]

A state has a right to put down a rebellion/insurrection.
That's exactly what will happen if all this hooey ever actually amounts to anything.

The rightful creation of a Lakota nation, of which we find SIMILAR examples elsewhere (don't we, Jillian?), is not a rebellion or insurrection. It's the righteous claim to a ANCIENT HISTORY of a people on the land that was taken from them.

shocking, nay, APPALLING to find that an American would find VIOLENT REACTIONS a better solution than observing an undisputed historic truth regarding this persecuted people.


It's almost as if... this kind of REACTION... and the understaning thereof.... is broadly applicable or something....



Hmmmm.... VIOLENCE, M14? In order to keep that land would you say you'd rationalize fighting with ANY tool within reach before giving up the land being claimed by the Lakota? Even against Lakota Civilians who start building settlements in what used to be parts of South Dakota?

 

[Annie]

The rightful creation of a Lakota nation, of which we find SIMILAR examples elsewhere (don't we, Jillian?), is not a rebellion or insurrection. It's the righteous claim to a ANCIENT HISTORY of a people on the land that was taken from them.

shocking, nay, APPALLING to find that an American would find VIOLENT REACTIONS a better solution than observing an undisputed historic truth regarding this persecuted people.


It's almost as if... this kind of REACTION... and the understaning thereof.... is broadly applicable or something....



Hmmmm.... VIOLENCE, M14? In order to keep that land would you say you'd rationalize fighting with ANY tool within reach before giving up the land being claimed by the Lakota? Even against Lakota Civilians who start building settlements in what used to be parts of South Dakota?

One slight difference, which of course is nothing to be proud of, but nonetheless different. Here the Europeans took the land through a series of wars, displacement of people and broken treaties. Finally they shuffled those left onto reservations, which in nearly all cases was land that the people WERE NOT indigenous to. They were defeated, no doubt about that on either side.

The analogy you refer to was NOT won in a war against the people living there. In fact, the land was given up by the powers that held it in a treaty made by the UN. Both people were offered a state at the time. One took it, the other didn't. The former never made war of aggression on its neighbors or the people that had also been living on that particular piece of land prior to the UN stepping in. About 30 years later, neighbors and allies of the people that refused their state, made war on the other. The aggressors lost. Now the land that was confiscated during that war, most would be returned, IF the existence of the winner was simply accepted.

 

[Shogun]

Hey.. THERES the apples and oranges!


so you think the Ancient claim of an indigenous people in America is different than the same claim in the mid east because The Natives were thrown onto reservations outside of their historic territory? I'll remind you that FRANCE sold the US the Louisiana purchase. Which is, I'd say, about as similar to your claim that mid eastern lands were sold despite the people living there as it can possibly get.

But, praytell, do you find yourself reaching for a violent reaction if the Lakotas decide to dig in and maintain their righteous claim to their homeland? ARE THEY CORRECT IN DEFENDING THEIR HOMELAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES?

 

[Shogun]

See any overlapping land there, Kathianne? Maybe you will play since my little israeli-loving buddy seems to be avoiding this thread like a smallbox covered blanket.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The rightful creation of a Lakota nation, of which we find SIMILAR examples elsewhere (don't we, Jillian?), is not a rebellion or insurrection.

When you renouce yout citizenship and move to create a new country inside or from the territory of another country, that's a rebellion.

Which, if it ever really happens, will be crushed.

 

[Annie]

See any overlapping land there, Kathianne? Maybe you will play since my little israeli-loving buddy seems to be avoiding this thread like a smallbox covered blanket.

I'll play and even admit wrongs when committed, as long as you play 'nice.' No bullying, other than sources, please. (That's not bullying, that's just being fair and balanced. )

Shogun, as I said in the previous post, my personal belief is that was done to the indigenous people here was wrong, via my religious education, my professional education, and my subjects of expertise. Of course, while condemning how the Europeans or 'the West' came in control of the Americas, one must keep in mind they were doing what was considered moral for the same reasons as ours. They were a product of their times. The fact that other indigenous peoples helped the Spanish conquer the Aztecs is an example that even 'originals' have enemies. Some say he was weak, I think the number of his enemies points to the opposite.

I fail to see the analogies between the history of North America, native peoples, reservations and the issues in the Middle East. As for the fall of the great empires of Mexico and South/Central America, I think we could build an analogy with Africa and the slave trade.

 

[Annie]

When you renouce yout citizenship and move to create a new country inside or from the territory of another country, that's a rebellion.

Which, if it ever really happens, will be crushed.

Is it? When the US government has given those tribes the title of 'nations'? They made numerous treaties with these nations, but consistently broke them, when the lands or resources were deemed too beneficial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is it? When the US government has given those tribes the title of 'nations'?

"Nation", in this context, is not a "state".
It refers to a set of people, not a sovereign entity.
And so, my statement stands.

They made numerous treaties with these nations, but consistently broke them, when the lands or resources were deemed too beneficial.

Doesnt change the fact that if they decide to rebel, they will be crushed.

 

[Annie]

"Nation", in this context, is not a "state".
It refers to a set of people, not a sovereign entity.
And so, my statement stands.


Doesnt change the fact that if they decide to rebel, they will be crushed.

My guess is that there will be grievances addressed and compromises made. Does the government deal with you or any associations you belong to this way? Me either. (I'm assuming you are NOT Native American).