Lakota break away from US

[mattskramer]

You can lie to me all you want, but you really shouldn't lie to yourself.

At least you did answer my question. Even though the strong US government broke treaties, the Indians, being that they were forced to sign a new treaty, and being that they are in a weaker physical position to break it, are not justified in breaking it. Based on that, it is logical to conclude that you contend that physical force makes things right. Thankfully we have police to uphold law and order, at least to some degree.

 

[Shogun]

You can try to take it back all you want - just dont bring anything you cannot afford to lose.

Point is, you arguing that you have a right to whatever 'ancient land' you care to mention doesnt mean squat when enough people with enough guns and enough will to use them disagree with you.


Oh, if only you knew how I cower at your superior wit.

Trust me, when you run to the ad hominems it's pretty clear how that superior wit is treating you.

Again, Thanks for clarifying that all the Lakota and Latinos need to do is collect enought firepower and support from other major nations in order to gain your support for the viability of their new nations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At least you did answer my question. Even though the strong US government broke treaties, the Indians, being that they were forced to sign a new treaty, and being that they are in a weaker physical position to break it, are not justified in breaking it. Based on that, it is logical to conclude that you contend that physical force makes things right. Thankfully we have police to uphold law and order, at least to some degree.

Dude...
You have no idea how much you don't realize that you agree with me.
Hint: Consider the text I underlined.

 

[mattskramer]

Contnue your scenario to its logical conclusion, sport.
What do you get?

Anarchy – but thankfully we have police and courts that are, though not perfect, helpful in holding individuals accountable to contracts and deals that they make.

 

[Shogun]

You can lie to me all you want, but you really shouldn't lie to yourself.

I see your cyrstal ball is working as well today as it did when you cast your 04 vote.

Indeed, save what E-face you can now that you see the marionette strings making you dance earlier in this thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trust me, when you run to the ad hominems it's pretty clear how that superior wit is treating you.

With an imagineation like yours, I'll bet being alone on saturday night isnt a big deal for you....

Again, Thanks for clarifying that all the Lakota and Latinos need to do is collect enought firepower and support from other major nations in order to gain your support for the viability of their new nations.

The right to rebel doeent mean a thing unless you succeed.
And if you don't succeed, you hang.
Might makes right -- its that simple.

 

[Shogun]

I'm jumping in sooner than I expected to, as I was awaiting your response. None of the 'nations' can overcome the power of the US Government, regardless of just cause. No lands are going to be ceded. The best that can happen is a compromise, that will let the Natives feel they have saved face. I'd like more for them, but that would mean catching up to 21st C and arguing for better education, and right for higher education.

Im orking o a deadline so I havent been able to read your PM yet. Suffice it to say, however, that might making right is not going to erase the common REACTION to a pervieced usurping of land. Why can we fathom justifying israel but not Lakota? Atzlan? Is israels claim less than it is if they could not fend off arabs via western support for a jewsih nation?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ahhhh! Fresh ideas.

Would you accept a Lakota Nation? Just curious. Feel free to hop on into the fray.

Definitely.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anarchy – but thankfully we have police and courts that are, though not perfect, helpful in holding individuals accountable to contracts and deals that they make.

Um... what are the police and the courts, if not the 'force' that peope turn to when someone else 'disagrees' with them?

 

[Shogun]

You are -exactly- right.
"Just cause" and $0.99 gets your a double cheeseburger if you dont have the power to back your cause up.

Well, I'm glad to see the modern conquestadors can still validate using terror against a civilian population to FORCE them to conform to the perogatives of the DOMINANT culture...

Can you breath in this quicksand you seem to be stuck in?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see your cyrstal ball is working as well today as it did when you cast your 04 vote.
Indeed, save what E-face you can now that you see the marionette strings making you dance earlier in this thread.

Good one! Just keep on swinging, pally -- you're sure to connect sometime!

 

[mattskramer]

Anyway, I think that the Lakota have a point and that they should have their own small independent nation even if it is within the USA. How we go about that is a different issue.

This reminds me about another Indian issue some time ago. Some politician or bureaucrat thought that we would be justified to collecting some money/tax from the profits that Indians were making in their casinos. I thought that those people had a lot of nerve. We basically took so much of their land and resources. Now we were attempting to take more from them. I don’t remember many of the details but I think that the notion fizzled and went away.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe it was wrong for the govt to use force at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I'm glad to see the modern conquestadors can still validate using terror against a civilian population to FORCE them to conform to the perogatives of the DOMINANT culture...
Can you breath in this quicksand you seem to be stuck in?

Might makes right. Always has, aways will.
If you have ever thought otherwise, you're simply deluding yourself.
(Not that that's not obvious)

 

[Shogun]

With an imagineation like yours, I'll bet being alone on saturday night isnt a big deal for you....


The right to rebel doeent mean a thing unless you succeed.
And if you don't succeed, you hang.
Might makes right -- its that simple.

It's not my imagination that I started this thread with. EVIDENCE means so much more than your desperate little ad hominems. Indeed, I probably don't even need to point out how your insinuation about my Saturday nights are directly equivilent to the tacts of the Scarlet A crowd.


American constitutional rules do not apply to our Native populations. But, I'm glad to see that you still favor the Kassam solution to the usurping of land! Thanks, AGAIN, for proving my point, dude!

 

[mattskramer]

Might makes right. Always has, aways will.
If you have ever thought otherwise, you're simply deluding yourself.
(Not that that's not obvious)

Might does not make things right. Strong-arm robbery is not right even if the robber is never caught.

 

[Shogun]

Good one! Just keep on swinging, pally -- you're sure to connect sometime!

You must not realize that i've already used your example to validate my point. By this point I've already given you the MOHAMED ali treatment. ENJOY!

 

[Shogun]

Might makes right. Always has, aways will.
If you have ever thought otherwise, you're simply deluding yourself.
(Not that that's not obvious)

Trust me, what's obvious by your childish regurgitation of a weak talking point is which of us is clearly deluded.


Indeed, I can't wait until you accuse a liberal of avoiding the topic by using ad hominems again. I probably won't be laughing at you then either!

 

[midcan5]

The legal assumption in all these arguments is that law today means the same as law in the past. You would need to establish there were no statute of limitations in these matters. If you did establish that the debate goes in a circle. (I usually argue law or whatever, has changed, same as I argue the gun hugger's use of the 2nd Amendment is misplaced and irrelevant.)

But enjoy your battle.

""Robert A. Williams, Jr. in The American Indian in Western Legal Thought discusses the legal theories which were used to justify the western conquest of indigenous peoples 8. He derives these from the practices of the Catholic Popes, the medieval crusades against Islam, and the concept of Just War. Arrogating to themselves the care of all humans on the Earth, the Popes eventually believed themselves capable of dividing all non-christian territories and peoples among the Catholic faithful of Portugal and Spain. Early commentators on the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, Francisco de Victoria 9, and Bartholome de Las Casas, believed that indigenous peoples personal and property rights were equal to those of the Conquistadores 10. This view was opposed by Sepulveda. Although de Victoria and de Las Casas were supported by the Spanish King, the Viceroys in New Spain ignored and actively subverted the legal regulations meant to protect the indigenous people from exploitation and death. Conquest and slavery were justified by the fact that the indigenous peoples were not Christians. This was ritualized in the Requerimiento, intended to give the natives the chance to adopt Christianity and avoid conquest, it was turned into a sham to allow conquest. Its early unchecked development with its undeniable result for the Conquistidores of personal and national wealth, encouraged later imperialist adventures by the English and French in the Americas and Asia.""

Another point is "...empty, unsettled or unpopulated land could be claimed by any one who would settle and develop it. South Africa and Australia have been the champions of this doctrine. Again, this doctrine is culturally arrogant in that it presupposes that land which is not developed or used as a European would use it is undeveloped or unpopulated."

http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

You must not realize that i've already used your example to validate my point.

No. You haven't