Lakota break away from US

[M14 Shooter]

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

Except that 5000+ years of recorded history, current to this second, shows otherwise.

 

[Annie]

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.

Please tell me Matts, you realize just how idiotic you sound to those reading you. Please. "how small" "This reminds me of..."

 

[mattskramer]

Please tell me Matts, you realize just how idiotic you sound to those reading you. Please.

I don’t know. I’ve never taken a poll. Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention. I'll return the favor by giving a piece of advice: If my comments seem to be too idiotic for you to bear, there is the ignore option.

 

[M14 Shooter]

American constitutional rules do not apply to our Native populations.

And that's all anyone ever really needs to hear from you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You do understand that "might" is how we deal with the robber, right?
And when you have a disagreement with someone and take them to court -- that too is an ecercise of "might" -- right?

Might makes right. You might not agree with someone supposedly not respecting your "rights", but if you don't have the power to do something about it, your disagreement is meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

All a government ever does is use force.

 

[mattskramer]

You do understand that "might" is how we deal with the robber, right?
And when you have a disagreement with someone and take him or her to court -- that too is an exercise of "might" -- right?

There is a difference. We have laws made by legislatures. If you think that theft should be allowed, you vote for people who will remove the laws against theft. If not enough people agree with you about legalizing theft, you go to another nation where theft is legal. It is wrong to enter into an agreement and break it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Might makes right. You might not agree with someone supposedly not respecting your "rights", but if you don't have the power to do something about it, your disagreement is meaningless.

Might works. Power has a history of working very well. That does not mean, in the philosophical and ethical sense, that might makes things right. There is a difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a difference. We have laws made by legislatures.

Laws are a means to legitimize the use of force, by (in our case) gaining a societal consensus on what should be and what shouldn't.

The fact remians that then you en-force the laws, you're applying force greater than that which the person(s) who are having the force applied to can muster.
Why is what yu are doing 'wrong'? Why do you nogh thave a right to do something? Because the law says so, and the government can back up the law with force.

That does not mean, in the philosophical and ethical sense, that might makes things right.

Again: You can scream "I have a right to do this" all the way to the gallows.

 

[mattskramer]

All laws are are a means to 'legitimize; the use of force, by gaining a consensus on what should be and what shouldn't.
The fact remians that then you en-force the laws, you're applying force greater than that which the person(s) who are having the force applied to can muster.
Why is what yu are doing 'wrong'? Why do you nogh thave a right to do something? Because the law says so, and the government can back up the law with force.

Okay. I think that I understand but there is still the element of the consent of the governed. If enough people don’t line the laws, they can vote to have the laws changed – unless our government does a Pakistan police state.

Again: You can scream "I have a right to do this" all the way to the gallows.

I agree.

 

[Abelian Sea]

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.

That was my gut reaction as well. Good for them! Yay, underdog!

But then I thought, wait a minute, my house is on land that was once used by some indeginous tribe. If their descendents came to my door one day and presented a valid and compelling argument that, legally and morally, they were entitled to use the land my house is on to raise crops, so I should just move along so they could get on with clearing away my house, I think my gut reaction would be different. My gut reaction would be, "make me," bringing me around to M14's way of thinking.

So, I think a more interesting question than "should the Lakota have their own independent nation," is "should the Lakota have their own independent nation if it means you have lose "your" land and move your family?"

 

[Gunny]

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.

Sure it's completel legal to withdraw from treaties with the US. I believe there were some Southern states that legally, had every right to withdraw from the Union.

How'd that work out?

 

[Lookout]

Welcome back to the Friday night fights. For those of you just joining us, Its been a brutal battle in and out of the ring. Its still anyones game but to recap...Shogun came out in the red trunks swinging while m-14 in the blue came for a wrestling match. Punches have been thrown from both sides as well as a whole slew of holds. At one point the match went outside the ring but we had to break for a commercial and have no idea what really happened. Others have tried to sway this match with no avail. the ref is still no where to be found and neither contender is paying attention to the bell.

 

[Annie]

Sure it's completel legal to withdraw from treaties with the US. I believe there were some Southern states that legally, had every right to withdraw from the Union.

How'd that work out?

Gunny there is a difference. The US Government never dealt with the Confederacy as a legitimate government. They did the Lakota and other Native American nations. At no time did Lincoln acknowledge the Confederacy.

 

[Shogun]

No. You haven't

HAHAHA!

ooook. I notice you don't mention Kasaam rockets in your Might Makes Right arguement!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Shogun]

Except that 5000+ years of recorded history, current to this second, shows otherwise.

Ahhh.. yea, unlike 10k years of history in North America for the natives showing how my keen sense of bending you over onto this internet whipping post....




It's hilarious that you support jewish 5k years in spite of pals... but just don't give a rats ass aobut our natives 10k years in spite of YOUR nation.


CLEARLY, i'm not using you to support my entire thesis. CLEARLY.

 

[Shogun]

And that's all anyone ever really needs to hear from you.

Indeed, why sign a treaty when it's assumed that the US constitution reaches into native territory?




I understand that you feel used by this point. Like a sock puppet thrown into the closet. Say, if it makes you feel better you can always EDIT your first batch of posts to make it appear that I did not, in fact, use your reaction to PROVE my point.

 

[Shogun]

You do understand that "might" is how we deal with the robber, right?
And when you have a disagreement with someone and take them to court -- that too is an ecercise of "might" -- right?

Might makes right. You might not agree with someone supposedly not respecting your "rights", but if you don't have the power to do something about it, your disagreement is meaningless.

Might doesn't make right. In the US, LAWS make right. We don't rationalize drug dealers just because they have high powered weapons. We don't accept gangsters just because they had thompsons. LA gang wars are not RIGHT just because they are mightier than the unarmed population.


I swear, dude.. You are the kind of gun lover that cripples gun advocacy.

 

[Lookout]

Shogun comes out with a one, two, three set of punches and starts to beat m-14 with a sock puppet.

 

[Shogun]

That was my gut reaction as well. Good for them! Yay, underdog!

But then I thought, wait a minute, my house is on land that was once used by some indeginous tribe. If their descendents came to my door one day and presented a valid and compelling argument that, legally and morally, they were entitled to use the land my house is on to raise crops, so I should just move along so they could get on with clearing away my house, I think my gut reaction would be different. My gut reaction would be, "make me," bringing me around to M14's way of thinking.

So, I think a more interesting question than "should the Lakota have their own independent nation," is "should the Lakota have their own independent nation if it means you have lose "your" land and move your family?"

BINGO.


Say, where the hell is Onedomino and snowman in a thread like this?

 

[Gunny]

Gunny there is a difference. The US Government never dealt with the Confederacy as a legitimate government. They did the Lakota and other Native American nations. At no time did Lincoln acknowledge the Confederacy.

There is no difference in regard to any of the states or any parts thereof trying to seceed from the Union. All of the land the Lakota are claiming has already been claimed by the US government and every time Native Americans have attempted uprising they have been put down.

As evidenced by the kook who supposedly renounced his citizenship and joined the Taliban, the US apparently does not recognize such. If Means and his crew push too hard they'll just find themselves on trial for sedition in Federal Court.