SilentScope001 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html ... Well, unlike other seccessionists, they are on somewhat legal grounds. Lakota did sign treaties with USA as seperate nations, so renouncing those treaties could mean that they are allowed freedom. In theory. Still, I doubt it will go over too well. Especially with this: Portions of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming comprise Lakota country, and the tribe says that if the federal government doesn't begin diplomatic discussions promptly, liens will be filed on property in the five-state region. BOO! If you want to leave the USA, do so, but please, don't just rob from us! (Claiming that, "Just because you robbed us of our property, therefore, we can rob you of your property" just makes you the bigger fool.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I think this is great, actually. The Native Americans deserve to have control over their own lands. Why should the federal government have control over them? BTW, why don't I find it suprising that Bush opposes independence for Native Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 BTW, why don't I find it suprising that Bush opposes independence for Native Americans?I don't have a problem with them wanting to have independence for the own land. They want independence over all the land in the ancestral territory. Which I don’t believe it was right for the American government to take the land and perform genocide on the Native American in the first place. That said, it would be just as wrong for them to take the land from the current owners that had nothing to do with stealing it from their ancestor. If they get away with this, I want parts of Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, North and South Carolina Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi back for my ancestors. Cheokee Nation before the white man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Curses! http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001 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." If Boliva and Venuezula accept the indepedence of the Lakota, and actually back it by providing airshipments instead of just offering moral support, we finally got ourselves a real movement. But I sincercly doubt that any nation will offer anything more than just moral support. Plus, there is some resentment I am picking up with some people against the self-proclaimed leaders. Even that newspaper I quoted has lots of Native Americans angry at the declaration of indepedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 They can go fly a kite. That's our land now. It's not nice, but the fact of the matter is, they failed to hold on to the land. It's part of the United States. It's ours. If they want to secede, they're welcome to try, but it didn't turn out very well for the Secessionists the last time it was tried, and they're unlikely to get the popular support necessary to allow them to secede anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I think they should have control over at least their own reservations. As of now, the U.S. government has jurisdiction over the reservations, which I think is totally immoral. Really, a lot of Americans don't like our own federal government, so what makes us think that the natives like it? While I don't think that Native Americans are entitled to large portions of the United States, I think that this kind of movement is a good thing, rather than a bad thing, because it draws attention to the need for Native Americans to have territory for themselves. I like the idea of them getting their own sovereign nation, because they could finally set their own laws over their own lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Those states are a part of America. I disagree with what they are proposing. I think that they should have more control over their reservations, but not total control because that land 'belongs' to the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Those states are a part of America. I disagree with what they are proposing. I think that they should have more control over their reservations, but not total control because that land 'belongs' to the United States of America. It's such a double standard. We stole their land, but now we feel bad, so we give them reservations. But even though its their reservations, they're still bound by U.S. law, because the land still technically belongs to the U.S. Just give them some damn land. No bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 No. It's our land. Why do they deserve it? What have they done for us that warrants us sacrificing chunks of our territory to them to assuage our, what, guilty consciences? I'm not gonna cry about something by great-grandfathers did 100 years ago. This is the same kind of crap as slavery reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 No. It's our land. Why do they deserve it? What have they done for us that warrants us sacrificing chunks of our territory to them to assuage our, what, guilty consciences? I'm not gonna cry about something by great-grandfathers did 100 years ago. This is the same kind of crap as slavery reparations. So politicians in Washington should have control over pieces of land in America specifically set aside for native tribes... why? What has the U.S. done to deserve the land any more than the natives? We acquired the land through war, slaughter, and deception. The least we could do - to right a wrong - is to give the natives the right to decide what goes on on their own land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Instantly uproot anyone in those states? Where would they go? How would they get another job? Home? ect. That would be harsh. I think that they should not dwell so much on the past. This is the present not the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Instantly uproot anyone in those states? I'm talking about reservations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I was talking about if these Indians this land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I'm sorry Lakota people, but, like many people's around the world, you were soundly defeated by a more powerful oppoenent. You may think our tactics were dirty and underhanded, but guess what? Too bad. Reservations should be integrated into the US once and for all. I'm sick of the tribes that isolate themselves and then piss and moan at the US for everything and I'm more sick of those ones that take advantage of the casino rights given them and you still see native people's suffering all around the tribal lands, even when you know hundreds of millions are being raked in tax free. Guess what, I was born here, that makes me native, wanna be part of a tribe? Great, I can be part of the Elks Club, you don't need land(especially land that wasn't your ancestral land to begin with) to claim to be of a tribe. Any foreign nation attempting to fly in "aid" would do better to keep their planes, as IMO, we should shoot down every one that crosses into US airspace, IF it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 UDATE (misspelling intentional) on the Lakota Crisis: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/12/21/news/local/doc476a99630633e335271152.txt Meanwhile, the delegation has delivered copies of the letter to the embassies of Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa. "We're asking for recognition," Means said, adding that Ireland and East Timor are "very interested" in the declaration. Other countries will get copies of the same declaration, which Means said also would be delivered to the United Nations and to state and county governments covered by treaties, including treaties signed in 1851 and 1868. "We're willing to negotiate with any American political entity," Means said. Is he bluffing? Or does Means got a sure-fire method to win a Civil War without firing a shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 They can go fly a kite. That's our land now. It's not nice, but the fact of the matter is, they failed to hold on to the land. It's part of the United States. It's ours. If they want to secede, they're welcome to try, but it didn't turn out very well for the Secessionists the last time it was tried, and they're unlikely to get the popular support necessary to allow them to secede anyway. What a wonderful sentiment. What happened to freedom of self-determination? You know, all that stuff Woodrow Wilson made a fuss over? Or does that only apply if you're WASP? Plus ca change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 What a wonderful sentiment. What happened to freedom of self-determination? You know, all that stuff Woodrow Wilson made a fuss over? Or does that only apply if you're WASP? Plus ca change... It might apply if they were claiming land that nobody else but Lakota people occupied. Instead they're claiming 5 states as "theirs" and a few million American citizens. South Dakota=780k North Dakota=635k North Dakota=944k Idaho=1.466mil Wyoming=515k total=4.430mil Basically, he's saying: "Hey, we're a couple thousand(roughly 70,000 registered members) people who think all this land is ours and we're telling a couple million people to get lost or submit to our rule." Not that any non-lakota would have any say in the "government" anyway, since it would be elected/composed of by Tribal elders. Not to mention it's impossible to run a country without taxes unless you've got some dang altruistic people. I seem to recall Nazi Germany doing the same thing by means of "hey look, there's germanic people there, that means its ours so all you other people get lost." He can deliver all the statements and documents he wants, and they can recognize it as a country if they please, and IMO, we should bomb the **** out of their reservation until they're either all dead or they give up. If the goveneors of the various states were smart, they'd appeal to the US to secede from the "lakota nation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 You operate under a failed impression that I give a wooden nickel about anything Woodrow Wilson said, Insidious. I don't give a crap whether they're Indians, Mexicans, Spaniards, French, British, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Russians, Romanians, Egyptians, Libyans...it's our land. The United States of America. They have no right to demand that we uproot. Five generations back, maybe we did some bad stuff to them. But that's not our problem. Not one of them wasn't present during the Western Expansion, and not one of us White Men were present for it, either. It has nothing to do with either of us. If they don't like it here, they can leave. But we're under no obligation to give them back territory that their people lost 200 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 They have no right to demand that we uproot. If only they had said that to the settlers those 200 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 If only they had said that to the settlers those 200 years ago... They did, the only problem the white man was pretty persuasive and stubborn. The Native Americans fought, but the white man just kept coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 The difference is, we have the power to defend our lands. They didn't. Welcome to the world of diplomacy, with all the crap taken off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 If they can collect enough signatures to petition congress, I think Congress should have no choice but to let them secede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 ...BUT what would happen to all of the people living in the states that these Indians want? I know that they Indians didn't want to give up their land, BUT the United States fought for the land. That was pretty much how you aquired new land in that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 If only they had said that to the settlers those 200 years ago... They did, the only problem the white man was pretty persuasive and stubborn. The Native Americans fought, but the white man just kept coming. And as I said earlier, they lost to a superior enemy, that is the way of the world. Fair? heck no, did any of them live through it? Nope. Did any Americans commit it? nope. ...BUT what would happen to all of the people living in the states that these Indians want? I know that they Indians didn't want to give up their land, BUT the United States fought for the land. That was pretty much how you aquired new land in that time. They already stated in the original article, that anyone could come there, and any US citizen could stay there, as long as they renounced their US citizenship and became a citizen of the "lakota nation". If they can collect enough signatures to petition congress, I think Congress should have no choice but to let them secede. Congress can do whatever it wants, plus, you're weighing at most, some 70,000 Lakota, given 100% of the care or agree, against 4.5 million Americans. I don't think that any number of "signatures" is going to get congress to do it. Congress can still choose to NOT let them, it's not like X# of signatures forces Congress's hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Besides, 70,000 people. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. That's less than 1/4000th of the population. It's a spit in the bucket. I live in a city with more than 13 times that number. Nobody cares about these guys. Besides, I doubt all the Lakota WANT to secede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.