PDA

View Full Version : Not another seccessionist movement...


SilentScope001
12-20-2007, 08:58 PM
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.)

TK-8252
12-20-2007, 09:12 PM
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?

mimartin
12-20-2007, 09:27 PM
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 donít 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 (http://cherokeehistory.com/original.gif)

SilentScope001
12-20-2007, 09:32 PM
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.

Corinthian
12-20-2007, 11:18 PM
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.

TK-8252
12-21-2007, 12:26 AM
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.

Rev7
12-21-2007, 12:40 AM
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.

TK-8252
12-21-2007, 12:53 AM
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****.

Corinthian
12-21-2007, 12:55 AM
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.

TK-8252
12-21-2007, 01:05 AM
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.

Rev7
12-21-2007, 01:11 AM
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.

TK-8252
12-21-2007, 01:12 AM
Instantly uproot anyone in those states?

I'm talking about reservations.

Rev7
12-21-2007, 01:17 AM
I was talking about if these Indians this land. :)

Web Rider
12-21-2007, 02:54 AM
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.

SilentScope001
12-21-2007, 03:44 PM
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?

Darth InSidious
12-21-2007, 05:24 PM
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...

Web Rider
12-21-2007, 08:24 PM
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".

Corinthian
12-21-2007, 09:06 PM
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.

TK-8252
12-21-2007, 09:17 PM
They have no right to demand that we uproot.

If only they had said that to the settlers those 200 years ago... ;)

mimartin
12-21-2007, 09:31 PM
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.

Corinthian
12-21-2007, 09:42 PM
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.

John Galt
12-21-2007, 10:24 PM
If they can collect enough signatures to petition congress, I think Congress should have no choice but to let them secede.

Rev7
12-22-2007, 12:58 AM
...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.

Web Rider
12-22-2007, 02:12 AM
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.

Corinthian
12-22-2007, 04:26 AM
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.

Darth InSidious
12-22-2007, 08:55 AM
They did, the only problem the white man was pretty persuasive and stubborn. The Native Americans fought, but the white man just kept coming.
Well, it's hard to say 'no' to the end of a gun-barrel.

Curious thing is, the Westminster government of the day instructed the settlers not to continue expanding. Then they had to pay to protect the settlers...and we know where that led.

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.
And tell me, do you really think that the Palmerston School of diplomacy is wise in a world of nuclear arms?

John Galt
12-22-2007, 10:42 AM
I, on the other hand, don't think congress should be able to do whatever it wants(that's why we have a constitution, albeit one that's being trampled on). If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.

Web Rider
12-22-2007, 12:36 PM
I, on the other hand, don't think congress should be able to do whatever it wants(that's why we have a constitution, albeit one that's being trampled on). If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.
To that much I agree too, if 3+ million people of the 4.5 million in the proposed secession area signed on, sure. Signatures from outside the area don't count, ie: anyone who supports the Lakota secession but isnt part of the tribe or living within the proposed area.

But we're still talking max some 70,000 people, and isnt the "number" for petitioning congress for a redress of greviences like, 600k?

tk102
12-22-2007, 01:42 PM
If they actually could get a supermajority of the population of those states to agree on secession, they should be able to secede. I'd draw this from the 10th amendment.I recall an earlier secession that didn't go very well despite the 10th amendment. Back in 1861-1865 I believe...

Rev7
12-22-2007, 06:01 PM
Exactly, sadly I don't think that the Lakota Indians care about that that happened once, and lots of people died, and the ones who tried to secede lost...

John Galt
12-22-2007, 09:25 PM
I recall an earlier secession that didn't go very well despite the 10th amendment. Back in 1861-1865 I believe...

If they had petitioned congress before lincoln took office, I think Buchanan would have let them leave. Lincoln simply refused to remove troops from what was in effect foreign soil(ft sumter), naturally causing a war.

JediAthos
12-22-2007, 09:26 PM
Lincoln never recognized the CSA as a country or the right of those States to secede from the Union. He believed the Union had to be preserved and that the Federal government had jurisdiction over every state government which is how the constituion is written.


I'll be curious to see what the President and Congress do with this. Obviously there's no way they'll agree to what they Lakota are proposing. They will find some legal loophole or something of that nature or in an absolute worst case scenario they'll simply call up the National Guard to defend sovereign U.S. territory.

I don't know exactly what the treaties they're citing said, but I would be interested to see given that they are using them for a basis of their arguement.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure they've got a tough row to hoe. For them to pull this off without consent (which they won't get) they would almost have to become violent because there are U.S. citizens, government buildings, and military installations in all of they states they're referring to.

Tommycat
12-23-2007, 09:29 PM
So Venezuela is in agreement with this? I'm curious when they will return the ancestral land to the Maya.

Jae Onasi
12-23-2007, 10:19 PM
I've just scanned quickly through, so if this is a bit repetitive, forgive me.

I don't think they'll secede--they don't have the money necessary to sustain themselves. They'd lose all the financial subsidies/programs (e.g. financial support for fire/police/911/etc), welfare, health care, etc. They might have enough arable land to farm, but they have no industry except maybe tourism/casinos. They'd end up losing a lot by seceding.

Web Rider
12-23-2007, 11:33 PM
So Venezuela is in agreement with this? I'm curious when they will return the ancestral land to the Maya.

Many people of the nations south of the US border believe themselves to be the true descendants of the Maya, not the bastard(context, it's correctly used) children of the Spanish/Portuguese and whatever native tribes were in the area.

Rev7
12-24-2007, 02:35 AM
I don't think they'll secede--they don't have the money necessary to sustain themselves. They'd lose all the financial subsidies/programs (e.g. financial support for fire/police/911/etc), welfare, health care, etc. They might have enough arable land to farm, but they have no industry except maybe tourism/casinos. They'd end up losing a lot by seceding.
I never really thought about it from that point of view. They WOULD lose a lot. But all of these other countries that are "very interested in this declaration" might help support them in SOME of those areas. Key Word: MIGHT. I also don't think that it would be a very smart move on the Lakota's part. But, this is just some of my speculation...

Tommycat
12-24-2007, 06:28 AM
I actually see it as a very dangerous proposition. I mean if we give the Lakota their land back, what about all of the other tribes. Wouldn't they also be demanding theirs back as well? That would significantly carve up the US into almost nothing. Not to mention there are several military installations around the country. I say if they want it back, fight for it. If we win again they have to live on even smaller land:D

SilentScope001
12-24-2007, 10:08 AM
To be perfectly honest, the Lakota very likely may have very well kicked out the previous inhabitants of their lands when they first came there. So, maybe those previous inhabitans really deserve the land, not Lakota.

It's like it's the Canninates who really deserve the West Bank or the Gaza Strip or that huge chunck of land inbetween the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, neither the Arabs or the Israelis.

EDIT: It's suprising, but I still can't find any other nation willing to recognize Means' movement, after all this time. Without any external recoginiation, the movement is doomed to fail. Plus, the "liens" are likely enough going to be renounced as illegal in the court system.

International recogniation is the only thing that will SAVE Means, and even that is merely just a properganda stunt to help Means via his other goals. You must remember, had Britian intervened on behalf of the South, America may have very well lost the Civil War.

Web Rider
12-25-2007, 12:12 AM
Plus, the "liens" are likely enough going to be renounced as illegal in the court system.

yes, it's rather difficult to file liens against somebody's property with the government you are attempting to secede from on the grounds that you're "country", which is the principle jurisdiction of the nation you are no longer part of, owns that land.

SilentScope001
02-06-2008, 03:13 PM
UPDATE!

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/07/news/local/doc478294bd25eb5785538970.txt

Seccessionist movement fails (due to lack of support from the leaders of those who actually run Lakota according to those treaties).

EDIT: Altough the Republic of Lakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah) has their own wikipedia article now. Meanwhile, the Treaty Council which controls Laktoa may consider (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%27No_treaty_withdrawal%27%2C_says_Lakota_elder) modifying the treaty in order to better suit their interests, possibly to allow for more reveunes from outside sources, in thier Jan. 30th Summit. Here's an article about said meeting, I think (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/03/news/local/doc47a4050d713c3273735688.txt).

And Veneuzla does NOT recognize the Lakota government established by Russel Means. This is due to some interpertions, but since it was said in a radio interview why this happened, I don't know exactly why this is so.

El Sitherino
02-06-2008, 03:27 PM
We'll keep you updated on this pointless story as it develops.


Uhm... way to troll?

So did you actually have any intent on a well thought discussion or did you just want to create waves?

SilentScope001
02-06-2008, 03:30 PM
Uhm... way to troll?

So did you actually have any intent on a well thought discussion or did you just want to create waves?

Um. Er.

It was just made as a joke. I wanted to lighten up the mood, after all.

I'll take that comment off. Yeah, I want a serious discussion, just that, well, I do understand not everybody here actually sympathize with the seccesionists.

Corinthian
02-06-2008, 03:40 PM
*Price is Right failure music*

Aww...so much for secession.

Totenkopf
02-07-2008, 02:36 PM
Empires rise and fall. How many of the "natives" weren't beneficiaries of this ebb and flow over time. The "native american" lost out to the europeans who went on to conquer America. Facts are facts, however uncomfortable. Had the natives the ability to force the europeans out at the getgo, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Frankly, I'm unapologetically unsympathetic to seccesionist ideals and think we should do much more to push back the unchecked northern migration that's flooding this nation. More troops on the border, less talk with Mexico about how they feel about it. If they wish to start a war......that's their choice. They've heavily militarized their border with Central America and we should do the same to them. As for the Lakota and other "native" tribes on reservations throughout America, you're lucky you got to keep what you did. Perhaps now they should be reintegrated into the US and not as "set asides". Makes you wonder how many of you europeans are actually the descendants of conquerors rather than the original indigenous peeps. Just something to think about.....