Sitting Bull's people break away from US

[grandpa]

Sitting Bull's people break away from US | NEWS.com.au THE Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the US. "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 said.

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/arti...e335271152.txt "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.”

This seems like a rather important event to me.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa This seems like a rather important event to me. Grandpa h.

It may require military action to defend their breaking the treaties but if they want their independence from the United States they are certainly free to make the attempt. Of course, they are conquered peoples, so don't expect the United States to just let them go free.

[kubedawg]

Money and casinos are nothing in comparison to lost lives and land these people deserve.

[another day]

Quote by: Chancellor It may require military action to defend their breaking the treaties but if they want their independence from the United States they are certainly free to make the attempt. Of course, they are conquered peoples, so don't expect the United States to just let them go free.

Hah. Let them try, the lakota indians will only become martyrs of the US's continued tyranny on humanity.

[Jack]

Their lands are sovereign nations. I don't believe that simply refusing to honor treaties would affect their status. We certainly ignored treaties when it served our purpose, yet their lands remained sovereign.

This issue has been simmering for a few years.
http://www.treatycouncil.org/PDFs/DE...DEPENDENCE.pdf

[Technosoul]

This would mean they would no longer be subject to the Consitution or any of our laws or courts, totally independant? No longer mandated to have their children go to public schools, etc. No longer paying taxes from Indian gambling places?

And what land do they acturally own historically? Just the land set aside by a treaty or other lands from which they were herded away from? Withdrawing from a treaty would suggest withdrawing from land ownership also. Not sure?

What they should do is request a new treaty that would replace the old one and that would include some of their new demands. However is "they" everyone on the reservation or just a few guys out to create a following?

[ruksak]

I cannot see as too how this could possibly work. They would be without the help of any United States infrastructure, roads, schools, stores...........how could this work?

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. If they actually had a viable, self contained plan to construct an autonomous nation of their own, I would support it. But from what I've read, this cannot work. Nor will it stand.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: kubedawg Money and casinos are nothing in comparison to lost lives and land these people deserve.

These people deserve lost lives and land?

[Ken Carman]

This seems like a rather important event to me.

Of course it is but, stop, look over there! Do you know what one of Britney's relatives is doing now?


Makes me want to scream...

"Liberal media my ASS!"

[grandpa]

Quote by: Ken Carman Of course it is but, stop, look over there! Do you know what one of Britney's relatives is doing now?

Yes, the Lakota (and other tribes) are one thing that don't often make the media radar.

Grandpa h.

[Ken Carman]

Are they "sovereign," or not? Ever since we herded them like cattle into reservations this has been an issue of convenience. When it's convenient for us to recognize their sovereign nature... we do and laugh, "Look at the drunk and lazy, good for nothing, Indians!" Let them build casinos and gas stations and, like my mother-in-law, we start screaming...

"Why they can't they do that!!!!!!!!!!!"

Once again...

Sovereign, as in...

"Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state."

...or not?

Look folks, if we don't like the competition: if we feel it "unfair" (sic), then let's stop acting like bullies and impose an import/export tax? I wouldn't agree with it, but at least it would be honest and acting less like they're mere vermin meant to be consigned to concentration camps.

[ruksak]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, the Lakota (and other tribes) are one thing that don't often make the media radar. Grandpa h.

This could be a move that may be presented as a poignant piece of American history. However, our society says otherwise.

Do you think it is possible that in 100 years, school children will sit down to take a history test and they will be required to know the date in which Jamie Lynn Spears became pregnant?

Could we dilapidate into that sort of state after enough time?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: ruksak This could be a move that may be presented as a poignant piece of American history. However, our society says otherwise. Do you think it is possible that in 100 years, school children will sit down to take a history test and they will be required to know the date in which Jamie Lynn Spears became pregnant? Could we dilapidate into that sort of state after enough time?

Sad to say, when I'm not touring or performing at home I occasionally substitute and in our system history classes are either not being offered, rare or quite shallow compared with what I learned as I grew up. They seem to be shying away from teaching history at all.

I'm almost afraid to see what any such classes might do in in the future, if I'm alive. I certainly won't be in 100 years, or even 50, unless something dramatic happens technologically. I'm not holding my breath. Of course, depending on how bad that tech is, maybe I should?

[Chancellor]

The idigenous peoples (those born in the United States) were granted citizenship in 1924 and, thus, their tribes cannot be considered sovereign nations. Now, if they want to surrender their citizenship and declare their independence, they're free to do so.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Chancellor The idigenous peoples (those born in the United States) were granted citizenship in 1924 and, thus, their tribes cannot be considered sovereign nations. Now, if they want to surrender their citizenship and declare their independence, they're free to do so.

So reservations are a myth? I drive by a hell of a lot of myths yearly.

Note...

Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves. Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government to government relations between Washington and the American Indian tribes. [1] However, all Indian land is held in trust by the United States and Federal law still regulates the political and economic rights of tribal governments.

source


Yes, I did notice the last sentence, and that is what I feel is wrong and should be corrected.

Sovereign means...

Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. .

source


Either they are sovereign states... or not. The US wants it both ways. It's a hypocritical, self serving contradiction in need of a remedy.

Either we give them real status as a sovereign state or we send them back where they came from. Wait a minute....

[Zeebadee]

The native Americans are on their reservations for one reason and one reason only: They couldn't, or wouldn't protect what they were in possession of.

The people advocating unrestricted immigration really ought to take note of that fact.

[Sonart]

.

Jeez people, you're on the friggin' Internet. What's so challenging about looking stuff up.

--"Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves. Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government-to-government relations between Washington and the American Indian tribes.[1] However, most Indian land is held in trust by the United States,[2] and federal law still regulates the political and economic rights of tribal governments. Tribal jurisdiction over persons and things within tribal borders are often at issue. While tribal criminal jurisdiction over Indians is reasonably well settled, Tribes are still striving to achieve criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian persons who commit crimes in Indian Country. This is mostly due to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1978 in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe that tribes lack the inherent authority to arrest, try and convict non-Indians who commit crimes on their lands (see below for additional discussion on this point.) The Oliphant decision remains controversial in Indian Country."--

Yes, most Indian tribes maintain sovereignty over their reservation lands, but that sovereignty seems somewhat symbolic, meaning they can govern themselves, as long as it doesn't conflict with U.S. law.

Quote by: Zeebadee The people advocating unrestricted immigration really ought to take note of that fact.

I don't see todays immigrants so much taking away our land as looking for jobs landscaping it for us. Native Americans can only wish that had been their problem. Apples and Bullfrogs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As to this story, here's an interesting excercise... I googled "lakota break away". Yet while I found page after page of links to this story, they were all the exact same press release....

--"The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties... blah, blah, blah."--

The only different story I found was from UPI ...

--"American Indian Movement founder Russell Means also began notifying foreign embassies worldwide, and plans to deliver the declaration to the United Nations."--

So until that happens, and this story "plays Vegas" -- that is, gets checked out and reported by the main stream media -- I see nothing more here than a lame PR stunt by a gang of aging radicals.

.

[xyzer]

Important event, my a**! Its a media scam designed to titillate the ignorant and uninformed. The usual press distortion...
NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Here is the kind of story that really proves how little the MSM bothers to research things, how they often simply print glorified press releases without doing any real "journalism," and how the defective end product gets picked up and regurgitated like it is suddenly a "fact." In this one we have the story of "the Lakota Sioux Indians" announcing that "they" have withdrawn from agreed upon treaties with the US government and that they are now a sovereign nation, no longer to be called citizens of the USA. Problem is "the Lakota Sioux Indians" that have made this announcement are just an unaffiliated group of Indian activists the leader of whom does not represent the official Lakota tribe leadership! Yet here is the news media reporting this story as if all "the Lakota Sioux Indians" have banded together and quit the union.

Check your facts before you draw conclusions gandpa? Don't beleive what the press and the politicians tell you

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor It may require military action to defend their breaking the treaties but if they want their independence from the United States they are certainly free to make the attempt. Of course, they are conquered peoples, so don't expect the United States to just let them go free.

Or they'll simply be ignored like they've typically been. Somethings aren't big deals unless both parties accept them as big deals.

The idigenous peoples (those born in the United States) were granted citizenship in 1924 and, thus, their tribes cannot be considered sovereign nations. Now, if they want to surrender their citizenship and declare their independence, they're free to do so.

I take it you're unfamiliar with dual citizenship?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: xyzer Check your facts before you draw conclusions gandpa? Don't believe what the press and the politicians tell you

Get it right yourself, xyzer. This has nothing to do with mainstream media or politicians. This is an entirely Internet driven story involving one press release and an announcement by Russel Means, an aging Sioux radical.

Guerilla News Network -- radical left, self declared non-mainstream media

PRAAG -- South African

Dandelion Salad -- Whatever the hell... radical left

The Raw Story -- another leftist news "boutique"

Yahoo!xtra News -- anyone know what this is?

B26363 -- Part of GNN (Guerilla News Network), whoever these people are, they're radical.

News.com -- Australian, Murdock owned Methinks.

Rastafari Speaks -- more radical leftists

Free Republic -- Interesting... the radical right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you haven't gotten the picture yet, this story is the exact same press release landing all over the blogosphere, but it has yet to be picked up by a single, serious mainstream news organization or commented on by any politician or law enforcement agency. So there's either nothing to it but a PR stunt, or much more to find out. If there's no followup in the next few days, I suspect we'll know which it is.

.