| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Politix | ||
| Lakota Renounces Treaties With US, Declare Independence | ||
| 2007-12-20 | ||
The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States. "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.
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 U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said. The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said. 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.
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. | ||
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #31 As Comanche David Yeagley says, tribes lost and we won the Indian war--we were better warriors. He suggests they should get on with their lives and look to the future, not dwell in the past. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-12-20 22:26 |
| #30 "conquer them and annex the land" What do you mean "annex"? It is already ours. If they have decided to toss out the treaties that made it theirs. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-12-20 22:02 |
| #29 Oh for the pre 9-11 long ago time when a young man and US Army soldier from Guam asked a young BRUNETTE ANN COULTER > "IS COULTER PRONOUNCED THE SAME AS HITLER'S KULTUR"?. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 21:32 |
| #28 D *** NGED 1960's sexy WHITNEY HUSTON videos, besides of course Oliver Stone, LITTLE BIG MAN, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, MEL GIBSON'S APOCALYPTO, JOHN COUGAR MELLENCAMP, and PREDATOR VERSUS ALIEN series [Indian Pyramids]. No surprise here - A DREAM/VISION > Throughout the AMERICAS, indians were calling on the Great Spirit, their Gods, andor their ancestors IN DANCES/LOUD SONGS-PRAYERS OF WAR AND LIFE. IMAGE VESTIGES OF LONG AGO GHOST DANCES, COUNCILS, ETC. Ditto for various ethnic/indigenous peoples of Asia + Africa + Oceania. * MADONNA > "LIVE TO TELL" - the "Writings on the Wall" lyric > MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN [Bible, etal]??? VISION QUEST > "I SEE YOU IN THE SMOKY AIR...WEIGHT OF MY STARE...STANDING STILL IN TIME IF YOU CAN READ MY MIND". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 21:25 |
| #27 No taxes, eh? Might have to look into that. Considering the lack of jobs, income taxes are a non-issue. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-20 19:58 |
| #26 They withdraw, that means the peace treaties are no longer in effect and a state of war exists. Send in the military and crush them utterly, take no prisoners, leave none alive and then annex the land. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-12-20 17:14 |
| #25 "Somebody should do something about this!" Dissolve the reservation system and apply the same laws that everyone else lives by. Distribute the land among the tribal members if you want, but get rid of the fiction that the reservations are sovereign in any way. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-12-20 16:38 |
| #24 Once again we pretend that natives are not assimilated. Displays of aboriginal culture are no different than re-creations of medieval jousts. Its all an act, played out to get easy money. |
| Posted by: Caesar Choluck3299 2007-12-20 16:29 |
| #23 Anguper Hupomosing9418: I agree with what you said, but it is hard to convey the sometimes Looney Tunes nature of the relationships the tribes have with the federal, State and local governments. And also with themselves. Arizona being a reservation heavy State, I have seen examples of tribal governments doing things across the gamut from ordered and brilliant to East St. Louis idiotic. And non-reservation city governments behave like petulant 5 year olds. And almost everybody agrees: "Somebody should do something about this!", generally with no idea about who should do what. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-20 15:58 |
| #22 Does this mean Lakota now qualify for in state university grants in Arkansas? |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-12-20 15:15 |
| #21 Businesses can & do enter into agreements with tribes over various matters, this is subject to negotiation & agreements between the two, sometimes involving what is called "waiver of sovereignty" on the tribe's part so that the businesses have recourse in case agreements don't work out as planned. The various Sioux branches have a rep as being intractably disorganized. I worked at Pine Ridge for a week in 1977. There were no bank branches in town, I was told banks had tried opening branches before, but gave up after being robbed multiple times. Car rental agencies forbade renters from taking cars onto the Pine Ridge Reservation. One of the PHS docs at the local hospital had insulted someone's relative, and that night armed masked men showed up at his door & suggested he resign his position there, which he did forthwith. It's a different world there. I found some of the people suspicious of me, but the great majority were delightful to know. Some states & localities contribute greatly to the disorganized operations of tribes by harassing and suing various tribal entities & corporations, even though the law is rather consistently interpreted in favor of tribal sovereignty. Kansas for example is still in litigation in federal court over tribal-owned trucks full of gasoline that Kansas seized and wants to collect state tax on. All the court precedents indicate Kansas is out of bounds in this matter, but the state continues to pursue court action. The affected tribe is out the cost of the trucks & their gasoline until the matter is closed. Sometimes matters work out for the tribe because of sovereignty. The tribe I belong to leases space on high points of its reservation for radio & cell phone antennas because it is not subject to county zoning & land use laws. The county is a primo example of NIMBYism and cronyism at township & county levels. Townships have sued the county over the location of the county courthouse & even sued to prevent the location of radio antennas to be used by county public safety forces, so that the sheriff had to rent space from the tribe to locate antennas for his operations. That tribe itself has been sued multiple times by local governments over business & treaty matters. The level of litigation has eased somewhat in recent years since the tribe has become the major employer of county residents. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-12-20 14:37 |
| #20 Sry |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-20 13:44 |
| #19 Not every reservation that the Lakota are on are belong entirely to the Lakota. Sting Rock in SD for one. That's Lakota and Dakota. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-12-20 13:41 |
| #18 Means is a socialist rabble rouser. And I rather doubt he has bothered to talk tot he Lakota and Sioux concils, who hold the reall legal authority. "A delegation of Lakota leaders ... Lakota freedom activists " Here's your sign. Not the tribal councils nor the legal representatives. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-12-20 13:23 |
| #17 How long before they press for their Legitimate Rights™? At what point will they announce that Mount Rushmore is the spiritual center of the Lakota Nation and begin Resistance™ activities? When does Amr Moussa pay a visit? |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-12-20 12:33 |
| #16 No taxes, eh? Might have to look into that. |
| Posted by: Chavins Speaking for Boskone1136 2007-12-20 12:21 |
| #15 "Does this mean American taxpayers can cut off their welfare payments?" "The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months. " They are trying to get financial aid outside the US. Maybe free gasoline from Venezuala, support from the UN - remeber the Palestinians? Just send in the G-Men to go after these types for not paying their taxes and the gig is up. |
| Posted by: Gromort Trotsky5960 2007-12-20 12:15 |
| #14 No Casin0s for you! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-12-20 10:50 |
| #13 Russell Means Heap Big To-Do List: - Withdraw from US treaties. - Implement Mouse-That-Roared gambit - Bring white devil to itÂ’s knees - Appoint Ward Churchill poet laureate - Sport shiny medals, like ZimBob |
| Posted by: Hyper 2007-12-20 10:44 |
| #12 I sort of agree with Anonymoose. I think we have dealt harshly with the Lakota. Of course, they were vicious enemies and murdered hundreds of our early settlers. Yet,I only wish we would deal 1/10 as harshly with the tribes in Wazooland and Iraqistan. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2007-12-20 10:36 |
| #11 Cut off all funding and demand passports and visas for entry into the US. That shit will end real quick. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-20 10:35 |
| #10 Well, well... I guess this means you don't want all that BIA money after all, huh? |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-12-20 10:33 |
| #9 It hasn't mattered whether its been Donks or Trunks in the White House or Congerss, the 'Indian' matter has been screwed for a long time. At least the Trunks don't play the high morality game like the Donks in this dirty situation. Part of the problem is that there are hundreds of tribes, each under 'treaties' depending upon when their territory/state entered the Union and the conditions specified. Odds of a 'uniformed code' to cover them all. Between slim and none. The only agency that seems to be able to get 'tribes' to cooperate and work together and has on the ground and contemporary experience is [for all its irony] the Army. Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor. BTW, we can be sure Mr. Means didn't consult the Crow before making the 'Lakora' territorial claims. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-12-20 10:33 |
| #8 Anyone here remember Means siding up with Ward Churchill? |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-12-20 10:25 |
| #7 While I agree that this is nonsense, it might lead to correcting some of the real problems with all US tribes. #1 of which is that there is a black hole of business law on reservations, that excludes corporations from making deals with tribes they both want. They literally can't do it, because there isn't any written law that permits it. This is why most tribal lands are very underdeveloped. To make matters worse, the BIA was created as a buffer between US federal and State governments and businesses, and the tribes. By any reckoning, it has been a disaster since its inception. #2 is that a lot of the treaties that were made are literally nonsensical. Broad sections were cut and pasted from unrelated legal and non-legal documents and others are babble, random words strung together that make no sense now and didn't then. #3 Though many of the inter-tribal and tribe-State border disputes have been hammered out in federal court, lots still remain. Many borders were not surveyed, or were based on transitory landmarks, like "...the third tree down from the ridge line." #4 Only tribes were afforded treaties by US law, which means that other indigenous peoples, such as the Hawaiians, Samoans, Eskimos and Inuit, are in legal limbo, though only a small group of Hawaiians seem to be annoyed with this. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-20 10:04 |
| #6 Spent a few hours one day, eons ago, talking to Russell Means brother. Interesting chat. I started out on a bad note though. He was upset that a bunch of us white guys from Lincoln were getting some free booze in Rapid City. Said he had told the Sioux, at that time, that any of them getting drunk was a bad example and here we were drinking free booze from the best restaurant in town... heh.. Oh well, he didn't scalp us and we all had a good time. Even ended up on friendly terms. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-12-20 09:44 |
| #5 Did Russel Means bother to ask the legitimate, duly elected Lakota Sioux tribal council or any of the actual Lakota Sioux if they were on board with this? I suspect he's off on a frolic of his own. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-12-20 09:43 |
| #4 OK. So now they need to get visas to cross into US territory, and can be deported. They should also be cut off from any federal and state money, and, until trade agreements can be reached, no goods should cross into their territory. Oh, and as foreign nationals, they shouldn't be eligible for any scholarships or other programs intended to assist Americans of native descent. If they want to play the "sovereign" game, well, we can too. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-12-20 09:36 |
| #3 Take them at their word, then declare war on them, conquer them and annex the land. This time with no welfare BS afterwards. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2007-12-20 09:25 |
| #2 This can't possibly end well for anyone. I feel for the whichever President that will have to deal with the mess this will become. Especially after the UN sticks its nose in. Which,maybe this will be a blessing in disguise? There is no way an independent Lakota nation can be viable. So it's only a matter of time before the UN starts carping on the US, so maybe that will be what it takes - Active Interference in Our Country - to push Americans over the edge and finally kick those UN bastards out. |
| Posted by: ... 2007-12-20 09:15 |
| #1 Does this mean American taxpayers can cut off their welfare payments? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-12-20 09:09 |