Post by: Joe Demko on December 20, 2007, 08:41:03 AM
SUMMARY:
Quote
For far too long our people have suffered at the hands of the colonial apartheid system imposed on the Lakota Sioux. Our treaties with the United States government are nothing more than worthless words on worthless paper repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life.
The devastation this has wrought is clear:
Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
The Lakota infant mortality rate is 5x the U.S. Average.
The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.
Unemployment rates on our reservations are approximately 85%.
Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.
Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.
We have no choice but to take this historic action to protect our people and our way of life, and reclaim our freedom from the colonial systems of the United States Government. So we travel to Washington D.C. to withdraw from our treaties with the United States and announce full return of our sovereign status under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, International and Natural Law.
The devastation this has wrought is clear:
Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
The Lakota infant mortality rate is 5x the U.S. Average.
The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.
Unemployment rates on our reservations are approximately 85%.
Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.
Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.
We have no choice but to take this historic action to protect our people and our way of life, and reclaim our freedom from the colonial systems of the United States Government. So we travel to Washington D.C. to withdraw from our treaties with the United States and announce full return of our sovereign status under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, International and Natural Law.
They have already sought recognition from Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa. Their press conference was attended by Bolivian ambassador Gustavo Guzman as a show of solidarity. The Bolivian government is reviewing their diplomatic documents.
I wonder where this will go.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 20, 2007, 08:45:14 AM
Witness the staggering success of the Connecticut tribal casinos, or how the Seminole tribe pays a stipend to every tribe member from ownership of the Hard Rock chain and its casino, and from selling cigarettes mostly to "the white man".
The Seminole neighborhoods on the reservation near Ft. Lauderdale are now mostly a collection of McMansions as a result of tribal profits.
And this...
...is what the Mohegan tribe did by using capitalism and leveraging their status as a tribe on a reservation. Not too shabby.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 20, 2007, 08:50:36 AM
Post by: Werewolf on December 20, 2007, 10:45:42 AM
Just build a wall around their reservation and lock 'em all in. Wouldn't last long before their situation got even worse.
I suppose they could then declare war on the US but we'd just kick their stupid, hunter gatherer, freezin' in the winter, fryin' in the summer, wonderin' where their next meal is coming from, livin' in garbage, life expectancy of 33 years or so and 50% infant mortality rate asses again.
I have never got the whole reservation/sovereign nation thing re the INDIANS (not native Americans - if you were born here you're a native American). The Indians were flat out defeated in multiple wars. Lots of people wanted to just wipe 'em out but that was not to be. They're lucky they're still around to bitch and complain.
Eliminate reservations and force 'em to assimilate. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 11:02:51 AM
Quote
Lots of people wanted to just wipe 'em out but that was not to be. They're lucky they're still around to bitch and complain.
Wow. Someone should try telling, say, the JPFO this.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 12:44:41 PM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=4934.0
I wish there were an easy answer for this situation. Racial history blows.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on December 20, 2007, 01:34:42 PM
Quote
Eliminate reservations and force 'em to assimilate. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
Or...
Eliminate guns and force 'em to learn to be more aware of their surroundings so they can avoid trouble. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
Eliminate conservatism and force 'em to appreciate giving their money to the welfare system. In the long run thats what would be best for the country.
Eliminate online forums and force 'em to appreciate the newspapers already in existence. In the long run thats how they stay best informed of the issues of the day.
Werewolf, we gave them those reservations and the priviledge of leaving them whenever they want. The rez is their land, much like your home is your land. But hey, we can always say:
"Eliminate Werewolf's property rights to his current home and force him to move to a neighborhood with an HOA so he CAN'T keep spare cars and cattle on his land. It's unsightly and we need the land for a new shopping mall on the edge of town, and it will be better for him in the long run anyway."
(Not to cast aspersions on Werewolf as a redneck with rusting cars in his pasture, or deride anyone with cars out back beside the barn... just a lifestyle that is generally scorned that makes a good example.)
Post by: seeker_two on December 20, 2007, 02:02:06 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 05:07:54 PM
And why is this so offensive?
This is their ancestral homeland, after all. They have connections to the land that we could only dream of, and they were here first. Their religion and culture are centered on this land. So why not let them have it?
Or do those things not establish a claim?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 05:11:08 PM
Or do those things not establish a claim?
Not especially.
Is it really the land they lived on prior to white settlement? If so, who did they push out, so that they could live there? If they have a right to an independent state, then we'll have to move the whole global population around. Ain't nobody where their people started out, you know.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 05:22:05 PM
Post by: Ron on December 20, 2007, 05:44:44 PM
Let them have their independence from Uncle Sugar.
Good luck to them.
It won't make a difference on the reservation except maybe make things worse.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 05:46:05 PM
You may have leaned into that one, fistful, if shootinstudent is headed where I think he's headed...
Where might he be headed, pray?
Post by: Finch on December 20, 2007, 05:49:30 PM
Where might he be headed, pray?
My guess is GITMO, along with the rest of the Lakota nation.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 20, 2007, 05:58:23 PM
Declarations of independence are amusing, but not much else. Their status as Indian Nation, complete with their own reservation, makes 'em just about as independent as they could possibly be. Methinks their real goal is actually dependence, the sort that comes from suckling at the public teat.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 20, 2007, 06:00:53 PM
The big ones in Connecticut even have multimillion dollar museums that preserve the tribal history, artifacts, and heritage, and educate visitors about them.
What's stopping the Lakota?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 06:04:50 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 20, 2007, 06:09:22 PM
The tribes that have done that sort of thing are doing quite well, with nice neighborhoods, college scholarships, and stipends for every member of the tribe.
That special status of a reservation is a hell of an economic advantage if you choose to use it, and the model is already there to be seen. If you want to succeed, you have to do it yourself, and, well...the means are already there for them.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 06:16:12 PM
Quote
Where might he be headed, pray?
Israel.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 06:20:13 PM
Quote
What's stopping the Lakota?
You may have noticed that the most successful Indian casinos are located near some, uh, rather large population centers.The Lakota live, by and large, IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. Any casinos they could build would be IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. With NO NATIONAL AIRPORT.
So how, exactly, would that become a tourist destination, when people would have just as far to go, with easier access, to Las Vegas?
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 06:42:12 PM
This event would seem to be a clear cut example of the rule that ancestral land connections establish a right to nationhood. I'd be interested to hear what theories people have about the Lakota and why they do or do not have any claim to nationhood.
Post by: De Selby on December 20, 2007, 06:44:51 PM
Or do those things not establish a claim?
Not especially.
Is it really the land they lived on prior to white settlement? If so, who did they push out, so that they could live there? If they have a right to an independent state, then we'll have to move the whole global population around. Ain't nobody where their people started out, you know. I think that's a good point-but it doesn't look like these Lakota are driving anyone out.
Don't you think it's a different story when they just remain where they are, and change the terms for others to enter their neighborhood?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 07:27:10 PM
Quote
Where might he be headed, pray?
Israel.You just assume that I'm a big Zionist, or what?
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 07:45:21 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 07:47:43 PM
Or do those things not establish a claim?
Not especially.
Is it really the land they lived on prior to white settlement? If so, who did they push out, so that they could live there? If they have a right to an independent state, then we'll have to move the whole global population around. Ain't nobody where their people started out, you know. I think that's a good point-but it doesn't look like these Lakota are driving anyone out.
Don't you think it's a different story when they just remain where they are, and change the terms for others to enter their neighborhood?
I didn't say they were pushing anyone out right now. I was talkin' about the past.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 07:50:16 PM
I just saw where shootinstudent was headed (it's a logical argument)
Argument? No, it's just a naked, unsupported assertion that groups have a right to rule the land they have lived on for a long time.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 20, 2007, 07:53:50 PM
Quote
What's stopping the Lakota?
You may have noticed that the most successful Indian casinos are located near some, uh, rather large population centers.The Lakota live, by and large, IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. Any casinos they could build would be IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. With NO NATIONAL AIRPORT.
So how, exactly, would that become a tourist destination, when people would have just as far to go, with easier access, to Las Vegas?
Try again. Here's Mohegan Sun. There's nothing else around. Except Foxwoods, the other big casino.
Closest large airport is 60 miles away.
They MADE it a destination. You might have heard of another entrepreneur who bought up a lot of Florida swampland and made it into a destination where there was none. Walt something.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 20, 2007, 07:54:31 PM
Look at the names and their affliations, not a legitimate tribal leadership post among them.
These four are just annoying, pissant activists with no legal standing trying once again to get their names in the papers.
This is identical to the group of maroons in, what, NH that marched up to the courthouse and seceded.
Means et al. lack legal standing to represent anyone but themselves, certainly not the sovereign tribes.
Its a publicity stunt, ignore (or heckle) the blowhards as you would any other group of idiot children.
Certainly don't take them seriously.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 07:57:34 PM
Quote
No, it's just a naked, unsupported assertion that groups have a right to rule the land they have lived on for a long time.
Um, yeah. That's the argument.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 20, 2007, 07:59:46 PM
Quote
No, it's just a naked, unsupported assertion that groups have a right to rule the land they have lived on for a long time.
Um, yeah. That's the argument.Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 08:00:08 PM
Quote
Here's Mohegan Sun. There's nothing else around. Except Foxwoods, the other big casino.
NYC to Foxwoods: 2.5 hoursBoston to Foxwoods: 1.5 hours
Hartford, Providence to Foxwoods: 45 minutes
Albany to Foxwoods: 3 hours
Now, given the land between Albany, Boston and NYC... we're talking what, 20+ million people inside of a three-hour drive?
Yeah, that's totally comparable to SOUTH DAKOTA.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 08:01:46 PM
Quote
Explain further. Why should the Lakota be given the right to rule anything more than they currently do?
Whether they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to the argument.The scenario laid out by shootinstudent is Israel. Every argument for the necessity of Israel's existence and the justification for its creation/continued existence is the same as that for handing over land to American Indian tribes.
The argument is about how individuals can reconcile their support for one and their opposition to the other (whichever way that might break down).
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 20, 2007, 08:09:51 PM
Quote
Explain further. Why should the Lakota be given the right to rule anything more than they currently do?
Whether they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to the argument.The scenario laid out by shootinstudent is Israel. Every argument for the necessity of Israel's existence and the justification for its creation/continued existence is the same as that for handing over land to American Indian tribes.
The argument is about how individuals can reconcile their support for one and their opposition to the other (whichever way that might break down).
I guess I can't see any objective reasons why the status quo is a problem for the Lakota. They have every opportunity to live in peace, prosperity, and freedom. That opportunity is all anyone ever has a right to. What you make of it is up to you. Creating the state of Israel was necessary to give that right to the Jews, but no new state need be created to give that right to the Lakota.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 08:13:51 PM
Quote
The parallels between Israel and the indian tribes don't match up well enough to warrant much of a comparison. The Lakota aren't at risk of genocide, whereas the Israelis were/are.
As things stand, the Lakota are far more likely to disappear than Jews or Israelis are...But none of that's relevant. The argument is about the justification for a homeland based on ancestral ties. If you want to argue contemporary policy from a pragmatic view - fine. That's why I support Israel's continued existence and hopefully, its reform - they're there and things ain't getting any better without them.
But that's not that argument generally made. Israel is a 'Jewish homeland' - history ties them to the land and provides justification for their presence.
That's how shootinstudent's argument was framed, and that's what you get to respond to. Do Jews, or any other group, have a right to an independent nation-state based on the 'land of their fathers'?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 20, 2007, 08:21:20 PM
You are (or maybe SS is) trying to take two situations that are mostly different, and say they're equivalent just because they share one similar element. That doesn't work. You could just as easily say that dogs and elephants are the same because they share the common trait of having a tail. They aren't the same, not at all, and trying to generalize one based on the other is foolish.
If you're going to make a comparison, you'd better compare things that are comparable.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 08:26:58 PM
The comparison isn't a positive argument - it makes no claims. It hopefully draws parallels and forces the listener to examine his or her views. You appear to be reading it as an argument in favor of Lakota independence (and thus Israel), where I see no reason to draw that conclusion.
Post by: Rainsford on December 20, 2007, 11:19:04 PM
I just hope this ends peacefully.
Post by: Stetson on December 21, 2007, 03:15:14 AM
People keep mentioning casinos, those casinos do not require a passport to get to. If the US Gov wants to, they can require a passport for reentry after visiting the casinos. I wouldn't want to have to show a passport to get back home. Granted, this isn't as heavy of a discussion as the legal remifications, but its early for me.
Post by: Scout26 on December 21, 2007, 04:51:13 AM
Quote
They MADE it a destination. You might have heard of another entrepreneur who bought up a lot of Florida swampland and made it into a destination where there was none. Walt something.
Same with Las Vegas. Prior to the mob setting up a gambling mecca, it wasn't even a pimple in the middle of the desert in the middle of nowehere.
I'm surprised they just don't Souix.....
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 07:37:59 AM
Why? Because Vegas is already the established travel destination of its sort. There's nothing a new locale could offer that Vegas can't match - and already has travel infrastructure in place.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 21, 2007, 07:57:32 AM
They MADE Las Vegas a destination when there was nothing comparable. Now Vegas exists... and we haven't seen another pop up anywhere.
Why? Because Vegas is already the established travel destination of its sort. There's nothing a new locale could offer that Vegas can't match - and already has travel infrastructure in place.
Why? Because Vegas is already the established travel destination of its sort. There's nothing a new locale could offer that Vegas can't match - and already has travel infrastructure in place.
Not true. Coney Island and Atlantic City once held that distinction. One is now completely gone, the other is faded in the face of Vegas.
And yes, there are people in the middle of the country. And some might not enjoy the "sin city" aspect of Vegas, and would prefer something more wholesome. The two Connecticut casinos I mentioned are extremely upscale and clean, much more family-oriented than Vegas in general.
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 08:08:45 AM
Atlantic City still does fairly well - as with Foxwoods and Mohegan, it sits in proximity to a lot of people. Gambling rather than resort destination.
Vegas is the only place of its sort in the US - and the first gambling mecca to come along with genuine westward expansion. And it has no competitors because there isn't a leg up on it to be had - if people are willing to travel far, why would they chance the new destination rather than the known quantity?
Quote
And yes, there are people in the middle of the country.
Uh-huh. How many people within a three-hour drive of the central point of Pine Ridge?Where's the airport that brings in people from around the country? Who's going to foot the bill to construct one?
The notion that they could just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and create Vegas (even though there has never been a competitor to Vegas) or Foxwoods/Mohegan is insane. The situations are different. Vegas came along, as I said, with a boom in interstate travel and population growth west of the Mississippi. Mohegan and Foxwoods would not exist if they weren't dead center between Boston and NYC and all the millions of people around them, with easy access by car or by air.
"I turned this 1000 acres of prime farmland into a cotton fortune! Why can't you turn your 1000 acres of West Texas dirt into that?"
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 09:04:05 AM
That isn't going to fly.
There is no comparison, none whatsoever, between American Indians and Israel.
Israel does not exist because of ancestral ties. Israel exists because of the Balfour Declaration and subsequent U.N. declarations. Also, and mainly, because of the wars of Independence (1948), the Six Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). Israel was victor in all 3.
If the Lakota had been similarly skilled they wouldn't be in the whining victim mode they are now.
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 09:15:13 AM
Quote
Israel does not exist because of ancestral ties.
So they just chose a random spot for the Jewish homeland, eh?
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 09:49:31 AM
Quote
Israel does not exist because of ancestral ties.
So they just chose a random spot for the Jewish homeland, eh?It exists in that place for that reason. But that isn't the reason for its existence.
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 10:24:59 AM
Fargo, North Dakota would not be 'Israel' (metaphysically or as we know it). And were the homeland established there, the issues of ancestral primacy would not factor in.
But it wasn't established in Fargo or any other 'unnatural' location - it was established in the ancestral lands of Judaism, precisely because history (to Jews and to westerners - not so much to the Arabs...) gave them some kind of claim on the land.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 21, 2007, 10:27:26 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 21, 2007, 10:37:13 AM
Anybody watch the National Geographic special the other night that discounted the previous Native American lineage theories? IOW, they ain't necessarily the first here, either.
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 10:37:54 AM
Quote
Let them secede, become a sovereign territory and cut off all federal aid and services.
That's what they're requesting with independence, yeah. They don't seem to feel that "federal aids and services" have done them much good.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 21, 2007, 10:59:13 AM
Not a problem...
Just build a wall around their reservation and lock 'em all in. Wouldn't last long before their situation got even worse.
I suppose they could then declare war on the US but we'd just kick their stupid, hunter gatherer, freezin' in the winter, fryin' in the summer, wonderin' where their next meal is coming from, livin' in garbage, life expectancy of 33 years or so and 50% infant mortality rate asses again.
I have never got the whole reservation/sovereign nation thing re the INDIANS (not native Americans - if you were born here you're a native American). The Indians were flat out defeated in multiple wars. Lots of people wanted to just wipe 'em out but that was not to be. They're lucky they're still around to bitch and complain.
Eliminate reservations and force 'em to assimilate. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
Just build a wall around their reservation and lock 'em all in. Wouldn't last long before their situation got even worse.
I suppose they could then declare war on the US but we'd just kick their stupid, hunter gatherer, freezin' in the winter, fryin' in the summer, wonderin' where their next meal is coming from, livin' in garbage, life expectancy of 33 years or so and 50% infant mortality rate asses again.
I have never got the whole reservation/sovereign nation thing re the INDIANS (not native Americans - if you were born here you're a native American). The Indians were flat out defeated in multiple wars. Lots of people wanted to just wipe 'em out but that was not to be. They're lucky they're still around to bitch and complain.
Eliminate reservations and force 'em to assimilate. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
Post by: Boomhauer on December 21, 2007, 11:47:05 AM
Quote
Why is it that they don't have any right to declare independence?
Well, another group tried this in the 1860's. President Lincoln and the United States Government had a snit over this and thrashed the South over it.
Of course, SS, you and your comrades don't see any problem with the Lakota doing it, but criticize the South for declaring independance.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 12:18:24 PM
Yes, that is 'the reason' for the existence of Israel as it is today.
Fargo, North Dakota would not be 'Israel' (metaphysically or as we know it). And were the homeland established there, the issues of ancestral primacy would not factor in.
But it wasn't established in Fargo or any other 'unnatural' location - it was established in the ancestral lands of Judaism, precisely because history (to Jews and to westerners - not so much to the Arabs...) gave them some kind of claim on the land.
Fargo, North Dakota would not be 'Israel' (metaphysically or as we know it). And were the homeland established there, the issues of ancestral primacy would not factor in.
But it wasn't established in Fargo or any other 'unnatural' location - it was established in the ancestral lands of Judaism, precisely because history (to Jews and to westerners - not so much to the Arabs...) gave them some kind of claim on the land.
Actually the original proposal was to place the state of Israel in Africa. Had they done so, the State of Israel would today be there. So the location is only tangential to its existence.
But there is no issue of ancestral primacy. It is a dead end.
Post by: wooderson on December 21, 2007, 12:48:21 PM
Quote
Actually the original proposal was to place the state of Israel in Africa.
And yet... where was it established, again?
Post by: Werewolf on December 21, 2007, 01:22:36 PM
What part of the below is incorrect?
Quote from: Werewolf
Just build a wall around their reservation and lock 'em all in. Wouldn't last long before their situation got even worse.
I"ll give ya this one. It's not terribly highroad but it does seem to be what the Lakota want.Quote from: Werewolf
I suppose they could then declare war on the US but we'd just kick their stupid,
North American Indians probably weren't stupid but then they did have complete control of the richest continent on the planet for 10,000+ years and did absolutely nothing with it. Few developed agriculture, few developed writing. On 2nd thought maybe they are stupid.Quote from: Werewolf
hunter gatherer
FactQuote from: Werewolf
freezin' in the winter, fryin' in the summer
Again factQuote from: Werewolf
wonderin' where their next meal is coming from
Most assuredly - hunter gatherers live on a day to day basis mostlyQuote from: Werewolf
livin' in garbage
Again mostly - Indians didn't have much appreciation for sanitation which by the way goes a long way towards explaining one reason why they had an averageQuote from: Werewolf
life expectancy of 33 years or so and 50% infant mortality rate
Maybe it's the next part that chaps your asses.Quote from: Werewolf
I have never got the whole reservation/sovereign nation thing re the INDIANS (not native Americans - if you were born here you're a native American).
Can't argue with that. You can play silly word games but if you're born here your a native.Quote from: Werewolf
The Indians were flat out defeated in multiple wars.
Again an indisputable historical fact. We won they lost. The winner gets to decide the terms. Quote from: Werewolf
Lots of people wanted to just wipe 'em out but that was not to be. They're lucky they're still around to bitch and complain.
Real lucky.Quote from: Werewolf
Eliminate reservations and force 'em to assimilate. In the long run thats what would be best for 'em.
The fantasy paradise world the bleeding hearts want to believe was the indian life style is crap. They'd be better off assimilating than living on reservations for the most part. I live in OK - the vast majority of the tribes here are fully assimilated into western culture while still retaining their sense of identity. Why the rest can't do the same is a wonderment to me.
Post by: Scout26 on December 21, 2007, 01:46:04 PM
Post by: K Frame on December 21, 2007, 03:46:00 PM
That's a curious assessment, given the manner in which many Americans and Europeans lived in abject filth and squalor in tightly packed cities for thousands of years.
In essence, our ancestors didn't have much of an appreciation for sanitation for a long time, either.
Generally, though, Indians were smart enough not to crap in their own water supply, something that "modern" man still struggles with far too often.
Since this part of the talk has been about sanitation and, well, crap, I'll make the observation that much of what I've read in this thread is also largely crap, and nothing of which you should be proud.
I think you can all figure out what's coming next...