The Lakota have declared independence.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Manedwolf]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

Well for one thing, the only people who can negotiate for the tribes are their elected councils and traditional chiefs.

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.

[wooderson]

  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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

  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.

Explain further.  Why should the Lakota be given the right to rule anything more than they currently do?

[wooderson]

Here's Mohegan Sun. There's nothing else around. Except Foxwoods, the other big casino.

NYC to Foxwoods: 2.5 hours
Boston 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.

[wooderson]

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).

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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).

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.  The Lakota have a de facto nation of their own already (which leaves me confused about this declaration of independence - they already have unparalleled independence, so what's the point?).  As Maned points out, they are free to use to their nation to their fullest advantage.  Or not, as they choose, just liker Israel is now that they have a nation.  Unlike the Jews, the Lakota are perfectly able to live in their ancestral homeland without fear of death, injury, or reprisal.

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.

[wooderson]

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'?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Land of their fathers" was only a small part of the justification for the creation of Israel.  There was far more to it than that.

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.

[wooderson]

Not "one similar element" - one similar argument. Your entire response rests on the idea that the "Jewish homeland" isn't a common (or the most common) justification for Israel's existence or continued support for it.

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.

[Rainsford]

I totally support peaceful secession. If the government is an institution for the benefit of the people, and if the people truly own their property, secession is a justified form of protest to a government that fails to bring net benefit to those whom it governs.

I just hope this ends peacefully.

[Stetson]

Everyone is arguing the legal and historical sides to this.

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.

[Scout26]

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.....

 

[wooderson]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

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.

[wooderson]

Coney Island was never a gambling mecca in modern history.
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?

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?"

[The Rabbi]

The complaint seems to be along the lines of "you have all this stuff and we don't.  Now we want it."
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.

[wooderson]

Israel does not exist because of ancestral ties.

So they just chose a random spot for the Jewish homeland, eh?

[The Rabbi]

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.

[wooderson]

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.

[Sergeant Bob]

Let them secede, become a sovereign territory and cut off all federal aid and services. If they want to be a sovereign nation they shouldn't need any handouts from anyone.

[Gewehr98]

Speaking of staking claims via ancestral land connections...

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.

[wooderson]

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.

[Jamisjockey]

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.