Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years,2933,317548,00.html


its about time the indians get their land back doncha think?


You know what they say… Que sera, sera…

so we lose states or part of em?

Well, you don’t lose them: you return them to their rightful owners. :wink:

Brazil has been through this a couple of times, our tribespeople had some interesting anthropological structure by which they did not perceive or act as if our culture posed a threat to theirs (instead, syncretism sprouted), but they were very resistant to being enslaved or killed or to having their lands taken.

During the Empire and the Old Republic, our armies devastated most of the tribespeople, but the New Republic has, starting with the constitution, tried to guarantee the tribespeople relative independence — that is, we’ll give you more and more lands, and we’ll let you choose how much into civilization you’ll be, furthermore, you can follow your own law as long as you don’t violate our law, in our space.

Of course, this sounds more beautiful than it works in real life. There are a couple of issues, but quite honestly, it has been working better than nothing. In fact, some tribes in the Centre-West and the Amazon areas remain untouched: we know about them, but they remain clueless to the existence of a whole civilization around them.

Like the news said: it’s conforming to the international treaties of self-determination, and according to the supreme law of the US. Their declaration of independence is legit.

I heard, for the first nations (Indians) in BC, there were so many claims to land by so many different tribes and such, that if all of the claims were given to the natives, they would have taken up 200% of the land of BC. All I am saying, is that giving in completely, and returning everything to them would be unfair to the majority of people that lives there already. Ahhh, a conundrum.

Hmmm, this kind of reminds me of the debate over Israel. I would take a completely different side in that argument though :wink:

Well you know my opinion on Israel, Jon. The ends were legit, the means were anything but. And hell, is it that demoniac for someone to organise a Palestinian state already? :tongue:

Here in Brazil, lands have never been an issue, we’ve managed to give what they asked, and now we’ve been giving more. The government is in some sort of conundrum in that the urban people need, urgently, a land reform, while on the other hand the tribespeople have been — finally! — seeing their population grow again, and so they need more area. But Brazil is one big piece of land, so that’s really just a problem for the guys who plant soy and want the government to sell its lands to private initiative — a constitutional “no way” anyhow.

I don’t know how that would work in Canada, but hell, make a big federal reserve to all the tribespeople, put them all in there and say: “figure yourselves out.” Government should do what’s fair for the people, alright, but that doesn’t mean it has to babysit the people. :razz: Want your lands like they were before? here, have a big portion of land. Figure it out.


as much as i support it (i can’t tell them what they can and can’t do), legally i think they can’t do it.


well, after the american cival war, an ammendment to the constitution (coulda just been a law i dunno) was made that states states could NOT cecede from the union

of course, this isn’t exactly the same thing. However, i believe it would fall in these bounds

maybe not, of course! i’m not sure. i haven’t heard about this at all

heh, who knows! maybe in a few years the U.S.A. will be split into few cooperating countries! that would actually be pretty cool, provided it doesn’t over complicate things too much (which knowing some politics, it would)

anyway, i’m not sure which law takes priority. Really, it all depends on people. It can either be made a really big deal or not a big deal at all. Of course, it will be a big deal… heh

i can’t imagine people that are NOT of that tribe that live in the area being too thrilled about the whole thing. ahh, i don’t really understand it fully.

Rightful owners? We conquered them, they simply did it peacefully because they knew they were outnumbered. Why we gave them their land to settle on no-one knows. Jeez I guess the Italians want all of Europe back now too.

I’m staying away from that with a twelve foot pole, haha.

Well, we gave them a lot of land, and they receive around 20 billion per year in aid from the government. They govern themselves, with aboriginal self-government, and apparently, they aren’t doing too well. Like, there is a lot of drunk people, people that are too lazy to do anything, since they get so much money from the government. I read an article in the National Post explaining why the Natives self-government was a failed experiment, and why there needs to be reform. It was funny, two weeks later, the same author of the article went to an ant-racism conference in Toronto, and they had this Native guy comparing him to Hitler for suggesting reform. I think it’s a bit of a touchy issue.

I can not find anything on this story on any other news station so until I do I say it all faked. I have never even heard of Fox news

Reading this post makes me very sad. I can imagine people in Nazi Germany saying this about occupied France. The American Indians were not simply conquered, they were systematically slaughtered in an act of Genocide.

Everyone should have a right to self determination, and if they want to become independant of the US then, in my opinion, good luck to them.

The five states aren’t theirs to take back anymore though. The majority of the people in these states are not Indians, and so they would be as bad as the original Americans…without the genocide. I’ve never really been a big fan of the tyranny of the minority-type system that’s established through political correctness, anyways.

:eek: OK… well, chickiferd, your profile says you live in the USA, but you’re not aware of the biggest media outlet in the country? I can only hope you’ve at leasat heard of CNN. :bored:

As far as the people living in these states… you know Montana was once part of mexico/the spanish land claims. And I’m sure the Lakota weren’t the very first humans on that patch of land.

Nope nope. Constitution itself states that treaties > national law, in fact, treaties > constitution. Silly? Well you might think so, but it’s actually a wise measure: what power do the US have of forcing Lakota to be part of the US if the international community decides to recognise it as an independent country? You guessed right: the exact same Russia has when they claim Finland belongs to them.

Ryan, I’m sorry to tell you that’s already what the States are, officially: a cooperative (as in “united”) of nations (as in “states”) which at some point decided to confederate because they had something in common (as in “of America”).

Chuck: they were not outnumbered, they simply didn’t have guns, or germs for that matter. And comparing this situation to that of Italy shows you not only don’t understand your country’s history, you also don’t understand that of Europe.

And just so you know, according to Wikipedia, “in the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers, although CNN retains a larger number of unique viewers.”

Prejudice! :tongue:

Then, as far as republican thought goes, you’ve done enough — in fact, I’m now wondering why the hell you guys give them money! :bored:

That’s how the whole global community — US included — agreed it was going to be. Right to self-determination and sovereignty are two fundamental pillars of the contemporary civilization.

I agree with Jon here, though: they have the right to claim what’s theirs, that is, the land they agreed they would have. They can withdraw from treaties, but not annul them: what they agreed — by coercion or otherwise — to be their lands, it’s theirs. Their national reserves and whatnot. But they cannot claim what they gave to others. I’m not big on war, I really ain’t, but unfortunately that is the law of wars: there are winners, there are losers, but once the losers resign to losing, it’s done.

The Nazi’s conquered the Jews. Does that make it okay?
What the European settlers did to Native Americans was horrible. They were slaughtered, lynched, enslaved, and robbed of their homes. If China came over and destroyed your home and killed your family and took over your country, would that be okay?

:rofl: How do you propose we take you seriously now?

If someone took something from you how would you justify it not being your to take back anymore???

and oh yeah that pesky genocide…

Do you want to know what I think or how it would be? Because, according to the unfortunate logic of humankind, it would be okay, no matter how much I personally disagree with that.

The thing with the Lakota here is not supposed to come down to this level of discussion, that of Ethics, because you can find a discourse in Ethics do defend any viewpoint: it’s politics, right? Well, politics have it that treaties were signed, and that treaties are the supreme law to each and every country. And what the treaties say is this: it is legit for the Lakota to claim their independence. And so be it: there’s nothing to be done about it.

Ahhh, I really don’t know. I suppose, in school, we’ve always been taught how we screwed them over, so everybody feels bad about it, and out of pity, we give them alms. Heh, I don’t really agree with it. It would probably be better spent on education, or working off the national debt a little bit, or a tax cut, or hell, spending more on mental institutions so we don’t have a bunch of crazy people walking around near my house… I would blame the liberal political climate up here in Canada, if any one thing can be blamed.

Maybe those lands were once of the Indian, but they aren’t anymore. Now, what the Americans did to them was wrong. But if the Indians were to impose their views over others, ie., the current Americans living there, they would be as bad as the Americans, without the genocide.

But it is worth asking: If the Indians had a majority, and had the firepower to overwhelm the Americans as the Americans once did to the Indians, would they not use that firepower? I would argue yes, yes they would. Indian culture back then was somewhat savage, and wars were common between the tribes, it wasn’t seen as something awful as it now is, it was seen as a legitimate way to resolve conflicts. Not only this, but if one side was seen as weaker, these Indians would attack to reap the benefits from it.

All I can say is…


But what is their definition of land? If we gave all their land back, the five states area that they once frequented, we (or, they, but this applies to any area which has Indians in them, and no, not Cleveland) would have nowhere to live. As I said earlier, all natives claim all lands as their own. What about us? Don’t we matter? Where do we set up shop, where do we live?