Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years

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?

I’m sure you could still live there. I’m sure white people will remain in Lakota country. They just won’t be in America anymore.

Thats what I am talking about, besides don’t act as if the Lakota were peaceful, what the Lakota did was terribal. It was them who atempted genocide. They slaughtered Americans left and right, I am talking about Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Yes the people who took revenge were wrong, but it was the Lakota who struck first.

Yeah if this was true, 4 states were about to revolt against the US this would be everywhere. It isn’t. I have looked on the Lakota websites, there is absolutly nothing. This is not happening, it is all fake. However we can keep discussing the morality behind it.

Just think for a moment and name one country or even Native American Territory that was orgionaly created peacefully

Very very true, those of you whom this thead actually concerns you take a drive on a nearby Native American reservation. Is that someplace you want to live?

Define “peacefully.” What would you consider India? Or perhaps the first Native Americans to cross the land bridge into America who found no resistance? What about the Iroquois Confederacy, which was founded by a spiritual leader?

Chuck, I’m going to ignore your replies to this post until they show substance. Right now, I have seen the wildest claims coming from you, most of which borderline the trollish, and what I feel is you’re trying to transform this discussion into a passionate ethical dispute.

Since I can’t honestly take your arguments seriously when your premises are stuff like “the Lakota people were terrible genocidal freaks who attacked the innocent, peaceful Brit immigrants,” and since I’m also more interested in being realistic and analysing what’s rightful and what’s going to happen from a political point of view, basing myself on treaties and the interests of the international community, I’m not going to pay attention to any more of your posts unless you manage to bring some substance into the debate.

[color=#666666]And by the way:

Sitting Bull’s tribe declares independence

Lakota withdraw from treaties, declare independence from US

Lakota Indians announce secession from United States

Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US

Lakota Indians work to secede from US

Lakota Indians Secede from the US

Lakota activists declare secession from US

Lakota Sioux Declare Sovereignty

Not to mention FOX News, which is still one of the two largest journalistic networks of your country.[/color]

i live on a reserve, my parents own a four hundred thousand dollar house lake front property with all the bells and whistles.
there is a community center, aboriginal police services, womens shelter (for all of the area, not strickly for native women) a day care center, a high school, three convenience stores and soon to be a retirement home.
very comfortable tight knit family-oriented community. when i come home, it feels like “home” should feel like.

…i assume you only know of the stereotypical indian reservations?

hahaha, I was going to stir the crap with an argument I don’t really agree with, but have thought better of it. It was a bit of a fallacious argument, and it involved Ayn Randian-type-thought. It was a fun argument, mainly because I like arguing, but it’s a bit of a serious issue, so it won’t see the light of day :cool:

Now, I wouldn’t be surprised that conditions would be that good for you guys, RxQueen. The system we have up in Canada is pretty bad, with many flaws. If I was guaranteed a set amount of income for doing nothing but being an Indian, I may be pretty lazy and messed up as well. For instance, my brothers best friend worked on a cruise ship for three years, and because he didn’t have to pay for lodgings, as the cruise lines payed for that, he accumulated a tidy nest egg. But since then, he has literally done nothing, and spends all day, every day, watching youtube videos. hahaha, he used to be a great guy, but he has decomposed into a mentally lazy person. Still a good guy, but a lazy one, who is somewhat unchallenging, and somewhat depressing to be around if you knew the man before this one.

Jon is right — and this is why I don’t agree with Canada giving away money to the reserves: one thing is assuring people’s liberties by granting them rights and legal protection, another is to bribe them into the capitalist system with infinite budget and expect of them any will to work… This is bad in that it makes those people useless from the capitalist point of view and still helps killing the tribal cultures. If you are to spend money with an antropologic reserve, then don’t just spend it by giving in cash to the nearest local leader. Invest indirectly.