[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Story.

Image of new US/Lakota Nation:


So, what do you guys think? They should get it, they should have gotten a nation in the first place...

[Chuckit]

Do I get a nation too?

[Weyland-Yutani]

This is cool! In this age of PC, how can anyone refuse them?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting! I've been surprised that something like this hasn't been attempted in Canada. We seem to be slowly incorporating "third level of (Aboriginal) government" but it hasn't really seen practical application (for whatever reason). A large area of land in Ontario was recently "given back" to Natives on a scheduled basis; we'll see how that transitions I suppose. The air base in that area was put under aboriginal control some years ago, but the results were less than satisfactory to say the least....

greg

[Cold Warrior]

Secession was made illegal after the Civil War. If their 'nation' goes beyond a reservation, they have no authority to annex another state's land or its citizens.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Secession was made illegal after the Civil War. If their 'nation' goes beyond a reservation, they have no authority to annex another state's land or its citizens.

It depends on when their treaty was made and what parameters for rescinding the treaty were incorporated in the document.

From what I know of the treaty in question it was made between two sovereign nations (Lakota Indian and United States) and that the terms of the treaty included the Lakota nation accepting the laws of the United States as paramount (to supersede the laws of the Lakota Nation). So, if the Lakotas renounce the treaty then their previous legal framework employed in the governance of the tribe would become paramount again.

As for the notion of sovereignty, getting the US government to recognize that would be tricky but they have done it for many other Indian tribes. The Iroquois Confederacy is deemed a sovereign, independent nation by the United States government. Iroquois tribal territory in New York state and southern Canada are deemed separate countries with their own sets of laws. These are lands that are fully enclosed by the lands of the US and/or Canada. Heck, the Iroquois issue their own passports. They meet all the criteria set forth in the various international conventions on passport issuance and acceptance and are considered fully valid at US and Canadian border crossings.

[nonhuman]

I've been following this story pretty closely (and written a few blog posts about it). From what I can tell, the 'delegation' who went to the state department does not actually have the authority to speak for the Lakota Sioux. Even amongst the Lakota community no one really seems to know anything about this beyond what little has made the news. I'm very annoyed by how little coverage this is getting even if it is nothing more than a PR stunt; this is an issue that needs to be discussed, in my opinion. The various Indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign nations to some extent, and the question of whether they are actually allowed the rights they are supposed to have is an important one.

[torsoboy]

It's not in the news because it isn't news. It's a couple of people that want their own nation within the USA. Ask them to give back all the education expenses given to them, and all of the housing and infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) given to them, and all the free grants for being a native american, plus everything extra they have received from the USA... then maybe it would be worth being on the news. As far as I am concerned they have more than what is fair considering they were a conquered people hundreds of years ago. They're just lucky the US government hasn't gotten tired of their whining after all this time... most conquered people aren't given the white glove treatment these people receive from the US government. In my opinion they should have no special treatment and should be subject to all of the same rules, taxes, etc. that every other person living in America is subject to.

Let the flames begin...

[nonhuman]

I disagree (obviously). Even though it's very likely that the people behind this are essentially crackpots and have no real authority, the many many issues surrounding the reservation system and the treatment of the various Indian Nations by the United States throughout our history are worthy of discussion. If nothing else, this is a perfect opportunity to start those discussions.

[goMac]

They didn't secede because the guy who's doing the secession isn't actually a leader of their people. The council's official line is that they are honoring the treaties that have signed. In addition, only the dark red area on the map is the lands of the Lakota.

A bunch of fuss over nothing. Move along people.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It depends on when their treaty was made and what parameters for rescinding the treaty were incorporated in the document.

From what I know of the treaty in question it was made between two sovereign nations (Lakota Indian and United States) and that the terms of the treaty included the Lakota nation accepting the laws of the United States as paramount (to supersede the laws of the Lakota Nation). So, if the Lakotas renounce the treaty then their previous legal framework employed in the governance of the tribe would become paramount again.

As for the notion of sovereignty, getting the US government to recognize that would be tricky but they have done it for many other Indian tribes. The Iroquois Confederacy is deemed a sovereign, independent nation by the United States government. Iroquois tribal territory in New York state and southern Canada are deemed separate countries with their own sets of laws. These are lands that are fully enclosed by the lands of the US and/or Canada. Heck, the Iroquois issue their own passports. They meet all the criteria set forth in the various international conventions on passport issuance and acceptance and are considered fully valid at US and Canadian border crossings.

Do you have any links to support that as far as the Iroquois are concerned? I just asked an Onondaga (born, raised and still on the res, as well as having family on the tribal council) about the passport thing and he said about the only places that accept them as vaild are the US and Canada, otherwise they are worthless for international travel.

Always curious about the Haudenosaunee since there are a couple of pending land claims that might leave me paying rent to Oneidas, Onondagas, and Cayugas on my own property.

Although to be fair, the Onondagas aren't looking to charge rent, they just want official recognition that they took it dry on the whole deal. Which they did. Long before I came along and made my purchuses in good faith. I should probably read up on the land claims now that I think of it, as I'm not sure of the status of any of them. I think the Cayugas might have lost theirs outright, but I'm not sure on the others.

[Kerrigan]

Nuke the **** out of any population that tries to seceed.

[stevesnj]

Good for them...its the least they deserve from Europeans and Americans taking their land and destroying it. I say give them the Dakota's. No-one else is there practically anyway

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Good for them...its the least they deserve from Europeans and Americans taking their land and destroying it. I say give them the Dakota's. No-one else is there practically anyway

Not a one of these people ever owned the land you're saying was taken from them.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not a one of these people ever owned the land you're saying was taken from them.

Okay please clear it up for me...what part did they own? I just never researched thats why i ask.

[AngelaBaby]

They should get it. I want to move there now

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Do you have any links to support that as far as the Iroquois are concerned? I just asked an Onondaga (born, raised and still on the res, as well as having family on the tribal council) about the passport thing and he said about the only places that accept them as vaild are the US and Canada, otherwise they are worthless for international travel.

Always curious about the Haudenosaunee since there are a couple of pending land claims that might leave me paying rent to Oneidas, Onondagas, and Cayugas on my own property.

Links? No. Just the word of a co-worker who is Kahnawake and who has a Haudenosaunee passport and uses it to travel in addition to a Canadian passport.

You can seen an actual Haudenosaunee passport on display here in the Mohawk section of the Our Lives exhibit on the third floor of the museum.
National Museum of the American Indian

[olePigeon]

Might be a problem. We have to have a president that knows what the word "sovereign" means before the U.S. can recognize Lakota as a sovereign nation.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not a one of these people ever owned the land you're saying was taken from them.

Neither did the people who forced them off of it. What's your point?

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Might be a problem. We have to have a president that knows what the word "sovereign" means before the U.S. can recognize Lakota as a sovereign nation.

I love that clip. I weep for our nation.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Might be a problem. We have to have a president that knows what the word "sovereign" means before the U.S. can recognize Lakota as a sovereign nation.

Never seen before. Oh, so so funny.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Neither did the people who forced them off of it. What's your point?

Well, after they took the land, they actually did.

My point is that every people has had its land taken at some point in history. You don't see me petitioning Italy to hand me part of England. These people's ancestors were given the shaft for sure, but that's history. That land is part of the United States now and the people from whom the land was taken — who I can see wanting their land back — died of old age quite some time ago. Now the Lakota would just be stealing the land from somebody else.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, after they took the land, they actually did.

Yes, but my point was the Europeans didn't have any more valid a claim to the land than the Indians did. If you consider conquest to be a legitimate way to taking ownership of the land (which it was back then), then why wouldn't occupation also fit the bill? Obviously there's not really anything we can do about it now, but I do think that the Indians owned the rights to the land whether they understood or acknowledged that ownership or not. Just because they operated under a different system and philosophy of land use doesn't mean that their right to that land was any less. You're right that it's pretty much a moot point now, however.

My point is that every people has had its land taken at some point in history. You don't see me petitioning Italy to hand me part of England. These people's ancestors were given the shaft for sure, but that's history. That land is part of the United States now and the people from whom the land was taken — who I can see wanting their land back — died of old age quite some time ago. Now the Lakota would just be stealing the land from somebody else.

And why shouldn't they? If it was right for the Europeans to take the lands from the Indians, then it's right for the Indians to take it back if they can. Not necessarily because it's their ancestral lands, but because you've established a precedent of conquest being a valid means of property acquisition.

Also, it's not clear whether reservation lands actually are part of the United States or not. In many contexts they're already sovereign nations. In many others they're treated as US Territories. This is a situation that needs clarifying for the benefit of the people who live on the reservations.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, but my point was the Europeans didn't have any more valid a claim to the land than the Indians did.

I wasn't saying they didn't have a valid claim to the land. Of course they did. And of course the people who took the land were dicks. But what I'm saying is that none of those people are around anymore, so they don't matter. This isn't Sitting Bull marching in and reclaiming his property, these are some people trying to lay claim to land that was never theirs to begin with.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Also, it's not clear whether reservation lands actually are part of the United States or not. In many contexts they're already sovereign nations. In many others they're treated as US Territories. This is a situation that needs clarifying for the benefit of the people who live on the reservations.

I agree with that. But a lot of the trouble seems to be that even the Indians can't really make up their minds what they'd prefer.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I wasn't saying they didn't have a valid claim to the land. Of course they did. And of course the people who took the land were dicks. But what I'm saying is that none of those people are around anymore, so they don't matter. This isn't Sitting Bull marching in and reclaiming his property, these are some people trying to lay claim to land that was never theirs to begin with.

That's true, but it's also true that every generation of Indian since Sitting Bull has been severely disadvantaged as a result of the European colonialism. The reservation system hasn't been particularly advantageous to the Indian populations, and it's movements such as this that, I think, are going to be the key to improving the lot of Indians in North America across the board. I honestly think it would be better for everyone if the various Indian nations did assert their sovereignty in moves like this.

I agree with that. But a lot of the trouble seems to be that even the Indians can't really make up their minds what they'd prefer.

Agreed. But that's all the more reason that I think it's important for this movement and similar ones to be encouraged. It brings the people who do think about these issues to the fore, and increases discussion amongst the rest.

[art_director]

if it begins a national dialogue (which i doubt it will) i think their intent would serve a good and just purpose. many people in america are unhappy with the current state of things.

example: ted stevens and his pet projects are pissing off most every other state in the nation. as in the bridge to nowhere.

[nonhuman]

It would be a lot more likely to begin a national dialogue if the media actually picked up the story. So far only the USA Today has even mentioned it, and then only in one of their blogs. A few local papers have had stories, and a few international papers have had brief mentions of it, and that's it. My blog was actually the number one hit if you googled 'lakota independence' for a while, though now there's a couple bigger sites above it.

[art_director]

you're absolutely right. people need to know about it to talk about it. but hey, it's not as pressing as the latest britney spears meltdown development. it's only freedom ,,, sheesh ,,,

[The Godfather]

How many Lakotans have renounced their US citizenship so far?

[nonhuman]

They've got a new website up which addressed the criticisms that they don't represent the Lakota here.

Also, they've now got a forum: Welcome!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Cool. I'm all for it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They've got a new website up which addressed the criticisms that they don't represent the Lakota here.

Despite what they say, they are still not elected by the Lakota people, and the elected leadership has already said they don't support succession. It's about as relevant as a relative of George Washington claiming that Virginia has left the union.

[Chuckit]

I like the part where they imply that South Dakota didn't exist in 1974.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like the part where they imply that South Dakota didn't exist in 1974.

Would anyone really miss the Dakotas?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Despite what they say, they are still not elected by the Lakota people, and the elected leadership has already said they don't support succession. It's about as relevant as a relative of George Washington claiming that Virginia has left the union.

It seems to me that it's also rather like certain colonists claiming that the revolutionaries didn't represent the loyal British citizens in America. It's not as though the American Revolution was a unanimous decision by everyone or that the official governments of the colonies went along with it.