Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  :| |:
LD4all » Lucid Lounge

#1: Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Author: DayLight PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
Quote:
Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago

Thursday, December 20, 2007

WASHINGTON The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html

wow

#2:  Author: RxQueen PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
its about time the indians get their land back doncha think?

#3:  Author: TwilightDreamer PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
Wow.

You know what they say... Que sera, sera...

#4:  Author: kTFox PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
so we lose states or part of em?

#5:  Author: Bruno PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
Well, you don't lose them: you return them to their rightful owners. wink5

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.

#6:  Author: Amused Himself to Death PostPosted: Thu 20 Dec, 2007
    ----
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 wink5

#7:  Author: Bruno PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
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?

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. tounge2 Want your lands like they were before? here, have a big portion of land. Figure it out.

#8:  Author: Win Laik Pya PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
hmmm

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.

why?

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.

#9:  Author: Chuckiferd PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Bruno wrote:
Well, you don't lose them: you return them to their rightful owners. wink5


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.

#10:  Author: Amused Himself to Death PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Bruno wrote:
And hell, is it that demoniac for someone to organise a Palestinian state already?
I'm staying away from that with a twelve foot pole, haha.
Bruno wrote:
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. tounge2 Want your lands like they were before? here, have a big portion of land. Figure it out.
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.

#11:  Author: Chuckiferd PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
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

#12:  Author: Dreamer PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Chuckiferd wrote:

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.


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.

#13:  Author: Amused Himself to Death PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Dreamer wrote:
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.

#14:  Author: G. atlanticus PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Chuckiferd wrote:
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


eek2 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. overspannen

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.

#15:  Author: Bruno PostPosted: Fri 21 Dec, 2007
    ----
Ryan wrote:
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.

why?

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

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 wrote:
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)

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").

Chuckiferd wrote:
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.

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."

Jon wrote:
Bruno wrote:
And hell, is it that demoniac for someone to organise a Palestinian state already?
I'm staying away from that with a twelve foot pole, haha.

Prejudice!

Jon wrote:
Well, we gave them a lot of land, and they receive around 20 billion per year in aid from the government.

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! overspannen

Dreamer wrote:
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.

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.

Jon wrote:
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.

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.



LD4all » Lucid Lounge


Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  :| |:
Page 1 of 3
printed from the LD4all.com lucid dreaming forum. Content copyrighted by the author.
Lucid dreamers unite! visit LD4all.com