Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S.

Originally posted by jnixon1108
BitRaiser, point well taken. My opinion right or wrong is my own. I have studied much American history. I may be stuborn but not ignorant.

Glad you got the point.
Opinions are based on facts, and when those facts are wrong or incomplete, they need to be adjusted to fit the new information.
When someone is simply too stubborn (or simply unwilling) to accept new information or review their opinion, that is willful ignorance. Much worse than simply not knowing.

You speak of invasion. Do you think this is really possible?

If they go independent, yes, I think occupation is very likely. It fits the MO of US policy.

I don't mean to sound like a smart*** but, I don't think the American government will even pay attention to this.

You're quite likely right there, but if they do they will be committing a breach of law. I doubt that would stop them, though. Breaking laws is something the Administration does a lot of.

What needs to be understood is that the Lakota have every right to cancel their treaty and separate. After going through the documents presented on their website, there's no grey area I can see... it's a black and white legal issue.

Does Russell Means have the legal authority derived from the tribe to make this kind of statement? Anyone know? And how much land does the tribe own?

Please read my post on the bottom of page 15. It's a publicity stunt.

I'm quoting this entire post because it's stuck on the bottom of page 15 and no one ever seems to read the last post on a page.

Originally posted by sylvie
I hate to rain on your parade, but it looks like the whole thing is just a publicity stunt by Russell Means and his crew of a few.

I was cheering when I read the news (heck, I was already packing my bags to move to Lakota Country!), then I forwarded the FOX article to a friend of mine who has connections to the Lakota. One of his "sources" wrote back the following:

Talked to several folks enrolled in various tribes and here is my understanding:

1. This is one of the many fringe-wannabe groups that are constantly on the scam in Lakota country.

2. It is yet another Oglala stunt. For one thing, even though the Oglala (OST, the tribe that has Pine Ridge IR) are the largest of the both the Lakota bands AND the entire Seven Council Fires, it does not and CANNOT speak for the "entire Lakota nation" as Russell claims he and this group is doing. Frankly, any group of more than 20 Oglala can't come to enough of a consensus to get some one to speak for all 20 of them on anything political or social, much less to speak for even a bare majority of 10,000+ Oglala, 50,000+ Lakota, or 100,000+ Sioux (Seven Council Fires).

3. Nobody is going to lead any movement like an attempt to get a referendum on repudiating any of the various treaties when you consider the millions of dollars every year that the treaties to some degree obligate the Feds to provide to the various Lakota nations, to say nothing of the fact that there is no way to force the Feds to move out, and that the states would LOVE to have the treaties nullified and end the special "dependent domestic nation" status of the tribes.

Most of the attention here in West River South Dakota (home of the Oglala, the Sicangu at Rosebud, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes) is on the Lakota Nation Invitational Basketball Tournament in Rapid City: a young man from White River (a Sicangu) just broke the state record for high school career points and his team, the Tigers, is expected to take the tourney.

Russell is actually making exactly the same mistake that led to the treaties in the first place; a small group of men who claimed to speak for the entire group of nations (oyate) that make up any of the three branches of the Seven Council Fires, or even for their own band - or even the clan they belong to.

Sorry, folks, move on, nothing to see here...

If this is true, it nicely explains why Fox is the only one covering the story. Honestly, I had my suspicions which is why I was slow to get involved in the thread.

However, I would disagree that there is "nothing to see here".
If this is a publicity stunt, it's a good one. Because of it, I educated myself on the subject and now have a better understanding of what's going on. That isn't a bad thing.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

I can't believe people still act this way in the year 2007. Give me a BREAK, buddy.

American Indians owe YOU nothing. They did nothing wrong to YOU. What business it is of yours WHAT they do with their land and their lives?

I'll tell you why your so offended and upset at them wanting freedom : because you were indoctrinated to hate them, to remind them that they 'lost' and that they are stuck in America.

Telling NATIVE AMERICANS to 'leave' the United States? Do you realize how prejudiced that is? How ridiculous that is?

People who think this way don't deserve to live in America. Period. REAL AMERICANS respect Native Indians AND their plight. The rest of you are indoctrinated and have no clue what the real history of your country is.

I think the poster was voicing frustration like many here have already done.

You make good points, and i admire and appreciate your passion in defending them.

Native Americans...I do not mean to nitpick, but could not one make an argument for anyone who has been born in america, as being "native american"? Why is this so unique to native american indians? Just a question since we were all born on this rock called earth....

Primitive cultures always get replaced by more advanced cultures and their technology. There are two sides to every coin. No one is innocent. We are all victims of being human. In the past, indian tribes fought each other for territory and food, what the white man from europe did was exactly what the indian tribes were doing to each other, just much more efficiently. The dominate tribe won. It just happened to be from europe..

Another thing worth a mention, The horse changed the indian culture forever, horses didnt exist in america until whitey from spain brought them over. Example, The Sioux expanded rapidly when the horse was brought over by those same wicked white men. Before that, horses did not exist on the american landmass. Horses played a vital role in the way indians would go about dominating each other for land and food.

As for the indians having it hard. They can hunt/fish 12 months a year. They can hunt/fish on refuges outside of the reservation. They can do what they want on their reservations. They get liberties with land resources outside the reservations. They can spear and net game fish for the markets. They aren't held to federal laws concerning the taking of game on or off the reservation. Sure they have gotten hosed. But there comes a time when one should take some of the blame themselves. They should better their lives in the best way they can. So they arent dieing in their early 40's, Their kids arnt killing themselves, and they are not living in poverty stricken #holes.

Some blame needs to be placed on current ppl. They want to hate the gov, but yet do not want to assimilate to better their lives for themselves, and their children. Their culture is a dieing culture. No taxes = no way to take care of infrastructure. I think thats what they want, things to decay to the point where life is like it was in the 1700s. It isnt going to happen.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by jnixon1108
I had to register just so I could reply to this post. I have something to say to the American Indians. I have done nothing to you. You are pissed about something that happened a long time ago. Guess what, your ancestors lost. Deal with it. You are Americans like it or not. If you don't want to be Americans then get out. I work in a warehouse 12 hours a day 6 days a week to earn a living. My department ships food yes free food to reservations. If this jackass wants to break the treaty then that should mean no more free food. I feel no pity for the modern day Indian. I feel pity for their ancestors. I can't figure out for the life of me why the modern day Indian feels I owe him a living.

Heh and who is the department- McDonalds? I will kindly remind you of the facts.

www.lakotafreedom.com...

Perhaps they can't claim their land back but we better wake up fast and change their conditions of living.

Facts..

Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.

Lakota death rate is the highest in the United States.

The Lakota infant mortality rate is 300% more than the U.S. Average.

More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and disease.

The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.

Alcoholism affects 8 in 10 families.

Median income is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.

1/3 of the homes lack basic clean water and sewage while 40% lack electricty.

60% of housing is infected with potentially fatal black molds.

97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.

Unemployment rates on our reservations is 85% or higher.

Federal Commodity Food Program provides high sugar foods that kill Native people through diabetes and heart disease.

Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.

Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.


No one should live in such poor conditions. Respect life and all it has to offer- You might actually learn something.

Anyone want to answer the question; if the Indians have already been living a life of inherent tribal sovereignty already and have failed at it why do they think by being even more independant that they can do better?

Here is my quote to re-explain my point that got buried quicky a bunch of pages back.

50% of the Indian population lives on a reservation, and 50% of them on the reservations are unemployed with a large percentage of those who do have work live well under the poverty level. Education and health care is also the worst in the country too.

As part of the treaties many tribes get funds from the government while other get none, but all get welfare and other government subsidies as any other American whose income is low enough to qualify for get.

This poor lifestyle is created by the fact that most reservations are out in the middle of no were, and so industries are far and few. The other part to this problem is the inherent tribal sovereignty that the treaties provide that created a “government-to-government” setup between tribal and the federal governments. This allowed the Indians to do what they may for the most part, and what they have done with this level of independence from the federal government is spelled out in my opening paragraph.

Without treaties how can they do a better job that they have failed to do so far. Add in the lost of all subsidies and any treaty commitments the federal government provides or honors and their life will only get extremely worst than it is right now for sovereignty has been a curse more than anything else.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Which is exactly why it wont come to pass. You will have a failed economy in 5 years time, if not sooner. If the Lakota tribe were to get its nation they so badly want, people would be jumping ship just to get out of their. America would surely, literally choke the life out of such a nation. It cannot happen, not within the US. California is the only state that I think could sustain any level of economic output with marginal success. Industry's are just way to tied up in the mainland US.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Anyone want to answer the question; if the Indians have already been living a life of inherent tribal sovereignty already and have failed at it why do they think by being even more independant that they can do better?

I think many of you are missing the point.

Freedom is the point. To some people, like the people who founded the US, freedom is the most important thing you can have.

Gaining freedom at all costs is enough for some people.

That said, there is a mass quantity of natural resources on Lakota land that we are not allowed to touch. There is even more in land that has been stolen over the years, against the treaties.

And lastly, who says we have failed? We have been FORCED to live a life as close to modern western ways as possible. If we don’t maintain a semblance of "civilization" the government steps in and takes over our government and kidnaps our children.

If we all lived in tents and teepees they wouldn’t even let us keep our children for a day.

Oh, and then you have the fact that our natural food source was STOLEN by profiteers on our land against treaties. while the government turned the other way. It would take ALL of that land mass that Russell has claimed on our behalf to manage enough cattle and bison to feed 150,000 of us.


Success means different things to different people. Success for us is a warm teepee, a big fire and self-sufficiency without materialism.

Originally posted by Leyla
No one should live in such poor conditions. Respect life and all it has to offer- You might actually learn something.

With all that you said that is very sad isn't a reservation its own sovereignty that governs itself from the lowest levels to the top government officials? Do they not have their own judicial system and laws? Are not reservations in fact considered outside of the state government and most of the federal government?

When one looks at this terrible living condition, is the actual sovereignty that the Indians have from the US also the cause of why they live so poorly? Also, when you look at other poor areas around the country, much of what causes all the poverty is a lifestyle that is passed down from one generation to the next. '

When I see a poor area I first blame the people who have the mental and physical ability to work but don’t. I also blame the same people for not lifting a single finger to improve themselves to gain a trade skill or an education that makes them marketable.

I next blame the local and state government for not focusing on the issue and not trying to break the poverty link from generation to generation., but in this case we would need to blame the Indian Government.

Next I blame the local people with means for not continuing to help those without, and lastly I blame the federal Government for not providing the big picture stuff.

In this case though it seems there are only the Indians at the individual level and the Indian government to blame since they are a sovereign state.


[edit on 21-12-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by cavscout

Success means different things to different people. Success for us is a warm teepee, a big fire and self-sufficiency without materialism.

There are people who do this every day. They go out and buy 1000 acres in the wilds and live off it, and they even home school their kids too. I know people who come close to this lifestyle even living near big cities.

There is a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong, and with all you have written it still doesn't explain the extremly poor living conditions. (I'm not talking materialism either)

Maybe I don't understand, but why can't you have your own cattle ranches, farms, and furnish your other basic needs? The Quakers do it just fine while also providing the lifestyle they wish to live.


[edit on 21-12-2007 by Xtrozero]

My better half is a member to the Cree Tribe. He gets a WHOLE 2 cents a month in Indian monies for 160 acres of leased land. They pay more in stamps to send out his statement every 3 months! This is truely a joke even for Open Range. Than he had to sign a note in the event of his demise..... as to who would receive this huge inheritance!

reply to post by Xtrozero



I answered your question (in a way) and you choose to ignore my answer and only respond to part of my post.

No more posts complaining that you didn’t get an answer, K?


Edit for clarity: natural resources


[edit on 21-12-2007 by cavscout]

reply to post by sylvie


great response sylvie. I was wondering why the article never gave that guys specific position in the tribe, and why it never said this was backed by anything but his word.

I agree with you, this is nothing and will disappear in a week.

Means' empty gesture still makes point
www.grandforksherald.com...

Dorreen Yellow Bird

We are all brothers,
We do not own the land, but are caretakers,
Divisiveness must end, yet we know it wont,
We all come from the conquered, and the conqueror,
We must learn from the past,
But we must not live in it.
www.accessgenealogy.com...

www.aics.org...





[edit on 013131p://bSaturday2007 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by sizzle

Her claim is that she was adopted and raised by a white family by force of the U.S. gov. She says that there was an attempt by our gov about 30-40 yrs ago to seperate all children born to NA families, in order to force extinction of the NA's in this country. Any one know anything about this?

The last time the federal government did anything like this was longer ago than 40 years, more like before the world wars.

It did happen, though.

Ok, so I was wrong again. I talked to my family about this and it did happen rather recently under called the indian child welfare act, or something similarly named.

I live in Salt Lake City and clearly remember when many familys suddenly had a Navajo adopted child join in the family. I was in the 2nd grade at this time......late 60's, early 70's......
Mostey Mormon familys were the ones adopting these kids......I remember wishing I to could have a Navajo step sister like the my friend Celest who lived 4 houses away.
My little elementary school had an influx of Navajo kids, at least one in every single classroom......I recall a higher grade than I had 4 Navajo kids join into one classroom.
These kids were brought into Utah via the Indian Child Welfare Act and many MANY Mormon familys adopted a child, as the church was asking them to open there homes and hearts to these poor downtrodden kids.......I tryed to make freinds with many of these Native kids, but they were very quiet and 'keep to themselves' type of kids. It seemed as if they did not want to 'be freinds' with me, or any of the other kids for that matter....
The strangest thing was it was only about 2 years later and these kids became noticeably ABSENT :0 Poof they were gone!
and we kids were told that they went back to their original familys. I was lead to believe that the Native kids only had to do a 2 year stint with the white familys and it was much like young Mormon men going on a 2 year mission. These kids came to live in white society for 2 years and then went back home with a better education of the outside world.

I have NO CLUE if this was an actual success..............or a travesty...
but I know it really happened as I was surrounded by familys involved in this....even some in my extended family had Navajo kids for a couple of years.

I am 1/4th Apache.................and I am just adding this for clarification, not that it has ANY bearing on the Lakota issues.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by theRiverGoddess]

What about those who were occupying North America before indians, hmm?

You ever wonder how the Indians started occupying North America? I'm pretty sure Indians are immigrants, too, right?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by TheoOne]

lame double post bug

[edit on 22-12-2007 by TheoOne]

Exactly, the "Native Americans" are not natives at all being that they came across the land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age. The people on this board wont admit that though because then they wouldent be able to take a swipe at the US government.

If we were the real fascist country this board makes us out to be, 90% of you (that are Americans) would be sitting in prison awaiting trial for treason by now.