Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
This is not a move by the entirity of the Lakota Nation.

this is what I was wondering. will this be a move by the whole Lakota nation? will this involve the whole Sioux nation? as I understand it, the Lakota were involved in the treaty "Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 ". I realize that there were many more treaties signed after this one, that directly reflects the Lakota. but, the Laramie treaty was the one that assigned who got what land. and was ratified by many tribes. (lost the link to the treaty, sorry)

im confused as to how this declaration effects the other tribes living the reservations, as well as all other treaties signed. according to the Laramie treaty, this one sets the rules for how all other treaties will be worked out.

which treaty is this group withdrawing form? im confused?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
...the federal government still invests in infrastructure and education.

If the reservations in the Lakota land were to become their own nation, they would have to start raising their own taxes to remain viable, since they would lose the money coming from the US government.
[edit on 20-12-2007 by SaviorComplex]

Excellent point and one that was rolling about in my mind as I read through this thread.

If the Lakota really do attempt to go through with this, they must realize that the government they set will be responsible, and held accountable, to take care of a lot of people.

The government will need money, make no mistake about it. Food will need to be brought into the new nation, medicine, protection etc. Infrastructure will need to be created and maintained - water distribution, electicity and so on. Education... the list goes on and on.

Eventually, there will be taxes. It will, however, be extremely interesting for the Lakota to have their own nation with their own passports (will other countries recognize these passports?), and see how the U.S. Government deals with this.

reply to post by infinite


Ha! Bandwidth Limit Exceeded on the www.lakotafreedom.com... you posted. i'm not surprised because what they're trying to do should be causing much interest indeed!

i was shocked when i visited Pine Ridge reservation last year — shocked to find a third-world country within the United States of America!

i will be fascinated to see how this turns out. could it possibly lead to one or two states moving toward sessecion of the union?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by manson_322

good to know that native indians finally make stand for freedom against imperialist and genocidal american occupation that has destroyed the native indian race

and estiblish a govt in exile in Russia/china/india

Of course, I would not expect someone that praises Stalin to be educated in the matters of history.

lol , more educated you
lol,and btw when did i praise stalin???
check this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

i have stated in thread that stalin was responsible for 7-8 million deaths in USSR accordin to KGB archives released by Gorbachev, though also stated
that 20-50 million figure is western propaganda

Originally posted by Floh
i will be fascinated to see how this turns out. could it possibly lead to one or two states moving toward sessecion of the union?

Of course, I know of a few states who have movements to leave the Union. This might be a possible reason to prevent the Indians declaring their own nation.

Perhaps they mean these treaties.

Ratified, not proclaimed.

Originally posted by manson_322
lol,and btw when did i praise stalin???

I made the assumption your avatar was a form of adulation. If this is not the case, I apologize.

Originally posted by geocom
Seriously people in this day and age WTF as was stated in another post
the land reverts back to the United States in violation or withdrawal of any treaties agreed on by the two parties..

Well according to the treaty itself, the land we're talking about was never considered to be a part of the United States.

puffin.creighton.edu...
FORT LARAMIE TREATY
APRIL 29, 1868

ARTICLE 16. The United States hereby agrees and stipulates that the country north of the North Platte River and east of the summits of the Big Horn Mountains shall be held and considered to be unceded Indian territory, and also stipulates and agrees that no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the same; or without the consent of the Indians first had and obtained, to pass through the same; and it is further agreed by the United States that within ninety days after the conclusion of peace with all the bands of the Sioux Nation, the military posts now established in the territory in this article named shall be abandoned, and that the road leading to them and by them to the settlements in the Territory of Montana shall be closed.

The United States Government didn't give this land to the Indians, the treaty is only an agreement for them to stay within the boundaries in return for concessions. Therefore, the land can never "revert back to the United States". We can cut off the concessions, but that's about the only recourse I can see.

Might be nice to travel out of Country but not really out of Country, hmmmmm Good for them, about time IMO

Looks like you're looking at the newest member of the Lakota Nation.

Hahaha.

Good on them!

Originally posted by Extralien
reply to post by geocom

 

Money only has a value if you believe it does. And considering the total worlds currency is no longer backed by any gold (since about 1970) then all of it is worthless right now.

If money is worthless what are you using to buy food and fuel or do you live in a place that people just barter...

Money is currently based on two consenting adults agreeing on the value stated on the money itself. So that fixes that problem.

agreed the current system is called Fiat Money and was put in place in 1971 I must have just not been not thinking when I wrote that..

The war of independence (revolutionary war as you call it) was not a fight for the land. It was a war to overthrow British rule.

and would British rule not include custodianship of the land additionally if you search the internet under "war of independence" the first result is the Revolutionary war, that is how it was taught to me throughout my education..

Don't forget that most colonials were actually integrating with the native people whose sole purpose was to lead a peaceful life.

While there were many successfully integrated communities there were as many massacre's attributable to both parties not just the United States..

It was because of the British and then the new American citizens, that created the cities and mass sprawl you are accustomed to today.

agreed I can't stand the sprawl myself not one bit. but I don't the we can just blame the British and the United states for this it has after all happened all around the world...

In all practical terms, land cannot be owned. If you could own land then how far down into the ground have you purchased? You might have 5 miles squared of land, but what about above and below. Do you also own the air space?

semantics

Can you as a freehold land owner of just an acre ban all aircraft from flying over? can you ban all traffic and people?

again Semantics I actually enjoy the aircraft..

By rights, you should be able to. But you can't own air and so it should be the same for land. As much as air moves and mixes, so does land.

This is where controlled airspace comes into effect. The only thing stopping me from flying through it is some high powered, fully armed military jet and the puppet masters controlling it.

IMO, the whole idea of land ownership is completely wrong. As you have correctly stated that most tribes believe that land is only borrowed, then so it should stand that way. Therefore, nobody can own it. You can't move it, you can't take it on holiday. you can only build or grow food on it. So this still leaves the issue that the USA cannot and does not own the land. It is only stated as so due to the idea being popularly believed by those who wish it to be so. The exact same thought process behind the value of money.

Okay so even giving into your obsession with people not being able to own the land the United States is the Custodian of the Land and as such they are just borrowing the land from it's primary custodian the United states..

That said if you don't want to abide by the rules set forth by the custodian then leave the land and find another custodian..


[edit on 12/20/2007 by geocom]

Well personally I hope these guys are serious... If they are AND they've played their cards right who knows we could have a new country in the middle of the US. And as to the whole if your money isn't based on anything rant by another poster.... this only shows how incredibly ignorant you are of the state of the world. The US dropped the gold standard Long ago and operates on a Fiat currency. And as to not having any resources... take a closer look at that map. IF they can pull this off the Lakota can buy the best weapons and construction equipment there is off of shares of the minerals and oil they are sitting on.

found this interesting.

I wanted to see in the bureau for Indian affairs web page had anything to say about this issue. to my surprise...I found this.

The BIA website as well as the BIA mail servers have been made temporarily unavailable due to the Cobell Litigation. Please continue to check from time to time. We have no estimate on when authorization will be given to reactivate these sites.

source: www.doi.gov...

what is the cobell litigation? I found this article from 2004.

WASHINGTON, DC (September 1, 2004) –The Judge in the landmark Cobell v. Norton Indian Trust case issued an injunction yesterday to stop the Department of Interior (DOI) from selling parcels of the Indian owned land at issue in the case. The decision by Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting the DOI’s efforts to sell Indian lands, a first time such an injunction was placed on the sale of lands in the case.

source: www.indiantrust.com...

interesting indeed.

--------------------edit----------------

seems this may have something to do with oil.

going to look and see if any oil companies have been in talks with the lakota nation. dont really know haow to look for that though.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by JSR]

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Good on them!

Good on them for what? A couple of blowhards that took it upon themselves to speak for the Lakota? Wow...that's something to be proud of.

If you're white (or black or hispanic or Asian) you won't be welcome in Means vision of a Lakota nation. Read his words.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Anybody who fights for what is right in these times of modern oppression ( and post oppression ) should be given nothing but respect. Even if it is just a slight posturing or what have you, I think it's a push in the right direction.

Originally posted by DCFusion

If the Lakota really do attempt to go through with this, they must realize that the government they set will be responsible, and held accountable, to take care of a lot of people.

The government will need money, make no mistake about it. Food will need to be brought into the new nation, medicine, protection etc. Infrastructure will need to be created and maintained - water distribution, electicity and so on. Education... the list goes on and on.

Responsible? Take care of people? Medicine brought in? Infrastructure? water distribution? Electricity? These people in my opinion are far more advanced than any common euro-american in that they dont need none of that. They are quite capable of doing things with the land that they have. The native americans are not stupid. They are far from needing that crap. If it seems like they need it now it is because of the American govt system they are trapped in requires it. More power to them I say. I wish I personally had the wisdom these great people have. Put me in the wilderness and I would surely not survive without their guidance.

I like this so much because it's so reminiscent of the new Zapatista uprising in Mexico. The natives standing up for themselves, as they should have never stopped doing. Look at how much progress the EZLN have made in Mexico. They aren't ignored any longer, and a little uprising like this may or may not work, but at least they're trying.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by manson_322


either way, Stalin is filth

reply to post by superheterodyne


Your joking Right?

The Native American of yesteryear has gone the way of the cowboy I mean it is not like they still send out hunting parties and such they live in houses and have normal jobs just like you and I..

I went to school on the FlatHead Reservation in Ronan MT for Forestry and it was really no different than where I live now the biggest difference was the terrain everything else was the same schools, roads, phones (yep no smoke signals) offices, they even had real stores that you could shop in.. LOL

I am not sure where you have gotten your idea of what the Native American is but it is not very accurate when paired up with reality...

Respectfully,
GEO

Just a quick point for all.
The Lakota Nation is only the first to actually nullify the "treaties" that were signed with the US. Many other even more prosperous Native American Nations have been debating following this very same road.
Much of the Native American's problems with the US goverment is that there have not been one time that they (the US) have not ignored the treaties when it was in the US's best interests.
If it wasn't for other economic measures that the various nations have take, the life on the "res" would be worse than even the worst slums in the 3 rd world countries.
I fully back the Lakota's move