As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Lakota nation withdraws from treaties, declares sovereignty
Mongrel Idiot
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Did a search and didn't see a thread on this; apologies if I've managed to duplicate one.
First up, linky: http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm
The upshot is that the Lakota tribe of Native Americans has withdrawn from the treaties it signed with the U.S. and declared itself a sovereign nation. If this flies, chunks of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska would become a separate nation from the United States. These lands include military bases, vast natural resources, and (I believe) Mount Rushmore.
I have a hard time imagining this going through. Would non-native people who lived on that land have to move, or could they become citizens in the new nation? What would happen to government property inside the new borders? What will the government do? Ignore it? Flat out refuse to allow them to go, using force if it comes to it? Accept? Try and cut a deal?
According to a quick Wiki search, the guy who led the movement, Russel Means, is a somewhat controversial figure and may or may not speak for the elected government of the Lakota. This could just be a symbolic gesture to draw attention to the plight of the Lakota people, in which case, more power to 'em.
So, what do you guys think? I suppose if there isn't enough meat on this story's bones we could talk about native issues in general.
Aaaaaand go!
First up, linky: http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm
The upshot is that the Lakota tribe of Native Americans has withdrawn from the treaties it signed with the U.S. and declared itself a sovereign nation. If this flies, chunks of the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska would become a separate nation from the United States. These lands include military bases, vast natural resources, and (I believe) Mount Rushmore.
I have a hard time imagining this going through. Would non-native people who lived on that land have to move, or could they become citizens in the new nation? What would happen to government property inside the new borders? What will the government do? Ignore it? Flat out refuse to allow them to go, using force if it comes to it? Accept? Try and cut a deal?
According to a quick Wiki search, the guy who led the movement, Russel Means, is a somewhat controversial figure and may or may not speak for the elected government of the Lakota. This could just be a symbolic gesture to draw attention to the plight of the Lakota people, in which case, more power to 'em.
So, what do you guys think? I suppose if there isn't enough meat on this story's bones we could talk about native issues in general.
Aaaaaand go!
Mongrel Idiot on
0
Posts
A. They have to know there's no realistic chance they're going to get soverignity.
B. IF somehow they do get to carve out their own little nation, what advantages does that offer them?
I think their real intent is something along the lines of causing enough commotion that the U.S. government will have to pay attention to them and take some sort of action to appease them that would improve the quality of life. Honestly, I hope they pull it off. From what I understand life on reservations is generally not good.
I generally thought their low quality of life was their own doing.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lakota_Indian_tribe_declares_secession_from_US
There's some dispute over how much authority Russel Means and his group have to speak for the Lakota. According to Wikinews he tried to run for tribal presidency before and lost, so there's that.
Yes. I'm fairly certain that he doesn't hold any official position within the Lakota Nation, and is just a shit disturber.
maybe they are just tired of being governed. I can understand that.
This isn't so much "threaten to take land" as "some dumbass saying something stupid".
The position is laughable at best, and the speaker not only doesn't have the authority to do anything, he isn't even affiliated with anyone involved.
I'd congratulate the media for not wasting news cycles on this if they ever actually DIDN'T just waste news cycles.
Key West tried it, once upon a time.
No, it's more like your neighbor saying that your backyard is a sovereign nation and that he is the spokesman for it.
And also you have missiles and he maybe has a pellet gun in his truck.
Hmmmmm.....sounds like they are just angry their children aren't living their traditional life style and are leaving to live in that darn modern society.
Or something to do with a lack of sin tax attracting casinos and crime to reservations, leading to epidemic levels of illiteracy, unemployment, and methamphetamine abuse.
Damn injuns.
I lived on the edge of a reservation which contained a casino. Now unless there was some kind of secret native american mafia, there was no significant increase in crime in the actual town I lived in. The reservation though? Always a dump and crime ridden, even before the casino. I don't agree with them being able to have a casino, but I certainly don't think it's what is lowering their standard of living.
And it's not like they don't have the money either, they rake in fat cash with those casinos. Any Native American who turned 18 automatically got $10,000 dollars. Not very many of them used it to go to college or anything. I could go out on the reservation in the dead of winter and there would be a shitty ass cabin with a god damn HOLE IN THE WALL, like I could crawl inside. But somehow, they could afford a satellite dish.
I saw nothing that was stopping that native american community from getting it's shit together other than outright laziness.
Invisible hand of the white man's market.
Atrophied, possibly corrupt leadership, general apathy, and the rejection of any white people who might try to help as untrustworthy?
I'm sorry, but bashing people for being uneducated just doesn't seem cool.
Oh wait, I suppose it doesn't exactly work like that, now does it.
hes not bashing them for being uneducated
hes bashing them for not taking the initiative to use their money to get themselves an education
I don't think it's a "let's" situation, insofar as it's nothing "we" should or could do, but I think it's kind of (read: very) idiotic for nations to retain large groups of nationalists against their will. You being Turkish could use that phrase though, I suppose. This is an incredibly rough and un-nuanced, off-the-cuff analysis but yeah, you guys should probably let them have a chunk of Turkey, and they should probably also get some of Iraq.
I think the way the USA treats this Lakota situation will set a strong precedence for other nations.
Turkey could just take Russia's strategy of dealing with nationalists. Murder them all and then forcibly relocate the more docile citizens to their homes. The UN will bitch but no one important will take notice.
I think Russia not being dicks and letting certain nationalists go would have led to a lot less bloodshed and friction. Normalization might have led to a future rejoining, or something close to it.
Or it might have lead to Chechnya, and probably several other provinces being free of a corrupt democidal tyrant which I think is a pretty favourable outcome, but hey, that's just me.
I don't think our statements or positions conflict.
That's more or less what I meant. If the massive amounts of ill-will hadn't been created by Russia's insistence on retaining hostile regions, nationalism could very well have sputtered out, and Chechnya and its ilk could have eventually reassimilated in one form or another (likely under the guise of layers and layers of treaties and agreements, kind of like the EU).
Why haven't the major news sites picked this up yet? I can't find anything on CNN or MSNBC.
Sure. Not saying it's easy going or anything. I'm just saying resistance to change isn't exactly the wisest course of action in regards to stability and growth.
Because it appears this guy has fuck-all to do with their leadership? You've reading the thread, right?
No shit.
Perhaps I am imagining it, but just to clarify:
...which strongly implies that Russia has been taking a really retarded course of action, at least in this respect.