No, you're right, resistance is obviously not going to lead to stability and prosperity. The point I'm trying to make is, everyone that has chosen to resist has come to terms with the fact that there is no realistic hope for stability and prosperity anymore.
Edit: Oh, I missed the "to change" part. Nevermind then. Full agreement on all counts.
Oh wait, I suppose it doesn't exactly work like that, now does it.
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.
I mean it in a sense that other nations can look at the USA and go "you didn't let Lakota establish their sovereignty, what gives you the right to claim we should give X-nation-that-is-under-our-rule their sovereignty?"
Taiwain is a horrible case - it clearly meets the capacity test for sovereignty, it just doesn't meet the recognition test. Yet it sort of does, in that many countries have relationships with the place they just avoid saying it is a country. Sucks to be them, but then China has done a good job of making non recognition of Taiwan a principle of being friends with China. If you do one you can't do the other.
The Lakota thing does just seem to be a PR stunt on the part of a disaffected group. Nothing new there really, I think a lot of indigenous groups living in a settler country have such elements within them - I know NZ does, and didn't Canada have those motorway blocking protests back in the 90s? I could probably find a couple of similar examples if necessary.
Why haven't the major news sites picked this up yet? I can't find anything on CNN or MSNBC.
Because it appears this guy has fuck-all to do with their leadership? You've reading the thread, right?
He went there with three other people, not by himself.
So it was four guys completely unrelated to any governance of the group they claim to speak for, and without any actual popular support, who chose to say this stupid thing. That's completely different.
And, much as you might like, ignoring dipshits like this without any actual support from the population in question or the ability to have their demands be anything but catastrophic to their own people isn't actually an argument for doing whatever it takes to suppress an ethnic minority within your own country, or a neighboring country (just in case they make your own get all uppity).
The majority of Kurds do want their own nation, and if they got it could actual form a viable country. The Lakotas are overall happy being a part of the US, and if they weren't they'd be nigh on fucked since thier population is extrememly dependent on the federal government for support.
Sooo... does this mean we get to chase him and his followers down with choppers and a camera crew just like the Republic of Texas nuts from the mid 90s?
The difference here, ege, is that there are a lot more Kurds in Turkey than Lakotas in the USA. The Kurds also shoot back when you try to massacre them.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
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.
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.
hes not bashing them for being uneducated
hes bashing them for not taking the initiative to use their money to get themselves an education
Yeah. They should have used that $10,000 to go to college, where, at my school, it would have paid for one fifth of one year. But if they worked hard they could have gotten financial aid, what with all the excellent high schools on the reservation to prepare them for academic success.
Oh wait, I suppose it doesn't exactly work like that, now does it.
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.
I mean it in a sense that other nations can look at the USA and go "you didn't let Lakota establish their sovereignty, what gives you the right to claim we should give X-nation-that-is-under-our-rule their sovereignty?"
Kurdistan, Taiwan, come to mind.
I'm not seeing the connection. The Kurds have a strong separatists movement. Taiwan governs itself . The Lakota Nation has.. what? A treaty with America and four unaffiliated persons claiming authority?
Oh wait, I suppose it doesn't exactly work like that, now does it.
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.
I mean it in a sense that other nations can look at the USA and go "you didn't let Lakota establish their sovereignty, what gives you the right to claim we should give X-nation-that-is-under-our-rule their sovereignty?"
This is just some dude trying to speak for the Lakota nation when he doesn't have the authority.
I mean, I live in Alabama, but I can't just drive out to the White House, yell "Fuck this shit, we're leaving!" and say that Alabama has seceded from the US.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Why haven't the major news sites picked this up yet? I can't find anything on CNN or MSNBC.
Because it's the weekend. You won't hear a word until Monday, and then it'll be old news. The guy picked the worst possible time in the weekly news cycle to raise hell.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
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.
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.
hes not bashing them for being uneducated
hes bashing them for not taking the initiative to use their money to get themselves an education
Yeah. They should have used that $10,000 to go to college, where, at my school, it would have paid for one fifth of one year. But if they worked hard they could have gotten financial aid, what with all the excellent high schools on the reservation to prepare them for academic success.
Damn injuns.
There's also lingering cultural disincentives against education -- kinda like in poor black communities. And a college education isn't going to do you a lot of economic good unless you plan to leave the reservation. Those places (Pine Ridge especially) have just about no jobs to speak of, much less degree-requiring ones. Most of the population is welfare-dependent, but, on the other hand, the government handouts and the widespread alcoholism undermine any fledling economy. It is a perfectly mishandled welfare situation.
Anyhow. In all fairness to Russel Means, it's my understanding that the United States government has broken most of its Indian treaties in one way or another. My personal favorite is the one stipulating as one of its conditions that the Black Hills, sacred to the Lakota, would be protected land. What are the Black Hills, you ask? Mt. Rushmore.
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.
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.
hes not bashing them for being uneducated
hes bashing them for not taking the initiative to use their money to get themselves an education
Yeah. They should have used that $10,000 to go to college, where, at my school, it would have paid for one fifth of one year. But if they worked hard they could have gotten financial aid, what with all the excellent high schools on the reservation to prepare them for academic success.
Damn injuns.
I didn't have $10,000 dollars when I went to college. Shit, no one I knew did. But somehow we all managed. The kids that lived on the reservation near me had the option of either going to the reservation school or to the local public school where I went. They also opened a community college in our town, which I suspect they could have gone to at a substantial amount less than I would have been able to. So they can hardly blame poor education. And it's not like they don't have the money to build a good school or have good supplies or hire good teachers. They just don't.
Most of the problems that you can point out about a reservation can all be solved by allocating money to the right places. They don't do that and it's certainly not because they don't have the money.
Yeah. They should have used that $10,000 to go to college, where, at my school, it would have paid for one fifth of one year. But if they worked hard they could have gotten financial aid, what with all the excellent high schools on the reservation to prepare them for academic success.
Damn injuns.
I didn't have $10,000 dollars when I went to college. Shit, no one I knew did. But somehow we all managed. The kids that lived on the reservation near me had the option of either going to the reservation school or to the local public school where I went. They also opened a community college in our town, which I suspect they could have gone to at a substantial amount less than I would have been able to. So they can hardly blame poor education. And it's not like they don't have the money to build a good school or have good supplies or hire good teachers. They just don't.
Most of the problems that you can point out about a reservation can all be solved by allocating money to the right places. They don't do that and it's certainly not because they don't have the money.
Both of you, no offense, are completely missing the point.
MrMister: No, that $10,000 wouldn't have been enough for someone to to go to YOUR school. That would of been covered by the vast set of other resources designed to assist Native American education. They are significantly underrepresented minority in upper education and there are more scholarships and grants aimed exclusively at Native Americans than there are applicants. And lets not act as if EVERY education is as expensive as yours. $10,000 would go a long, long, way towards covering a state school or community college education.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Frankly, if you want to make life better there you should bring in small businesses that do something relevant with unskilled labor and start hiring locals. Repairs of every kind, subsidized construction, hell even data entry and phone centers. Build the economy, and watch things change. When you're making enough money to actually be able to think about something else suddenly making sure your kids are getting an education becomes a priority. The issue of course being there aren't enough Native Americans interested in (or able to) do this and there is a distinct distrust of outsiders, so they're stuck in a shitty cycle.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
* 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.
How exactly does breaking this treaty begin to address the problems of the Lakota? I don't know what social, financial, or other services the government provides for the people on the reservation, but won't that go out the window if by some quirk of fate this plays out the way the Lakota freedom delegation want it to?
For some of those graphs, it seems kind of skewed, doesn't it?
Like not having elecricity. Maybe cause 40% don't want it? They're unemployed, maybe they grow their own food? No sewage, maybe they live in huts?
"Did you know that at this tribal reservation where they live without modern appliances and grow their own food, a full 100% of them are unemployed, don't have running water, don't have electricity..."
I don't know the full story, but plastering up those facts doesn't seem to be worth much, honestly. How about compare it to how the Lakota want it.
I mean, I'm not saying it's good over there. Black mold, alcoholism, teen suicide.
Part of it might be that to get all the good things - like education, jobs, healthcare etc requires integrating totally into American society, which may have the effect of totally eliminating the Lakota nation as a nation. Now the merits of staying poor and dying young while still keeping your culture vs. losing one's culture and living an ok life is a different debate, suffice to say that some people chose the former, some chose the latter.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
Sorry, I was being lazy and didn't feel like looking up all the statistics in the post below yours. They aren't being "lazy" because their peers are likely to die young and poor, they are "lazy" because THEY are likely to die young and poor. It doesn't make sense to devote 16 unproductive years to education (12 for high school and 4 for college) when you're only likely to live that long again.
If there is no work for a college educated person in a region, the people there will either not get a college education or they'll leave the region, perpetuating the cycle of everyone in the region not having an education.
And that's leaving aside the VAST fucking inequality in calling someone facing chronic substance abuse, fatal illness, and crushing poverty lazy for not achieving the same thing as the average schmuck from the burbs.
All of these arguments about how everyone in living in poverty, and not bothering to get education since there is no college degree requiring jobs seems to suggest the true root of the problem is the reservation way of life. In the current modernized world, the Lakota way of life just can't be supported if they want all the modern conveniences too. Forming a separate Lakota nation will just make things worse. They will just lose all the advantages that the American government gives them. If they want to preserve their culture while still living reasonably well, they have to pull their act together. I think they could learn a lot from the Amish, who are in a similar situation as them, but still manage to live quite well.
Moe FwackyRight Here, Right NowDrives a BuickModeratormod
edited December 2007
If the government gave them the medium orange region, I woudn't miss it.
Also, to actually contribute here, Means also said that anybody willing to renounce their United States citizenship would be welcome to join the Lakota nation. This suggests that he is aware that they need to bring educated people in to help them build a working society, but want to make it clear that the goal is to strengthen the Lakota nation, not integrate them into American culture.
All of these arguments about how everyone in living in poverty, and not bothering to get education since there is no college degree requiring jobs seems to suggest the true root of the problem is the reservation way of life. In the current modernized world, the Lakota way of life just can't be supported if they want all the modern conveniences too. Forming a separate Lakota nation will just make things worse. They will just lose all the advantages that the American government gives them. If they want to preserve their culture while still living reasonably well, they have to pull their act together. I think they could learn a lot from the Amish, who are in a similar situation as them, but still manage to live quite well.
No, they are at a huge disadvantage compared to the Amish. In fact, the difference between an Amish settlement and an Indian reservation is so huge that I am having trouble thinking how to explain it. Look -- an Amish settlement formed when a bunch of religious nuts with a fairly stable culture and highly sustainable way of life wandered out into the mid-west and plunked down on some great farmland. I am not sure how you imagine the Indian reservations got their start, but they certainly did not involve communities of like-minded folks voluntarily coming together to hunt buffalo in prime bufallo-hunting land. Pine Ridge, for example, isn't even good for farming.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
You are right, they are an inferior lazy race. ...oh wait? That's not what you meant? They aren't an inferior race, they just all happen to be really lazy and dumb. That must be it. 99% of these people just happen to be lazy and dumb, you weren't implying they are an inferior race and it has NOTHING to do with the socio-economic situation that they had forced upon them. Thats quite a coincidence.
The Lakotans are holding out for something. They're simply threatening secession because the federal government is probably trying to srew them in something, or because they want something added to the treaties that the feds don't want to pony up. They can't realisitically declare sovereignty and they know it, we killed off their local food sources generations ago.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
Sorry, I was being lazy and didn't feel like looking up all the statistics in the post below yours. They aren't being "lazy" because their peers are likely to die young and poor, they are "lazy" because THEY are likely to die young and poor. It doesn't make sense to devote 16 unproductive years to education (12 for high school and 4 for college) when you're only likely to live that long again.
If there is no work for a college educated person in a region, the people there will either not get a college education or they'll leave the region, perpetuating the cycle of everyone in the region not having an education.
And that's leaving aside the VAST fucking inequality in calling someone facing chronic substance abuse, fatal illness, and crushing poverty lazy for not achieving the same thing as the average schmuck from the burbs.
^^^This^^^
Also, it makes no sense to blame an individual. They are wholly a product of genetics and environment, and an individual has control of neither.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
Sorry, I was being lazy and didn't feel like looking up all the statistics in the post below yours. They aren't being "lazy" because their peers are likely to die young and poor, they are "lazy" because THEY are likely to die young and poor. It doesn't make sense to devote 16 unproductive years to education (12 for high school and 4 for college) when you're only likely to live that long again.
If there is no work for a college educated person in a region, the people there will either not get a college education or they'll leave the region, perpetuating the cycle of everyone in the region not having an education.
And that's leaving aside the VAST fucking inequality in calling someone facing chronic substance abuse, fatal illness, and crushing poverty lazy for not achieving the same thing as the average schmuck from the burbs.
^^^This^^^
Also, it makes no sense to blame an individual. They are wholly a product of genetics and environment, and an individual has control of neither.
Please. I'm as liberal as anyone else on the board, but there is always an element of personal responsibility involved.
I don't fucking think that native americans are an inferior race, thank you very much. About a quarter of my school was native american. I knew several who graduated and went on to college and are probably much more successful than I am right now. I'm not even talking about college anymore. My college education is limited, but at least I graduated high school. The drop out rate among the native american population of the school was much higher than the caucasion population. It's not really hard to graduate from high school. There is blame to lay on their society, but at the end of the day, it's that person's choice to drop out. Society didn't put a gun to their head and force them out the door.
Also, it makes no sense to blame an individual. They are wholly a product of genetics and environment, and an individual has control of neither.
Please. I'm as liberal as anyone else on the board, but there is always an element of personal responsibility involved.
I don't fucking think that Native Americans are an inferior race, thank you very much. About a quarter of my school was Native American. I knew several who graduated and went on to college and are probably much more successful than I am right now. I'm not even talking about college anymore. My college education is limited, but at least I graduated high school. The drop out rate among the Native American population of the school was much higher than the Caucasian population. It's not really hard to graduate from high school. There is blame to lay on their society, but at the end of the day, it's that person's choice to drop out. Society didn't put a gun to their head and force them out the door.
Assigning individual blame is, I think, only a useful practice insofar as it will prevent future unfortunate activity from the individual and others in similar situations. It seems like blaming individuals in shitty situations for their shitty situation is a particularly cruel exercise in futility.
A person's "choice" is only, again, a product of their environment and genetics, and at the end of the day, an individual doesn't have any "choice" about either. Society forces that person out the door from the moment he is born, he just doesn't know it until it's too late.
Assigning individual blame is, I think, only a useful practice insofar as it will prevent future unfortunate activity from the individual and others in similar situations. It seems like blaming individuals in shitty situations for their shitty situation is a particularly cruel exercise in futility.
I'm not blaming individuals for the shitty situations that they are in. As a society, I think they have the resources that the need to succeed.
A person's "choice" is only, again, a product of their environment and genetics, and at the end of the day, an individual doesn't have any "choice" about either. Society forces that person out the door from the moment he is born, he just doesn't know it until it's too late.
If this was true, every single person who was born in these situations would have the exact same outcome. And we know this is untrue. Situations may make it harder for them to make the right decision.
Assigning individual blame is, I think, only a useful practice insofar as it will prevent future unfortunate activity from the individual and others in similar situations. It seems like blaming individuals in shitty situations for their shitty situation is a particularly cruel exercise in futility.
I'm not blaming individuals for the shitty situations that they are in. As a society, I think they have the resources that the need to succeed.
A person's "choice" is only, again, a product of their environment and genetics, and at the end of the day, an individual doesn't have any "choice" about either. Society forces that person out the door from the moment he is born, he just doesn't know it until it's too late.
If this was true, every single person who was born in these situations would have the exact same outcome. And we know this is untrue. Situations may make it harder for them to make the right decision.
Assigning individual blame is, I think, only a useful practice insofar as it will prevent future unfortunate activity from the individual and others in similar situations. It seems like blaming individuals in shitty situations for their shitty situation is a particularly cruel exercise in futility.
I'm not blaming individuals for the shitty situations that they are in. As a society, I think they have the resources that the need to succeed.
...at the end of the day, it's that person's choice to drop out.
A person's "choice" is only, again, a product of their environment and genetics, and at the end of the day, an individual doesn't have any "choice" about either. Society forces that person out the door from the moment he is born, he just doesn't know it until it's too late.
If this was true, every single person who was born in these situations would have the exact same outcome. And we know this is untrue. Situations may make it harder for them to make the right decision.
Environment is a bit more complex than you're understanding it, as it includes parents and a good deal of other minutia, which allows for some amount of variation, and again, genetics plays a role as well.
So, there's variation, which means you're going to see exceptions. That said, people born into those situations do see a lot of commonality in their fates, so it's pretty obvious that society has an overwhelming influence. The exceptions are a lucky few.
Posts
Edit: Oh, I missed the "to change" part. Nevermind then. Full agreement on all counts.
I mean it in a sense that other nations can look at the USA and go "you didn't let Lakota establish their sovereignty, what gives you the right to claim we should give X-nation-that-is-under-our-rule their sovereignty?"
Kurdistan, Taiwan, come to mind.
He went there with three other people, not by himself.
The Lakota thing does just seem to be a PR stunt on the part of a disaffected group. Nothing new there really, I think a lot of indigenous groups living in a settler country have such elements within them - I know NZ does, and didn't Canada have those motorway blocking protests back in the 90s? I could probably find a couple of similar examples if necessary.
So it was four guys completely unrelated to any governance of the group they claim to speak for, and without any actual popular support, who chose to say this stupid thing. That's completely different.
And, much as you might like, ignoring dipshits like this without any actual support from the population in question or the ability to have their demands be anything but catastrophic to their own people isn't actually an argument for doing whatever it takes to suppress an ethnic minority within your own country, or a neighboring country (just in case they make your own get all uppity).
The majority of Kurds do want their own nation, and if they got it could actual form a viable country. The Lakotas are overall happy being a part of the US, and if they weren't they'd be nigh on fucked since thier population is extrememly dependent on the federal government for support.
Yeah. They should have used that $10,000 to go to college, where, at my school, it would have paid for one fifth of one year. But if they worked hard they could have gotten financial aid, what with all the excellent high schools on the reservation to prepare them for academic success.
Damn injuns.
I'm not seeing the connection. The Kurds have a strong separatists movement. Taiwan governs itself . The Lakota Nation has.. what? A treaty with America and four unaffiliated persons claiming authority?
The answer is, as always, "We have the guns".
I mean, I live in Alabama, but I can't just drive out to the White House, yell "Fuck this shit, we're leaving!" and say that Alabama has seceded from the US.
There's also lingering cultural disincentives against education -- kinda like in poor black communities. And a college education isn't going to do you a lot of economic good unless you plan to leave the reservation. Those places (Pine Ridge especially) have just about no jobs to speak of, much less degree-requiring ones. Most of the population is welfare-dependent, but, on the other hand, the government handouts and the widespread alcoholism undermine any fledling economy. It is a perfectly mishandled welfare situation.
Anyhow. In all fairness to Russel Means, it's my understanding that the United States government has broken most of its Indian treaties in one way or another. My personal favorite is the one stipulating as one of its conditions that the Black Hills, sacred to the Lakota, would be protected land. What are the Black Hills, you ask? Mt. Rushmore.
I didn't have $10,000 dollars when I went to college. Shit, no one I knew did. But somehow we all managed. The kids that lived on the reservation near me had the option of either going to the reservation school or to the local public school where I went. They also opened a community college in our town, which I suspect they could have gone to at a substantial amount less than I would have been able to. So they can hardly blame poor education. And it's not like they don't have the money to build a good school or have good supplies or hire good teachers. They just don't.
Most of the problems that you can point out about a reservation can all be solved by allocating money to the right places. They don't do that and it's certainly not because they don't have the money.
Both of you, no offense, are completely missing the point.
MrMister: No, that $10,000 wouldn't have been enough for someone to to go to YOUR school. That would of been covered by the vast set of other resources designed to assist Native American education. They are significantly underrepresented minority in upper education and there are more scholarships and grants aimed exclusively at Native Americans than there are applicants. And lets not act as if EVERY education is as expensive as yours. $10,000 would go a long, long, way towards covering a state school or community college education.
Yoda: The issue isn't resources, the issue is poverty. Poor kids aren't less likely to go to college because they are poor, they are less likely because of all the baggage that comes with being poor. There are significant cultural forces at work to keep them from focusing on education, both in terms of economics and in terms of expected results (if I think my odds of graduating are say 1:3, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try hard now).
Frankly, if you want to make life better there you should bring in small businesses that do something relevant with unskilled labor and start hiring locals. Repairs of every kind, subsidized construction, hell even data entry and phone centers. Build the economy, and watch things change. When you're making enough money to actually be able to think about something else suddenly making sure your kids are getting an education becomes a priority. The issue of course being there aren't enough Native Americans interested in (or able to) do this and there is a distinct distrust of outsiders, so they're stuck in a shitty cycle.
Even if the individual doesn't try hard because his or her peers don't, the blame still falls on the individual. The school isn't making them drop out, they are simply falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Well most other native americans fail at school, so that must mean I will too." Again, it's only the individuals fault.
How exactly does breaking this treaty begin to address the problems of the Lakota? I don't know what social, financial, or other services the government provides for the people on the reservation, but won't that go out the window if by some quirk of fate this plays out the way the Lakota freedom delegation want it to?
Like not having elecricity. Maybe cause 40% don't want it? They're unemployed, maybe they grow their own food? No sewage, maybe they live in huts?
"Did you know that at this tribal reservation where they live without modern appliances and grow their own food, a full 100% of them are unemployed, don't have running water, don't have electricity..."
I don't know the full story, but plastering up those facts doesn't seem to be worth much, honestly. How about compare it to how the Lakota want it.
I mean, I'm not saying it's good over there. Black mold, alcoholism, teen suicide.
But who cares about their language?
Sorry, I was being lazy and didn't feel like looking up all the statistics in the post below yours. They aren't being "lazy" because their peers are likely to die young and poor, they are "lazy" because THEY are likely to die young and poor. It doesn't make sense to devote 16 unproductive years to education (12 for high school and 4 for college) when you're only likely to live that long again.
If there is no work for a college educated person in a region, the people there will either not get a college education or they'll leave the region, perpetuating the cycle of everyone in the region not having an education.
And that's leaving aside the VAST fucking inequality in calling someone facing chronic substance abuse, fatal illness, and crushing poverty lazy for not achieving the same thing as the average schmuck from the burbs.
Also, to actually contribute here, Means also said that anybody willing to renounce their United States citizenship would be welcome to join the Lakota nation. This suggests that he is aware that they need to bring educated people in to help them build a working society, but want to make it clear that the goal is to strengthen the Lakota nation, not integrate them into American culture.
No, they are at a huge disadvantage compared to the Amish. In fact, the difference between an Amish settlement and an Indian reservation is so huge that I am having trouble thinking how to explain it. Look -- an Amish settlement formed when a bunch of religious nuts with a fairly stable culture and highly sustainable way of life wandered out into the mid-west and plunked down on some great farmland. I am not sure how you imagine the Indian reservations got their start, but they certainly did not involve communities of like-minded folks voluntarily coming together to hunt buffalo in prime bufallo-hunting land. Pine Ridge, for example, isn't even good for farming.
You are right, they are an inferior lazy race. ...oh wait? That's not what you meant? They aren't an inferior race, they just all happen to be really lazy and dumb. That must be it. 99% of these people just happen to be lazy and dumb, you weren't implying they are an inferior race and it has NOTHING to do with the socio-economic situation that they had forced upon them. Thats quite a coincidence.
^^^This^^^
Also, it makes no sense to blame an individual. They are wholly a product of genetics and environment, and an individual has control of neither.
Please. I'm as liberal as anyone else on the board, but there is always an element of personal responsibility involved.
I don't fucking think that native americans are an inferior race, thank you very much. About a quarter of my school was native american. I knew several who graduated and went on to college and are probably much more successful than I am right now. I'm not even talking about college anymore. My college education is limited, but at least I graduated high school. The drop out rate among the native american population of the school was much higher than the caucasion population. It's not really hard to graduate from high school. There is blame to lay on their society, but at the end of the day, it's that person's choice to drop out. Society didn't put a gun to their head and force them out the door.
Assigning individual blame is, I think, only a useful practice insofar as it will prevent future unfortunate activity from the individual and others in similar situations. It seems like blaming individuals in shitty situations for their shitty situation is a particularly cruel exercise in futility.
A person's "choice" is only, again, a product of their environment and genetics, and at the end of the day, an individual doesn't have any "choice" about either. Society forces that person out the door from the moment he is born, he just doesn't know it until it's too late.
I'm not blaming individuals for the shitty situations that they are in. As a society, I think they have the resources that the need to succeed.
If this was true, every single person who was born in these situations would have the exact same outcome. And we know this is untrue. Situations may make it harder for them to make the right decision.
"and genetics"
Environment is a bit more complex than you're understanding it, as it includes parents and a good deal of other minutia, which allows for some amount of variation, and again, genetics plays a role as well.
So, there's variation, which means you're going to see exceptions. That said, people born into those situations do see a lot of commonality in their fates, so it's pretty obvious that society has an overwhelming influence. The exceptions are a lucky few.