IntruderLS1

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WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.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

__________________

BadBoy@TheWheel

So does this mean we quit funding them? Do we end relations with them from a finacial standpoint? Where does this leave our relationship with them as a group?

What are your thoughts Intruder?

__________________

hubersrj

Actually, the treaty did state that they would receive federal funding once they've integrated into our society...if I read it right...so, yeah, no more funding for them...although I think we're about to see Wounded Knee pt II here.

SouthOfHeaven

i doubt that we as a nation will stop funnding them.. i dont know why i just don't see it happening..

__________________

hubersrj

Well, they want to abolish taxes altogether...even sales tax, so I'm at a loss at how they're going to fund anything themselves. But, if they want to be a completely independant nation from the United States, then they'll have to figure out a way to create revenue. Think about it: PR is still a territory, not a state because they don't want to have to pay federal taxes, same with Guam. But they're not trying to break away completely from the US either. They love their sugar daddy...or their sugar Uncle anyways, lol!

skyblue

why not......look at it like this......for centuries scotland have been part of britain,now the have they're own parliaments.......and dont forget.....the lands you live in a rightfully native lands anyway......as your ancestors were settlers you are guests(unless you have native blood in you of course)....i think this could be really difficult for the american government because if the lakota go worldwide with this it could be very embarrassing

__________________


SHAKE YOUR MONEY MAKER BABY SMOKE IF YOU'VE GOT IT

Boomer

It will crumble for them. What will they do without our funding? How will they support their own form of government without taxation? Trade and barter? Unfortunately thats not how it works any more. I respect the natives of this land. I dont think this is a wise decision on their part though. It really wouldnt be embarassing. The history is there for anyone to read. What we already did to them is embarassing.

__________________

skyblue

it wasn't you boomer......it was your ancestors......you had no control over that.....the point is that if they had they're own spokes people elected by them in the american government this could all be solved

__________________


SHAKE YOUR MONEY MAKER BABY SMOKE IF YOU'VE GOT IT

Boomer

Yeah. Its really shitty how my ancestors destroyed a beautiful civilization of people out of greed.

__________________

hubersrj

Right Boomer.

No culture is without their embarrassing moments and growing pains...as a relatively young nation, we're still feeling it out as we go along. Countries around the world ie. UK, France, Germany, China, Japan...they've been established since the modern era, and yet they still do stupid things to themselves and to others. It's more of a Human thing than any one nationality. Personally, I think the Lakotas are better off being a part of the US. On the other hand, let them have a whirl at independence. They may be knocking at the White House door, hat in hand, you know?

skyblue

my ancestors were probably worse.....as was most of europe, what with the slave trade,forced labour in australia and kicking french ass every few years

__________________


SHAKE YOUR MONEY MAKER BABY SMOKE IF YOU'VE GOT IT

COOL_BREEZE2

===

I feel their pain.

I smell trouble brewing.

__________________
Yeah, there always after my lucky charms. What? Why does every one always laugh when I say that. They are after me lucky charms. What?

skyblue

give them a voice in government......problem solved

__________________


SHAKE YOUR MONEY MAKER BABY SMOKE IF YOU'VE GOT IT

hubersrj

But Sky, it's even more in depth than that even. I think that the American Congress will end up looking at this being similar to an event back in the 1860's here in the States...that took us to our Civil War (nothing civil about it really) and that lasted 5 years, took 100's of thousands of lives and cost us a great President. I think the FBI, if they're not there already, will be camping outside of the reservation for quite a while.

COOL_BREEZE2

also

__________________
Yeah, there always after my lucky charms. What? Why does every one always laugh when I say that. They are after me lucky charms. What?