The Sicatoka Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This really deserves a thread all by itself. Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago "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. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallassiouxfan Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This really deserves a thread all by itself. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Will they quit begging for handouts from the US govt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This really deserves a thread all by itself. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html They get to live there tax-free, too. I'm sure Russell has a plan to set up a police force, armed forces, schools, government, courts, etc., too. He's been planning since 1974, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopski Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 now im not positive on this so dont yell at me yet, just correct me if im wrong. but towards the end, when its talking about how America has ruined their tribes by "oppression at the hands of the US". is that really the truth? correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the US give them all sorts of crazy deals? Money, college education, etc. if so, how is that ruining them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 so they could legalize anything they want too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Is this another ploy for Russell to get out of charges for beating up his wife? 9th Circuit case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Lakota group pushes for new nation - Argus Leader "I want to emphasize, we do not represent the collaborators, the Vichy Indians and those tribal governments set up by the United States of America to ensure our poverty, to ensure the theft of our land and resources," Means said, comparing elected tribal governments to Nazi collaborators in France during World War II. Rodney Bordeaux, chairman of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, said his community has no desire to join the breakaway nation. Means and his group, which call themselves the Lakota Freedom Delegation, have never officially pitched their views to the Rosebud community, Bordeaux said. I am not sure that Mr. Means has the "authority" to speak for the entire Lakota Nation. I wish him and the Lakota Freedom Delegation good luck and a Merry Christmas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I'm going to buy stock in Dakota Fence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Merry Christmas everyone! http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopski Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Merry Christmas everyone! http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ now look, we cant even get on the site lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Is this another ploy for Russell to get out of charges for beating up his wife? 9th Circuit case Some great reading in there .... Means testified that the difference between an Oglala-Sioux and a Navajo is as different as an American and a French person. Although Means lived on the Navajo reservation for a decade while married to his ex-wife, he could never become a member of the Navajo tribe because membership required at least one quarter Navajo blood. Means does not speak Navajo, and as a non-Navajo, he had difficulty obtaining employment because of tribal preferences given to Navajos and restrictions that make it difficult for a non-Navajo to find employment, participate in civic life, and license a business. Wait a minute here .... how can this be? That reads like they stick it to each other for being different. I thought only "whitey" (the 'wasicu' for those of you speaking Siouan dialects) stuck it to Native Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighting Sioux Fan Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Will they quit begging for handouts from the US govt? ...and those employed by American businesses will have to get green cards, I would guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 All this got me thinking ........... Has any State ever revoked or can a Governor revoke the ability of Native Americans to operate Casinos ? I would guess not on a Reservation ? (& are Reservations owned by the Tribes or the US Government ?) So why do so many Tribes try to build Casinos off their Reservation, nearer to major cities ? & is all the aid given to Reservations part of past treaties ? (I don't doubt a lot of these treaties were broken in the past) Whatever became of the Lawsuit that Spirit Lake had - Saying they owned all of Devils Lake ? - Not to mention the lawsuit over ownership of the Black Hills ? Plus other lawsuits about broken treaties ? I'd guess they (tribes are so fragmented & looking out for their own concerns, that they can no longer, as a whole, spend the $$$ to right so many of their perceived wrongs ? ? ? I'm not defending Means - But as more lines get drawn. I wonder where all these things are headed ? It seems as Casinos got more popular & lets face it - it's not the Tribes people who make them successful - that most learn to live in peace with their neighbors. Is a Pact different than a Treaty ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 WOW, just wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I'll have to read all of this ...I guess http://www.google.com/search?q=North+Dakot...lient=firefox-a Gee maybe this had something to do with the Seminoles letting Florida keep their name ? http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/16/State/St...ng_deal_a.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 All this got me thinking ........... Has any State ever revoked or can a Governor revoke the ability of Native Americans to operate Casinos ? I would guess not on a Reservation ? (& are Reservations owned by the Tribes or the US Government ?) So why do so many Tribes try to build Casinos off their Reservation, nearer to major cities ? & is all the aid given to Reservations part of past treaties ? (I don't doubt a lot of these treaties were broken in the past) Whatever became of the Lawsuit that Spirit Lake had - Saying they owned all of Devils Lake ? - Not to mention the lawsuit over ownership of the Black Hills ? Plus other lawsuits about broken treaties ? I'd guess they (tribes are so fragmented & looking out for their own concerns, that they can no longer, as a whole, spend the $$$ to right so many of their perceived wrongs ? ? ? I'm not defending Means - But as more lines get drawn. I wonder where all these things are headed ? It seems as Casinos got more popular & lets face it - it's not the Tribes people who make them successful - that most learn to live in peace with their neighbors. Is a Pact different than a Treaty ? Who cares? Let them have their casinos. Now, however, we can tax them the same as any foreign-operated business operating in the U.S. and pressure them to show good faith by employing U.S. citizens. These people have been oppressed so they want to remove the U.S. from the equation. This poses some interesting situations. Renouncement of U.S. belonging, or secession if put into a state context, has never truly been accomplished since the U.S. seceeded (so to speak) from Britain (unless that crap about Texas counts). The success of this movement would in fact, make the Lakota "nation" into North America's first true third world country (say what you will about the U.S.'s support of the Lakota.. it still may be considered third world like for all I know, but all the U.S. money (and assisted health care if any -- Sioux-cia?) goes away. I think this is a terrible price for those who have been brainwashed into believing this tripe to pay. They are, in essence, making it difficult for Lakota to leave the reservation. Just look at the labels they make of NA people who do not join in with their crazy beliefs. it's interesting that they complain about how awful reservation life is and how the U.S. made them move there and remain there, yet now THEY themselves are enforcing the reservations' walls. You can't leave otherwise you are a traitor to your people, a lackey to the "White man," or a "hang around the fort" Indian. These "freedom" people sound so much more like hostage takers than freedom fighters to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Who cares? Let them have their casinos. Now, however, we can tax them the same as any foreign-operated business operating in the U.S. and pressure them to show good faith by employing U.S. citizens. These people have been oppressed so they want to remove the U.S. from the equation. This poses some interesting situations. Renouncement of U.S. belonging, or secession if put into a state context, has never truly been accomplished since the U.S. seceeded (so to speak) from Britain (unless that crap about Texas counts). The success of this movement would in fact, make the Lakota "nation" into North America's first true third world country (say what you will about the U.S.'s support of the Lakota.. it still may be considered third world like for all I know, but all the U.S. money (and assisted health care if any -- Sioux-cia?) goes away. I think this is a terrible price for those who have been brainwashed into believing this tripe to pay. They are, in essence, making it difficult for Lakota to leave the reservation. Just look at the labels they make of NA people who do not join in with their crazy beliefs. it's interesting that they complain about how awful reservation life is and how the U.S. made them move there and remain there, yet now THEY themselves are enforcing the reservations' walls. You can't leave otherwise you are a traitor to your people, a lackey to the "White man," or a "hang around the fort" Indian. These "freedom" people sound so much more like hostage takers than freedom fighters to me. I think their borders would include your house and mine. I think they want all the original lakota land back.. Does that mean they are going to put a lien on the Ralph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Bolivian Ambassador Gustavo Guzman, who attended the press conference out of solidarity, said he takes the Lakotas' declaration of independence seriously. "We are here because the demands of indigenous people of America are our demands," Guzman said. "We have sent all the documents they presented to the embassy to our ministry of foreign affairs in Bolivia and they'll analyze everything." !@#$%!. Perhaps the Ambassador should remember that a number of Bolivian states are actively considering secession as a result of his government's own policies and its alignment with Chavez, and stay out of our affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Lakota group pushes for new nation - Argus Leader I am not sure that Mr. Means has the "authority" to speak for the entire Lakota Nation. I wish him and the Lakota Freedom Delegation good luck and a Merry Christmas! You have to wonder how Rodney Bordeaux feels about this loose cannon making his life, shall we say, more "interesting". And Chairman Bordeaux has to feel doubly damaged because "Bordeaux" is French and Means used 'Vishy Indians" as a slur (presumably against him). You have to love that Russell Means can still draw a crowd .... but "Why?" is anybody's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 http://www.kxmb.com/News/191558.asp so if we dropped the Fighting part & asked to use Lakota - I wonder how that would fair ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighting Sioux Fan Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means. This is the statement that just boggles me. You live in America, aren't you already free and independant? How free are you going to be without support from the American goverment? Free to starve, I guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 http://www.kxmb.com/News/191558.asp so if we dropped the Fighting part & asked to use Lakota - I wonder how that would fair ? Lakota=Friend. I guess we could keep the logo as well eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 This is the statement that just boggles me. You live in America, aren't you already free and independant? How free are you going to be without support from the American goverment? Free to starve, I guess... I'm wondering if he'll continue to send his grand kids to US public schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.