Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S., page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 69 times


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 10:52 AM by Floh
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?



reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:09 AM by mythatsabigprobe
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.


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:19 AM by geocom
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]


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:20 AM by JSR
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]


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:24 AM by DeadFlagBlues
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.


reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:33 AM by geocom
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
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^