Will Bush start a new era in Indain Wars?

This is a little news blip that hit the wires today but lots of people missed it

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.

"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.

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.

Source: Fox News

I cant help but wonder if Mr. Means has truly declared their sovereignty and will succeed in taking most of five states with them? Or if the US treats them as dissidents and does to the Lakota nation what they did to Waco?
I mean what are the chances that Bush will idly sit by and go down in history as the President who lost the country 5 states?

[edit on 20-12-2007 by DaddyBare]

It is hard to tell what will happen with this. I would compare this more to Wounded Knee, then to Waco though. I don't know if they have the infrustructer to keep there own country going with out federal support. I don't know what kind of income from resource development they have. All trade can be shut off if it comes down to it.
What I think needs to happen is we need to hear from member of the Lacota who are in the areas affected and see what they have to say.

Up date this was sent to me after I emailed a few friends trying to figure out what is going on...other than contact editing info here's what I got back..

I spoke to the President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rodney M. Bordeaux,
> just a short while ago and he has given me permission to say that it is
> highly unfortunate that this group of individuals inappropriately tried to
> represent the Lakota Nations. President Bordeaux informed me that the
> Lakota Nations will be meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota tomorrow to
> discuss this matter in full. As he said, "These people do not speak on
our
> behalf." Bordeaux was contacted by KSTP AM out of Minneapolis and he
spoke
> on the air earlier today. In addition, Gannet News contacted Bordeaux for
a
> comment. Gannet News is owned by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. As you
can
> see this is leading to a mess out in Indian Country. I also contacted the
> Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as well as other Lakota Nations. Each are
sending
> a representative to the meeting in Rapid City tomorrow. I am certain they
> will provide an official press release from the Lakota Oyate in the near
> future.
>
> As unfortunate as it is there are people who think that they speak for
all
> of us in matters of such complicated and historical significance. The
last
> time I checked none of these individuals were official representatives of
> the Lakota Oyate. It is very Lakota to stand up and announce yourself and
> take an individualistic perspective. That we know from the many groups
and
> individuals that went against what their leaders told them or agreed to in
> Washington or agency delegations. Knowing how our traditional methods of
> consesus agreement impacted each and everyone of us, both negatively and
> positively, after the treaties were signed each time and how we either
> adhered to those treaties or disagreed with them as individuals or groups,
> it is very much so easy to see how this group of individuals would take it
> upon themselves to make such a bold statement. But that is all that it
is,
> a statement. What did they do, burn their tribal ID's?
>
> My great great grandfather Wambdi Mani signed the Ft. Laramie Treaty of
> 1868. I would be mistaken to say that I knew what he was feeling as he
put
> pen to paper. I would be mistaken to try and comprehend what it must be
> like for the leaders then or now and how they struggle with being
> responsible and accountable to their people.
>
> I know that each of us as Lakota people struggle with the disparities
and
> issues that confront our nations. I know Phyllis Young. I know she would
> not make such a bold statement without feeling backed into a corner. Yet
> what would cause an individual to go against their nation. I wish all of
> them the best as they will each now have to deal with the political
> ramifications of what they have done, and with the good, bad and holy of
> what will become of the mess they have created for us as a people. Who
was
> in this group of "leaders"? Did they consult with anyone before going
> forward? Did they officially renounce their Lakota or American
citizenship?
> If so, the clock is ticking! Does this mean they are no longer "dual
> citizens" of any nation? Where will they go? Should the tribes take away
> their membership? So they are going to set up a border. Will there be a
> chain link fence? Or will we play by the old rules? If so, then all
> Anishnabeg and Crow had better be
> on the look out. This is all rediculous. Thanks Russell for taking a
lead
> role once again. Maybe he is a true Maqua. Someone should ask his former
> wife. Can anyone offer to give him a lesson in International and Federal
> Indian Law?
>
> Have a blessed holiday all,
>
> Kelly

[edit on 23-12-2007 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Daddy bare
thanks so much for takeing the time to post that information. That does clear a lot of things up. Still it will be interesting to see what happens with this mess.

I have had considerable dealings with Indian tribes in the past. Life on the reservations, even by the accounts of Indians themselves, is not so rosy as perhaps they would like the rest of the world to believe.

There was a time when the misery on the reservations was the white man's fault, but I guess the emphasis has changed to the point that they want anyone, even whites, to join the Lakota nation.

The fact is that Indian reservations are already sovereign nations. Dealing with them on legal issues such as child custody can be a nightmare. Indians pride themselves in not acknowledging time in the same way as the white culture, so if the tribe says that it will convene to consider an issue shortly, you might be waiting an eternity and unfortunately for those of us who depend on their actions, including their children, that can be very inconvenient.

The degree of difficulty in dealing with tribes varies. The Navajo tribe here in New Mexico has an excellent reputation for establishing liaisons to advocate for their children who come into custody.

Indians receive considerable funding from the federal government and now with legalized gambling on reservations, tribes are rolling in dough and it is quite evident.

In my opinion, conventional war with Indian tribes who decide that they no longer wish to abide by treaties is not practical or rational.

There are two sides to all treaties. Cut off funding to such tribes would be a strong measure to take, but also finding ways to cut off the flow of Americans' discretionary income into the Indian casinos would be devastating.

As long as I have lived in the Southwest and had relatives here, there have been militant Indians. They are the spoiled children of a society that has coddled them for a hundred years and are not a majority.

For much longer than I have been alive, most Indians have been loyal Americans taking pride not only in their nations, but in the United States of America.

Their traditional warrior cultures fits well with the American military in times of war and they have high rates of voluntary service.

The worst thing for the American Indians is to keep honoring their rights to national sovereignty while granting them all the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Too many Indians die everyday because the reservation is a haven for them to engage in high risk behaviors such as drinking and drug use and those who are raised on reservations often have a terrible time dealing with the structure of the American culture.

When you live in an area where all these paradoxical realities are evident everyday and you see the effects of a people who voluntarily marginalize themselves, the folly of the old treaties becomes even more evident.

Perhaps, it is time for the treaties to be abandoned, but the claiming of what is now American land is unacceptable.

They can try it, but when the money dries up, the onus will be on the indigenous peoples to get with the program just like everyone else.

If that fails there are always diplomatic negotiations and if such fails, the insertion of the National Guard might become necessary.


[edit on 2007/12/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Will Bush start a new era in Indain Wars?

He's a lame duck and he already is dealing with the War on Terrorism. He only has a year left in office and therefore won't be starting any 'Indian War'.

So the answer to your question is ... no.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Will Bush start a new era in Indain Wars?

He's a lame duck and he already is dealing with the War on Terrorism. He only has a year left in office and therefore won't be starting any 'Indian War'.

So the answer to your question is ... no.

No exactly right. This means now as advertised they have time to attrack the most valuable resources before hillary steps in after she wins the next (s)election. PEOPLE!

And if they are willing to embrace various energy resources like hydrogen and Solar-Thermal , Technolgies like Rife, they will have all the infrastructure they need to RUn thier own mail, police thier own roads, Guard thier own borders...Imagine if the minute men gut involved?