LAKOTA SIOUX NATION Secession In Progress and YOU are invited to join them!

Hmm, I don't think this is even legal. I think they made succession illegal after the civil war if I am not mistaken, I could be. So, they ' technically ' cannot secede. However, if I ever took part in a rebellion, id need the backing of a state. Otherwise, we would be labeled terrorist and will die as such.

reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES


The "totally unreliable website" was not my wording, but ok, yah I'm a Drudge reader. I'm also near a famous trail I will not name.
The MEChA thing is what's radical.

I don't get why this has not happened before. If I was native American, I would contact ALL native Americans and choose a state, and declare myself a separatist. Solidarity is the greatest resource to native American people.

I always thought their populations so reduced that they as a people were utterly decimated, I guess we know why....to avoid something like this. I am American and all, but this makes sense to me. They should have been granted their own territory long ago....when they could have preserved some of their genetic base and cultural heritage in more complete forms.

good luck.....they deserve it.

reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES


So if they do not recognize them as a nation... and they the US government uses force on them............ is that not the same as what is going on with "israel" and "palestine" neither recognize each other and use force.... some people sied with one side and one people side with another??/

Smells like BS to me.

I've not read too far into the thread yet, but from what I've been able to gather via research, it sounds like Russell Means and a crap-ton of communists are promoting this, without any tribal sanction.

Bummer. I was really hoping it was legit.

If being Sioux is not about blood but identification, then there is no Sioux nation, only a single group of people.

Then there is no claim to any land, water or resource and all claims worldwide for native recompense disappears.

When the money benefit dries up, they'll want what's 'theirs' again including linage by blood only.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by Phenomium

 

Well I knew there was a reason why Obama has had over NINE HUNDRED EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN 3 1/2 YEARS and there have only been A FEW HANDFULS OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS OVER THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL CENTURIES........

Put into place all the restraints is the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM of the day....

There was someone called Pharaoh who felt he could do whatever he wanted once also.... This country began Freedom to a point in the year 1776... This was not because the negative energy that rules much of this system allowed it to happen but rather because there was no choice in the matter... The lessonings of persecutions had to begin to occur.

For every one this Government tries to muzzle a hundred more will rise up...

DOAH!

Okay, I have to be reading this wrong. Did you just suggest Obama had signed over 900 Executive Orders since he took office?

No offense intended here, as I am assuming an error this large is purely accidental. His actual number written since taking office is 139 as of a couple days ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's a little thread I did showing each President and how many they've written, among other things. Obama has actually pardoned fewer and written fewer orders than almost anyone before him...although on the pardon business, he's not done yet of course. Most Presidents bust out the Pardons in their Lame Duck session and I'm sure he won't be a major exception.

He makes his orders COUNT, I must say that, but he doesn't write too many of them.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

As I said later in the thread....Find anything that supports this as being more than ONE MAN's rather fanciful thinking and borderline delusions and I'll be interested.

I don't mean the broad and hundreds year old battle of the Native American people. I'm well aware of and sympathize entirely with that. I mean the claim in this thread, headline and op, that the Lakota Nation is seceding from the United States Government to form a nation within a nation?

I was never replying to the overall concept of generations and a few hundred years of wrongs and conflict. Just this ONE claim..by this ONE man...who apparently has NO support for ANY of it. Now, wishing or hoping he did is fine, but the fact seems to be.....he flat out doesn't and that makes him no less a laughing stock than anyone else making wild and outrageous claims in a youtube video. The underlying cause he's playing on here doesn't change the fanciful nature of it.

But...link to more than JUST HIM and I'm sure many of us out here will become very interested indeed. It's a promising thought if more than a mere thought is actually shared by more than him.

with the statistics he mentions such as , our adult males live less than 44 years, women 47 years, it's the lowest life expectancy rate in the world.

infant mortality rate 200 times national average.

25% of native children are fostered out to non native families.

in the last 50 years the Lakota nation has lost 50 million acres of land.

unemployment rates are in the 70 and 80 percentile.

with issues like this i don't think anyone should be led to believe he is just ranting on youtube.

i could go on and on but i digress. what i will say is this, if figures such as Arvol Looking Horse or Floyd Looks for Buffalo Hand, hasn't spoken against what Russel has stated, then his word is good and supported by the traditional Lakota people.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Hmm, I don't think this is even legal. I think they made succession illegal after the civil war if I am not mistaken, I could be. So, they ' technically ' cannot secede. However, if I ever took part in a rebellion, id need the backing of a state. Otherwise, we would be labeled terrorist and will die as such.

edit on 30-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

It amazes me that so many americans think they know everything about the world but remain so ignorant about their own history and laws.

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.

"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.

people.tribe.net...

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

Everyone here is making outstanding points about the suffering and long standing wrongs against the Native American people of all tribes and across North America. Honestly, Natives haven't had anything but orders to stand aside or die from the Arctic Ocean clear down to the tip of South America since as far back as records seem to go. No argument. None at all.

If the thread has now become about the general and overall conditions of the Native peoples in the United States, thats a whole different matter and a very VERY different thread than this started as.

However, if we're still on about this individual man basically declaring war against Washington D.C. in the name of an entire Tribe, then I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile his brand of clinical mental illness with the proud and intelligent people I've known to be leading the Native Tribes around the nation.

The thread has gone long enough and far enough so that IF something other than one man's personal delusions were behind "secession" we'd ALL have heard about it by now, with or without Youtube...but at the very least, the most energetic here should have had no problem showing well funded and organized outlets to offer time and support to. Such an effort, if REAL, would have plenty of such things..they'd need every warm body they could get.

.....and for the record..I'd be one of them joining. It wouldn't be my first time packing the 4x4 and heading off to see about helping bring some change. I just can't find anyone even half way grounded in reality and sane enough to talk serious with on this whole "movement" he speaks of here. Back to the drawing boards....

reply to post by votan

US government uses force on them............ is that not the same as what is going on with "israel" and "palestine"

Wow thats an idea that I never even put together. Very interesting to ponder... I see your point here.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

this individual man basically declaring war against Washington D.C

"An individual man" does not a delegation make. Start there, okay?

The four member Lakota delegation traveled to Washington D.C. culminating years of internal discussion among treaty representatives of the various Lakota communities. Delegation members included well known activist and actor Russell Means, Women of All Red Nations (WARN) founder Phyllis Young, Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr., and Garry Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders. Means, Rowland, Martin Sr. were all members of the 1973 Wounded Knee takeover.

www.indymedia.org...

Or did you think the entire Lakota tribe would need to camp out on the steps of the white house to make it legitimate?

reply to post by frazzle


in full regalia, stone age weapons on horseback of course.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Jeez, I'd have had to BE there for that! Actually, now that you mention it, that isn't a bad idea.

reply to post by frazzle

I think the actions of a Tribe would be to go to D.C. and do some work at changing their conditions. As I noted in my first post here.....this was done for the Indian Casinos in the Southwest and the Cigarette tax issue in New York State in the late 90's. One Tribe threatened to close I-40 and toll it, if not just keep it closed. New York threatened I-90 and..worse...the mega-power lines coming out of the Niagara area and out over Indian lands to supply non-Indian customers.

Those two situations were first reacted to with shock but in the end, the Tribes were met with and got what they considered to be a fair outcome. The protests ended, no one was hurt and those interstates never closed. Well... ALMOST true. I-90 was closed a few times during the protests back then.......it got wild at a few points, indeed.


So, no, I don't expect the whole tribe to be involved. However, the actions here are ones that, IF taken in the name of the Tribe...and the Government BELIEVED it was the whole Tribe, it would BE the whole Tribe eventually paying HARD prices for it. So, with that in mind, he'd BETTER have the vast majority of the Tribe in support and OPENLY SO....before talking nonsense like secession of U.S. States from the Union.

That talk is one of two things. It's CRAZY talk...or it's war talk. Now, he's got a few friends... nifty. This idiot is a direct participant out of the Wounded Knee standoff and shootings as I recall reading. HE of ALL people should know that without the whole Lakota Nation standing VERY VERY PUBLICLY behind him...which they aren't.....he's only going to get good people in prison or dead and make life MUCH harder for the whole Lakota Nation. For what??

Nope... I support change. I don't support stupid. This is stupid with bells on. Ill conceived from the word Go.

Originally posted by frazzle

Or did you think the entire Lakota tribe would need to camp out on the steps of the white house to make it legitimate?

No, but I presume the Lakotah have a chief and/or a tribal council as most tribes do. What do THEY say as to the authorization of this delegation to speak for the entire tribe? This has apparently been an ongoing thing since at least 2007, and I find it odd that I have yet to find what the chief/council/elders have to say in the matter. The Pine Ridge website is silent in the matter.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

So, no, I don't expect the whole tribe to be involved. However, the actions here are ones that, IF taken in the name of the Tribe...and the Government BELIEVED it was the whole Tribe, it would BE the whole Tribe eventually paying HARD prices for it. So, with that in mind, he'd BETTER have the vast majority of the Tribe in support and OPENLY SO....before talking nonsense like secession of U.S. States from the Union.

From what I've gathered, they don't intend for those 5 states to seceed, but rather have invited citizens of those surrounding states to join their band. It also appears that they may have partitioned off a corner of the Pine Ridge res for their new "nation", to which they are trying to draw cannon fodder.

The company Means is keeping, and the outlets getting mileage from this story are also troublesome. It seems to be people like Angela Davis and Socialist organizations getting the bulk of the benefit.

One thing is near certain - the Lakotah tribe ISN'T getting any benefit from it.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by frazzle

Or did you think the entire Lakota tribe would need to camp out on the steps of the white house to make it legitimate?

No, but I presume the Lakotah have a chief and/or a tribal council as most tribes do. What do THEY say as to the authorization of this delegation to speak for the entire tribe? This has apparently been an ongoing thing since at least 2007, and I find it odd that I have yet to find what the chief/council/elders have to say in the matter. The Pine Ridge website is silent in the matter.

Ah, but DO the tribal councils and chiefs speak for the entire tribe, that's the question. Would that be to their benefit? They are the nexus between the feds and the people, the people have no power ~ guess who does?

Do you expect Obama or any congressman to speak for each and every american once they're elected and have their hands in the cookie jar?

Isn't that the reason for OWS? Isn't that the reason for the Tea Party? And do they speak for all of us?

I also wish the tribal councils and chiefs of ALL the tribes would take more active roles in this movement and got something going, but that ain't how it works in the real world.

Divide and conquer.

Originally posted by frazzle

Ah, but DO the tribal councils and chiefs speak for the entire tribe, that's the question.

Yes.

That's sort of the whole purpose for a council - to reach decisions affecting the entire tribe, and to give each member a place to have their say.

Do you expect Obama or any congressman to speak for each and every american once they're elected and have their hands in the cookie jar?

For each and every American, no. For the nation as a whole, yes. Furthermore, the US is not organized as a tribal government.

"Each and every American" can speak for themselves. None of them speak for the nation without proper authorization, however. The stealth straw man here is attempting to switch authorizations to speak and act from a collective level to an individual one. I asked if the delegation was authorized to speak for the tribe as a whole, on a collective level, and you responded with a question, relating to individuals speaking for themselves.

Means may be speaking for himself, he may be speaking for Angela Davis, or he may eve be speaking for Che Guevara for all I know, but I've found no indications that he is speaking for the Lakotah tribe.

Isn't that the reason for OWS? Isn't that the reason for the Tea Party? And do they speak for all of us?

Neither of those was a nation - they are organizations. Not even terribly effective ones. There is no reason to presume that they speak for any nation.

I also wish the tribal councils and chiefs of ALL the tribes would take more active roles in this movement and got something going, but that ain't how it works in the real world.

Its how it works in tribal organization. Whether you consider tribal governments to be "real world" or not is another matter. If the Council doesn't authorize your "delegation", then it speaks only for itself, not the tribe.

Councils and chiefs should hold the US to it's treaties, most of which specify reservation land to be sovereign territory already. They are ALREADY supposed to be independent nations.

It would be a good first move to kick the BIA and all other US Federal agencies off the res, and force them to set up shop on adjacent US land. That would no doubt spark the war you desire.

reply to post by nenothtu

Councils and chiefs should hold the US to it's treaties, most of which specify reservation land to be sovereign territory already. They are ALREADY supposed to be independent nations.

Councils and chiefs have never held the US to its treaties. You think they're going to start now?

Sovereign. What a joke. Supreme Court chief justice, John Marshall declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’.

Damn hard to be sovereign and a domestic dependent all at the same time. If you're looking for the Chief, he's sitting in Washington DC.