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

reply to post by frazzle


I do not feel comfortable calling indian tribes or reservations domestic separate nations. They were conquered and sparred from utter annihilation. However, if they want to attempt to take back what is / was rightfully there's ( which they lost in war, and the bad politics of America), then they have a right. They just need to make sure they are all willing to die for it, and die they will.

I am also somewhat torn by this because if a rebellion occurs, with the backing of states, id take part in it, however, id also be willing to accept the consequences of living by the sword or losing the rebellion. The Indians should expect to deal with the consequences as well, and right now, there isnt a state backed rebellion.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

"It would be a good first move". Well sure it would, but you don't see any indication that'll ever happen, do you? Now, Ron Paul might've done away with federal agencies like BIA and BLM, ect. on Indian land while he was doing away with the domestic departments that hamper US citizens, but you saw how that went.

Where have I indicated that I "desire a war"? Unfortunately, like it or not, you probably won't be getting your sovereignty back, either, any day soon without one. That's because town councils and state legislatures are just as beholden to federal funding as any Indian chief ever was.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by frazzle

 

I do not feel comfortable calling indian tribes or reservations domestic separate nations. They were conquered and sparred from utter annihilation. However, if they want to attempt to take back what is / was rightfully there's ( which they lost in war, and the bad politics of America), then they have a right. They just need to make sure they are all willing to die for it, and die they will.

I am also somewhat torn by this because if a rebellion occurs, with the backing of states, id take part in it, however, id also be willing to accept the consequences of living by the sword or losing the rebellion. The Indians should expect to deal with the consequences as well, and right now, there isnt a state backed rebellion.

edit on 1-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

They didn't lose in the war ... www.ndstudies.org...

The troubles in 1866–1868 in the Powder River region, often called “Red Cloud’s War,” resulted in a clear victory for the Lakota. The Lakota had denied the Bozeman Trail to virtually all immigrant travel. Army supply trains had to fight their way through, and soldiers were bottled up in their forts. The Indians had little need to negotiate a treaty and so ignored all government overtures to do so. Finally in 1868 the soldiers abandoned their forts along the Bozeman Trail as a way to restart treaty negotiations. By this time the U.S. government was set on confining the Sioux to proscribed territory but first it needed a treaty.

The government got its treaty by lying and it was as worthless as all the rest of them.

This isn't directed at you personally, but I really wish people would back up their assertions with some facts.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by frazzle

 

I do not feel comfortable calling indian tribes or reservations domestic separate nations. They were conquered and sparred from utter annihilation. However, if they want to attempt to take back what is / was rightfully there's ( which they lost in war, and the bad politics of America), then they have a right. They just need to make sure they are all willing to die for it, and die they will.

I am also somewhat torn by this because if a rebellion occurs, with the backing of states, id take part in it, however, id also be willing to accept the consequences of living by the sword or losing the rebellion. The Indians should expect to deal with the consequences as well, and right now, there isnt a state backed rebellion.

edit on 1-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

you're living in the wrong century dude. this isn't about the nation taking over anyone's state, it's about inviting citizens from surrounding states to join them on their land.

i'm not gonna waste my time reading the honesty...but the article is OLD


www.aztlan.net...

LA VOZ DE AZTLAN
Los Angeles, Alta California
December 20, 2007.....

this is new, notice in the op's link to cnews, its says "again" learn to read before you try to debunk info, squished, and im backquiet

reply to post by nenothtu

I appreciate the reply. Your note confirms and adds to what little I've been able to find since checking a bit after hearing about this story. I don't have the hours to put toward it that I do on some topics, but what you're saying rings true. It's that lack of much information given the magnitude of the claim that sent the first red flags up, too.

It'll be interesting to see develop, as that goes.

Now that it comes up though, I do wonder what happened to the people in the Black Hills working to get their rightful claims to that very special land. I'd gotten to know some while working in Keystone one summer in the shadow of Mt Rushmore.

The Lakota are such warm and special people that I saw, I do hope for their sake and our own that they get more than resident consideration and control of places like The Black Hills. Our society rapes the place and runs it for tourism. I can't help but think the native people would do so much better caring for those natural treasures.

Closed for review.

This appears to not be a current event.
The source link no longer works.