Lakota break away from US

[Shogun]

When you renouce yout citizenship and move to create a new country inside or from the territory of another country, that's a rebellion.

Which, if it ever really happens, will be crushed.

Yet these are peoples recognized BY the united states according to treaties that have not been kept by the US and, it seems, UN LAW. In fact, if Texas can do it then why can't the INDIGENOUS population for whome this land is clearly their ANCIENT RIGHT?


Why the violence? If you'd just recognize their RIGHT as an indepentant nation than lot's of decades of bloodshed can be avoided!

 

[M14 Shooter]

My guess is that there will be grievances addressed and compromises made. Does the government deal with you or any associations you belong to this way? Me either. (I'm assuming you are NOT Native American).

If this actually amounts to anything other than someone's fantasy..

The US government will pooh-pooh these people. If they decide to actually act like a country, asserting their 'sovereignty', the issue will be stettled with force.

In all reality, the police will likely take care of all of that; the military will likely not get involved.

 

[mattskramer]

Morally and ethically, Lakota has a right to create its own state. Is the USA going to tolerate such action? No. I think that Texas, per its documents, is allowed to break away from the USA. Is the federal government really going to allow it to happen if Texas tries to secede? No.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Morally and ethically, Lakota has a right to create its own state.

Not even so much as the Confederacy did.
We all know how well that worked for them.

You (and I dont mean you, specifically) can blab all you want about this -- it is an absolute certitude that the United States has the right to put down a rebellion, and that, if this fantasy ever materializes, it will.

 

[mattskramer]

Not even so much as the Confederacy did.
We all know how well that worked for them.

You (and I dont mean you, specifically) can blab all you want about this -- it is an absolute certitude that the United States has the right to put down a rebellion, and that, if this fantasy ever materializes, it will.

Someone once defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I should know better than to ask you a straight yes-no question but I’ll do so anyway. So, call me insane. Do you think that the Indian tribe has a moral right to secede if it wants to do so, considering its history with us?

 

[Shogun]

I'll play and even admit wrongs when committed, as long as you play 'nice.' No bullying, other than sources, please. (That's not bullying, that's just being fair and balanced. )

Shogun, as I said in the previous post, my personal belief is that was done to the indigenous people here was wrong, via my religious education, my professional education, and my subjects of expertise. Of course, while condemning how the Europeans or 'the West' came in control of the Americas, one must keep in mind they were doing what was considered moral for the same reasons as ours. They were a product of their times. The fact that other indigenous peoples helped the Spanish conquer the Aztecs is an example that even 'originals' have enemies. Some say he was weak, I think the number of his enemies points to the opposite.

I fail to see the analogies between the history of North America, native peoples, reservations and the issues in the Middle East. As for the fall of the great empires of Mexico and South/Central America, I think we could build an analogy with Africa and the slave trade.

And the actions of Lakota and Pals are NOT moral to other Lakota and pals? We all agree that manifest destiny and the persicution of jews is wrong. BUT, that doesn't solve the problem of ANCIENT INDEGENOUS PEOPLES deciding to claim their ancient heritage out from under the feet of those who have gone on to become, themselves, indegenous to the land. Isn't it just an excuse to say "they were a product of their times" when we sure don't extend the same logic to pals and Lakota who are, quite clearly, the PRODUCT of their times.

If you fail to see the correlation then allow me to illustrate. Hopefully, you will make an effort to grasp the connection instead of acting like my Scarlet A buddies and refuse debate that they know they can't win with logic.


Lakota Land was sold by the French, who were busy paying for wars with land deals, not the natives living there. Does this invalidate the Lakota claim to THOUSANDS of years of history? Does this validate creating a new Lakota nation inside the US regardless of how the US takes it?

Likewise, Israel was sold by Ottomans who were busy paying for war pre-ww1, DESPITE THE NATIVES LIVING THERE.. When Brittain conquered the land and eventually carved out israel does this invalidate the Pal claim to the land? Does this validate creating a new Jewish nation inside Palestine regardless of how the US takes it?


Regardless if the Pals didn't have trains, read engrish or wear shoes they are still similarly guided by the same instinct that M14 conveys. Which, if you don't mind me saying so, proves my point in a timely manner with an excellent example in our own nation.

Certainly, there is an immediate refusal to accept a comparison between israel and ANY example of similar circumstance if it deflates israels balloon. South African Aparthied? naaaaaaa... Nelson Mandela's TERRORISM? naaaaaaa... Native American's and Manifest Destiny? Naaaaaaaa... The whisper of a Latino Atzlan in our Southwest? Naaaaaaaaa... And now, The Lakota playing the EXACT SAME hand as Israel? naaaaaaaaa...


I'm not picking this bone because of hatred, Kath. I see a purposful complete lack of consistency for the sake of one group out of many who would enjoy their autonomy despite the lives destroyed to attain it. My concern for humanity is not stacked according to ethnicities that i have common DNA with. M14's reaction to the news of the Lakota SHOULD help you understand the unpopular perspective of Pals... I'll be interested in seeing how this golden rule is avoided, beyond merely claiming apples and oranges, by my Scarlet A fans out there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Someone once defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I should know better than to ask you a straight yes-no question but I’ll do so anyway. So, call me insane. Do you think that the Indian tribe has a moral right to secede if it wants to do so, considering its history with us?

No - especially if any of the 50 states have no such right.

If they actually carry out this fantasy, they will be crushed, their leaders tried for treason and hanged, and their 'national' identity rubbed out.

Clear enough?

 

[Shogun]

If this actually amounts to anything other than someone's fantasy..

David Ben-Gurion had a similar fantasy..... I wonder if anyone wants to drop a few of his quotes today...

 

[Shogun]

No - especially if any of the 50 states have no such right.

If they actually carry out this fantasy, they will be crushed, their leaders tried for treason and hanged, and their 'national' identity rubbed out.

Clear enough?

Would you insist on taking a violent reaction to a Lakota Nation to the point of... Oh, I dunno.. Firing rockets into their civilian populations in order to make a point about your acceptance of their LAKOTA nation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If this actually amounts to anything other than someone's fantasy..
David Ben-Gurion had a similar fantasy..... I wonder if anyone wants to drop a few of his quotes today...

Whatever, dude.
Anyone that will go to this length to make some inane argument regarding Israel not having the right to exist needs a significant helping of therapy.

 

[Shogun]

hmmm.... now why on EARTH would some of my usual Scarlet A detractors seem to be AVOIDING a thread like this?



I guess there is not viable word to plaster the insinuation of a hatred of lakotas. Antilakotite? hmmm.. I'm not sure if it has quite the same ring to it. It sure is disappointing to see the peeps who usually have no problem calling me names not come a chargin' into this thread like mounted calvary. It's almost like.. there are topics... that aren't quickly doused with an applied label...

 

[Lookout]

Pretty interesting stuff, but can anyone substantiate the claims? I researched a little and the only thing I could find was that fox news coppied and pasted the original post made by AFP. AFP and Naoni Archer being the original contact for the story are not a reliable source, and Russell Means has been known for publicity stunts. Does anyone have any other proof that this is actually real?

 

[Shogun]

Whatever, dude.
Anyone that will go to this length to make some inane argument regarding Israel not having the right to exist needs a significant helping of therapy.

and yet your very own posts illustrate the exact reaction of the pals to the creation of israel....


Hey, Thanks for playing!


Perhaps you can tell me why it's ok for israel.... but not for the Lakota...

 

[M14 Shooter]

and yet your very own posts illustrate the exact reaction of the pals to the creation of israel....

Hmm. How much do I care?
Is there a quantity small enough?

 

[Lookout]

and yet your very own posts illustrate the exact reaction of the pals to the creation of israel....


Hey, Thanks for playing!


Perhaps you can tell me why it's ok for israel.... but not for the Lakota...

God, I would so like to get in depth on this, I would just like to see the proof that it is real first.

 

[mattskramer]

No - especially if any of the 50 states have no such right.

If they actually carry out this fantasy, they will be crushed, their leaders tried for treason and hanged, and their 'national' identity rubbed out.

Clear enough?

What treaty does each of the 50 states have with respect to the federal government? Has the federal government broken its treaty with each state to the degree that the federal government broke its treaty with the “Native Americans”? Basically, even though the Lakota were here first, and even though the USA broke treaties with them, you contend that they do not have the right to break away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people

Initial contacts between the Lakota and the United States, during the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804–06 was marked by a standoff involving the Lakota refusing to allow the explorers to continue upstream countered by the Expedition preparing to battle. Formally, the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 acknowledged native soverignty over the Great Plains in exchange for free passage along the Oregon Trail, for "as long as the river flows and the eagle flies".

Because the Black Hills[He Sapa] [Paha Sapa] are sacred to the Lakota, they objected to mining in the area, which had been attempted since the early years of the 19th century. In 1868, the US government signed the Fort Laramie Treaty, exempting the Black Hills from all white settlement forever.

The Lakota were compelled to sign a treaty in 1877 ceding the Black Hills to the United States, but a low-intensity war continued, culminating, fourteen years later, in the killing of Sitting Bull (December 15, 1890) at Standing Rock and the Massacre of Wounded Knee (December 29, 1890) at Pine Ridge.

Oh well. At least you gave your answer. We agree to disagree. Clear enough.

 

[Lookout]

Pretty interesting stuff, but can anyone substantiate the claims? I researched a little and the only thing I could find was that fox news coppied and pasted the original post made by AFP. AFP and Naoni Archer being the original contact for the story are not a reliable source, and Russell Means has been known for publicity stunts. Does anyone have any other proof that this is actually real?

Hello????

 

[Shogun]

Pretty interesting stuff, but can anyone substantiate the claims? I researched a little and the only thing I could find was that fox news coppied and pasted the original post made by AFP. AFP and Naoni Archer being the original contact for the story are not a reliable source, and Russell Means has been known for publicity stunts. Does anyone have any other proof that this is actually real?

Indeed, I'd like to know how far the story will go. I'm sure you can compare it to the Latino desire for Atzlan but, really, my point was to illustrate the VEHEMENT rejection of a creation of nations inside the common land occupied by a NEWER indegenous people (pals and US). M14 makes my point well. You can see how serious he is about refusing to accept Lakotaville with the use of any violent means necessary. Likewise, I garentee the same would be the product of any attempt to create Atzlan. LIKEWISE, i'd like to rub the noses of people quick to merely write pals off as evil in the dogshit of their double standard.

Like I said, Everyone thank M14 for playing along in this little internet experiment.

 

[Shogun]

Hmm. How much do I care?
Is there a quantity small enough?

Dare I even remind you of the same kind of apathy circa 1945?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What treaty does each of the 50 states have with respect to the federal government?

You have heard of the US Constitution, haven't you?

I gave you a no, for the reason I stated -- if the states cannot secede, then neither can a 'nation'.

Nothing you posted does anything to counter that.