Lakota break away from US

[Gunny]

60 year old nations are not as concrete as you may think. Israel has existed before and may not in another hundred years. Neither may the US for that matter. 200 years is HARDLY an achievement.

And it's probably easy to say move on from this vantage point as the dominators instead of the dominated. I'll be interested to see if the UN makes waves about Americas refusal to accept a nation for an indigenous population while insisting the pals to the same for israel. Hopefully, at the very least, you can understand how a common REACTION accross cultures probably doesn't make pals any more EVIL than any other marginalized group of people being flung around by the whims of those with bigger guns.

It's just a shame that my lil Scarlet A flinging buddies decided to skip a thread like this. I can't say that it's surprising though.

IMO, you need to take a step back from the topic and look it over. You're WAY too into this "dominator" or "dominated" thing. I am not making a personal argument. I simply stating what the most likely result is, IMO, based on historical precedent.

But let's use YOUR argument from above ... who's to say "Palestine" needs to exist today just because it did yesterday? Or whatever this place is the Lakota are trying to claim? You're willing to use that argument, but only in a one-sided manner, against the US and Israel. Palestine was never an autonomous nation in modern history. It was a state within a nation that no longer exists ... Transjordan.

This Lakota nation never existed except as a people. The land they are claiming was never formally nor legally claimed by them in the past EXCEPT as defined by treaty with the US government. Native Americans did not claim land. That's a European custom.

That Transjordan Arabs who resided in the region prior to 1949 wish to reside in the same reason seems kind of nonsensical to me at this point, but I really have no problem with that desire and have never said so.

Where I call them "evil" is in how they want to go about it. They want to wipe another race off the face of the Earth, and have waged a terrorist war against noncombatants in their effort to do so. I feel no concern nor sympathy for them getting their asses handed to them for their efforts.

I have no problem with what the Lakota want, so long as it's just extremists flapping their gums, and that's all this boils down to. If they began waging a war of terrorism against noncombatant US citizens, then I will have no sympathy for them getting their asses handed to them either.

And yeah, I feel pretty safe in saying I know this ain't going to happen. Hasn't worked for Native Americans for 200+ years and isn't likely to any time soon.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Maybe I'm distracted by the sea of mind polluting religious symbols down in your sig, but does that say "COEXIST"?

 

[José]

Shogun

Do you remember what I said about the western press bombarding the mind of the super patriotic american clown with right wing israeli propaganda portraying the palestinian people as hordes of irrational arabs determined to kill every single jew in Palestine?

This line says it all so I just shake my head in disbelief and rest my case.

Originally posted by GunnyL
They want to wipe another race off the face of the Earth, and have waged a terrorist war against noncombatants in their effort to do so.

 

[trobinett]

I think a little history is in order here.

Being a Native American, Cherokee, I find most arguments regarding our place in history, and how we have arrived where we are today, lame, and without much supporting evidence.

Ever heard the analogy of "Walk a mile in my shoe's"? That certainly pertains to the history of most Indian Nations.

At this point in history there is no interest on the part of the Cherokee Nation to withdraw from its treaties with the United States. There is however, intrest in ENFOCING the treaties that do excist.

Groups like Shogun has highlighted only do damage to the Indian cause.

The Five Civilized Tribes




The "Five Civilized Tribes"

The lands which the Osage and Quapaw had ceded to the United States government were turned over to the Indians of the old Southeast, who were being relocated from their tribal homes. Five tribes of these Indians had come to be known as the Five Civilized Tribes because of their advanced systems of government, education and law enforcement.

These tribes were the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek and Seminole. The most peaceful removal among the Five Civilized Tribes was the Choctaw in 1820. The other four tribes followed, with removals becoming increasingly bloodier from internal skirmishes and bouts with white men.



In early historic times, most of the area now known as Georgia was occupied by Indians belonging to the Creek Confederacy. The largest group in this alliance was composed of people of the Muskogean linquistic group which included the Muscogee, Hitchiti and Yamassee. Central to Creek government was the talwa, or town, consisting of a ceremonial and political center with all outlying villages and settlements. Towns were strung out along the rivers of their territory. Their economy was based on a combination of agriculture, hunting and gathering. With the beginning of European contact and trade, Creek lifeways began to change dramatically. For years, they served as a buffer between the English colonies at Charleston and Savannah and Spanish-dominated Florida. After the American Revolution, many Creeks became prosperous farmers; others followed a more traditional way of life. The state of Georgia gradually pushed the Creeks westward. In 1826, Creek leader William McIntosh signed a treaty ceding the last Creek lands in Georgia in return for land in what would become Oklahoma.


CHEROKEE


Though most of their territory lay in the Apalachian highlands of east Tennessee and western North Carolina, the Cherokee possessed much of North Georgia during the early historic period. Their language belongs to the Iroquois linquistic family, but their culture was closely related to other Southeastern tribes. They lived in permanent villages near broad river bottoms suitable for agriculture. They were a single tribe composed of seven clans. Their capitol changed from town to town depending upon the residence of the principal chief. After the American Revolution, they adopted a new course patterned after the newly formed United States government. Development of a syllabary by Sequoyah allowed the Cherokee to publish books and newspapers in their own language. Many became wealthy. Despite their accomplishments, their land was coveted by a tide of white settlers and they were forced to relocate to Oklahoma (The Trail of Tears). A few managed to hide out in the mountains where they were eventually granted a reservation in the vicinity of what is now Cherokee, North Carolina.

CHICKASAW

Chickasaw territory centered on their "old fields" near Tupelo, Mississippi; however, they contoled a huge region bounded by the Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers. One outlying town was located near Augusta, Georgia. Their tribe was a matrilineal society divided into clans and ruled by the "High Minko," known to Europeans as the King of the Chickasaws. This ruler was assisted by a national advisory council. The Chickasaws had contact with the French in the Mississippi River valley, but established firm trading ties in the late 1600's with English traders from South Carolina. They gained renown as the fiercest fighters of the south and were almost constantly engaged in conflicts with the Chocktaws, Creeks, Cherokee, and even the Shawnee and Iroquois to the north. The Chickasaws also battled with French traders on the Mississippi River. They began their westward emigration in 1822, and by 1834, they were gone from the old South. The tribe located in what is now Oklahoma.

CHOCTAW

Tribal legends say this group originated at Nanih Waiya Mound in east-central Mississippi. Historically, they centered on this area reaching east into the Tombigbee River lands of Alabama, along the boundary of the Creeks. Their villages formed the basis of three great districts, each ruled by a chief, which together constituted the Choctaw Nation. Like other southeastern Indians, their society was based on matrilineal clans. They celebrated the busk (Green Corn Ceremony) and held large ball games. They were the most intensive farmers of the south and were noted for their peaceful character and friendly disposition. Due to the nearby French settlements and trading posts along the lower Mississippi River, the Choctaw were influenced by them and were in one band of Choctaws managed to remain in their homeland, despite tremendous opposition and hardship. This group currently lives on a reservation near Philadelphia, Mississippi.

SEMINOLE



Osceola

 

[José]

Originally posted by RetiredGySgt
Your comparing them to Israel fails miserably. And they wouldn't even have any legit claim to being a "country" to boot. They lost that claim over 100 years ago. They are part of the United States. They are granted autonomy like a State is. Further they get more than a State does because the US Government does not tax them, allows them to run their own commerce and pays them. The US considers them citizens of this country and they get to chose to either live on the reservation with no right to vote but with other rights OR to move into the mainstream US population with all rights of what ever State they live in. Further they get the right to revert to the reservation at will.

Excenllent post!!!

The best of the entire thread!!!

It summarises perfectly the difference between a democratic state like the US and a racial dictatorship like Israel.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[José]

And another thing...

Shogun, have you noticed RetiredGySgt slip of the tongue?

Your comparing them to Israel fails miserably.

He conceded the fact that Israel is a racial dictatorship!!!



If I were him I would avoid saying a single word in support of Israel from now on, after this freudian slip!!!

 

[Gunny]

Shogun

Do you remember what I said about the western press bombarding the mind of the super patriotic american clown with right wing israeli propaganda portraying the palestinian people as hordes of irrational arabs determined to kill every single jew in Palestine?

This line says it all so I just shake my head in disbelief and rest my case.

You might've had an argument PRIOR TO the Palestinian PEOPLE voting in a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION as its government. The PEOPLE did that collectively.

But please, DO try again.

 

[Gunny]

Excenllent post!!!

The best of the entire thread!!!

It summarises perfectly the difference between a democratic state like the US and a racial dictatorship like Israel.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy. You rmouth is being controlled by your emotions.

 

[Toro]

This is similar to when the Griffins broke away from the US to form Petoria.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun your analogy fails miserably. You realize that if the Lakota start a "war" with the US it won't be the US resorting to terror by lobbing mortors into peaceful towns, nor missiles, nor kidnapping Indians. The Indians will become as despised as the Pals are because they will have to resort to terror or accept surrender.

Your comparing them to Israel fails miserably. And they wouldn't even have any legit claim to being a "country" to boot. They lost that claim over 100 years ago. They are part of the United States. They are granted autonomy like a State is. Further they get more than a State does because the US Government does not tax them, allows them to run their own commerce and pays them. The US considers them citizens of this country and they get to chose to either live on the reservation with no right to vote but with other rights OR to move into the mainstream US population with all rights of what ever State they live in. Further they get the right to revert to the reservation at will.

Well, I guess that depends on your perspective and location to military action. What kind of death do OUR military offer and how is that different than what is produced by kassam rockets again?

Funny, jews lost THEIR claim to israel longer back in hisotry than that and yet we sill find time to rationalize the creation of israel despite pals.. indeed, funny how that works.



regardless, the point of this thread was to illustrate the VIOLENT REACTION of a perceived usurping of land. I think it's pretty clear that I've proven my point with every passionate rejection of a Lakota ntion springing up in our back yard. From promisses of violence to the refusal to acknowledge their right to a nation every one of you who are not willing to even slightly accept the ANCIENT claim of the persiuted native American should walk away knowing that you are no better in practice than the pals who mirror exactly your own sentiment regarding upstart nations cropping up in your back yard.


Just so you know, terror is a HUMAN emotion.. not just one that Americans and jews get to exclusivley feel when threatened by deadly force.

 

[Shogun]

Again, time and place. The Jews did not carve their nation out of Palestinian land. The land belonged to neither, but to others, that willingly ceded the land to UN, for two states, one of which was rejected.

I can see why you'd say the Plains Indians should have their own state, as it was basically the lands that most larger reservations were located. However with Manifest Destiny, the trains, farming and ranching, the culture of the Plains Indians was destroyed, even by the Native Americans themselves. The Indians never 'owned' the land, the concept wasn't part of their culture. Even if there were, the government is never going to establish a 'Indian State' any more than a 'Black State' after the Civil War.

Before you jump in and say 'aha! That's what the Jews do,' No, it's not. They are unwilling to be over run by the Right of Return, by people generations later saying they have the 'right.' Europe itself has started looking at their immigration problems, for the same reason. The Middle East, where Israel happens to be located, it's very common to refuse citzenry to any immigrants, in fact they are forced to pay dhimmi if employed and not Muslim, on top of any normal taxes.

This thread grew while I was gone, I've not read all the way through, sorry if I duplicate others.

to whome did North America belong, Kath? Is it reasonable to legalese the natives because they didn't have land deeds?


Run over by a RIGHT OF RETURN? You do realize that that very same principal is used this very day to validate an increase in jewish demographics, right? Is it NOT racists to allow such for ONE ethnic group and not the other? Does America pump in a quote of white dudes from Europe every year in order to facilitate the weakening white majority? no, we don't.

Pointing at muslims in Europe only STRENGHTHENS my point on manifest destiny in n. America. We see Muslims moving into traditionally white euro areas and are THREATENED because we can see how THEIR culture may usurp our own. Do you think Crazy Horse felt any different about white men moving west (and validating such because of a transaction with FRANCE)?


We don't use race as a criteria to determine who counts and who does not. If such were the case and AMERICA behaved like Israel we'd be shipping in whites and exporting blacks, latinos and jews. But, we don't try to rationalize racism. Bottom line: Nations that claim to be western while the meal is in the oven need to act like it when sitting at the dinner table.

 

[Shogun]

Hawaii may end up being the one that reverts back. We 'took' it during the 18th Century Imperialism mode, we gave everyone else some measure of autonomy, but not Hawaii. Granted statehood after the war, but annexed after a faked rejection of the monarchy, it stayed as a possession of the US until being made a state. Imperialism in the 19th C was not popular as it was in Europe, it embarrassed many Americans.

Shogun, I do recognize that same embarrassment was not shared by most regarding the Native Americans, with the few exceptions of folks like William Penn, there weren't many voices.

So, we recognize the travesty of justice.. Why are we willing to watch the same cycle happen today just because we have the same relationship to israel that Walk Disney had to germany?

 

[Shogun]

Israel is a parliamentary democracy. You rmouth is being controlled by your emotions.

So, then we can expect to see the potential of an Arab PM in Israel?

 

[Shogun]

You might've had an argument PRIOR TO the Palestinian PEOPLE voting in a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION as its government. The PEOPLE did that collectively.

But please, DO try again.

VOTING being the key word. some might have that very same opinon about chickenhawk republicans who easily rationalize collateral damage in their war du jour..

Does democracy guarentee agreeable results?

 

[Shogun]

IMO, you need to take a step back from the topic and look it over. You're WAY too into this "dominator" or "dominated" thing. I am not making a personal argument. I simply stating what the most likely result is, IMO, based on historical precedent.

But let's use YOUR argument from above ... who's to say "Palestine" needs to exist today just because it did yesterday? Or whatever this place is the Lakota are trying to claim? You're willing to use that argument, but only in a one-sided manner, against the US and Israel. Palestine was never an autonomous nation in modern history. It was a state within a nation that no longer exists ... Transjordan.

This Lakota nation never existed except as a people. The land they are claiming was never formally nor legally claimed by them in the past EXCEPT as defined by treaty with the US government. Native Americans did not claim land. That's a European custom.

That Transjordan Arabs who resided in the region prior to 1949 wish to reside in the same reason seems kind of nonsensical to me at this point, but I really have no problem with that desire and have never said so.

Where I call them "evil" is in how they want to go about it. They want to wipe another race off the face of the Earth, and have waged a terrorist war against noncombatants in their effort to do so. I feel no concern nor sympathy for them getting their asses handed to them for their efforts.

I have no problem with what the Lakota want, so long as it's just extremists flapping their gums, and that's all this boils down to. If they began waging a war of terrorism against noncombatant US citizens, then I will have no sympathy for them getting their asses handed to them either.

And yeah, I feel pretty safe in saying I know this ain't going to happen. Hasn't worked for Native Americans for 200+ years and isn't likely to any time soon.

It's a tried and true observation of hisotric social movement. Give a whirl and take almost any two conflicting cultures that you'll see a see-saw of reactions to reactions based on dominant and submissive cultural roles.


hell, I WISH there were no need to create a palestine to balance the racist zionism in israel. THis is why I keep calling it PALISRAEL. You see, actually haveing a western perspective on that conflict I see a day when the land is SHARED by both the jews who want to claim a homeland and the Pals who want to do the same. I may be wierd but I fathom a nation where different ethnic populations SHARE the common land while retaining their ethnic identity in a nation that favors neither. After all, that's how WE do it. I don't subscribe to ANCIENT claims on land be they from jews, natives or pals. As long as the current government is not out trying to facilitate superiority for one group then they can claim to be Western just like us. Until then....


So, if they don't have a cultural equivilent to a euro land deed then how can you suggest that a people with 10k years of hisotry on a particular piece of land has no claim to it? That's not exactly what Cortez used but I guess it works just as well.

And, again, 200 years is a drop in the bucket. For that matter, how long did the Ottoman empire stick around before going the way of the dodo? It's hubris to ignore such a fact. This wont be the first time Jerusalem has changed hands for just over half a century, you know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gunny there is a difference. The US Government never dealt with the Confederacy as a legitimate government. They did the Lakota and other Native American nations. At no time did Lincoln acknowledge the Confederacy.

That may be, but...
The indians are not a state a counry or any other sovereign organization. They are, as individuals, citizens of the US and they state they live in.

They have the right to renouce their citizenship, but to try to declare their own independent state within the borders of the US is insurrection and rebellion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a tried and true observation of hisotric social movement. Give a whirl and take almost any two conflicting cultures that you'll see a see-saw of reactions to reactions based on dominant and submissive cultural roles.

OK, I just gotta know...

Other than a means through which you can exhibit your abject hatred for Jews -- what do you think all this hooey regarding the Lakota Indians is supposed to illustrate?

 

[mattskramer]

That may be, but...
The indians are not a state a counry or any other sovereign organization. They are, as individuals, citizens of the US and they state they live in.

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

Legally and by treaty a semi-autonomous "nation" with the United States, the Lakota Sioux are represented by elected officials comprising many separate local tribal governments scattered across the several reservations and communities in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and also in Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan in Canada. The current President of the Oglala Sioux, the majority tribe of the Lakota, is John Yellowbird Steele. He was elected in 2007.

They have the right to renouce their citizenship, but to try to declare their own independent state within the borders of the US is insurrection and rebellion.

Call it insurrection or rebellion or whatever you like. Considering the deals that we make, and broke with them, and considering the fact that they were here first, I think that they are ethically justified in creating an independent nation within the USA. Well, at the very least they are as morally justified as were in breaking the treaties that we had with them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Legally and by treaty a semi-autonomous "nation"...

"Semi-autonomous 'nation'" and "sovereign entity" are different things.
They have no rights other than those that all citizens have.

Call it insurrection or rebellion or whatever you like. Considering the deals that we make, and broke with them, and considering the fact that they were here first, I think that they are ethically justified in creating an independent nation within the USA

They can argue that all they want.
They can scream it all the way to the gallows.

 

[mattskramer]

"Semi-autonomous 'nation'" and "sovereign entity" are different things.
They have no rights other than those that all citizens have.


They can argue that all they want.
They can scream it all the way to the gallows.

I understand that it would be unlikely to happen but it is nice to imagine that perhaps some congressmen would consider the situation from an ethical and moral perspective and side with the Indians – allowing then to create their own nation.

The more likely approach will be the power one – the erroneous notion that might makes right.