Lakota Sioux pretend their independent

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

The Lakota Sioux have broken formal treaty obligations with the United States government and are calling themselves an independent sovereign nation instead of what they are: a semi-sovereign dependent nation that is part of the United States. They essentially want to secede from the Union and form their own Indian Nation. They seemingly own a large chunk of land in the Dakotas. It's not like they will get much; it's pretty barren. By sacrificing US citizenship, they will lose a lot of financial and social aide, which can only tank them more than they already are tanking.

Plus, I don't think the government will tolerate secession. It would send a message to other bodies that you can get away with it (or at least try), and that's not acceptable. Good news, though. If they do leave the Union and fail badly, they can hardly blame whitey like they always do.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:44 am Post subject:

The way I look at it is: If they're able to get away with it, more power to 'em.

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

I second that. Go Sioux! The U.S. never honored a single treaty, and the money they may have been getting wasn't much, and had enough strings on it to lasso the moon.

Guest · Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject:

I don't see it as being realistic. The United Stats government will never tolerate it, given that it would take away vast chunks of states. Moreover, they have no way to enforce it, given they lack any standing military and no power whatsoever. The Indians need to stop whining and blaming whitey, for starters. It's not our fault they are alcoholic welfare bums. There are many other tribes that do quite well (Cabonaza in california) and the Seminole (who own the Hard Rock Cafe). They don't lounge around with corrupt governments and 50% unemployment.

They have grown to make themselves like this through incessantly whining about the past; they use "whitey" as an excuse to cover up their own choice sand failures.

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

I agree with some of what you say. It's probably unrealistic and I know the U.S. won't tolerate it. However, "whitey" always denies responsibility for everything. "Whitey" is the "Not Me" kid in the Family Circus cartoons. "Whitey" is a stereotype of a broad group of people. I use it sometimes in jest, but when you use it somehow it just sounds meaner--and not meaner against "whitey".

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1088

I would of course have to disagree completely and say that a lot of what is happening to Native Americans IS our fault. They didn't even HAVE alcohol until we brought it to them. We came here and treated them like second class citizens, coming over the hills with a Bible in one hand and a bottle of Whiskey in the other, and they have yet to recover from either thing we pushed on them.

They were second class citizens, and then we started killing them off, small pox and then trail of tears. When we exiled them to land that we later learned was valuable, we exiled them AGAIN, putting them on the crappiest lands possible.

So sorry if they are having hard time succeeding. Rampant Christinaity and Alcohol have destroyed their culture, their land has very few resources, and it is hard to bounce back from a couple hundred years of foul treatment.

I hope that the Sioux and others are able to overcome their struggles.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1088

And talk about double standards! We have the Redskins, the Braves, and the Indians in sports teams, playing on total racist stereotypes.

I can only imagine the outcry that would follow if we named our baseball team the "Seattle Niggers!"

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Of course Whitey did bad things in the past. That's not now, though, and they have been like this for a while due to their own choices. Many other tribes can succeed: some choose not to because it's a lot easier to shift the blame.

Indians are not restricted to reservations. They can and were (and still are) encouraged to leave and build lives elsewhere. They can do this. They just chose not to leave.

As for the mascots, most Indians do not have a problem with them. It's a very small minority. Many either do not care or like them. Only 9% of Native Americans polled actually give a hoot (lecture, Sharfenberger, 2007, Monmouth University).

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

I have a couple questions. Who did they poll? How was the poll conducted? Was it mostly college students? Did they call people out of the phonebook? How did they know they were Indians?

OK that's more than a couple.

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject:

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

The poll consisted of those who self-identify and are identified by the community as natives. It was basically a survey asking them what they thought (open-ended) of Sports Teams Mascots of Indians, such as Chief Illiniwek.. It's rather surprising. It's only a few vocal scholars who are complaining about mascots, when most Indians don't really give a shit.. How many Irish do you see bitching about Notre Dame's mascots? Do we have armies of Irish complaining about it? No. For most, it's just not an important issue, and if anything, many see them as promoting Indian awareness and honoring them.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject:

The geographic location they want to take is silly, but the concept of what they're trying to do is not. They definitely need to pick their land a little better than that.

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 219

[quote="technocrat"]This is the land they want to take: they're simply unreasonable and nuts. They want to swipe trillions of dollar worth of built-up land, urban developments.

[/quote

Hmm....not very original of them. It's been done before already. Wink