MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 The Lakota Indians want out of the United States. The have announced that they will break a 150 year old treaty and will secede from the US. "We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," said Russell Means, an Indian rights activist. The tribe, whose territory spans five Midwestern states, delivered a message to the US State Department earlier this week, announcing that they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties signed with the US government. The new country would issue its own passports and driving licenses, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Means said. The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said. Is it legal? The activists believe that it is. 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. I had actually heard this on the Mike McConnell show yesterday and was surprised no one had mentioned it as of yet, seeing as how its a pretty significant event in U.S. history, I think at least. The interesting question which was brought up on the radio show is whether or not they are wanting regular Americans who live in the upper midwest (Montana/North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming) to renounce their citizenship to join or if its just the Lakota tribe members, as the quote (in bold) in the article is pretty vague on that issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted December 22, 2007 I expect this rebellion to be squashed swiftly and brutally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Celtic Guardian 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 I expect this story to fade into irrelevancy. These Lakota who declared independence are activist types, not the mainstream Lakota leadership as such. The Lakota Sioux as a whole will likely not support such foolishness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Well, we should probably get to suppressing this rebellion, shouldn't we? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. S£im Citrus 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Wipe them out... ALL of them... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 The Sioux shall rise again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 I guess Tatanka will never work for the WWE again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandy 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Would they want our help if their new country was invaded by terrorists? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smues Report post Posted December 22, 2007 You know when this will end? When they realize that by seceding they'll stop getting any and all government money. And if they have casinos (I don't know if they do or not) if people actually do need passports to get to them then a lot of people will stop going, and there goes their other source of income. Alaska has a couple of village tribes that talk about tribal sovereignty and how they are their own nation and shouldn't have to do things like pay payroll taxes, but do they ever do anything truly about it? No because then they'll lose all that lovely government money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandy 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Yeah, people like that generally want to change one thing and do not realize what they would be giving away. I used to work with juvenile delinquents, and a few of them used to talk about how Anarchy would be the best way to run this country. The reason that they wanted this is mainly not wanting to have to go to school and follow what their parents said. Me: Why do you want anarchy? Teenager: I could do whatever in the hell I wanted. M: Like what? T: Skate with my friends, do drugs, rob stores to get as much money as I wanted! M: No you couldn't, because I would just rob you of the money you just robbed. T: You couldn't do that. M: Who's going to stop me? T: Me and my friends. M: Me and my friends are bigger and outnumber you guys. We'll just steal everything you have and make you do what we say. T: But... M: No buts. Just you having everything you have taken from you every day. Also, others might kill you the first day of anarchy. T: Just shut up. You don't understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Danville_Wrestling 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Smues is right on target with what I was going to say in this thread. Heck, I'm happy they are seceding because that's more government savings we're going to have. I got a kick out of EHME's story too, especially due to the picture he has attached to his posts that I could almost visualize was having the discussion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 They'll change their minds pretty fucking quick once someone explains to them the meaning of the word "tariffs" and how expensive it will be to to export any goods and import all their vital supplies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 Yeah, people like that generally want to change one thing and do not realize what they would be giving away. I used to work with juvenile delinquents, and a few of them used to talk about how Anarchy would be the best way to run this country. The reason that they wanted this is mainly not wanting to have to go to school and follow what their parents said. Me: Why do you want anarchy? Teenager: I could do whatever in the hell I wanted. M: Like what? T: Skate with my friends, do drugs, rob stores to get as much money as I wanted! M: No you couldn't, because I would just rob you of the money you just robbed. T: You couldn't do that. M: Who's going to stop me? T: Me and my friends. M: Me and my friends are bigger and outnumber you guys. We'll just steal everything you have and make you do what we say. T: But... M: No buts. Just you having everything you have taken from you every day. Also, others might kill you the first day of anarchy. T: Just shut up. You don't understand. Yeah, because the two situations are so similar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandy 0 Report post Posted December 22, 2007 It was just an example of someone not realizing all the bad things that would happen for them to get the one or two small things they wanted. I imagine these people want no taxes and fees, but they don't realize how difficult it would be for them to make it on their own. I never intended it to be a "check out this almost identical story." And Danville, I appreciate the compliment, but please do not call me EHME. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maztinho 0 Report post Posted December 23, 2007 Also wouldn't going back on the treaty be an open declaration of war? Some strung out tweaker is going to kill a Lakota and then use this story as a scapegoat claiming that he was just defending the country. Mmmm sounds like a Law and Order episode, maybe I should send that to them. Marv's right though, this should be bigger news than it is. At least mention the event. I think that'll just go away after some time, but come on media, pull yourselves off the festering teat that is Hollywood and talk about this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted December 23, 2007 I know they're seceding because of a really high unemployment rate (something like 40% I think I heard) and the average male of the lakota only lives to be 40 some years old due to drug and alcohol issues and the like. I dont think they feel the government is doing enough for them as it is and that they'd be better off on their own than trying to fight for a bigger piece of the ever shrinking government funds pie that no regular American not of Native American desecent would support them getting since the Indians are "getting rich of their casinos" as it is, so they dont need the money, when in actuality with the Lakota its not even close to being true for most of them anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Danville_Wrestling 0 Report post Posted December 23, 2007 Well I can definitely see that viewpoint. The problems on Native American reservations are immense with high rates of depression, suicide, poor education and health care systems, and a lack of jobs. I'd also agree that people have an overexaggerated viewpoint of how much money some tribes make off of casinos. I remember reading a Los Angeles Times article two years ago and it described how there are factions within tribes that put a stranglehold on the casino business and prevent other factions from opening their own casinos or don't give other factions their fair share of casino revenues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vampiro69 0 Report post Posted December 25, 2007 The people around the Dakotas are shaking their heads at this move. What this comes down to is a few radical members of the Lakota who are trying to make a name for themselves. It is nothing more, nothing less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites