Log in

View Full Version : Lakhota Nation withdraws from US



which doctor
20th December 2007, 17:55
It's unsure whether this is just a declaration from a seperatist group or whether it reflects all the Lakota people. If it is the latter than it will be very interesting to watch how the federal government reacts. Nothing on this large of scale has happened for a while, historically violence has been used to suppress secession movements. What's interesting is that they are apparently opening this new nation to all people, setting it apart from traditional national liberation movements. They are soliciting support from several leftist South American countries. Also note that one of the lead activists, Russell Means, is a libertarian politician.


Originally posted by Press Release+--> Lakota Freedom Delegation to Withdraw from Treaties in DC

LAKOTA
Lakota Freedom Delegation
Mitaku Oyasin: We Are All Related
MEDIA ADVISORY
Immediate Release: 13 December 2007
Media Contacts: Naomi Archer, Communications Liaison (828) 230-1404 [email protected]

FREE, AGAIN! LAKOTA SIOUX MAKE HISTORY IN WITHDRAWAL FROM U.S. TREATIES

First Nation Travels to Washington D.C., Will Unilaterally Withdrawal from All Treaties with the United States Government
U.S., International Treaty Law Indicate Historic Land Range Returns to Sovereign Lakota People
Excellent Audio and Visuals: Press Conference to Feature Lakota Flag/Eagle Staff, Traditional Language and Music, Traditional Lakota Food and Other Refreshments
WHAT: A Historic Event between the Lakota Sioux Indians and the United States Government: Press Conference Announcing Unilateral Withdrawal of Lakota Nation From All U.S. Treaties and Return to Independence.
WHERE: Plymouth Congregational Church 5301 N. Capital Street, NE, Washington DC
WHEN: 11:30am, Wednesday December 19, 2007
WHO: Lakota Freedom Delegation, representatives of Lakota Sioux Indians- an Indigenous First Nation of North America. Delegation includes Lakota activist and actor Russell Means; Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr.; Gary Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders, Women of Red Nations founder Phyllis Young, Pearl Denet Claw Daniel and others.
SUMMARY: For far too long our people have suffered at the hands of the colonial apartheid system imposed on the Lakota Sioux. Our treaties with the United States government are nothing more than worthless words on worthless paper – repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life.
The devastation this has wrought is clear: + Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti. + The Lakota infant mortality rate is 5x the U.S. Average.+ The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average. + 97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.+ Unemployment rates on our reservations are approximately 85%. + Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.+ Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.
We have no choice but to take this historic action to protect our people and our way of life, and reclaim our freedom from the colonial systems of the United States Government. So we travel to Washington D.C. to withdraw from our treaties with the United States and announce full return of our sovereign status under Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, International and Natural Law.
We are the freedom loving Lakota from the Sioux Indian reservations of Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana who have suffered from cultural and physical genocide in the colonial apartheid system we have been forced to live under. We are in Washington DC to withdraw from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country. We are alerting the Family of Nations we have now reassumed our freedom and independence with the backing of Natural, International, and United States law. For more information, please visit our new website at www.lakotafreedom.com (http://www.lakotafreedom.com). Lakota; 444 Crazy Horse Drive; P.O. Box 99; Porcupine, SD 57772.[/b]


News article
Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US

11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"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," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website.

The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the reborn freedom movement says.

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.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent," said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence -- an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row," Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples -- despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children," Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The US "annexation" of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people," said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the US government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies -- less than 44 years -- in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots," said Young.

"We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said, predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime.

http://www.lakotafreedom.com/

spartan
20th December 2007, 18:15
I was just going to post this!

Anyway i think this will be intresting as i am sure there are US nuclear weapons or nuclear power sites on the Lakotas land.

What is also intresting is that the Lakota have approached such countries as Bolivia and Venezuela who are hardly on the USA's Christmas card list and might be able to set up bases on the Lakotas land?

In whatever way the US Government responds to this they will surely come out looking like the bad guys to most of the world (Except of course for stupid Conservative Americans who will probably want to grab their Winchester 73 rifles and shoot some "Redskins" <_< ).

lvleph
20th December 2007, 19:32
Bandwidth Exceeded&#33; DoS? Damn Feds&#33;

YSR
20th December 2007, 20:21
I am very interested to see what happens with this.

More Fire for the People
20th December 2007, 21:12
Red power&#33; I hope the Cherokees and other big tribes follow suit. Of course the Cherokee nation won&#39;t ever do anything, all they do is pass out homes and businesses to white-skinned middies with 1/32 Indian and probably less Cherokee. Never forget Sitting Bull and Dragging Canoe&#33; :redstar:

Demogorgon
20th December 2007, 21:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:54 pm
If it is the latter than it will be very interesting to watch how the federal government reacts.
They&#39;ll ignore it

which doctor
21st December 2007, 00:15
Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 20, 2007 04:21 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95&#37;' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Demogorgon @ December 20, 2007 04:21 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 05:54 pm
If it is the latter than it will be very interesting to watch how the federal government reacts. They'll ignore it [/b]
Think so? What about when they stop paying their taxes or refuse to let federal agents on their land? The US does not have a history of being very lenient toward autonomous communities.

Dimentio
21st December 2007, 00:27
Originally posted by FoB+December 21, 2007 12:14 am--> (FoB @ December 21, 2007 12:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:21 pm

[email protected] 20, 2007 05:54 pm
If it is the latter than it will be very interesting to watch how the federal government reacts.
They&#39;ll ignore it
Think so? What about when they stop paying their taxes or refuse to let federal agents on their land? The US does not have a history of being very lenient toward autonomous communities. [/b]
Not now. They will wait until they could afford to lose little more popularity.

Luís Henrique
21st December 2007, 23:25
Does anyone here believe that the Lakotas&#39; territory would be able to survive economically without being integrated into the North-American economy?

I doubt it very much.

Luís Henrique

Dros
21st December 2007, 23:42
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 21, 2007 11:24 pm
Does anyone here believe that the Lakotas&#39; territory would be able to survive economically without being integrated into the North-American economy?

I doubt it very much.

Luís Henrique
I heard somewhere (quite possibly here but I don&#39;t remember) that they were seeking alliances with left leaning South American countries. That could serve.

Wanted Man
21st December 2007, 23:45
How representative is this guy actually?

Faux Real
21st December 2007, 23:58
Hopefully this will start a wave of serious secession movements.

which doctor
22nd December 2007, 05:37
Does anyone here believe that the Lakotas&#39; territory would be able to survive economically without being integrated into the North-American economy?

I doubt it very much.

Luís Henrique
Indian reservations have historically been the poorest and least developed parts of the country in the United States. According to Russell Means, a libertarian, the new nation will be tax free. Could he be trying to attract tax evaders, maybe make Lakhota Nation into the next banking capital or haven for copyright violaters?


I heard somewhere (quite possibly here but I don&#39;t remember) that they were seeking alliances with left leaning South American countries. That could serve.
They have been speaking with several South American countries, all whom I believe are supportive of the Lakhota&#39;s move.


How representative is this guy actually?
I&#39;m not sure.

Ismail
22nd December 2007, 08:02
Russell Means isn&#39;t respected in that community. He ran against Ron Paul in the 1988 Libertarian primaries, and that seems to have been his most popular moment.

Doesn&#39;t look like much will come from this if only Means is doing it. (Considering he has been supporting this for a long, long time)

Cheung Mo
22nd December 2007, 09:17
The Lakota people would still be better off in a libertarian free state than as citizens of the USA. Hell, the only dissidents who deserved to be silenced were the right-wing religious lunatics at Waco. They are reactionaries, they are our enemies, and while we must not actively support their suppression, there is no reason to ever stand in solidarity with such barbarians.

Jaden
22nd December 2007, 11:31
They could try using hemp as an export. I doubt they&#39;d be able to support themselves economically. I&#39;m looking forward to seeing how this pans out. I&#39;m part sioux, so I may try to nip up there to see what&#39;s up personally (though my known relations are on my crow side on that crow reservation...)

gilhyle
22nd December 2007, 11:40
Seems to me like a reactionary move, trying to promise people a way out of reality by becoming another Caymen Islands or Lichtenstein or something like that - although self determination for native Americans is still arguable.

In any case, I dont think its technically correct that one can legally just withdraw from treaties - isnt that an issue in the Iranian nuclear power debate, the Shah entered into the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and thats how the UN claims jurisdiction ? (North Korea never did)......its a small point by contrast with political reality, but its the kind of legalese libertarian politicians sometimes use to drag people down dead ends.

An archist
22nd December 2007, 11:42
If I&#39;m not mistaken, this is a move of just a small group of people, not representative of the Lakota community.

lvleph
22nd December 2007, 13:23
They live in an area that is very good for farming. If they were to take the next logical step, and revoke any property rights to non-lakota then take over the farms, I think they would have something.

Luís Henrique
22nd December 2007, 14:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:22 pm
They live in an area that is very good for farming. If they were to take the next logical step, and revoke any property rights to non-lakota then take over the farms, I think they would have something.
They would have a full scale federal intervention, I guess.

Luís Henrique

RNK
22nd December 2007, 16:21
I doubt this will work. Not that I don&#39;t fully support this move, but my pessimism just can&#39;t settle this.

First off, the "new nation" will quite quickly succumb to rampant poverty and starvation. Historically, Native lands are barren of any profitable options for income; the Lakhota, if they&#39;re lucky, may have some farmland but other than that, they will have to rely 100% on the United States for their commodities. This will require an economy capable of trade, which I do not think does or even can exist unless, overnight, factories and workshops and extreme cultivation is developed under their management. Otherwise, how are they going to get jobs? Get income? Food? Clothing? Housing?

Casinos are probably their only option; some US company will try and broker a deal to build a Casino or five on their land, from which the Lahkota will get some percentage of the profit, and perhaps they&#39;ll be able to squeak by a miserable existence.

Sovereignty has played a massive part in Native lives up here in Canada, and there have been dozens of clashes between Native communities and the Canadian state -- many deadly, many dealing with armed action by Native militias against the Canadian armed forces. In the end, they have all either stalled or succumbed, strangled into submission or faced with the reality that unless society as a whole changes, there&#39;s not much else they can do, unless they want to live lives similar to those in the poorest parts of Africa.

Tatarin
22nd December 2007, 16:59
I doubt it very much that the US will allow this, but I support the move. If they spread the "uprising" around the world, the US will have a controversy on it&#39;s hands I guess. The US is already so dis-liked in the world as it is.

which doctor
22nd December 2007, 17:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:20 am
First off, the "new nation" will quite quickly succumb to rampant poverty and starvation.
They&#39;ve been living in poverty and starvation for a long time. They really don&#39;t have much to lose.

which doctor
24th December 2007, 20:06
It appears that this "withdrawal" does not represent the general opinions of the Lakota people.

Vendetta
24th December 2007, 20:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:05 pm
It appears that this "withdrawal" does not represent the general opinions of the Lakota people.
How so?

Faux Real
24th December 2007, 20:21
What a shame.

which doctor
24th December 2007, 22:56
Originally posted by RSOA+December 24, 2007 03:20 pm--> (RSOA @ December 24, 2007 03:20 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:05 pm
It appears that this "withdrawal" does not represent the general opinions of the Lakota people.
How so? [/b]
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/...0/57/277/425848 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/23/133010/57/277/425848)

Martin Blank
25th December 2007, 06:37
I would say the truth of the situation is somewhere in the middle. Many of those living in Lakota areas are generally supportive, but are also concerned about how they can make it anything more than a symbolic gesture. At the same time, the wasichu and igluwasichu press are trying to make this effort look marginalized and the act of a few individuals (or worse, from their perspective, an AIM act).

The isicolayepi, on the other hand, are taking their case to the traditional treaty councils and bodies of elders, completely bypassing the BIA/IRA councils. From the reports I&#39;ve seen so far, these have been far more productive and positive than the responses of the igluwasichu councils (and the "Vichy Indian" Rosebud band, which is known among the Lakota for its "stay close to the fort" attitude).

We&#39;ll see what happens.

Raúl Duke
26th December 2007, 00:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:36 am
I would say the truth of the situation is somewhere in the middle. Many of those living in Lakota areas are generally supportive, but are also concerned about how they can make it anything more than a symbolic gesture. At the same time, the wasichu and igluwasichu press are trying to make this effort look marginalized and the act of a few individuals (or worse, from their perspective, an AIM act).

The isicolayepi, on the other hand, are taking their case to the traditional treaty councils and bodies of elders, completely bypassing the BIA/IRA councils. From the reports I&#39;ve seen so far, these have been far more productive and positive than the responses of the igluwasichu councils (and the "Vichy Indian" Rosebud band, which is known among the Lakota for its "stay close to the fort" attitude).

We&#39;ll see what happens.
I&#39;m sorry but

What is igluwasichu, wasichu, and isicolaypi?

:blink:

Zazaban
26th December 2007, 01:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:57 pm
Hopefully this will start a wave of serious secession movements.
That would be wonderful.

bootleg42
26th December 2007, 02:00
From what I&#39;m reading, this is just a right-winger who wants to create his own little libertarian free market paradise within this tribe. Tough to support it when you know with such economy policies, the people in this nation will starve to death.

Martin Blank
26th December 2007, 03:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:33 pm
What is igluwasichu, wasichu, and isicolaypi?
They are Lakota words. I&#39;ve been studying the Lakota language for about a year.

Wasichu (whah-shee-choo) in this context means non-Native. Literally, it means "white person", but the political usage is generalized beyond race.

Igluwasichu (ih-gluh-whah-shee-choo) means pro-U.S. Natives. Literally, the term is "one who acts like a white person", but, again, the political usage is broader.

Isicolayepi (ee-shee-cho-lah-hyeh-pee) means the pro-independence Lakota. Literally, the word is "they who want to become free".

Incidentally, in my signature I have the Lakota translation of "Proletarians of All Countries, Unite&#33;" Literally, the sentence reads, "They-who-can-only-labor from all places, come together for a cause".

Raúl Duke
26th December 2007, 12:47
Originally posted by CommunistLeague+December 25, 2007 10:46 pm--> (CommunistLeague @ December 25, 2007 10:46 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 08:33 pm
What is igluwasichu, wasichu, and isicolaypi?
They are Lakota words. I&#39;ve been studying the Lakota language for about a year.

Wasichu (whah-shee-choo) in this context means non-Native. Literally, it means "white person", but the political usage is generalized beyond race.

Igluwasichu (ih-gluh-whah-shee-choo) means pro-U.S. Natives. Literally, the term is "one who acts like a white person", but, again, the political usage is broader.

Isicolayepi (ee-shee-cho-lah-hyeh-pee) means the pro-independence Lakota. Literally, the word is "they who want to become free".

Incidentally, in my signature I have the Lakota translation of "Proletarians of All Countries, Unite&#33;" Literally, the sentence reads, "They-who-can-only-labor from all places, come together for a cause". [/b]
Thanks...

(BTW I liked the Lakota version of the marxist slogan)

So how do you think this might come out?

Guerrilla22
26th December 2007, 17:44
This specific group has declared its intent to withdraw from all treaties between the Lakotah Nation and the US government anyways. The problem is, as others have stated the individuals responsible are not the leaders of the Lakotah Nation as a whole, as I recall Russell Means is not even the head of his own reservation. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

which doctor
26th December 2007, 18:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:43 pm
as I recall Russell Means is not even the head of his own reservation. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
No, he&#39;s not. He ran for reservation president, but lost the election. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how things play out.

Martin Blank
26th December 2007, 21:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:43 pm
This specific group has declared its intent to withdraw from all treaties between the Lakotah Nation and the US government anyways. The problem is, as others have stated the individuals responsible are not the leaders of the Lakotah Nation as a whole, as I recall Russell Means is not even the head of his own reservation. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Actually, this struggle is wider than just Lakota. It goes back to the International Indian Treaty Council of 1974, which was the first conference to bring together indigenous people from across the Americas. That body issued the Declaration of Continuing Independence (http://www.lakotafreedom.com/declarationofcontinuingindependence.pdf), which was the basis for the actions of the Lakota Freedom Delegation.

As for being head of the reservation, it seems pretty clear that the isicolayepi don&#39;t recognize the authority of the BIA/IRA reservation councils. They deal and discuss directly with the traditional elder councils, including the continuing treaty councils that have descended from the 1974 IITC delegations. The Lakota Freedom website posts a statement that came from one of these meetings, with the Strongheart Grandmothers.


The whole Lakota declaration of withdrawal from the treaty is vested on the power of the Lakota people and our children.

When we undertook the process of announcing the withdrawal, the capacity was far greater than most people anticipated about an individual. But throughout our history, the people have never excluded anyone within their own lifeway and when it becomes a listener&#39;s view that its about one individual, one individual does not represent the nation itself, the nation represents the individual, and that is Lakota.

The withdrawal is for the people, the Elders, mothers, fathers, and the children.

Throughout our history and through the enforcement of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Congress said they would oversee the provisions of 1868 (Fort Laramie Treaty), but they failed to do so. Some minor provisions were kept, but overall the treaty was not honored. Because if the treaty was honored, we would not have this colonial catastrophe of alcoholism, drug abuse and poverty and we wouldn&#39;t have the overall high incarceration rate of the male and female in the prison populations. This leads to our children being taking away by Social Services which puts our children out of balance from learning the traditional lifeway.

When the children can reconnect with who they are, they come back to the process of knowing what is Lakota in the true point of view. In this true point of view Lakota is about being free and left alone, so we can govern and save our own with the teachings of the Animal Nations.

If we can conclude with this statement in the positive venue, its not about Russell Means, and certainly not about Canupa Gluha Mani or any individual, this about the Lakota Nation and the Animal People who are no longer alone.

Similar meetings and statements are being arranged. On Friday, the 117th anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre, the Lakota will announce the proposed borders of the new country. That should prove to be an interesting moment in all this.

Leo
26th December 2007, 22:09
So how many Lakotas approximately are involved in this movement? And how many native americans are left in the US?

Martin Blank
26th December 2007, 23:02
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:46 am
So how do you think this might come out?
I honestly don&#39;t know. There are confirmed rumors and unconfirmed rumors flying about, and some of them would fundamentally affect their chances of achieving any real success. For example, there is an unconfirmed rumor that Bush is threatening to withdraw federal assistance from the Lakota reservations over this declaration. At the same time, there is now a confirmed rumor that Russian President Putin may use diplomatic recognition of Lakota as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the U.S.

Nevertheless, I do think that communists should support the right of Lakota to declare its independence. And those of us who work in the wasichu areas should organize to win working class support for it. This is not your typical "self-determination" scenario, I would argue. Even though Oyate Wacinyapin (Russell Means) has aligned himself with the bourgeois libertarians, he would not be the one to decide how this new country would develop. Those decisions would be made by elder councils and other traditional bodies, whose principles and values mirror those of communists and anarchists more than they do capitalist society. In fact, the only way they could make their principles and values a reality in the world today is to work for a communist society.

We have listened to the people of Lakota respectfully. We hope they will do the same.

Guerrilla22
26th December 2007, 23:06
As for being head of the reservation, it seems pretty clear that the isicolayepi don&#39;t recognize the authority of the BIA/IRA reservation councils. They deal and discuss directly with the traditional elder councils, including the continuing treaty councils that have descended from the 1974 IITC delegations. The Lakota Freedom website posts a statement that came from one of these meetings, with the Strongheart Grandmothers.

If this is the case, I&#39;m not sure why Russell Means ran for the position in the first place.

Martin Blank
26th December 2007, 23:27
Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 26, 2007 06:08 pm
So how many Lakotas approximately are involved in this movement? And how many native americans are left in the US?
There are about 70,000 "official" Lakota in the U.S. (not counting the tens of thousands more who are ethnically Lakota but were cut off from their background by the various "assimilation" schemes sponsored by the U.S. from 1877 to 1918, including the infamous "Indian Schools").

Altogether, there are more than 4 million Native Americans in the U.S., spread across more than 300 recognized bands and tribes. At the time when Europeans first began to set foot on North America, there were between 7 and 18 million Native Americans (no exact number is known, and estimates vary based on source).

Martin Blank
26th December 2007, 23:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:05 pm
If this is the case, I&#39;m not sure why Russell Means ran for the position in the first place.
I would imagine it was for reasons similar to why leftists run in elections.

which doctor
26th December 2007, 23:35
What kind of role does Russell Means even play in this Lakota Freedom Movement? Is he very influential?

Martin Blank
27th December 2007, 00:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:34 pm
What kind of role does Russell Means even play in this Lakota Freedom Movement? Is he very influential?
He is influential by virtue of his history. He was a chief participant in the 1973 seizure of the Wounded Knee battleground, and has been one of the most visible advocates for the freedom of Leonard Peltier and for the rights of Lakota people. The wasichu and igluwasichu despise him for these reasons, and will take any opportunity to attack him -- including those opportunities where criticism is legitimate.

Martin Blank
27th December 2007, 00:11
Before this discussion goes any further, it should be noted that the efforts of the Lakota Freedom Delegation are not an attempt at primitivism or a return to pre-capitalist society. From the beginning, the isicolayepi have talked about using the most modern of technology to help resolve some of the most basic problems.

For example, 40 percent of Lakota households do not have electricity or heat. The isicolayepi have proposed the construction of wind turbines, solar energy arrays and the harnessing of geothermal energy to provide electricity and heat for the Lakota people. Moreover, they see these new industries and services as providing jobs (unemployment in Lakota areas is 85 percent or higher).

In addition, Lakota delegates have been talking to the World Health Organization to seek help in dealing with rampant disease in their territory, including the massively high rates of tuberculosis (800 percent the U.S. average), diabetes (800 percent the U.S. average) and cervical cancer (500 percent the U.S. average).

ON EDIT: One more thing, the extension of citizenship is not being limited to ethnically Lakota people. Any person living within the boundaries of Lakota (which, as I mentioned above, will be announced on Dec. 29) who renounces their U.S. citizenship will be given Lakota citizenship.

which doctor
27th December 2007, 03:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:10 pm
ON EDIT: One more thing, the extension of citizenship is not being limited to ethnically Lakota people. Any person living within the boundaries of Lakota (which, as I mentioned above, will be announced on Dec. 29) who renounces their U.S. citizenship will be given Lakota citizenship.
I thought the invitation was extended to anyone, provided they renounce their US citizenship.

Martin Blank
27th December 2007, 03:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:11 pm
I thought the invitation was extended to anyone, provided they renounce their US citizenship.
Sorry. Wasn&#39;t clear. It is extended to anyone, but there is a requirement about having residency within the boundaries. In other words, if you&#39;re willing to take up residence there and renounce your U.S. citizenship, you can become a citizen of Lakota.

dez
27th December 2007, 17:34
Originally posted by CommunistLeague+December 27, 2007 03:45 am--> (CommunistLeague @ December 27, 2007 03:45 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 11:11 pm
I thought the invitation was extended to anyone, provided they renounce their US citizenship.
Sorry. Wasn&#39;t clear. It is extended to anyone, but there is a requirement about having residency within the boundaries. In other words, if you&#39;re willing to take up residence there and renounce your U.S. citizenship, you can become a citizen of Lakota. [/b]
what about foreigners

:lol:

Devrim
27th December 2007, 19:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:46 am
Incidentally, in my signature I have the Lakota translation of "Proletarians of All Countries, Unite&#33;" Literally, the sentence reads, "They-who-can-only-labor from all places, come together for a cause".
A bit off the point but, these sort of &#39;literal&#39; translations always sound a bit bizarre. The slogan on our logo is &#39;İşçilerin Vatanı Yoktur&#39;:
[img]http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/files/eks-small-tr.png' alt='' width='135' height='137' class='attach' /> (http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/files/eks-small-tr.png)

It could be translated &#39;literally&#39; as something like &#39;Workers possessing a country belonging to said workers absence of there is&#39;. It makes it sound a little like Yoda out of Star Wars. I think that these sort of &#39;literal&#39; translations are often used with American Indians to make them sound &#39;mystical&#39;. As for the translation of the slogan, we prefer &#39;Workers have no country&#39;.

Devrim

black magick hustla
27th December 2007, 20:07
Originally posted by Devrim+December 27, 2007 07:55 pm--> (Devrim @ December 27, 2007 07:55 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 03:46 am
Incidentally, in my signature I have the Lakota translation of "Proletarians of All Countries, Unite&#33;" Literally, the sentence reads, "They-who-can-only-labor from all places, come together for a cause".
A bit off the point but, these sort of &#39;literal&#39; translations always sound a bit bizarre. The slogan on our logo is &#39;İşçilerin Vatanı Yoktur&#39;:
[img]http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/files/eks-small-tr.png' alt='' width='135' height='137' class='attach' /> (http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/files/eks-small-tr.png)

It could be translated &#39;literally&#39; as something like &#39;Workers possessing a country belonging to said workers absence of there is&#39;. It makes it sound a little like Yoda out of Star Wars. I think that these sort of &#39;literal&#39; translations are often used with American Indians to make them sound &#39;mystical&#39;. As for the translation of the slogan, we prefer &#39;Workers have no country&#39;.

Devrim [/b]
The spanish translation of "workers have no country" is "los obreros no tienen país", but I think it is often translated as "los obreros no tienen patria" which is more like "workers have no fatherland" which sounds pretty cool in spanish.

you people with your crazy tribal non-romance/germanic languages that sound weird when literally translated :)

which doctor
28th December 2007, 03:05
Originally posted by in_motion+December 27, 2007 12:33 pm--> (in_motion @ December 27, 2007 12:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:45 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 11:11 pm
I thought the invitation was extended to anyone, provided they renounce their US citizenship.
Sorry. Wasn&#39;t clear. It is extended to anyone, but there is a requirement about having residency within the boundaries. In other words, if you&#39;re willing to take up residence there and renounce your U.S. citizenship, you can become a citizen of Lakota.
what about foreigners

:lol: [/b]
If they are willing to take up residency in the new Lakota nation and renounce their previous US citizenship, then yes.

dez
28th December 2007, 17:38
Originally posted by FoB+December 28, 2007 03:04 am--> (FoB @ December 28, 2007 03:04 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:45 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 11:11 pm
I thought the invitation was extended to anyone, provided they renounce their US citizenship.
Sorry. Wasn&#39;t clear. It is extended to anyone, but there is a requirement about having residency within the boundaries. In other words, if you&#39;re willing to take up residence there and renounce your U.S. citizenship, you can become a citizen of Lakota.
what about foreigners

:lol:
If they are willing to take up residency in the new Lakota nation and renounce their previous US citizenship, then yes. [/b]
i meant people that do not live in the US

:lol:

coda
1st January 2008, 15:41
<<He is influential by virtue of his history. He was a chief participant in the 1973 seizure of the Wounded Knee battleground, and has been one of the most visible advocates for the freedom of Leonard Peltier and for the rights of Lakota people. The wasichu and igluwasichu despise him for these reasons, and will take any opportunity to attack him -- including those opportunities where criticism is legitimate...>>

last i knew Means was co-founder along with Ward Churchill of Autonomous AIM, so this is possibly a move toward that.

someone mentioned about when they stop paying taxes... To clarify, the US policy towards native Americans is that they pay federal income taxes on an individual basis, rather than as a tribe. To exempt as a tribe, they would have to incorporate under the Indian Reorganization Act. As soverign nations they don&#39;t pay state property taxes for their reserve land as a whole (codified in the treaties.) They are sovereign nations only to the extent and akin to other US state&#39;s rights, i.e. they can set and administer their own laws & policies within their tribal governments. They are generally beholden to all US federal laws and as US citizens are entitled to the same "rights" as other citizens. no more no less. That&#39;s the way it currently stands.

Martin Blank
13th January 2008, 09:44
i meant people that do not live in the US

There has been some debate about that among the Lakotah organizers. As soon as there is some consensus, I'll let you know.

kromando33
13th January 2008, 10:21
Does anyone here believe that the Lakotas' territory would be able to survive economically without being integrated into the North-American economy?

I doubt it very much.

Luís Henrique
I am sure they could find lots of guys like Chavez willing to give them crude etc just to piss of the US.

Magdalen
14th December 2008, 21:24
I know this is an old thread, but I was browsing recently and discovered this article on Tiwy.com, a Russian website which focuses on Latin America.

http://www.tiwy.com/news.phtml?id=129

"The American Indians can easily distinguish between friends and enemies. That is why a portrait of smiling Chavez (and never George W. Bush) is often encountered in their houses in the Republic of Lakotah."