Lakota drop out of U.S.A

Regenerative Culture Dangers & Risks
#1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"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 said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

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 U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely “worthless words on worthless paper,” the Lakota freedom activists said.

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 U.S. "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 U.S. 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 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement’s website.


Is the U.S. Boverment going to take this as a serious threat?
#2

I know it’s not like me to say this, but poor Dubya. On top of everything else, now he’s the first president in like 150 years - and only the second president in U.S. history - to have someone secede from his union. All he wanted to do was make Daddy proud of him and now his legacy as the worst president in U.S. history is absolutely wrapped up.

Anyway, as for the story itself… the more I read about this, the more I hesitate to jump the gun. After all, no actual Lakota leaders are involved in this thing. This may at worst be just a load of hot air, or at best, an empty gesture that’s accepted but then doesn’t really lead anyplace. (This amused me: East Timor and Ireland are “very interested” in the delegation. Why am I not surprised?)

There’s even precedent for this. Check out this excerpt from one of the comments here:

Now, to shift focus a little, back east in 1971 the Iroquois Six Nations of the U.S. and Canada, my people, sent delegats of the six tribes and fourteen reservations in two countries to the Wold Court at the Hague, where they filled suit against the U.S. and Canada, claiming that all nineteen of their treaties with the U.S. government and the British Crown had been violated, and that nothing specific in any of those treaties, all dating back to the eighteenth century, actually ceeded Iroquois soverignty to either nation. After six months of review, the World Court, citing international laws established in treaties to which both the U.S., Britain, and Canada are signatories, the Six Nations indeed never ceded their soverginty to anyone else, and the traditional government of the SIX Nations never actually ceased to exist and to conduct tribal and national business, and therefore we were still, by the standards of modern international law, a soverign peoples.

After that decision the Six Nations then filed an application for membership in the United nations (this is the honest-to-gods truth). They also began issuing their own passports and other official documents. Because of the complexities of worl politics at that time, a majority of the member nations in the U.N. actually approved the application, probably to irk the U.S., but both the U.S. and Canda vetoed it from the security Council. In a partial override of that veto, 80% of the member nations voted the Six Nations a “seat without voice” in the General Assembly, and Iroquois representatives have been sent to the U.N. every year since, and so far, seventy-three nations have recognized the Iroquois passports. The greatest achievement of this largely unheard revolution was the establishment in the 1980’s of the U.N. Office of Indiginous Peoples Affairs, headed by the delegats of the Six Nations and of one hundred and fourty-nine other indiginous peoples from around the world.

Now of course, real sovereignty is a lot more than just issuing passports. An Indian nation can never be truly soverign, for example, as long as its citizens are still taking wellfare, and medical services, or any other services from the “foreign” government that has claimed their soverignty for the last two hundred years. Real sovere ignty is the day-to-day exercise of control over your own present and future.

For the past thirty years, the people of the little Onondaga reservation in central New York have done just that, they have refused to take one penny of federal handouts. Sadly, the other Iroquois reservations of New York have not yet had that much resolve, though they have all been working towards real economic and political independance. A similar “drop-out” movement has also dominated the politic and economics of the Six Nations Reserve of the Grand River in Ontario, and three other Iroquois reservations in Ontario and Quebec for decades.

So. The Six Nations could have joined the U.N., if they hadn’t been voted down by Canada and the U.S. What makes this different (if these delegates actually have the support of most of the Lakota people and this is seriously happening) is that the U.S. is in it alone and has perhaps never been more hated by the international community. And the fact that they sent their letter to Venezuela, among other countries, is probably going to end up having a huge impact on whether or not this goes anywhere.

Incidentally, I’m really disgusted by all the comments I’ve been reading on various blogs and message boards that this is “in the past” and they should “get over it.” Or that all the Lakota’s problems are their fault and the United States government does nothing but support them economically. (“What will they do without government funding? I mean, it’s not like their poverty is going to go away!” Uh… where do you think their poverty CAME FROM!!!) Spoken truly like the spoiled, privileged nobles of an empire who have no clue what it feels like to be crushed under someone else’s heel. If the same thing happened to them, they’d never stop ranting about the proud history of their people and the injustice done to them and how someday they’ll rise again. (Ahem.)

#3

it’s wonderful when those who have committed and are still committing genocide of your culture (including the land) get to vote on whether you can have soverignity or not.

still sounds like genocide to me

#4

my biggest concern about this is that it doesn’t seem to be getting taken seriously

tho’, i’m sure that the Lakota have a plethora of internal/domestic issues to iron out

and, oddly, i’m kinda wondering what the near term intentions are for mt rushmore…

#5

If it’s a Fox news story you can bet that many important details have been left out, it’s extremely slanted, sensationalized, and been made to appear to be something it’s not.
Probably distributed so widely by Fox to stir up fear and mistrust of Native Americans and renew efforts to keep them in there place.

I’d suggest going to some Lakota web sites to find a more realistic perspective on this story.

#6

Here’s it from the source (or as close to as I can get)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm
http://www.lakotafreedom.com/

#7

Hey all,

Here is a really good essay that is related to the Lakota news story.

http://www.zmag.org/chiapas1/wardindig.htm

[b]From essay: [/b] Instead, indigenism offers an antidote, a vision of how things might be that is based in how things have been since time immemorial, and how things must be once again if the human species, and perhaps the planet itself, is to survive much longer. Predicated on a synthesis of the wisdom attained over thousands of years by indigenous, landbased peoples around the globe—the Fourth World or, as Winona LaDuke puts it, “The Host World upon which the first, second and third worlds all sit at the present time”—indigenism stands in diametrical opposition to the totality of what might be termed “Eurocentric business as usual.”7

Take care,

Curt

#8

This is so insanely awesome. I can’t handle it.

#9

this is pretty fucking cool. on their website it says they’re going to announce the boundaries for their nation on the eve of the anniversary of wounded knee (dec 29??). i’m afraid of what the U.S. might do in response, and am down for helping out in whatever way i can. (U.S. out of turtle island!)

#10

i dance to their courage

i dance to mine

#11

[quote=“heyvictor, post:5, topic:583”]If it’s a Fox news story you can bet that many important details have been left out, it’s extremely slanted, sensationalized, and been made to appear to be something it’s not.
Probably distributed so widely by Fox to stir up fear and mistrust of Native Americans and renew efforts to keep them in there place. [/quote]

Yes, I agree. Notice how they threw in images of fearsome warriors in the very first sentence?

You would not believe some of the anti-indigenous sentiment I’ve encountered in the sticks. (Or maybe you would.) The same folks watch Fox News. I’m imagining the people who own the restaurant that I worked at for some 2-3 months. I’m sure they’ve heard, or heard of, this story. I imagine they’ll be advocating for excluding the natives from local businesses. (They often have disgusting informal little “political chat sessions” with some of the customers and they have been very effective on a local scale in this arena.)

#12

A long term memory from a high school latin class long ago:

Te Tero Roma Manu Nuba Bamus Mustis Tis

All together now, class:

Te Te
ro ro
ma ma
nu nu
ba ba
mus mus
tis tis

It has been so long that the exact translation is lost on me.
The history lesson is not.

This was chanted by at least one of the many “barbarian hordes” aka indigenous European tribes who assisted the Roman empire in its inevitable self destruction, after themselves being threatened with extinction by its “expansion”.

One thing I am trying to recover from is the white guilt trip that was indoctrinated in me in school (Roman Catholic, to be exact, which is where I had the latin class)

As John Trudell notes, what the white man did to the Indian hundreds of years ago, was done to his own ancestors thousands of years ago.

I plan on following this story with great interest, being mindful of the fact that I have no first hand understanding of modern native americans.
That I am “just a white guy”.

But I do have an imagination informed by history and empathy, which is what matters the most.

The Native American community in Minneapolis (a combination of Lakota and Ojibwe, for the most part) has a publication called The Circle, which I believe is available online.

“If you have come to help me, please don’t. If you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, welcome.”
— source currently forgotten

#13

We may not bear any personal responsibility for Wounded Knee, but the genocide of the American Indian isn’t something that happened long ago–it’s still happening now. So what we do, or don’t do, now, that we do bear personal responsibility for.

#14

I agree, I always hear people say, oh it wasn’t me that did that it was my ancestors, or something along those lines like I’m not responsible for this, and that it just won’t happen again, but if you don’t take responsibility than it just keeps happening, this has been happening through history and people always say the same thing… and it keeps happening.

#15
Incidentally, I'm really disgusted by all the comments I've been reading on various blogs and message boards that this is "in the past" and they should "get over it." Or that all the Lakota's problems are their fault and the United States government does nothing but support them economically
.

The media commonly re-inforces these attitudes in relation to indigenous peoples. Even some of my own blood Canadian relatives have these notions and tend to get “irritable” when I question them openly, yet I keep doing it in the hope that they will start thinking clearly some day without being clouded by prejudice.

It’s the same old BS that promotes the notion of progress and tries to deny the sovereignty of tribal peoples. The fact is, most peoples want to govern themselves. Those that want to govern others should go colonize Mars or something, or govern machines, humans don’t take too well to outsiders telling them what to do, they never have and they never will. I think we will see more “assertion” and “secession” in this respect in the years to come, both as people get increasingly fed up, and as the myths and foundations of civ begin to break down.

#16
The media commonly re-inforces these attitudes in relation to indigenous peoples.

Yeah, the propaganda that most media outlets put out just reinforces the “clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy” that we call civilization.

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

From Endgame, by Derrick Jensen:

[b]Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.[/b]

Take care,

Curt

#17

i have been reading as much as possible about this to try and gather accurate information…it is difficult because the sources are not always listed…

one thing we should keep in mind that is despite how much many of us want independence or reparations for the lakota, this delegation did not necessarily represent all of them. if you read the discussions and blogs right after the declaration came, you can see many lakota and people living in these reservations were unaware it had even happened

it might be hard without the support of all those involved.

today is the 25th, and now it is drawing a lot of discussion…many lakota are getting involved… the press is covering it… people are talking, getting motivated

i hope the can somehow pull this off…

#18

Thought this was an interesting blog post on the situation

I wondered immediately how it was going to be downplayed. Because naturally that's what would have to happen. Someone dares to bring change, people have to squash it immediately. But I feared some kind of war or killing, or that there'd be no coverage of it at all, which is why I and several others made sure to spread the word. Wouldn't have made a difference. They could've stuck this on CNN and FoxNews and MSNBC and all. It would've only been laughed down by millions immediately. Because that's what people do. They hate those who dare to rock the boat.

The usual coverage is that Russell Means apparently is just stirring shit up, trying to get attention, doesn’t have the support of the whole Lakota nation, etc. Now keep in mind, in saying this, we’re looking at his nation in our own nation’s terms. We think of elected officials who serve under the peoples authority… of course, usually the elections are rigged, the elected is a joke, and we’re stuck with what he says no matter what until a due course is served.

The Lakota way, as was the case in many unorganized tribal nations (I say unorganized as in not nailed down to a bunch of rigid paper-written laws and fine print and all that crap, not to suggest they didn’t have any organization, because they did) was entirely different. I go by the way I learned of it from the words of a Lakota elder, so if this is incorrect, take it up with him. In Lakota, any member of the tribe is welcome and capable to stand and speak on behalf of the spirit of the Lakota. They did not have rulers. But anybody could stand up and be a leader, and you can choose to follow. Or not to follow. Even if they split, they were still one people, because they weren’t separated by differences, and no leader felt they needed the support of everyone in order to feel they had legitimate feelings. In other words, they had a system that made sense. We’re looking at them and laughing them down as if they ran by ours. Which doesn’t.

Now the silly hypocrisy of this is simple and easy to see. When European descent men wanted the land, they didn’t ask if someone was the leader or ruler of the tribe’s nation, or if they had the support of everyone. Some tribes had leaders (not “chiefs” which denotes appointed ruler). All they cared about was getting anybody to sign it so they could feel okay with taking the land. If we didn’t need them to have full support then, why would we expect it now? After all, are they not assimilated? You can’t get people to rise up and care about anything. Naturally lots of them would refuse to back this. People don’t want to rock the boat. Then they’d be inconvenienced in some way. No matter how much it needs to be done.

By the way… the majority didn’t vote for our current president. The majority didn’t vote at all. And those who issued the Declaration of Independence to England didn’t even have remotely a third of the support of the citizens (and they only counted white males as citizens, though they threw everybody else into the war) so… as you can see… if you wait for a majority, you’ll wait until you die.

Why do we refuse change so badly? Why can’t we stop beating down those daring to bring change, and start beating down those who are in control of this travesty we live under now? You make caring a thankless job when you do that. You reward your abusers and abuse your liberators. WHY???

So my original post about this was rejected from the pagan community here on LJ, but this post being more criticizing of Means, was not. How is it not even pagans will back this guy? Not saying don’t question Means by any means… question everyone… just saying why dismiss him so easily with such rancid arguments? I’m not hearing people argue against his desire or belief, because they can’t tackle that so easily. So we go instead into the technicalities of his “qualifications” to believe that!

I responded there, but I know it’s probably going to get a whole bunch of blast-back posts, so I’m bracing myself for it. I’m pretty sure that I’ll get it here too. But this action is long overdue, and we’re going to try to downplay it on a technicality? And the most hypocritical of technicalities at that.

also the site
http://www.lakotafreedom.com/media.html
released some more information the other day.

#19

Fenris, thanks. It makes sense: those who lead the way will always be in the minority.

#20

[quote=“Fenriswolfr, post:14, topic:583”]I agree, I always hear people say, oh it wasn’t me that did that it was my ancestors, or something along those lines like I’m not responsible for this, and that it just won’t happen again, but if you don’t take responsibility than it just keeps happening, this has been happening through history and people always say the same thing… and it keeps happening.[/quote] But what actions by me or us, could help? I’ve done what I thought appropriate to fight the concept of ever expanding empire. I even voted for Russell Means in the 1988 S.C. Libertarian Party State caucus. If we accept responsibility and don’t act does that mean we helped the empire? If we do what we can and don’t get the desired results how far should we go? I ask these questions from a desire to help, with no ill fealings toward you. And I picked your post to respond to because I like what you said.
Means was calling himself a “Bornagain Primitive” at the time. That and the Sci-Fi term “revert” (as a noun) were my introduction to the fact that others were interested in what some friends and I called “going feral”.
I’m not here to defend Means but I find the paganbear article you quoted compelling. He’s a jetsetter compared to some in the primitivist movement but I am mostly a man of words and little action so wont speak badly of him.

Quote from: http://paganbear.livejournal.com
I wondered immediately how it was going to be downplayed. Because naturally that’s what would have to happen. Someone dares to bring change, people have to squash it immediately. … In Lakota, any member of the tribe is welcome and capable to stand and speak on behalf of the spirit of the Lakota. They did not have rulers. But anybody could stand up and be a leader, and you can choose to follow. Or not to follow. Even if they split, they were still one people, because they weren’t separated by differences, and no leader felt they needed the support of everyone in order to feel they had legitimate feelings. In other words, they had a system that made sense. We’re looking at them and laughing them down as if they ran by ours. Which doesn’t.

Now the silly hypocrisy of this is simple and easy to see. When European descent men wanted the land, they didn’t ask if someone was the leader or ruler of the tribe’s nation, or if they had the support of everyone. Some tribes had leaders (not “chiefs” which denotes appointed ruler). All they cared about was getting anybody to sign it so they could feel okay with taking the land. If we didn’t need them to have full support then, why would we expect it now?..
… I’m not hearing people argue against his desire or belief, because they can’t tackle that so easily. So we go instead into the technicalities of his “qualifications” to believe that!

Thank you to everyone responding in this thread. There are links and information here it could take many many internet hours to find if they were found at all and much insight shown.