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.Their intention is “to become a free and independent country”. They have already sought recognition from Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa. Their press conference was attended by Bolivian ambassador Gustavo Guzman as a show of solidarity. The Bolivian government is reviewing their diplomatic documents.
Will this become a Waco type massacre, or Ruby Ridge type siege? Or will it involve the US armed forces, as in a civil war? Will it be fought in the courts, or in the desolate reservations where Indians were stuffed more than a century ago? Most importantly, will it stick?
With luck, this issue has captured enough sympathy with other countries in the UN, that they won’t be able to pull off a Ruby Ridge scenario. ESPECIALLY since their sovereign status was already put down on paper and hasn’t managed to be fully erased yet. Part of me wonders if they won’t actually succeed at this, but any other tribes thinking of taking this measure had better jump now, because our the Bush Administration will break, bend and erase things to make sure they can’t as soon as the stunned immobility stops. The previous is thinking that Bush’s advisors will be able to leash him and stop him from charging into battle thinking he’s Lincoln.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are 561 tribes recognized by the federal government, accounting for more than 55 million acres of land (which the government says it holds “in trust” for them.) A general uprising might be more than Bush could handle. I believe it would make his troubles in Iraq pale (no pun intended) by comparison.
And the income they make from the Tribal tourist endeavors, and casinos won’t be flowing into the Government, and I’d bet that amount would be enough to sting.
With an 85% unemployment rate, a 97% poverty rate, and a third world infant mortality rate, I’m not sure the US can brag about what its welfare has accomplished. As for highways, you must be joking, unless highway can mean “ruts dug out by exhausted farmers”.
By this I mean “rich tribes, like the tribe who built the clear platform at the Grand Canyon”. They have to give up a cut of their income to the US Government in order to be able to operate, do they not?
Are you saying the tribe could be totally self-sustaining? Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter if they have treaties with other countries if those countries cannot get access, and the Lakota do not own shipping docks or their own airport.
Wow. So is this a ceremonial gesture, a dramatic means to get some real aid and/or recognition, or is this tantamount to the succession of the Union? Should I go out and buy newspapers with this announcement to save for my great-grandchildren, or will this all be placated with another casino and some food stamps?
This sounds snarky, I guess. But I’m so uneducated about the First Nations (usually I say “Indian”, but they say First Nation on their website, so I extend that little respect their way) politics that I really don’t know what to make of this.
Who’s to say whether the US will allow passportless passage a la Canada, or whether it will continue to treat the Indians like dogs. Nothing would be cooler than a Berlin airlift carried out by Bolivia. After Katrinagate and other Bush disasters, and with a Congress that lacks the balls of a neutered cat, it remains to be seen how much effect, if any, a reaction of worldwide astonishment at such a thing might have. But if I’m betting my money, it’s going to be take a stand and starve 'em out. After all, it’s not like they’re strangers to hunger.
I’m not sure what the answers are to all that, WhyNot. But for clarity, they call themselves Indians, as in “representatives of Lakota Sioux Indians”. It is the nation itself that they call First Nation, as in “an Indigenous First Nation of North America”, which they would also call any of the other 560 nations. (Also, the term would be secession, not succession.)
I sincerely doubt this. Being a truly independent country means closing off and defending your borders. It means you can’t get goods and services from anyone without having an agreement with the US government to that effect. It means the US has the right/duty to set up border checkpoints that can restrict what goods get to flow into and out of your country.
If you think the US is holding your people down today, imagine when you can’t get a damn Twinkie without US government approval.
That’s a good sized area. There’s a long-standing dispute over royalties for oil and mining, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s part in the swindle. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
I’m not sure what it is you’re doubting. It is a direct quote.
Maybe sometimes. But apparently, the US can’t close off and defend its own border with Mexico if the presidential candidates are to be believed. At any rate, many colateral nations live in peace without military defenses or impassable fences.
That already happens. The BIA strictly controls what goes in and out of reservations, as it views itself as a trustee of the land.
Well, I suppose that’s where they’ve drawn the line then. Will the US government deny them Twinkies after denying them employment, material subsistance, and life beyond the age of 44?
I don’t think this has a chance of working out. The U.S. fought a much bloodier battle over the southern states leaving. I can’t tell from their website whether this group has some sort of official standing among the Lakota. I would be interested in knowing more about this group.
If you think that the U.S. will let Bolivian planes fly over U.S. airspace to aid a secessionist group, I’ve got a bridge to sell you cheap.
I grew up with Lakota and a large Lakota reservation nearby. I went to school with several Lakota and worked with them as well after school. Now, those may be more ‘white’ than others so maybe not a good comparison.
When I went to college, my roommate was Lakota. He and his friends took a liking to me and taught me much of the Lakota language (which, sadly is gone after 20 years of non-use), was invited to parties (pow-wow’s? I think they informally called them - not sure what they were officially called - but mainly served as a hook-up place for unattached Lakota as far as I could tell
It puzzles me because many of my roommates friends were pro-USA. Many joined the armed services. Don’t get me wrong, they were fiercely proud of being Lakota.
The reservation did seem poor, but not more than other areas of ND I had seen. My parents were pretty poor and I grew up that way…so I don’t remember it seeming ‘really bad’ comparitively. The one thing I did notice was the use of alcohol. Now, young uns on the plains really abuse alcohol, but I do remember Lakota seeming to be worse than normal on that.
I just don’t see those I remember being in favor of succession. I DO think they want more independence maybe much like the states have. In this I agree…it would be cool to come up with some sort of ‘state’ within them where they can govern themselves as states do with some sort of congressional representation as well. I think that would satisfy the majority of them.
I’m doubting that their public statement accurately describes their real goals.
Things could get a lot harder when you’re denied medicine, fuel, electricity, farming equipment, etc. We’re not talking about the BIA controlling what goes in or out, we’re talking about international trade with a country that just broke all of their treaties with you.
The Lakota don’t have the critical mass of natural/human resources to govern themselves effectively. Does anybody really believe that divorcing themselves from the US government is going to relieve all of their medical / economic / social problems?
For the sake of accuracy, the Lakota haven’t declared independence. Four Lakota activists have. They don’t have the endorsement of any of the Sioux nations. As Means himself puts it:
