Comments:Lakota activists declare secession from US

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Incredible[edit]

The only thing that would make them totally free is their own country/borders...literally. Actually this is amazing. I can only imagine how the rest of this is going to play out. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well keep imagining, because the most they'll get out of this are some additional subsidies. Sorry, to be a downer/realist. What were you hoping for? Another civil war? --SVTCobra 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with DF on this one, that is amazing, although they're obviously not going to war, What if the tribe doesn't go back to the United States? In any case, it will be interesting to watch the politicians scramble to fix the issue. Bawolff 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "if the tribe doesn't go back to the United States"? They're inside the US, where are they gonna go? If they isolate themselves, all they will achieve is starvation. As the article notes, it's been attempted before. --SVTCobra 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this group actually has a mandate to speak for the Lakota as a whole? Any evidence of current popular support among Lakota people? Their website only cites a "Indian Treaty Council" in 1974 and says they are doing the work they were asked to do then. --SVTCobra 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the tribe will most likely not go to war, but I also believe that the US will kill them all on some trumped up charge before letting them declare independence. If they allowed it then some of the states would start to realize that the Federal government costs them more than it grants, especially given how corrupt it currently is. The constitution was written for 4 million people. How can anyone expect to get the same representation when there are 300million people. The US government wont allow a precedent to be set where any groups is allowed to declare independence for fear that it will prompt a load of other people to do the same. I mean, come on, don't people realize that you don't have critical rights under any government?Rekov 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically, the land they are on, although a "reservation" they already have their own laws and such. they don't pay taxes already, this opens the door for them to make their own country and borders. The government cannot take away the land that they are on. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically, didn't the south have the right to secede from the union? I'm not sure, but I know that ever since the US civil war no state would ever be granted the right to secede. Are they trying to claim just their reservation? If they want anything more than that I could see the US using troops.Rekov 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes they can claim only their reservation...I think...but I don't know now that all the treaties they signed with the US are null and void...so does that mean they are taking back their land(s)? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
An unelected splinter group of secessionists can't legally speak for the Lakota people or dissolve treaties. This is essentially a publicity stunt to draw attention to their cause. --Demiquave 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Visit Lakotafreedom.com today, learn about what you are discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.119.12 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure they can. You violate a contract it becomes null an void. Technically these treaties were null and void the second the US broke them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they do not officially represent the Lakota people will be used to crush this attempted secession. Even if they do, the fact that they were not voted into a position of authority indicates that the US government will say something like "You don't represent the people, so you can't declare secession." --Rekov 21 December 2007
The US Constitution doesn't exactly have an escape clause outlining how you go about secession, but you might argue something with the 9th and 10th Amendments. However, the Alaskan Supreme Court has ruled that secession is illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, so there is precedent against it. I'm not sure about the treaties. I think that one family in Montana that tried to secede some years ago should have been allowed to (as an example to others -have a stiff tariff placed on anything they try to sell to the US, they'd need a green card in order to work in the US, have to go through customs in order to go to and from home, have to go through naturalization in order to regain their citizenship). There is also something to what Gav of Nukees said, after the 2000 election, "The worst thing to happen to this country was winning the Civil War." (My home state of Missouri voted to stay in the Union. Even though we had a war with Kansas as a warm-up for the main event.) But even I think you need to be an elected representative of your people in order to declare secession or even to anull a treaty. Crazyeddie 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Russell Means does not represent The Sioux Nation or even the Lakota.[edit]

Your article attributes the actions of an individual to an entire nation in error. Why are you making this stuff up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.80.254 (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was made by someone who has not done enough research.

Lakotafreedom.com visit it today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.119.12 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This article does not reflect reality. It is not true. It should be deleted.[edit]

Please don't use wikinews to spread disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.80.254 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice. Mind saying why its not true and disinformation? Bawolff 06:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is not true because it attributes Russell Means' views to an entire nation, when he was never chosen to represent that nation. See, for example http://rapidcityjournal.com/blogs/editor/?p=339

Lakotafreedom.com visit it today...before you open your mouth and look like the fool above.

Oh it's true alright and all the wishful thinking in the world will not make it otherwise. The United States is going the same way as the Soviet Union and good riddance for there is surely not a more evil and perverse nation on the face of the Earth. Now it remains to be seen whether the United States will play the tyrant and deny the people their fundamental right to self determination. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.97.161 (talkcontribs)

Never does it say that Means IS a representative of the tribe. It does say he is a tribal activist. Totally different thing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
But it does kinda render it a non-event if the Lakota Freedom Delegation doesn't have support among their own people. --SVTCobra 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the delegation would declare independence in D.C., write to the state department and formally announce the cancellation of treaties, without support from the Indian nation let alone thier own people DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Russell Means has ran and lost for presidency of the Oglala Sioux many times. If he had the kind of widespread mandate necessary to make policy decisions like this, its likely that he would have won at least once. --Demiquave 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
People do crazy stuff all the time. Just the other day someone sent an arrest warrant for Prodi to Interpol. (and then they posted it here, of course). --SVTCobra 12:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Just look at 'Emperor' Norton. He unilaterally ordered Congress dissolved. Crazyeddie 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I hope it's true. It's about time they stood up for themselves, but I haven't heard it elsewhere, so I must question its credibility. PurplePerson —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

From the website Lakotafreedom.com[edit]

Lakotah, through its government, appointed the following representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties entered into force in 1980 and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007: Teghiya Kte Heretofore known as Gary Rowland Canupa Gluha Mani Heretofore known as Duane Martin Sr. Oyate Wacinyapin Heretofore know as Russell Means Mni yuha Najin Win Heretofore known as Phyllis Young

kinda looks like they DID represent the people.

Not in the way most English speakers mean when they say 'represent' in a legal context such as this one; i.e. an elected representative. Russell Means is a well known activist, Phyllis Young is the head of Women of All Red Nations, Duane Martin Sr. is the leader of the Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society, and Garry Rowland is the Chief of the Big Foot Riders, all of which are groups providing advocacy, support and activism for Native interests. These folks are certainly prominent in Oglala society, but they aren't elected officials, which makes all the difference in the world, especially when their leader couldn't even become the Tribal President. One must truly speak for one's people before pulling a stunt like this. --Demiquave 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We are all related.[edit]

Visit their website...THEN form an opinion.

Lakotafreedom.com

check it all out.

I am personally suprised at the LACK of publicity this is getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.119.12 (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just because they're a bunch of crazy activists. Activists do stupid things like this all the time. It's called micronations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.247.31 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do they have a mandate?[edit]

Do the persons who declared independence have a democratic mandate to do so? --Ganchelkas 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we looking at being the next Israel?[edit]

As of the posting of this comment, I have not read or seen any media outlets touch on this subject. Although I don't completly agree with the Lakota People, I do see their point. This will make and change the face of the United States. Are we in fact United? If the Lakota People are successfull, is that going to make their land like the Palestinian territories? Are we going to be the next Israel? Should we set the example for how to co-habitat within the United States? Will America even allow this to happen? What will happen with all the other Tribes that are within the United States? Will they try and do the same as the Lakota Tribe? Will the Indians become another race in our already troubleing racial profiling? Will Texas follow suite?

Juan Roachnone 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Brookfield WI

In a nutshell, no.
HTH. --Demiquave 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

go lakota[edit]

Great job. We owe the NATIVE AMERICANS something...we did in fact take the land from them. lets see America educates illegal mexicans children for FREE, pays money back to blacks because we had slaves...but lets take indians land and given them 97% povery rate, average age of 44. I was born in montana raised in North Dakota. All my family still lives in Montana and North Dakota (on Lakota land) and I say go for it Lakota. If everyone else from African Americans to Mexicans can get money from America and land why not you...whos land america was in the first place.

Lakotah Indian Tribe[edit]

This is great news! I hope they can make a peaceful separation without being attacked as my Southern Forefathers were when we tried to break away from the union. God bless each and every one of these brave souls! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katanatac (talkcontribs) 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the Civil War was a great war.

about time[edit]

I think this is great and it is about time that it has happened. I am only half native american myself but i have always supported my people and always felt that they have gotten the short end of the stick. So it is about time that the United States stops pissing on the Native Americans as well as the rest of the nation with the war in Iraq and the inflated gas prices that only makes the rich man richer and the poor man dead so i think it is the perfect wake up call for the not so United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.53.159 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Get off your lazy ass and get to work. No one owes you or me or anyone else anything for what has happened in the past. If you want more than what you have now go and work for it. No one ever drowned in their own sweat! I don't care how down trodden you feel, hard work will overcome any poverty. American Indians were defeted in war, so were the Mexicans, so were the Germans, the Japanese, the French, virtually every nation on earth has lost a war, but only those that toiled with hard laborious work overcame their poverty. If you feel opressed move to some other part of the world and try starting over some where else as my ansestors did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.106.131 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

History in progress[edit]

I think that this is one move the Lakota tribe won't be sorry to make. It might also inspire other tribes to do the same, essentially leaving the United States sorry for not living up to their end of the bargain

75.89.67.103 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Karl

Paying taxes[edit]

It's not fair that they don't have to pay taxes. I'm an American, but I have to pay taxes to the damn government. I never asked to be born in the U.S.

history[edit]

I hope history DOES NOT repeat itself....everytime any state or group has tried to withdraw from the UNITED STATES, the US government has murdered people... the civil war WAKO Ruby Ridge etc etc etc. Every Native nation has every right to want to seceede from the Union. I just hope that this time there will NOT be bloodshed. Peace, Kath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.101.3 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Beware of History[edit]

Perhaps those few signers have forgotten their history. The last time members of their tribe opposed the United States they were summarily defeated in a war. At the end of war to the victor go the spoils. It does not matter if the war was just or the treaties "fair" the results were what they were. Andrew Jackson once said, "We can have no Sovran Nation within the boundaries of this (the United States) Sovran Nation." It should be then as it should be now.The only way this country will fail is to implode through division. This country is the worlds melting pot where all cultures become assimilated into a new culture. Thomas O'Doole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.106.131 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If these folks ain't careful, they may find themselves reclassified as "enemy combatants" and relocated to Guantanamo for good even when/if they are the original "Department of Homeland Security" and battled the first terrorists to cause havoc on US soil...

-75.202.120.191 —Preceding comment was added at 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the demographics?[edit]

How much of the country (?) of Lakotah is actually inhabited primarily by Lakota Native Americans? 204.52.215.107 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "How about an update to current..."[edit]

How about an update to current status and outcome of this? —68.54.38.111 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I am outraged and sad about th..."[edit]

I am outraged and sad about the lakota story. I did not know there are so many tribes.I saw the story on TV yesterday. I have just finished reading their story on Wikinews. —72.79.210.142 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concerns of the Native American people and it is easy to see why they feel inclined to secede from the U.S., but it is apparent that they do not understand the consequences if this was to be taken seriously by the State Department, or the Dept. of Interior. First of all, one does not simply detach oneself without expecting there to be some repercussions. The benefits of all treaties would be forfeited and the real suffering of these people would begin. Secondly, where would they find sufficient resources to survive without the means to purchase those resources? Thirdly, I am afraid that the children would suffer greatly without medicine and without trained medical staff. I believe that the main reason for the secession attempt is simply race based and racism will always thrive where hearts are cold as stone. Today's common American has a deep appreciation for the Native American peoples which I think this group has failed to see. If we cannot get past the racism of the past and move forward to conducting ourselves with an appreciation of each other, we will always have these animosities rearing their ugly heads. If the Gov't truly has done things to cause the mistrust of these people, they owe it to every American to abide themselves by the treaties which were written. They should be as good as the paper they were written on and signed.