ChristiansUnite Forums

Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago

Thursday , December 20, 2007

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The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.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

Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,317548,00.html)

Here in Arizona, the Navaho's declared themselves a separate nation, but they continue to accept welfare payments, US road repair crews, and all federal programs. The declaration was for face only, and meant nothing. Navaho's still enlist in the US army, and have no military forces of their own. They impose no taxes, and it was all just talk.

Interesting...they say they will issue their own passports and do all sorts of things that cost money and would require some form of centralized gment...but yet no taxes so who is going to pay for it?  They declare their own soveriegnty then they get cut off from US Federal funds in my book.

And leave themselves open to be conquered...again.

The word sovereignty has a unique meaning when it comes to Tribal laws vs U.S. laws. Wikipedia does have some excellent articles this subject. See    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty    and the associated links at the bottom of that page.

The Lakota Tribe wants to move that to the full meaning of the word sovereignty, blaming the U.S. for its woes such as the statement:


This statement is correct however nothing is done by the tribe to change their condition with most of them rejecting the educational system provided for them due to the desire to maintain a lifestyle that keeps their people in the traditions of their ancestors. Although the federal benefits they have been living on is not adequate enough to properly sustain them their is a need for them to do something first to correct that problem before they can withdraw completely as they claim to want. Their people need proper education instead of dropping out of school, formation of sustainable businesses (not just gambling and tobacco) that provide sufficient job availability and income to their people. It is these things that need fixed for their people to get out of the situation that they are in. As was mentioned by Brother Jerry they are not ready by any means to be a completely sovereign nation for they cannot provide proper security against those that may want to "conquer them" let alone the basic necessities of life.

Which is a fundamental problem in that for many it is better for them to live off of the government handouts that it is to find work.  That is why unemployment is rampant with people living on the reservation.  Alcoholism is still a large problem on many reservations, gambling, and all manner of sin. 

Canada has the same problem.

Sioux Indians "Withdraw From the USA"? Or not!

Here is the kind of story that really proves how little the MSM bothers to research things, how they often simply print glorified press releases without doing any real "journalism," and how the defective end product gets picked up and regurgitated like it is suddenly a "fact." In this one we have the story of "the Lakota Sioux Indians" announcing that "they" have withdrawn from agreed upon treaties with the US government and that they are now a sovereign nation, no longer to be called citizens of the USA. Problem is "the Lakota Sioux Indians" that have made this announcement are just an unaffiliated group of Indian activists the leader of whom does not represent the official Lakota tribe leadership! Yet here is the news media reporting this story as if all "the Lakota Sioux Indians" have banded together and quit the union.

But, who says that "the Lakota Sioux Indians" have abandoned their treaties?


And who is this Russell Means? He is a long time Indian activist and sometimes Hollywood actor who does not officially represent any tribe, that's who. It takes the local press to make this clear. The Rapid City Journal of Rapid City, South Dakota (following post) informs us that, "Means' group is based in Porcupine on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation," and that "it is not an agency or branch of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Means ran unsuccessfully for president of the tribe in 2006."

Yet in report after report, this Means character is presented as if he is "the Lakota Sioux" when, in truth, all he really is, is A Lakota Sioux — not a representative of all of them. He does not represent American Indians except as a tangential, activist. He has no authority to make this "declaration of Independence" from the U.S.A. for "the" Lakota or any other American Indian tribe for that matter.

It turns out that these reports are nearly all just a rehash of Russell Means’ press releases and not based on any real reporting at all.

And here is the worst part. The bulk of the news outlets that have picked up this story are foreign press agencies like the Agence Presse France, The Telegraph, and Radio Netherlands, all of whom presented this as if it was somehow legal and binding instead of an activist's scheming.

So, since this story wasn't reported correctly, foreigners are imagining that all American Indians are trying to leave the USA and become a new nation. The truth is less shocking, that Russell Means does not represent "the Lakota Sioux Indians" at all.

What we end up with here is lazy reporting, pure and simple. Instead of making clear to the reader that this Means fellow is but an activist, a cheap version of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton without the clout, the reader could be excused for imagining that the entirety of the Sioux Nation is prepared to quit the U.S.A.

The American media at work once again.

Lakota group secedes from U.S.

Political activist Russell Means, a founder of the American Indian Movement, says he and other members of Lakota tribes have renounced treaties and are withdrawing from the United States.

"We are now a free country and independent of the United States of America," Means said in a telephone interview. "This is all completely legal."

Means said a Lakota delegation on Monday delivered a statement of "unilateral withdrawal" from the United States to the U.S. State Department in Washington.

The State Department did not respond. "That'll take some time," Means said.

Meanwhile, the delegation has delivered copies of the letter to the embassies of Bolivia, Venezuela, Chile and South Africa. "We're asking for recognition," Means said, adding that Ireland and East Timor are "very interested" in the declaration.

Other countries will get copies of the same declaration, which Means said also would be delivered to the United Nations and to state and county governments covered by treaties, including treaties signed in 1851 and 1868. "We're willing to negotiate with any American political entity," Means said.

The United States could face international pressure if it doesn't agree to negotiate, Means said. "The United State of America is an outlaw nation, we now know. We've understood that as a people for 155 years."

Means also said his group would file liens on property in parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming that were illegally homesteaded.

The Web site for the declaration, "Lakota Freedom," briefly crashed Thursday as wire services picked up the story and the server was overwhelmed, Means said.

Delegation member Phyllis Young said in an online statement: "We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren." Young was an organizer of Women of All Red Nations.

Other members of the delegation include Rapid City-area activist Duane Martin Sr. and Gary Rowland, a leader of the Chief Big Foot Riders.

Means said anyone could live in the Lakota Nation, tax free, as long as they renounced their U.S. citizenship. The nation would issue drivers licenses and passports, but each community would be independent. "It will be the epitome of individual liberty, with community control," Means said.

To make his case, Means cited several articles of the U.S. Constitution, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and a recent nonbinding U.N. resolution on the rights of indigenous people.

He thinks there will be international pressure. "If the U.S. violates the law, the whole world will know it," Means said.

Means' group is based in Porcupine on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

It is not an agency or branch of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Means ran unsuccessfully for president of the tribe in 2006.

Lakota tribes have long claimed that the U.S. government stole land guaranteed by treaties -- especially in western South Dakota. "The Missouri River is ours, and so are the Black Hills," Means said.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1980 awarded the tribes $122 million as compensation, but the court did not award land. The Lakota have refused the settlement. (As interest accrues, the unclaimed award is approaching $1 billion.)

In the late 1980s, then-Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey introduced legislation to return federal land to the tribes, and California millionaire Phil Stevens also tried to win support for a proposal to return the Black Hills to the Lakota.