|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
An independent country within the US?
#7787260 - 12/21/07 09:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US
The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.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.
---------------------------------------------
I'm not aware of any other country within a country like this, and it looks like it'll take a good-sized chunk out of US land.


Sound like an interesting situation.
Edited by Disco Cat (12/25/07 12:17 AM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7787367 - 12/21/07 10:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
that's pretty fucking cool
i might even consider moving there if this is legit
|
kidaihuan
First Growery Ban



Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 3,173
Loc: Shanghai, China
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
|
I can see the US invading them. Haha.
Or at least occupying.
They should consider starting banking system that can be like an overseas bank to rich millionares. Then they can get rich and live like kings in their new country.
Problem though. If it is tax free, how the fuck are they going to imprison people and run their government?
|
kidaihuan
First Growery Ban



Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 3,173
Loc: Shanghai, China
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: kidaihuan]
#7787406 - 12/21/07 10:14 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Also, how do they plan to get from their satellite areas to the main one? That may be a problem.
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens



Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: kidaihuan]
#7787898 - 12/22/07 02:00 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well obviously they're terrorists so we'll invade the fuck outa them.
--------------------
|
kidaihuan
First Growery Ban



Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 3,173
Loc: Shanghai, China
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: learningtofly]
#7788005 - 12/22/07 03:33 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
See, that's what I don't understand.
The term terrorist is so broad now, everyone could be a terrorist. Except the military and the government of course.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
|
I think the US Civil War pretty much answered any question about what happens when a group of people that are part of the US claim otherwise. Although history would like us to think the US Civil War was about slavery, the real cause of the war was the southern states trying to leave the union.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Seuss]
#7788315 - 12/22/07 09:07 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Come on California, break off!
--------------------
|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 11 hours
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Visionary Tools]
#7788320 - 12/22/07 09:15 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It might be profitable to raid them, i mean, they can't use the U.S. police or military to protect themselves, so what is to stop someone from going in, blowing up one of their casinos, and robbing them worse than we did the first time?
|
xFrockx



Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 11 days, 11 hours
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Seuss]
#7788327 - 12/22/07 09:17 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one. Try reading some books or newspapers from back then, you'll quickly realize that it really was about slavery.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: xFrockx]
#7788347 - 12/22/07 09:31 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one. Try reading some books or newspapers from back then, you'll quickly realize that it really was about slavery.
Quote:
Lincoln made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union. On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after a draft of it was on his desk, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: xFrockx]
#7788493 - 12/22/07 10:30 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one. Try reading some books or newspapers from back then, you'll quickly realize that it really was about slavery.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7788583 - 12/22/07 11:05 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said:

if i'm not mistaken does that mean that mount rushmore was built on an indian reservation? are they going to claim mount rushmore as theirs?
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7788742 - 12/22/07 12:10 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/13/21 01:47 PM)
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 18 days, 19 hours
|
|
Oh ! An American Kosovo !
But really, the arguments fly around every country internal situation. Here in Europe, countries like Spain or Cyprus, among others, are not in favor of Kosovo independence for obvious reasons. Strangely the US is in favor ... so the Indian nation freedom hopes are "logically" covered. But hey, who ever said politics are logical ...
MAIA
-------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: xFrockx]
#7789164 - 12/22/07 01:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one. Try reading some books or newspapers from back then, you'll quickly realize that it really was about slavery.
This was said earlier but it was a perfect response so I'll repeat it (with a little more because the original statement was quite funny):
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: if i'm not mistaken does that mean that mount rushmore was built on an indian reservation? are they going to claim mount rushmore as theirs?
Yes. Mt. Rushmore was illegally built in violation of a treaty, and they have every right to claim it as their own.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Silversoul]
#7789242 - 12/22/07 02:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If the federal government doesn't respect their wishes, perhaps they would dynamite it. Imagine what kind of signal that would send. The international community would collectively condemn America if they engaged in genocide, or attacking "terrorists". They have this right.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: xFrockx]
#7789827 - 12/22/07 05:09 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> This is the popular "alternative history" that people spout off, but not the true one.
I did quite a lot of research into the subject for my term paper for modern history in college. I went into the project with your position and came out with what I posted above. It is pretty obvious when you read the actual statements written by the people that were making decisions that the motivation for the Civil War was to preserve the union. Of course, this wouldn't have gone over well with the population, as it wasn't really justified in the Constitution, thus slavery became the issue in order to sell the war. Funny, times really haven't changed that much...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: An independant country within the US? [Re: Seuss]
#7790011 - 12/22/07 05:48 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
yeppers
there are plenty of sources showing lincoln was not the racial unifier he is sometimes portrayed to be, and that he actually prefered segregation if the blacks were to remain in this country.
edit: nevermind, allready covered
Edited by johnm214 (12/22/07 05:55 PM)
|
|