BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Republic of Lakota group secede from US, intending to create their own country

 
 
Dutch
11:15 / 22.12.07
"During the week of December 17-19, 2007, we traveled to Washington DC and withdrew from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country. We are alerting the Family of Nations we have now reassumed our freedom and independence with the backing of Natural, International, and United States law."

(http://lakotafreedom.com/about.html)

Apparently, the lakota people, who have lobbied for more rights and recognition since the 1970's have finally taken the step of trying to create a different country within US territory. Arguably, they are bolstered by the creation of the Nunavut territory granted to Inuit people in 1999, where the Canadian government allocated them large tracts of land and rights to self-government. The Lakota people might also see themselves strengthened by the adoption of UN guidelines that respected the rights of indigenous people in September of 2007 - a decision that the US opposed as it clashed with its own laws..

What do the barbeloids think of this development? I think its very commendable to see that people are now claiming for themselves that which they should have been given as a right a long time ago. But does it stand chance of succeeding? How will the US government react to this action which it might perceive as open rebellion against federal law and the status quo?
 
 
Chiropteran
12:52 / 22.12.07
(For reference, there's some discussion of this in the Christian Exodus thread. I think it definitely deserves a thread of its own, though. I'd post more, but I'm leaving for work.)
 
 
at the scarwash
18:24 / 22.12.07
How representative of the Lakota as a whole is this action? Russell Means is not the elected tribal president, although he has run for that office. On that subject, the Lakota Freedom Delegation website says

We do not represent those BIA or IRA governments beholden to the colonial apartheid system, or those "stay by the fort" Indians who are unwilling claim their freedom.

So, who are the "stay by the fort Indians," and who are the Lakota that Means et al. are speaking for?
 
 
This Sunday
18:41 / 22.12.07
It is my understanding, that the Lakota have not taken any such action; Russell Means and his associates have.

Which, as I understand it, is his legal right. It is not, however, reflective of the tribe, tribal government, or any other member of the tribe.
 
 
This Sunday
18:49 / 22.12.07
Russell Means is not the elected tribal president, although he has run for that office.

He also tried to run for the office of U.S. President.
 
 
Chiropteran
16:03 / 27.12.07
It is not, however, reflective of the tribe, tribal government, or any other member of the tribe.

Concerning the authority of the delegation to act as representatives of the greater Lakota community, a statement has been posted at lakotafreedom.com:

Despite criticism the Delegation does not speak for the Lakota people, Delegation representatives have been in ongoing communication with the traditional chiefs and treaty councils all across Lakota for the last three and a half years.

Canupa Gluha Mani (Duane Martin Sr.) , leader of the Cante Tenza (Strongheart Warrior Society) of the Ogalala Lakota and Oyate Wacinyapin (Russell Means) have been in discussion with the traditional treaty councils across Lakota. The traditional treaty councils in the following communities were consulted:

* Pine Ridge
* Porcupine
* Kyle
* Rosebud
* Lower Brule
* Cheyenne River
* Standing Rock
* Flandreau

Additional consultation with the treaty council occurred during Defenders of Black Hills meeting in Rapid City. Mni yuha Najin Win (Phyllis Young) also consulted with the people in Standing Rock regarding this action.


I'm sufficiently ignorant of the existing Lakota administrative structure that I'm not sure how meaningful this statement is (who are the "traditional treaty councils," and who do they represent? what are their relationships with the Lakota government, etc? also, by "consultation" are we to understand "full endorsement?"), but it suggests that the declaration was not entirely an isolated act by the individuals who made up the delegation without any community involvement.
 
 
Chiropteran
16:17 / 27.12.07
...which is to say, can anyone evaluate their statement more completely? Is there, as I've seen suggested (by various persons of unknown credibility in various online forums) a kind of "parallel" structure in Lakota government, with the (unpopular) official or legal government on one hand and the "traditional" (and popular, though not Federally-recognized) tribal leaders on the other? Someone brought up (in offline discussion) a comparison with the situation of Vichy France and de Gaulle's Provisional Government - how apt is this (and can it stand as any kind of precedent)?

More broadly, can anyone offer any insight or context beyond what is offered by the Lakota Freedom delegation themselves?
 
 
grant
17:18 / 27.12.07
I wish I could accurately summarize In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Mathiessen but I can't. It's... complicated. Means is a player in it, although Leonard Peltier and AIM (who kinda sorta disavow Means now) are the main focus.

To me, it seems like the most practical upshot of the declaration is a legal framework for the nation to collect rent or other money for real estate.

There are lots of voices giving perspectives on Lakota political history over here. Well, really, it's a Peltier supporter, but he quotes his critics extensively.

It's probably important to point out that Means came out of AIM and AIM came out of a time when the government-friendly tribal leadership actually had police who called themselves "goons" - Guardians of the Oglala Nation. And, according to many involved, acted the part.
 
 
Chiropteran
19:04 / 27.12.07
Wow, a whole lot of stuff to read there - thanks, grant.
 
 
Chiropteran
19:20 / 27.12.07
From the site grant links to above: "Who To Believe?", an older article that talks a little about the conflicts between "traditional people" and the tribal councils (and a little about the GOON Squad, too). Good for a little bit of context, maybe.
 
 
Dutch
11:42 / 19.02.08
So, does anyone have any new information regarding the developments surrounding this?

It seems very quiet now, two months afterwards, and I'm wondering if there is a censorship of sorts going on.

Their main site hasn't been updated for quiter some time now, I wonder what's up.
 
 
grant
16:31 / 20.02.08
Well, maybe they're being ignored into submission. Or else they're rallying the real estate lawyers.
 
 
Dutch
12:16 / 21.02.08
I wonder if the Bush's administration's recent recognition of the declaration of independance of cosovo, would give the lakota freedom movement more ammunition for their striving.

I doubt however that the American government would ever concede any minority within the boundaries of the U.S. sovereignty as the canadians have done towards the inuit.
 
 
grant
15:11 / 21.02.08
Welllll.... reservations are technically sovereign - they're not subject to local police or taxation, which is why you can buy cheap liquor and cigarettes around the Seminole Hard Rock, and how Indian casinos got set up to begin with.
 
 
grant
19:04 / 01.05.08
By the way, Hawaiian nationalists have taken over the old royal palace. They've locked themselves in.

The building is adjacent to the state capital.

State Sen. Kalani English — a Native Hawaiian and a Democrat from East Maui-Lanai-Molokai — came over from the Capitol to speak with some of the protesters, and had his staff take them food.

"This is the manifestation of the frustration of the Hawaiian people for the loss of sovereignty and land," English said.

"It is symbolic. This made a statement. It got the word out about the plight of the Hawaiian people," he said.

Richard Kinney, who described himself as an independent Hawaiian nationalist, said he went to the Capitol to show his support. He carried an upside-down Hawaii state flag, signaling distress.

"The sovereignty of these islands is inherent to the Hawaiian people, and we've never relinquished that," he said.

"Occupying any land, including Iolani Palace, is the beginning," Kinney said.


Meanwhile, the Republic of Lakotah website says they were planning on having a meeting April 4-6, but doesn't say how it went.

Russell Means was running for Pine Ridge Reservation President 2008 at the beginning of April, but I can't find anything on Google about that race.
 
 
This Sunday
19:24 / 01.05.08
Dibs on Alcatraz!

I do wonder if we're in for an AIM/WARM resurgence, and how much of it will be racial or, this time, nationalist. Whether it'll be useful and practical this time, more successful or less, et cetera et cet.
 
 
grant
13:51 / 28.05.08
Here's another article on Native American tribes buying back their land. Which current land owners and town mayors and folks find worrying.

This may be the more practical approach... at least if you happen to be one of the wealthier tribes.
 
 
mashedcat
21:11 / 16.10.08
has Ossetia got the same legitimate claim as Kosovo ?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
10:25 / 17.10.08
What has that got to do with this thread?

ETA: Apart from the the tenuous link made above. But still, is there any reason to believe that US Gov support for foreign secessionists, esp in areas which are particularly contentious for old enemy Russia, will have any impact at all on reactions to secessionist groups inside the US?
 
  
Add Your Reply