Lakota country, new free country within US teritory.

@polachicago (19077)
United States
December 21, 2007 8:05pm CST
I have to say that I admire Lakota Indians. The Lakota Indians have withdrawn from treaties with the United States. 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. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html Do you think that new country can survive on its own?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
22 Dec 07
thinking about it yup it just might make it as the Government have never lived up to any treaty the handed any band or tribe of native americans. Even here in Nevada ther is a res just a few miles from vegas and the government istring to take the land out there for what I have no idea for there is nothing out there its all desert! one small town. thats it. what in the world would nevada want with this land and move the Indians off it the old ones say they wont go this is thier home where they were born and raised and the only home they have ever known. I hope they keep up the figh to keep what is their right! waaahooooooooo for all Natives to fight fo rthier right to live where they are and not be shifted again like back in the 1800s .
1 person likes this
@polachicago (19077)
• United States
22 Dec 07
I think this is good movement and in the end, they are going to be much better...
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
22 Dec 07
I sure hope so they need a break some where after all these year under the government!
• United States
22 Dec 07
Thy probably want to put in more casinos so that the whites can make more money off of the natives. The whites will not be satisfied until they have all that is left.
• United States
22 Dec 07
How can they do any worse? I am of Cheyenne heritage and I believe that they can do a lot better job of governing themselves instead of the United States government. Just look at what the US has done here and abroad, not very good. I just hope that they get the land that they deserve and are entitled to, maybe other tribes will do the same thing and make their own government with land that is owed to them. But then the US government would start to loose more money from the Native citizens so that would try to make it illegal to do anything like this. I hope that they have thought of provisions for retirement, medical and other things that are needed. I know that they probably thought of better ways than the US government has being doing.
1 person likes this
@polachicago (19077)
• United States
22 Dec 07
I am hoping that they get some help from other countries, as they are planning to visit...:)
@Idlewild (6105)
• United States
22 Dec 07
I haven't read much about this, but don't know if the tribe has any legal basis for withdrawing from a treaty that it signed. Yes, the U.S. government broke many treaties, but I would think the govt. would take the Lakota to court to prevent them from backing out of the treaty. In short, I don't know if simply saying they are withdrawing from this treaty is going to mean that they are legally able to set up their own country.
@polachicago (19077)
• United States
22 Dec 07
I wish them the best....:)
• United States
23 Dec 07
The government is the one who backed out of the treaty by breaking almost all of them if not all of them. I call that "backing out" if anything.
@Idlewild (6105)
• United States
23 Dec 07
Yes, the U.S. govt broke many treaties, as I said. But the govt is not going to sue itself over breaking its own treaties. If a tribe decides to break a treaty, however, the govt can sue, or refuse to recognize the tribe's independence, forbid the tribe from receiving any U.S. govt benefits, etc., or all of the above. The U.S. govt could maybe even apply sanctions to companies or states doing business with the new "nation." My only point was that the Lakota are going to have a tough road with this decision they've apparently made--are they really prepared to be totally self-supporting?
@pyewacket (44036)
• United States
22 Dec 07
On the one hand I'm thinking bravo and it's about time. I'm part Native myself, and am very well aware of the trail of broken treaties. In fact when the treaties were signed for the "Indian" country for the Lakota people (and not just..also Cheyenne,etc) the wording was usually something like "until grass grows, and wind blows" that kind of crap. I believe it was the treaty of 1868 where especially the Black Hills which are sacred to the Sioux where there was supposedly a hands off policy that no white man would ever reclaim the land. Ah, well, of course that was broken almost immediately when our "darling" hero of the west, George Armstrong Custer scouted around the Black Hills and found gold there. Every since it's been a true tug of war, and desecration of the area, that, as I said is one of the more sacred spots of Native Americans--supposedly, Crazy Horse is buried somewhere there, but his descendants have kept mum as to the whereabouts all this time As for withdrawing and making the area a "new" country within the US and of its success??? I guess only time will tell. But won't it also be sort of like cutting their own throats as well? By withdrawing like that, then they won't get any gov't aid for their reservations..not that it's so great to begin with, but better than nothing (which it almost is)
@polachicago (19077)
• United States
22 Dec 07
Freedom has it cost, but fee people can function much better and eventually be more prosperous.
• United States
22 Dec 07
It is just as well that Crazy Horse's remains remain unknown because if it were to be found then the Skull and Bones club would be there to claim his skull for their own as they have Geronimo. And George Bush is a member of that elite group of thieves.