Lakota Indians break away from US

Byrnzie

onelongsong wrote:

i take that back. if they backed out of their treaties; they have no land here.

The treaties have already been broken by whitey. If they withdraw from them then it's whitey who's gonna be sitting on legally owned Indian lands.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

but seriously folks, this thread is just plain silly. from a moral standpoint the USA, Australia and Canada shouldnt exist, but they do. For that matter pretty much every nation on Earth exists because they killed somebody who was there before. the Lakota indians deserve to get nowheresville, North Dakota back but the Iriquois don't in New York? where are you gonna draw the line?

shit happened get over it. How many nations on Earth are inhabited by the same people that existed there first? any at all? i doubt it.

We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

So are they.

Byrnzie

MrSmith wrote:

but seriously folks, this thread is just plain silly. from a moral standpoint the USA, Australia and Canada shouldnt exist, but they do. For that matter pretty much every nation on Earth exists because they killed somebody who was there before. the Lakota indians deserve to get nowheresville, North Dakota back but the Iriquois don't in New York? where are you gonna draw the line?

shit happened get over it. How many nations on Earth are inhabited by the same people that existed there first? any at all? i doubt it.

We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

The difference is that the U.S government at the time signed binding treaties with the Sioux and Lakota - not with the Iriqouis, as far as I'm aware. Maybe this had something to do with how stretched the man power and supplies were out west. Anyway, these treaties still stand today - those that weren't illegally broken by whitey. What they're saying is that they want complete soveriengty over 'Lakota Country' - the land that is still 'legally' theirs.

Sludge Factory

MahoganySouls wrote:

and you think they get most of that on the reservations?

If you are insinuating that they don't get electricity on the reservations you are mistaken. Although they are very impoverished in some areas compared to the rest of the US, they aren't completely without utilities. For example, one of the biggest projects being undertaken in partnership with the government is the Mni Wiconi act to build a water infrastructure to many of the rural areas on the reservations located in South Dakota. Obviously it isn't completed yet, but there are many areas that no longer have to rely on well water contaminated with arsenic.

My point was, what's to stop the government from not continuing to supply the meager services that it does supply now or to continue with the water project mentioned above?

lucylespian

Byrnzie wrote:

Regarding your first point, I expect they'd deal with it like any nation would deal with a cross border crime comitted by a foriegner. I.e, If an American raped a Mexican in Tijuanana then how would it be investigated?
As for your second point. When Canadians drive south of the border with Candian drivers licences, is there a problem? Nope!

Canadians can drive in the US because there is official recognition of their licence. My point was that there may not be recognition of a licence from the seceded state, which I still can't remember the name of.
I assume that the Mexican police would investigate the crime in Tijuanana. Thje seced stae in Australia is basically one family with no resouces to investigate shit in Australia. They would , of course, rely on the Australian authorities.