We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Lakota Indians declare UDI I recall reading years ago about ‘rumblings on the reservations’ but the Lakota Indians have finally done it… they have repudiated their treaties with the US federal government and UDI‘ed their asses. Cool. I have to say I am looking forward to seeing what comes next.
I am guessing the response will not involve F-15s or the army but would anyone would anyone who knows what they are talking about (my grasp of Lakota/US politics is a tad weak) care to speculate what will actually happen? Are the Lakota agriculturally self-sufficient? Do the leadership really represent the majority Lakota view? Are they serious or is this a ploy for Federal handouts? I am curious to say the least to hear from anyone who actually understand what the significance (or not) of this move really is.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Russel Means is a name I’ve heard for decades. Wikipedia has a pretty good thumbnail sketch of him.
It will give a pretty good feel for what to expect. Of interest is that Russel Means is a libertarian and ran against Ron Paul for the 1987 Libertarian presidential candidacy.
Please investigate this story more before giving it too much weight. Russell Means is not a representative of any Lokota tribe, he’s an activist, ie, he only represents himself at the moment. The current President of the Oglala Sioux, the majority tribe of the Lakota, is John Yellowbird Steele and I haven’t heard anything from him about this.
Most likely they will simply treat Russell Means and anyone allied with him as crazy people. They might incarcerate some of them on one pretext or another. If, for instance they decide to drive without a license or something. The “official” tribal leadership isn’t on board, and it is unclear how much power or land Means and company control.
I hope Means has a nice place to hide. It would be nice to see a wonderful city spring up up there, but I think the most success he can have for the indeterminate future is staying free.
I am not giving it any weight because an essay on my grasp of Lakota politics would just about fill one side of a business card in largish letters.
The way I am investigating the story is asking if anyone out in blogistan actually knows anything about the subject as nothing in the MSM that I could find was all that enlightening.
This looks like a few radicals sent out a news release to get some attention for themselves, instead of anything representative of the people he claims to represent.
I can claim independence from the United States on behalf of all people of European descent and it would mean about as much as Mr. Means’ declaration.
Kudos to Venezuela or whoever brainstormed this PR shot at the U.S. government though. I have to say the visit to the embassies of the Venezuela, Bolivia, et al., sort of gives the game away.
I have a friend – Ojibway or Lakota, I think – who does not think very highly of Russel Means. One small data point.
December 21, 2007
Lakotas leaving?
Thomas Lifson
A group claiming to represent the Lakota (aka Teton, Tetonwan) people, part of the Sioux, announces via press release their independence from the United States. Details of any official standing of the press release and group are less than skimpy.
The news was picked up eagerly overseas (e.g., Radio Netherlands, U.K. Telegraph, AFP and Malaysia Sun ) faster than at home, although USA Today and local/regional media like the Rapid City Journal had coverage that went beyond PR transcription. That last paper quotes Russell Means:
“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. [snip]
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.
The United States fought its bloodiest war to defend its territorial integrity. Means is a career left wing activist (and Hollywood actor), in other words a publicity business veteran. Means is playing to anti-American leftists in world media and politics, advocates of “soft power” with their own agenda. The initial reaction suggests that he will have a willing and credulous audience, eager for pictures of poverty-stricken Native American, victims of a racist “occupation” of land that is rightfully theirs.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see harmonic convergence looming in the fantasies of the international left. Their publicity campaign is coming. It deserves to be laughed away.
Blogger Steveforprez for example, offers his sympathetic but firm voice:
My Indian friends, come into the 21st century, where life is good. Many, many of your brothers and sisters have and will tell you the same thing. There’s plenty for everybody. Just be willing to work, obey the laws, raise your kids right, take your pleasures in moderation and leave your space better than you found it. You can worship God or the Great Spirit as you understand Him and in whatever manner you wish. I know, I know, it wasn’t fair that some people came over here a long time ago and they and your ancestors couldn’t get along. But, whether you accept it or not, there was plenty blame to go around on all sides. Whether you accept that or not, the clock’s not turning back. Citing some United Nations declaration doesn’t mean squat, its not the law of this land. Mexicans aren’t getting back Texas or Southern California and you’re not getting absolute independence. It just isn’t going to happen! Not. Going. To. Happen.
There is a vast industry of activist groups, NGOs, financial interests (what do you suppose Geogre Soros thinks of this publicity campaign?), and governments which will love this “cause.” Imagine the potential for “solidarity”! The nation state is the primary rival of the forces of supranational organizations like the EU, and those of world governance. Plenty of people want to see national solidarity dissolve, and with it the nation state.
Just a little context.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/lakotas_leaving.html
Well, the article concentrates on their resigning their US citizenship.
The treaties were signed at the time when the Indian nations were considered sovereign entities, and were treated as such.
These guys were not granted citizenship by right until 1924, by Act of Congress, and this is completely unrelated to the existence or otherwise of any pre existing treaties. As US citizens they are free to renounce their citizenship whenever they wish, but this has no bearing on the treaties, and pulling out of the treaties would have no effect on their citizenship.
For more on this strategy see The Mouse That Roared(Link).
Dont tell me their tax free Casino has gone bust!
How do you bankrupt a Casino?
Too much firewater and lack of proper accounting proceedures perhaps?
I didn’t really think there was any ‘serious’ prospect for a breakaway free territory but it is a great story and I would love to hear more. I get a kick out of the completely gonzo greatness of declaring UDI from the United State, particularly as…
…I am one of those people 🙂 Unity is vastly over-rated as are nation-states. Sadly I am willing to accept we are stuck with them for a while yet.
What do you think would happen to someone trying to use that passport?
That’s been seen before.
A few years ago, some Indian group threatened to file liens against basically all of Colorado east of I-25. The purpose was to make it impossible to sell that land, as a way of forcing the state government to make some sort of concessions with regard to casino licensing.
I think that Means may have been involved in that as well.
My one big thought on this is that if I were to advise the American Indian Movement, I’d demand Connecticut (to make the rich white man sweat a little), Florida (for the sun), Oklahoma (for the oil) or really just about anywhere besides … western South Dakota.
I mean, really, western South Dakota? It’s time to put down the magic mushrooms (OK, I know that’s more southwestern American Indians but whatevs) when you secede from the Union for western effing South Dakota.
But you know maybe if they demanded North Dakota they might just get it.
Sorry, Perry, but I don’t know much about the situation. I live in West Michigan, totally surrounded by the Dutch. So, as you can see, I have my own problems.
Russell Means and the others in his scheme are all profesisonal “progressive” activists. None of them are elected tribal officials. So who died and left them in charge?
The press however is racist enough to not bother to check on how tribes elect their representatives. They assume any loudmouth who is an Indian (or claims to be an Indian like WadeChurchill) is good press and can’t be criticized. I guess it never occurs to them that Indians have their own opinions, and that the various bands might not go along with the scheme, or even know about it (the scheme was hatched in WashingtonDC of course, not PineRidge).
There IS an “independent” tribe: The RedLake Band of Chippewa…like many tribes, they issue their own license plates among other things.
This is basically both seditionist and treasonous, though Mr. Means certainly could not care, and I am certain he can defend the act as reasonable, certainly in his eyes.
Let’s assume just for a moment that Mr. Means is in fact a tribal authority who can, on behalf of the Lakota, “withdraw the tribe(s) from the treaties”.
I would wonder if both state and federal governments should take him, and the tribes, at their word. The treaties are null and void? Fine, then they are null and void. Mr. Means has as much standing to renounce US citizenship and declare himself soveriegn as I do, or, for that matter, some fat guy named Peter, and his self-declared nation of ‘Petoria’.
Therefore, all involved governments can now treat Mr. Means and his followers as they treat me: I can declare myself soveriegn before each morning cup of joe, but it don’t mean squat come tax time, and if I violate standing laws, the courts will laugh at my declarations as they fit my hindquarters for the rack. Same thing for Russ and his boys.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Lakota Indians were screwed by the US and by history itself. Thus they are racial / cultural / ethnic group #74,612 on planet Earth to get the short end of historical forces. But the US nation is the nation, and the laws are the laws, and today Mr. Means and Co are not one bit inferior or superior to the black, white, hispanic, or asian families that likely live within a few miles of him. Like them, he can now start working to elect legislators, state and federal, to get what he wants, just like you and me. And if the Feds are gonna bust my chops when I decide that laws don’t apply to me, they can bust his, and, as a US citizen, I say they damn well better.
Come to think of it, that treaty withdrawl works for me. Nice work, Russ.
I like Russell, but this looks like a publicity stunt. The tribal leadership isn’t on board, so this isn’t likely to go anywhere. Perhaps if he can get a sizable group of Lakota on his side, but there’s no indication that will happen. I wonder if us non-Lakota can join up?
Perry :
Plenty of people want to see national solidarity dissolve, and with it the nation state.
…I am one of those people. Unity is vastly over-rated as are nation-states.
What do you want to see instead ?
Well yeah. And? It’s not like he is blowing anyone up.
And I really don’t have a huge problem with that. Declaring yourself sovereign is the hard bit because the state finds it easy to use force to compel you regardless… but lots of people have renounced their US citizenship in the past, that much is no big deal. People renounce various citizenships all the time. I certainly have views on that though I take the view the more the merrier.
A return to more dispersed social organisation (based on custom and markets) rather than regulatory statism. I am not a full blown anarchist (although I do think things may eventually evolve to make that possible), I just favour (very) limited government.
The ‘westphalian’ nation-states of today are a relatively modern creation and the world will not end without them.
would be hard to keep a casino open if the new lakota nation were put on the restricted destination list for US citizens.
I suppose if someone wanted to be hardnose the lakota could be effectively isolated from the rest of the world until a new treaty was agreed upon. flyover rights? sure, if you give up 1/4 of your casino revenues. corridor to canada? sure. footpath only, and turn over the horses as we want to help you reclaim your culture.
wonder if they’ll have their own currency. might difficult to attract gamblers to a soft money casino…”just how many dollars can I get with 10,000 lakota rocks with hole I won?”
I betcha their bond rating has already gone to hell.
spidly I don’t think anyone thinks the USA lacks means to force any secessionist to quit.
Well as long as we are playing who has prior property rights games here…
As a Welshman, I have just taken out a Lien on Perrys house. I was going to claim the whole of Chelsea, but we are not a greedy or vindictive people.
Happy christmas one and all 🙂
Do you have to be currently Welsh to do that? One or two of my g,grandfathers were Welsh. I should get into the BS lien game while the getting’s good.
(And where’s our self-appointed leader demanding the right of return for me? And is it Tom Jones or Dylan Thomas this week?)
Point of trivia:
When you fill out a BATFE Form 4473 Record of Firearms Transfer (the form that you complete when buying a gun from a licensed dealer) there are a number of questions to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to determine whether you’re ineligible to purchase. Along with the obvious (or at least predictable) questions like ‘Are you a convicted felon or currently under indictment for a felony’ and ‘Are you an illegal alien,’ there’s a question about whether or not you’ve ever renounced your US citizenship.
That question always struck me as odd, since one need not be a US citizen to buy them here to begin with. Immigrant aliens are good to go, as are nonimmigrant aliens with hunting licenses and a few other exceptions.
It’s a Means publicity stunt now that Ward Churchill[1] has run out of steam, but this one will still be fun to watch.
[1] College prof in Boulder who claimed that the people killed on 9-11, janitors, stockbrokers, and firemen alike, all had it coming. Oh, and he lied about his qualifications for his professorship and plagiarized whatever research he didn’t falsify. Oddly enough, that was actually enough to get him fired. Since Churchill claimed to be an Indian, Means and AIM rallied around him for a while before they realized that he wasn’t the hill they wanted to die on.
Andrew X:
Treason has a specific definition in the US. Is Means making war upon the United States or giving aid and comfort to their enemies?
Sedition is harder to pin down. The Smith Act is still on the books, but the Supremes have this bad habit of knocking down prosecutions under same as being unconstitutional. To say nothing of the question of whether Means is in fact advocating the violent overthrow of the US or any state. (And even if he is, there’s still Constitutional protection unless his speech creates a clear and present danger of such violent action.)
Perry, you’ll find it a lot easier if you ask Tinkerbelle to sprinkle fairy-dust on the whole process.
Oh, and by the way, Russell Means is a socialist of the first water. One can only imagine what the social policies of the new Lakota Nation would look like if he and his ilk were in power.
Think: a combination of New Zealand and Old Romania.
Sure Kim, because we have always had a massively regulating panoptic state compiling databases and running our lives, right? I am not asking for all that much new, just a return to older values.
Feel free to run up the white flag if you like but not me.
Ah Sunfish cariad, I just knew that a man as sound as you, came from good stock!
I had an uncle who lived in Laugharne, just a 150 yards stagger from Brown’s hotel. He got hammered with Dylan many a time. Unc was doing the buying though. Dylan was always skint.
Oh and my Biology teacher was in the same class as tom at school.Hated his guts cos Tom used to beat him up. We Welsh really do all know each other you know!
RE: “seditionist and treasonous”.
Well, yeah, it philosophically is, but I have total doubt it is prosecutable, for political reasons if not legal ones. I say those words the same way a rad pro-lifer might describe abortion as “murder”. He’ll stand by that, whatever the law actually says, and I say it is treasonous to advocate the dissolution of the United States, not to mention, frankly, stone racist in this case. If Mr. Means vision is a separate “nation” where all races are treated equally, then what is his problem right now? His vision is not that, as a Hawaiian separatist is invariably also entirely racially based. If his “race” is not being treated fairly (in his eyes), that is a valid argument, but “let’s therefore set up another government where other ‘races’ are the ones who get screwed while we are in top” holds not one iota of moral superiority. And advocating the dissolution of the United States and overthrow it’s constitution for such a cause is indeed treasonous, be you white, black, or red.
I do think prosecuting Russell Means would be a bad idea.
As for him or anyone else renouncing their citizenship, who gives a rat’s behind? He absolutely is free to do so. He is NOT free to violate the laws of the duly elected legislatures of his state and Congress, and when he does, he needs to be treated like every other citizen.
Currently, on some fronts, that is not the case. But if the treaties are withdrawn, fine, done deal. Nothing else to disuss, really.
(Of course, it seems to be developing that Russell Means is basically being a blowhard, with no political or tribal standing to do what he is doing, so for us and for him, this is all just jabber jabber.)
If a tribe decided (either by popular vote or by the vote of their elected leaders) that they want full independence that is fine.
In fact it would save the American taxpayer a lot of money.
However, if a tribe wants the “return” of land now in owned by Americans that is another matter.
Firstly because at some point even land that was taken by force becomes the just property of the decendants, even if their great, great grandfathers were scum bags, – otherwise the only justly owned property is in Iceland where familes can trace their line back to arrival in an empty land – bar a group of Irish monks in a far corner.
But also which tribe owns what?
For example, do the “Dakota nation” really own the Black Hills?
The Crow, who the Dakota drove out, might have a different point of view. Which is why the Crow fought on the side of the United States with General Terry – it was unfortunate for Custer that he did not have more Crow with him.
Then we get to the question of individual ownership:
Each tribe had different ideas about private ownership – ideas sometimes individual, sometimes family, sometimes kin group, sometimes …….
And the western plains tribes were mostly nomads anyway – which makes the idea of them owning anything problematic.
Although, to be fair, the Americans do not follow notions of private ownership in most of the West (bar Texas of course) either – with the Federal government claiming to own most of the land (with no justification in the United States Consitution for such widespread land ownership – it is supposed to be limited to military bases and the capital city area).
And the Federal government makes a right mess of managing the land it claims to own.
As for South Dakota:
It is one of the best governed States in the Union.
By modern standards taxes and government spending are very low there.
Although North Dakota does have the advantage of an international border.
Otherwise perhaps the best way South Dakota could react to a declaration of independence by an Indian tribe would be declare independence itself.
Rich individuals and good companies would flock to a place that has a balanced budget, no income tax, no corporation tax and sales tax at 4%
Sioux Falls is a successful city – and if the Sioux want the land back I think the locals could fend them off without help from the Federal government of the United States.
And I am told that Pierre has a very fine State Capital building and that Lake Ouhe is quite impressive.
I do not think that South Dakota is under serious threat, its problems hardly compare with the problems of States that have a border with Mexico.
A reversal of the war of 1848, or perhaps even of 1836 is more likely than a reversal of the defeat of the Sioux.
How do you bankrupt a casino? Asks RAB
Easy if there is no real entertainment – just a chance to lose money.
Internet gambeling.
Of course it is not just the Indians who feel the heat – the big boys feel it to.
Whenever Harry Reid presents himself as a moral Mormon trying to hold back the dangers of gambleing on the internet, all I see is the Senior Senator from Nevada.
Although to every Libertarian there is an equal and opposite Libertarian, Russell is in my personal experience a solid Sovereign Individual in the Marshall Fritz sense. I was a delegate for him at the 1987 LP convention in Seattle and I must admit his defeat party was more fun than Ron’s victory celebration. Of course I was at the Kansas Caucus before hand so that may have colored things for me.
His concession speech contained the classic lines “Individual Liberty. Individual Responsibility” that are ones any libertarian honors and lives by.
So lets not be catty and dis Russell. He’s a good guy and a hard working activist for our cause.
Eff the state!
Live free or Die
Dale
I must disagree. Means Has also toyed with being a leftist and clings to political ideals when it suites him. Tribal sovereignty is a big deal in Indian country, however, ten years ago when Mr. Means beat his Navajo girlfriend and her one-armed WWII veteran father, he was arrested and charged under Navajo law. Mr. Means then escaped and filed suite in U.S. Federal court claiming that the Navajo Nation lacked sovereign authority to charge him.
He’s thuggish pretender who speaks well, but a thug none-the-less.
(From the link – )
The tribal group said it was unilaterally pulling out from a series of treaties signed in the 19th century that it described as “worthless words on worthless paper” because they had been “repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life”.
Who is “our”?
As a white guy, I can’t really step out and say it, but this is why my Lenape friends refer to that branch of the AIMsters as “oh, it’s the wind-crazed Lakota again…”
force? I was suggesting we help them realize their dream-you know the old saying, careful what you ask for…
they are already largely free of federal regulation and could have what you (and I for the most part) want. Actually, they reap the (few) benefits of the federal system (national defense), can ignore most of the rest, and have to pay out very little. It all depends on what land is in federal trust or has been sold off to the state and repurchased etc… but really, they could have the laissez faire society if they so chose. So how is this better for the markets than your typical 3rd world socialist coup?
not the kinda place I’d want to invest. but they’re sure stickin’ it to the man yep.
I’m not sure I’d invest there either but there is always something to be said for sticking it to the man.
The ex was 1/4 Chippewa and I’m sure her Turtle Mountain extended family might want to discuss any land claims with the Sioux. They both should be fighting to reclaim the great lakes states anyway.
wanna help the Indian population, support NARA rather than this foolishness.
I’d bet the Tribal council meeting is similar to:
…..I thought we were an autonomous collective.
You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,–but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more–…..
at any rate if you take away BIA money it’ll be
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!”
Bloody Peasant!
Oh, wha’ a giveaway…..
The feds would probably object to the Lakotas going UDI, but if San Francisco were to do it, America would say: How soon?
Under their 1948 Constitution the Crow used to be governed by a mass democracy – a big New Hampshire style meeting where everything (men and women – the Crow were always very big on women’s rights).
However, under the new Constition (2000 or 2001) things have changed.
San Fransico declaring U.D.I.
Interesting – then they could have their much desired unlimited welfare state for everyone in the world who turned up.
Well unless the tigers ate the new people
Of course, the effects of an unlimted welfare state for everyone in the world who arrived would quickly have such an effect on the economy of San Francisco that the danger of being eaten by tigers would be the least of their problems.