Re: Sioux Declare Independence (1409 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.09 on 65 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (View user info) at 2007-12-21 12:04:28 EST
I read this: http://www.ubersite.com/m/113869, checked out the aritcle and I find this an interesting situation. here's the post:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html
If you are an American who is disgusted with this nation and everything it stands for, you can renounce citizenship and go live where these dudes are setting up shop. You don't have to be native, you just gotta show up.
Think of it - no US taxes, no IRS, none of that. Just living off the land and not having big brother gouging every fucking dollar you make and scrutinizing everything you do.
In closing fuck George Bush, and if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich don't get elected, you can pull a seat around my fire in southeast Montana.
Ok, so the article basically says the Sioux have withdrawn from the treaties that they established with the United States because the US has failed to live up to their end of the deal. Which is all true. It also says they demand immediate negotioans to return their country to them and if negotiations are not initiated they will impose leins on the land that belongs to the Lakota Countries. This is 33 seperate treaties by the way. it's an interesting story from the beginning really. When the US began it's westward expansion we encountered the natives who already lived there. Eventually, after much prick waving, war was waged and the Native Americans were beaten into submission, abused for a while and then we signed treaties with them and then continued to abuse them.
These treaties legally designate the Sioux as a semi-autonomous nation. They have their own elected officials and government. Russell Means is a name you hear a lot of when you grow up in South Dakota, he is an activist on behalf of his people but they are not always in agreement with him or his positions. In 1969, Means was part of a group of Native Americans that occupied Alcatraz Island for a period of 19 months. Later that year, Means was one of the leaders of AIM's takeover of Mount Rushmore. In 1972, he participated in AIM's takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Washington, DC, and in 1973 he led AIM's occupation of Wounded Knee, which became the group's most celebrated action. Russell seems to be one of the spearheads of this action. I don't know how far this goes but as yet the elected government of the tribes does not seem to have put forth their position on this declaration of independence.
The map that was included in the post that spawned this one shows a vast area comprising parts of five states and in reality there are Sioux in the southern part of Canada as well. Contained within this vast area of land that has been deemed the Lakota Countries is the Black Hills. The Black Hills were and are considered sacred land to the Sioux. If you spend enough time in the Hills you will encounter signs of the Sioux; trees with colored fabric tied to branches and other small mementoes of thier spiritual beliefs/practice. A couple of places where you will definitely encounter these items are Bear Butte and Devil's Tower. The reservations are in the little dark areas of the map, not really all that close to the Black Hill and all in some of the most desolate crappy prairie ever.
Many of the treaties between the Lakota people and the US govt use grandiose language and words like forever. For years the Sioux have been demanding that the Black Hills be returned to them. The main reason they were taken in the first place was because of a great deal of gold. The gold was discovered four years after the US signed a treaty exempting the Black Hills from white settlement forever. Yes, the word FOREVER was used. If four years is forever then I have done a lot of things forever.
I don't really have any conclusions here I just find it all very interesting and maybe that's largely due to the fact that I grew up in the Black Hills. It does seem that they have the legal basis to actually do this and the UN has even backed them on other matters in the past so who knows? maybe they'd throw in again if this got enough steam. one of my favorite bush quotes comes from him trying to answer a question regarding native american tribe's soveirgnity: "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." haha. dumbass.
I guess the questions I'd like to pose here are:
Do they really think this will work?
Do you think it can work?
With 70,000 people in the Lakota Nation could they actually sustain their own country?
If you lived in Rapid City or any of the other "urban" areas included in the Lakota Countries would you be willing to renounce your US citizenship to stay in your home?
User Reviews
Submitted by evilgerbil25666 (user info) at 2008-01-03 12:11:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
aw FUCK OFF YOU TWAT! i don't give a shit wot u've gotta say, so y the fuck do u feel it's neccessary to comment on all of my submitions?! in fact i don't need an answer, because it's obvious-you're jsut a sad lonely twat, who has no real friends, so goes around thinking you're so hard, trying to make yourself look brilliant-which is what you're NOT. so just piss the fuck off and die. and don't tell ME to fuck off, because i'm not backing off, and i don't expect a smimy lil comment back from you-just FUCK OFF!!!!!
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2008-01-03 10:36:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hahaha. that shit's funny.
Submitted by evilgerbil25666 (user info) at 2008-01-03 10:06:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
this is shit-you're a dick head, and you have no real use to ubersite, other than stalking new submitions-FUCK RIGHT OFF.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2008-01-03 09:14:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think what you meant to say on my post was "let's fuck!" I respond, "let's ride!"
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-12-25 00:19:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
there's always black on black crime to not consider
Submitted by Wuzi (user info) at 2007-12-24 22:23:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Andrew Jackson was a douche.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-24 17:31:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-24 12:47:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, this got off track!
---
That's because I'm a moron who (over)reacts to statements he doesn't fully comprehend at the time.
Indo, the statement is explained below. While technically true, it may be as intellectually dishonest as the statistic I've been arguing about...at least as I used it. Also, I now understand your reply to Coyote better, and don't see it so much as a non sequitur as be being a bit vague. Or maybe I'm just dumb.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-12-24 12:47:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, this got off track!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-24 10:49:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 18:51:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
One last thing, and I swear I'm done. I think the problem here is your phraseology -- a word I hate, but whatever. To use the same phrasing, in 2006, black people (on average) actually were *17* times more likely to kill white people than "vice versa."
One problem is that the sentence seems to imply that blacks target whites, as I stated below. If you did not mean to imply this, then I must apologize. In any case, I'm guessing of people who use the "accepted fact" do mean it that way.
The fact remains that in 2006, a black person stood a better chance (by a factor of more than 2) of getting killed by a white than did a white person did of getting killed by a black.
Numbers hurt my head. I bought some rum.
----------------------------------------------
Not trying to imply that black people target whites. You are right a lot of people do use those numbers to encourage racism.
I am really curiious about the numbers you used for that second to last statement if you check back here I would like to see how you arrived at that.
I hate holidays with the inlaws. Who checks uber on christmas?
Enjoy your rum. Merry christmas.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 19:31:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
backtracking two below
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 18:53:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have I ever posted a review without syntax or spelling errors? I doubt it.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 18:51:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
----
One last thing, and I swear I'm done. I think the problem here is your phraseology -- a word I hate, but whatever. To use the same phrasing, in 2006, black people (on average) actually were *17* times more likely to kill white people than "vice versa."
One problem is that the sentence seems to imply that blacks target whites, as I stated below. If you did not mean to imply this, then I must apologize. In any case, I'm guessing of people who use the "accepted fact" do mean it that way.
The fact remains that in 2006, a black person stood a better chance (by a factor of more than 2) of getting killed by a white than did a white person did of getting killed by a black.
Numbers hurt my head. I bought some rum.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 17:33:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FUCKERS WHO DON'T TIP ME WHEN I DELEVER THEIR PIZZA?
------
They don't tip you because you're white, and they hate you. I'm not naive. Racism works both ways. They hate you, you cracker.
Actually, though, and this exposes more of my nerdiness, unfortunately. I delivered pizzas for about a year for supplemental income when I was about your age. I kept track of my tips, based on perceived race (that is, the race of the subjects was based on my casual observation).
The group that tipped me best were white, non-hispanic women. Well duh, I'm dead sexy, like danger_ranger.
In descending order, if I remember correctly (and I'm not sure I remember), were:
White non-hispanic men
Hispanic men
Hispanic women
American Indian (mostly Navajo; this was in Flagstaff) men
American Indian women.
There are very few blacks in Flagstaff, and I think I only delivered to blacks twice the entire year, so there not included. (I do remember, however, the black man giving me a big tip [insert bad joke here], and the black women stiffing me [there's probably a joke here, too].)
Regarding American Indians, a telling incident occurred one day. I delivered a pizza to an Indian woman, didn't get tipped, and walked away. She called for me to stop and asked me if she was supposed to tip me. She honestly didn't know that it was usually expected. It's a cultural thing. I said that it was not expected (a lie), and said, however, that it was up to her. She left me a big tip.
Still, the black folks in Vegas just hate your pasty white ass.
Merry Christmas, Rad.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-23 17:32:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-23 10:26:48 EST (#)
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:55:44 EST (#)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
-=-=-=-=-
Is that normalized for population? Because there are, very roughly, 5 times more white people than black people in the country. So if I go out to my friendly neighborhood shopping mall and start blowing shoppers away at random, whether I'm black or white or Lakota, I'm gonna waste about 5 times as many palefaces. Every murderer should net about the same proportion.
Just thinking out loud.
---------------------
Think about that a little more.
If all crimes were random shootings in populated places you would have a point, but most are one off attacks. Most are people known by the attacker.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That shouldn't make a difference, you're averaging over a large population and a (relatively) large murder rate. But you're right... that's kind of interesting actually because it means that inter-race violence is a tiny little tail on the distribution, and is statistically not important. I think what matters in terms of social engineering is the rate of murders committed per 1,000 of population irrespective of victim's race. Of course, I see that wasn't quite the point you were trying to make.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-23 16:59:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-23 15:02:55 EST (#)
+++++++++
Of course they mentioned slavery. It was a major part of their economy, just like whaling was in the 1800's, and just like outsourcing is today.
-=-=-=-=-
Well, I pointed it out because in your original comment you said the Federal government introduced the slavery issue after the fact, and that seems to be exactly the opposite of what went down.
+++++++++
As for the whole "It's not legal to secede" argument:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
-=-=-=-=-
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration is an amazing, wonderful statement of principle, but it doesn't form the basis for the US Government (Just in passing, the thing that always amazes me is that for all its rhetorical power, the Declaration of Independence seems to have been approximately legal, within the raggedy patchwork of laws, with no written constitution, that makes up the English system). But check Article 10 of the Constitution for explicit prohibitions of States doing stuff like making alliances with other states, making their own money, etc. etc. You could argue that the principles of the Declaration trump the pragmatism of the Constitution, but that argument was decided in 1787.
++++++++++
And by the way, I'm French Canadian and Ojibwa. We never owned slaves, and we aren't the ancestors of some mammy-porking Plantation owner, so the whole white guilt card don't work on me too well. I'm just saying that if it is, according to the constitution, legal to secede from the Union, then the Confederates had a legit beef from that regard.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Wasn't playing any white guilt card, and in fact no one in my family ever owned slaves either (unless maybe it was legal for Catholics in Ireland in the 1850s to own slaves). It's a simple fact that southerners try to justify the Civil War with a states' rights platform, but in point of fact the only states' right they were fighting for was slavery.
And, more fundamentally, it is NOT, according to the Consitution, legal to secede from the Union. Even if it was, you can be damn sure the framers would have set a higher bar than just a vote of a state's legislature, since they were trying to prevent the kind of states-first bullshit that made the Articles of Confederation such a piece of crap.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-23 15:02:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:45:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:19:01 EST (#)
I doubt it would work, as the US has "bent" the rules many times in order to keep seceding state (ie the South) in the Union, later justifying it with the whole "well, we were fighting against slavery" bit.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Show me where it says in the Contitution that it's within the rules for a state to secede according to a vote of its own legislature. Levy of troops by the north had very little to do with slavery, and everything to do with southern armies seizing federal property.
Most of the secession articles that the confederate states drew up explicitly mentioned slavery. This whole "it wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights", is a convenient fiction designed to allow the descendants of the confederates to lend their parents' and grandparents' cause a sheen of, if not nobility, at least honor.
-------------
Of course they mentioned slavery. It was a major part of their economy, just like whaling was in the 1800's, and just like outsourcing is today.
As for the whole "It's not legal to secede" argument:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
And by the way, I'm French Canadian and Ojibwa. We never owned slaves, and we aren't the ancestors of some mammy-porking Plantation owner, so the whole white guilt card don't work on me too well. I'm just saying that if it is, according to the constitution, legal to secede from the Union, then the Confederates had a legit beef from that regard.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:38:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
lungfish is smart.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FUCKERS WHO DON'T TIP ME WHEN I DELEVER THEIR PIZZA?
happy holidays people.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:22:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And a sincere Merry Christmas to you, Indo. You remind me of my best friend back east. We love to argue such stuff. He calls me a pinko-commie-fag, and a call him a dick. We get drunk and argue. I miss him.
I'm off to finish xmas shopping.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:13:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Where did I call you a racist? I have never done that. I don't even think that. Damn. It's bad statistics that are pissing me off. And what is this "accepted fact" business. These types of things (accepted by whom, what facts) drives me crazy.
I don't mean to paint you as a racist. Really. Just loose with your citations and acceptance of "facts".
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:10:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:38:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And of course, if you look at the raw data I've presented, you'll see that whites killed 0.00059 percent of the black population in the US, while blacks killed a mere (note the rhetoric) 0.00027 percent of the ****WHITE**** population in 2006.
So, actually, within our sample populations, the odds of a black person getting offed by a white person were more than TWICE AS GREAT (note the rhetoric) as the odds of a white person getting offed by a black person.
------
goddamn my typos.
I'm really done now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:09:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:23:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo:
Ignoring that last little nonsensical non-sequitor, my problem with your statistics are these:
"First you don't cite your source. As a avocational, and partly vocational, statistician, I can tell you that, based on my observations, there is a lot of statistical bunk on the web. Big surprise, I know, but the insincerity of these shenanigans tend to be especially egregious when it comes to a hot-button topic like race relation."
I didn't site a source because I didn't look it up when I made the comment I was tossing out a rough number that I remember from previous conversations on the subject. The FBI numbers that you used back up what I said.
"Second, the meaning of your statements are vague and poorly defined. That is, your statistic is meaningless, unless you can explicate your method of measure. "Five times more likely..." What? I mean, the English is clear, but some numbers are needed; also how these numbers were derived."
It is pretty fucking clear (although the 5x is closer to 4.6).
"I infer two things from your statement. I believe you are arguing: (1) that "blacks" are, "on average" (another meaningless phrase, but I couldn't resist), and (2) blacks are targeting whites as victims of their nefarious doings."
I never said blacks are targeting whites. I said it is stupid to give one group special rights because another group killed more of them or did "bad" things and if someone were to follow that logic then black people should be giving whites better treatment since they kill more of them.
"In 2006, according to FBI official crime rate statistics, "white" offenders murdered 208 "black" victims, while "black" offenders killed 573 "white" victims. "Black" offenders killed 3,034 "black" victims, while "white" offenders killed 3,026 "white" victims.
Now, according to the Census Bureau's 2005 statistics, 74.7% of the US population, or 215.3 million people, are "white," while 12.1%, or 35.0 million, are "black." In our study population of 250.3 million, 86% is "white," and 14% are "black."
If the murders committed by our study groups were *randomly* distributed, we would expect "blacks," who killed 3,607 people within our study population, to have killed 3,102 "white" people and only 505 "black" people.
Blacks killed only 573 white devils, when they should have killed 5.4 times that many. My point is that blacks are not targeting whites. There is a stunningly obvious tendency for blacks, when prompted to kill, to kill other blacks...not whites. No sincere and reasonable person could argue otherwise. My problem is that so many right-wing shills regularly attempt to do so. Fear, as you know, is a powerful motivator. "
Don't be an idiot. The US population isn't randomly distributed. When it comes to crimes involving different races blacks are far more likely to kill white people than vice versa. It is an undeniable fact, and while the 5x times may be off the gist of my ststement was correct.
"As for the other implication, that blacks "on average" (ugh) tend to be more violent. Yes, well, there's no denying it with these data. It's a pretty violent sub-culture. I think a more productive endeavor would be to ask why that is the case and try to fix it. 'Course that's just liberal old me talking. No need to listen."
When did say we shouldn't try to fix it? Poverty is a stronger indicator of whether someone is going to be a criminal than race. I am not trying to argue that blacks are inherently more prone to crime. I am saying it is stupid to pretend black people are damaged or hurt by roving gangs of kkk.
"Oh, and shame on you and your lousy statistics."
Shame on you for trying to paint me as a racist because I mentioned an accepted fact. Black crime will never be fixed if anyone who mentions it is labeled a racist.
Anyway I gotta go burna cross, merry christmas.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 13:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:38:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And of course, if you look at the raw data I've presented, you'll see that whites killed 0.00059 percent of the black population in the US, while blacks killed a mere (note the rhetoric) 0.00027 percent of the black population in 2006.
So, actually, within our sample populations, the odds of a black person getting offed by a white person were more than TWICE AS GREAT (note the rhetoric) as the odds of a white person getting offed by a black person.
This is true, and it's also the kind of shenanigans* I'm talking about. Yes, liberals do it too.
----
*By this, I mean my rhetoric. My statements are accurate assessments of the data, and not shenanigans.
Okay I'm done. Why did you have to piss me off on a lovely Sunday before Christmas?
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:58:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In summation, I've blown your statement clean out of the water. Well, that's not nice. But your statement is hugely suspect. Of course, I only looked at 2006. I HIGHLY doubt, however, that things were much different in the 30 years prior, but I will be willing to go over your numbers if you wish to provide them. I can't be arsed to look for myself. I'm not getting paid for this.
Also, I drink to much coffee.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:38:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And of course, if you look at the raw data I've presented, you'll see that whites killed 0.00059 percent of the black population in the US, while blacks killed a mere (note the rhetoric) 0.00027 percent of the black population in 2006.
So, actually, within our sample populations, the odds of a black person getting offed by a white person were more than TWICE AS GREAT (note the rhetoric) as the odds of a white person getting offed by a black person.
This is true, and it's also the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about. Yes, liberals do it too.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-23 12:23:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-23 10:26:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:55:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
-=-=-=-=-
Is that normalized for population? Because there are, very roughly, 5 times more white people than black people in the country. So if I go out to my friendly neighborhood shopping mall and start blowing shoppers away at random, whether I'm black or white or Lakota, I'm gonna waste about 5 times as many palefaces. Every murderer should net about the same proportion.
Just thinking out loud.
---------------------
Think about that a little more.
If all crimes were random shootings in populated places you would have a point, but most are one off attacks. Most are people known by the attacker.
--------
Indo:
Ignoring that last little nonsensical non-sequitor, my problem with your statistics are these:
First you don't cite your source. As a avocational, and partly vocational, statistician, I can tell you that, based on my observations, there is a lot of statistical bunk on the web. Big surprise, I know, but the insincerity of these shenanigans tend to be especially egregious when it comes to a hot-button topic like race relation.
Second, the meaning of your statements are vague and poorly defined. That is, your statistic is meaningless, unless you can explicate your method of measure. "Five times more likely..." What? I mean, the English is clear, but some numbers are needed; also how these numbers were derived.
I infer two things from your statement. I believe you are arguing: (1) that "blacks" are, "on average" (another meaningless phrase, but I couldn't resist), and (2) blacks are targeting whites as victims of their nefarious doings.
Consider this:
In 2006, according to FBI official crime rate statistics, "white" offenders murdered 208 "black" victims, while "black" offenders killed 573 "white" victims. "Black" offenders killed 3,034 "black" victims, while "white" offenders killed 3,026 "white" victims.
Now, according to the Census Bureau's 2005 statistics, 74.7% of the US population, or 215.3 million people, are "white," while 12.1%, or 35.0 million, are "black." In our study population of 250.3 million, 86% is "white," and 14% are "black."
If the murders committed by our study groups were *randomly* distributed, we would expect "blacks," who killed 3,607 people within our study population, to have killed 3,102 "white" people and only 505 "black" people.
Blacks killed only 573 white devils, when they should have killed 5.4 times that many. My point is that blacks are not targeting whites. There is a stunningly obvious tendency for blacks, when prompted to kill, to kill other blacks...not whites. No sincere and reasonable person could argue otherwise. My problem is that so many right-wing shills regularly attempt to do so. Fear, as you know, is a powerful motivator.
As for the other implication, that blacks "on average" (ugh) tend to be more violent. Yes, well, there's no denying it with these data. It's a pretty violent sub-culture. I think a more productive endeavor would be to ask why that is the case and try to fix it. 'Course that's just liberal old me talking. No need to listen.
Oh, and shame on you and your lousy statistics.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-23 10:26:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:55:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
-=-=-=-=-
Is that normalized for population? Because there are, very roughly, 5 times more white people than black people in the country. So if I go out to my friendly neighborhood shopping mall and start blowing shoppers away at random, whether I'm black or white or Lakota, I'm gonna waste about 5 times as many palefaces. Every murderer should net about the same proportion.
Just thinking out loud.
---------------------
Think about that a little more.
If all crimes were random shootings in populated places you would have a point, but most are one off attacks. Most are people known by the attacker.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-12-22 12:37:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-21 18:05:52 EST (#)
black people don't leave tips when you deliver pizza
white people do.
-----------
old hispanic ladies are the best tippers though.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-12-21 22:53:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Through my extensive genealogical research, I have reason to believe that I'm at least 1/128 Choctaw. Okay that's a lie; my grandfather told me that. In any case, I want my 40 acres and a mule. Or was that something different?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-12-21 22:15:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
FUCK....does that mean i have to work in their casino???
Submitted by sadie73 (user info) at 2007-12-21 21:52:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You seem like a good guy, so +2.
Russell Means and his worthless hanger-on, Ward Churchill, are lying fucks.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-12-21 20:42:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
the saying: that ship has sailed, is quite applicable in this case .
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-12-21 20:28:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've never heard anyone dispute that rad.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 18:32:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-21 18:05:52 EST (#)
black people don't leave tips when you deliver pizza
white people do.
-=-=-=-=-
The real question is, who gives better "hole through the pizza and box just the girth of a cock" head when they have no cash on them and "well, somebody's gonna have to pay for this pizza", black chicks or white chicks?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-12-21 18:05:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
black people don't leave tips when you deliver pizza
white people do.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:55:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
-=-=-=-=-
Is that normalized for population? Because there are, very roughly, 5 times more white people than black people in the country. So if I go out to my friendly neighborhood shopping mall and start blowing shoppers away at random, whether I'm black or white or Lakota, I'm gonna waste about 5 times as many palefaces. Every murderer should net about the same proportion.
Just thinking out loud.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:45:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:19:01 EST (#)
I doubt it would work, as the US has "bent" the rules many times in order to keep seceding state (ie the South) in the Union, later justifying it with the whole "well, we were fighting against slavery" bit.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Show me where it says in the Contitution that it's within the rules for a state to secede according to a vote of its own legislature. Levy of troops by the north had very little to do with slavery, and everything to do with southern armies seizing federal property.
Most of the secession articles that the confederate states drew up explicitly mentioned slavery. This whole "it wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights", is a convenient fiction designed to allow the descendants of the confederates to lend their parents' and grandparents' cause a sheen of, if not nobility, at least honor.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:35:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-21 15:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo, you should care more about things like the Senate rejecting a bill that would have repealed a huge tax cut that the rich didn't need to fund "green" energy, as opposed to being such a cock about people who actually need help getting money.
And yes I know that's not the only point you made, and you did make some good ones. I'm only referring to the dumb thing you said.
Also, I don't understand the concept of, "Oh it happened a long time ago, why should we care"
-----------------------------
I am not saying I care more about this than what the senate does, I said nothing like that in the post.
I also never said it happened a long time ago, so why should we care. What I said was that we can't turn bakc time. Attempts to keep them a completely seperate nation byt giving them Us dollars is a waste. I would be for grants to keep their language alive, parks or preserves where they could practice their traditional way of life, but it is stupid to keep them and all their descendants alive in a backwards shithole because their graet grand dads were screwed.
As far as black people being lynched, far more white people were lunched in the past 100 years than black. Strike that. I just looked it up and it looks like since 1880 roughly 75% of people lynched were black, prior to that most were white. But so what. That doesn't mean I owe black people jack shit. I wasn't involved in it, and it is utterly stupid to give rewards/punishments based on race. If we are to follow that school of thought one could argue that I should be getting something from blacks seeing as they have murdered far more whites than were blacks that were ever lynched. Since 1976 black people (on average) have been 5 times more likely to kill white people than vice versa.
Before someone attacks me as racist let me be clear, I am not saying one side is inferior or superior. You just can't give special treatment to one group because of what happened to their father, grandfather, or great grandfather. I also realize witht he current status quoe it, on average, makes it harder for blacks (or in this case indians). You can't fix this by making it easier for them. And the biggest barometer for how well you are going to do in life is how much money your parenst make, not your skin color. You want to make things more equal give more federal money to schools in and scholarshps to kids from poor areas and dont let the dipshits who run poor areas waste it on dumb programs (I am looking at you former mayor marion barry, more money per student than anywhere else in the US and grades plummeted because having black administrators was more important than having qualified ones).
I am going to get off my soap box.
My answers may be all wrong, but I know telling "disenfranchised" groups all their problems aren't their fault, throwing money at them, and extolling their "culture" with federal money is also wrong. Plus it doesn't do shit for many poor people who could have a chance if they got a shot.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-12-21 17:17:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
From my reading of the situation, the declaration wasn't intended to be a bona fide attempt to cut themselves out of the US. More an exercise in international or contract law, where one party finally has what they need to show the other party fucked them over. The comments about it taking 30-odd years to get their ducks in a row suggest they've thought about it carefully and are using a very splashy rhetorical device (echoing the US declaration of Independence) in order to force the matter into court or at least an arbitrator, to get themselves a better deal.
And more power to 'em, I say. Someone signs a contract with you and violates it, you stick 'em to the wall. Work out better terms for yourself. And if all else fails, create a big media splash and sell souvenirs to the hordes of people who come out to "support" you on a lark. What could be more American than that?
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2007-12-21 16:13:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:26:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i can't read :(
---------
me neither :(
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-21 15:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo, you should care more about things like the Senate rejecting a bill that would have repealed a huge tax cut that the rich didn't need to fund "green" energy, as opposed to being such a cock about people who actually need help getting money.
And yes I know that's not the only point you made, and you did make some good ones. I'm only referring to the dumb thing you said.
Also, I don't understand the concept of, "Oh it happened a long time ago, why should we care"
To me, 100-300 years isn't exactly a whole lot of time passed, considering how much longer other nation's histories are. I know you didn't mention it (maybe you did), but I get annoyed when people bitch about how long ago slavery took place, especially considering just forty years ago people were getting lynched for Christ's fucking sake.
I find it irrational for a black person to hate all white people, to make such a stupid generalization that is, but I can also understand that he/she either went through some fucked up shit, or had relatives that did, not but forty or so years ago.
Let's just get naked and dance.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 15:19:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
in south dakota there are varrying degrees of this though. There are those who live on the res doing nothing, there are those who live in the city in subsidised housing and do nothing, there are those who live on the res/in the city and actually try. you are right in part... that it's because they don't want it but my cynical answer is at least partly true as well. nobody has to see them or deal with them if we leave them where we put them.
this country had a pretty horific beginning with slavery and then the crimes against the native people but then if you look at other countries it would seem the persecution happened in other places too, just not so recently.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 15:08:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:52:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And this is my cynincal answer as to why we don't do this. it's convient and costs less to give them the pittance they get out there than it would be to train them, teach them how to contribute to society, how to care for themselves and finally how to afford to live in society and so we just leave them there. We put them out there for a reason in the first place right? to get rid of them? why would we want to try to bring them into the fold now. the ones that matter claw thier way out and join society fuck the rest of them. that's not really what I think but what I think the logic IS.
-------------
Nope.
We don't train and integrate them because "they" dont want it, I am sure some do, but as a group they don't.
If we cut off their funding and started giving them training and set up job rich places they could go we would get sued and blamed for trying to wipe out their culture, some would fail and they would be held up as examples of how th eUS was trying to wipe them out by dispersing them, they are kept living like shit because the ones afraid to leave will always want a safety net.
Because of idiots who think that white man doing something bad to indians 400, 300, 200 and 100 years ago means we should let someone who is 25% or 12.5% be allowed to live in a pathetic imitation of a way of life that failed.
Because the UN (even though their resolution is meaningless) supports the rights of indigenous people to try and stop time and pretend that things are the same as they were 200 years ago.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:52:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Considering the quality of life there, the whole fucking idea should be chucked and these people should be forced to fend for themselves like every other modern citizen. "
That's a thought I've had before in regards to this and other situations where the govt is supporting people. they DO live in inhospitable low traffic ares. the land is not really well suited for subsistence farming so why do we pay them to stay there (i'll answer this cynically in a second)? Why not move them and integrate them into society?
And this is my cynincal answer as to why we don't do this. it's convient and costs less to give them the pittance they get out there than it would be to train them, teach them how to contribute to society, how to care for themselves and finally how to afford to live in society and so we just leave them there. We put them out there for a reason in the first place right? to get rid of them? why would we want to try to bring them into the fold now. the ones that matter claw thier way out and join society fuck the rest of them. that's not really what I think but what I think the logic IS.
Submitted by haikumikoo (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:48:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
That's so Awesome.
Seriously.
Go them.
First article I've read in the last two weeks that wasn't severely depressing, sometimes paying attention isn't very fun, but I feel it's necessary.
What the hell am I talking about?
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:37:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I think any Sioux and/or whitefolk living in that area who happen to have a half decent job and professional ties to the outside world will drop their support fairly quickly rather than renounce their US citizenship.
Good intentions aren't enough to keep the infrastructure of a country stable, funded, and populated with trained employees.
Submitted by creep_firebombing (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:35:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Do they really think this will work?
Not really, but what I do know is that this will get ugly.
Do you think it can work?
Absolutely not. Completely disregarding stereotypes and focusing on facts, these are a people that cannot sustain themselves even with government assistance without leaving the area. Geographically, it's just not feasible to believe they could be a self-sufficient sovereign nation.
With 70,000 people in the Lakota Nation could they actually sustain their own country?
Their unwillingness to give up a barren wasteland of a home to go elsewhere and lead a normal prosperous life gives me no inclination whatsoever but to believe that these people will simply cease to exist, with or without benefits from the U.S. Government. They were told everything would be taken care of for them and as a result they have become weak and dependent as a people. For nearly 200 years the U.S. government has been promising and not delivering, yet these people still do nothing but sit nearly dead with their collective hand out. Declaring their independence will cause the government to stop the meager dole they deliver and send them scrambling to find a resolution to the people that own property that they apparently never had the right to sell. I guarantee it won't go that far, but worse comes to worst, you might see some cowboys saddle up to go lynch some injuns when they're told they have to pay for propertly they already paid for.
If you lived in Rapid City or any of the other "urban" areas included in the Lakota Countries would you be willing to renounce your US citizenship to stay in your home?
Fuck no. If I rented, I'd move. If I owned, I'd officially declare myself an enemy combatant of said sovereign nation and go kill as many slackass redskins as I could before dying an ETS-style self-righteous and bloody death (no doubt, at the hands of U.S. federal law enforcement agent). Or I'd just bitch for the week it took for the National Guard to reclaim the area in a hostile invasion.
The bottom line is this: The Lakota are not getting that land. All they're doing is fucking themselves out of benefits and possibly getting the REST of their land taken away. Really, it's all for the best. Considering the quality of life there, the whole fucking idea should be chucked and these people should be forced to fend for themselves like every other modern citizen. Don't like sugary high fat government food and a lack of innoculations? GOOD! GO GET A FUCKING JOB WITH HEALTH INSURANCE, FUCKFACE!
Editor's note: I have a traceable Native American family history. My reaction is clearly not one of prejudice against Native American peoples. My reaction is of a person that works for a living and expects nothing from a government that took 8 weeks to get water to the Astrodome after Katrina.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:34:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:46:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
that stereotype is one that haunts every lakota person. sadly there are enough living it to support it's continued perpetuation. And yes, I have been to the reservations and seen the squalor and poverty these people face. There's a lot more to it than "they're just a bunch of drunk sods who won't work". First and foremost is that the reservations are in somewhat remote locations in a state of just over 700,000 people so there are few jobs, few opportunities to create new business, few opportunities in general.
----------------------
I don't think all indians are lazy alcoholics, but the govt them giving them tiny handouts keeps most too scared to go out and make a life anywhere else, without a good life there I can see them turning to alcohol. Trying to be completely apart from the US isn't going to help.
It would suck to grow up there, but it would suck more if they were going at it on their own.
I haven't read up enough on this to know, but are they wevn offering people who stay equal rights in this "new country" (not that it will happen in a hundred years).
If they want to better themselves they need to get an education in something useful, something other than studying how white man robbed them.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:24:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF I'M NOT READING ALL THAT
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2007-12-21 14:08:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'd say a downside is getting no social security when they turn 62, but apparently they all die by age 44 anyhow so it doesnt matter.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-12-21 13:43:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-21 13:17:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:50:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:37:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I dont want to be too cynical about this, but if the Sioux want to show that they are serious, then they should turn down all the government benefits they currently receive. If this ever happens, then I'll believe this is maybe more than just a political fantasy.
Also, while the US completely tyrannized their ancestors, what is the US doing today to them that is so oppressive?
I wouldn't disagree with that statement. They do receive a lot of money from the feds and it's pervasive, there are a ton of benefits available, from health to college tuition. Those that live on the reservations rely too heavily on that money to be able to sustain themselves without and that's large part due to where they are.
I don't know that the government does anything directly to oppress them but people do. A lot of that goes back to Indo's immediate assertion that they're just drunk sloths. discrimination's a bitch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't disagree either as I don't generally believe in support or 'restitution' as a long term solution to anything. On the other hand, their land, and means of sustenance, was taken away. How else are they supposed to support themselves on the barren little tracts of land the government left them with?
I'm not sure there really is any viable long term solution that would satisfy both parties. You start giving them back land, and you piss of white people who've been there for generations. You take away their benefits and say "LOL you drunks should just build Best Buys or something," and you're not really doing any good.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-12-21 13:16:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ooooooo. That is just tasty-tempting.
I'll be honest, I'm rooting for them. I wish them all the luck in the world.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:50:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:37:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I dont want to be too cynical about this, but if the Sioux want to show that they are serious, then they should turn down all the government benefits they currently receive. If this ever happens, then I'll believe this is maybe more than just a political fantasy.
Also, while the US completely tyrannized their ancestors, what is the US doing today to them that is so oppressive?
I wouldn't disagree with that statement. They do receive a lot of money from the feds and it's pervasive, there are a ton of benefits available, from health to college tuition. Those that live on the reservations rely too heavily on that money to be able to sustain themselves without and that's large part due to where they are.
I don't know that the government does anything directly to oppress them but people do. A lot of that goes back to Indo's immediate assertion that they're just drunk sloths. discrimination's a bitch.
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:46:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
that stereotype is one that haunts every lakota person. sadly there are enough living it to support it's continued perpetuation. And yes, I have been to the reservations and seen the squalor and poverty these people face. There's a lot more to it than "they're just a bunch of drunk sods who won't work". First and foremost is that the reservations are in somewhat remote locations in a state of just over 700,000 people so there are few jobs, few opportunities to create new business, few opportunities in general.
It's true, Russel Means has no DIRECT power but he is a prominet figure within the lakota community and does know how to stir the pot.
If the land they are demanding were returned to them the way it is right nowand you either had to be part of the Lakota Nation or move to the US then a number of things would make this somewhat feasible.
The infrastructure is already in place, power generation, sewer, communications, roads,
There is decent ag land included in the land they are claiming right to and I doubt that the farmers/ranchers would leave.
assuming the people have to leave or join.... those who joined in the "urban" areas would help sustain the infrastructure, commerce, and eventually i would think would have a lot to do with governing the territory.
I honestly don't believe it could or ever would be done, this is something the Lakota have been trying to roll for a long time but it is an interesting question in theory.
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:37:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I dont want to be too cynical about this, but if the Sioux want to show that they are serious, then they should turn down all the government benefits they currently receive. If this ever happens, then I'll believe this is maybe more than just a political fantasy.
Also, while the US completely tyrannized their ancestors, what is the US doing today to them that is so oppressive?
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:26:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i can't read :(
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:24:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
It might work on some level. Personally, if I were president and in light of these declarations, I would immediately construct a border around the nations. No goods would be permitted in or out of the nations until suitable "trade treaties" were negotiated, a process that I would make certain to take months. All power, utilities, water, sewer, etc. would be completely interdicted. Then, the Indian peoples can make their decision - they can return to their roots and live solely on the land, which is not possible given their restricted range of movement (the Native Americans of the midwest were nomadic rather than agricultural like the eastern tribes), or they can recognize what they are - a SEMI-autonomous nation that coexists with the larger United States and gains great benefits from doing so.
That said, Means is not going to push this to that. He is trying to cut himself a better slice of the action, nothing more. No different from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Submitted by Yozz (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What are negotioans?
They sound like lilliputians, just with more urgency.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:19:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I doubt it would work, as the US has "bent" the rules many times in order to keep seceding state (ie the South) in the Union, later justifying it with the whole "well, we were fighting against slavery" bit. Also, the US people, while disillusioned and aware of the outright corruption in Washington DC, aren't pissed to the point of actually doing anything yet. So if the US didn't outright INVADE, but just marched in to keep the *cough* peace, what exactly would be done to stop them?
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:18:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I will travel to this new nation and claim it as my own. I will lead these people towards a glorious age of fredom and prosperity.
From here I will spead my doctrine and the world will clamor for my stewardship.
Come, kneel before me. a new age is dawning.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:17:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Do they really think this will work? - No
Do you think it can work? - No
With 70,000 people in the Lakota Nation could they actually sustain their own country? - Hahaha, youhave been there right? They are degenerates who drink themselves to a life expectancy of 44yrs. Do you think a people like that can sustain themselves?
If you lived in Rapid City or any of the other "urban" areas included in the Lakota Countries would you be willing to renounce your US citizenship to stay in your home? - You would never have to.
Russell Means doesn't represent the Lakota nation. He is an attention whore, nothing more.
The UN passed a non-binding resolution supporting indigenous people rights. They are no-longer indigenous, they are largely mixed. And even if they were all pure blood you can;t turn back time.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:16:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
What would possibly make you think that the US would treat them any differently than it has in the past? If they make enough noise, they will be crushed. The Dems all all probably hoping that they demand the crushing before the elections, in order to spin the gonvernment reaction for thier own ends. It will be some time today that there will be an official Dem reaction showing limmited support for the cause.
"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself -- and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty." - Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
The only part of that quote remembered by the governmnet these days is "I will obey every law or submit to the penalty".
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:14:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no he didn't. there is definitely some very interesting history to all of this; wounded knee massacre, little big horn, sitting bull, crazy horse, this was all barely more than a hundred years ago!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-12-21 12:12:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
crazy horse never did want to give up.