The Lakota have cancelled their treaties and seceded from the United States.
The first question that comes to mind, of course, is “can they legally do this under the treaties they have established.” To answer that with any level of competence, I’d actually need to see the treaties in question and particularly the part about withdrawal from same (if there are specific procedures that must be followed or requirements fulfilled, et cetera). The Lakota are completely right about their argument that Article VI of the Constitution demands that treaties entered into by the United States government are binding law upon the United States government, for what that’s worth, but that only goes so far as the treaty. That having been said, I’d find it likely that the Lakota A) have their own lawyers who probably know a lot more about Indian law than I do, and B) are legally confident of their position for a number of reasons.
The second question that comes to mind is “okay, now what?” Can the United States allow – law or not – what essentially amounts to its own version of Taiwan within its borders? And how much land is exactly at stake? I’ve heard people suggest that Lakota territory, under the terms of those treaties from which the Lakota just seceded, stretches as far as the Canadian border. (Not that this helps them much right now, because Stephen Harper won’t do anything to endanger his precious “special relationship” with the biggest dipshit in American presidential history, but I’m sure even with that caveat the Lakota would prefer to not be an entirely surrounded nation like Lesotho or the Vatican.)
Also: be prepared for a shitstorm of indignation considering that Venezuela is one of the nations the Lakota initially approached for diplomatic purposes.
As I said in the post title – this is one of the most significant developments in American political history to come down the pike in a very long time, and potentially one of the most dramatic changes as well – or one of the quickest enforcements of the status quo.
Related Articles
31 users responded in this post
I think part 0 is “are the people doing the declaring actually in a position of authority to do that.”
Unless there’s some secret Lakota hive mind.
I have my money on “the quickest enforcements of the status quo.”
Okay, Lakota, you have fun with that. The big boy governments will be over here.
Seriously, I understand why they feel it’s necessary, but if they seriously think it’s anything more than a token rebellion, they’re out of their minds. It reminds me of the folks who say that IRS taxes are unconstitutional and voluntary. A strict reading of the law says, “Well, yeah, you’re right,” but every time someone tries to pull that in court, they’re served a nice big helping of shut-the-fuck-up-go-to-jail-and-pay-up. I doubt the Lakota trying to take back large sections of North America, or even attempting to form a separate government inside the US, is actually going to have a chance in hell. The US government recently arrested a bunch of folks minting coins from gold and silver and trying to create an alternate monetary system in the States, so I think the idea of a separate government is going to go over by a lead balloon.
Gee , the whole rebellion thing worked so well the first time around, im sure its going to go over just as well now.
This is reminding me of reading Beggers in Spain years ago, where one group of people (who, this being sci-fi, had all moved onto an orbital) decided to secede. I remember there being very eloquent articles in it about how NOBODY is allowed to secede in the US, for any reason.
So, yeah, this’ll be smacked down real fast, most likely. It will be interesting to watch, though.
How this plays out will be darned interesting, for certain. About ten years ago, a group of Mohawks blocked off a part of the New York State Thruway that ran through their reservation due to a dispute with the state. Their logic was, “hey, our soverign nation, our land, and we can take it back if we want.” Police came, threats flew around. Because I’m lazy and spent too much of my life being stupid, I can’t recall how it panned out after the road re-opened.
Uhhh, drmanbot? The ‘first time around’ rebellion is the reason why the USA isn’t, y’know, still British. It arguably went fairly well….
Unless you’re talking about the ‘rebellion’ those pesky natives staged in a blatant attempt to steal the land they’d been living on for millennia away from the rightful owners who had just arrived from the other side of the planet…?
Bitter:
Uh, bullshit. The constitution says the government can make laws to charge taxes. The tax codes say that you’re required to pay taxes, in what amounts, to whom. The only people saying “It’s not legally required, they just threaten you if you try to point that out!” are the illiterate and the deliberately ignorant – and, by deliberately ignorant, I’m talking Creationist levels of cognitive dissonance, here, as they make the same claims over and over and over again that have “never been disproved, duh, I eat poop!” while completely ignoring the conclusive counterevidence.
Taxes in the US are not voluntary, nor are they unconstitutional. Not by any reading of the law, however strict.
So the US has its own Quebec now? Lovely.
*hides*
Well, income taxes are “voluntary” in the strict legal sense in that you are obligated to volunteer your income information to the IRS as needed and compute your own taxes; the government doesn’t simply send you by a lien-backed bill each quarter. Obviously they’re not voluntary in the way tax-scammers would prefer to believe.
They certainly aren’t unconstitutional; they’re explicitly permitted in their current form by an overwhelmingly-ratified constitutional amendment. (The kvetching about the ratification process–basically the punctuation was subtly different in the forms ratified by several states–has been ruled irrelevant by every court to hear the issue, and can’t be taken seriously at this point.)
I don’t think the outcome is in any doubt — if you’re expecting a new independent Lakota nation from this, you’re just underestimating the lengths this administration will go to in the name of “protecting the Union” from “domestic terrorists” (seriously, if those phrases haven’t been used yet, they will be). The question is how long until the status quo is reinflicted upon the Lakota and to what extent they will suffer because of it. And, of course, to what lengths the administration will go in bringing the Lakota back under its heel.
This will not end well.
Sorry, I should have been more accurate. What I meant is that if you read certain sections of the laws and constitution in vacuum, then it’s possible to say, “You’re right.” But just like fundamentalist Christians don’t, you know, read the rest of the book and then take it in context, the anti-tax folks do the same with tax laws. I’d give odds that there’s going to be something similar that happens/has happened/is happening here.
Depends on whom’s point of view your’e looking from. Im sure the Crown didn’t think so.
Anyhoos, this honestly is a temptest in a teapot. There isn’t going to be a walling off of the Lakota nation, nor is there going to be a storming of barricades with National Guardsmen and the like. This will be settled the old fashioned way. Leaders will be bribed, their constituency dissapointed. The circle of Life continues.
Now if Quebec ever fully separates from Canda , then THAT would be a hulliblaloo.
wish ’em the best luck, it’s not like we Americans don’t ignore the majority of the provisions in those treaties anyway.
I say it is about time personally I think it has taken way to long. Now what I would like to see is all the Indian Nations ban together and do exactly the same thing. Do I believe that the current administration is going to take this well, no probably not however, what are they going to do about it without becoming the people they love to despise in public. The fact is this, the Indian Nations in this country have been treated unfairly since the white man stepped foot on this land, we never kept the treaties we signed with them from day one and or changed them as we thought things up. For what greed that is why all of it happened. I think that not only should the Indian Nations stand up for their rights but the American people as a whole I mean really are we not all having our freedoms slowly and sometimes quickly taken away from us every single day. Forget the taxes if that isn’t bad enough how about the cost on gas and food alone. For what yet again greed. We are all in my opinion a group of people who’s very existance is being threatened by our government. As we just stand by and say “well what are you going to do”. So I say at least someone had the guts to do something about their problems and I would have the backs of the Indians if ever asked to.
Uh, Chris? Russell Means has no authority to do this. If Tom Hayden declared California a socialist republic, it’d have just about as much legitimacy.
Why don’t we wait until the actual government of the Lakota, elected by the Lakota people and empowered to make, well, any decisions at all in this case, make any moves before panicking.
I’d feel more sympathetic if I wasn’t forced to sit through lectures derailed by First Nations students spouting rhetoric about tossing every outsider (that is, someone who doesn’t fit their description of First Nations) out of their country. Or if they didn’t use metaphors for their positions that entailed leaving outsiders to burn alive. Outsiders can never understand them or their culture. The Indians won’t ask you to back them. Not seriously. They’ll just turn around and fuck you once they get their way. They’re just people too, and they can be just as greedy as anyone.
I wish I could remember what that situation in Ontario was where a group of First Nations blocked off a great deal of disputed land, forced people from their homes, and terrorized people who tried to go back and forth.
They’ll either be ignored or shot. It’s not a terribly large worry.
I’d be overjoyed if Quebec separated from the rest of Canada. Since they don’t have their own military force, it’d be simple enough to invade and this time dictate reasonable terms regarding languages and the like.
I’ll put it at 70% status quo, 30% dramatic change.
Right now, globally, we’re in a period of dramatic change. Power blocs are realigning, borders are shifting, and people are pulling out long-repressed troubles for resolution. Much of South and Central America is throwing off their old shackles, China and India are aiming to reclaim their historical place as centers of power, and so on. That’s why the article mentions that the Lakota “visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies” as a first move, those are all countries with native populations who are achieving greater self-rule.
All this is also why the groups who currently hold power are desperately trying to keep it from slipping away. With the American empire already is swift decline, the absolute last thing it wants is an independent sovereign nation lodged within its borders. Plus the current Administration has repeatedly shown their attitude to be that diplomacy and negotiation is for wimps and cowards, so its unlikely they’ll just buy off the Lakota with a new treaty.
So it becomes a question of leverage. How much international pressure can the Lakota bring on their side, how much internal pressure can the US get away with applying to the Lakota, how long can the US tie this up in the courts, what allies and resources do the Lakota have lined up on their side already. The Lakota have picked a moment of weakness to strike, but it’s still a long way to actually pulling it off. So I figure 70% chance the US cracks some heads and slaps the lid back on, 30% that the Lakota achieve some degree of success with this.
It’d be sort of interesting if they managed to pull this off successfully. If we wind up with an independent Lakota/Indian Nation within our borders, that’s going to inspire the white supremacist and fundamentalist secessionists to do their own thing.
Best case scenario, it’s going to be like Snow Crash. Worst case scenario, it’s Civil War II: This Time, It’s Semi-Automatic.
I appear to be using “interesting” as a synonym for “widespread bloodshed.” I should work on that.
A decent chance maybe that the Lakota will at the very least get many of the terms of the past treaties enforced?
Kurotowa is correct that we are in a period of upheaval – Hell, every second is a period of upheaval, but this is a time primed for nations with rising economic and military strength to put political pressure on the United States. What if China decides to call in some debt until we recognize Lakota sovereignty or allow China to take Taiwan?
The treaties will never be enforced. They’ve been trying to have them enforced for decades with little or no result. Even if they did get some satisfaction out of the treaties, how long before we break them again?
I think that the move they’re making is *because* they can’t get anything from the treaties.
This certainly is interesting, but I doubt it will outlast the writers’ strike. Like other people have said, the gub’mint don’t take kindly to people seceding from the Union, and Lakotah (Russell Means et al.) in all likelihood have neither the legal authority, the personal magnetism, the popular support, nor the resources to successfully make their own independent nation-state within the borders of the U.S. Especially considering that they’re a land-locked, chronically-oppressed, desperately poor minority. Especially-especially considering what will happen once Bud and Martha Ingersol, a fictional Nebraska farm family I just made up, hear tell that Lakotah wants to annex their land because some asshole took it through questionable means over 150 years ago and go to the local Fox affiliate.
That said, I am anxious to hear the State Department say *something* about this. Bonus points if they mention Key West, the last area of the United States to secede, if only for three weeks. Theirs was a bloodless rebellion, ceremoniously ended when the mayor of Key West was allowed to hit the governor of Florida over the head with a loaf of French bread.
“Especially considering what will happen once Bud and Martha Ingersol, a fictional Nebraska farm family I just made up, hear tell that Lakotah wants to annex their land because some asshole took it through questionable means over 150 years ago and go to the local Fox affiliate.”
States the obvious: what did Europe and the United States do about Mahmoud and Ruqiyyah al-Omari of Palestine when they heard that a group of Israelite-descended people wanted to annex their land because a series of assholes in centuries and centuries past (mainly, you know, Europeans – the Romans) took it through questionable means?
I’ve long used a situation like this to explain (without necessarily advocating) the Palestinian position to my friends and colleagues down here in Texas. What if a coalition of European and Asian nations forcibly carved a Comanche nation into the best parts of Texas? How would we respond when it was demonstrated that they had lived here longer, had suffered a government-sponsored pogrom (not a formal Holocaust, but army intervention and the breaking of a major treaty – to prevent the slaughter of the buffalo), and had a strong cultural connection to this land? How would Texans respond to finding Comancheria encompassing Austin and Dallas? How would Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma respond to losing land? How would Americans in California, Louisiana, etc. respond to this sudden plight of their neighbors?
In Scripture we find an old Hebrew proverb: the fathers eat bitter grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.
Declaring independence is only a good idea if you can successfully defend yourself from the nation you leave. Otherwise, they just get to reconquer you and structure a new relationship that is even less favorable for you. This is what happened when the southern states tried to leave the U.S., and I expect it will happen here.
The Southern States didn’t have an international community antagonistic to the United States, with many nations approving of expanded rights of indigenous populations. Can you imagine the outcry if we just slaughtered the seceding Lakota without first giving them due appeals to our government and to other nations?
I’m not saying they’ll be successful, but the Civil War of the United States occurred in a much different international climate.
(p.s. yes, I know several European nations did aid the South)
So, to my knowledge, not a peep has been heard about this from either the State Department or the actual Lakota tribal government. Although I don’t think for a second that Means is going to get anywhere with this, I’m a bit confused as to the why the tribal government hasn’t yet put out a statement to the effect of “This asshole in no way speaks for us all.” I’ll admit I didn’t know much about the Lakota situation until this story prompted me to investigate a little, but Tribal President John Yellow Bird Steele doesn’t strike me as a supporter Means’ ideology.
As to how this may end, assuming Means and his group stay the course and find some support among the Lakota (although it may turn out to be a very small minority, I’d find it hard to believe there aren’t some hotheads somewhere on the reservations nodding along to this), this will most likely turn into a second Wounded Knee. Tragic, but not likely to rise above half a dozen casualties.
Worst case scenario? Means gets himself into another Wounded Knee and his faction of the AIM (as opposed to the faction of the AIM that hates his guts) starts in with sympathetic acts of domestic terrorism through-out the course of the siege. Not likely at all, but it may be a far-end-of-the-spectrum possibility.
You want to know what a big deal is? Bhutto is dead . Thats a big deal. Pakistanis going into a state of anarchy, and they have nukes. This pussy footing political crap the Lakota are pulling so they can opena casino somehere means jack shit compared to that.
If I recall properly (IANAL), there are two factors at play here.
Number one is that current US precedent is that treaties have absolutely no power in and of themselves, and only have any authority when their provisions are enacted into law. That is, a treaty can be approved, but until Congress gets off its ass and writes a law saying “do what the treaty says”, the treaty isn’t law. So it doesn’t really matter what treaties the Lakota have made, only what laws Congress has enacted in support of those treaties.
Number two is that Indian nations don’t have independent sovereignity; they have dependent or limited sovereignity. I forget the exact term, but it’s even weaker than the sovereignity that states retain. So Indian nations lack most of the powers that real nations have. So they almost certainly don’t have a power to declare independence that the US would recognize.