Looks like the Indian uprising has begun. Our prophets were almost exactly correct on the timing too.

I added this to the Dumpshock frontpage as well.

"...and so it came to pass..."

This will be interesting. time for some state sponsored shadowruns, i'd say

That's cool, I'm all for it. It is perfectly legal to succeed.
I don't want my tax dollars going to help them though.

And if the USSR falls apart in about 20 years, I'll be REALLY freaked out!

i believe they're claiming their reservation as a sovereign nation. man, setting up reservations was really one of the dumbest things the US ever did. if you're going to win, win. don't leave relics around so that your great-grandkids can cry and moan and feel guilty about the fact that you won.

Cool idea. Was pretty clearly settled in 1865 that it's not allowed.

The only actual "legal precedent" set by the Civil War was that you can apparently lead a military force in an armed attempt to destroy the United States, and not get tried for treason or anything else. The only ramifications were the war itself, and the fact that the people who actually fought it got screwed in a lot of cases (ie, killed).

And this isn't the first time native peoples have taken action. In the 70s, they took advantage of a treaty they'd signed with the US that gave them claim to any unused public lands that the government had abandoned, and occupied Alcatraz. Of course, we're not quite done screwing them over, and we put an end to it pretty quickly. And Indians are still pretty much the only people whose property is allowed to be sold by someone else. There's a lot of cases where Indians refused to sell their land, so the US just went to a different Indian, from somewhere else entirely, who was maybe a white guy with a drop of Indian blood, and got him to sell it, and that sort of thing STILL holds up in court. It's like if I were to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to one of you, and when the people of New York complained about you demolishing it, or whatever you wanted to do, some punk judge said "No, he had a right to--he paid for it fair and square," even though the money was paid to me, who's never even been to the Brookly Bridge.

I guess my point is, the US has a way of just making this sort of thing all irrelevant. It's easy to ignore when as a country, you don't care about things like human rights or dignity. Other native nations have their elected leaders and governmental structures, and the US for the most part doesn't care. The official attitude is just sort of "Oh look, how quaint! They've elected a chief named 'Wilma Mankiller...' They think they're a real government, and it's adorable!"


Actually, I'm editing this because I'm not sure about the details of reconstruction. I was just talking about the legal consequences for the individuals involved in the confederate leadership, who didn't face charges because Congress at least nominally wanted to "reconcile" with the south. I'm sure reconstruction forced some pretty crappy stuff down the throats of the south, but I wouldn't call it a legal precedent, especially considering the Texas constitution still specifically grants it the right to secede if it wants.

I'm not sure of the details of the treaties, but I was under the impression that breaking away in this way is in accordance with the treaty. I could be wrong. And it doesn't matter, honestly. We as a nation DO NOT keep our side of our treaties with Native Americans. Why would we start now?

4 guys with a website is hardly an uprising.

Do they have a military to defend their new nation? If not, I say we walk over to it with a couple of sidearms and decare the new nation as taken over...

Probably because it would be funny, more so than anything.

I bet those guys are closely watching how the world, and especially the US, handles the Kosovo Independence issue...

There is nothing funny about Nebraska, or the Dakotas.

I actually support Native American independence. America has treated its natives appallingly, and if they want out, I say "Why not?" What harm is there in that for America, really? And I know that the abuse of natives is not unique to this country, but that doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it any less messed up.

Here's the rub. America hasn't treated any natives appallingly for decades. The US government, however, may be guilty of being a bit of a bastard to them. But the government isn't the people, and certainly isn't the nation. If the House of Lords acts like a pack of assholes, I don't blame my friends in London, and I don't blame the whole of the UK's population.

I see their point, I really do. But this is what you'd have to tell people: "Hey, because of some stuff people did in the 1800s - possibly before your family was ever on this continent - you have to lose your job, lose your house, move out of your home turf, and basically find a whole new life. Sorry, but our great-great grandparents were fuckers to these guys' great great grandparents, and now we feel bad."

Seriously, this shit all happened before ANY members of my family had gone further west than Galway. They weren't even on this continent, then. And me? I was born here, and I tend to think that gives me as much right to live here as people whose ancestors got screwed. It sucks, but 'giving land back at the expense of somebody who lives there' isn't the right way to make amends.

in the scheme of things, the US hasn't treated native americans that bad at all. we rode in, killed lots of them, and took their land. that's pretty standard winner-loser stuff. the unusual part is what came next: the US made treaties with the natives and left them to fend for themselves. the treaties were crap, of course, and were reneged on the moment it was convenient. but it's not often that the winners of a land grab say to the losers, "here's some of that land we just grabbed from you, you can mostly govern yourselves on it and we'll mostly leave you alone."

Aren't they already practically nation of their own? I don't believe they pay taxes, they don't have to follow most federal regulations, they don't vote... Plus they get federal monetary assistance. Am I missing something?

moral superiority is just the lies that the winners tell their kids. what honestly would have been better for the nation and for the individual native americans, i think, would have been scattering them. the situation now strikes me as being similar to shooting a guy in the gut, and then being 'nice' enough to let him bleed out.

allowing the reservations to be sovereign nations... i dunno, that could actually get really weird really fast. i mean, just to throw out one scenario, what happens when one of these NANs decides that filesharing copyrighted material is completely legal, and lets Pirate Bay set up a server farm?

heh, don't get me wrong, that would be hilarious and awesome. but i'm not sure it'd end up being a good thing in the long run.

Ah well, since we're on a shadowrun board there is nothing wrong with just leaning back and having a good laugh at it.

And leave all the moral and political crap for other places.

That aside, I'm really curious if this turns out to be a publicity stunt by a handful of activists (which is my guess) or if it will be put on solid grounds.

Does that "delegation of Lakota leaders" have the authority to speak for the entire Lakota nation in matters of this severity? The two articles I read weren't very clear.

Are these leaders the equivalents of state governors? Are they more like community leaders?

I just typed "Lakota" into Google News and it seems all the European and non-US papers are taking this story and running with it, while it's hardly a blip here on the US radar at all.

I'm sure it'll get a mention later on but I just found that kinda funny.

Um. No, it's not propaganda. Propaganda fundamentally is the "propagation" of biased media messages with the intent of forcing viewers to believe in that bias. NOT showing something could be called many things, but it could never be called propaganda.

not showing you're losing and showing you're winning usually go hand in hand i'd say O.o

Peanut butter and jelly often go together as well, but that doesn't make peanut butter and jelly one thing.

peanut butter and jelly . . has to be an american thing x.x
never met a SINGLE PERSON who would willingly eat such an abomination of a combination . . not even people who actually like both . .

ok, then what is not showing your weakness if not propaganda?

Censorship (be it self or imposed); a lie through omission; a suppression of information. Fundamentally, propaganda is additive in nature, in that it involves the production of something. A lack of information is censorship. The two go together, but are not one and the same.

If you don't like the peanut butter and jelly angle, how about "bread and butter" go together? Or "fish and rice", or "chips and salsa".

*blank stare* people actually eat that?
ok, so i wasn't wholly clear on the dictionary definition of propaganda <.<

At least one of the "Lakota Leaders" isn't a Lakota. They have no standing to do anything. Any given person on this board has the same legal and moral authority as the self-proclaimed "leadership".

those things just HAVE to be culturally based and an aquired taste . .
'cause peanut butter and banana is just as wrong to me O.o. . but banana coated in chocolate eaten from a stick is just fine to me somehow *g*
don't even get me started on the joke that goes for bread over in america somehow <.< . .

but ye, back to business . . heck, who thinks america is going to actually let them do that has to be one of the people i can sell actual parcels on the moon to o.O