»

[countzero]

wow, interesting stuff ...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001

I wonder how long will it take US to bring some 'democracy' there

[cecilia]

frankly, I want to take MY Constitution and go home!!!

[Matt_H]

Yes, the US should be ashamed of the living conditions native Americans are trying to cope with these days, but I fail to see how severing ties with the US will do any good in alleviating those conditions. What sort of infrastructure exists in the breakaway territories? What sort of raw and manufacturing resources exist to help maintain it? What sort of medical facilities are available?

This doesn't sound like a very well-thought-out plan; I don't see a self-sustaining nation state coming out of this. From my perspective it seems like it will only worsen the plight of those affected.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Matt_H wrote:

This doesn't sound like a very well-thought-out plan; I don't see a self-sustaining nation state coming out of this. From my perspective it seems like it will only worsen the plight of those affected.

So because of what you think, you don't even give them a chance? Then you deny them their language, their culture. So it must be all over the American way, everyone must speak English, everyone must follow the so-called 'freedom way', and swear to a certain god your loyalty to that nation which massacred your ancestors?
Disgusting, truly disgusting.

Of course a well thought out plan is necessary, nevertheless...

[uncharted]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

So because of what you think, you don't even give them a chance? Then you deny them their language, their culture. So it must be all over the American way, everyone must speak English, everyone must follow the so-called 'freedom way', and swear to a certain god your loyalty to that nation which massacred your ancestors?
Disgusting, truly disgusting.

Of course a well thought out plan is necessary, nevertheless...

Where did Matt say any of that?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

uncharted wrote:

Where did Matt say any of that?

Not saying, implicating.
He used the very same argument as the one being used against decolonisation after ww2.
On itself, it's an innocent thought, but the effect sure isn't.

[da9000]

countzero wrote:
I wonder how long will it take US to bring some 'democracy' there

LOL :-D


My initial thinking is along Matt_H's lines (perhaps the typical Euro-American-Caucasian way of thought?). But after thinking about this subject for a bit longer, I believe it's perhaps wrong to think this way. The reason is simply: it's presumptuous. And I think that's what Speel#? (too long a nick mate) is alluding to.

It's as if we're saying (if we're thining this way): we know what's best for you (the Indians), since for us it seems like a stupid move, without merrit for you or your survival.

Instead, the US should just let'em try it out. Figure out some kind of agreement with what lands will be part of this country, and just let the experiment begin. Who knows? If they wipe themselves out, perhaps the US won't ever have to face this 'nagging problem' again! :-)

When I say what I say, I don't mean it in a derogatory way. I believe it's a great shame what the colonization (not just of the US, but also the rest of the Americas) has done to the native peoples and how they've been marginalized, yet in most peoples' minds (in the US at least), this whole subject matter will register as a nagging problem, not something bigger, like a humaniatarian crisis (which it is, because, seriously, put yourselves in the shoes of a poor wratched soul born in their group, and imagine how you'd feel when you learned from modern history what has happened to your people and their plight...).

Anyways, what would the world be without its problems, huh?

[Matt_H]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Not saying, implicating.
He used the very same argument as the one being used against decolonisation after ww2.
On itself, it's an innocent thought, but the effect sure isn't.

@ Speelgoedmannetje

Whoa, whoa, calm down.

Don't put words in my mouth. That was absolutely not my intent. I will ascribe to absolutely none of what you said or what you think I was implying. As I said, the US should be ashamed of how it has treated native Americans throughout history. I won't deny the right to dissolve their treaties (or any rights), I just don't think it will help. As one of the articles said, the average life expectancy is tragically short and infant mortality is tragically high - those numbers don't speak well to the perpetuation of the culture.

So if people need to flash passports and deal with border crossings every time they need a (medical?) service not available "domestically", it's just more headache and red tape that makes life all the more difficult.

I'm a psychology student, so understand that my perspective is an analytic one. Good research needs to make sure that every possible outcome has been thought of, every variable accounted for. I just get the impression from the articles that Russell Means hasn't done that.

[metalman]

countzero wrote:
wow, interesting stuff ...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001

I wonder how long will it take US to bring some 'democracy' there

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said. "This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution," which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

Wrong, the Constitution Article VI only says 'treaties are supreme over state constitutions'.

Only tribes were afforded treaties by US law, which means that Hawaiians, Samoans, Eskimos and Inuit, are in legal limbo, though only a small group of Hawaiians seem to be annoyed with this.

There are hundreds of tribes, each under 'treaties' depending upon when their territory/state entered the Union and the conditions specified.

BTW, we can be sure Mr. Means didn't consult the other nomadic Plains Indians (Blackfoot, Arapaho, Assiniboine, Cheyenne, Comanche, Crow, Gros Ventre, Kiowa, Lipan, Kiowa, Plains Cree, Sarsi, Shoshone, and Tonkawa.) or the semi-sedentary tribes (Arikara, Ioway, Kaw (or Kansa), Mandan, Omaha, Osage, Otoe, Pawnee, Ponca, and Wichita) before making the 'Lakota' territorial claims.


LakotaFreedom is a activist group. Russell Means is a self-appointed leader", a leftist rabble rouser, he and other activist are not members of Lakota nations (AKA Sioux), the Lakota, Nakota, or Dakota tribal councils. They have no legal authority to speak for any Lakota tribe.

"I want to emphasize, we do not represent the collaborators, the Vichy Indians and those tribal governments set up by the United States of America to ensure our poverty, to ensure the theft of our land and resources," Means said

[da9000]

Matt_H wrote:
I'm a psychology student

Impressive, considering your exceptional knowledge of Amiga topics - you can pass for a CS/CE major any time! :-)

Matt_H wrote:
so understand that my perspective is an analytic one. Good research needs to make sure that every possible outcome has been thought of, every variable accounted for. I just get the impression from the articles that Russell Means hasn't done that.

I was going to ascribe analytical to your way of thinking, and mine also, but then went for the semi-provocative (but true) stuff in the parenthesis, hehe. Anyhow, I think analysis and the scientific method is such a staple of our culture, that it's hard for us to think differently sometimes or just accept things or mere chance, at least I speak for myself here. That's why after I thought about the subject and thinking that at the most basic level it's what another human being wants to do with his life, which I should have no say in (unless it impacts my life negatively), I must stop thinking this way, and think a little less presumptuously: let'em try, as long as they won't cause others harm - it's their lives.

If I'm in an "omniscient savior mode", I might as well start by recycling more garbage and wasting more resources, and stop eating meat, etc, etc. At least those "things" don't have much choice of freedom, nor will the protest my actions upon them :-)



And just to clarify one thing: I don't know about this Russell guy, but as soon as I read "actor" (in one of the articles), my head starting thinking all sorts of things... Anyhow, my discussion was generic, not to this specific case. I was making the basic assumption that this withdrawl has been agreed to by every member of the populace, not some "politician".

[Matt_H]

Impressive, considering your exceptional knowledge of Amiga topics - you can pass for a CS/CE major any time! :-)

Ironic, isn't it? I've spent a lifetime as a computer user and yet I barely got through the last CS class I took. More ironic is that I breezed through the previous one.

That's why after I thought about the subject and thinking that at the most basic level it's what another human being wants to do with his life, which I should have no say in (unless it impacts my life negatively), I must stop thinking this way, and think a little less presumptuously: let'em try, as long as they won't cause others harm - it's their lives.

Generally agreed... I can't remember who wrote about it, but there is a branch of thinking that believes if we can't look critically at other cultures, how can we look critically at our own (and thus improve it)? I'm not sure how I feel about that philosophy, but it's been part of my own mental dialogue on this topic.

I was making the basic assumption that this withdrawl has been agreed to by every member of the populace, not some "politician".

If that was the case, I think I'd be a little more optimistic about the plan. However, going on what some people have written in comments on the Argus article, the "unity" that one user deemed necessary for such an action doesn't appear to be there. For those in the region not onboard with the plan, if, as a result of it, the quality of life declines further or, worse, if someone gets outright hurt, that would be extremely bad.

[da9000]

Matt_H wrote:
Ironic, isn't it? I've spent a lifetime as a computer user and yet I barely got through the last CS class I took. More ironic is that I breezed through the previous one.

:-) Sometimes it takes time to have stuff sink in, even for the 'experts'. At least you're working on some part of a CS degree :-) Best of luck and hope to get a chance to answer some of your questions in a possible future threads!

Matt_H wrote:
Generally agreed... I can't remember who wrote about it, but there is a branch of thinking that believes if we can't look critically at other cultures, how can we look critically at our own (and thus improve it)? I'm not sure how I feel about that philosophy, but it's been part of my own mental dialogue on this topic.

It sounds logical to me too, but until it's been tried and tested... Only then we'll know if it was logical indeed.

Matt_H wrote:
If that was the case, I think I'd be a little more optimistic about the plan. However, going on what some people have written in comments on the Argus article, the "unity" that one user deemed necessary for such an action doesn't appear to be there. For those in the region not onboard with the plan, if, as a result of it, the quality of life declines further or, worse, if someone gets outright hurt, that would be extremely bad.

Agreed.