Posted on 11/09/2009 6:37:49 PM PST by SJackson
As much as I respect the Lakota/Nakota/Dakota tribes, they are not getting my 40 acres in the middle of the Black Hills.
Times change, and they must with them.
In 1776 the Sioux defeated the Cheyenne in war and took the Black Hills from them.
About 100 years later the US did the same to the Sioux.
Why does the first conquest confer legitimate title and the second doesn’t?
Lakota theology in general has everyone getting along in the end. They have moral arguments (IMO) for the terms of the 1868 treaty, but the legalism gives the advantage to the USA. I have long thought that the settler portions that were passed after the last hostilities were the weakest portions of the US’s case and apparently so does the government since the USDA has a program that reverses the land claim issue with low interest loans for Indians to reclaim reservation land. My advice to the Indians, move on after securing property rights.
In the mid-1980s, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley proposed that the U.S. government return 1.3 million acres of federal forests and unoccupied park lands in the Black Hills. The idea went nowhere with Congress, but Obama's overture in Sioux Falls has created a renewed optimism.
They still have to wait their turn in line after General McCrystal.
Some would say the entire US was; but that’s a long argument. I am not giving up my home.
Having Obama invite you to the White House is like getting invited to a slumber party by Jeffrey Dahmer.
I knew he was gonna shaft the Indians.
The Black Hills are still legally theirs, by legal treaty.
Typical, illegal machinations by the gov't doesn't change that.
Indeed, MUCH more land, from the Canadian border to the southern, sill legally belong to the Native Americans - by our own treaties and Supreme Court rulings.
Not that they are honored by dishonorable politicians.
And now the gov't owns hundreds of thousands of peoples homes across America - through forced bank loans and Fanny and Freddie - Loans people couldn't really afford. They they - the gov't - deliberately deep sixes the economy - tens of thousands of homes go into bankruptcy and the so-called stimulus bill was supposed to avoid that. Guess what. None of that money went for that. Now the gov't owns the mortgages - which they will now take over and they are planning on letting the people RENT their houses from the gov't. Results, the go'vt is about to become the biggest landlord in the country. This has been the plan all along.
Do you think all those homes will EVER go back to private ownership? Hint: Under Marxism, the gov't owns everything.
i.e., we are all about to experience what the Native Americans have.
Enjoy your serfdom.
“I am 90 years old now.”
More incentive for Zero to procrastinate.
Those “independent entities” would be a place from which some to ask for asylum, would they not?
That’s an old picture. The monument is way beyond that stage now.
Those “independent entities” would be a place from which some could ask for asylum, would they not?
I wouldn’t know as I didn’t pay to get in when I went. I think it was almost twelve years ago since I was up that way.
Let me guess: because the US gov. signed a treaty with the latter “ as long as the grasses grow and the rivers flow”. But of course everyone knows that the Gov. is a liar and it’s subjects don’t give a damn.
No one was forced to buy a home or get a mortgage
Chief Red Cloud as you know Barack Obama has been given the honor of being titled “Chief Walking Eagle” please address him this way from now on.
(The walking eagle is so full of crap it cannot fly.)
Baaken oil
Oh, they could be quite the thorn in the side of an authoritarian central government.
I reckon so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.