Sioux me...

This is fascinating to me:

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

I'm especially interested in what income sources they develop in lieu of taxation. Passports, ID cards, and the like would bring some money in, but then the United States would need to recognize those as legal to make any sort of travel practical. I have no idea what the process is, but since the lands have long been considered sovereign nations (as amusing Bush speeches have re-enforced in the past years), should be a cakewalk?

If the following statistics hold water, there's work ahead to pull this off without changing significantly the day-to-day:

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

[Note the subjective usage of 'oppresson'- and this from Fox News!]

One of my best friends from college is Oglala Sioux (if I remembered correctly- or he actually may Be Lakota, if not) and Shoshone. I can't wait to ask him what he thinks the impact of this will be- or should be. Will a resurgence of pride take down the severe alcoholism rates (common affliction across most American Indian tribes)- the disease a likely contributer to those cited life expectancies, suicides, and unemployment rates? Or will there even be a resurgence.

What if- Big what if, ala Marvel comics treatment here- other Indian nations follow suit?

On an interesting sidenote (which maybe makes my ponderings on taxes moot, and confirms my random, meandering approach to blogdom):

On July 23, 1980, in the case of United States v. Sioux Nations of Indians, 448 U.S. 371, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Black Hills were illegally taken and that remuneration of the initial offering price plus interest — nearly $106 million — be paid. The Lakota refused the settlement, as they wanted the return of the Black Hills instead. The money remains in an interest-bearing account which now amounts to over $757 million, and in spite of their poverty the Lakota still refuse to take the money.

I'm guessing this won't be a Capitalist nation.

An update (disappointing?) on the announcement from the Daily Kos.

Looks like a small subset wants this to happen, but the Indian suits likely aren't hearing it.

Comments

[tamsen]

er...infinitely...

[tamsen]

Oh, you're very likely right. But it is still infinitly fascinating to me. If managed properly, I think they could be far from crippled- how 'bout toll roads, anyone?- but that would require a well-organized effort run by the non-radicals.

Probably not this scenario here. Yet.

[Jeff]

I am not convinced true sovereignty is in Native American best interests. It is a 2 way street, and the net inflow to these communities (across all tribes anyway) would likely cripple most of their economies.

As to your assertion that since the Lakota Nation "refuses" the $700+ million you refer to, they must not be Capitalists, i disagree. Refusing money based on principle does not disqualify one as a Capitalist, despite the Left's belief that Capitalists worship money above all else. That simply is not true.