PDA

View Full Version : I support the Lakota nation



HornyPope
12-22-2007, 12:53 PM
The people of Lakota should succeed from the United States in the manner the latter propose it is done in Kosovo.

http://users.dma.ucla.edu/~estevancarlos/images/lakotanation.jpg

TBD
12-23-2007, 04:34 AM
After a week of our glue and alcohol embargo on them and they'll come running back.

wheelchairman
12-23-2007, 05:02 AM
There is a diplomatic term for this situation, where all partners win.

Kosovo will declare independence.
The West will most likely recognize it.
Russia most likely will not and will back up Serbia or something.
Kosovo will have to move around in the breathing space this implies.

But it gives the west and Kosovo the opportunity to pretend it has independence. And for Russia to completely ignore it's independence.

It was better formulated in an article I read two weeks ago.

the_GoDdEsS
12-23-2007, 08:10 AM
I like reading stuff here: http://www.serbianna.com/ They have a collection of articles from international press, but the reviews and analyses are usually the most interesting and sometimes written from a different point of view than the media presents.

HeadAroundU
12-23-2007, 10:30 AM
The people of Lakota should succeed from the United States in the manner the latter propose it is done in Kosovo.
Don't you know that Kosovo's status is unique and would not set a precedent for other separatist groups!? ;)

sKratch
12-23-2007, 11:01 AM
My 2:
Secede != Succeed.

XYlophonetreeZ
12-23-2007, 11:36 AM
You should have picked some other Indian nation like the Cherokee, who would probably take my hometown with it if they seceded in such a manner. I only say this because nobody would ever miss any of the land in yellow on that map.

HornyPope
12-23-2007, 11:53 AM
But it gives the west and Kosovo the opportunity to pretend it has independence. And for Russia to completely ignore it's independence.

No, that's pretty stupid for the Russians. What are they gonna get out of it? Instead, like HAU's hinted in his remark, Russians argue that unilateral independence declaration (supported by the West) will set a precedent for other separatist groups to follow, starting with North Ossetia, Southern Abkhazia, Adjaria, Pridnestrov'e and Krym and Eastern Ukraine... and that's just within the former USSR.

the_GoDdEsS
12-23-2007, 01:27 PM
They said on February 6th. Talk is Serbs will probably cut off their electricity and round up the Kosovo Serbians in the North of the province for protection. Most of the EU countries have already agreed that they will recognise its independence. And in return Russia might raise their gas prices? I wonder what they'll do.

wheelchairman
12-23-2007, 03:32 PM
No, that's pretty stupid for the Russians. What are they gonna get out of it? Instead, like HAU's hinted in his remark, Russians argue that unilateral independence declaration (supported by the West) will set a precedent for other separatist groups to follow, starting with North Ossetia, Southern Abkhazia, Adjaria, Pridnestrov'e and Krym and Eastern Ukraine... and that's just within the former USSR.

I think the idea was that nothing would change for the Russians. Kosovo would not be independent in reality. The west could finally disengage (after going as far as they could go) and that would be it.

EDIT: Russia is pretty much the ONLY supporter of Pridnestrovie's secession FROM Moldova. EDIT EDIT: Seeing that none of those are part of Russia (except Adjaria, I've never heard of Adjaria) Russia's statement could only be bad if UDI was declared by everyone simulataneously or something. I don't see the relevance. Although so far, to my knowledge only two countries have ever declared UDI before, one of them being a powerful western nation. I think the Russian fears are ungrounded. Although clearly Russia would have something to lose from Western interference. (Since nationalistic differences are so easily exploited by the west, and without doing any research whatsoever I would venture a guess that Russia tries to gain public acceptance in the east through Slavic brothershipness.) However how likely is that, I would guess that the west would like to leave Kosovo pretty quickly, it's hardly been succesful to any degree.

Although it is ironic that Transnistrian independence would allow Russia to leave a conflict they very likely don't want to be a part of in the first place.

HornyPope
12-24-2007, 07:44 AM
Russia is not afraid those breakaway territories declare independence; Russia supports their succession bid, and said they would give them the green light for UDI if Kosovo declares indepence first. The point of this tit-for-tat measure is to hurt the NATO who is concerned with the territories in questions because they are located in Georgia (NATO member) and Moldova and Ukraine (aspiring NATO members).

Therein your answer, Sim, as to what they will do.

wheelchairman
12-24-2007, 09:26 AM
Ah but then why is this something for you to make a stand about? This is the essence of realpolitik.

Mota Boy
12-25-2007, 09:17 PM
From the Lakota Freedom Delegation's website (http://www.lakotafreedom.com/): "The Lakota Freedom Delegation is the powerful realization of an ongoing process lasting no less than 33 years. Despite criticism the Delegation does not speak for the Lakota people, Delegation representatives have been in ongoing communication with the traditional chiefs and treaty councils all across Lakota for the last three and a half years... With this in mind, the Delegation does not act for IRA Indians, 'stay by the fort indians', or other Lakota people unwilling to be free."

So, if I read this correctly, the Lakota secessionists don't actually represent the Lakota nation, but rather a self-proclaimed separatist faction within the nation.

HornyPope
12-26-2007, 11:36 AM
The marginalized people as a whole are always slow to join the revolutionary vanguard. I support the secessionists, however few in numbers.

Mota Boy
12-27-2007, 07:51 AM
Its interesting to see in the "Why" part about secession that none of the problems they point to as causing their desire to secede will actually be solved by secession, but in fact would likely only be exacerbated by it.

HornyPope
12-27-2007, 01:39 PM
What makes you think so?

Mota Boy
12-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Because that area of the country has almost no natural resources and Indian reservations receive a ton of federal funding. All the reasons for seceding that he cites involve the horrific conditions of the Lakota people. How cutting off one of their main sources of income (most likely the primary source) will solve all these problems is something that I very much fail to grasp.

I figure this is mostly a way to raise awareness of the various issues and perhaps finagle some more money out of the government to combat them. The main danger I see is the possibility that this indicates rising radicalism among the small group of secessionists.

HornyPope
12-29-2007, 12:16 PM
If you look at your own list, you will notice that most of the problems aren't economical but rather social. Issues like diseases, incarceration, drugs and alchol, threathned culture, and mortality to an extent, are common to all marginalized societies. It's not lack of money that turns native kids to drugs, alocohol and crime, it's lack of social institutions to bring up the kids, which yes, necessitates funds, but I'll get there in a sec. A nation concerned with the welfare of their people can combat most of these injustices by providing employment and opportunities, where the US Federal government have failed miserably thus far.

Obviously money will be required, and the short term doesn't allow for much enthusiasm, but everything can change over the long run. Twenty, thirty, fourty years of activism and struggle can go a long way to generate sympathy and donations from the world, just ask the PLO or Albanians. A pledge of 5 billion in donations to the Lakota nation, for example, will be enough to improve infrastructure and banking to further ease the influx of capital. The new nation could generate revenues from off-shore banking and tax-havens for corporations, gambling, farming, manufacturing or any labour-intensive jobs (because labour will be cheaper in Lakota than anywhere in U.S.), contracts with the military and the government to lease the land (for waste dumps, military experiments) etc... As long as they can secure enough loans to develop these "industries" and employ their people (very important given current unemployment rates), the government can function, collect taxes, and maintain social institutions like schools and hospitals and after-school programs so crucial for their people.

Mota Boy
12-31-2007, 03:47 PM
If you look at your own list, you will notice that most of the problems aren't economical but rather social. Issues like diseases, incarceration, drugs and alchol, threathned culture, and mortality to an extent, are common to all marginalized societies.Aren't all marginalized societies, by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginalized), economically disadvantaged? There's a direct correlation with income and rates of disease, drug use and incarceration. Everything I see, barring the loss of language, can be explained by 85% unemployment (and, looking at the successes of Asian Americans in preserving their language and culture through the use of private education, even that very social issue becomes a socio-economic one).


Twenty, thirty, fourty years of activism and struggle can go a long way to generate sympathy and donations from the world, just ask the PLO or Albanians.So, you think the best solution is to cut off their most immediate source of funding, because after several decades of suffering, other countries might be able to replace that funding? The Palestinian people are hardly a model of success under any conceivable definition of the word.

And again, this all explains why the best that this group can say is that they have been "in contact" with tribal councils of the Lakota nation - they can't claim to speak for a single official organization.

HornyPope
01-02-2008, 01:56 AM
Aren't all marginalized societies, by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginalized), economically disadvantaged? There's a direct correlation with income and rates of disease, drug use and incarceration. Everything I see, barring the loss of language, can be explained by 85% unemployment

It's like the chicken and the egg argument. There are reasons why the unemployment number is mind boggling high, and those reasons are social; reasons like poor education and development of children, substance abuse, terrible conditions on reserves etc... this prevents investors from creating jobs, and forces emigration of skilled or capable workers, which leads to high unemployment.


So, you think the best solution is to cut off their most immediate source of funding, because after several decades of suffering, other countries might be able to replace that funding?

No, you asked me how is that country to succeed without federal funding and without natural ressources, and I answered that there are ways out there and I threw a very recent example of organizations that pulled it off. It's not about the best solution. A state that urges to declare independence is bound to go through periods of upheaval, to put it lightly, and in the case of Lakota, it means losing federal funding. But does it mean this nation cannot succeed in the future because they can't count on American financial support?



And again, this all explains why the best that this group can say is that they have been "in contact" with tribal councils of the Lakota nation - they can't claim to speak for a single official organization.

I don't think that shatters the organization's credibility, if this is what you are implying. There are multiple strategies to advance a cause, and the strategy (or the people behind the strategy) doesn't have to be supported by everyone. As far as i'm concerned, I support it.

Mota Boy
01-02-2008, 08:19 AM
I don't think that shatters the organization's credibility, if this is what you are implying. There are multiple strategies to advance a cause, and the strategy (or the people behind the strategy) doesn't have to be supported by everyone. As far as i'm concerned, I support it.There is a difference between not being supported by "everyone", and not being supported by even a substantial minority. To me, it greatly de-legitimizes the ability of outsiders to support Lakotan independence if the Lakota themselves don't want it. I see such moves as somewhat paternalistic (i.e. you know what the Lakota need better than the Lakota themselves do [aside, of course, from a view visionaries that share your viewpoint]), mimicking the type of old-school imperialism which, ironically, this movement claims it is attempting to shuffle off.

Closer to home, do you support any of the Canadian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movemen ts#Canada) secessionist movements? I never heard you talk up the Quebec sovereignty movement, though I don't recall talking much national-level Canadian politics with you in general.

HornyPope
01-02-2008, 04:43 PM
There is a difference between not being supported by "everyone", and not being supported by even a substantial minority. To me, it greatly de-legitimizes the ability of outsiders to support Lakotan independence if the Lakota themselves don't want it. I see such moves as somewhat paternalistic (i.e. you know what the Lakota need better than the Lakota themselves do [aside, of course, from a view visionaries that share your viewpoint]), mimicking the type of old-school imperialism which, ironically, this movement claims it is attempting to shuffle off.

I could think of several of reasons why support is slow is to come, but that's just me speculating because i'm not familiar with the Native resistance organization. For one, the radical groups are always more eager and hungry than mainstream groups (so they jump a cause sooner than others). Two, it's normal for mainstream groups to wait out a while before they pledge their support to a radical group about whom they know little about. Three, the mainstream organizations look defficient and corrupt judging from their record. Four, the mainstream groups may be hesistant to share leadership with the newcomers. Five, the mainstream groups may want to distance themselves from the tactics employed by the radicals (it's a question of strategy, so they don't suffer reprisals). Should I go on?

Like I said, i'm just speculating, but I think there is sufficient reasonable doubt to not doom the new group based on their (lack) of affiliations with the popular groups.


Closer to home, do you support any of the Canadian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movemen ts#Canada) secessionist movements? I never heard you talk up the Quebec sovereignty movement, though I don't recall talking much national-level Canadian politics with you in general.

No. The Quebec secessionist movements are all about preserving the French Canadian heritage--which I don't care about since i'm not French--at the expense of other minority groups. It's basically a nationalist movement to strengthen the resolve of the French over Quebec society, and I resent that. Recently, they introduced a comission to oversee how the minorities are serviced in Quebec and how they live, and whether their lifestyle goes against Quebec values, and who is forced to compromised to adapt to this lifestyle, which may seem reasonable until you start analyzing who decides the norms and the values of our society. Can a government-appointed comission take away the privildges of the few because they have the popular mandate to do it?

Mota Boy
01-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Like I said, i'm just speculating, but I think there is sufficient reasonable doubt to not doom the new group based on their (lack) of affiliations with the popular groups.The group isn't nearly as new as their declaration. The leader (or, at least, one prominent member) has run for the position of leader of the Lakota since 2001, and never won. So his ideas have certainly had some time to get out.

Also, speaking of minority v. majority, do you support the Lakota nation as declared geographically? Because that would involve evicting a much greater number of non-Indians from a land.

HornyPope
01-03-2008, 09:04 AM
Also, speaking of minority v. majority, do you support the Lakota nation as declared geographically? Because that would involve evicting a much greater number of non-Indians from a land.

From what I gathered of the group's intentions, evictions wouldn't be necessary, but this much is up to the involved parties to negotiate.