The Lakota declare independence from the USA

[Saturos]

negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid.

Well said.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Meh.

I am part Native American (Sioux)

Seriously, you lost the god damn war. Start paying taxes and get with the rest of society.

Haha, sad that you claim to be part Indian and say something as horrendously narrow-minded and ignorant as this. First of all, what "war", could you be referring the the sparse amounts of actual combat scenarios enacted in the colonial days? There was not one defining moment when a war was 'lost' or all land was handed over to the colonials.

 

[Ennui]

talking shit against Islam/Muslims is not being Racist,talking shit against native Americans is.

You are incorrect. Talking shit about any collective entity is prejudiced (I won't say racism to avoid LOLSEMANTICS), in that regard there is no distinction between Native Americans and Muslims. Whether Islam deserves to be criticized or not doesn't affect the fact that you're still being prejudiced (just as you would be prejudiced against anything else you find bad, like the KKK or whatever).

What happened to the Native Americans is unbelievably sad/regrettable. European colonization of the New World completely annihilated a long-standing race of people with complex and beautiful cultures and lifestyles. They had the same tribal system for over ten thousand years... and it worked. I like to think about what life would be like if they had been the dominant civilization rather than Europe.

 

[Raziaar]

I like to think about what life would be like if they had been the dominant civilization rather than Europe.

I would be known as Walks With Buffalo Talks With Buffalo

 

[Ennui]

And I am Takoda (friend to everyone), custodian of the peace pipe.

 

[HunterSeeker]

What happened to the Native Americans is unbelievably sad/regrettable. European colonization of the New World completely annihilated a long-standing race of people with complex and beautiful cultures and lifestyles.

I agree its sad, but they where no angels make no mistake.

They had the same tribal system for over ten thousand years... and it worked. I like to think about what life would be like if they had been the dominant civilization rather than Europe.

Mass ritualistic human sacrefice?

 

[Raziaar]

Mass ritualistic human sacrefice?

Only enough to appease the sun god!

 

[Ennui]

heh I was thinking more of the little tribal systems like in North America. They were in Central American too though, the tribe Apocalypto is about for example. Mayans/Aztecs/Incas were all a little different (more Western almost) than the rest of the Native American population.

 

[Raziaar]

heh I was thinking more of the little tribal systems like in North America. They were in Central American too though, the tribe Apocalypto is about for example. Mayans/Aztecs/Incas were all a little different (more Western almost) than the rest of the Native American population.

Yeah. I'm quite familiar with most of the various Native American tribes and various Mesoamerican civilizations. Only a few of the south american ones though, like the Inca.

 

[Thunderclap]

@Raziaar

I admit I spoke too generally in my first posts, and for that I apologize. Much of my experience is colored by the novel Ceremony, by Leslie Marmon Silko, one of the most celebrated Indian authors of our time. She is a Laguna Pueblo, and in the aforementioned book gave a detailed description of life on the Pueblo reservation, and while she did not use historical figures, the characters in the novel had a grounding in reality. In short, their existence was quite hellish, and most of them were/are dependent on the outside world to survive.

@Ennui

They had the same tribal system for over ten thousand years... and it worked. I like to think about what life would be like if they had been the dominant civilization rather than Europe.

Frankly, I believe such a situation is totally impossible. I am not going to talk about racial superiority, (I don't believe in it), but Europeans were...hell, I don't want to use a loaded word like destined, but, well, given where they were in the world their mastery was inevitable. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel if you want to have a very interesting (and IMO, correct) explanation about why it was Europe that conquered most of the known world, instead of China or the Aztecs or whoever.

Basically, Europe had the best combination of resources, hospitable climate, and central location for world domination. I know it sounds like a game of Civilization, and really, that's what it sort of is. They had the best starting position. Europe itself had a rich culture and great technological innovations, but they were also central enough to take the best that other civilizations had to offer, such as gunpowder from China or algebra from Arabia, and the resource base to exploit those inventions to their fullest potential.


@BHC

First of all, what "war", could you be referring the the sparse amounts of actual combat scenarios enacted in the colonial days? There was not one defining moment when a war was 'lost' or all land was handed over to the colonials.

Tell that to Hernan Cortes. Conquered the entire Aztec Empire and in the space of two years went from no one to the supreme ruler of twenty million souls through brutal cunning, incredible bravery, and awe-inspiring feats of arms.

 

[Eejit]

Tell that to Hernan Cortes. Conquered the entire Aztec Empire and in the space of two years went from no one to the supreme ruler of twenty million souls through brutal cunning, incredible bravery, and awe-inspiring feats of arms.

That's irrelevant. Stern is clearly talking in the context of the thread, i.e. North American natives like the Lakota.

 

[CptStern]

negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid.

man made

Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races, are social constructs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Wow. Seem's like the forum is really bigoted towards Native Americans.

That's sad -- I'll never believe anyones PC Liberal/Conservative bullshit ever again.

Independence will not change any of this. I am one quarter Cherokee, and have been on an Indian reservation. I remember it as a grim, miserable place, where all hope is lost and the only respite can be found in a beer bottle or a bullet through the brain.

The hubris of this movement will be matched only by its catastrophic failure. If they refuse to pay their taxes, then America can and should withhold all the privileges held by citizens of the United States. Like phantomdesign said, cut all economic support of any kind. When their hunger (and thirst for cheap liquor) overcomes their pride, they will come crawling back like the pathetic, defeated people they are.

That's a nice college education -- too bad that it was wasted on you're bigotry.

 

[99.vikram]

Wow. Seem's like the forum is really bigoted towards Native Americans.

That's sad -- I'll never believe anyones PC Liberal/Conservative bullshit ever again.

Or they don't like the idea of an independent country right inside the US?

But I'm ignoring the bigger issue here. Your faith has been shattered! *gasp*

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Or they don't like the idea of an independent country right inside the US?

Perhaps the Lakota didn't like the idea of white caucasians stealing they're territories through sickness, cheap guile, and warfare.

Let them declare independence -- if it works, maybe others will follow in they're path.

 

[99.vikram]

Perhaps the Lakota didn't like the idea of white caucasians stealing they're territories through sickness, cheap guile, and warfare.

150 years ago.

And even if they were to become independent, they have no industry or trade to speak of. It will become a burden for the US to support them.

Unless you think they will happily revert to the lifestyle they led a century ago, which is plain crazy talk.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

150 years ago.

We could tell the Palestinians and some of the forum goers, "60 years ago" concerning the existence of Israel -- but I wonder how'd that go?

Unless you think they will happily revert to the lifestyle they led a century ago, which is plain crazy talk.

They couldn't and they can't. This move of they'res may have been political but it certainly wasn't well planned or calculated.

 

[repiV]

That's a nice college education -- too bad that it was wasted on you're bigotry.

How is that bigotry?
You can't have your cake and eat it. If you don't pay taxes, you get nothing.

 

[Ennui]

It's not bigotry. It's the pathetically unfortunate truth.

Ideally we'd have never ****ed them over in the first place, but it's far, far too late now. This "independence" is just a political statement, basically.

Of course... some kind of reparations from the US Gov would be nice, but also relatively pointless, because as I said, it's too late.

 

[Thunderclap]

Don't you know giving people enough money will bring the dead back to life?

 

[Raziaar]

150 years ago.

And even if they were to become independent, they have no industry or trade to speak of. It will become a burden for the US to support them.

Unless you think they will happily revert to the lifestyle they led a century ago, which is plain crazy talk.

150 years ago... so? We celebrated our independence more than 150 years ago from the British, and wrote the Declaration of Independence, and people in this country still regard that thing as the ****ing holy grail of American freedom.

Yet when the Lakota quest for their own independence and separation, you guys treat them like they're deranged lunatics.

 

[repiV]

150 years ago... so? We celebrated our independence more than 150 years ago from the British, and wrote the Declaration of Independence, and people in this country still regard that thing as the ****ing holy grail of American freedom.

Yet when the Lakota quest for their own independence and separation, you guys treat them like they're deranged lunatics.

Probably because American independence actually meant something and led to the rise of the greatest nation in history, and the principles the USA was founded on remain a model of freedom that's never since been equalled.
It's a bit different from a tribe declaring independence from a successful, technologically and economically accomplished nation that pays for its upkeep, which will accomplish nothing. It's not like they have anything to fight for here. You think the Amish would be better off if they were independent?

 

[15357]

150 years ago... so? We celebrated our independence more than 150 years ago from the British, and wrote the Declaration of Independence, and people in this country still regard that thing as the ****ing holy grail of American freedom.

Yet when the Lakota quest for their own independence and separation, you guys treat them like they're deranged lunatics.

Well, most likely it's a problem of secession, i.e. you let one go, and the rest follows.


And which is why secession is never tolerated, and the "deranged lunatics" are "calmed" with tanks and infantry.

 

[Ennui]

Again, it's not like any of them think it matters. They're just making a political statement.

I get the feeling the government is just going to ignore them anyway.

Let me tell you something about secession: last time it REALLY happened, 600,000 Americans died fighting each other to repair it. A few rightfully pissed off Native Americans are not really anything remotely close to an actual attempt at secession. It's about as meaningful as me sending a message to the government stating that I hereby annex North Carolina and declare it a sovereign state with myself as ruler.

 

[repiV]

Well, most likely it's a problem of secession, i.e. you let one go, and the rest follows.


And which is why secession is never tolerated, and the "deranged lunatics" are "calmed" with tanks and infantry.

Shut up. Please.

 

[15357]

Shut up. Please.

;( ;(

 

[Eejit]

And which is why secession is never tolerated, and the "deranged lunatics" are "calmed" with tanks and infantry.

The British had to tolerate it. Only a minority of the countries formerly part of the empire had to fight for their freedom.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

;( ;(

RepiV you bully. Now you've made numbers cry.

 

[99.vikram]

;( ;(

I agree with numbers. Countries can't afford to let some parts become independent for 3 reasons -

1) If one province gets independence, how long will it be before others fight for the same thing?
2) If the newly independent state allies with an unfriendly nation, then what?
3) Unity is better for all parties involved, economically and from the PoV of international politics.

Independence is for societies with strong industry, political clout and a strong army for territorial defense.
If you don't have these things, you can't stay "independent".

 

[Kyorisu]

Probably because American independence actually meant something and led to the rise of the greatest nation in history

Oh wow.

 

[99.vikram]

Probably because American independence actually meant something and led to the rise of the greatest nation in history, and the principles the USA was founded on remain a model of freedom that's never since been equalled.

Looks like my stupidity filter overloaded. Damn.

 

[repiV]

Looks like my stupidity filter overloaded. Damn.

So which part is stupid exactly, or are you just being a pretentious ****?

Save your pious stupidity filter shit for yourself - only a complete fool would deny the incredible accomplishments and influence of the USA in such a short space of time, and the unquestionably righteous principles upon which the country was originally founded.

 

[repiV]

RepiV you bully. Now you've made numbers cry.

The infantile "crush the resistance with tanks and infantry!!!" and "annihilate all those who would question the greatness of the best Republic in the world (if you like small, unremarkable, xenophobic authoritarian police states anyway) with machine guns and nuclear bombs" routine is starting to get really tiresome.
It's like listening to a child with an overactive imagination.

 

[2real]

Oh wow.

you disagree?

 

[99.vikram]

Save your pious stupidity filter shit for yourself - only a complete fool would deny the incredible accomplishments and influence of the USA in such a short space of time, and the unquestionably righteous principles upon which the country was originally founded.

The USA did do a lot in a very short time, but it never had to compete fiercely with any other faction for resources. You had a whole continent virtually to yourself. The 'stupidity' would be that you assumed the settlers fared better than the Indians because they were an inherently better race, which is WRONG.

And save the righteousness BS, it's just another secular democracy.

 

[repiV]

The USA did do a lot in a very short time, but it never had to compete fiercely with any other faction for resources. You had a whole continent virtually to yourself. The 'stupidity' would be that you assumed the settlers fared better than the Indians because they were an inherently better race, which is WRONG.

What is this "you" shit? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not ****ing American, which is abundantly evident from even a cursory glance anyway. Am I only allowed to praise the underdog or something?
You're extremely narrow-minded and ignorant if you think it all comes down to an abundance of available resources (which weren't just there anyway, they had to be taken). If you can't discern the difference between European settlers improving upon the already highly advanced models of society they came from and a civilisation that never got past the tribal stage, then nothing I can say will knock sense into you.
European civilisation is inherently superior to Native American civilisation - that's just a fact, whether you like it or not. It's also superior, to one degree or another, to every other civilisation on the planet - the West doesn't rule the world as a result of some happy accident you know.
Middle-Eastern countries have practically a monopoly on oil, some are so rich in resources they have the power to create a society so wealthy and prosperous it would put the rest of the world to shame. Yet except for some pockets of Western investment, they remain poor, oppressed shitholes because Islamic culture is a regressive force that prevents societies from ever accomplishing anything and its people from ever being free.
Hong Kong is a tiny area of land, and largely inhospitable - it's very mountainous to the extent that you can actually commute to work via the largest elevator in the world. Yet thanks to the combination of British governance and Chinese work ethic, it's the financial centre of the whole of Asia and one of the four most important cities in the world. It ain't too great on resources, I can tell you that.
So don't insult my intelligence, and give the "they had all the resources" shit a rest. If only the world were so childishly simple. Invest the same amount of money in several different people and the result will be drastically different. Some will waste it, some will hoard it and others will use it to create something greater than they were given. So it is with countries and cultures.

And save the righteousness BS, it's just another secular democracy.

No it's not. Technically, it's not even a democracy - it's a republic. Besides which, the USA defined the concepts of secular democracy, liberty and self-determination as we understand them today. Perhaps you're a little hazy on US history, but if you'd care to do your homework you would remember that the USA was created out of rebellion and tyranny - to provide a better future for people that wanted to live in freedom.
No system in existence today guarantees the kind of liberty and freedom from government that the US constitution and the Bill of Rights sets out. Of course, the current reality is a long way from the vision, but for a long time the world admired America - and still, they get some things right that no other country does.
Concepts such as "tyranny is when the people fear the government; liberty is when the government fears the people" began with the USA. Like it or not, the world owes a lot to the USA, and if you can't acknowledge that you're either prejudiced or an idiot.

 

[CptStern]

Probably because American independence actually meant something and led to the rise of the greatest nation in history

anyone else hear the victory theme song from Day of Defeat (US side) play in your head after reading that?

dum de dum dum dum duuuum de dum..





we now return you to your regularly scheduled program which is already in progress

 

[Pesmerga]

I have to agree with repiV. Amurica, **** YEAH.

No, seriously. Weren't you guys still using kings when we had presidents? Totally old school! I don't know much about UK's history, but it seems to me that democracy didn't really kick ass until the United States started kicking ass in WW2.

I'm just assuming everyone here agrees that democracy = good? Well, besides a few particular pinko liberal commies that I just know love to say differently.

 

[99.vikram]

Concepts such as "tyranny is when the people fear the government; liberty is when the government fears the people" began with the USA. Like it or not, the world owes a lot to the USA, and if you can't acknowledge that you're either prejudiced or an idiot.

That's funny, France comes to mind...

 

[CptStern]

I don't know much about UK's history, but it seems to me that democracy didn't really kick ass until the United States started kicking ass in WW2.

dum de dum dum dum duuuum de dum.....