digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at users.dma.ucla.edu —

Map of the new U.S.A. / Lakota Nation

users.dma.ucla.edu — Just an overlay image of the new Lakota Nation. It's way up there, where there's nothing much interesting going on.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Waterrat, on 12/21/2007, -196/+25 Will this lead to others declaring their own nations? Such as christians and blacks?
    • acroyear2, on 12/21/2007, -16/+119I don't think Christians or African Americans have any real claim above the Native Americans.

      Texas might secede though.
      • squeaker, on 12/21/2007, -27/+52Good riddance.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/21/2007, -49/+24Take Ron Paul with you before the door hits you in the ass!
          • edwartica, on 12/21/2007, -8/+23And don't forget George W.
          • chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -9/+4"And don't forget George W."

            Two sides of the same idiot pool.
          • mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2***** no! Texans created them, Texans are stuck with them.
        • zzzpoohzzz, on 12/21/2007, -18/+28if somehow you would take ron paul with you.... i would:
          a.)graduate from college next semester (which i will anyways)
          b.)renounce my us citizenship and move to wherever he is going to represent...
          you can call me a fanboy or whatever... but RP is my candidate for this election
          • rda1441, on 12/21/2007, -21/+11b)...

            If that's the case, enjoy the next 12 minutes until he returns to the nothingness that is failed presidential candidates.
          • UoMDeacon, on 12/21/2007, -5/+11If college students actually voted, then RP's campaign might actually have some steam. But just like Gore's failed campaign, when they predicted that college students would come out in "record" numbers; they didn't. I remember all of the celebrity endorsements and pushes on campus when I was there; and showing up at the polling areas to find barely any students.
      • Vincent21212, on 12/21/2007, -10/+71Texas won't secede. The U.S. has become one giant Texas anyway.
        • Tilon, on 12/21/2007, -6/+7Hardly. Texans had an individualist, patriotic belief.

          Nowadays Americans are total sheep and slaves to currency.
          • mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Isn't that why they always try corporate cases in Texas?
            Because the corporations always win?
      • lbmouse, on 12/21/2007, -7/+5"Texas might secede though."

        One can only hope. My anus is a flexin' giving birth to another Texan.
    • poopz, on 12/21/2007, -28/+20lmfao no dumbass thats retarded

      obviously, the indians called first dibs on the continent, so we should all give it back to them and leave. now that makes sense
      • seedebgo, on 12/21/2007, -10/+5I think that things are going back to being right again. I think we can all co-exist.
        • jsmith39, on 12/21/2007, -50/+7The indians are ***** retards, they just created a landlocked nation? What the plight of the Palestinians looks awesome to them or something.

          ***** indians are retarded
          • Breepee, on 12/21/2007, -2/+21I suppose we couldn't expect more from john smith...
          • EarlR, on 12/21/2007, -2/+20The Swiss seem to be doing all right. likewise
            * Afghanistan
            * Andorra
            * Armenia
            * Austria
            * Azerbaijan*
            * Belarus
            * Bhutan
            * Bolivia
            * Botswana
            * Burkina Faso
            * Burundi
            * Central African Republic
            * Chad
            * Czech Republic
            * Ethiopia
            * Hungary
            * Kazakhstan* **
            * Kyrgyzstan
            * Laos
            * Lesotho
            * Liechtenstein
            * Luxembourg
            * Macedonia
            * Malawi
            * Mali
            * Moldova
            * Mongolia
            * Nepal
            * Niger
            * Paraguay
            * Rwanda
            * San Marino
            * Serbia
            * Slovakia
            * Swaziland
            * Tajikistan
            * Turkmenistan*
            * Uganda
            * Uzbekistan **
            * Vatican City
            * Zambia
            * Zimbabwe

            Thanks Wikipedia...
          • Ricky8765, on 12/21/2007, -1/+13Yeah, it looks like Jsmith is the ***** retard
          • mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Plenty of land locked nations as you can see.
            It all depends on how ***** your neighbors are.
            Oh.
            These indians are screwed.
    • ChronicColonic, on 12/21/2007, -5/+6We're good enough, We're smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like us. Hey everybody, let make our own nation! We can get revenue from the Barn Dance tickets we sell!
    • MarkusGarvey, on 12/21/2007, -14/+6YES! ...... don't forget about the Retards, Morons and idiots!...........you most likely live in the Retard area of the country.....
      • edwartica, on 12/21/2007, -12/+9so, basically republicans?
        • starkes, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7the white part of the map. and most of the rest too.
    • mightydavefish, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4What right do they have to the land?
      Geez, ***** dumb comment.
  • Xeworlebi, on 07/25/2008, -4/+193what is the difference between red, orange and the yellow spots on the map?
    • acroyear2, on 12/21/2007, -4/+37I got it from here: http://ishgooda.org/oglala/1868lnd.htm
      • triskele, on 12/21/2007, -0/+21So why didn't you post the whole damn thing in the first place? The picture alone makes me think, "Oh *****! They got Mt. Rushmore." Bush would have a field day with that.
        • Ghost_MH, on 12/21/2007, -0/+26Technically, Mt Rushmore should be theirs...It was kinda, sorta built on the land that was promised to them. Speaking of which...How fantastically wonderful is it that the US gives this huge chunk of land to this tribe of people and then go on to create a monument to themselves right in the middle of it on the face of a huge ass mountain???
          • jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3not just any white men, only the ones that were responsible for the worst offenses against the natives.
        • CabesMojo, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8I think its pretty awesome. I mean its like, just to let them know who is still in charge. How! Giant white man face watch you, you no make war path or great white stone giant come crush you face.
      • flonglonger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7Because no one would dig it if it just showed those small red blocks.
    • 01l0, on 12/21/2007, -2/+64The yellow area is the Lakota's territory per their conditions of surrender to the colonialists. The red area is the territory currently claimed by the Lakota. I presume by withdrawing from the treaty they are attempting to prevent their land from shrinking any further.
      • Osjpr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+14They should take the yellow then.
      • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -0/+19Everything in yellow is theirs.
      • bosssmiley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+20Not quite right. The yellow is what the 1868 Treaties agreed to be the bounds of white and Lakota lands. The orange is what the 1876 settlement (after the invasion of the Black Hills by miners, Custer, etc.) gave them. The dark purplish-red specks are what the Lakota have today.
        "So long as the sun shall shine and the grass shall grow."
        Time to pay 130 years back-rent. :-)
        • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9I don't think the Lakota believe the invasion and seizure of the Black Hills to be legal. The American government apparently restitution for the gold taken, to the tune of several billion dollars. I believe the Lakota could justifiably claim the entire yellow area. However, I am not certain over what area they are asserting their claim.
        • CabesMojo, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3They can claim all they want, the chances of anything coming from it.............slim to none.
          • Ebulating, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2When it really comes down to it, might makes right in this world.
    • rupprupp29, on 12/21/2007, -4/+248The orange areas are slightly darker than the yellow ones, and the red are even darker than the orange.
      • Phyltre, on 12/21/2007, -18/+4Unless you are colorblind.
        • dtraneighty8, on 10/07/2008, -0/+20Comment still applies.
        • Ricky8765, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Exactly, just because someone is colorblind doesn't invalidate the contrast from one color to the next. Idiot
        • Akintunde, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1remember those circles with all those different colors that color blind people couldn't read? I think those colors are close enough together that a colorblind dude would not be able to tell the difference.
          "Idiot."
      • antifreze, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7you sir... win
      • Christianptriot, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Wish I had posted that...
    • skyshock1, on 12/21/2007, -20/+2Racist.
    • bolognium, on 12/21/2007, -30/+18well the racist humor in me wants to say shades of skin.
      • jon30041, on 12/21/2007, -4/+25What makes the red man red? His region on the new Lakota Nation map!
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/21/2007, -5/+57Those are the primary, secondary, and tertiary bombing zones.
    • dsmx, on 12/21/2007, -3/+14You watch bush will declare war on Indians claiming terrorists have taken control of rushmore.
      • mstar, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5You assume there is oil on their land... in which case, Yes.
    • zeejay, on 12/21/2007, -2/+29They denote the concentration of casinos.
    • JoeMax, on 12/21/2007, -0/+24The yellow is the Lakota's traditional area they lived in as a nomadic people. (though shared with a several other nomadic/non-nomadic tribes, some of them now lumped into the "Sioux" name). It is bordered by the Missouri/Yellowstone Rivers on the North and East, the Platte/North Platte Rivers on the South, and the Big Horn River on the west.
      The Orange section represents the area they currently claim as being theirs. The Dark areas are the reservations currently setup by the US Government. Reservations in this area are: Rosebud, Pine Ridge, Santee, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Crow Creek, Yankton, Omaha, and Winnebago. Not all of these are denoted on the map.
      For more information see state maps available at nationalatlas.gov

      • Burnybahd, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0"Big Horn River on the west". My parents still live in the US by about 200 yards.
    • swiftekho, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14I wonder if the Lakota will ally themselves with the great nation of Petoria
    • sotopheavy, on 12/21/2007, -2/+14You guys realize this will not work. They will be ignored and when a conflict comes up between the US and Lakota laws the US will enforce its own by any means. They will treat this like it never happened.
      • Hillsfar, on 12/21/2007, -2/+41 up only because it's true, not because I like it.
      • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3You guys realize this will not work. They will be ignored and when a conflict comes up between the US and Lakota laws
        The main problem is Russell Means and his group have no real power ...He was not elected to any Tribal position
        From the Rapid City Journal
        On the one hand, this was going to be one of the biggest ‘talkers’ of the day, and had already had 121 comments since being posted early afternoon. The LNI is in town. Russell Means is a prominent figure in the Native American community. The treaties and sovereignty are key issues in Indian Country.

        On the other hand, there were no tribal presidents in the group which made the announcement, no one from the top ranks of any of the Lakota Sioux tribes. The timing with the LNI was curious. Russell Means has been known to stage public events to get his message out, and there are some Lakotas who don’t feel Means speaks for them.

        It would be like Jessy Jackson claiming 1/2 of Georgia because the slaves made it what it was
    • tomservo51, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Kethup and Mustand stains.
    • eagles2k3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Severe and Strong Thunderstorms likely.
  • jasonroeber, on 12/21/2007, -13/+170They do have one very valuable resource, wind power, that region has some of the best wind resources in north america, could be the next oil.
    • acroyear2, on 12/21/2007, -4/+33I'm not sure why someone dug you down but yeah, I imagine there's a lot of good resources there.
    • AJRiddle, on 12/21/2007, -3/+27Or maybe something very valuable now. Corn.
      • WootZoot, on 12/21/2007, -3/+58They call it "Maize"
        • jcaino, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7actually, maize is quite different from corn as we know it today.
        • pastaq, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12@jcaino
          Actually actually, corn is a misnomer carried over from the old days when something was hard, like nuts and the like. We still use it for other things too, like corns on your feet. Maize is the actual name of the grain.
      • Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -4/+14I don't know how profitable it'll be without US subsidies.
        • atarijedi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9But with no Taxes, who needs Subsidies!
        • testcase, on 12/21/2007, -0/+18They were doing fine without subsidies pre-1492... they'll be fine.

          and besides - the whole country is going to have to learn how to live without subsidies now that the government is nearly bankrupt... sorry, get used to it!
          • WNW3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+21492? Why, that's when Columbus sailed the ocean blue!
          • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2If doing fine means living in teepee's, walking EVERYWHERE( No horses remember?) killing Buffalo by driving them off a cliff. then yea they were "Doing fine"
        • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9I think this is about independence, not subsidies. In any case, with a male lifespane less that 44 years, they could hardly do worse than they are doing right now.
      • atarijedi, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1All of a sudden the Bush Administration will start talking about how Ethanol's energy return is about 1, and not worth dumping money into.
        • lastdeadmouse, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7From corn, it's not worth dumping money into.
      • obliviousfool, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12I'm not sure why you're getting dugg up. Have you folks ever been to this area? The western part of SD is where we shoved Native Americans specifically because it's hilly and dry and pretty much worthless for agriculture.
        • sallos, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6I agree! I don't think many diggers at all have been there, they just new a few midwest facts that they like to tout. This area is empty, and if it was useful it wouldn't be.
    • newprohibition, on 12/21/2007, -1/+13According to assorted reports there is Uranium Ore, plenty of Crude Oil, and copious amounts of other resources in the yellow areas.
      • senatorpjt, on 12/21/2007, -5/+4So the Indians who want to stay on the reservation and maintain their tradition can fund it by.. mining uranium? Does anyone else see the irony?
    • jon30041, on 12/21/2007, -0/+19South Dakota has the maximum potential for wind-power output in the country, yeah. 16x the potential of the entirety of Germany, which is currently the world leader in wind power production. The one state.
      • gravylookout, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8Oil is to Saudi Arabia as wind is to the Dakotas
      • RuffRidr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10It's so windy because Nebraska sucks and North Dakota blows! That joke kills in Pierre.
    • sniperhare, on 12/21/2007, -14/+5We need to go take our territory back.
      • rootneg2, on 12/21/2007, -8/+11if "we" refers to the native americans

        and "out land" refers to the entire continental US

        then yeah.
      • rex84, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3Go ahead and try.
    • antialias02, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Not very many people know this, but North Dakota actually has.. oil. A lot of it. Right where that yellow is, in fact. Creepy!
    • wherley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Honor the Earth works on Wind Power initiatives for Native Americans -
      http://honorearth.org/initiatives/energy/renewable ...
      Winona LaDuke is the executive director.
    • sgglynn, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Yeah but once they set up a working wind farm, the US Gov will list the Lakota tribe as a terrorist group and wage war.
      "We can NOT let the terrorists win, these people are harvesting OUR wind and using it against us, it is imperative that we launch a preemptive strike before they use wind power for evil. The Lakota's claim they are using it for peaceful energy purposes, but we know the truth"
      - George W Bush
    • pdxchris, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1If you have been to that desolate area you would say, "just take it".
  • crapmatic, on 12/21/2007, -4/+86Slowly, the geography of Snow Crash becomes reality.
    • prosayik, on 12/21/2007, -2/+47I can't wait! Finally, decent pizza delivery.
    • shanealeslie, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9I'm waiting with bated breath for the great ghost dance - wanna get my goblin on.
    • Hangly, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7I think you mean Shadowrun. Snowcrash didn't have any contiguous land area larger than a few city blocks.
    • Estaris, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Dmn good book.
    • jimb0, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Haha, that's exactly what made me click on this artlicle. Reading the book right now.
    • Hillsfar, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I've got to read that book!!
    • tgelston, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I thought the same thing - Excellent book!
  • cazbot, on 12/21/2007, -10/+62I can't wait to move there.
    • Vincent21212, on 12/21/2007, -1/+20You must like to do drugs, gamble and drink. Me too.
      It will be Mega-Vegas.
    • poopz, on 12/21/2007, -29/+2how ***** pathetic this country has become. you can declare your backyard your own country now and the government won't give a *****.

      oh and we can't do anything against this foreign country now because its "political suicide", as diggers have so aptly said. sweet. i mean they called first dibs on it, they should legally own it now.
      • rootneg2, on 12/21/2007, -2/+22The land was *theirs* for thousands of years before we came and just claimed *their* backyard as ours.
        • jsmith39, on 12/21/2007, -29/+9***** them, they lost. Life sucks, too ***** bad, boo ***** hoo.
          • pintomp3, on 12/21/2007, -2/+27if i invade your home and kill your family you will just say "oh well, i lost?"
          • vapblack, on 12/24/2007, -0/+1rape your daughter and wife in front of you as well

        • ShugNinx21, on 12/21/2007, -5/+14I understand your argument, but everyone's land everywhere used to belong to a different set of people.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6The important thing now is that we ensure that the land we own is actually ours, and not on lease by a hostile authoritarian state.
          • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -1/+17They have signed treaties. The American government saw fit to make treaties with their nation, but then broke the treaty obligations unilaterally. I believe the Lakota are in their rights to break off the treaty.
          • Acolyte357, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1"I believe the Lakota are in their rights to break off the treaty." So we can retake it? if you haven't noticed, thought out history, we Americans don't care HOW we get the land as long as we get the land.
        • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Humm I live here ....The Lakota took it from the Crow because the Lakota had horses but the Crow didn't Also this story is getting no play at all here.
      • OnionBaggage, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4This isn't Family Guy... this isn't Petoria
        • LilJimmyNordin, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around
          • dunk71, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Thank you! You got that damn Bros tune outta my head after that Hellboy II post.
    • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2 can't wait to move there.
      It's A lakota nation ...white boy
    • airiox, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2I can't wait til you move there either which is probably the only thing we have in common.
    • LaerrusFish, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2My tinfoil hat shook a little when I considered the possibility of this happening. Imagine a place where all dissidents are drawn, even encouraged to go live. Then look at the history of the Ghetto in Germany. Originally the Ghetto was a nice place untill they put the walls up.
  • blindhammer, on 12/21/2007, -3/+59Wonder how many nukes are in that region.
    • snotrokit, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6lots.
    • Cwo655321, on 12/21/2007, -15/+3they make it out of the scalp's of settlers.
    • tidu, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6you mean how many are aimed at that region... :/
      • spillz, on 12/21/2007, -3/+11No, read a book. During the Cold War silos were installed in that area in case the order came to attack Russia.
        • whatever01, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Didn't the USSR have a fair number targeted on the silos and launch complexes? Not sure, but I think we buried and hardened them for a reason.
          • spillz, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1What in the world does that have to do with anything?
    • djfrey, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Not as many as there used to be. 150 Minuteman II's were pulled out of South Dakota around 1994.
    • antialias02, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1ND still has a few, but all to the East of there, I think.
  • duggtodeath, on 12/21/2007, -13/+42It's cool, the NAU was gonna erase America's borders anyways.
    • acroyear2, on 12/21/2007, -8/+3Good point.
    • conna, on 12/21/2007, -5/+10They are right in the middle of the NAFTA super highway being built. I wonder if it had anything to do with it.
      http://images.google.com/images?complete=1&hl=en&q ...
    • Mesmorize, on 12/21/2007, -15/+10Because that's a legitimate idea not a conspiracy theory or anything...
      • spyd3rweb, on 12/21/2007, -4/+14nascocorridor.com is pretty legitimate, the SPP is pretty legitimate, the bills in the texas congress stopping the nafta highway are pretty legitimate, the desire of some powerful individuals to create an EU style union here in america is pretty legitimate.
      • ianfranklin1, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1You just sit on that for a little while and we'll see what shakes out
      • jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2are you stupid? they have ***** congressional meetings about the nafta super highway. you know calling something a conspiracy theory actually gives it creedence because the majority of the "theories" are actually true.
        • Mesmorize, on 12/22/2007, -2/+1Right, like the moon landing and the JFK assassination. And uh, OMG THEY MADE A HIGHWAY TO FOSTER TRADE BETWEEN HUGE TRADING PARTNERS!
    • MeatyVitamin, on 12/21/2007, -8/+6Maybe Elvis and the Yeti got together and schemed this NAU plot up, right after they killed off the last of the unicorns...
    • iPissExcellence, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2NAU - New World Order, right?
      • BayouBengal, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3North American Union. It will slowly mesh into one big blob.
    • MrMacMan, on 12/21/2007, -5/+1your insane, ive seen all the websites and all the *****.
      It's not in America's interests to be part of a larger nation included Canada and Mexico -- it doesn't make sense.
      • jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2no it's not in the united states interest, but it is in the corporations and the dictators interests to dissolve the constitution and turn us into a union where no corporations will have to comply with any of the "u.s." laws. it makes sense when you look at their motto "order out of chaos"
  • ZenFountain, on 12/21/2007, -1/+119Half my state just became a new nation...I guess?
    • airwalkery2k, on 12/21/2007, -1/+56Yep. That includes my hometown of Omaha. I'll have to tell the folks they no longer live in the United States.
      • KiTchMe, on 12/21/2007, -8/+15What are you doing on their land in the first place?
        • ShugNinx21, on 12/21/2007, -1/+23What are you doing on land your ancestors stole from whomever? Virtually every country in the world is built upon land that was seized from the former occupants at some time or another.
          • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6They are just following treaties signed between the US and their nation about 150 years ago. We still maintain treaties that old, but if you advocate dropping all such treaties as ancient then we would reopen all sorts of can of worms...
          • PaulLewis, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I think China is still safe from that, closest thing they've ever had was Mongols... and Hong Kong.
      • mjmelies, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4According to this they took Fremont too, so don't feel bad.
    • d03boy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4At least we still have Lincoln and Seward (I think)
      • Legato, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1god its hopeless - how will us omaha folk get around using 27th street and O?!
    • alperea, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Wow. Just wow. Do you guys even know what a nation is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
  • coheedcollapse, on 12/21/2007, -2/+82Holy crap. When I first heard the news I thought their land was something like a hundred miles square or something. This really puts it into perspective and also reminds me how unlikely it is that this would actually go through. Even if they legally own it and can legally back out of it, I doubt the government cares.

    Also I have some family members in Rapid City, SD. I wonder how they feel about this whole thing.
    • mtwolf, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8If they stop paying taxes, I think I will move there....
      • WootZoot, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5I think they are only paying taxes to the fed government. If you move there, you are likely to pay taxes to them if you live there.
        • chan0429, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16Nope they've stated they won't tax. You can live there tax free as long as you denounce your US citizenship.
          • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Then why do I have to pay a Tribal Tax on gas every time I go to Pine Ridge?
        • ShugNinx21, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3I think you should think about the things you won't have if you don't have to pay taxes.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/21/2007, -3/+15Yes. Think of how much more you can achieve by directly paying people for services rather than paying a bureaucrat or politician, who siphons a portion of that money and then spends the rest of that money to set up a panel or pass a law in order to establish industry regulation and give private bids to their corporate friends for 100 year contracts, etc.

            Think of the things you will have: Money, freedom of choice to put that money towards things you think are important (roads, utilities, etc).
          • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8What exactly would I be missing. The only government service I use is the road, and I pay for that with my gas taxes. Everything else is strait up just money that is robbed from me and I get zero in return for it.
          • cranium, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because taxation is the most awesome way to pay for *everything*, right?
          • w3bsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I won't miss anything I haven't given up already.
          • jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3yeah you will no longer be funding illegal occupations and genocide.
        • Acolyte357, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Police, Fire, EMS, Roads, military protection...
    • tightscrummy, on 12/21/2007, -15/+16I don't think anyone outside of digg has heard of this, just like Ron Paul.
      • Cerebral, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Unfortunately about both... I think you're right.
      • arjie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's heard of this. :)
    • rogersj3, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2Guys - c'mon! The only land they still have a legal claim to (not getting into moral claims here) are the dark red areas in that picture. Barely anything.
      • coheedcollapse, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7"Barely anything."

        Even if it were only the red parts that is still a significant chunk of land.
      • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Why don't we let the international courts decide the matter. That is where two nations with treaty disputes solve their problems nowadays.
        • cyberdork, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12Since when does the US respect any international court?
        • partsguy74, on 12/21/2007, -6/+4Why should we?
          • Coven, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7So we can, you know, participate in the international community wihtout seeming like the bully that we are.
        • cranium, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Because they don't have jurisdiction.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Dude! It was on Fox. And the guy said no taxes. It's pure genius. Half the GOP's voter base will be there in a month.
    • codesuidae, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Sweet, can I have my mail addressed to me with 'The Lakota Nation' as the last line now?
      Er, wait, does the US mail still deliver here?
  • 01l0, on 12/21/2007, -2/+129All this talk about "secession" is a red herring, the Lakota were never a state and have always been a nation, before the USA was one. They are withdrawing from treaties, not seceding from the Union.

    I wish to associate myself with the comments of my colleague who said "I doubt the government cares," its undoubtably going to be business as usual until the Indians resort to force or civil disobedience.
    • hillkiwi, on 12/21/2007, -3/+48Imagine if they start blocking highways and asking for passports.
      • sstidman, on 12/21/2007, -1/+13The USA would just return the favor. Guess who would be the big loser in that game?
      • stfucupcake, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2we'll read it on digg and loll
      • Frei, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2All 5 of them.
      • freebsdmike, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3They can't. They don't have that power.
    • kuragami, on 12/21/2007, -8/+11Yup. All the government has to do is ignore it and who is going to stop them? China? The UN? Never happen.

      Adherance to the law would require a President who follows the laws he swears to uphold. That being the Constitution. The other laws he is obliged to follow are the ones the US is a signatory of.

      None of the current Presidential candidates would agree to anything except Paul or Kucinich. People forget how Israel deals with their problem (Gaza Strip and the West Bank). A President would agree to such a nation so long as:

      A: They did not control their own airspace
      B: They would be required to obey US laws on highways (you can expect searches etc)
      C: They did not have control over their land's natural resources or would be required to lease them for pennies to US corporations.
      D: They would be required to use US currency.

      Any of this sounds familiar?

      Other than that they could do as they wish and the US could care less.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3So maybe they should try voting for Ron Paul before they break off from the union?

        If the government doesn't care, then they won't mind if they vote in the upcoming election, I suppose. Really depends on what the Government's position is.
        • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4I'm not so certain that Ron Paul would automatically accept their position. Had he commented on this issue?
          • cyberdork, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10Isn't his answer to every question: 'It should be up to the states to decide.'
    • thomas, on 12/21/2007, -1/+13Even if they tried they don't have the man power or resources to be successful.
    • HappyScrappy, on 12/21/2007, -6/+5The winners make the rules. And in this case, the European colonists won and dictate the terms. They are recognized as a nation, but they have no ability to take their own land out of the union. That would be secession and it would be illegal.

      It's still the good old USA.
      • cranium, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3What the hell does that even mean? If they are not under federal jurisdiction and they don't pay federal taxes, they're effectively gone from the union.
        • HappyScrappy, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4They are absolutely under federal jurisdiction. Where did you get the idea they don't? They're even subject to some state taxes (very few).

          They don't pay personal Federal income tax, but that's just because the government doesn't require them too. The government can (and does) require them to pay other federal taxes.

          http://www.irs.gov/govt/tribes/article/0,,id=10839 ...
    • scubasteve377, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11The words 'state' and 'nation' are basically synonymous. The once-relatively autonomous states that make up the United States have now been reduced to what would be properly be called provinces in an honest country. Likewise, the 'federal' government (as in, the government of a **federation** of sovereign states), acts in the manner of a *national* government by ruling arbitrarily and absolutely over its inferior and subservient provinces. So, in fact, the Lakota Nation have always been a 'state' in a legal sense, just as Florida, Texas, New York, Wisconsin, etc. have always been states, but the concept of the sovereignty of states has long since been forgotten in America. Any disbanding of a state from the US, will be seen by the federal government as secession and will be probably be blocked with force, regardless of how badly the federal government has failed to uphold their end of a Treaty/Constitution.
      • mwolfzorn, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2A nation is completely different than state.

        A nation identifies a common culture. Look up the Kurds, they are a nation without a state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurdish-inhabit ...

        Their nation occupies land in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria.

        The reason Yugoslavia broke apart is because they were a State composed of many nations.
        • hollowex, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1...
        • scubasteve377, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2State: -noun (in government) a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

          Nation: –noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. 2. the territory or country itself. 3. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

          It means both. In reality, yes, there are nation states and stateless nations. But the government does not make treaties with stateless nations. It is a complicated situation, but the American Indian nations, technically, are sovereign nation states.
    • chrisaug18, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3dugg for using "colleague" to describe a fellow digg user
    • freebsdmike, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3I currently live in one of these "Nations" as I live in Oklahoma. As you drive down the road here it tells you what "Nation" you're in. In the overall picture it doesn't really matter, because they can't really do anything. They are still at the mercy of the US government.
  • topace3000, on 12/21/2007, -34/+49Ok so like, is anyway actually taking this seriously? Because I think it's pretty hilarious.
    • Mesmorize, on 12/21/2007, -7/+11Half of these idiots are.
      • Ethyriel, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7Depending on how things go for the next few months, I'll strongly consider moving there and renouncing my citizenship. I really don't have much desire to be an American anymore, and that's the action which will give the movement power.
        • acceleration, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6You can move there, just like how everyone was going to move to Sealand once The Pirate Bay bought it... oh wait - that never happened
        • cyberdork, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Good luck entering any other country with your Lakota passport. Or maybe your will finally find out what's it like to be a foreigner of an insignificant state. Have fun filling out visa forms!
        • Frei, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4Sure you will.
        • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Depending on how things go for the next few months, I'll strongly consider moving there
          You can move to Pine Ridge now .. See how well it works..
        • Cornfedhusker, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1welcome to Omaha..i guess
    • Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Fox did.
    • Frei, on 12/21/2007, -13/+3Yes, these people also think 9/11 was an inside job, jewish reptiles are creating a NWO, and Ron Paul will be president. They're not really in touch.
      • jennifer4peace, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2you're part right. 9/11 was an inside job, they are not reptiles and ron paul will not be president!
    • rifter01, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Ok, so, like, OMG, gag me with a valley girl or something!
    • blackrich, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Have you taken a look at a recent map of Canada? (hint: Nunavut)
      It's for real...
      • tannerpetry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Good stuff, didn't even know about that....
  • indyGuy, on 12/21/2007, -7/+13I traveled most of that territory this summer - they aren't getting much, folks, except the Black Hills region. Beautiful country, though.
    • legendxx, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1good for you, folks.
    • floorman56, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2they aren't getting much, folks
      Rapid City ..Second largest city in SD and home to a Major AFB
      Sturges ...home to the motorcycle rally
      Deadwood ...lots of Casio's
      Thunder Basin group in WY ....40% of the coal we use comes from there
      Yea ...not much there
      • WebWorker, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Deadwood ...lots of Casio's

        Yeah, where will we get our watches, calculators and cheap keyboards!?!?
    • hurdster, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Don't forget Wall Drug! They give out free ice water and sell a bunch of other crap.
    • KnutTheBear, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1You are aware that there is gold in dem, dere, hills...correct?
  • eagles2k3, on 12/21/2007, -21/+3Sweet! Maybe they'll get an Orangeskins football team with all that orange on the map.
  • mtwolf, on 12/21/2007, -28/+58we should just give them give them Canada while we are at it...
    • Foliot, on 12/21/2007, -6/+26We have our own First Nation problems. Thanks for the offer though, really... Thanks.

      Ya jerk.
      • hillkiwi, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10He said "give them Canada", not TO Canada. Well, "give them give them" to be exact, but to be honest I missed it the first time I read it too.
        • ShugNinx21, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Well, Canada used to have Natives living there. Won't they be pissed you gave their land to someone else?
        • sean9999, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2what do you mean "used to"?
    • hillkiwi, on 12/21/2007, -16/+13You do realize that Canada is not part of the US right?
      • jsmith39, on 12/21/2007, -7/+4What ever you say there slappy
        • hillkiwi, on 12/21/2007, -7/+3He said "give them Canada", not TO Canada. Well, "give them give them" to be exact. Or do you actually think Canada is part of the US? (Using terms like 'slappy' I wouldn't be surprised). Grow up kid.
    • WhoDoneIt, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4I know ya think Canadians drink a lot of beer, and yes we do. But I don't think we'd have enough to support their move north. Just a hunch.
    • barius, on 12/21/2007, -5/+21Actually, when Canada burned the White House to the ground in the war of 1812, we did so with the help of our Indian friends. They helped us on the condition that we help them take the land which is today called Michigan. Unfortunately, we were lying sons of bitches just like you US bastards. If I were an Indian, I wouldn't trust me either...
      • Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Totally forgot about that. Pretty damn funny with perspective.
      • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6I think that was the British Army, not the Canadians per se.
        • haterofps3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Imperialism is a bitch ain't it, while the British army was there most of the major victories went militia groups made up of canadian immigrants and members of the first nations.

          Remember the brits would walk through a forest in bright red uniforms, you could spot them, shot them without really revealing your position. god they were dumb.
        • hollowex, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Canada still bows to her Queen...
        • xero7, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2A lot of Canadians frankly don't give a ***** about the queen, nor for the monarchy. That, I think, is a good thing.
      • da_bradler, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4We did it once and we'll do it again if you damn American's don't get your act together, this time we might actually give them michigan.
        • martalli, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Is Canada calling America to the mat? Better not let GWB think he can get his hands on your oil shale.
          • barius, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Are you kidding? The US already owns our oil, as per Free Trade agreements we have to sell our oil to the US even before we can sell it to our own citizens. The US keeps moaning about how Free Trade is killing them, but the truth is you're making the killing. Don't even get me started on the whole softwood lumber issue...
        • cgoff, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Tsk tsk now. We're almost one big, happy union! You'll have to get used to us and the Mexicans, so why not start the love now?
        • bCabulon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Try and take Michigan. I dare you. We'll take Windsor faster than you can say "Toledo war".
    • houler, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Not yours to give.
    • RedSaber, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Have you seen the way canadians treat their natives? You better kill them then to give them to Canada! ;)
      • frogstomp, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1RedSaber, A person from Republic of Quebec who joined Digg on November 24th, 2006
        ha ha I laughed my ass off when I read that. The Province of Quebec treats its natives far worst than the rest of Canada. I hate to think what would happen to them (probably genocide) if Quebec actually did leave, but we both no that is not going to happen. Death to all separatist. ha ha
    • MauiMac, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1You can put Hawaii on the list of land the US will be giving back soon...
  • Swarms, on 12/21/2007, -23/+13Less credibility than Sealand.
    • sodoh, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Sealand has never been contested. Where as they have actual treaties signed by the US who did recognize the land as being owned by them at one time. US government won't even respect other countries, so I doubt they will with this.
  • bigskank, on 12/21/2007, -1/+76The U.S. government won't care until people who live there/move there say that they are under the power of the Lakota Sovereign Nation and refuse to pay their U.S. federal income taxes. When the U.S. marshals come to serve process on the tax-evaders, that's when we'll get some real answers. If the Lakota territory is a foreign nation, service of process for court materials are invalid. A U.S. tribunal would have to rule on whether or not the Lakota territory is within U.S. control still, or actually is now its own independent sovereign.
    • GoKings, on 12/21/2007, -16/+7Well... The Lakota Indians don't pay any taxes at all. In fact, they are subsidized heavily, which is one of the main reasons their mortality rate is so low. They sit around and drink all day, because the government pays them to do so. I'm not sure how they plan on living without those subsidies.
      • barc0001, on 12/21/2007, -3/+10Casinos. You just watch. It'll be like a 1000 square mile Vegas.
        • dracostimpy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Don't forget the tax-free liquor and smokes! I'm changing my name to "Stands with Boomhauer" if they let me join the Lakota Nation!
      • Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -1/+15"...which is one of the main reasons their mortality rate is so low."

        You're full of it. The average lifesapn for a Lakota male is 44 years, and they have one of the highest infant mortality rates, too.
        • Foliot, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1Source please.
        • inhaler, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8I think he meant low as in maximum age i.e. "high mortality rate," just jumbled it.
        • GoKings, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8Just jumbled the high and low. You didn't honestly believe I meant that sitting around and drinking all day was my argument for them living longer did you ;-). I mean... I wish that was the case.
    • Zeonix, on 12/21/2007, -0/+16You aren't exempt from federal taxes unless you renounce your citizenship first and officially join the tribe or whatever they're going to call it.. That's the Lakota's rule anyway.
      • theutopian, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Renouncing your citizenship is not an easy process. They won't let you do it if it's clear you're doing it for tax purposes. Also, you'd need to be a citizen of a legitimate country as well.
        • Zeonix, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2You're able to renounce your citizenship if you intend to become a citizen of a different country. The catch is you can never become a citizen of the United States ever again. If the Lakota Nation is recognized, you'll be able to jump ship and head over there, but before anyone does that, they better be damn sure they know what they're getting into.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4"you can never become a citizen of the United States ever again" lol wut? I think you could do with some research.
    • TheMongo, on 12/21/2007, -6/+2Here's how that "tribunal" would go - "No."

      The Lakota have no power to abrogate treaties. Congress has plenary power in all dealings regarding the United States and Native American tribes – that means Congress can basically do whatever the hell it wants to. The US can back out of treaties, but if the Lakota do so they lose all federal recognition. Loss of federal recognition = loss of land. It's basically the same as any nut trying to secede and create their own country – funny, but the minute they try and do anything the gov't will set them straight.
    • da_bradler, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7See this is the problem Americans assume there laws actually mean something, American laws only matter when they are followed, if a large group of people decide to ignore those laws and claim them invalid and create there own laws, the US government can do nothing except respond with force, they could "take away" as much land as they like, unless someone is defending it there claims mean nothing. This is how revolutions start, not saying that's what's going to happen I'm just saying that if more then one person decides they will no longer follow your rules then affectively your rules mean nothing, only your force matters then
    • aaronjw, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0What? That's not true. People get served in foreign nations all the time...
    • amirman, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1hey bigskank, hah, they will also come storming with their guns if they grow hemp, which has happened before.
  • jake6730, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6So is this official?
  • Sapulator, on 12/21/2007, -0/+18Since when was NJ & delaware one state!?!?
    • Haecceity, on 12/21/2007, -7/+7NJ is a state?
    • tidu, on 12/21/2007, -0/+11since cool curvy lines and web 2.0 became more important than accuracy
    • itsme92, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Since when did Cape Cod disappear?
    • pooptown, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Since AT&T started its new television ad campaign.
  • aahpandasrun, on 12/21/2007, -23/+10Hahahaha. Funny joke. Think what you want Lakotas. Nothing's going to change.
    • Mesmorize, on 12/21/2007, -12/+3How can people dig you down? This is one ***** up site.
  • DutchMaster, on 12/21/2007, -3/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_Nation
  • digasound, on 12/21/2007, -14/+74Im rootin for'em.
    • Noiremorte, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Me too! My whole house cheered for them yesterday when I told them about the article here. If only California could be it's own nation. ^_^
    • leerayIG88, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Ahhh, I see what you did there.
  • jonmon6691, on 12/21/2007, -27/+8I can't believe this made the front page.
    • legendxx, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1why?
    • thesonofdarwin, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Individuals making serious attempts to withdraw from the USA is something of beauty. Instead of 'getting the ***** out' which is the typical digger comment when one doesn't appreciate the government, they are staying and working on reclaiming what is theirs. Holy hell, people actually standing up for their rights / what is theirs. What a novel concept.
      • jonmon6691, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I don't think you actually understand what's going on here. The Lakota nation has ALWAYS been there. Thats where they live. And where did you get the idea that they are seceding?
  • OffPiste, on 12/21/2007, -28/+9Yawn. Flyover country. Who cares?
    • mattsw84, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Yeah I know where all the people live pffft... who needs it.
  • digasound, on 12/21/2007, -17/+0werd.
  • H0tKarl, on 12/21/2007, -2/+72I'm guessing that's South Lakota?
  • theferno, on 12/21/2007, -13/+2i don't get it
  • raybury, on 12/21/2007, -19/+13We enter a treaty and agree that you get x land. You withdraw from the treaty, that doesn't mean I let you keep that land.
    • zanderscoffee, on 12/21/2007, -5/+8We enter a treaty to let you keep some of the land that was stolen. We withdraw from the treaty because we want some of the ***** land back.
      • jmrachin, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3For the last time, the land was not stolen... There was a war... The indians lost, a treaty was signed, and they got to keep some land. We call this land "Indian reservations". Most reservations have their own government and police forces, etc... This is why gambling is legal on most Indian reservations.

        This is simply a means for these clowns to get more publicity.
        • antoniuk, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Dumbass, we took the land by force in the first place. No different than Israel, the USSR, Germany in WW II, etc. We had no right to take it except God told us too. They want it back because we ***** them over. Let them have it.
          • jmrachin, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0This was ALOT different than your examples. For one, it took place over nearly 100 years of history, and secondly, the Natives fought back (and lost). Ancient history, move on!
        • GhostRidr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2And what war was that? Is there some distinct US vs Lakota war that was fought between two nations resulting in a clear victor and subsequent terms? No, there wasn't. Just battles, and broken treaty after broken treaty, again, and again, and again. Read a book.
          • jmrachin, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0Declared war was not necessary because those parts of the countries were not then part of the United States. This is all relative to one's point of view... Natives say "stolen land", traditional Americans say "annexed" land. All annexed means is taken by force in this case. The natives fought back, and lost. I'm not saying it was fair, but thems the breaks... If you feel so passionately, give back YOUR land.
        • GhostRidr, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1That doesn't even make sense--why would they need to be a PART of the US before declaring war on them?

          You say they fought back and lost, but it wasn't just battles. It was treaties. The kind that all nations the world over honor amongst themselves. At what point do you say it's alright to ignore treaties, hundreds of times over before you realize that if you break your word, your words and promises have no value--to anyone.

          BTW, I live in Oklahoma, within my tribe's legal boundaries. I'm ON my land. I also don't think you'll find a lot of Indian nations trying to kick people out. Most realize you can't do that, the problem is too far gone, too many non-Indians, millions, living on historically tribal land. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Remember the treaty that said something to the effect of, "This land shall be yours as long as the grass grows and the water flows."? Last time I checked, that was still happening.
        • GhostRidr, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Ancient history, hu? So in other words, if enough time passes, it's alright to ignore contracts and treaties? Tell me, exactly how much time is that?

          BTW, did you know that American Indians weren't even considered citizens of the US until 1924? They weren't allowed to elect their own Chiefs until the 1970's. The present Indian financial trust issues are absolute fiasco--STILL, to this day! You act like this happened so long ago it doesn't matter, but it's been happening for a long long time. It's just people like you who ignore the situation, hoping that enough time passes and that they'll just "let it go." Ever had your home or car broken into and property stolen? If you knew who did it, and the cops did nothing, would you just "let it go"? Now imagine if someone did that to your entire country.
  • postal21, on 12/21/2007, -21/+5theres no way they can secede...

    what we are going to have a giant hole in our country? that wont exactly fly.

    Sure, I think its EXTREMELY ***** up how we stole the indians land and forced them onto reservations, but hell its part of our country now and they have to live in it or get out. I mean if they really want to attempt to secede under some stipulation from 150 years ago they are going to have to probably put up a literal "war" with our government and nobody wants to fight and kill our own for this.
    • sny1120, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3"live in it or get out"

      that didn't sound right...how about the white man get out
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Yeah, why don't those Lakota go back to where they came from if they don't like the US! /sarcasm
    • sodoh, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4"what we are going to have a giant hole in our country? that wont exactly fly."

      If it won't work in the US, then palistine has no hope in Israel then.
      • stfucupcake, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1agreed
      • looselips, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3"If it won't work in the US, then palistine has no hope in Israel then."
        I think you meant Israel has no hope in Palestine. Israel was the created state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
        And I agree.
        • jasqwerty, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Really, point me to the historical country of Palestine then? Oh right, you can't, all you can point to is Turkey...
  • URnotheonly1, on 12/21/2007, -15/+4them being a conquered people don't have a nation unless by treaty, so I guess they just gave that up. Check it out its as old as history itsrlf
    • Rhino2, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3Pay attention in School? ***** that! Who needs all this history *****, LOLZ. I'll just watch westerns.

      Seriously dude... how about you pick up a book or sumthing ?
  • Schneckehaus, on 12/21/2007, -7/+17I'm totally moving there.
    • agimat, on 12/21/2007, -2/+7Move there now. You'd totally love it there when the tazer fest starts.
      • Schneckehaus, on 12/21/2007, -6/+9I would fight to defend the Lakota right to their land.
        Unlike overseas military conquests, this is a cause worth fighting for.
        • LukasSmith, on 12/21/2007, -10/+3I would nuke the lokota fast. We should conquer them right this time. Their land isnt that great. No loss really.
        • jsmith39, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Good for you hero. Here's a gun, get on over there.
          • Schneckehaus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4No no, peaceful secession is the best idea.
            But if war breaks out, I know whos side I'm on.
      • g111y, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2oh how i wish you were wrong.
      • elishagrey, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Don't taze me, ciye!*

        *Lakota word for brother
  • grenden, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3Mirror: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2190/2126461158_c0b ...
  • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -11/+22So did the Lakota tribe or whatever they are called find that place all by themselves many years ago? Or did they war over it with other tribes? Did they possibly take it from another tribe, or war with local tribes over border disputes? How far back in time do we go to say who owned what? And what kinda statute of limitations is there are this kinda thing?

    As a man with bloodlines tracing from native americans, jews, and a handful of other opressed peoples in history (making me immune to any "you don't understand" BS statements), I can say that from what I have seen over the years, the biggest enemy to modern tribes are other tribes... not the government.
    • solid12345, on 12/21/2007, -4/+18Ever seen HBO's "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee"? What we did to the Natives was wrong but i do love the line by one of the US officers

      "the idea you were a peaceful people before the white man came is the most fanciful legend of them all"
    • mablco, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3let me guess.. you're part cherokee.
      • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2...why?
        • bxblox, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2its just a common claim
        • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2My great grandma was full blooded cherokee.
          • bxblox, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2thats very possible, i was just saying many people falsely claim to have cherokee ancestry
          • rex84, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Well, you win a fukin' medal. Congrats.
          • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Oh... no. In fact, I'm just 1 generation off from being able to get native-american benefits like college tuition what not. lol. Also, my grandpa used to work with Geronimo's grandson... he's a welder.
          • w3bsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1My great grandparents on my mom side were full blooded cherokee too.
    • garbanzo, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5You make a good point, but it doesn't really dismiss this situation. In this case, part of the treaty agreement established a method by which the government could purchase lands from the tribe. They needed to have permission of the tribal leaders for a purchase to go through. When gold was discovered in the Black Hills, the government used that part of the treaty to seize control of a huge part of the Lakota territory. They didn't have the consent of tribal leaders, but they claimed that they did and opened up the region to mining and settlement. This dispute has really been active on some level since this all happened, it just happens to be making the news right now.
    • barius, on 12/21/2007, -0/+12It doesn't matter who was where first, this issue is purely legal. They had treaties that were signed by the US gov. The gov. decided not to honour them, and that's why the Lakotan's are pissed. The question is whether or not the modern US gov. (or even perhaps it's citizens) are even capable of living up to those old treaties at this point in time. Somehow I doubt the Lakotan's will get all the yellow land back, but as long as there's no oil on the orange land I wouldn't be too surprised if they won it back over the next 50 or years.
      • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Which is why I am curious what the statute of limitations would be on something like this.
        • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6There is no statue of limitations on a treaty. Congress can end a treaty, but it still was in full effect during the duration of the treaty, and if they end the treaty, then things would go back to the way they were before, with the Indians owning the land.
    • wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2You don't understand.
    • Gav0510, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Saying that you understand what it means to be oppressed just because your part native american or part jewish is like saying people descendents of nazis or whatever know what it means to be fascist. Get off your high horse dude.
      • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6I never said I do understand... I always state that to save time with the whole race thing. I completely agree with you... I didn't live through any of that, but neither has just about anyone currently alive, yet complaining about their ancestors.

        If you are black and want to complain about your ancestors being slaves, why can't I bring up my ancestors? If you are native american and are attempting to speak on behalf of your ancestors that got the shaft... why can't I speak about them? Are they not my ancestors because the tribe is closer genetically?

        So again, try reading my post before replying. I never said I understand... I only acted to counter anyone who tried to tell me I *didn't* understand. Because why can't I? Unless the person telling me is a living relic from the days of native-american genocide, then they are no more "in-touch" than I, or anyone else is. Reading books != experience.
        • korbit, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0I think maybe what you meant to say was "I may not be able to understand, but then you can't either." It seems your heritage is irrelevant.
    • da_bradler, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8See your comment would be true if the Native Americans/Canadians were actually conquered which they weren't. It would be like the Russians just started building stuff in Alaska and ignoring the americans even though they sold the land to the americans.

      America and Canada didn't win any war with the Native american, they signed peace treaties and in these treaties they decided to divide the land fairly except Americans and Canadians just completely ignored the treaties and started using the land anyway, and when aboriginals tried to use the land they said they couldn't.

      America and Canada have dishonored so many treaties that it's a wonder any nation takes there word seriously since they have proven time and time again that they will only honor treaties so much so that it is to there advantage.
      • GhostRidr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Very true. Often you'll hear people say, "The Indians lost the war. Get over it." This shows just how little they know of US/American Indian history. There was no distinct war between the US and any Indian nations, just battles and massacres, and broken treaties, again, and again, and again.
        • jasqwerty, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1>>and broken treaties, again, and again, and again.

          Yes, the Indians did break a lot of treaties.

          Also, they did lose the war(s) [if that little s really makes that much of a difference due to your butthurt], and as such that's what happens when you lose wars.

  • masgaster, on 12/21/2007, -1/+20Well there goes 12% of Nebraska's population :S
  • allenu, on 12/21/2007, -4/+14What's their main export gonna be, pain relief products? (
    • PistolSO, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6If they grow industrial hemp, they could export products made from hemp: oil, clothing...
    • WhoDoneIt, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I saw what you did there. :)
    • rex84, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Crystal meth.
      • seedebgo, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2naw... too chemically, people can make that at home with draino and sudafed.
    • fate3, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1tampons actually
  • Vincent21212, on 12/21/2007, -10/+9Who's going to back them in this proposal? The U.N.? They won't even do ***** about piss-poor Sudan/Darfur. The U.N. won't stand up to our latest oppression plot.
    • w3bsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1perhaps you missed the letter being sent to Bolivia, Chile, etc ..., and the Bolivian ambassador already committing to a full research of this. You don't need the UN when the might of the UN lay in other Nations anyways. You skip straight to the nations.
  • JacobFromMT, on 12/21/2007, -1/+78*****... I'm in the yellow!!!

    Can I legally own a casino now?
    • blackjack75, on 12/21/2007, -2/+15No. But you can launch arrows at the cops.
      • Arcesius, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2omg, a simple digg will not suffice... actually made me lol on that one =)
  • mikehrp, on 12/21/2007, -6/+15LOL. Yeah, that will fly...
  • thomas, on 12/21/2007, -2/+23Even if they got their way (they won't) they would be a minority population in their own country. We have far more white people in those areas then Native Americans.

    PS: I live in the yellow area of South Dakota on that map.
    • Vincent21212, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Good point. Even if they could form an independent country, It would probably be nowhere in size of the yellow area. Realsitically maybe a third of the red area, and if that's the case, It would just be a hyper-reservation.
      • godofgodlygods, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1The red areas are the ones to be looking at, actually. They have simply stated that, basically, the people in the YELLOW areas are "invited" to join them in denouncing U.S. citizenship and becoming Lakotans.
    • barius, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Welcome to Quebec.
    • darnit, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'm so sorry... ;(
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -0/+15They could just put all the Europeans in special reservations. To protect them.
      • SirCrumpet, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8But that would be completely oppressive and unjust. No human in their right mind would...

        Haaaayyyyy.... I see what you did there...
      • DeadElephant, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Zing!
    • n0gnuz, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1European Americans FTW!
    • w3bsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1let's not forget that our country was founded on a minority of people, 13% or less. It's not impossible.
  • londubh, on 12/21/2007, -5/+7And the point of this map is? You could show a map of the Navajo Nation or the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw Nations. Those are all real nations by treaty. They are not independent. They cannot issue passports, but some do issue car tags.
    • solid12345, on 12/21/2007, -0/+10They also prosecute their own. Commit a crime on Indian territory and the Indian courts put you on trial.
      • londubh, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1It depends on the crime. Most likely it'll be a federal crime and you'll be tried in a US federal court.
    • n8king, on 12/21/2007, -0/+8actually the navajo nation does issue passports....
    • GhostRidr, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1There has actually been talk of tribes issuing their own driver's licenses too. I think it should happen. If you want the Indian nations to be independent of US financial payouts, then you have to give them the ability to earn their own money, be it through taxes, car tags, whatever. Just likes the states and federal government already does to their citizens, so should the Indian nations be allowed to do the same.
  • RoboRay, on 12/21/2007, -6/+19Notice how the yellow part of the map is shaped oddly like Iraq? I sense another liberation coming on...
  • TyrannousDotNet, on 12/21/2007, -13/+8buried for lack of explanation.
    • JustAn0th3rFace, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3theres two other friggen articles on this topic on the front page of digg.
      with ~4000 diggs between the two of them.
      how much more information do you want.
    • Netrilix, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Why are you people digging him down? Posting a map with nothing specifying what the colors mean is pointless. I shouldn't have to go read other articles searching for a map key, and it's not like the other articles will tell you what each color means anyways.
  • Dopefishy, on 12/21/2007, -24/+6I fully support this as a non-american and I hope that you enjoy your new country.
    Most of the people who are Boo Boo'ing this are just Americans who do not want to lose any of their land.

    I look forward to visiting some day !
    • SIRBERUS, on 12/21/2007, -2/+25Unless you live in the Garden of Eden, you most likely live on blood-stained soil yourself.
  • harrisbradley, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6That in 'the spirit world' *****
  • Wholekernalcorn, on 12/21/2007, -15/+4All persons not of at least 90% indigenous decent should be removed from North and South America and returned to their original homelands. Doesn't matter if their ancestors came to South America or North America 100 or 20,000 years ago...../s
    • Zeonix, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Yeah, let's displace 300,000,000-ish people. That's a great idea. We can all go to Europe. I'm sure they'll all like that, seeing as how the world just loves us Americans.
      • MWeather, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Yeah, it sucks when millions of people from across the ocean settle on your continent.
    • bolognium, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3how did you reach 90% as a number, why not 100%?
      • Wholekernalcorn, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1I had to be fair...
        • Epoc1096, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Meaning he isnt 100% and he didnt want to get displaced.
    • jmpeagle, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8there are no indigenous peoples...we all originally came from Africa
    • InfiniteNothing, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Of course the "natives" are really just asians right?
      • teh_techie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Right. Nice that you checked up on your history.
    • jon30041, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Totally. I mean, doesn't matter I was born here, had no say over the past, and have no part in the current status of the drinking themselves to death Native Americans... I should just get the ***** out and let this area turn into a big collection of ruins and increase the overflowing population of Europe.

      AWESOME. /s
    • clickwir, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Why? Just because there wasn't a war for the land? If there was a war between the native americans and the pilgrims, and the pilgrims won... would people still have a problem with it? No.
      • jmrachin, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1For the last time, the land was not stolen... There was a war... The indians lost, a treaty was signed, and they got to keep some land. on't think Custer and the others would agree that there was no war.
        The Pilgrims have nothing to do with this situation.
    • wakananda, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6The lakota are not telling anyone to go back to Europe. They are welcoming all persons, native and non-native, to join them in creating a small, local nation that will better serve the interests of the people who live there. They *will* be recognized by the international community.
  • rhett, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9more details of what the yellow/orange mean:
    http://ishgooda.org/oglala/1868lnd.htm
  • neutrascrub, on 12/21/2007, -5/+6The Oneida's kind of have this already. Around Green Bay Wisconsin the Oneida's have their own Nation. They pay their own taxes and they have their own license plates!
    • rex84, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3...and license plates defend them from invading armies.
      • neutrascrub, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4that's exactly the point i was making.
    • frayedknot, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Menominee Indians which are 35ish miles from green bay do this too
    • catalysis, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1The Ho-chunk have their own nation too and they operate like 7 casinos.
  • sixthsoon, on 12/21/2007, -3/+18I think too many people here are taking this too seriously. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I haven't heard anything about Lakota tribal leaders actually endorsing Means' actions. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Then again, this is the internet, where "wait-and-see" seems a tactic of ages past.

    In my opinion, it may just end up being an incredibly successful publicity stunt. After all, I've never actively sought out information on the Lakota (or any native tribe), and now here I am.
  • overstim, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9I had a Jeep Lakota in college. Damn thing went 300,000 miles.
  • skyshock1, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3So.... do we shutdown the Interstate highways in that area?

    Just askin''.
    • Wholekernalcorn, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2Just stop the upkeep as well as all US Federal welfare to those that live there. No farm subsidies, no health care, nothing from America Taxpayer monies. If you think you just up and move there...The Lakotas my restrict you from doing that...if your not of Indian decent or pledge allegiance to tribal customs, religion and other tribal laws and rules. No voting in tribal council matters either.... and no duel citizenship...which means no voting in American elections.
      • w3bsmith, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I must say, you make a tempting appeal to moving there right now! Who cares about American elections when you are part of a different country? No Farm subsidies or any other part in the US cash cow? ... No problem.

        Plus they have already stated their willingness to have non-indians joining to help out too.
        • bxblox, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1its all fun n games.... until you get drafted into the lakota revolutionary army
    • bxblox, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2just the exits
  • Wholekernalcorn, on 12/21/2007, -7/+9This isn't the first time...

    http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/articles/ladecwar.h ...

    Indians fought each other for land before the "White man" came..

    On the North American continent (modern USA and Canada) it has been estimated that around 500 different tribes existed during the post-1492 period. Many more sub-tribes and sub-divisions take this figure to something over 900 different groups.

    Almost all of the tribes had a name for themselves which translates as "The People", or "Real Men" - in other words, each group viewed all other groups as subhuman and less worthy of existence than themselves. This is the meaning of Leni Lenape (Delawares), Innini (illinois), Tsitsistsas (Cheyenne), and many more.

    In this context, intertribal conflict is almost guaranteed; in fact almost all tribes viewed war as a necessary and routine part of everyday life. Young men were warriors, and you don't keep warriors sitting around twiddling their thumbs for long. Prestige, honour, respect and wealth were counted only by a man's prowess in battle, not by any other measure.

    But war was never a permanent arrangement - even between warring tribes there were periods of peace following negotiated truces or treaties; at such times trade would be carried on between groups (this is how the use of horses and guns was primarily spread).

    So it's true to say that all of the tribes got on with their neighbours at certain times; at other times they would be looking to kill them.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"So it's true to say that all of the tribes got on with their neighbours at certain times; at other times they would be looking to kill them."

      It's like moderate republicans and democrats!
    • buckrogers1965, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1And this matters why?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or