Something that we neglected to mention, but is still very current, is the gaping hole in the midwest United States, now claimed as an independent nation by the Lakota Indians. According to one member of the Lakota Freedom Delegation, who took the announcement to the US State Department in December:
We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us… This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution… It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent.
Seemingly, the new country is going to be set up along somewhat libertarian lines, with no taxes for citizens, a confederate form of government and possibly even a currency backed by gold.
More Links
Russia prohibits denial of Santa
Even giving birth is now being out-sourced to India.
Top Christian news stories of 2007 according to Christianity Today
Papers please. Maryland police arrest a man for not showing “proper identification” after he showed his Mexican driver’s license and his international driver’s license.
A Ron Paul rally - in World of Warcraft.
If they really want THAT land, they can have it.
“If they really want THAT land, they can have it.”
Lol, my thoughts exactly. How has the U.S. government responded?
On the positive side, I kind of support it. That would take those Indians off of our welfare system, helping both this country and them. As it stands now, most Indians in that area spend their days drinking with little hope of honest labor. My father-in-law was out on a mission trip to the Pine Ridge Reservation and said that a tiny little town has like 5 liquor stores and the town sells about 8000 cans of alcohol each week. No wonder their life expectancy is 58.
It’s a hard pill to swallow, but the American Indian tribes probably do have a legal right to withdraw from the US if the treaties have been violated. However, I doubt that the Lakota Freedom Delegation has any authority to speak for the tribe, and this particular attempt at reasserting sovereignty is nothing more than grandstanding.
Actually, they contribute about 20 Billion annually to the GDP through lease of their historical sites to the US. They receive about 2 billion back in welfare, subsides and the like. So it would be a significant loss of revenue to the US.
Naturally, I fully support their right to reassert their status as an independent nation.
>>If they really want THAT land, they can have it.
Yeah, it’s only one of the most mineral rich geographical locations in the whole lower 48.
J
Just a question here, but in Canada it’s viewed as derogatory to call Native Americans “Indians”, is it different in the US?
Western Indians prefer the term. Native Americans tend to be those tribes in the east.
It’s not derogatory in this country, at least not that I’ve ever heard. Political correctness is trying to make it so, but has failed to do so thus far. It’s similar to the use of “black” in referring to people of dark skin. The PC word is “African American,” even though many of them do not have African ancestors. “Black” and “Indian” are more accurate, but not politically correct.
As far as I know, the term Indian isn’t considered offensive in America. I just checked a couple of tribes’ websites (Cherokee and Seminole) and they refer to themselves as Indians.
Good point, Jelly. I was mainly speaking to the agricultural quality of the land.
“Just a question here, but in Canada it’s viewed as derogatory to call Native Americans “Indians”, is it different in the US?”
I happen to know quite a few Native people, and I would say that the use of the word “Indian” in identifying them is not necessarily offensive. Really, there is no consensus. Most of them refer to themselves as Indians.
I think the point of those who wish to be identified by a different term is that the terminology should accurately identify them. So the question is: does the word accurately define the aboriginal people of this continent? There are actually arguments among some about the use of the term “Native American” as well. Basically, the objection to that terminology is the same as the objection to the term “Indian”. The argument is that since these indigenous nations existed prior to building of what now is America, they should not be identified as American, because such identification overshadows the sovereignty argument. If people view them as just another minority group, they may fail to understand the complexity of the history of their relations with the United States. But again, there is no consensus.
The most recent and largely unknown terms are “Indigenous Nations” or “First Nations.” However, these terms are mostly reserved for those in academia and are not widely used for the purposes of self-identification.
Last I heard most preferred to be called American Indians(don’t want to confuse them with people from India).
And Jew is right, they have no authority to speak for their tribe.
Darius wrote: ““Black” and “Indian” are more accurate, but not politically correct.”
How is Indian an accurate term? Are they from India? The term I hear the most is First Nations. I think it is both the most correct and the most polite. Then again, if you’re a racist then you don’t care about those things and instead you’ll just rant about “political correctness”.
I actually like “first nations” or “first peoples” - I am familiar with the term from my time in Canada. I think it is by far the most accurate. Aside from this, I would think the actual tribal/national names would be best. In America though, no one uses this term so we all just use “Indian.”
me me me me me me me
gurr8, I’ll help open your mind a little tonight… Indian is somewhat accurate in that when people originally got here, they thought it was the Indies. We still refer to a portion of North America as the West Indies. Personally, I prefer American Indian, which, as Jasen mentioned, helps avoid any confusion with natives of India.
I’ve never heard the term “First Nations.” What is an Indian then, a First Native? To me, this is way too ambiguous of a label, especially if you come from anywhere else in the world.
As for your charge that I am racist… that’s a low blow, but par for the road for you. I merely point out that the push for “Native American” is at its heart an obviously politically correct idea. Sorry if that offends your politically correct sensibilities. Oh wait, no I’m not.
All this from a simple question…
Oh, and the answer to Darius’ last question is “First Nations Person”.
First Nations Person??? Seriously? That’s just bizarre.
All this from a simple question…
I actually have no idea where the “you’re a racist” accusation came from… I’m not from Canada, so saying “black” and “Indian” aren’t derogatory.
Darius wrote: “I actually have no idea where the “you’re a racist” accusation came from…”
Surely you can recognize the disgusting tone of your generalization.
Darius wrote: “That would take those Indians off of our welfare system”
Wow, you really like jumping to conclusions. Oh well, that does seem to be your nature.
Their secession from this country WOULD take that particular group of Indians (First Natives, Native Americans, or whatever you want to call them) off of the welfare system. This would HELP them by removing the crutch that we’ve given them. Nothing does more damage to the self-reliance of a people than putting them on full government subsidy with no chance of earning one’s keep.
Just so we’re clear, for those who can’t think beyond their politically correct myopia, “Indian” in this country IS NOT derogatory for 99% of the population.
Personally, I don’t put too much stock in ANYTHING that comes out of Canada regarding cultural mores. Not when they prosecute writers for their columns, such as the current Canadian Human Rights Commission investigation into MacLean’s magazine and their publication of a Mark Steyn column. They also banned a Canadian woman from posting Bible verses on a U.S. website, or she will go to jail. So please, let’s drop the pretense that Canada has anything to offer except multicultural politically-correct gobbledygook. Free speech in Canada (and Europe I might add) means freedom from being offended.
Darius, although I would agree that the CHRC needs to be reigned in a bit, I think you make what they are doing in this case a bit more sinister then it sounds. Excerpts from Steyn’s Book America Alone were published in MacLean’s Magazine. The Canadian Islamic Congress filed complaints (In BC and Ontario) against MacLean’s because of what is in these articles (I own and have read the book, but I’m not sure what was in the excerpts). I know for sure that the complain was accepted in BC, not sure about Ontario. All this means is that both sides will go in front of the tribunal and argue their case, no final decision has yet to be made. I would agree that free speech should be allowed, but to say he’s being persecuted in this process I think jumps the gun a bit.
I’m not aware of the situation with the women posting bible verses, do you have a link?
And for the record, free speech in Canada means what is said in our Charater Of Rights and Freedoms:
2.b “Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”
However, first comes section 1.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Our freedom of self expression is stopped at hate speech, which means it’s not an absolute right, but it’s far better then most Americans make it out to be.
Five or six generations back, I have ancestors in Scotland, Ireland and England.
I was born in Akron, Ohio 62 years ago. Since I was born here, that makes me a native. I’ve been an American since birth. I guess I’m a Native American. I do have friends including an ex girlfriend who are American Indians. They don’t mind that designation. Even if their ancestors were here before Columbus the USA, etc.,all my friends were born here as Americans. From what I’ve read, only the Seminole Indians in Florida have never signed an official peace treaty with the US government. They’re the only ones that I think could claim autonomy
I think I found the other case your referring to. It is more complex then her simply posting scripture, and then being fined. The ruling can be read HERE . It lists what she wrote over the course of the time she posted on that message board. She only posted scripture once, and the relevant judgement on that is found in section 68:
[68] Beyond the mere use of epithets, Ms. Beaumont insinuates in her postings that members of the targeted groups are devoid of any redeeming qualities and demonstrates extreme ill will towards them. She describes homosexuals as “degenerates” and expresses her wish that they “all die off from AIDS”. She describes Jews as “literally the spawn of Satan himself”. Ms. Beaumont claimed, during her testimony, that she based this comment on her interpretation of a passage in the Bible, adding that she did not care if Jews would be offended by her ideas. However, irrespective of whether she “cares” or not, s. 13 of the Act dictates that the repeated communication via the Internet of matter that is likely to expose targeted groups to hatred or contempt constitutes a discriminatory practice. Whether the person communicating the matter was in fact its author is immaterial. The mere act of communicating the material or causing its communication attracts liability under the Act.
She is not in trouble for posting those two verses, if all she did was post them and explain them I really doubt there would have been a case here, she in trouble for her interpretation of them, which I would hope that all of us on here would disagree with. Seriously, look [11] and [12], that kind of comment is why she is in trouble, the question of scripture only comes up because she uses it to promote her idea.
Now like I said before I’m with Milton and think that free speech should be more absolute then it is in Canada at the moment because I still believe that truth has an intrinsic property to win out in the end, but that said this case is not nearly as bad as you and others on the net are making it out to be. Disagree with it yes, but it’s not the end of the world.
about time the indians started taking back what was theirs in the first place..
Darius said: I’ve never heard the term “First Nations.”
It seems to be a purely Canadian invention. It’s never used in the US as far as I can tell. I think it’s an awkward phrase, but it is more technically correct than Indian or Native American. I can’t see it ever gaining much traction in the US because there isn’t any great clamor to find a new term. American Indian and Native American are both accepted and neither are derogatory.
gurr8 said:
I have to agree with gurr8. Darius, I don’t think you’re racist, but your phrasing can easily be taken that way. The stereotypical lazy drunken Indian on welfare isn’t a good image to perpetuate. I knew that wasn’t your intent, though. I understand your ideas about welfare–I’m a libertarian, so I’m on board all the way with cutting welfare–but not everyone would interpret your statement in that way.
Ok, perhaps I should have said something different from “those Indians” and “our welfare.” It was NOT intended to be a racist remark, and by “those” I meant the Lakota tribe involved, differentiating from other Indians who are still part of this country. As for the “stereotypical lazy drunken Indian on welfare,” I’m not perpetuating anything that isn’t supported by the facts. It is a very unfortunate situation that many American Indians are so lacking in hope (due in part to welfare and an unfulfilled sense of entitlement) that they literally drink themselves to death. On his mission trip, my father-in-law said that people would walk miles to that little town just to buy beer and then pass out drunk on the side of the road. It’s very sad, and our government is partially at fault. I don’t completely remove all blame from people who choose to live like that, as they do have the ability to make something of their lives with some hard work. But the welfare system and related “benefits” for American Indians has significantly infantilized large portions of their people.
Also, in some parts of the country, Indian-owned casinos are further infantilizing the tribes, by doling out huge amounts of money to people who don’t work a minute for it. For example, one particular tribe in Minnesota gives each member around $600,000 each year, just because they are a tribal member, even if they haven’t worked at the casinos. That isn’t healthy and breeds a whole host of problems.
Thanks for looking that up, Bryan. I had just heard Steyn mention it on the radio, didn’t know the specifics. I admit that the woman sounds like a hatemongering imbecile, but so what? She has the freedom to say whatever she wants (as long as it isn’t stirring up violence), and shouldn’t have to fear imprisonment. It’s a very slippery slope to get into the censorship business, but now we’re seeing just how slippery it is. Steyn said that the defendant has never won in cases before the CHRC, which doesn’t bode well for him and MacLeans. If we allow this woman to be muzzled, what next? Someone who says that homosexuality is an abomination (which it certainly is, according to the Bible)? If you can censor someone’s speech, where does it stop? We’ve reached a point where any offensive statements have to be censored (unless they insult Christianity, interestingly enough). We live in an upside down world, where freedom of speech is eliminated by freedom from offense. Take, for example, the NCAA sports ruling that no school can have a nickname referring to American Indians.
The term “First Nations” is not new, and I had no idea it originated they Canada until I saw the Wikipedia article. But it is correct, as someone mentioned, that is is commonly used in academia, so that’s probably where I heard it.
There are going to be quite a few new countries if all the tribes get their own:
http://www.nativeamericans.com/IndianNationsA-Z.htm
http://www.comanchelodge.com/indian-nations.gif
Darius apologized before I had a chance to respond to all of his posts, so I’ll drop the matter now.
Jew wrote: “I think it’s an awkward phrase, but it is more technically correct than Indian or Native American.”
Is it possible that it’s awkward because you haven’t heard it used? That is the way they always refer to “Indians” here (on the news, for example) so it doesn’t seem at all awkward to me.
Ron: “From what I’ve read, only the Seminole Indians in Florida have never signed an official peace treaty with the US government. They’re the only ones that I think could claim autonomy”
The Lakota are making their claim because the treaty(ies?) they signed were not upheld by the US gov’t; they’re not trying to say there wasn’t a treaty in the first place.
I do not feel that my free speech is impeded in Canada, but then again I’m not promoting the deaths of all homosexuals or on some misguided anti-semitic tirade.
I don’t believe that those who began the Rwandan genocide had a right to that speech and I do not believe that in a free society a woman has the right to get on the internet and call for the deaths of all homosexuals.
gurr8 said: Is it possible that it’s awkward because you haven’t heard it used?
Probably, yeah.
“I don’t believe that those who began the Rwandan genocide had a right to that speech and I do not believe that in a free society a woman has the right to get on the internet and call for the deaths of all homosexuals.”
Vile racist that she obviously is, she is still given the right to say almost whatever she wants. And to be clear, she wasn’t doing the same thing as the people who began the Rwandan genocides. She didn’t once call for the killings of all homosexuals (or blacks). She hoped they died from AIDS. There is a difference. One potentially incites people to murder and shows possible intent on her part, the other is just wishful thinking (and FREE SPEECH). Plus, a portion of the statements that she was charged with were perfectly fine. In one comment, she discussed how Muslim women should follow the same rules as everyone else when it comes to getting ID pictures (uncovering their ears and the like). She said if they can’t, they should leave the country. Plenty of non-racists believe this: that rules should apply to everyone, and making exceptions is the true racism.