Talk:Lakota people

More information needed, Nezumi

I think there should be more talk about the values of the lakota people. Such as:

1. Wacantognaka "Generosity"
2. Wowacintanka "Respect"
3. Wokscape "Wisdom"
4. Woohitika "Courage"

Not only these things but how the buffalo was such an important part of life to them.

Even talk about the 4 directions would be helpful.

Myths and Legends

Shouldn't there be something on Native American myths and legends here? Like the White Buffalo Woman [1]...?

Lakota, Dakota, Nakota

Lakota, Dakota and Nakota are the language groups of the "sioux". redirection of sioux to lakota neglects the other two. plus: there are at least seven tribes (see german entry). anyone but me volunteering to improve this page? Kku

But they're more than just the language group; they are also cultural groupings. However, please be warned that "Dakota" are two very different divisions, so instead of three, it is really four. However, if the term Sioux is used, it encompasses these four plus several smaller groups as well. CJLippert 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk by Anon, moved from article

This page is obviously tainted by Lakota revisionist propaganda.

Get your facts straight.

Here is what you said:

"Four years later, gold was discovered there, and an influx of prospectors descended upon the area, abetted by army commanders like General George Armstrong Custer."

The word "abetted" implies criminal activity, and betrays your bias. Custer was following orders from the federal government and was obeying a directive to explore the Black Hills, legally, because according to the treaty with the Sioux the U.S. had a right to build a military road through the area. The objective of his expedition was to survey land, not to promote an influx of illegal white gold-seekers. Only the year before, Custer had led a survey expedition into the Yellowstone area, so he was a logical candidate for the Black Hills region. Just because gold seekers invaded the Black Hills after Custer was there, he gets the blame for the problem, just as he does now for everything else bad that ever happened to the Lakota. You've made him into a symbolic scapegoat, but the truth remains despite your revisionist propaganda.

Here is what you said:

"The latter attempted to administer a lesson of noninterference with white policies."

Again, you distort history. The Lakota in question had been declared enemy combatants by the U.S. War department for failing to remain on their reservations, and for committing depradations on white settlers. They'd been given time to return but had refused. The federal government declared war on them. Custer and his men were only one small part of a three-pronged attack planned at the highest levels. He wasn't even in charge of one of the three columns, just a piece of one. And he was not attempting to teach any kind of lesson, he was following his orders to find and attack the enemy.

Here is what you said:

"Instead, the Lakota with their allies, the Arapaho and the Cheyenne, defeated the 7th U.S. Cavalry in 1876 at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, known also as Custer's Last Stand, since he and 300 of his troopers perished there."

The Lakota did not defeat the 7th U.S. Cavalry. It inflicted severe damage, but again you exaggerate the known facts. Custer split his small command into three components for the attack, and it was only his own component that was wiped out. And that was only 219 men, not 300. More than half of the rest of the command survived and went into immediate pursuit.

Here is what you said:

"Less well known is the history of the eastern Dakota people, in Minnesota. Unlike their plains cousins, the Lakota, they lived in agricultural communities. They accepted white settlements and seizure of their lands in exchange for grain shipments guaranteed by treaty."

This is absolutely not true. A small percentage of MN Dakota accepted farming, and they were ridiculed by the vast majority of their fellow-tribesmen. A few were even murdered. The Lower Agency Dakota were especially resistant to any attempt to convince them to start farming. Too bad for them. So sad. The reservation they lived on had enough land to provide hundreds of acres for every man and his family in the tribes, yet they complained they were starving. How is it then that white settlers, with far less land and with nobody offering to help them, were quite capable of supporting themselves? It was only because the "braves" in the Lower Agency felt that honest work in the field was beneath them. In other words, they were lazy, and they expected to have everything handed to them on a silver plate without working for it. The fact is that the Dakota had been living on some of the world's richest farm land for two hundred years, and were barely able to eke out a subsistance living, having fertilized the land with only the blood of their innocent victims, while -- in less than 40 years -- white settlers turned the fields of Minnesota into the the world's largest grain source.

Here is what you said:

"In 1862, the grain failed to arrive, and the local federal agent told the Dakota that they were free to eat grass."

Totally off, again. It wasn't the grain that failed to arrive, it was the annuity payment, and it didn't fail to arrive, either. It was just late. The admittedly stupid and insensitive comment regarding the eating of grass is true, but it wasn't the federal agent who said it. And in any event the words of the idiot who spoke them cannot justify the murder, rape, pillage and torture that followed.

Here is what you said:

"Instead, they scalped him, looted his warehouse, and rampaged through the area, killing perhaps a dozen whites."

A dozen? Your math is as bad as your history. The Dakota "braves" butchered between 400 and 800 innocent men, women and children, who had absolutely nothing to do with their grievances against the federal government. If any disgruntled political group committed such mass murder today, they would be called terrorists, and there would be an immediate and massive manhunt to track them all down and kill them, like vermin.

Here is what you said:

"Although this was in the middle of the American Civil War, enough troops were gathered to put down the "rebellion", and more than 300 Dakota were sentenced by local courts to die for the crimes of murder or rape."

Again, you can't even get your basic facts straight. It wasn't the middle of the Civil War, but the very first year of it. The "troops" gathered were mainly settlers on the frontier who banded together for common defense of their homes and families against unwarranted murder, pillage and rape. And the 300 Dakota captured and tried were not sentenced by local courts, but by a military tribunal charged with investigating and prosecuting war criminals.

The whole tone of your paragraph regarding the uprising implies that you think it was justified and admirable. Typical Dakota thinking. Warriors to the end, truth be damned, and play the victim to the hilt.

But there are plenty of us out here who aren't falling for your ignorant brand of historical revisionism. You would have us thinking that the Dakota were just sitting there smelling flowers in the field, and along came the evil white man to perpetrate injustices and take away your land. The fact is, you were losing the land already, to the Ojibwe, for two-hundred years, and even without the white incursion the Lakota were already being pushed out of the forests and on to the prairie by other Indians. I notice the Dakota haven't been asking the Ojibwe to compensate them for taking away the Mille Lacs Lake area, which was once a 'sacred' Dakota homeland. I also notice that the Dakota never offered to compensate the Indian tribes which they pushed out of Minnesota themselves when they first came in. Instead, you seem to think that gullible white people are the best targets for sympathetic pleas, just like common panhandlers in the street, who are perfectly capable of working and supporting themselves, but won't try as long as somebody is willing to listen to their sob story.

In the case of Lake Mille Lacs, the Mdewakantonwan and the Mississippi Chippewa did have a formal land cession agreement. It was around 1780 (give or take a decade), according to oral history. The condition was for the Chippewa to stay on the north side of the lake and the Sioux on the south side of the lake. In 1825, the United States forced the Chippewa and the Sioux to sign the Treaty of Prairie du Chien, which forced the Sioux south of the "Prairie du Chien" line and Chippewa to the north. The Chippewa south of the line were adopted as Sioux and the Sioux north of the line were adopted as Chippewa. Also, the Mdewakanton were divided between those who agreed to move south and those who refused relocation. All Mdewakantonwan taught all the Sacred Rites of the Mde Wakan to the Anishinaabe so that they can be carried out. Consequently, Mille Lacs Indians have a high degree of Wolf Clan in their midst, all drums held by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe are all Mdewakanton drums, and all ceremonies associated with the lake are performed by the Wolf Clan members in the Ojibwe language but they are verbatum translation from the Dakota, and everyone who grew up around Lake Mille Lacs are familiar with these Sacred Rites. With this said, if anyone questions any of this, I personally invite you to the beautiful shores of Lake Mille Lacs and you to ask anyone with the Wolf as their Doodem. If Santee Sioux, come and rekindle with your ancestors at near-by Knife Lake. If Mdewakanton, come join in one of the four Pow wows held at the Mille Lacs Reservation! Don't let the Ojibwe in the name "Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe" fool you because the core tribe of the "Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe" is the Mille Lacs Indians, who are the Mdewakanton adopted as Ojibwe, the Mdewakantonwan who stayed. In addition, it was because of the Mdewakantonwan that during the "Sioux Uprise" many of the Mdewakantonwan did not support the uprise and the Mille Lacs Indians, in support of the Mdewakanton, instead help defend the holding of the United States. Because of this, the Mdewakantonwan were not moved westward and the Mille Lacs Indians remained at the lake. However, because of suspicion toward Indians by the non-Indians, the Mdewakanton Sioux communities and the Mille Lacs Indians were pressured westward, many went; many returned with little or no resistance from the United States, forming the contemporary Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee-Mdewakanton Indian Reservation, the Federally non-recognized Mendota Mdewakanton Community, Lower Sioux Indian Reservation and the Ma'iingan Doodem of the Mille Lacs Reservation. CJLippert 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you face the fact that the Dakota lost, and get over it.

And wake up to the fact that nowhere else in history, in any part of the globe, has an advanced culture run up against a primitive one that didn't exterminate them, enslave them, or at the very least push them off the land. This country is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist. The reservation system was admittedly flawed, but it was born of a noble idea. What did you expect them to do? Just pack up and go back to Europe? Get real. Read history and you'll find thousands of years worth of conflicts all over the world that were far worse than what happened to the so-called "native Americans".

"And wake up to the fact that nowhere else in history, in any part of the globe, has an advanced culture run up against a primitive one that didn't exterminate them, enslave them, or at the very least push them off the land."

That's nonsense. Africa is still ruled by the Africans. The current inhabitants of Mexico are largely descended from the pre-Columbus mexicans.

"This country is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist."

Give me a break. The Cherokee were forced off thier land, so their churchs and libraries could be turned into bars. Irquois corn farmers had to deal with pigs running through their crops, and would prosecuted for killing the tresspassing pigs. Again, in many other places in the world, the original people still live on thier land, and in Africa with thier original cultures and religions. This country's behavior is not unique, but is far from a "shining example".

"What did you expect them to do? Just pack up and go back to Europe?"

Um, yes? You can't casually justify invasion like that; it's just lebensraum all over again. We told the Germans to just pack up and go back to Germany, even though they wanted to live in Poland and France. If aliens traveled from Alpha Centurai to Earth and planned to colonize, we'd tell to them to "just pack up and go back to Alpha Centurai". We sure as hell wouldn't accept it as a valid excuse to displace us from our homes.

Your revisionism is quite blatant. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for once. --Prosfilaes 02:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

X-SAMPA

"pronounced "Lakxóta" by the Lakota people"? Please use X-SAMPA for this; it seems to be common for phonetic spellings and it's related to the standard IPA. Lakxóta doesn't help me figure out the pronounciation anymore than Lakhota does. --Prosfilaes 02:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Put it back, please. I'll convert the pronunciation to IPA this weekend when I have more time. Cbdorsett 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So it finally motivated someone to fix it? I don't see any reason to put it back; it's even right here on the Talk page. When it gets converted, then you can put it on the main page. Until then, I stand by my argument that it's useless and confusing to put on the page. --Prosfilaes 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seperate or move?

I was on the verge of splitting this page up into separate "Lakota" and "Sioux" articles, but then I had another think. What does the word "Lakota" really mean? When actual Sioux people say "Lakota" do they just mean the Lakota (i.e. Teton) branch, or do they mean Sioux people in general? The fact that there seems to already be a name for each of the dialects (Santee, Yankton, Teton) implies the latter. I won't split the page unless someone can speak more conclusively on what Lakota means. But maybe we should move the whole thing to Sioux in order to be less confusing? - Nat Krause 14:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Leave it alone, and put a #REDIRECT on the Sioux page so that people can find all the information on one page. Cbdorsett 18:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Separate and move. However, before taking that step, just as the Lakota people|akota article is fairly well developed, the Dakota Sioux, Yankton Sioux and Nakota Sioux articles should be started. Currently, the the Yankton Sioux redirects to Sioux, no designated page for Dakota Sioux other than the Mdewakanton sub-tribe of the Dakota Sioux, and Algonquian-dominated Assiniboine article that needs to discuss more about the people and not their name. CJLippert 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

correction

only 20,000 Lakota lived during the mid 18th century .

source : centennial campaign by John S.Gray

But... but.... but..... I distinctly remember my teachers telling me that the evil europeans slaughtered the indians to near extinction, and that there only a few of them left! Are you suggesting my teachers lied to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

US Government

There fails to be reasonable proof that the US wants revenge against any native nation.

I have marked the article NPOV.

That's not the right way to handle things. NPOV is when there's an argument over the page, not when some idiot comes in and puts a bunch of trash on the page. Just revert it. --Prosfilaes 22:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US Government

How do I revert a page? I'm new. And I'm sorry I didn't know that was proper ettiquette. I just didn't want to change the article too significantly.

Go to the History tab and click "undo" for the edit that you want to undo, and it'll revert it to the version prior to that edit. SteveSims (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Social History/Political History

This article is a little scattered. I was hoping to find something on the society and history of the Sioux, including current information about the distribution and groupings. The article satisfied some of my interests but is also full of a hode podge of massacres etc instead of any real history.

I've moved the former second paragraph of the introduction down following the bit about the Little Big Horn. this paragraph detailed a massacre and some trials in the 1860's and seemed kind of odd as a general introduction tot he topic of the Sioux - who after all are a lot more than murderers and rapists! S-Slater

Revisionism and the real story

I agree with nearly every response given here concerning this entry on the Sioux. I am appalled that a history of my ancestors comprises largely of military conflicts with the United States Government in the nineteenth century. From what I read here, Sioux history preceding c.1862 is irrelevant. It also implies that a more expansive history on the subject is almost non-existent--another great misconception. It is obvious that non-white American histories are still treated as unnecessary. More attention tends to be paid to genocides that occur across the ocean rather than the mass-exterminations that occurred at the hands of our own supposedly beneficent republic.

As such, I move to the often-ridiculous comments presented in, "Talk by Anon: moved from response." I agree that Sioux history is often told to benefit the one telling the story. However, I find the author’s use of the word "revisionism" misused. Accordingly, I should assume anyone who opens his or her mouth these days is a "revisionist" (including myself). Okay, fine with me.

History is dependent on memory: something that varies from person to person. For an academic or for the college-educated elite, reliable history is learned from textbooks, literature, and even word-of-mouth. History is rarely seen as a story or as a retelling but as FACT. Today, any historical source is in danger of becoming inaccurate. I've read textbooks that generate the same level of misinformation that television news sources or presidential memos produce. For example, the author(s) of "Talk by Anon..." said that America "is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist." Now who is the revisionist?

I do not believe that an “advanced culture” would shove a bar of lye soap into my grandfather’s mouth whenever he spoke the Dakota language. Scrubbing out the culturally unclean is not anyone’s idea of co-existence: ask the recently deposed mayor of Baghdad. Anyone who is arrogant enough to refer to her/himself as “advanced” is surely as primitive as the rest of us.

In times of war blatant propaganda tends to rule as THE history. The information presented by "Talk by Anon..." is hamstrung by blind patriotism--the most unpatriotic sensibility of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.171.104 (talk • contribs) 20:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

"I am appalled that a history of my ancestors comprises largely of military conflicts with the United States Government in the nineteenth century." There's no point in being appalled. If you don't like the way the article is written, then change it. Most of the slant is not revisionism; it's just the side of article that more people are familiar. --Prosfilaes 23:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

The way this article describes the subdivisions of the people in question is really confusing, and, in places I would go so far as to say it is incorrect. Does Lakota = Sioux or is it a subdivision of Sioux? If Lakota = Sioux, then, would it be appropriate to refer to "Dakota Lakota" or "Nakoda Lakota" (even if those phrases are wrong, would it be correct to say "the Dakota are a branch of Lakota"?) If Lakota is a subdivision of Sioux, then where is the article about the Sioux as a whole, and why does this article discuss other Sioux groups?

It's pretty clear that the Eastern Subdivision of Sioux is sometimes called "Lakota" specifically; therefore, the question is whether Lakota can also mean the Sioux as a whole. That's certainly what the article says now: "The Lakota ... are a Native American tribe, also known as the Sioux" The article proceeds to say, "The Lakota are the western most of the three groups" which strongly implies that the Dakota and the Nakoda are not Sioux, which I don't think is correct.

To correct this situation, we should: a) be certain what the scope of this article is; b) be really clear about what terminology we are using in which sense, so that our readers understand; and c) preferably we should avoid using "Lakota" in more than one sense. Fortunately, the Lakota are the only "branch" of Sioux which corresponds precisely to a traditional name, to wit "Teton", so I prefer that—unless we decide that Lakota only means the subgroup—we should refer to the subgroup exclusively as "Teton" and/or "western branch". Comments? - Nat Krause 17:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went through and made some tentative changes. Basically, I substitued titonwan for each instance where Lakota was being used to mean that specific branch. Not sure this is the best way, but it should do for the moment. - Nat Krause 08:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article should be under Sioux instead of Lakota. Lakota is a division of Sioux. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So then shouldn't Ohlone be at Costanoan? (See talk page) --Hottentot

i dont really know about Ohlone. Linguistically, Costanoan is a small language family of 5 languages. I understand that the Lakota usually just call themselves Sioux. – ishwar  (speak) 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This article should be called Lakota Sioux since among the Sioux, this is how they would identify themselves. The information in this article about the Dakota Sioux (both Santee and Yankton-Yanktonai) and the Nakota Sioux should be moved to their own pages or consolidated with the main Sioux article. If we do this, similar considerations would need to be made on the Anishinaabe page to distinguish Ojibwa, Mississauga, Algonquin, Nipissing, Odawa, Saulteaux and Potawatomi. CJLippert 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

Lakota → Sioux. Wrong name. – ishwar  (speak) 05:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. I agree with ishwar. --Hottentot 01:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The text is not yet consistent about the division; and the page would probably do better to have that straightened out before moving. Also consider that Lakota and Dakota are dialect forms of the same word. Septentrionalis 02:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Split and Consolidate. The article for Lakota should be that... the Lakota Sioux. Similarly, the article for Dakota ought to be that... the Dakota Sioux. In addition, there should be a similar article on the Nakota Sioux. For the more general article that encompasses these three major divisions as well as several other smaller divisions, they should be in the Sioux article with a main article link to each of their appropriate major divisions. For example, the discussion on the Sioux Reservations in the Lakota article would be inappropriate, but it would be appropriate in the Sioux article, or have a list of just the Lakota reservations with their appropriate Lakota names, with similar listing in the Dakota and Nakota pages. CJLippert 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the Anishinaabeg do distinguish them. The "Santee" Sioux (Dakota) are the Naadawensiw, "Teton" and "Yankton" Sioux (Lakota and Dakota) are Bwaan, "Assiniboine" Sioux (Nakota) are the Asiniibwaan, while the Ioway are the Naadawensiw-mashkodens. At one time the term Naadawensiw was the general term, thus the French adopted that exonym to apply to the Sioux and from the "...siw" giving us the "Sioux", but today, Bwaan is the general term. CJLippert 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Outcome

• Move request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church ^Talk 02:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

It seems kind of strange that Oglala and Sans Arcs both redirect here, seeing as there are direct links to those pages from this one. Luosiji 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dakota Wikilink

the Dakota wikilink goes to a disambiguation page. There were a couple that this article may go under. Could someone familiar with the article update the wikilink so that it directs to one of the articles on the the dab page. Thanks Lmielke359 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Surrender

My US Histories teacher told me the US has only surrendered once, to the Lakota Sioux. If this is incorrect, please edit as necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N734LQ (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

Interesting. But we need a more substantial reference than your history teacher. --Ezeu 11:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot would hinge on how you define "surrender." Does it mean the leadership of the entire nation, in the way that the Japanese empire surrendered on board the Missouri? I'm doubtful that the United States government as a whole ever surrendered to the Sioux or any other native peoples. Does "surrender" mean capitulation by some military unit or units? In World War II, for example, one example to counter the statement above would be Wainwright's surrender in the Philippines. -- OtherDave 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Independence

Apparently some of the Lakota people have declared their withdrawal from the treaties with the US and declared an independent nation. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001 Does anybody know who this group is, and if it has widespread support amongst the Lakota ppl? The article seems to suggest that they are not mainstream, but being on the other side of the world, I don't really know. The bellman (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much support they have but AFP describes the activists as "Lakota leaders" so I'm reverting to that term until more information is made public Trachys (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki page for Mr. Means describes him as an activist, as do several news stories. He has never been elected. He lost electin bids in 200 and 2004. To claim that Mr. Means is a "leader" of the Lakota people is both false and presumptuous. He tried to be a leader and was rejected by the Sioux at the polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The AFP article mentions leaders, plural, so it's not just Means that issued the statement to the State Department. Mrintel (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

well Fox News (!?) calls them "activists" so I guess Agence France-Presse should back off! Trachys (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that none of the "leaders" mentioned here were tribal presidents, or even anyone from the upper ranks of the tribes (according to the Rapid City Journal). It would be like a group of self-important Californians (maybe even a mayor or two) declaring the state independent without any support from the state government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.171.213 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly clarify what you mean by "(!?)" in reference to Fox News. Whatever the journalistic standards of this or that newspaper, Wiki guidelines are pretty clear about the use of language and titles. If you say, "A" then "A" should be a fact, not an "interpretation" by you or anyone else, including AFP. I am resident in Oregon. I am not therefor a "leader" or a "representative" of Oregon, no matter what my ambition or desire may be. If and when Means is confirmed in an official capacity as speaking on behalf of the elected officials of the Sioux Nation (and therefor the larger group as a whole), then the story can be weighted to represent that he is representing the Lakota as a whole - rather than a group of activists within the Sioux Nation who speak for no one but themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's Faux News saying that they are activists, you can pretty much gaurentee they are not. When was the last time "Fair(ly) (Un)Balance(d)" News got anything accurate and unspun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.202.23.71 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on the previous: Means attempted twice and failed twice to gain election as President of the Oglala Sioux. I think that failure sheds significant doubt upon the mantle of "leader" which is placed on him. They have duly elec ted leaders who legitimately wear that title. Sans an endorsement by the various Sioux governments, he cannot speak for the Sioux people any more than I can stand up as an activist citizen of Oregon and declare Oregon an independent nation. It makes for good press and a splashy headline, but Wikipedia is not about flash in the pan headlines and propaganda ploys, but substantive reality. Mention of the drama is appropriate in the article, but forced - and false - attempts to legitimize it as an "official" action of the Sioux people is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This can only end poorly. Either the US ignore them, and show the impotence of their leaders, the US will arrest them possibly sparking violence or the US will simply point out the fact the area is conquered territory and extinguish all treaty rights. I can't see any advantage to this. It was extremely poorly thought out.Manic-pedant (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It has some interesting ramifications though, IF... IF... IF.... enough legitimate elected Sioux leaders endorse it. Not likely..... BUT as an intellectual exercise, it is interesting to play out the idea of Indian secession. From a constitutional perspective, it would be very interesting to see the exercise played out. Dangerous. But interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know why this hasn't been covered by any major news outlets so far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.51.113 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because a lot of people at the news agencies are gone for the holidays. Same thing happened for the 2004 Tsunami. Not to compare this Lakota story with the devastation of the Tsunami, but it shows how even if there's a big story during the holidays, it may not get the usual in-depth coverage until after Christmas. --Elonka 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox all carried it on their web sites, then dropped it - although the stories are still there if you have the link. I think they realized that Russell Means is making a lot of noise but in reality doesn't actually represent anybody but himself and his group of fringe nutjobs. When he lost the election to a woman, he lost all credibility by going off into a sexist rant, stating outright that Indian women are not fit to govern. The vast majority of American Indians are proud Americans and would not seriously consider endorsing such an absurd movement. Russel Means is a sad shadow of his former popularity. This sad story will fade and disappear just as Russel Means is doing. In the long run, he has embarrassed himself.....again. It would be like some random gay activist in San Francisco declaring that California has "officially" seceded from the union. Oh, really? Says who... LMAO. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We just did an article at WN: wikinews:Lakota Indian tribe secedes from US. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is EVERYBODY on this discussion page assuming things and trying to discredit this endeavor in any way they can? What makes you think the rest of the Lakotas won't endorse this move? They'd be crazy not to. Who cares if he's elected or not. Who says their society works like ours!?!? Instead of trying to discredit him and this, why don't you wait for the facts and just stick to those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.118.146 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is the beginning of the end of the evil empire that is the United States! I wonder if America's founding fathers were "fringe nutjobs" and "activists" as well? Was it an "absurd movement" for the 13 colonies to seek independence from England? It will be interesting to see if the United States grants self determination to these people like England eventually did to the traitors in the 13 colonies but I doubt the freedom hating United States will take any notice. YourPTR! (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, someone who wants Ireland to be retaken by the British and fully supports monarchy and old tired traditions talking about freedom hating. 65.12.253.21 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

From the Independence movement section: Furthermore, they have attributed their high teen suicide rate and low life expectancy to the conditions forced on them by the United States.

Is there a source to back that claim up? Sounds awfully POVish. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. I considered posting a POV question regarding the word "furthermore." Words such as "however" "but" "nevertheless" and such add weight to a particular debate point of view, and are inappropriate to Wiki entries. A minor edit with attribution would be in order. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean attribute the whole thing. I don't see anywhere where the tribe makes these claims. DragonFire1024 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not quoted properly because, and I'm just guessing, there are similarities to the language of the AGP wire article.[2] Here is a direct source for context and editing if someone wishes to make a correction: Declaration of Continuing Independence

I removed that bit before I saw this thread, didn't mean to act unilaterally when there was discussion going on. However, the sentence was highly POV and unsourced, and wiki policy calls for removal of stuff like that immediately. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

About the independence movement

If the lakota do manage to obtain officialy recognised independence, would they still get any support from the US, i ask this because I cannot think of any micronation that has managed to obtain official recognition as a soveriegn nation, and the lakota people from what they are saying, seem to already be in need of monetary support to assit with some of the problems that they are having. I am sorry if this doesnt make sense, because this whole movment realy seems like either a cry for attention, or a movment that is doomed to make their situation even worse. --Alphamone (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion not related to improving the article, e.g. speculation about the US' response. There's lots of interesting stuff to say about this issue, but this isn't the place for it. If you want to converse broadly about the topic on this site, policy recommends that you keep the discussion confined to user talk pages and IRC, and use these pages for their intended purpose, discussing how to better the article. I apologize if that sounded rude. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Micronation?

Is this really an appropriate term? It seems heavily biased against their conception as a nation, not to mention they almost certainly are not seeking to be, as the micronation article stats "unrecognized" and "ephemeral", but in fact quite the opposite.

List of treaty violations

News articles following the Lakota's declaration of independence refer to numerous violations of treaties between the United States and the Lakota, but I have been unable to find specific claims.

A list of treaty violations, as alleged by the Lakota, would be a very valuable contribution to this article, if someone can gather that information. In fact, it appears to be at the heart of their independence movement, which is the most significant development in their history since the massacre at Wounded Knee.

I recommend that the list should be as specific as possible, to avoid ambiguity. For example, "They have taken our children" is not a specific claim; if this is an issue in the minds of the Lakota leaders, how have their children been taken and what terms from which treaties were violated by those actions? JD Lambert^(T|C) 06:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the declaration would be absolutely fantastic to get ahold of. To the best of my knowledge, however, one is not available atm. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Some documents available here: http://www.lakotafreedom.com/portfolio.html Trachys (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks!-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just added this to the article from the declaration. It's a little colloquial, especially the use of etcetera, but it's the only specific list of accusations in the statement:

• Homestead Acts
• Allotment Acts
• Citizenship Act forcing United States citizenship upon all American Indians
• Indian Reorganization Act a.k.a. Howard Wheeler Act (the first Apartheid Act)
• Forced relocation during the decades of the 1950's over the 1960's.
• Supreme Court decision disallowing our religions.
• Even though we are citizens of the United States of America, we are denied protections of the United States Constitution while living on Indian reservations, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
  — Lakota Freedom Delegation, Lakota Withdrawal Letter, December 17, 2007

-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Declaration Should Be Removed from Lead Paragraph

The news "non-event" regarding separation from the United States should be removed from the lead paragraph, as it is a political stunt and has no real-world impact.

The Lakota councils have not endorsed the declaration made by a few reactionary activists, and the event has generated little more than a yawn on the reservations supposedly affected.

There appears to be little, if any justification for it to be included in the lead paragraph for the Lakota people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be a non-event locally, but it has attracted international news coverage and is a likely reason many people will be looking this article up. If you have sources that you can cite regarding the local reaction to the declaration, please feel free to add it! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only Indians who endorse the thing - other than Russell Means and his cronies - are Ward Churchill and Jesse Jackson. This whole thing does not even rise to "flash in the pan" status. To call it a "tempest in a tea pot" would be a gross exaggeration. The organizers are growing angry and denouncing as traitors those indians (almost all of them) who refuse to get on board, calling them "IRA Indians" and people who don't want freedom. The grapes appear to be getting sour in the Means camp as Indian stampede AWAY from him. The whole pathetic episode does not merit mention in the lead paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of the American Indian response to this joke: "As I sat and pondered the possibilities of American Indian independence, my first thought was, “Yikes, I'd need a green card to live in Grand Forks!”

"Of the people who called or e-mailed me, most are chuckling at the absurdity of it. Means and his group, of course, would be speaking for themselves and not tribes, whose tribal councils speak for them."

This is from a column by Doreen Yellow Bird at indianz.com, which announced the secession "event" in a tersely worded piece which barely concealed the low regard it held for the story.

It should be OUT of the lead paragraph, and relegated to one or at MOST 2 paragraphs in the "independence" section. Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for Russell Means' propaganda machine, no matter how much some wish it were and try to make it be. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed. this is what the article on Russell Means himself has to say about it:

On December 20, 2007, Means announced the withdrawal of a small group of Lakota Sioux from all treaties with the United States government.[7] Means and a delegation of activists declared - without significant tribal support - the Lakota a sovereign nation with property rights over thousands of square miles in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana.[8] He admits that his declaration has no legal or official standing and is not supported by Lakota tribal governments, which he compared to Nazi collaborators in Nazi concentration camps even though he has repeatedly tried to be elected to those governments[9]

thats a much better summary than the longer unnecessary one that exists here SJMNY (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I completely agree that this article gives undue weight to the incipient independence movement, which has certainly not yet shown that it is an important event in the history of the Lakota, the passage from the Russell Means article shows unnecessary bias in the other direction. First of all, it's incorrect that "Means announced the withdrawal of a small group of Lakota Sioux" from the United States—this was an announcement which purported to speak on behalf of Lakota people in general. Regardless of whether they had any right to do that, they didn't make the announcement on their own behalf. The letter of withdrawal makes this clear: "Lakotah, formally and unilaterally withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United States Government on the Lakotah People ... Lakotah, and the population therein, have waited for at least 155 years for the United States of America to adhere to the provisions of the above referenced treaties."

Second, where are the sources that say these people don't have significant tribal support?

What's up with the sentence, "He [Means] admits that his declaration has no legal or official standing"? I sincerely doubt that Means or anyone involved with this would agree to that. Means was quoted as saying "We are legally within our rights to be free and independent".

Regarding the phrase "which he compared to Nazi collaborators in Nazi concentration camps even though he has repeatedly tried to be elected to those governments", I don't understand why the phrase "even though" is in there. Presumably, Means would try to use those governments for some other purpose if he were elected to power in them.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Means and his group state clearly that they do not represent the elected tribal governments, nor any other Lakota who disagree wilth the action, whom he calls Nazi collaborators. This statement negates his earlier claim that the declaration represents all Lakota. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting point. Still, in context of the previous statement, one can assume that these people believe "the freedom loving Lakota" to be a substantial number of people, not "a small group of Lakota Sioux".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

His 15 minutes of fame are up. Time to return the Lakota People article to a sense of sanity. As others agree, I am taking the secession stuff out of the lead, and paring down the entry in the "independence" section to a reasonable size.If people are curious, there are links aplenty to lead them to detail.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Duschamps removed half a paragraph and replaced it with one-sided arguments in favor of a particular POV. Ironically, he cited "POV" as reason to remove relevant quotes WITH attribution AND references. The FACT that these publicity hounds state in no uncertain terms that they DO NOT REPRESENT the Lakota people and hold a majority of them in contempt as Nazi collaborators is absulutely 100% germaine to the event in relation to this article. Furthermore, if a reader wishes to research the affair further, there are MORE THAN ENOUGH links to fulfill that need. There is no reason to turn this article into a propaganda vehicle for this fringe group who admit that they do not represent anybody but their small faction of publicity hounds.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"independence" junk

its starting to look more and more like this whole "independence" thing is much-ado-about-nothing. Means and his small group clearly don't speak for the Lakota (as evidenced by his 3 time failure to win their elections) I think it's time this entire incident were given a much lower prominence on the Lakota page, it could be more extensively discussed on a page about Means' group. SJMNY (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The media jumped waaaaaaaay past it's journalistic bounds in reporting this thing on it's face value. It's just another in a long line of attention grabbing stunts by a distinct fringe minority. The tribal governments are lining up to distance themselves from this joke. Shame on the MSM for it's lack of journaistic skepticism in the face of claims by a person of low or no credibility.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You gave a POV title to this descussion "independence junk"! First off you guys have hacked that section to almost nothing. And it should be stated that Russell Means and Phyllis Young are not acting for the elected tribal governments. But not to list all the refrenced notable information and NPOV facts only show your onw biast. I am willing to compermise but will not agree to the section as you had it.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

i labelled it junk because its just that, it would be the same thing as me and a bunch of friends "declaring independence" on behalf of Staten Island. Its already receiving more attention on this page than it deserves given that it is in in no way representative of the Lakota.SJMNY (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If one wishes to create an "American Indian Independence Movement" subject, then they should do so and I would applaud that. To shoe-horn the actions of this fringe group of reactionaries into the larger subject of the Lakota People is an abuse of both Wikipedia and the Lakota People, in my opinion. A paragraph is MORE THAN FAIR treatment for this pathetic attempt at usurping the Sioux Nation's elected governments. Advocates for transforming this article into a "Free the Lakota" propaganda piece are plainly acting from a fringe partisan POV and giving their mightiest effort to making this non-event seem like a fate accompli. As if it means anything more than a hollow political statement by a has-been political activist which in reality means nothing and changes nothing. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What the section needs is balance. Can anyone find the reactions of the elected tribal leaders and of the tribal members as a group? The fact that this guy has stood for election several times and failed is telling all by itself, but evidence of whether or not this is taken seriously at the local level is needed to achieve WP:NPOV. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

i've looked and found no reaction from the State Department or from the real Lakota leaders, apparently this isn't even taken seriously enough to merit a response.SJMNY (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of the American Indian response to this joke:

"As I sat and pondered the possibilities of American Indian independence, my first thought was, “Yikes, I'd need a green card to live in Grand Forks!” Of the people who called or e-mailed me, most are chuckling at the absurdity of it. Means and his group, of course, would be speaking for themselves and not tribes, whose tribal councils speak for them." This is from a column by Doreen Yellow Bird at indianz.com, which announced the secession "event" in a tersely worded piece which barely concealed the low regard it held for the publicity stunt.VanBrigglePottery (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)