It's not the first time he has made this particular pronouncement, Russell Means has made a career of turning nonsense into big news. He also has a habit of stirring up trouble, and then runs and hides when it's time to pay the piper. He has (IMO) done considerable damage to Indian/Native American situations by causing hard feelings with shenanigans like this one.

 

I think I'll let more talk-back happen over this before responding.

But it looks that way.

(no opinion)

 

Ding ding ding, now things are starting to fall into place. Glad you looked up Russell Means? He is a trouble maker, that never follows through. Ok, discuss amongst yourselves...

 

Thank you Josh, we are learning a few things here...

(Stand by for those who always say Wiki is not a legitimate source.)

 

Yes, we know. or I least I do. Considering how he was setup in trial and the judge threw the case out in disgust because the FBI placed an informant in Russel's defense team... good to see him standing up to them again. It was Waco long before Waco ever happened.

Seriously folks... consider this: you think this thing about Indian land and treaties is trivial? Well, think about how the US government now treats your land rights, and feels it can take it away simply for tax gain or the commercial gain of a campaign contributor. We are now in the land cross-hairs just as the Lakota, Cherokee, etc., were in those cross hairs when gold was found on their land. If we don't stand on the side of justice for them, what right do we have to complain when the local mayor takes your home away in order to build a shopping mall for his buddies?

 

So, does this become a question of seccession by their claiming sovereignty?

 

That's true.

Cities have been more and more abusing the power of eminent domain for the seizing of private property and there have been a number of court decisions allowing it. This is, cities taking private land and giving it to a developer. The city claims it is for the public good but the actual motivation is to improve the city's tax base.

 

That is kind of an interesting question. Are the reservations not nations?

And if all treaties are cancelled......... Are the reservations created by treaties?

 

It was meant to be one of those "greatest good for the greatest number" things, but like so much legislation the unintended consiquences seem to take over.

 

The problem with Russell Means is that he speaks for the tribes, when he actually has practically no influence or standing with them. He has already seceded from the US before. He set up a bunch of Tee Pees in SD and claimed that him and his buddies were retaking the black hills. Anyone have any idea how that turned out?

Means is in charge of one of the splinter cells of the AIM (american indian movement) He does not speak for the whole Lakota tribe, and in fact is highly unliked by many of them.

 

I grew up in western Nebraska in 70's. You got one comparison right, Russell is as insane as Vernon Howell. Russell Means entire agenda is about self promotion, plain and simple. I went to school with members of the Lakota tribe, and they mostly share the same opinion of Russell; they detest him.

Here's what AIM's Grand Governing Council has to say about Russell On their website:http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/onrussellmeans.html

"What is especially egregious, and outrageous about Russell Mean's violations of the laws of the Dine Nation is that he is charged with assault and battery against his father-in-law, Mr. Leon Grant who is a revered elder of both the Omaha and Dine Nation and is 80 years of age and has an artificial arm. We, of the American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council are no longer surprised by Russell's clownish antics. He continues to deceitfully mis-represent the American Indian Movement in order to deceive those peoples and organizations worldwide, who due to their goodwill, and support of the Indian cause may have already, or will contribute to his appeal through his personal web page where he solicits money for the Russell Means Philanthropy and AIM Club Membership in name of the American Indian Movement, and an "Immersion Indian School" that never existed, nor does it exist at this time."

Takes a real hero to beat up a 80 year old man with an artificial arm and then go hide.

 

I just read a good portion of the lakotafreedom website that was linked earlier. It has quite a bit of good information in it.

There is one page where it does mention that they are not speaking for the Lakota, just those Lakota who seek freedom.

Their Declaration of Continued Independence is a pretty interesting read. In it they are seeking outside help from other nations to assist in their fight. It looks like they are hoping to get this to a world stage.

I really don't see the similarities to this issue and any sort of eminent domain question. The government has the right of eminent domain over land that you have a chain of title to. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for almost any reason that they local government claims as being beneficial to the greater good. Only strong local laws or a constitutional amendment will protect us from eminent domain for the benefit of private parties as has become more and more common. But we will never be protected from the government taking privately held land for schools, roads and other public use. I don't know that we'd want to go there anyway.

The land issue with the tribes is different in that they are attempting to lay claim to land that others now have a chain of title on. They are threatening to place a lien on land in five states that others have owned and paid taxes on for several generations now. We are screwed totally as a nation if the so-called indigenous people can come back hundreds of years later and lay claim to land that they see as ancestral or spiritually theirs. I have some sympathy for their current issues but I don't see how they can claim as their land anything that they used for a period of time. If anything, the current owners would have a right to it by adverse posession.

JMO of course.

 

Good points Ray. It is the supreme court decision that we are addressing as being a problem because it broadened the right of municipalities to "take" property to include things like "redevelopment" which is undefined. This leads to broad interpretations that would allow for abuse.

 

Chief Big Foot was the leader of a band of Minneconjou Sioux.

He, and most of his followers were killed (murdered is more like it) at Wounded Knee in 1890.

 

Interstate highways (one going through Mississippi is going to spell the end of the homes of at least two families I personally know), shopping malls, landfills, whatever...

We tend to think the IRS (as one example) cannot take your home away, but they do that to people. You may not lose it in a bankruptcy - but owe the IRS a nickle, watch them charge penalties, see the interest grow on said penalties, and the snowball rolls on it's own.

"House? What house? You've owed the government five cents for three years in a row..." (Over exaggeration)

The IRS is amazingly unrestricted in terms of the lattitude they have for their actions! Anything is possible, with little recourse.

"REDEVELOPEMENT" is a downright scary idea - If your property is the same as it was when you got it, or even improved, BUT SOMEONE THINKS THEY HAVE A BETTER PLAN FOR IT and the idea sells...

What stops them?

Welcome to the "RES". It sounds like we are all potential Indians now.

-We now return you to your original unhijacked thread-