Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
If the U.S. is no longer bound by the treaty, then the U.S. will probably lay claim to the land the Lakota think is theirs. Further, the Lakota, by repudiating their treaty are probably giving up very significant mineral and water rights which they won't get to have anymore.
I just don't see how this can be a good thing for the Lakota.
|
I think the Lakota know how unpopular actually doing what you suggest would be.
I don't think we have a single elected official who would ultimately stand behind a decision, even though I think it would absolutely necessary under the circumstance.
And, let's be honest, name a bunch of countries who have treated their aboriginal peoples any better? (How did the native Britons or Celts fare in England, say?) The US just seems even worse because our treatment was so much more recent and well documented.
Note that I'm not saying the US treatment was all right: just that historically very few groups remain on the land they originally occupied, and that I don't think there's any way things work out well for the groups with lower fire power. (although we seem to be entering an era where because so many Americans want to pretend this isn't true or can be righted through legislation and multi-culturalism, where the US may just elect to give the country away, either in cases like the Lakota, recent developments in Hawaii, or through unregulated immigration and expanded "government" funded entitlement. I mean, why not? It seems like the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective.)
Threaded Mode
