Just a Slight Rumble

Perhaps you read my post on the Lakota Freedom Delegation's declaration that treaties between the US and the Lakota Nation are null and void and were essentially non=plussed. That is understandable, we have seen events in the not so distant past that could be compared to this event. We know about the Freemen, we know about the Republic of Texas and what became of their attempts to establish sovereignty and independence. You might say, "what is the difference"?

After all we have what appears to be a group of people that do not hold formally elected positions (within the de facto government of the Lakota Nation) declaring independence and threatening to set up a shadow government, issue liens on land and abjuring the Federal realm. What is the difference you say? This will all just fade away and possibly end up with a few folks arrested.

Perhaps so, then again maybe not.

The fact that Russell Means in not the current president of his tribe it can be argued that the tribal leadership of the Sioux is held illegitimately - you can read about the the history of tribal governments in general and the Sioux and Lakota in particular. I come down on the side of accepting the current governments as de facto indeed but perhaps not de jure and certainly not legitimate in terms of doing what governments are supposed to do - that is serve the best interests of the people it represents.

Tribal governments have done a fabulous job of keeping Indians on the reservation; drunk, unemployed and sick with diseases that the most of rest of the world has long since eradicated. It seems that if their governments are legitimate they have have done a poor job of representing the people.

If the Lakota people (and the people of the affected states in general) get behind this movement it will be legitimate. One must remember that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were not legitimate either, and at the time of the signing there was not a great upwelling of public support. Big things can occur from small beginnings.

Having said that, there is another angle. In 1974 traditional elders of the Lakota Nation sanctioned this action - long before there was a Western style representative form of government the Lakota people were governed by their elders - there is legitimacy to all of this.

Here is the other point that the MSM is ignoring and the State Department hopes will not materialize (but I suspect will occur). Venezuela will likely recognize a free Lakota Nation. You say this is a (half) given and means nothing, granted. What about Bolivia? That nation does not have an axe to grind with the US, per se. Bolivia would receive no great benefit from recognizing the Lakota's bid for freedom. However, I predict that Bolivia will indeed recognize the movement diplomatically (unless the State Department buys off Evo Morales).

This all could be much bigger than folks want to pretend - for the sake of freedom everywhere I hope the Lakota people have the resolve to get behind this movement, no matter that it may mean their shipments of government cheese are disrupted.