The best present ever

40 thoughts on The best present ever

1. That is fucking awesome.

2. I am going to ask what may be dumb, obvious questions. How is this possible? Is it possible to have a country inside another country? Doesn’t the land belong to the US government? Could I succeed on land I own? Do all people, Native American or not, who live in the area suddenly need… passports, or non-American stamps, or something? I am just not sure I get why or how this could work.

3. Jen, I’d suggest you read some of the links, especially the one from the Lakota Freedom Delegation. They can explain it better than I ever could.

4. I also found this, which is worth reading. It discusses the various attempts to “debunk” this news and why more support and recognition is needed:

   http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/23/1036.aspx

   The national media are totally quiet on this but the local press isn’t and some international newswires are picking it up. I imagine some of the more mainstream media will just have no idea what to do with this news, and might be trying to figure out whether it’s “real” or not, since “common sense” would suggest it’s impossible. I really wonder what the international reaction will be, if any. Apparently Putin has said something about it but I can’t find it online. Hugo Chavez is supportive but he’s made a practice of opposing everything the Bush administration does.

   Like Means says, the US is a rogue nation, but still one that pulls an awful lot of weight. Not to mention firepower. 🙁 I mean, that was obvious at Wounded Knee. But it seems like Means is trying to go through more “official channels” this time.

5. This is really interesting, because the Lakota are seceding as a sovereign treaty nation, not as a state (those issues were resolved by Reconstruction.) In practice, Lakota are citizens of the United States as well, and so we are not going to see a mass rescinding of passports, the 7th Cavalry at the gates of Pine Ridge (once again, God forbid), although if I were a white landowner on previously-native land I would not want to be served with papers by a Lakota lawyer placing a lien on my land in a US District Court. The website claims that they do intend to place liens on land that they now regard as “disputed”, which implies that they expect the US govt. to deal with them as a nation, and they (the Lakota) intend to bring sovereign power to bear on US citizens who believed they (the Americans) held formerly-native land free and clear of native claims. As an Israeli, I have an especially grim viewpoint about this, having meditated long and hard about what to do when the previous owner of your land shows up, although in Israel I never lived on expropriated land (it was held by a Church to which I paid rent.) The jurisdictional issues alone for law enforcement are massive, and (hopefully) we are NOT going to see a re-enactment of the 1890s or 1970s on Pine Ridge, when the feds tried to force the issue.

6. this is interesting

7. I am Lakota and I have never been more proud of my own people. Thank the day!

8. Hugo Chavez is supportive but he’s made a practice of opposing everything the Bush administration does.

   Actually, I would imagine the GOP would support Lakota succession so long as it meant that the Lakota would not vote in Senate elections: AFAIK, if the tribes of the Northern Plains were disenfranchised, wouldn’t that be the end of having Sen. X (D-ND) and Sen Y. (D-SD) and those seats would go GOP?

9. Whoa.

   :::runs to consult ILaw friends about legal status of the independence declaration:::

10. This is just a hoax/publicity stunt by Means and his confederates. Neither Means nor members of his “delegation” hold any official position in the Lakota nation, and are therefore not in a position to renounce any treaty the Lakotas are party to. Sorry to grinch you, but nobody is seceding from anything.

11. This is just a hoax/publicity stunt by Means and his confederates. Neither Means nor members of his “delegation” hold any official position in the Lakota nation, and are therefore not in a position to renounce any treaty the Lakotas are party to. Sorry to grinch you, but nobody is seceding from anything.

    Heh. Well, there’s plenty of precedent for that in US/Native-American treaty negotiations–just ask the Cherokee.

12. CTD, I suppose you could call it a “hoax”, if you believe that you are in a better position to speak on behalf of the Lakota than American Indian Movement founder Russell Means and his supporters, or if you have chosen to take sides with his critics and detractors. Alternatively, one could also choose to listen to and contemplate the message, and call it “an activist initiative”, or “revolutionary agitation”, or perhaps “political theater”. Obviously this action will not be seen as “legitimate” by the system which was founded upon the genocidal murder of, land-theft from, and ongoing brutality against the very people seeking liberation and self-determination, a system which continues to enjoy “legitimacy” after breaking every treaty its people signed with Native Americans. As I see it, the Lakota secession is a powerful statement and idea. And statements and ideas matter. Indeed they oftentimes shape human societies and delineate the boundaries of the possible.

    Thanks for the post, Kactus. I hope that you and the little one are having a most excellent time this holiday season! 🙂

13. Here’s the link I got about whether Means and his confederates are the real deal.

    The author hands out a Mantle of Shame to Means and writes:

    Russell Means – for his mid-December announcement in D.C. that he is unilaterally withdrawing the Lakota Sioux from treaties with the United States. News flash to Means: treaties are made between nations; you are a person and not a nation; you are not empowered to speak for the Great Sioux Nation; as an individual, you can only withdraw yourself from coverage of your nation’s treaties. (Means is the same Oglala Sioux actor who tried to beat domestic violence charges by challenging the sovereign authority of the Navajo Nation to prosecute him – he took it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.)

14. And while my comment and link about Means are in moderation, I’d also note that it appears he’s lost the election for the Presidency of the Oglala Souix, so I’m unclear as to what authority he’s acting under.

15. It seems to me from reading the Lakota Freedom site and the other link I provided that the authors of the letter feel they have a perfectly good and legal claim to represent Lakota tribes and people, that there’s no one “democratically elected president” of the Lakota even if the rest of the world assumes that they follow that convention. The key paragraph I read being:

    My understanding is that it is Lakota tradition dictates that no one speaks for the people yet if we are to say that it is legitimate for representatives of the Lakota to sign such treaties, then it is legitimate for representatives to nullify and if it is the representation itself that is being deemed illegitimate then that, in itself, nullifies all the treaties.

    If “representatives” who are not universally valid amongst the Lakota, but who were considered “enough so” for colonizing law, signed the treaties, then it also sounds pretty reasonable that other representatives, who are offering evidence and history of their representation of the Lakota people, can nullify it. In any case I think the real question may be what international politicians and international courts think of the issue.

16. Thanks for the post, Kactus. I hope that you and the little one are having a most excellent time this holiday season! 🙂

    You’re welcome, Kai, and thank you for asking 🙂

    And pretty much an AGREED with everything else you said, too.

    I am not even close to knowledgeable about Lakota issues, although I grew up in an area that was very active in AIM during my younger years. I always reacted positively to Means and Banks et al because I went to school with kids who were related to them; they were a visible activist presence during my younger years; and they were doing something, dammit.

    Any political action could be labeled a “stunt” including going off to a ridiculous war in Iraq. A stunt is designed to get people to pay attention so that they will hopefully listen to your message. So even if you choose to call it a stunt, CDT, that doesn’t lessen its symbolic meaning, or its necessity. And if it gets people to talk about the US govt’s absolute shame in how we have handled treaties with native people since we decided to steal their land, then that’s a good thing.

17. The thing about political theater, though, is that it has to move public discourse in the right direction. When I first read the story, I thought it was intriguing, and was inclined to support the Lakota’s right to secede as a moral and legal matter. But once I found out that it wasn’t actually the Lakota nation as a whole, but rather a set of activists (prominent activists, yes, but also folks who the Lakota have consistently voted against giving political power too), my mood turned more hostile — not to the concept that the Lakota could secede if they wanted to, but to the people who are purporting to speak for the Lakota tribe without the people’s actual agreement.

    To be sure, it would be ironic if the Lakota left the United States the same way they entered — via the legal manipulations written and signed by unelected undemocratic “representatives” — but that doesn’t make it advisable. I’m content to let the Lakota (for once in American history) decide for themselves their own political future — not from the “chiefs” which signed treaties in the 19th centuries, not from activists appropriating the tribal mandate and calling the folks who oppose them “Vichy”.

18. The U.S. has a piss poor reputation of honoring treaties. It has only become more stellar and shit stained in the last decade due to arrogance.

    Limits are reached and the only alternative is to end the agreement. I personally will not challenge nor support a challenge against the Lakota to take back their land and country.

    Market spin does not cut it. Legitimate action has to take place when treaties are involved.

19. Recently I listened to a very disturbing NPR program that talked about how Indian women were handled with rape cases from neighboring states. The police departments let the men go without any jail time, so they just continued their behavior. Also, Indian teen suicide is up 150 percent. Living in a world with no justice is no way for anyone to live.
    I pray that they are able to take back their power and restore their saftey and harmony.

20. In any case I think the real question may be what international politicians and international courts think of the issue.

    They think that the elected government of the Sioux nation is the one that was elected. Means lost.

    This has about as much force as Dennis Kucinich announcing that as President of the United States, he has signed executive orders requiring that the US will be withdrawing from Iraq, signing Kyoto, and dismantling all our nuclear missiles. Yeah, that’s nice. Crazy, much?

    And before you decide that I’m saying this as a “critic and detractor”, I’m not. I’m all for tribes re-asserting their sovereignty and pursuing their legitimate interests and rights. Go Lakota!

    But this kind of crap is just going to get people killed, for nothing.

21. And if it gets people to talk about the US govt’s absolute shame in how we have handled treaties with native people since we decided to steal their land, then that’s a good thing.

    Question: when commenters here were in school, how was the relationship between the US and different tribes discussed? The reason I ask is that my own program (at public school) was pretty damn emphatic that the US behaved horrifically and we discussed Native Americans as part of a unit all 8th graders had to take on genocide and Holocaust studies. The reason I ask is that I am curious to know how this affects the discourse now about the Lakota’s decision.

    Kactus, if this is too threadjacky, you can feel free to delete it.

22. As an Israeli, I have an especially grim viewpoint about this, having meditated long and hard about what to do when the previous owner of your land shows up

    As a Quebecer, I too am leery of a small group of people claiming that they speak for an entire group, and their wish to seceed.

    I hope this doesn’t end badly.

23. In any case I think the real question may be what international politicians and international courts think of the issue.

    Actually, you’d have to look at the terms of the treaty itself and the terms of any sort of governing documents or traditions that the Lakota have. International courts and politicians don’t really have anything to do with it.

    From what it looks like, this group isn’t empowered to act on behalf of the Lakota nation. I don’t know who is, exactly, but that would be determined by the Lakota themselves, and what those representatives could do is determined by the terms of the treaty that they’re withdrawing from.

    It’s a great gesture, and a great bit of political theater, and certainly sends a message, but I think some people here are too quick to dismiss those who are asking whether this is really the will of the Lakota or whether this group is acting on its own and beyond its authority to act.

24. evil fizz, yeah I also learned about the genocidal treatment of Native Americans in 8th grade world history in my Los Angeles public school. The subject was treated similarly to slavery: an unspeakably awful atrocity from a distant and bygone age of unenlightenment, rather than a still-unfolding situation which could be, and needed to be, addressed and corrected in the present day.

    Certainly we never learned that key concepts in the US Constitution were lifted from the People of the Long House, nor about the matriarchal organization of certain native societies, nor their advances in agriculture, cosmology, medicine; nor did we learn about the more recent system of “boarding schools” where generations of Indian children were sent to be raped and forced to forget their culture, nor of the Navajo “code talkers” who enabled US victory during WWII; nor did we hear about the American Indian Movement in a sympathetic light, nor the ongoing financial shenanigans of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; nor the ongoing radioactive dumping on reservations, nor the ongoing extraction of timber and minerals from reservation lands without payment to anyone whose skin was not white.

    So the overall effect was typically liberal: vague guilt without context for meaningful action or even meaningful recognition that the very people we were talking about as a long-gone tragedy were our own brothers and sisters still struggling today. They were discussed as an abstraction, one shameful episode within an overarching story of “discovery” of the New World, westward expansion, enclosure, industrialization, glorious progress and brave new worlds of American might and power. It was like pulling back a piece of clothing to peak at a bleeding festering wound, then quickly covering it up again without thinking about how to heal it.

    Peace.

25. It’s a great gesture, and a great bit of political theater, and certainly sends a message, but I think some people here are too quick to dismiss those who are asking whether this is really the will of the Lakota or whether this group is acting on its own and beyond its authority to act.

    I suspect that this plays into the assumption that the US’s mistreatment of native peoples is a thing of the past. (Look, now they have reservations! kind of thinking). If you assume that everything is just peachy now, then the idea of withdrawing from treaties is baffling.

    But part of what makes me wary regarding the authority issue or whether this is the voice of the Lakota people (as though they were some sort of monolith) is that there has been a lot of usurping the right to speak for native peoples in the past, and this at least feels kind of like it could be seen as part of that tradition.

26. Certainly the effects of European and Euro-American conquest, settlement, and colonization reach into today, and it doesn’t take a whole lot of digging to discover that.

    I do have some questions as to what the “legitimate” voice of the Lakota are and who “officially” expresses this. If this action helps move the nation toward healing the very real wounds that still exist and undoing the crimes of the past (which continue), that’s something we should support.

    Thing is, however justified irredentism is in principle, it’s historically been very tricky to enact when taking into account the conditions that actually exist in the territory in question. We all need to consider the full implications of that.

27. I am going to read the links and call my mom, she was very active and did a lot of research on the Lakota (published and archived under Carol Sullivan at UNM-Albequerque). Although she’d older now and has moved onto other projects, she knew Means and was present during the whole skirmish in the 70’s. I’d really like her input.

    Evil: Good question. I grew up in a small south-midwestern town and went to the poorest school district in that town (a black district). We had the most incompetent and poorly paid, bored teachers (there were some good ones, but not many) and history was one area that was sorely lacking in proper instruction.

    I recall nothing teaching about the Indians in reference to ‘genocide’ I recall no mention of the Trail of Tears, no mention of Wounded Knee or the wholesale slaughter of American Indians, which by the way, the two states I grew up in were named after long diseased tribes. I knew kids who were clearly of American Indian descent, but it was spoke of in reference to geneology, not of culture as no one knew or understood real Indian ‘culture’ outside of Hopalong Cassidy or John Wayne movies.

    I remember there was a section in junior high and high school on slavery and I mean a ‘section’ as in about two paragraphs and the classic etching of the bondsman on his knees, shackled and looking up to the sky pleadingly.

    I remember a black friend of mine telling me one day that his history teacher showed a slide show (presumably as accompaniment to the text book) on slavery. He was the only black kid in the class, the rest were the teacher’s football team stars (he was a coach). They all participated in deriding my friend and laughing at the pictures, without comment or intervention from the teach.

    That’s the world the fundies think represents proper education.

28. I also don’t know whether Means and the delegation have the support of the Lakota; but if they do (or if they gain support in this) I hope they are able to help their people.

    In my school, until high school I went to public schools, we learned almost nothing of the horrors of slavery, the Holocaust, or how whites treated Native Americans. Instead we got the “pilgrims and Indians shared food at Thanksgiving!!! Yay!!!” and that “Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and gave the Indians pretty beads ^_^”.

    I learned about the “boarding schools” from Dear America diaries; and while I’m sure that book didn’t show even a glimpse of the real horrors (the kids were shown as being treated physically well–it’s just that their culture and connection to their families and people were totally erased) it definitely horrified me (and later my sister) when I was in gradeschool.

    In high school we learned about it a bit in American History (junior year), but not a lot. According to my friend wh took AP European History, they learned about it more. o.O

29. Is it possible to have a country inside another country?

    Yes, Swaziland and Lesotho are countries that are within another country, South Africa.

    I’m all for tribes re-asserting their sovereignty and pursuing their legitimate interests and rights. Go Lakota!

    But this kind of crap is just going to get people killed, for nothing

    It will probably be a repeat of the standoff back in the 1970s between the American Indian Movement and the Feds on Wounded Knee. In the old days, COINTELPRO often targeted the AIM.

30. If I’m understanding this correctly, this ‘declaration’ is no more real or effective than when those loons in the “Republic of Texas” declare that the treaty admitting Texas into the union is invalid, meaning Texas is still an independent nation. If I remember correctly, one of the lead loons is always declaring himself President of the Republic of Texas. Just because a small segment of the population gets a straw up their butt, it doesn’t mean it’s real or will have any effect beyond a few humorous quips and added notoriety. (Yeah, I’m a Texan, I’m allowed to call them loons.)

    All that being said, part of me wishes we lived in a perfect world, or heck even a Hollywood/Storybook world where such a ‘rebel force’ would face down the ‘evil empire’ and bring about the dawn of a new age of understanding, goodwill and peace for all beings. Life isn’t that easy, however, or that cut and dried.

    The subject of the native tribes was always a touchy one when I was in school. On the one hand, you had the Thanksgiving/Pocahantas/Sacajawea stories, which were always fun and life affirming and feel good. Then there are the stories about the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk and the removal of the native tribes from their ancestral homes to reservations. One the other hand, though, I live in an area that was once part of the great Comancheria and not a town or family around here doesn’t have a story or three about Indian raids. Town nearby lost a school teacher during a Comanche raid, when she used her body to hide the door that led into the cellar where the kids were hiding. My own family tells a story about a Comanche raid that ended with several deaths on both sides and the ghost stories to go along with. One of my best friends growing up is descended from Cynthia Ann Parker and her son Quanah. My great-aunt swears up, down and on a bible that the family has no Indian blood, which pretty much means we do, since she would rather die than admit there has ever been such a blotch on the family name. (She also denies the horse thief and the murderer, but claims the Baptist preacher. My great-aunt is a bit on the nutty side.)

    When you add in the atrocities like Wounded Knee (both of them) and Adobe Walls, Little Big Horn and the massacre on the Washita….well, there’s enough blame to go along on both sides. The Indians were fighting to preserve their way of life and unfortunately for all of us, they lost and the Government was not a gracious winner. Then again, looking through the history books, it’s not that unusal of a story.

31. Wait, what?

    Look, we–America, Western Europe, the colonial powers, state and territorial governments, white settlers–entered country that belonged to other people. We colonized it, and we started exterminating them almost immediately. Peaceful coexistence–if we assume for the sake of argument that this is a reasonable demand, which is a pretty important premise–failed because we were not content to share. We did everything in our power to destroy culture, authority, self-sufficiency, hope, and life. And it wasn’t just a matter of unequal strength, either–we were more deceitful and more vicious.

    So, no, there isn’t equal blame on each side. The Indians were fighting an enemy that took no prisoners. Those Comanche raid stories mention are a pretty good indication of that, since you and your family are still there in your somewhat-less-ancestral homes to tell them. Or is there anyone around to dispute your great-aunt’s version?

32. Well I called my mom and her comment was “Great! I think its great.” but she also added that every movement has self proscribed leaders and that the many tribes in the nation really don’t agree on anything very well very often. She also added that Russell Means and the other guy he worked with (can’t remember the name she mentioned) were often referred to by others as “Chief Long Tongue” and “Chief Big Mouth”. She said every movement will have people who will put their foot out and proclaim to represent and claim their is a cohesive decision behind them, but there usually isn’t. Its just the way movements are and its a good thing someone is doing something to bring attention to the issue of colonization and its far reaching effects.

    That the area is landlocked and totally dependent upon federal and state resources, I’m sure the stance is more symbolic than something formed to create a sovereign nation immediately — at least not as we in our culture would understand a sovereign nation now or ever.

    I mean, just with the land boundary issue alone, the states could immediately lock them in and tell them unless they pay this or that tax or fee or tariff, they can’t even be free to use the public roads to get in and out.

    But I think the issue needs to come up, even though I don’t understand why Means timed the announcement for now, possibly he wants to make tribal sovereignty an issue in the upcoming elections?

33. I am a little suprised that there was so little discussion of Native Americans in history class. I am younger than most here (22) and when I was in school, we discussed the negative implications of Thanksgiving (at least, in 6th grade). We talked about Sacajawea, and had a special all-school presentation on her and Lewis and Clark in 5th grade. We talked about Pocahantas, though admittedly that was more in response to the Disney movie than any real lasting historical impact she had. We talked about the Trail of Tears, and how there were a ton of broken treaties. I don’t think we ever discussed boarding schools, but we did discuss a fair amount of NA stuff.

    Also, I am not sure we ever linked the Native Americans with the term “genocide”. I won’t say for certain that we didn’t; but I don’t recall doing so. Of course, I don’t remember having any class on “genocide”- we simply got to World War Two, and it became part of the discussion.

    A friend of mine teaches on a Lakota reservation in South Dakota. I am not sure how the history class approaches certain events, though I do know they have some sort of Lakota history/culture/possibily language class in middle school. Since she grew up in the same public school system I did, it would be interesting to ask her to compare the approach used at a nearly-all-native school system to our very-few-if-any one.

34. When you add in the atrocities like Wounded Knee (both of them) and Adobe Walls, Little Big Horn and the massacre on the Washita….well, there’s enough blame to go along on both sides. The Indians were fighting to preserve their way of life and unfortunately for all of us, they lost and the Government was not a gracious winner. Then again, looking through the history books, it’s not that unusal of a story.

    Enough blame to go around? White Europeans didn’t just colonize and skirmish: they effectively committed genocide. I grew up in New Jersey and in elementary school we talked about how there had been native groups in New Jersey when colonists first arrived. They weren’t forced onto reservations: they’re *gone*. Wiped out, in fact, as were many eastern tribes. Plains tribes were displaced and forcibly relocated when they weren’t being massacred. We’re not talking about border skirmishes here.

    Yes, killing people is nasty business, but to claim that this is an equal or even semi-equal division of blame staggers belief.

35. My first thought on reading this was “Yeah, like that’s going to work.” Knowing what I know from inside sources about what the Canadian military was doing right around the seccession referendum vote (waiting to cordon off the land belonging to the people who found it strategically in their interest to stay with Canada, or else re-occupy the secceeded territory), I’m kind of thinking it doesn’t really matter what they want, since the US has an incredibly large, powerful military and a history of not giving a damn what other groups think. Does anyone seriously think the US government would just let the Lakota territory go without occupying it and taking it over?

    Call me cynical, after the Ipperwash standoff, the Oka standoff…

    …but I don’t.

36. bless those who at least in SPIRIT secede from cruel masters and slavemakers and users and abusers. and for those that justify oppression and equivocate and otherwise justify anything but actual lived freedom, there is nothing but the cold hell of confusion inside a hot, beating living heart spending its time on earth.

37. Yes Nezua, and blessed are those who do not take their unjust fates lying down but continuously, righteously, kick back, resist, scream the truth, and put the naysayers to shame.

    Sometimes I get embarrassed at what an idealistic person I am. Sometimes the world wants to grind me down. This news made me HAPPY–happy the way I get happy whenever the oppressed stand up, jump up, and make noise.

    HAPPY the way I got happy at the active resistance going on in New Orleans. Happy the way my soul does a flippity flop whenever common people fight back.

    And yes, HAPPY that people are willing to take even a symbolic stand, and die for that symbolic stand that IS NOT CRAP, is not USELESS. What’s crap, really, what’s useless, is endless dithering and bothering about the meaning of it all.

    Fuck that. Do it. Fight back. Resist.

38. What amazes me about this issue is how angry some white people have gotten over it.

    They inevitably claim that Native Americans are completely helpless. They’re all alcoholics, being on the government dole has made them lazy, blah, blah, blah. Well, ok, so if they secede, they’ll be responsible for taking care of themselves. Isn’t that what the haters want?

    It’s almost as though the detractors are pissed off at the idea of Native Americans refusing our help.

    Anyway, I’d love to see the Lakota find their own way. They certainly can’t do any worse than we’ve done.

39. Pingback: William K. Wolfrum » Blog Archive » Lakota Indian Nation joins the Coalition of the Willing

40. I want to thank you for referencing my pages on this issue. It is important that we realize that in the modern world, the success and overall legitimacy of this movement will be evaluated later, perhaps decades from now. I think it is important that we all ask ourselves this question:

    Just one month ago, wouldn’t it have been considered a ludicrous statement to say that the average Lakota person isn’t interested in sovereignty or real international recognition?

    Before all this rhetoric came out and muddied the waters, that was a given. If millions of Americans are thinking of independence from the U.S. government (a dream of many) then I think it is a given that a less colonized people (Europeans, too, are colonized peoples, carrying out colonization) and a proud people like the Lakota desire this as well.

    I urge folks to read these things and all arguments on this issue very thoroughly. Do not miss a point. It is in the subtleties that the biggest lies will be told.

    LAKOTA SECEDE FROM U.S. AND ALL TREATIES
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/22/1032.aspx

    Flawed Attempts to Debunk Secession Abound
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/23/1036.aspx

    Lakota Sioux – The Bravest Americans
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/24/1042.aspx

    Strongheart Warrior Society: Withdrawl from the treaty is protection
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/25/1050.aspx

    [AUDIO] Interview with Canupa Gluha Mani – Lakota Freedom Delegation
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2007/12/26/1235.aspx

    Secessions, Charlatans, and Statecraft
    http://eeng.net/CS/blogs/smileycoyote/archive/2008/01/03/1246.aspx

    *

Comments are currently closed.