On December 17th, Lakota Sioux Indians declared sovereign nation status (you can read about it HERE). Not only that, but they invited anyone residing within the five states that once were Lakota territory to become a citizen, provided you give up your US citizenship.
I’m thinking about it.
Wasting time..
2 months ago
2 comments:
Holy Shit! Here some data from the website:
" * Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
* Lakota death rate is the highest in the United States.
* The Lakota infant mortality rate is 300% more than the U.S. Average.
* More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and disease.
* The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
* Alcoholism affects 8 in 10 families.
* Median income is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.
* 1/3 of the homes lack basic clean water and sewage while 40% lack electricty.
* 60% of housing is infected with potentially fatal black molds.
* 97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.
* Unemployment rates on our reservations is 85% or higher.
* Federal Commodity Food Program provides high sugar foods that kill Native people through diabetes and heart disease.
* Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.
* Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction. ""
I wonder if abandoning the treaty will make things better or worse for the Lakota people? Do they have the infrastructure to make the changes necessary to improve thier lives? Given that the treaty has already given them "sovreign nation" status what will change exactly?
Just a few questions rolling around in my noggin.
Trav
I don't know how it could be any worse for the Lakota people. The real question isn't whether the Lakota people will be better off as an independent nation but whether the US will honor their sovereign nation status. That, of course, isn't going to happen.
I don't mean to sound combative, but your question about whether the Lakota will be better or worse off after abandoning the treaty and whether they have the appropriate amount of "infrastructure" seems a bit patronizing to me. That's the same kind of question the US and Europe poses in order to justify globalization--and the same question that was used to justify slavery and to deprive Native Americans of their land in the first place.
We're talking about a group of people who led an extremely high quality of life for nearly a thousand years without US help. They don't need US treaties nor do they need US "infrastructure". They need resources, of which they would have plenty if they could live on the land without outside interference--i.e. without the US plundering of those resources.
Granted, the Lakota have been thoroughly civilized and no longer possess the skills necessary for living off the land, but, left to themselves, they've got a chance to relearn those skills. That's one more "chance" than they have at present.
Post a Comment