 | This article mayrequirecleanup to meet Wikipedia'squality standards. The specific problem is:Update needed; copy edit to past tense as necessary; gen fixes required. Please helpimprove this article if you can.(November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Republic of Lakotah | |
|---|---|
 Map of North America with the proposed Republic of Lakotah | |
| Status | Proposed |
| Location | United States |
| Capital | Porcupine |
| Official languages | Lakota English |
| Ethnic groups | Lakota people |
| Religion | Lakota religion |
| Government | Proposedindependent republic |
| Establishment | |
• Declared | December 17, 2007 |
| Area | |
• Total | 199,998 km2 (77,220 sq mi) |
TheRepublic of Lakotah orLakotah is aproposed independent republic in North America for theLakota people. The idea of an independent nation of the Lakota was advanced in 2007 by activistRussell Means and theLakota Freedom Movement. The suggested territory would be anenclave within the borders of theUnited States, covering thousands of square miles inNorth Dakota,South Dakota,Nebraska,Wyoming, andMontana. The proposed national borders are those laid out in the1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between theUnited States government and the Lakota tribes. These lands are now occupied byIndian reservations and non-Native settlements.
None of the existing, recognized, Lakota tribal governments support the proposed republic, and were not consulted about the proposal.[1]
The group espouses principles aligned with that of the globalLand Back movements, and has stated several reasons for its assertion of sovereignty, all a result of what they refer to as the "colonialapartheid" of thereservation system in the United States. The group claims that control by the United States has led to massive unemployment, poverty, and disease among the Lakota peoples and alleges that 150 years of U.S. administration is responsible for the statistical poverty of Lakota lands. The group claims that withdrawal from the United States will reverse these problems, and help re-establish theLakota language and culture.[2] The group claims there have been persistent violations by the United States of their treaties with the Lakota.
Another longstanding point of contention between the Lakota and the United States is the status of the Black Hills of South Dakota, which were part ofSiouxland until they were taken—without compensation—by the US government and opened for gold mining following the collapse of theTreaty of Fort Laramie (1868). In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court decisionUnited States v. Sioux Nation of Indians awarded $105 million to eight tribes of Sioux Indians as compensation ($17.1 million for the market value of the land in 1877 and $88 million in 5% per annum simple interest between 1877 and 1980),[3][4] but the court did not award land. The tribal governments of the Lakota have refused the settlement.[5]
Fouractivists, calling themselves the Lakota Freedom Delegation, traveled toWashington, D.C. and contacted the State Department, on December 17, 2007. Their leader wasRussell Means, who had been a prominent member of theAmerican Indian Movement (AIM) since the late 1960s.[6] Means identified himself as 'chief facilitator' of theprovisional government of the Republic of Lakotah.[7][8] Other members of the delegation included:[8] Tegheya Kte, (also known as Garry Rowland), 'facilitator';[9] Duane "Canupa Gluha Mani" Martin, 'provisional government member'; and Phyllis Young, 'provisional government member'.[9] The delegation members identified themselves by the title of "Itacan of Lakota" in a contemporaneous press release.[10]
The delegation delivered astatement declaring that the Lakota were unilaterally withdrawing from several treaties that their ancestors had signed with the US; and that they were setting up their own independent nation. They identified themselves as members of the 'provisional government of Lakotah.' The document further declared the Lakota to be "...'predecessor sovereign' ofDakota Territory..." and cited gross violations of the treaties between the Lakota and the United States as the immediate cause for withdrawal. Other reasons cited included that "...[the federal government] has failed to abide by 33 tenets that promised land, health care, education and other services." The letter invited the United States government to enter into negotiations with the newly declared "Lakotah". It threatened that if good-faith negotiations were not begun, then "Lakotah" would begin to administerliens againstreal estate transactions within the claimed five state area of Lakotah."[11] The Lakota Freedom Delegation also stated that they did not recognize thetribal governments or tribal presidents as were recognized by the United StatesBureau of Indian Affairs. They referred to these groups as "stay-by-the-fort Indians".[12]
The Lakota Freedom Movement founders cited their motivation for founding the group can be found in theOglala 1974 Declaration of Continuing Independence:
"The United States of America has continually violated the independent Native Peoples of this continent by Executive action, Legislative fiat and Judicial decision. By its actions, the U.S. has denied all Native people their International Treaty rights, Treaty lands and basic human rights of freedom and sovereignty. This same U.S. Government, which fought to throw off the yoke of oppression and gain its own independence, has now reversed its role and become the oppressor of sovereign Native people."[13]
In a news release on January 15, 2008, the Republic of Lakotah proposed that independence from the United States might follow aCompact of Free Association, and suggested that the independence process could resemble that of thePhilippines,Palau, theFederated States of Micronesia, or theMarshall Islands.
The proposed boundaries of Lakotah would be theYellowstone River to the north, theNorth Platte River to the south, theMissouri River to the east and an irregular line marking the west.[14][15] These borders coincide with those set by the1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie.[a] The Republic of Lakotah announced its provisional capital asPorcupine, South Dakota, with hopes in the long run to move the administration closer toRapid City, South Dakota.[17]
Citizenship in the proposed republic would be open to people of allraces and to any resident of the land Lakotah claims. The group said they planned to issue their own passports and driver licenses in the name of the proposed nation.[18][19] The group proposed that the nation be organized as aconfederation that would respect thelibertarian principles ofposse comitatus andcaveat emptor; would offer "individual liberty through community rule;" and would collect no nationwide taxes. Individual communities within the proposed nation, however, would be allowed to levy taxes with the consent of the taxed. Means suggested that the proposed nation should not usefiat currency but instead adopt agold standard.[1][20] Means stated that this system of government is derived from the traditional Lakota government system,[18][21] saying, "...we are going to implement how we lived prior tothe Invasion. Each community will be a mini-state unto itself... They will form the federation known as Lakotah." Leaders of communities would be informally chosen byelders of the community.[21]
On January 1, 2008, the republic announced that it would begin to file theliens on all U.S. government-held lands within their claimed borders;[7] however, the first round of liens, in an unnamed county in South Dakota, were rejected.[1] In July 2008, Means announced that the Republic of Lakotah would be creating an all-Lakota "grand jury" to investigate corruption by U.S. government officials on the seven reservations in the republic's claimed territory.[22] In early 2008, Means stated that he intended to treat the result of the upcoming 2008Pine Ridge Reservation presidential election, in which he was a candidate, as a "plebiscite/referendum" on Lakota independence. He lost that election 1,918 to 2,277.[23][24]
Supporters of Lakotah argue that their assertion of sovereignty is entirely legal under "natural,international andUnited States law".[25] The group emphasizes that the Republic's establishment comes from a withdrawal from the United States, not asecession.[18][20] They claim the right to withdraw, on behalf of the Lakota people, from the Treaties of Fort Laramie as a consequence of theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and theDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Members argue that the decision in the case ofLone Wolf v. Hitchcock,187 U.S. 553 (1903) shows that the United States Government does not adequately protect Indian rights.[11] Means cited theEnabling Act of 1889, that contained clauses protecting Indian sovereignty on the lands comprising the states where the Lakota historically reside and have been ignored.[18]
The group has pursued international recognition for Lakotah at several embassies, including those ofVenezuela,Bolivia,Chile, andSouth Africa.[18][26] In February 2008, the Lakotah Freedom Delegation handed over a formal petition, asking for recognition of the Republic of Lakotah, to the embassies ofRussia,Serbia, Bolivia, Venezuela, the Republic of South Africa,Ireland,France,Nicaragua,East Timor, Chile,Turkey,India,Finland,Iceland andUruguay.[27][b]
Means and Mani made the controversial claim that some 13,000 Lakota (77% of the population of thePine Ridge Indian Reservation), have shown support for the Republic of Lakotah, and that the eight-member delegation that traveled to Washington, D.C., was only a portion of some 77 tribal elders and activists taking part in the movement.[18][28]
TheUnited States Department of State referred queries on the subject of Lakotah to theUnited States Department of the Interior, which oversees theBureau of Indian Affairs.[29] Gary Garrison of the BIA said that the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything." He went on to say, "These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people ... when they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent—usually getting arrested and being put in jail."[1]
Regarding the government response, or lack thereof,Russell Means stated that, "I don't expect the federal government to do anything. I don't believe they even know what to do."[18]
Contrary to Means' claims, none of the existing Lakota tribal governments supported the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal.[1]Rapid City Journal reporter Bill Harlan reported on hisblog that "...most folks I talk to hadn't heard about the declaration. The ones who had heard the news, to a person, did not want to talk about it on the record."[30] TheJournal noted that "...there were no tribal presidents in the group which made the announcement, no one from the top ranks of any of the Lakota Sioux tribes..."[31] Nanwica Kciji, anOglala Lakota and first president of the Native American Journalists Association, has discredited the December 2007 developments, arguing that the Lakotah Freedom Delegation "never considered that treaties are made between nations and not individuals."[32] According to scholar Hiroshi Fukurai, "...the declaration of independence by the Republic of Lakotah in 2007 has been largely ignored by the US, as well as by the UN and its Member States."[33]
Rodney Bordeaux, chairman of theRosebud Sioux, said thatRosebud Indian Reservation has no interest in joining the Republic of Lakotah and said that the Lakota Freedom Delegation never presented their plan to the tribal council.[21] Bordeaux stated that the group does not represent the Lakota people nor the support of the elected tribal governments. He did say, however, that Means "...made some good points".[1] Joseph Brings Plenty, chairman of theCheyenne River Lakota, agreed that the Lakota Freedom Delegation "...are not representative of the nation I represent..." but would not say whether he agreed or disagreed with their goals and message, noting there was some value in the group's actions in raising awareness for the history of the Lakota people.[1]
TheAlaskan Independence Party, in an announcement dated December 21, 2007, "applauded" the independent Lakota nation and granted it "full recognition".[34] The secessionist movementSecond Vermont Republic has also announced its support, and encouraged other American Indian groups to similarly declare independence from the United States.[35]
According to Means, Venezuela's ambassador to the United States stated to the group that his country would not recognize Lakotah's independence based on Venezuela's interpretation of what the Lakotah Freedom Delegation is doing.[18]
{{cite press release}}:Check|url= value (help)