View Full Version : Middle east shmiddle east, we can have a war right here !
Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html)
Anyone want to run with this one? Or does this belong in the news of the weird thread?
Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago
Thursday, December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.
A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.
The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.
The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.
Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.
"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.
"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.
The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.
Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.
One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.
"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.
The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.
Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.
Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.
PanzerJaeger
12-20-2007, 20:39
Didn't we put these people down a long time ago? This is what happens when you leave survivors... :laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2007, 20:42
Oh man. If they overturn the treaties with the U.S. government, doesn't that mean they are on land otherwise claimed by the U.S. government? Since many of them were evicted from their own land, they were given land already claimed by the U.S., many of the tribes probably have no historical affiliation with the land that they reside on currently, having lost their homeland 100 years ago.
What is the status of the land without the treaties?
What is the status of the land without the treaties?
Thats a good question. I dont have time to look into it as I am having another snow storm here in MA (hey Don Corleone you reading this? hows your back? :laugh4: )
My first instinct tells me that a defacto state of war would exsist.
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2007, 20:59
Thats a good question. I dont have time to look into it as I am having another snow storm here in MA (hey Don Corleone you reading this? hows your back? :laugh4: )
My first instinct tells me that a defacto state of war would exsist.
I think so. We can offer the option of integration or deportation since their reservations are no longer theirs. Maybe if they refuse to move we can use force to remove them. They are no longer protected as citizens.
Just food for thought.
PS - Can anyone else find a confirmation story? I can't except for in wikipedia. Reuters doesn't even have it.
HoreTore
12-20-2007, 21:19
I think so. We can offer the option of integration or deportation since their reservations are no longer theirs. Maybe if they refuse to move we can use force to remove them. They are no longer protected as citizens.
They declared a part of the US as their own country, ie. no loner yours, so it would be non-natives who are deported...
Geoffrey S
12-20-2007, 21:20
I do remember hearing something weird that according to some older treaties, native Americans can in theory buy up large parts of northern US lands for a extremely low price due to inflation.
I cant do more research on this right now I have to provide a taxi service for a friend.
I'd be much obliged if someone with some spare time could dig a bit into the treaties and maybe post some specifics?
Otherwise if my rudementary understanding is correct we need to redelpoy forces out of the middle east back to the home front to combat this new threat to the republic. :wiseguy:
ICantSpellDawg
12-20-2007, 21:43
Lakota Treaties (http://puffin.creighton.edu/lakota/index_treaties.html)
to repeal "150" years of treaties would only repeal the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and the un-ratified agreement of 1882 according to this list.
Someone can correct me here, but I don't believe that most native americans were ever truly granted full "citizen" status in the US, even though they're basically treated as such?
Regardless if they are or aren't, I'd say that in this day and age, they really are for all intents and purposes US citizens, and these "indian reservations" are simply specific land grants to them that have "special" status. So in effect, these "treaties" are really just legacy pieces of paper which I personally would not ascribe much or any value to at all.
Thus, the Lakota have decided to "tear up" the old treaties, fine. In my mind that is tantamount to renouncing one's citizenship, and they'd henceforth be deported. have a nice day, thanx 4 playing lole, etc etc.
My first instinct tells me that a defacto state of war would exsist.
That being the case, all I would have to say to them is: Good luck with that guys. :laugh4:
HoreTore
12-20-2007, 22:10
That being the case, all I would have to say to them is: Good luck with that guys. :laugh4:
I doubt they need luck, it shouldn't bee too hard...
Just stay away from hospitals and weddings, and you're safe from any bombs... :laugh4:
Detailed list of Lakota grievances can be found here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Snehl2bAk).
If they're clever they'll ask China and Russia to support their cause... :eyebrows:
Oh wait, am I just planning the doom of the country I want to visit next year? :sweatdrop:
Boyar Son
12-20-2007, 23:42
Well if one tribe does it others can follow. I hope they dont get their own country. If they want one so bad than fight for it.
Their are plenty of mid-westerners here that would love to play John Wayne and fight injuns...
Lord Winter
12-20-2007, 23:50
Someone can correct me here, but I don't believe that most native americans were ever truly granted full "citizen" status in the US, even though they're basically treated as such?
Well theirs the forthaddmendment then this from wiki
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave United States citizenship to Native Americans, in part because of an interest by many to see them merged with the American mainstream, and also because of the heroic service of many Native American veterans in World War I.
Tribesman
12-21-2007, 01:37
So in effect, these "treaties" are really just legacy pieces of paper which I personally would not ascribe much or any value to at all.
If you personally would not ascribe any value at all to it is irrelevant , since your courts have agreed to its values and your government put a cash value on buying out clauses of the treaties , though of course the Sioux declined the cash option and wanted their agreed signed entitlements instead .
. In my mind that is tantamount to renouncing one's citizenship, and they'd henceforth be deported. gtfo, have a nice day, thanx 4 playing lole, etc etc.
errrrrr....where would you deport someone to who doesn't come from somewhere else ?
Mikeus Caesar
12-21-2007, 02:26
If you personally would not ascribe any value at all to it is irrelevant , since your courts have agreed to its values and your government put a cash value on buying out clauses of the treaties , though of course the Sioux declined the cash option and wanted their agreed signed entitlements instead .
errrrrr....where would you deport someone to who doesn't come from somewhere else ?
The moon?
Myrddraal
12-21-2007, 03:02
They don't need an army, they have the international press. The US government will be scratching their heads on what to do about this one I should think.
KukriKhan
12-21-2007, 03:49
Great White Father will buy them off, ultimately (i.e. settle for billions in cash for de-facto abrogating the treaties).
IMO
Around the year 2017.
You read it here first.
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2007, 06:07
Great White Father will buy them off, ultimately (i.e. settle for billions in cash for de-facto abrogating the treaties).
IMO
Around the year 2017.
You read it here first.
Digging them all government graves would probably be cheaper, but that ship has sailed.
It's a sad fact, but yeah, with global communications and ubiquitous video, genocide just doesn't go over like it used to.
PanzerJaeger
12-21-2007, 06:56
errrrrr....where would you deport someone to who doesn't come from somewhere else ?
"Native" is a misnomer. The indians traveled to the americas from elsewhere as well, over the frozen Bearing Straight, iirc.
If they don't want to be a part of this country, send them to Alaska where they will be given ships and provisions(its the least we can do after completely sweeping the floor with them), and set them afloat. Good luck in Asia.. :idea2:
It's a sad fact, but yeah, with global communications and ubiquitous video, genocide just doesn't go over like it used to.
Kind of hard to call it genocide when they were the ones to declare war. Not to mention is the punishment for treason not death?
This is actually really interesting. Seems almost blindingly moronic on the side of the lakota to do this. But they seem to be out seeking international help also. With the UN agreements this might actually turn out ugly both ways.
HoreTore
12-21-2007, 08:15
"Native" is a misnomer. The indians traveled to the americas from elsewhere as well, over the frozen Bearing Straight, iirc.
If they don't want to be a part of this country, send them to Alaska where they will be given ships and provisions(its the least we can do after completely sweeping the floor with them), and set them afloat. Good luck in Asia.. :idea2:
Well if you go that far back, why not just send them to that valley in Africa where we all came from?
No wait, the US is christian, I guess that means they have to be deported to the garden of eden, right?
At least, they signed treaties, whatever good it made for them… I think the Seminoles are still officially in war with the US of A…
And I don’t know what will happen if all countries claim compensation to the US for no respect of treaty? Too late for Louis the XVI, anyway…:yes:
HoreTore
12-21-2007, 09:19
Louis XVI died heedless of things like these...
Peasant Phill
12-21-2007, 12:01
More tribes will have to follow or the this protest will just die out before the end of the year. What good is renouncing treaties when you're not numerous enough to make some impact.
just grant them a whisky distillery.
the old white mans hard liquor will sort them out!
Pannonian
12-21-2007, 13:26
Louis XVI died heedless of things like these...
I heard that Marie Antoinette gave good head...
HoreTore
12-21-2007, 13:31
Geez Pann, can't you try to avoid outbursts like that. There's no reason to lose ones head, you know.
AntiochusIII
12-21-2007, 13:49
the old white mans hard liquor will sort them out!I think alcohol is a big part of the social problem over there. :shifty:
I think alcohol is a big part of the social problem over there. :shifty:
i know. ;)
AntiochusIII
12-21-2007, 14:06
i know. ;)Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you though! Drowning your sorrows and secessionist tendencies alike in buckets of alcohol has always been the historically safer choice. :book:
My thanks to those who did some digging up of links to the actual treaties. I suspect that this one will be a forgotten story, however it is an election year and this is one of those little things that has the potential to creep into the mainstream.
Stay tuned
Kralizec
12-21-2007, 14:54
Wow, I guess America is in real trouble now...
Bulawayo
12-21-2007, 16:31
This is really interesting if you put it in relation with the situation in Serbia and Kosovo. Should Americans fight for other peoples liberty and neglect their own people the same?
If there would be a war between Lakota and US, would that justify the bombings of Washington D.C by the rest of the world? Just hypothetical..
ICantSpellDawg
12-21-2007, 16:38
Actually - It could be. The snowball effect is a serious issue. Hawaii is a State with pretty serious nationalistic grievances among some people. Alaskans, various south western natives, etc are technically on government land and any movement to allow secession of government land can have serious ramifications.
Again, as the political legitimacy of breaking away from an increasingly out of touch federal government increases with precedents, more citizens will be tempted to chisel away at the motherland. For better or worse? I'm on the fence.
Pannonian
12-21-2007, 16:42
Geez Pann, can't you try to avoid outbursts like that. There's no reason to lose ones head, you know.
I can't help it if ol' Marie is known for going around topless.
Actually - It could be. The snowball effect is a serious issue. Hawaii is a State with pretty serious nationalistic grievances among some people. Alaskans, various south western natives, etc are technically on government land and any movement to allow secession of government land can have serious ramifications.
Again, as the political legitimacy of breaking away from an increasingly out of touch federal government increases with precedents, more citizens will be tempted to chisel away at the motherland. For better or worse? I'm on the fence.
Excellent post and brings the topic back to where i was hoping it would go. While I'm not convinced this will be a serious story going forward, technically the indian nations have a legit argument they each one is a seperate nation. (same with Hawaii in a sense).
This is absolutely a small chip away at the republic and one that should be dealt with in a mature efficent manner. We have by no means dressed ourselves in glory over the years in dealing with native americans. That said going forward we need to address thier plight as the state of reservations/indian tribes is pretty dismal.
More entitlements? I dont know, but imagine if we had spent 25% of reconstruction money from Iraq in some of the reservation area's? I dont want long term entitlements here, but if we are going to tax and spend all this money to be spent abroad, we really ought to consider taking some of it and investing in the people's lives here at home.
This theory is a little bit of slippery slope though as I dont want to get into active socialist programs (like we have in wonderful MA). That said this story smacks of people fed up with a federal system that operates on international expectations set forth by ideologs, some long dead.
Vladimir
12-21-2007, 18:28
This is really interesting if you put it in relation with the situation in Serbia and Kosovo. Should Americans fight for other peoples liberty and neglect their own people the same?
If there would be a war between Lakota and US, would that justify the bombings of Washington D.C by the rest of the world? Just hypothetical..
Read up, they renounced their citizenship and aren't a part of the US. Hardly "our own" people.
The rest of the world? Who's first? :laugh4:
Fisherking
12-21-2007, 18:57
Yes well it will likely get funnier when they start adjudicating land claims in the world court or something along those lines.
The US has reneged on just about every treaty it ever signed with Native Americans. If their original lands were reinstated that would take in everything from western Minnesota to the Rockies, the Canadian border to northern Kansas. But what the heck, no one on the east coast is going to miss it any way.
Bulawayo
12-21-2007, 21:29
Read up, they renounced their citizenship and aren't a part of the US. Hardly "our own" people.
The rest of the world? Who's first? :laugh4:I bet you laugh when you read about Wounded Knee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre) too, am I not right?
As long at there is life there is hope, but I doubt there is any hope for you.
Boyar Son
12-21-2007, 23:40
Well if you go that far back, why not just send them to that valley in Africa where we all came from?
No wait, the US is christian, I guess that means they have to be deported to the garden of eden, right?
atheism nothingness is better?
Bulawayo- ya like wounded knee really stoped us.
HoreTore
12-22-2007, 00:18
atheism nothingness is better?
Uhm, what?
Boyar Son
12-22-2007, 00:32
nevermind.
thanks to the last Indian generations that served, too bad that time people didnt want to congratulate them.
But what has this one done? complain? they better do their part nothing for free.
KukriKhan
12-22-2007, 02:59
...Seems almost blindingly moronic on the side of the lakota to do this. But they seem to be out seeking international help also. With the UN agreements this might actually turn out ugly both ways.
Good point. The real trick will be getting some other nations to "recognize" Lakota-stan as a separate country. That done, they could press their case in International courts and the UN.
Or, maybe they'll seek legitimacy via relations with US "thorns" (N. Korea, Venezula, Iran...).
Marshal Murat
12-22-2007, 05:53
Meh. UN resolutions are paper to the wind. If they want to press their luck, they can see if the next U.S. president is willing to keep the Union together.
KukriKhan
12-22-2007, 06:20
Meh. UN resolutions are paper to the wind...
Leaves. Dust. Sand, even.
in the wind.
Paper?
Anyway... point taken. UN resolutions mean little without teeth, provided by the sec council.
Maybe one of those guys (sec council) might find it handy to support an independence movement within the us?
LittleGrizzly
12-22-2007, 07:50
Maybe one of those guys (sec council) might find it handy to support an independence movement within the us?
maybe China should start mass producing bumper stickers "free lakota-stan" that'll show em ~;)
Peasant Phill
12-22-2007, 11:16
Good point. The real trick will be getting some other nations to "recognize" Lakota-stan as a separate country. That done, they could press their case in International courts and the UN.
Or, maybe they'll seek legitimacy via relations with US "thorns" (N. Korea, Venezula, Iran...).
I don't believe a lot of nations will recognise 'Lakota-stan' very soon. The UN treats the Lakota tribe (and the whole of the Indian community) as a minority within a country and not as a nation (to be).I also doubt that members of the Lakota tribe would seek to be affiliated with countries such as N. Korea, Iran and the likes, even if those countries would oppenly support the Lakota. This support would do more harm than good.
And on the matter of international courts: When has the USA ever recognised an international court? The USA doesn't recognise international courts because if they did American citizins could also be judged by them.
Sometimes it isn't funny anymore how easily the USA* as a nation judges over others while turning several blind eyes on their own faults.
* I know other countries do the same or would wish to do the same, but a superpower with a 'holier than thou'-attitude does get noticed more.
HoreTore
12-22-2007, 12:21
The recently declared kingdom of HoreToreStan openly supports Lakotastans heroic struggle for freedom from their oppressive occupiers.
Why do you hate freedom?
If US can unilaterally recognise Kosovo, Russia can recognised Lakota state… That would be funny, indeed….:beam:
that would indeed be funny.
Rodion Romanovich
12-22-2007, 14:51
So, the big question I assume is - will the .org government recognize this country? Or, more importantly, how much bribe money constructive assistance are they willing to give us to eh facilitate our hard work to make a decision beneficial for all parties?
Justiciar
12-22-2007, 18:44
The Supreme Internetocratic Commonwealth of Org reckognises no nation, as all are inherrently inferior. :smug:
Not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz_Island#Native_American_Occupation) The First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Incident) Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs_building_takeover).
There'll be a scuffle. And then nobody but the people who were there will care.
“UN resolutions are paper to the wind” The last guy who issued this kind of statement was proved badly wrong… Never underestimated the power of paper and treaties, sometimes they can surprise you…:beam:
Marshal Murat
12-23-2007, 15:49
Well, the Lakota have precedent.
Conch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic)
Vladimir
12-23-2007, 16:12
Well, the Lakota have precedent.
Conch Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic)
As part of the protest, Mayor Wardlow was proclaimed Prime Minister of the Republic, which immediately declared war against the U.S. (symbolically breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man dressed in a naval uniform), quickly surrendered after one minute (to the man in the uniform), and applied for one billion dollars in foreign aid.
So the Lakota would break what? A whiskey bottle? It may be hard to call a cease fire immediately afterward.
Boyar Son
12-23-2007, 18:52
“UN resolutions are paper to the wind” The last guy who issued this kind of statement was proved badly wrong… Never underestimated the power of paper and treaties, sometimes they can surprise you…:beam:
but mostly no.
Banquo's Ghost
12-23-2007, 20:32
As part of the protest, Mayor Wardlow was proclaimed Prime Minister of the Republic, which immediately declared war against the U.S. (symbolically breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man dressed in a naval uniform), quickly surrendered after one minute (to the man in the uniform), and applied for one billion dollars in foreign aid.
Wasn't that the foreign policy wheeze of The Mouse That Roared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared)?
This sounds similar to the controversy over the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori grievances to me. Except that I think they have had it much much worse than Maori to be perfectly honest. I could be quite wrong but if the US had broken treaty agreements over land ownership that would make the treaty meaningless and mean the Lakota have rights you the land they gave to the US under that treaty.
I don't know anything about the background of the situation or anything but if they have reason to cancel the treaties (like the US Government breaking conditions of them anyway) then I say good luck to them. If the US government has just "sweeped this issue under the rug" for the past 150 years then they should at least be forced to make some response to it now. And maybe (if the media doesn't paint the picture as completely silly) there will be something done to compensate.
If, for the last 30 years, the NZ government has owning up to and making amends for 150 years of mistreating Maori and breaking treaty agreements then why can't the US? Is it just too much effort for a country so important to be bothered by indigenous people who should have died out ages ago?
Sorry if I offend any American members, but it frustrates me when things like this happen and people think it's a big joke. Nobody ever seems to think that maybe they resort to these extreme measures because their message isn't being heard. At least this way their case can be brought to light and seen by the country as a whole, because I'm sure most Americans won't know anything about the Lakota or the treaties they signed with the US government.
I don't mean to sound bitter but maybe people could stop laughing and actually think about WHY this is happening.
Sorry if I offend any American members, but it frustrates me when things like this happen and people think it's a big joke. Nobody ever seems to think that maybe they resort to these extreme measures because their message isn't being heard. At least this way their case can be brought to light and seen by the country as a whole, because I'm sure most Americans won't know anything about the Lakota or the treaties they signed with the US government.
I don't mean to sound bitter but maybe people could stop laughing and actually think about WHY this is happening.
For the record I dont think its a joke. I suspect the quoted paragraph above is probably pretty spot on. The conditions on tribal lands are pretty bad, but one shouldnt assume thats entirely the U.S. governments fault at this stage of the game.
The overbloated monster that is the federal government should at a minimum redistribute its resources to help americans, in U.S. first. Thats really what I view this as, as these people are literally living in some of the worse poverty conditions in North America. We can do better then this, and sadly it takes something silly like a 150 year old treaty to get it into the news.
Im still intrested in the specifics of the treaty and its implications to domestic policy and potential military policy. That said I do get the underlying issue here, story just caught my eye. I do understand your frustration though.
Shaka_Khan
12-28-2007, 18:09
...Thus, the Lakota have decided to "tear up" the old treaties, fine. In my mind that is tantamount to renouncing one's citizenship, and they'd henceforth be deported. have a nice day, thanx 4 playing lole, etc etc.
Deport them to where? Which country would accept them?
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 18:58
Deport them to where? Which country would accept them?
France?
According to recent discoveries they emigrated from France billions of gajillions of years ago, passing through the Inuit territories (where they apparently left their mark) over the ice bridge that existed then.
Even if this "hypothesis" proves to be wrong, let France take them anyway. They've taken anyone who's marched walked across their borders recently anyway. I can just see it "Bon soir monsieur taureau de séance, vous voulez un verre de vin rouge? Non? Vous voulez un pipe de tranquillite? Ne tirez paz! J'abandonne" Before you know it France will be valiantly defending itself against Indian AND African invasions.:skull:
Excuse my poor French. I'm English and we don't speak other languages.
EDIT: How about the U.S. give them an enclave to live in like they are advocating with the Albanian Kossovans? Or maybe it's different when it strikes closer to home?
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 21:42
Wasn't that the foreign policy wheeze of The Mouse That Roared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared)?
Expecting to be dealt a crushing defeat (and then rebuild itself through the generous largesse that the United States bestows on its vanquished enemies, as in the Marshall Plan)
That's it! No more money for foreigners!! Nice guys do finish last.
“Even if this "hypothesis" proves to be wrong, let France take them anyway. They've taken anyone who's marched walked across their borders recently anyway. I can just see it : "Bon soir monsieur taureau de séance, vous voulez un verre de vin rouge? Non? Vous voulez un pipe de tranquillite? Ne tirez paz! J'abandonne" Before you know it France will be valiantly defending itself against Indian AND African invasions”
? Explain please. The French means absolutely nothing, at least the first sentences. The last ones are either offensive and insulting , either stupid, either coming directly from Sharpe… Well, it could be a combination of both…:inquisitive:
For the record I dont think its a joke. I suspect the quoted paragraph above is probably pretty spot on. The conditions on tribal lands are pretty bad, but one shouldnt assume thats entirely the U.S. governments fault at this stage of the game.
The overbloated monster that is the federal government should at a minimum redistribute its resources to help americans, in U.S. first. Thats really what I view this as, as these people are literally living in some of the worse poverty conditions in North America. We can do better then this, and sadly it takes something silly like a 150 year old treaty to get it into the news.
Im still intrested in the specifics of the treaty and its implications to domestic policy and potential military policy. That said I do get the underlying issue here, story just caught my eye. I do understand your frustration though.
You could be right when you say it may not be the US government's fault but they should still be responsible for fixing the situation.
Have there been any more developments?
KukriKhan
12-31-2007, 01:32
Have there been any more developments?
They've updated their website (http://www.republicoflakota.com/portfolio.htm) with links to relevant documents, and apparently delivered their portfolio to the State Department.
edit to add: most of the non-web links are still 404, so the site is still 'under construction'.
Slug For A Butt
12-31-2007, 03:15
“Even if this "hypothesis" proves to be wrong, let France take them anyway. They've taken anyone who's marched walked across their borders recently anyway. I can just see it : "Bon soir monsieur taureau de séance, vous voulez un verre de vin rouge? Non? Vous voulez un pipe de tranquillite? Ne tirez paz! J'abandonne" Before you know it France will be valiantly defending itself against Indian AND African invasions”
? Explain please. The French means absolutely nothing, at least the first sentences. The last ones are either offensive and insulting , either stupid, either coming directly from Sharpe… Well, it could be a combination of both…:inquisitive:
OK, I admit it, I googled the "monsieur taureau de seance", but the rest is my limited own work. The rest is acceptable French, I know because I use words like "voulez" (you don't understand the rest?) etc every year when I go each year(for the last 11 years).
So before you tell me what is or is not bad French get off your arse and actually go there and speak to people. I may speak bad French but people understand me. Don't rely on your PC BBC perspective of what is good and bad. When you have made as many friends there as I have there you may have some sort of knowledge that French people have a sense of humour too, we British Homard Rouge don't have a monopoly on it, and my French friends laugh at the British the same way we laugh at them.
You call it offensive without having French friends, I call it offensive in a friendly way and my French friends see it that way. Offensive and insulting? You haven't got a sense of humour? French people are very warm and welcoming (outside of Paris anyway) and I have never had a problem with any of them, can you say you have any experience?
And Sharpe? LOL The French have the same sort of series too [...].
Tribesman
12-31-2007, 10:00
So before you tell me what is or is not bad French get off your arse and actually go there and speak to people. I may speak bad French but people understand me. Don't rely on your PC BBC perspective of what is good and bad. When you have made as many friends there as I have there you may have some sort of knowledge that French people have a sense of humour too, we British Homard Rouge don't have a monopoly on it, and my French friends laugh at the British the same way we laugh at them.
You call it offensive without having French friends, I call it offensive in a friendly way and my French friends see it that way. Offensive and insulting? You haven't got a sense of humour? French people are very warm and welcoming (outside of Paris anyway) and I have never had a problem with any of them, can you say you have any experience?
That must be the biggest case of :oops: I have seen in quite some time .
Its quite safe to say .....
You made a mistake .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Banquo's Ghost
12-31-2007, 10:41
You call it offensive without having French friends, I call it offensive in a friendly way and my French friends see it that way. Offensive and insulting? You haven't got a sense of humour? French people are very warm and welcoming (outside of Paris anyway) and I have never had a problem with any of them, can you say you have any experience?
Brenus is French, Slug For a Butt. One should take care when making assumptions in the Backroom.
He was simply asking for an explanation. The meaning of your "Franglais" was unclear.
:focus:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.