Pastor Steve Hickey is making waves with his proposal to celebrate South Dakota's quasquicentennial by freeing Leonard Peltier. Professor David Newquist says doing justice requires going bigger, ending our defilement of the Black Hills, and giving that sacred land back to the Lakota:
The land is the scripture of Native American culture. Its defilement is to the indigenous people of America what the burning of the Bible or the Koran is to their adherents. The Black Hills are the last remnant of their scripture.
There can be no reparation. But there might be a temple where the traditions may be fully observed.
What bothers some most about the return of the Black Hills or a good portion thereof is that the entire violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 will be called up for examination. And that examination would cover all of west river South Dakota. The prospect of a Lakota nation in the middle of the United States is disconcerting, unthinkable for most.
But it would be required if the U.S. is to honor its treaty. And it would be justice [David Newquist, "If We Free Leonard Peltier, Can We Keep the Black Hills?" Northern Valley Beacon, 2013.10.30].
Pastor Hickey recognizes that reconciliation is larger than Peltier or any one man, that our occupation of Lakota land is central to our conflict. When Rev. Hickey swaps his collar for his Legislative badge this January, perhaps he will bring discussion of that conflict to the statehouse floor, not just with a resolution on Leonard Peltier, but perhaps with serious legislation offering the Lakota state land in the Black Hills, or perhaps offering the Oglala $9 million dollars to compensate them for buying back their own stolen land last year in the notable Pe 'Sla deal.
The latest on the drive for Peltier executive clemency here.
I'm not going to bring a resolution on clemency for Peltier but I am thinking about the establishment of some sort of truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) the likes of which has sought to foster healing in South Africa. My interest is not just healing the past, it's also hoping to better the present and future for natives in SD---- are there are things we can do to alleviate the daily struggle for natives in SD - kids, youth, women, families, education, diet and health, housing, land, economy, crime and equal justice, etc..
"My interest is not just healing the past, it's also hoping to better the present and future for natives in SD---- are there are things we can do to alleviate the daily struggle for natives in SD - kids, youth, women, families, education, diet and health, housing, land, economy, crime and equal justice, etc.."
How about for starters we don't cut Food Stamps Rev. Hickey. How about if we try to improve the ACA instead of trying to destroy it. How about we fully fund education. How about we put out efforts on creating jobs rather then shutting down our government. I'm sure I'm missing something.
If truth and reconciliation doesn't include clemency for Leonard then it is neither truth nor reconciliation.
Can I please have your input.
On a recent post titled "KELO Removes Tower from Medicine Butte Following Tribal Protests", I have been having rather sharp exchange between some regular posters on Native Americans.
As some of you may know, I am an enrolled member of the Oneida Nation and my mother was enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
When I respond to what I consider blatant racist comments I am in turn called a racist. Should I not just respond to these comments and be a good little Indian?
I commend Rev. Hickey and others that want to heal race relations through reconciliation, hopefully this will come about rather sooner than later.
If you read the comments on that post, you will experience everyday debates and discussion between Natives and whites. These kind of comments are at the core of what is wrong with the races as well as other daily stereotypes.
I know I do come on pretty strong at times, blame it on a weary old man that has fought the battle for too long.
Does ignorance need to ignored? Or, is it my ignorance for challenging and responding to such comments?
Ok Roger what did I say that was racist? You just dont like the truth in any way shape or form. You tried to say that I in effect stole my ranch from the indians. NO I did not you lying little reservation leaver. Lets face it you gave up on your own people "my friends"when you left this reservation and I have stayed here all of my life. Get bent Roger. I have done more for your people "my frineds" then you will ever do.
The Blindman
The Blindman
Well Bill, when "the last person has an Indian thought" you won't have to worry about YOUR ranch in your fantasy about the destruction of an entire culture.
"fantasy about the destruction of an entire culture." Bree where did I say that, please tell me so we both can see it. Honestly between you and Roger you would think that I'm out here hunting my Indian friends down with a gun.
You both know that what we talk about is a difference in ideology, don't you? We see things being accomplished in a different way, that's all. IF that's being racist then so be it but I can tell you that I an not a racist person and I don't appreciate being called one.
I have put up with both you and Roger calling me that for about six months without any reason other then your hatred of what I say. Neither one of you want to hear the truth about what is happening on this reservation, I cant help that. In the past I offered to let you Roger stay at my house and show you what the truth is and you threw that back in my face. Well here my latest offer.
I offer to take a polygraph test at which time Roger may ask me five questions. At the same time I get to ask Roger five questions of my own. I will pay all expenses. If you catch me in a lie I will quit posting here, If I catch you in a lie all you have to do is admit that you lied.
How about we let someone you trust make the arrangements with the proper company.
The Blindman
Dithmer,
For all you do and have done for the Lakota, I will lead a "pilgrimage" to Mudd Butte to erect a statue in your honor. The lot of the Lakota people has improved drastically because of your help.
Why did you get so defensive about my comment about Bennett County land sales in the 50's and 60's. I didn't say a thing about you stealing land. Maybe I should have said creatively acquired.
Not that it is any of your damn business, but I live in Rapid City as a medical necessity and will always regard the Black Hills area as a legitimate part of Lakota lands.
Tribal people never give up on each other, a concept you couldn't possibly understand. After all, I'm on this blog defending the Lakota against you.
Mr. IP,
Added website to my read list. Thanks Larry, interesting site.
I will never forget the statement you made Bill. Never.
Bill Dithmer:
"The treaties that you speak of were broken by both parties and yet? At what point do we consider a treaty irrelevant? Would that be when the percentage of native blood can no longer be measured because the Europeans whose blood also flows through their veins is just to strong? Or would that be when the last person has an Indian thought?"
https://madvilletimes.com/2013/05/chamberlain-indians-honor-graduates-respect-law-and-school-boundaries/#comment-144597
Larry,
That is a very good website, well stated and to the point.
President Obama is the last great hope for Executive Clemency for Leonard. The lobbying effort needs to be relentless.
Bree,
That is an excellent point and would lead to the question, at what point do we consider those archaic pieces of paper called The Constitution and The Bill of Rights irrelevant?
They are after all, older than most treaties!
Roger, too late! The Tea Party and their fellow travelers have redacted, cherry picked and ignored so much of the Constitution that I am afraid it is a relic to them.
It is precisely because The Constitution is entirely relevant that treaties made by the United States under the authority of her Constitution should also be considered relevant.
The fact that Bill got so defensive shows that he believes he stole his ranch from the Indians, whether or not you said he did. And why does he believe he stole his ranch, and why does he carry guilt over this, if it is not true?
Thank you Jana, you caused me to have a well needed chuckle.
I would like to know just how Bill did get his ranch. Most of the farmland around here was acquired by the US gov after an expensive war and then given away, a hand out , to immigrants from Europe. Later banks made loans to the Europeans and schools accepted the Europeans, sending Native Americans away. The difference between Roger and Bill today is more than ideology. For instance, there is a difference in economic opportunity for the last several generations of both men. There is a difference between the length of cultural heritage and the right to vote. The mere prospect of giving up full rights to occupy and damage Native American land is enough to turn people irrationally hostile, calling names, making accusations, proposing lie detector tests, changing the subject. 1868 was not that long ago and if land was stolen then it should be returned. Buying stolen property is no assurance you get to keep it. If new rightful owners are determined perhaps they should be paid rent too. I bought title insurance for my land, but maybe the title insurance was no good. If I have to give up valuable property someday I hope my religion helps me handle my temper.
Why did you take that out of context Bree? It doesnt mean the same thing when you do that?
"Why did you get so defensive about my comment about Bennett County land sales?"
Because I have never lived in Bennett County in my life,
"For all you do and have done for the Lakota, I will lead a "pilgrimage" to Mudd Butte to erect a statue in your honor. The lot of the Lakota people has improved drastically because of your help."
Roger I dont expect anything like that. You called me a racist and I returned the favor.
Now how about we do the poloygraph thing and get this settled?
The Blindman
Here is the reason Jana on why the Model T Party has rejected the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and for that matter, all of the treaties that have been written since the birth of this nation. http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/10/ted-cruz-christian-dominionisms-manchurian-candidate/
Gee, I am on a roll, think I'll jump on this one too.
I think Mr. Dithmer and Mr. Cornelius are pretty much the same type of person. Both want what they believe is best for those who live on the reservations. One is angry because the other left the reservation and he stayed behind, busted his chops trying to make life better for everyone and gets no respect from the one who left. The one who left the reservation, resents the one who stayed(especially since he is a white man), and is angry because the efforts he made to improve reservation life while off reservation are not respected. This old man would suggest that those two old men should kiss and make up because until they do both will be miserable and will accomplish very few positive things for the people that both profess to love.
Now, on to the Fort Laramie treaty. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that the treaty is an enforceable document. Case closed.
The black hills is not the ancestral home of the Lakota nation. Please correct if I am wrong, but I seem to believe that the Lakota people did not come to the Black Hills until around 1775, about as long as the US has existed . The Black Hills belong to the Lakota nation through the right of conquest(more binding than ancestral home), taking the land from the Kiowa. It is theirs because the United States never conquered the Lakota/Dakota nation. The Lakota/Dakota nation agreed to end hostilities based on a treaty that was then violated by the US. So as Mr. Dithmer has said, return all the Fort Laramie land to the Lakota nation with the exception of that land purchased from members of the nation. I also have Native American friends(they do all live off the res),some want the money and some want the land, me I don't care, just want what the Lakota people want.
Anyone can click on the link and decide if the paragraph is taken out of context, Bill.
Linda, I would say the federal government and the tribal governments can come to a satisfactory agreement that in essence honors past treaties without throwing private persons off their lands. The government of the United States broke the treaties and so it is the government of the United States that should return land to the tribes. Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither side gets exactly what they want, which is typical in a compromise intended to try to solve a problem caused by decisions 150 years old.
For the Record:
I was raised on the reservation and lived there for a long time. My parents were hard working professionals that provided quite well for their children. I had my own professional and retired for medical reasons. No I don't get Social Security or Medicare.
I was fortunate to have escaped the social/economic conditions many Lakota live in. I don't need to sit in the living room of a white rancher to know the daily trauma so many of the people live in, nor do I have to wave a banner of recognition of when I helped, you simply help when you can.
Linda, in the 1950's and 60's the Bureau of Indian Affairs allowed members to sell land, although the biggest land grabs were in Bennett and Jackson counties, a lot of the deeded (deeded is land owned by individual members) in Shannon County was also sold for a pittance. Full sections of land was sold for a few thousand dollars. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
which was essentially formed to protect Native trust land encouraged these land sales. To add insult to injury, lease rates on tribal and deeded land remained low for decades, and still is as far as I know. It was a perfect economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers that could tolerate living among Native Americans.
Dithmer says I called him a racist and maybe I did. Most likely he was defending Wilken, whom I did call a racist.
I can't speak to Bree taking a polygraph, but I wouldn't sit in the same room with you any reason. Save your money for the polygraph and help the Lakota.
Dithmer potrays himself as the "one" that knows the truth, he hasn't stated if that is his truth or the Lakota truth.
Mr. Thompson,
A point of clarification if I may. First of all, this old man isn't miserable at all. I enjoy my life and am only out to correct wrongs when it comes to Native Americans.
As an American I embrace my freedoms, that includes the freedom to live where I choose and for whatever reason. Dithmer feels he can dictate where I live and that I should feel guilty for not living on the reservation and "helping the people". A persons residency does not eliminate compassion, understanding or inter-generational trauma, that remains all remains strong in my heart.
Dithmer thinks that because he lives on the reservation and I don't he knows more about the people, although he isn't a tribal member. Dithmer has a problem with where I live and assumes I don't care about the Lakota.
You assume some resents I have, when in fact I haven't stated them or you haven't seen them.
I do resent being patronized to and Dithmer has become a master of it.
I resent a white rancher telling me where and how I should live. Wouldn't you?
Dithmer comes in like a cavalry charge to defend Wilken's racism every time he and I have an exchange of words and then scratches head wondering why he pissed me off.
I'm not aware of exactly what Dithmer has done to improve the quality of life on the reservation and would truly like to know so that I can thank him. He apparently has given a lot.
The Fort Laramie Treaty is what is, I don't expect to see any changes in my life time. What I do hope for is that future generations will never cede the terms of the treaty and never except a nickel for the Black Hills. I know it seems like that is not a resolution to treaty concerns, but if could see it from from perspective it is the best resolution.
Roger just for the record please tell me what you want me to do. You seem to think that my opinion shouldnt count. Thats fine. What do you think I should be saying and doing that I have not said or done? I'm trying here but it gets real hard when someone calls me a racist that doesnt even know me or the things I stand for.
For the record I never tried to dictate where you should live , I did point out where you live, that's all. You on ther other hand dont like my race, I'm white. You dont like my profession, I'm a rancher. and you dont like the fact that I ranch on the reservation that you no longer live on.
So tell me Roger what you want from me. As long as it's not my money or my land I'll try anything just to make you happy.
The Blindman
"Dithmer potrays himself as the "one" that knows the truth, he hasn't stated if that is his truth or the Lakota truth."
And that's where the problem lies isn't it Roger. In realty shouldn't the truth just be the truth? Isn't there only one truth?
As long as you wont set in the same room as me then there will never be a conversation to resolve differences. It would seem that you don't want to resolve those differences but would rather stay the course and continue down the same road as you are on now.
Now for myself, I'm ready to talk.
The Blindman
I hate to inject myself in some conversations. And with Joseph's effort at cooling the fight, I may not need to.
But let me touch early one point in this heated exchange. Calling Roger a "lying little reservation leaver" is unfair. I know we put a lot of stock in where people choose to live. That's why Corinna Robinson will catch carpetbagger hell. That's why Republicans portrayed Matt Varilek's world travels as a liability. That's why a certain Republican blog tries to marginalize me by frequently mentioning where I happen to live this year.
People move for many reasons. As Roger says above, those choices and the resulting locations do not reduce our compassion, our intellectual ability, or our moral authority to think and speak about justice and good policy for the people and places we love.
I can't settle your fight any more than I can reconcile whites and Lakota. I can only remind you that, as far as I've seen, every person in this conversation has come to this blog and dealt with me as a person of good conscience, willing to talk, take the chance that someone will vocally disagree, and come back for more. It gets easy to get hot on screen, where we are just pixellated words and can't look people in the eye (note to self: make a million dollars, engage live multi-Skype comment section forum). As you write, keep thinking: could I say this to this person's face, over a burger and fruit salad on Cory's porch?
Steve, with that mention of the porch, let me turn to your Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I can understand that one could oppose a Peltier-clemency resolution as an empty (though perhaps instructive?) rhetorical exercise. What specific actions do you envision a TRC taking to avoid being the same thing, just longer? Would your TRC be just another summer study, or might it have some actual authority?
How about the word racist Cory? You should know from what I have written on here that is not true. You should also know that the REA cant charge people different rates because of their race.
You deleted me a while back for calling Bree a name. Now you stand by and let the two of them cut loose with the racist remarks. Ya, I know I did it to but only after I had gotten fed up with their talk. Lets be fair about this.
I am not a racist.
The Blindman
And yes Cory I would have know trouble talking to either Roger or Bree in person. It does seem however that they would have trouble talking to me.
Again how can we fix that?
The Blindman
Bill, please cut and paste a remark by me where I called you a racist. Please cut and paste my racist remarks. I would be a confused child indeed if I hated white people. While you're at it, please cut and paste Roger's racist remarks.
If you have a need to feel victimized, pick out a few choice words and I will be happy to call you them just so you can feel unfairly treated. I know that's what you want. But why bother with an unnecessary step? Why don't you just say I called you names without evidence instead.
Linda my ranch was bought from native americans not given to us by the US government. That's why I feel confident in what I say. That happened nearly one hundred years ago.
No Bree beacause every timeIsay something you take it out of context. To tell you the truth neither you or Roger are worth the effort anymore. Besides that my eyes no longer allow me that kind of research.
The Blindman
You poor thing. It's terrible of me to take everything you say out of context and make all those racist remarks.
put and caste.
gut and lambaste.
teapot and tempest.
brie and haste.
Bill,
I will attempt to heed Cory's advice and temper my language when I talk to you, although family and friends tell me I am as assertive, and even aggressive, in person as I am in print.
As you are probably are aware, racism is directed at a whole race of people, a whole religious group, etc. You continually suggest that I am racist because I hate whites, white ranchers and what ever else you can squeeze into your litany.
In recent years the "new racism" has called for the declaration of "I am not a racist". As I told you previously, it would compromise my integrity to even respond to such a label. Bill, if you are not a racist, you should never have to defend yourself against such allegations. I remain suspect of those that have to continually deny it, what exactly did they say or do to earn that distinction?
It may well be that I am prejudice, I'll have to admit that. I'm prejudice against ignorance, I'm prejudice against those using stereotypes to demean Native Americans, I'm prejudice against those that tell me and Native Americans how they should live their lives. I'm prejudice against those that slander Lakota culture, history, spirituality and their Christianity. I'm prejudice against all those that discriminate against Native Americans because of the color of their skin based on what have become accepted Native American stereotypes.
You seem to believe that I have never done anything for "my people" while knowing little or nothing about the life I have led. It has basically come to a point of not knowing what you mean by helping "my people". What I do know is that as I settle into my twilight years I am not a burden to anyone, maybe that is helping somehow. I'll leave it to the ages to define whether or not I helped Native Americans and society in general.
Bill you have told me several times that you have "helped the people" more than I ever did. Don't consider this to be condescending, but I am curious as to how you have helped them. Exactly what have those contributions been?
You have asked me what I want from you, I don't want anything materially from you, well maybe your first born (your laugh here).
Respect and understanding seems like a fair place to start and not calling me a liar for the dignities I've experienced and shared. Those are my experiences, not yours and I do resent your challenging me on everything I say, wouldn't it be just as easy to think, "maybe that is possible"?
I really don't know what you intend to accomplish by a meeting with me and or Bree, other than to be called a "liar" to my face and degraded for not living on the reservation and "helping my people".
You see the word "truth" as having only one meaning, it is either black or white. The reality is there are many forms of truth.
My truth is that the Fort Laramie should be enforced as it was written and that America should abide the principals set out and the resulting the laws.
Your truth, if I may assume for a minute, is that both sides broke the treaty and therefor it should be annulled in its entirety and exceptions made.