Tasiyagnunpa Livermont reminds us that returning the Black Hills to the Great Sioux Nation as a gesture of religious justice and restoration of treaty is not as simple as the wasicu writing this blog may think it is:
The Black Hills isn’t just for the Oceti Sakowin Oyate (Great Sioux Nation). The Ft. Laramie Treaty named other plains tribes in it. This was always a war-free zone shared in good spirit with other tribes which we often were otherwise embattled with.
If the Black Hills were turned back over, it would need a new form of jurisdiction, because there is no singular Great Sioux Nation any longer. We are divided into 9 different reservations. Plus the other tribes.
The people working on treaty councils at the local level are hypocritical, conservative (Lakota version) and prattle about issues that sound more like Evangelical Christianity than anything that connects us to our stories and land [Tasiyagnunpa Livermont, "Hobby Lobby and Reclaiming the Black Hills?" Sustainable Dakota, 2014.07.02].
Indeed, if we ever decide to give the Black Hills back to the tribes, to whom specifically do we give the deed? The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 bears the signatures of 25 Brule, 38 Ogallalla, 16 Minneconjou, 50 Yanctonais, and 6 recalcitrant Oglala Lakota (including Red Cloud, who did not sign until he had effectively waged war to force the United States government to close the Bozeman Trail). The Supreme Court held in 1980 that the Black Hills were wrongfully taken from the Sioux Nation of Indians. Who now are the descendants who rightfully own that seized land?
A big part of the problem is that we cannot restore the Black Hills to the status quo ante. When the U.S. Cavalry and prospectors arrived, no one owned or governed the Black Hills in the Western sense of the words. Ezra Kind and Hugh Glass had about as much right to be out on the High Plains in the early 1800s as the men who signed the 1868 treaty; Kind and Glass just didn't have as many guys with them.
The Black Hills now exist within the matrix of Western land ownership and government. If the United States government rescinded its ownership of the Black Hills, and if South Dakota surrendered its sovereignty over all of West River, some legal order would have to fill the vacuum. We can't just relinquish the Black Hills to whichever tribe brings the most warriors...
...or can we? Would we satisfy the historical imperative of justice by following the letter of the treaty, pulling out our troops and settlers, closing the Bozeman Trail, and leaving interested tribes to sort things out for themselves? Would such a retreat bring more trouble to our Native American neighbors than they face now? Or would a white man's retreat of such magnitude galvanize Indian attitudes and political will to overcome the current divisions and corruption Livermont sees to organize their own effective government of the treaty lands?
Update 10:55 MDT: Friend of the blog and wasicu Black Hills land "owner" Stan Gibilisco offers his video take on who owns the Paha Sapa:
I "own"—and I put that in quotes—I "own" a home here in the Black Hills. I question whetehr human beings can own any particular parcel of the earth. More like the earth owns us... [Stan Gibilisco, "Who Owns Paha Sapa?" YouTube, 2014.07.01].
I know Stan says the above comment is ancillary to his main point here... but his statement on ownership bears the whiff of wisdom.
Tasi's point is exactly why reservations should be counties in one non-contiguous state and why the Black Hills National Forest should be made a national monument co-managed by the Park Service and tribes.
And the feds should just pay the tribes what they're owned to help make the transition to Statehood.
I thought Hugh Glass was a fictitious character from a novel who was mauled by a bear and left unburied by Jim Bridger and another companyero in some outfit exploring the West. I believe the author was Frederick Manfred,can't remember the name of the book. Giving the Black Hills back would be great,but I doubt it will pass the suckpreme court's idea of higher use. They'd probably give it to the koch bros because they could make lots of money off it.
Mike, Frederick Manfred made Hugh Glass famous in Lord Grizzly, but Glass was a real dude! He's got a Wikipedia entry and everything! :-)
Thanks,Cory. FM is a native of iowa or Minn.
Manfred was born in Doon,iowa(not far from Soo Falls) and died in LuVerne,Minn(also not far from Soo Falls). Useless trivia.
To me and to the United States in general, there is no argument on the "ownership" of the Black Hills. That issue was settled legally in 1980 as the law. We can go around and around the mulberry tree, but that just makes one dizzy and does not change a thing. To me, that ruling and the cash settlement that was offered, makes for one thing, negotiations. There are millions of acres of land here in South Dakota as well as Wyoming, that is under direction of the Federal government both in the Black Hills and in BLM management. These lands should be returned without question to the tribes for their stewardship for starters. As far as so called private lands that have ownership by others, that also could be negotiated, but negotiated fairly and transparently.
Growing up on the Oglala Sioux Reservation one of the greatest blessings I have had in my life was knowing the heirs of the Red Cloud family, the Horn Clouds, the Little Fingers and so many more.
Even in the 1950's these many friends could bring alive the stories of Red Cloud, Youngman Not Afraid of His Horses, Dull Knife, and Crazy Horse just to name a few.
And as always, these stories of adventure would usually include "when we get our Black Hills". To the young, getting our Black Hills meant getting paid for them. To the elders, it meant the return of the Black Hills.
To be honest, if there is ever is a return of the sacred land, it will be limited to federal lands and as Ms. Livermont suggests will create a new set of jurisdiction problems. To preclude jurisdiction conflicts as the reason to not return the hills is not an excuse and here's why.
There are many tribal members that do not believe in or accept the IRA government and will not participate in it except when forced to for some reason. Tribal councils have notoriously bad reputations and are often viewed as the people's own worst enemy.
Now, compare them to any government in the world, including the U.S. How are tribal governments any less successful at governing than the U.S. Government?
IRA governments are 80 years old this year compared to the U.S. Government that is 200 years plus years old tomorrow. Ask yourselves if the U.S. Constitution applied equally to all people and was a successful government when it was 80 years old.
My faith lies with our young female and male warriors that are gaining knowledge of the importance of tribalism and how in time it makes us stronger and more determined.
In 1934 the IRA government was accepted by most tribes and the federal government intentionally or not, designed it to fail, in this attempt to civilize tribes they may have inadvertently granted sovereign powers that have yet to realized.
i have no substantive comment to this truly tribal concern other than to jer who often gets taunted by those wingnut or repubs that come here sure they have a succinct, sarcastic answer to everything. it seems to characterize as "manifest destiny" that which was factually a treaty violation, was a quick and playful resolution of one of one of the largest flagrant genocides of a people for pure greed, politics and ignorance, with no acknowledgement of responsibility. money doesn't cure genocide of the spirit of a people whose world view is represented by harney peak, devils tower, bear butte and countless other western places named in abandon to their true owners. the civil legal theory of taking on behalf of the good of the public must not trump criminal behavior by a young cocky nation.
Perhaps we should watch how the Oglala experiment with the South Unit works out, and then maybe make them hand over something like Bear Butte to the tribal collective and see what they do with that before we make them hand over ownership of Mr. Gibilisco's house and Tally's Silver Spoon.
yeah, destroy the middle east and the economy and leave it to the dems to have to clean up the mess while criticizing and obstructing their every move. that would be like delivering bear butte back to the Indians post-Sturgis rally phenom, as an "experiment". like we need to keep experimenting with the people who founded the American continents. casting fears about some danger to talleys is like getting all excited about keeping your doctor. bullsheit as always from repubs.
That Bear Butte is a South Dakota State Park is an embarrassment to all Americans.
does the state own more or less land than the tribes, I wonder?