At Wounded Knee, as many as 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed. And official reports from some in government criticizing the massacre were simply buried.
A 40-acre parcel of land that's part of the massacre site is up for sale, and its owner has given the tribe until 1 May to come up with the $3.9m (£2.5m) asking price.
If they don't, land owner James Czywczynski says he will be forced to accept one of several offers he has already secured from commercial buyers, who may attempt to capitalize on the land as a tourist attraction.
Many Lakota Sioux say it is a greedy act of blackmail, for land that is worth less than $10,000 on the open market.
The owner claims he was told by a government expert to start with a price of $100,000 per acre, based on the land's historic significance.
Mr Czywczynski, who has held the deed since the late 1960s, says he is exasperated that the tribe hasn't taken him up on earlier offers to sell, saying they've been indecisive for years. Now he's ready to move on.
"They want me to give them the land. Some say I should sell it reasonable," he says, speaking near his home in Rapid City.
"We're going to take the money, and distribute it to the family. Pay off some debts."
Brandon Ecoffey, managing editor of the Native Sun News and a member of the tribe, speaks for some in the younger generation, who think rigid sentimentality is a mistake.
He believes that the Oglala-Sioux tribe at Pine Ridge needs to grasp the opportunity to buy the land and then generate income by creating responsible tourism at Wounded Knee. Currently, there is no official memorial at the site.
A memorial or museum would draw people to the area and generate jobs. If the tribe don't have the money to buy the land, they should accept help from outside sources to do so, he says.
"There are a number of memorial sites across the world, where people have created museums…that do justice to the people who died there," he said.
"Not profiting from our history does a disservice to both our community and our ancestors, who I feel would like to see us a little better off than we are right now."
At his headquarters in Minneapolis, one of AIM's founders, Clyde Bellecourt, a non-Lakota, says practical concerns should take precedent.
With often squalid-housing conditions, and outsized addiction and suicide rates, he argues, how can tribal government think about wasting resources on a piece of land, regardless of its history?
swirlsofhistory posted:redfiesta? More like redsiesta, where the hell is this guy
interesting twist was that the conspirators were all on the minnesota side--white settlement in northern wisconsin at the time was limited to mining and pine logging, neither of which caused any conflict with the ojibwe. instead, the minnesota territorial governor, hennipen, wanted the annuity disbursement jobs to be under his patronage instead of the wisconsin governor (hennipen was a whig, wisco governor was a dem)
and that's been my general experience in studying this stuff. the story of indian removal isn't nearly as simple as most people, including most people on the left, would think. there was very little actual aggressive warfare that resulted in land displacement. while there was a fair share of broken treaties, and while the US Army's constant threat and routine use of force to back of anglo-defined "property rights" was obviously an important part of the picture, a LOT of the injustices done to american indians stemmed from relatively low-level gov't officials pulling off con-jobs for their personal benefit
Edited by thirdplace ()
http://www.bartleby.com/268/8/4.html
Tecumseh posted:The being within, communing with past ages, tells me that once, nor until lately, there was no white man on this continent; that it then all belonged to red men, children of the same parents, placed on it by the Great Spirit that made them, to keep it, to traverse it, to enjoy its productions, and to fill it with the same race, once a happy race, since made miserable by the white people, who are never contented but always encroaching. The way, and the only way, to check and to stop this evil, is for all the red men to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be yet; for it never was divided, but belongs to all for the use of each. For no part has a right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers—those who want all, and will not do with less.
The white people have no right to take the land from the Indiana, because they had it first; it is theirs. They may sell, but all must join. Any sale not made by all is not valid. The late sale is bad. It was made by a part only. Part do not know how to sell. It requires all to make a bargain for all. All red men have equal rights to the unoccupied land. The right of occupancy is as good in one place as in another. There can not be two occupations in the same place. The first excludes all others. It is not so in hunting or traveling; for there the same ground will serve many, as they may follow each other all day; but the camp is stationary, and that is occupancy. It belongs to the first who sits down on his blanket or skins which he has thrown upon the ground; and till he leaves it no other has a right.
there is a lot of legal sophistication there, all the talk about right of occupancy, common right to the land, etc. didn't really matter
ilmdge posted:do either of u guys panopticon or thirdplace know any interesting stuff about either indian relocations or genocides or the AIM? all i know is i saw this article and made a funny face, interested ot learn more
get this it's good
http://www.amazon.com/Its-Your-Misfortune-None-Own/dp/0806125675
i originally bought it after looking into whether libertarians are bullshitting about the old west being a great example of natural law working (they are)
slumlord posted:i thought those tecumseh speeches were partially or mostly fabrications tho?
i'm sure there's a shitload of fake tecumseh speeches out there, people love ascribing made-up shit to famous indians, but as far as i can tell that one's legit (if it isn't my legal history prof owes me an explanation). it doesn't really have the romantic savage tone either
TG posted:actually, check that. theyll be getting an awful lot of dead souls for that $4million, basically a steal
So if the guy wants to make more off the burial ground memorial site, he'll have to make it seem like it's haunted to scare the tribe from buying it, so he can say they refused to purchase it at a discounted price. So, could someone please make a gif of the mystery van, except it says tHE rHizzonE on the side and all the people inside it are Shaggy? I think we would all feel a little more politically active having chuckled at that.