TIL that United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (448 U.S. 371, 1980) is still an unresolved case; it deals with the United States breaking the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty, which protected the Black Hills (in South Dakota) from white settlement.

Naturally, once someone found gold in the Black Hills, the US decided "nope ours" and forced the Lakota living there to relocate.

The courts awarded the Lakota $106 million in 1980 dollars; they've never collected, because collecting the money means acknowledging that the US is never going to give the land back, and (naturally, understandably, and righteously) they want their land back.

Show thread

@noelle TIL too. The Swearengen character in Deadwood wasn’t cynical enough about Federal motives, I guess. :(

@noelle i knew about the violation, but not the case. how does one not resolve a case that's almost 40 years old?

@confusedcharlot @noelle the case is a wee bit older indeed. It was first filed in 1923, then dismissed in 1942, stating that the courts didn't have the authority to decide that.

From 1958 to 1972 argued with Congress that the dismissal was wrong, and only got inadequate offers instead of reopening the case. Finally a legal change in 1978 allowed them to take the U.S. to court after all.

Which lead to the ruling of 1980 - generations later - which was not too much more useful...

@lshipley Give the land back to the Lakota. This whole thing started when the US government took land away from people, it's a little silly to get prissy about "what about the white folks who live there now?".

@noelle @lshipley That's ... pretty unrealistic. I agree that this (and basically everything that happened to the native americans once the first europeans landed) should never have happened, but it's too late now.
At this point, the Lakota have not owned it for longer than they ever owned it. (They themselves took it from the Cheyenne in the late 18th century.)
Something like 100,000+ people, _including_ a substantial number of Lakota, live in the black hills today.

@Tak @lshipley Please explain why it was realistic to relocate tens of thousands of Lakota and Crow in the 1870s, but now it's "unrealistic" to relocate the non-Native residents, after 150 years of national expansion and technological development.

@noelle @lshipley Again, 2019 me would argue that they shouldn't have done it in the 1870s either.
But repeating a mistake and destroying tens of thousands of additional lives for the dubious benefit of a group of people whose grandparents weren't even alive when the first mistake was made won't fix it.

@Tak @lshipley The Lakota clearly believe that it will, given that it's their stated reason for not accepting the settlement. But okay.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Elekk: Gameing and Other Delightful Pursuits

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!