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.

@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.

Follow

@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: Mastodon for Gamers

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