SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)8/19/2001 6:01:55 PM
From: chalu2  Respond to of 23908
 
America's Palestinians Demand Land, and Refuse Cash: Will European-Americans Practice What They Preach to Israel, and Return South Dakota to the Sioux???

Spurning Millions of Dollars, Sioux Hold Out for Sacred Black Hills

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
.c The Associated Press

BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST, S.D. (Aug. 19) - The quiet is broken by the territorial squeaks of prairie dogs. Buffalo lounge in prairies around the bend from pine-covered cliffs. This is land the Lakota Sioux call Paha Sapa, the Black Hills. To them, it is sacred and not for sale.

That's why the Sioux, among the poorest people in America, refuse the half-billion dollars offered by the U.S. government, which has claimed ownership of this land since 1877.

The Indians have a longer memory. In 1868, the United States signed a treaty setting aside the Black Hills ''for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupancy of the Sioux.'' Then gold was discovered there, and Congress grabbed the land after negotiations to purchase it broke down.

A century later, in 1980, the Supreme Court awarded eight Sioux tribes $106 million in compensation - the 1877 value of $17.5 million, plus interest. This was payment for what the court called ''a taking of tribal property.''

The tribes refused to take the millions, insisting on the return of the land. Two political efforts to return federally held land failed in the 1980s.

The money sits in a government account, interest having swollen it now to $570 million. Still, the Sioux won't touch it. They say that would be a sellout of the Lakota nation, religion and culture.

Nowhere is the opposition more entrenched than the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, by some estimates the poorest place in the country. Home to the Oglala band of the Lakota Sioux, Pine Ridge has an unemployment rate of 85 percent.

The Oglala Sioux's share of the award is now worth $170 million. If they invested that, they could expect around $17 million a year in income without touching the principal. The annual budget for the reservation, by comparison, is $15 million.

It's money that could be used for housing, business development, job training and education, or even political pressure to get the Black Hills back.

Today, many people on the reservation live in trailers and shacks, drive rusted-out cars and have no place to work. Mangy dogs roam and forage.

The center of Pine Ridge village has a couple of gas stations, a Pizza Hut and a Taco John's, and that's about it. The reservation, covering 5,000 square miles, has nine villages but no banks, no car washes, no barber shops, no hotels.

Regardless of the obvious need, opposition to taking the money consistently runs over 90 percent in newspaper surveys, according to Tim Giago, publisher of the Lakota Journal.

Talk of the cash reminds the Sioux of the gold-seeking explorers who swarmed into the land seven years after President Andrew Johnson signed the Black Hills treaty.

The resulting military battles culminated in Custer's defeat at Little Big Horn in 1876.

''Ho-ka hey!'' yelled Crazy Horse at that battle. ''It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die! Strong hearts, brave hearts, to the front! Weak hearts and cowards to the rear.''

Congress responded by telling the Sioux: Give up the Black Hills, or lose federal food, medicine and blankets, rations pledged earlier to compensate for disrupting their hunting lands with westward expansion. Only 10 percent of the adult male Sioux population signed the treaty giving up the land, but Congress enacted it into law in 1877.

A federal judge, later echoed by the Supreme Court, blasted the government's deal, saying: ''A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history.''

The wind can whip across Pine Ridge at 50 mph, throwing stinging bits of dirt in your mouth and the corners of your eyes, hurling tumbleweeds, swirling the plastic bags, candy wrappers and six-pack cartons that litter many of the open fields.

But the landscape is also striking. Wide-open skies offer 360-degree views of prairies, rolling pine-covered hills and the Badlands, carved by wind and water over millions of years.

Try to figure the value of the Black Hills - called, in the Lakota language, the heart of everything that is: ''Wamaka Og'naka I'cante.''

Tribal members have their own complex calculations of that value, but they don't involve dollars, even half a billion.

''A lot of white people perceive this as foolish pride,'' says tribal council member Craig Dillon. ''But pride's all we have.''



To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)8/19/2001 6:10:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 23908
 
I repeat my question: who started the shelling, when, and with what objective?



To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)8/19/2001 6:30:28 PM
From: LV  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 23908
 
Re <<To my knowledge, no zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of pragmatic considerations) on the restoration of the Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state>>

Are you delirious? What you are saying flies in the face of what every rational person knows. What about every Israeli leftist? What about last year’s Barak proposals? Or was the plan to give the Palestinians Gaza and West Bank a backhanded way to expand the Israeli borders from Nile to Euphrates? Besides, why do you have to go to an anti-zionist like Shahak to misquote Ben-Gurion? Why can’t you quote directly from Ben-Gurion’s writings?



To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)8/19/2001 9:17:46 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 23908
 
First of all, we have a point of view regarding the Madrid Conference as a whole and the basis on which the conference was convened. We continue to maintain that point of view. The whole process is unjust, and it cannot culminate in what they call a comprehensive and just peace.

From the moment it was launched, the Palestinian territories occupied since 1948 were relinquished and thus excluded from the peace talks. The Arabs sitting at the negotiation table in Madrid conceded those territories. This is why we consider the peace talks, since the beginning, to be unjust. I wanted to clarify this first, so that our starting position will be known before answering any questions.

mideastinsight.org



To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)8/19/2001 9:24:07 PM
From: goldsnow  Respond to of 23908
 
The pressing problem facing the PLO after 1967 was the lack of geographic and political space in which to operate. That space had to be carved out by force and not by negotiation. This meant inevitable confrontation with existing Arab regimes.

From 1968-69, Lebanon gradually became a de facto confrontation state with Israel, though by default and not by a decision made by the Lebanese government. As a result, Lebanon was turned into a battleground for Palestinian-Israeli warfare, first along its southern borders, and subsequently in other parts of the country.

Yet, the Lebanese response to PLO incursions on their sovereignty was portrayed as based on a longstanding hatred of Palestinians and plans for their destruction, just as the 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut was attributed to Zionist expansionist designs dating back to Theodore Herzl and other early Zionists.

When the PLO clashed with the Christian militias in 1975-6, this was attributed to the fascist and isolationist tendencies of the Kataeb Party. Washington Post correspondent Jonathan Randal spoke of the 'murderous instincts' of Lebanon's Christians (Randal 1983: 286). When Palestinian forces clashed with their war-time allies after 1976, the militias of the Lebanese National Movement in Beirut and the south, Lebanon then was not in the spotlight and these confrontations received little Western press coverage. For. most observers, the great astonishment came when the Shi'ite Amal militia, which was initially trained and armed by Fateh in the mid-1970s, engaged in heavy fighting with Palestinian forces in the war of the camps in 1985. In this confrontation, the old cliches were little use to account for the bloody war between former war-time allies, supposedly united in the struggle against deprivation and injustice. Other explanations had to be found (Rosemary Sayigh 1994: 173-192; Abu Khalil 1985).

almashriq.hiof.no



To: Thomas M. who wrote (2857)9/26/2001 2:08:08 PM
From: Elmer Flugum  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 23908
 
There is much talk about what bin Laden has to say, but has anyone poked their nose into early Talmudic writings?

There is lots of blame to go around for human hatreds and aggressions, but some do not wish to acknowledge their contribution to it.