It would seem so. Neither congress, nor tribal leaders, act in the interest of the people who put them in power. Instead, the only fight they participate in, is the fight for a bigger paycheck!
The use of the term Sioux by the tribal leaders, shows how out of touch with the people they are. Sioux, is an offensive term coined by their traditional enemies, over two-hundred years ago.
Here is another part of that statement: "the announcement had no practical effect--Means does not formally represent any tribal government." --True
Kind of like, George Washington, did not formally represent the Crown! One point for Means!
Below: The fathers of their respective countries?
3 comments:
Writerfella here --
Secession and sedition always are hot topics among such anti-government types. The ordinary public outcry is that the protesters should go back from whence they came. We know for where the EuroMan dissidents should be bound, but Russell Means and the Lakotas only would have to go back to Wisconsin...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I remember discussing with an editor whether or not to use the word "Sioux" in a book, as by that time I was aware of its origins. She said it was OK, and one of the reasons is because several tribes still use it in their name:
http://www.rosebudsiouxtribe-nsn.gov/
One problem is that there is no one term that means the same as Sioux. The closest you can get is to say "Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota".
----
Russ, you can't send Mr. Means "back" to Wisconsin. He's from South Dakota.
Writerfella here --
writerfella is not sending Russell Means anywhere. Means continues to contribute to the delinquency of a minority and thus is dismissing himself...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Post a Comment