Karmelita Two Bulls Rowland says her group is in the middle, bipartisan, a watchdog group that is autonomous from the national Tea Party. When a listener asks why organizers would call it a Tea Party if it's autonomous, Two Bulls Rowland explodes with a lot of treaty talk but fails to answer the question. Host wanbli asks about the failures of the Republican administration that ran the Bureau of Indian Affairs for eight years, and TBR goes off on Al Franken coming to the Oglala Lakota Nation Pow Wow, again utterly failing to answer the question posed.
TBR also says Theresa Two Bulls is an illegitimate leader of the tribe, elected by only 2000 out of 5000 registered voters. By that philosophy, there isn't a single legitimate elected leader on any city council in America.
Host wanbli points out that TBR has announced a speaker from the national Tea Party is coming to speak to the group and asks what the national Tea party's position is on returning the Black Hills to the Lakota. TBR again utterly dodges the question with a discussion of the government creating a culture of welfare dependence. She says the national Tea party wants to empower Indians...ah, and she finally says the national Tea Party has "no qualms about returning the Black Hills." Really? I think I heard tea-flavored Pastor Steve Hickey suggest giving back the Black Hills is the right thing to do, but is there any evidence that giving the Black Hills back to the Lakota is a major plank of any tea-flavored organization?
For more on the subject, see Lakota Tea Party and Columnist Shows How Racists View Indians.
Do any "mainstream" groups favor returning the Black Hills?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. The closest they get is talk like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/11/us/bradley-offers-bill-to-return-land-to-sioux.html
http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/could-president-obama-settle-the-black-hills-question/