Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council Response to Russell Means Press Release

In response to the Press Release by Russell Means:

There is a provision within the Treaty of 1868 that our ancestors including my great-great grandparents had included. Article 12 says the Treaty of 1868 could not be changed except by three-fourths of the adult male vote. This was done expressly to protect the people, the land, and our way of life. What are now called reservations, were originally created as prisoner of war camps by the USA when they invaded our territory.

In the late 1870s, two other leaders, Spotted Tail and Red Cloud, were coerced into trying to change the treaty by the US. Even though they eventually signed what the US wanted, they also knew that without three-fourths of the adult male approval, the treaty could not be changed. Russell Means is only one man and has not received the three-fourths adult male approval. His efforts, however, remind the world that we still have an international treaty with the USA.

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

Sincerely,
Charmaine White Face, Spokesperson
Teton Sioux Nation Treaty Council
(established in 1893 by Chief He Dog)

Firefly (Lilia Adecer Cajilog)
Tawo Seed Carrier
POB 1456
South Pasadena, CA 91031

"I do not believe that the Great Spirit
Chief gave one kind of men the right
to tell another kind of men what they
must do."

Chief Joseph

tribes » Cultures & Community » Native American Prayer and Wisdom » topics »
More on the Lakota from Kellytopic posted Today, 10:08 AM by White Wolf

[White Wolf note: I do not know who Kelly is. I received this in an email and being as they are talking of a gathering in Rapid City, felt it was news worthy to forward.]

From President Rodney Bordeaux of Rosebud Reservation

Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:57 am (PST)

Hello all, I spoke to the President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rodney M. Bordeaux, just a short while ago and he has given me permission to say that it is highly unfortunate that this group of individuals inappropriately tried to represent the Lakota Nations. President Bordeaux informed me that the Lakota Nations will be meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota tomorrow to discuss this matter in full. As he said, "These people do not speak on our behalf."

Bordeaux was contacted by KSTP AM out of Minneapolis and he spoke on the air earlier today. In addition, Gannet News contacted Bordeaux for a comment. Gannet News is owned by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

As you can see this is leading to a mess out in Indian Country. I also contacted the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as well as other Lakota
Nations. Each are sending a representative to the meeting in Rapid City tomorrow. I am certain they will provide an official press
release from the Lakota Oyate in the near future.

As unfortunate as it is there are people who think that they speak for all of us in matters of such complicated and historical significance. The last time I checked none of these individuals were official representatives of the Lakota Oyate. It is very Lakota to stand up and announce yourself and take an individualistic perspective. That we know from the many groups and individuals that went against what their leaders told them or agreed to in Washington or agency delegations. Knowing how our traditional methods of consesus agreement impacted each and everyone of us, both negatively and positively, after the treaties were signed each time and how we either adhered to those treaties or disagreed with them as individuals or groups, it is very much so easy to see how this group of individuals would take it upon themselves to make such a bold statement. But that is all that it is, a statement. What did they do, burn their tribal ID's?

My great great grandfather Wambdi Mani signed the Ft. Laramie Treaty of 1868. I would be mistaken to say that I knew what he was feeling as he put pen to paper. I would be mistaken to try and comprehend what it must be like for the leaders then or now and how they struggle with being responsible and accountable to their people.

I know that each of us as Lakota people struggle with the disparities and issues that confront our nations. I know Phyllis Young. I know she would not make such a bold statement without feeling backed into a corner. Yet what would cause an individual to go against their nation. I wish all of them the best as they will each now have to deal with the political ramifications of what they have done, and with the good, bad and holy of what will become of the mess they have created for us as a people. Who was in this group of "leaders"? Did they consult with
anyone before going forward? Did they officially renounce their Lakota or American citizenship? If so, the clock is ticking! Does this mean they are no longer "dual citizens" of any nation? Where will they go? Should the tribes take away their membership? So they are going to set up a border. Will there be a chain link fence? Or will we play by the old rules? If so, then all Anishnabeg and Crow had better be on the look out. This is all rediculous. Thanks Russell for taking a lead role once again. Maybe he is a true Maqua.
Someone should ask his former wife. Can anyone offer to give him a lesson in International and Federal Indian Law?

Have a blessed holiday all,
Kelly