South Dakota tribal leader joins call to remove Mount Rushmore ahead of Trump visit
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
South Dakota tribal leader joins call to remove Mount Rushmore ahead of Trump visit
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Another South Dakota tribal leader is calling for the removal of Mount Rushmore as President Donald Trump's visit to the monument draws near.
© Briana Sanchez / Argus Leader Mount Rushmore Sunday, March 17, in Keystone.
Harold Frazier, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, said in a release that, "Nothing stands as a greater reminder to the Great Sioux Nation of a country that cannot keep a promise or treaty than the faces carved into our sacred land on what the United States calls Mount Rushmore."
Frazier also criticized the upcoming July 3 visit from Trump, where he and South Dakote Gov. Kristi Noem have worked to bring back the monument's annual fireworks show, which one fire expert has called "ill-advised" due to dry conditions.
"We are now being forced to witness the lashing of our land with pomp, arrogance and fire hoping our sacred lands survive," Frazier said. "This brand on our flesh needs to be removed and I am willing to do it free of charge to the United States, by myself if I must."
Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner said last week that he also believed the monument should be removed, calling it "a great sign of disrespect."
The monument is carved in the Black Hills, land that was given to Native American tribes through the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 before miners seeking gold came to the area in 1874, demanding the protection of the U.S. Army. The Indian Appropriations Act of 1876 cut off all rations until the Lakota ended hostilities and ceded the Black Hills to the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Claims found in 1979 that the Sioux Nation was entitled to $17.1 million in compensation due to the federal government's seizure of the Black Hills. The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the federal government had violated the Fifth Amendment and that the tribes were entitled to compensation in United State v. Sioux Nation of Indians . The tribes declined the compensation because it would legally end their demand for the Black Hills to be returned to them.
The presidents carved into the stone themselves are not without controversy, either — George Washington and Thomas Jefferson held slaves, Abraham Lincoln approved the hanging of 38 Dakota men in Minnesota after a conflict with white settlers, and Theodore Roosevelt is reported to have said "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are."
"Visitors look upon the faces of those presidents and extol the virtues that they believe make America the country it is today," Frazier said. "Lakota see the faces of the men who lied, cheated and murdered innocent people whose only crime was living on the land they wanted to steal."
When contacted for a statement, Noem's office responded with a link to an interview with Noem from the June 30 edition of "The Fox News Rundown Podcast."
Asked about Bear Runner's comments, Noem said "I think President Bear Runner is focusing on divisions. I'd like to focus on what makes us special. That all men are created equal. That's the vision these four men fought to achieve. That's what we should be continuing to fight for each and every day."
"He can choose to continue the same rhetoric that he always has," Noem continued, "he's an activist that is always using inflammatory language, or we can choose to focus on what we can learn from these individuals."
Noem responded to theoretical calls to remove the monument last week, when conservative pundit Ben Shapiro tweeted "So, when is our woke historical revisionist priesthood going to insist on blowing up Mount Rushmore?" in the wake of Confederate memorials around the country being removed, either by law or by force.
"Not on my watch." Noem replied.
Not on my watch. https://t.co/U6gGap5Ib6
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) June 23, 2020
Noem also replied to a now-deleted tweet from the Twitter account of the Democratic National Committee reading "Trump has disrespected Native communities time and again. He's attempted to limit their voting rights and blocked critical pandemic relief. Now he's holding a rally glorifying white supremacy at Mount Rushmore — a region once sacred to tribal communities."
George Washington unified our nation.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal."
Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to dine with a black man at the White House.
It is shameful for @TheDemocrats to slander these great leaders. pic.twitter.com/AWchCxYhVi
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) June 30, 2020
Noem said in her own tweet that "George Washington unified our nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote 'All men are created equal.' Abraham Lincoln ended slavery. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to dine with a black man at the White House. It is shameful for @TheDemocrats to slander these great leaders."
The governor's office did not immediately reply when asked for a comment on the tribe's calls to remove the monument.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Follow reporter Trevor J. MItchell on Twitter: @TJM613
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
How do you explain that?
What happened to Indians who stood in the way of the Lakota John?
How 'bout they were killed???? Or, how 'bout their treaties - yes, plural - all being broken - how 'bout no medical/educational/structural/etc. benefits outlined in the numerous treaties being taken from them??
'Member this guy named Custer who got to wear Arrow Shirts on 26 June 1876??? Well, he got wiped out which was REALLY the reason for the Indian Appropriations Act of 1876 - to punish those "savages".
Per the Treaty of Fort Laramie that gave the Sioux the land, the Sioux were supposed to be self sufficient by 1872. They weren't and the US government spent millions of dollars feeding the Sioux before Custer happened. Typically, opponents at war don't feed the population they are fighting (See the blockade that starved Germany in WWI as an example) , and the US decided to stop feeding the Sioux while hostilities existed.
Big government!
In this case, I agree with the Native Americans. Obviously the reasons stated for the feelings of the Native Indians just bounce off some here, who seem to forget whose country America was before the white man's ancestors first stepped on its shores.
personally, I kind of like houses with central heat and air conditioning.
beats the shit out of a teepee
Well, your folks lived in Hogans/wickiums and teepees - I'd have preferred the Hogans.
They painted themselves blue and hid in caves.
Well of course he is.
the year of the perpetual whine,
but I guess since the Lakota have been in the black hills for thousands of years and never conquered the land from others, it’s theirs forever, right ?
Under International/Federal law - yes. It's called Aboriginal Title and it is theirs "forever".
SCOTUS stated, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , 448 U.S. 371 (1980), which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest. While reaffirming earlier decisions that Congress has "paramount authority over the property of the Indians," the Court concluded that Congress acts properly only if it "makes a good faith effort to give the Indians the full value of the land," which here it had failed to do. In conclusion the Supreme Court ordered "just compensation to the Sioux Nation, and that obligation, including an award of interest, must now, at last, be paid."
The tribes have declined the monetary awards and have demanded that the lands be returned as REQUIRED BY THE 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty, which has NOT been extinguished.
Currently, the monies, $1.3 billion are in trust for the Great Sioux Nation.
So, per the Supreme Court, the United States owns the land and its' just a dispute about money.
Nope - SCOTUS used this argument 'bout Aboriginal Title, which has not been extinguished, regarding the Tribe's/Nation's land rights. Until Congress disestablishes Aboriginal Title, the Tribes/Nations are still the land-owners - which they have not.
That's not what the Supreme Court said in the Sioux case. This is what the Court decided:
1. Congress reclaimed the black hills as part of the 1877 agreement.
2. Sioux were due compensation because Congress used its eminent domain power.
The tribes have no more claim to the land than any other former owner whose claim has been extinguished by eminent domain.
Under International/Federal law - yes. It's called Aboriginal Title and it is theirs "forever"
OK to post that on NT-- but why don't you try telling that to our racist President?
It can also be argued the majority of the governments use of Eminent Domain to acquire Tribal lands always was/is a illegal process anyway. Hopefully the Supreme Court may finally be realizing that.
We'll see when SCOTUS writes their opinion on the McGirt v Oklahoma. If they agree with the Constitution, the Eastern half of Oklahoma goes back to the tribes. If they disagree with the Constitution - well, it's happened before.
The Black Hills, where Mt. Rushmore is carved into, is unceded territory in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and acknowledged by the 1980 Supreme Court ruling of the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians.
I’ve read the case, which is simply about the amount of money the US owes for exercising eminent domain for the black hills pursuant to the 1877 agreement, which supersedes the earlier Fort Laramie Treaty. There is nothing in the decision that claims the Sioux own the land. In fact, it specifically states congress controls the land. Maybe I missed something.
Can you please point the specific language in the decision that claims Mount Rushmore is not owned by the United States?
Simple language - ALL reservation lands belong to the U. S. - the Indians just have "permission" to occupy and use - unless it is "Fee Simple", then it is individually owned. Mt. Rushmore was designated a National Park in 1933, so, yes, the U. S. "owns" Mt. Rushmore.
Why?
if we are going to re-fight every single issue from a hundred or more yrs ago?
this time around, let's play cowboys and liberals
SCOTUS decided in favor of the Sioux Nation. Read the case and enlighten yourself.
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , 448 U.S. 371 (1980),
that monument will still be there many thousands of yrs from now.
get used to it.
Exactly, but isn't it telling that only happened after the US finally 'acquiesced' by allowing the Sioux Nation an avenue [limiting redress to monetary] to litigate their claim against the illegal taking of their land.
They should make them look like cavemen since my people the Neanderthals might have been the first people in America. We are the forgotten people.
Since genetic studies show that members of the anatomically modern human lineage, Homo sapiens , expanded out of Africa no earlier than 80,000 years ago, the study’s authors say the first North American settlers could have been members of some archaic, now-extinct Homo species occupying Europe and Asia, such as Homo erectus , Neanderthals or the mysterious ice age humans known as Denisovans .
But, none of the DNA studies link the Native Americans to either the Denisovans nor the Neanderthals.
That's not what I see here.
"Recent DNA genealogy studies have shown that those of us of European and Asian extraction ( i.e. , non-African modern humans) are also of Neanderthal descent, with as much as 4% of our DNA deriving from the Homo neanderthalensis ( i.e. , Neanderthal), a species of human that became extinct, along with our other ancient ancestors, almost 30,000 years ago. Asians, Native Americans, and South Americans have an even higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA in their DNA genealogy than Europeans."
"All people of Native American heritage also retain Neanderthal DNA."
Interesting - but - Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in Cell by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. They analyzed DNA from 49 new samples from Central and South America dating from 10,900 to 700 years old, at more than 1.2 million positions across the genome. All told, the data decisively dispel suggestions, based on the distinctive skull shape of a few ancient remains, that early populations had a different ancestry from today's Native Americans. "Native Americans truly did originate in the Americas, as a genetically and culturally distinctive group. They are absolutely indigenous to this continent, " Raff says.
I've looked at probably 15 sites that postulate the "potential" of Native Americans coming from Asia to the Western hemisphere having "possible" Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA, that they haven't found any definitive markers.
Still looking though.
However, Native Americans came to the Western Hemisphere between 20,000 - 30,000 years ago and there were no other homo sapiens in the hemisphere, making the Native Americans the first and original inhabitants.
What do you know, 1st. You are a Native American, and that automatically makes you stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. Only the non-Native Americans know the truth about the indigenous people around the world. Maybe one day the Native Americans will get almost as smart as the Europeans and other newcomers to America. Maybe. /sarc
Homos? I always knew they were gay! (/sarc)
But throughout modern history, so-called "scientific studies" have been used to "prove" that one racial, religious, or ethnic" group or other was inferior to the "Master Race".
Another South Dakota tribal leader is calling for the removal of Mount Rushmore as President Donald Trump's visit to the monument draws near.
Keep the monument. Remove Trump instead.
Ya' better be "PERFECT", or you are moot soul, no matter what good you helped accomplish in your lifetime !
"Perfect" = What a "Stupid"....beyond "Stupid" concept "Humans are starting to "Require".
Don't vote..... 'cause the one your voting for ain't ...... ANYTHING close to "PERFECT" !
[deleted]
Congressional sex scandals over the years, show my (Deleted) comment to be true.
Why delete it ?
Goes to the "Perfection" thingy I was making a point about, along with the "You Vote" part too.
I won't be happy until all these fuckheads wanting to tear down memorials to great leaders/figures show me just one fucking person who was. or is, perfect; that never did anything ANYONE might find offensive. Until then, they can face the fact that even though no one is perfect, these people did something momentous enough to be immortalized by an artist that the taxpayers paid for. You want something removed? Get it on a referendum and vote for its removal. If you have a good enough case, down it comes. If not; then go fuck yourself. No one ever promised you that you could always have your way in Life.
I second that motion! I ain't perfect and don't want to be. Them sons of bitches that want to tear down things could not stand a close examination of their self proclaimed perfection. They think their shit does not stink and they have never done anything wrong
Except the vast majority of the Confederate statutes were NOT paid for by 'the taxpayers'. They were paid for and constructed by the Daughters of the Confederacy and funded by believers in the Lost Cause.
Oh and BTFW, no referendum was passed to put the fuckers up so why should there be one to take the fuckers down?
very fine people who put up memorials to the Klan, per Joe Biden.
those statues belong face down in the dirt, like every confederate traitor should have been left at the end of that war...
Too many facts for you dennis?
So you admit that my comment was factual so your reaction was to make a personal comment about ME.
Well since the topic of the seed is Native tribes, I'm much more educated about the subject that most here including you. I'm pretty fucking sure that most of the Native Americans on NT will back up my statement.
One of my long time friends is a Water Walker. She and I have had long talks about Native issues, especially Native sovereignty, since the 70's. Oh and she's also a Professor of Geography of Indigenous peoples at a major University. I read the new additions to her class syllabus every year. She keeps me well informed and up to date.
As for my actions to address the 'subject', I can assure you that they have been exponentially more extensive and long lasting than anything you've done from the opposing side.
Yours is the knee jerk reaction dennis. I won't expound on your motivation.
Maybe so, however, they once served a purpose. After the Civil War, with the nation still bitterly divided, there was an effort at reconciliation. As Union forces were more interested in creating/controlling a centralized government, the south was allowed to protect and preserve a bit of their southern customs and ideals. Thus came those statues in the time period following the Civil War.
Wasn't that taught in school?
Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of Confederate monuments were built decades after the Civil War.
Wasn't that taught in your school?
No, Bullshit to you!
That would be the time period following the Civil War
Didn't you read the history books?
BTW hate organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones are unwelcome here!
So based on your criteria, TODAY would be included in the time period following the Civil War.
Pffft.
BTFW, you have no authority to proclaim a source unwelcome. Get over yourself.
By democrat governors and mayors
And before the claim is made that the parties switched ideologies in the 60's..
Bullshit.
Most democrats are just as racist today as they were when they were active KKK members....or still are.
Which is relevant to this discussion HOW bugs?