Should the Government give the Sioux back the Black Hills

Asked by: FreedomJosh
  • Sacred Land For Thousands of Years.

    The Black Hills belonged to and were occupied as a place of worship by the Sioux for thousands of years before settlers came to North America. They have a legal document signed by government officials stating that this area belongs to them. For the government to keep this land is the same as the government saying; "We are thieves, And liars" & "We support the Native American Holocaust"

  • In 1879 the Us Government made the treaties sign the "sign or starve" act

    Which required them to sign a treaty or lose control of their hunting rights and only be able to grow food. They did sign it, but the government made them only be able to grow food. These people were made to be hunters! Not farmers. Later they ended up losing all of their previously owned land to the white Americans. The time has long since passed that it has been acceptable by society to shun these indigenous people, we need to help them get out of owlishly, abuse, and poverty once and for all by giving them their land back and their freedom back.

  • Winners (of war) should support losers in every possible way

    Wars have casualties and both winners and losers should honor all treaties between them, thus honoring the souls that where lost for this cause. Both winners and losers should at least be treated as HUMAN BEINGS and their basic human rights must be preserved at all cost. A Great Nation, like the USA, should be grateful and respectful to the Nation of Indians that once lived on this part of the Earth.

  • With out exiling anyone living there.

    Reservations in South Dakota are very poor with lots of alcohol and drugs abuse problems. These problems to back to the abuse indian children suffered in boarding schools they were forced to attend between 1879 and 1970. The children were beaten for speaking their native toung or celebrating their culture and made to learn about white culture and try to assimilate into it. Many suffered emotional, physical and sexual abusethat traumatized them. Some of these people begun drinking and using drugs to escape their emotional pain. This caused them to beat their kids and those Beaten kids would drink and beat their kids as a result of their parents beating them and it goes on.
    Indisn reservations are often very poor. The pine ridge indian res in South Dakota (home of the Oglala Sioux I think) is the poorest place in America. People there have no electricity, basic kitchen assacities, basic plumbing or running water and live in crowded small houses with 10+ people.
    With he recourses in the black hills plains Indians could make money to improve their reservations witch are currently very poor. The pine ridge Sioux res is just one of the many poor indian reservations.

  • The amount of time passed does not invalidate the original stake on land.

    Just because the government gives the Sioux their rightfully deserved land back, does not mean that the people living in the Black Hills area would be thrown out. The Sioux, obviously sympathetic people due to their segregation would most likely accept the land, but keep it as a part of the United States and it's corresponding States. Just because the Sioux have their land back, does not ensue that people will suffer.

  • It is our land

    We have already gave them land. They do not need any more. Canada could give them some land. We deserve this land because we earned it over years of war. If they want it, they should fight for it. If we give them land their probably going to ask for more and we can mot give them more.

  • To much time has passed.

    Too much time has passed, the government is no longer responsible for returning the lands illegally taken. To many people already live there, what are we supposed to do tell them that they have to leave what they've worked their lives for, send them away with no place to go?

  • It isn't fair to do so

    If we gave the Sioux back the Black Hills, we would be giving back far more than was ever taken. We have added value to the land by extracting resources from it that the Sioux would have never learned how to do. According to John Locke's theory of property rights, you own as much land as you yourself can cultivate. When the Indians sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch, the island was bare. Now we have built a glorious city on it. If we were to give that back, they'd receive far more than was ever "taken". The same concept applies to the Black Hills.

  • It sets a dangerous precedent

    While the Souix were, along with many other tribes, cheated out of there land, giving it back to them would open the floodgates, and every tribe would demand it's land be returned. We can not just give back land that is currently owned by private companies, and we cannot, for example, give back all the land tribes once owned or we would find ourselves without any land to live on! We couldn't, for example, give back Long Island, which was taken by the Dutch, nor could we give back all the other land the U.S. has taken in the west without serious issues arising

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.