Separatism for Lakota Indians and Australian Aborigines

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States. Long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said....

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us.The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship."

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

The move is completely legal after the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration for the rights of indigenous people, and the fact that the treaties have been repeatedly violated. The main reasons for this move are horrifying statistics; Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots."

It seems to me that the Lakota Indians need separatism for their own "racial" survival. If the rates of infant mortality are so high, moving closer to U.S cities with proper health facilities would improve these statistics. Hence, I believe this move is to preserve their racial and cultural identity.

This reminds me of the Australian Aborigines, who through forced assimilation, as a population have also been decimated racially and culturally.

I really admire Glen Atkinson 's gusto, that he has the courage of his convictions to stand up and fight for his people, regardless of the ramifications to himself for his actions. (very Emma Goldman!). He believes that the Australian court system and police have no power over him or his people.

"I don't believe they [white man] have the jurisdiction to adjudicate Aboriginal people under law. "

I totally support the indigenous people of this country to maintain the land in the way that they see fit, without intervention from the Australian Government or its immigrant population. If you believe immigrant to be a pejorative term, it is, and I refer to the original (and current) immigrants to this land. Ideally, what Glen is expressing here is the right for his people to form autonomous Aboriginal communities. Communities built along racial and cultural separatism, no different from the Lakota Indians in the United States, who based on statistics shown, is necessary for their survival. Many of the Australian Aboriginal dialects are already extinct, and the people who call themselves Aboriginal are far from what their traditional ancestors looked like. I think it's terribly sad, that white man has caused such devastation to an indigenous people. Unfortunately, these are the effects of large scale immigration to any population, where the only solution is separatism (not forced, but voluntary); an anarchist community based along racial and cultural homogeneity.

I do not say these things lightly, as I believe they are highly controversial, however, for the preservation of the indigenous people of both Australia and the United States, this course of action is a necessity. To waste time over moralising arguments is to deny the right of a these people their chance at survival in a world seeking to form a uniform hegemony. For the preservation of biodiversity, the Australian Aborigines and the Lakota Indians must be allowed to form their own autonomous communities, free from state intervention in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

References:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22951412-661,00.html