Ceding the Black Hills to the Tribes a topic for discussion as far as Tim Johnson is concerned?
Wow. Where is the rest of the state’s media on this one?
In the Mitchell Daily Republic, Native American Columnist Tim Giago discusses many topics with US Senator Tim Johnson, including the Bradley bill of the 1980’s… and Johnson intimates that he’s open to “constructive discussion” on reopening an issue that was already decided by the US Supreme court.
We talked about the 2,000-pound elephant in the room, the one that will never go away until a solution is found, and that is about the settlement of the Black Hills issue, an ongoing problem that has existed since the unlawful taking of the Hills in the late 1800s. This issue is one that could be the destruction of a political career and all South Dakota politicians to date wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. All would say that the ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1980 settled the issue when a monetary award was made, but since the tribes of the Great Sioux Nation refuse to accept that award although they are among the poorest of tribes in America, the issue is still a hot one.
Sen. Johnson reflected on this and surmised that perhaps things have changed in Washington and in South Dakota since 1980, when an attempt was made to introduce the Bradley Bill. “I’ve heard that President Obama addressed the issue of the Black Hills when he was campaigning out here, but I haven’t seen anything written about it,” Johnson said.
However, he does believe that there is definitely a different attitude about a lot of things that were verboten 20 years ago and he believes that people can solve age old problems if they meet with open minds and talk about them. He doesn’t know where the issue will lead, but does admit that it is an issue that will not go away. He is open to constructive discussion.
If I’m reading this right – Tim Johnson is open to constructive discussion on the topic of the Bradley Bill? As in returning the Black Hills to the tribes?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I fat fingered it when I typed it the second time in the post.
Although, both are equally as welcome to South Dakotans.
Why wouldn’t Johnson support this? He isn’t going to run again, and he really doesn’t care what people think of him. Does anyone seriously think that this would happen? What would happen to the people now living there? What about the businesses now there? Who’s going to buy them out? Oh, the broke fed govt?! And if this did happen, drive thru a reservation, or as someone posted elsewhere, remember the teepee town in Pierre years ago, and see what the Black Hills would turn into.
This is now. The past is past. Every country has made mistakes and taken land, even the Sioux took the land from other Native American tribes. Look forward. Take the money. Use it to improve their own lot. It could do a lot of good if they would use it wisely. This is a lost cause, or the start of a new Indian war.
I dunno. I’d venture that we in S.D. would give up our land before we give up our guns. Then again, the two do somewhat go hand in hand. 
I thought we had put this behind us, I am sad to see this again being brought up. Our Native American people have so many serious problems and dwelling on the past is unlikely to resolve them. Johnson seems to have forgotten that he represents the state of SD and not the Obama administration. He is beholden to the administration for appointing his son as US attorney. I’m sure that if Heidepreim is elected governor, that Johnson would step down so that his son could be appointed Senator. Senator Johnson has medical problems but he ran last time on the basis that he could handle the job and he represented SD. Given that he refuses to hold health care meetings, and he wants to give away the Black Hills it appears that he can do neither. Does anyone know if recall is possible for our Senator since he does not represent us perhaps he should be replaced.
Back to the Black Hills the Sioux got out to the Hills some time in the mid-1700’s. They took it from various other tribes who in turn took it from someone else. So who in the end should get it if you are in a mood to return the Hills to their rightful owners. The Native Americans in SD have the oppurtunity to do anything any other citizsen can do. By choosing to live on reservations and be wards of the government they are restricting their oppurtunites in life. No one can hand it to you, you have to work for what you get and if you once get something you certainly don’t want to pay for those who don’t work or support themselves.
If my memory serves me we have had another Senator who used the same wording before. Research would have to be done to confirm. By opening a dialouge is sounds like you would be in consideration. Are there games being played again? Could things come unglued with the new administration who is a believer in spreading the wealth around??
This is a very complex issue, and the notion that constructive discussion of it is somehow a bad thing is utterly ridiculous.
Make no mistake, the United States violated the Treaty of Fort Laramie, thereby nullifying it. I don’t think anyone can argue that the Sioux aren’t the legal owners of the Black Hills, unless you accept that conquest is a legal form of acquiring property. It’s clear to me that the Supreme Court had decided that returning the Black Hills to the Sioux wasn’t going to happen, even before US v. Sioux Nation. Therefore the only alternative was reparations. But to the Sioux, taking the money would legitimize the taking of the Black Hills, an illegitimate act.
However, I worry about the issue of a slippery slope. Much of the land that is now the United States was taken illegitimately from Native Americans. Returning all stolen lands to their rightful owners is wildly impractical.
The United States can never be truly at peace with it’s core principles until this issue is resolved. A constructive discussion of it is needed badly.
Look at the current reservations there is poverty and the conditions of many properties is terrible. What would the Black Hills look like if the land were given back? This issue was a problem in a different generation of Native Americans, not the current ones. The current generation never had their land taken from them. So if my ancestors 100 years ago had pasture land taken from them that was a source of income, do I have the right today to go back to the owner and say this belongs to me? I don’t think so.
We all have a past hertiage we can be proud of, including Native Americans. However our government is doing Native Americans a great injustice by giving them a paycheck every month. This has got to stop, look at unemployment and overall conditions on the reservation. Why are we paying for the mistakes of our ancestors? We aren’t at war with the Native Americans of today and we shouldn’t be paying them for something that is now apart of our history. They would be much better off if the government would reduce and eventually stop with the handouts.
There is a trust fund drawing intrest that has the SD Lakota’s name all over it as payment for the Hills as settled by the SCOUS. Paid in full, end of story.
Braden–if conquest is not a legal form of acquiring property do you suppose we should give the original 13 colonies back to England? California and Texas to Mexico? You are certainly corrrect when you say it is a slippery slope. And having having a constructive discussion is also a good idea. Why not have that discussion on what does the individual members of the tribe more good? Is it the return of the Black Hills to tribal governments with what undoubtedly would be restrictions? Or is it the money to pay for education, health care, housing, employment issues and whatever else is in dire straits on the reservations. And the Black Hills are open to any tribal member who wants to go there and worship. How does ownership by the tribes help the tribal members?
Pat’s headline:
“Ceding the Black Hills to the Tribes a topic for discussion as far as Tim Johnson is concerned?”
Giago says of Tim Johnson:
“He doesn’t know where the issue will lead, but does admit that it is an issue that will not go away. He is open to constructive discussion.”
Tim Johnson is quoted as saying:
“I’ve heard that President Obama addressed the issue of the Black Hills when he was campaigning out here, but I haven’t seen anything written about it,” Johnson said.”
Conclusion:
Of the three possible topics for discussion mentioned above, Pat’s was the one that mentioned “ceding of the Black Hills.” So obviously it is a topic as far as PP is concerned.
The other two, not so much.
If a mere willingness to discuss the issue of ceding BH Land to the Tribes in any context is the measure of insidious behavior, obviously Pat is the most barefaced offender.
This morning at the Conservatives with Common Sense gathering Obama’s approval rating had fallen to an all-time low.
Give Standing Rock back to the Arikaras. The Lakota act like they are totally innocent and have never conquered. Why is Giago talking about some type of midget elephant anyway? Really, elephants are normally 9,000 to 20,000 lbs.
“if conquest is not a legal form of acquiring property do you suppose we should give the original 13 colonies back to England? California and Texas to Mexico?”
Was it legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait? How about the German invasion of Poland? If conquest is legal, then it’s legal for everybody, not just us.
To answer your question, no it don’t think we should give up our lands to England or Mexico, or anybody for that matter. I don’t think we should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. Ever since the thought that someone could own land popped into man’s head, people have fought over it, and stolen it. To return it to it’s previous owner would be an endless cycle, and therefore impossible. But you can’t blame the previous owner for pointing out that it was illegitimately stolen, and for wanting it back.
Most of you are being way too general with this.
The point is, there was a treaty.
It was broken.
It hasn’t been settled to either parties satisfaction.
To launch off into that meaning that England should give their land back to the Neanderthals or to Kenya because Cro Magnon Man came out of Africa, or some other such nonsense not only misses the point, it is intellectually dishonest.
And those who argue that way know it.
Um, pretty sure the United States has a TREATY, which is a legal, binding document, with the “Sioux,” or Lakota, that states the Black Hills belongs to them. THAT’S the end of story. It’s there’s. The government acknowledged it was terrible what happened, but tried to just pay them off.
And, in case people don’t know, tribes generally take good care of the land in their hands; tribes all over are working on ways to restore and protect the environment, so maybe people should do research on things they don’t know before assuming the Black Hills would end up all “rezzy,” or whatever it is you think. The Lakota stated they don’t wish to disrupt communities and business areas, but the Black Hills National Forest could be returned to its rightful owners.
AL, here’s a suggestion:
Move down to pine ridge, and let us know if you feel the same way in 6 months.
Bradley bill* (not Brady)