Mount Rushmore Monument; Lakota Sioux Want It Gone- sacred lands.

Regular Member Posts : 7317 Join date : 2014-07-29

7-2-2020

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) doesn't think Sioux leaders should object to Mount Rushmore.

A Republican congressman called out Native American leaders on Thursday, claiming they were "Marxists." His reason:
They object to the Mount Rushmore monument on Lakota Sioux sacred lands.

"I hope people realize by now (if they hadn't already) that these Marxists will never stop," Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said in a Facebook post.
"We must hold the elected officials allowing it to happen accountable, or they will keep removing our history until there's nothing left..."

Duncan shared a link to a Wednesday news report that two South Dakota Sioux leaders have called for the removal of the famous sculptures of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington from lands sacred to their tribe.

Donald Trump plans to visit the national memorial Friday for an Independence Day fireworks display, though public health experts have warned that the event could help spread the coronavirus.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Chairman Harold Frazier said in a press release this week,
"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."

"We are now being forced to witness the lashing of our land with pomp, arrogance and fire hoping our sacred lands survive," he said of Trump's planned event.
"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."

Last week, Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner also called for the removal of the monument, saying it was built on Great Sioux Reservation land without consulting Native American leaders.
"To me, it’s a great sign of disrespect,” he told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

An 1868 treaty with the U.S. government "recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people," according to the National Archives. Nine years later, after gold was discovered there, the U.S. said it was reclaiming the land.

In 1927, the monument's construction began, without any agreement from the Sioux Nation.

Duncan's office did not immediately respond to an inquiry for the story.
This is not the first time he has accused Americans who want to remove monuments of Marxism. In recent weeks, he has made similar charges against protesters who toppled a Washington, D.C., statue of Confederate officer Albert Pike and a San Francisco monument to former President Ulysses S. Grant.

Reps. Jim Banks (R-IN) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD) have suggested that any effort to remove the Mount Rushmore would be "erasing" history. Both are among 24 backers — all Republicans — of a federal bill to ban any federal funds going to change or remove the monument.

Regular Member Posts : 7317 Join date : 2014-07-29

For a Huge 4th of July BOOM!
The Sioux might blow up the faces on Mount Rushmore..
After all, it is on their land..

Temple wrote:: For a Huge 4th of July BOOM!
The Sioux might blow up the faces on Mount Rushmore..
After all, it is on their land..

It's not their land. It's Federal land.

https://www.nps.gov/moru/learn/historyculture/memorial-history.htm

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rushmore-sioux/

Posts : 429 Join date : 2018-12-29

I expect the gotdam peacef…...no I mean RIOTING SMASHING BURNING LOOTING sonsabiches to topple the past Presidents off the cliff face.
I'm sure *something bad can be dug up to justify it.

Regular Member Posts : 7317 Join date : 2014-07-29

Both the Lakota tribe and the United States Supreme Court, the Black Hills should never have been taken by the United States government.

In 1868, the Fort Laramie Treaty guaranteed a permanent “Great Sioux Reservation” to the Sioux tribe, which included the Black Hills. Under this agreement,
__“no treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation” could be sold or traded unless 75% of “adult male Indians” agreed to the change.

But despite this treaty establishing the Black Hills as part of a reservation, white settlers began moving onto Lakota land searching for gold. Tribes in the area tried to fight them off, but they were also facing a threat of starvation as many of the bison herds in the area were destroyed.

In 1873, a group of Lakota men agreed to cede the Black Hills in exchange for the U.S. government providing food. That group of men made up just 10% of the male population of the tribe.
But the U.S. government proceeded to take that land, and by 1941 the four presidents’ faces were carved into the mountainside.

After years of legal challenges, the Supreme Court in 1980 upheld the Indian Claims Commission's ruling that the taking of the Black Hills was illegal under the Fifth Amendment, based on the fact that 75% of the tribe’s men had not consented to the agreement.

“A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history,” the majority opinion stated in United States v. Sioux Nation.

The Lakota tribe has been offered monetary settlements now worth about $1 billion,
according to Jeff Ostler, a historian at the University of Oregon, but they refuse to accept it saying they will only accept the land back that was illegally taken from them.

Regular Member Posts : 7317 Join date : 2014-07-29

Mount Rushmore befor;

Mount Rushmore Monument; Lakota Sioux Want It Gone- sacred lands. 5efffa17550f3

» New York Lands $100B Computer Chip Plant.
» ‘Huge Victory’ for Standing Rock Sioux ; DAPL Permits Violated Law.
» The second biggest monument to slave owners is...
» The biggest monument created by slave owners
» Biden To Restore National Monument Protections