Oh, so they won't sell the Black Hills? Perhaps the President will give them an ultimatum to return to their reservations by Jan. 31st (or perhaps Feb. 28th) or be declared "hostile"....... That should do the trick, eh?
"The more I see of movement here (Little Big Horn Battlefield), the more I have admiration for Custer, and I am satisfied his like will not be found very soon again.”
~ Gen. Nelson Miles, Commanding General of the Army ------
"With our cherished ones deliverance within our grasp we waited breathless two hours, for the order that never came."
Post by windolph76 on Feb 15, 2011 21:33:06 GMT -5
I can understand why the Sioux refuse to sell the Black Hills. However, they do not have them now. So if there is no earthly way to get them back shouldn't they take the money and use it to help their people improve their lives.
Post by bandboxtroop on Apr 26, 2011 20:07:26 GMT -5
Since the Black hills dont belong to the Sioux they have no dam say in the matter. Black hills was Crow land. The Sioux made statements that they would take down Mount Rushmore, Im for an airstrike on the Statue of Crazy Horse going up.
They ought to take the money to provide for the tribes. Do something to give them an income.
It wouldn't make much of a difference. Even $ 1,000,000,000 (or how much is it now?) equally distributed over the (how many? 100,000?) enrolled members of Sioux tribes would leak out of the reservation economies in no time, even if used with the best of intentions.
Out of curiosity: How much of the Black Hills is still public land/national park/forest? Those 1.3 Million acre mentioned in the article?