The Lakota Freedom Delegation, also known as Lakotah Oyate, emerged in the late 2000s as a vocal advocate for the withdrawal of the Lakota Nation from treaties with the United States. While the group garnered significant attention, particularly through the actions of its prominent spokesman, Russell Means, its claims and proposed actions were met with controversy and ultimately, a lack of official endorsement from established Sioux tribal governments. This article delves into the events surrounding the Lakota Freedom Delegation’s declaration, the internal disputes that arose, and the reactions from various Sioux tribes.
The Declaration in Washington, D.C.
On December 19, 2007, the Lakota Freedom Delegation, led by Russell Means, traveled to Washington, D.C., making a bold statement on behalf of what they believed was the will of the Lakota people. The Delegation hand-delivered a letter to the U.S. State Department. This letter declared that the Lakota Indian Tribe was formally withdrawing from all treaties previously established between the tribe and the United States government. Alongside this formal declaration, the delegation held a press conference, publicly announcing their perceived freedom from the constraints of these treaties and U.S. citizenship.
Russell Means, a well-known activist for Native American rights, articulated the delegation’s stance during the press conference. He stated, "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. This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution." This declaration marked a significant escalation in the ongoing debate surrounding tribal sovereignty and the historical relationship between the Lakota Nation and the U.S. government.
Following the Washington D.C. declaration, Means continued to push forward with the vision of an independent Lakota nation. He announced the formation of a "provisional government" of the "Republic of Lakotah," positioning himself as the Chief Facilitator. Furthermore, Means advocated for the establishment of essential institutions for this newly envisioned republic, including a bank and a utility company, to provide financial and infrastructural autonomy.
Internal Discord and Allegations of a "Hijacked" Organization
However, the seemingly unified front of the Lakota Freedom Delegation soon began to crumble. Internal disagreements and allegations of impropriety surfaced, casting a shadow over the group’s legitimacy and its future direction.
Naomi Archer, a liaison for Lakotah Oyate, publicly stated that Russell Means had essentially taken control of the organization and its online presence, accusing him of "hijacking" it on December 29. Archer emphasized that Lakotah Oyate, as a collective, was not a governmental body and did not possess the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the entire Lakota Nation.
Archer further clarified that the actions of the Lakota people were not determined by a single individual or even a single group, but rather by the collective will of the Lakota people themselves. This statement directly challenged Means’s claim to represent the Lakota Nation and raised questions about the validity of the delegation’s actions.
Despite the internal turmoil, Archer confirmed that other signatories of the withdrawal letter remained involved in the movement. One notable figure was Canupa Gluha Mani, who headed the Strong Heart Warrior Society. Archer indicated that this society would likely evolve into the paramilitary force of the proposed Lakotah republic. However, when asked specifically about Means’s future involvement, Archer declined to comment, further fueling speculation about his standing within the organization.
Lack of Support for the Proposed Institutions
The proposal to establish a bank, a utility company, and other essential institutions for the Republic of Lakotah, while initially conceived by Means and the Lakota Freedom Delegation, also faced opposition. Archer emphasized that Means had proceeded to Washington, D.C., to conduct negotiations without fully informing the other elders of Lakotah about the specific details of those negotiations.
Archer also expressed disappointment with Means’s actions, stating that "people need their elders to set better examples than that." The criticism highlighted a sense of betrayal and a concern that Means’s unilateral actions were undermining the collective decision-making processes that were valued within the Lakota community.
Despite the disagreements, Lakotah Oyate expressed hope that the internal dispute would be resolved swiftly, emphasizing that "all has to be about the people." This statement reflected a desire to refocus the movement on the needs and desires of the Lakota people, rather than on the ambitions of individual leaders.
Rejection from Sioux Tribal Governments
Perhaps the most significant blow to the Lakota Freedom Delegation’s aspirations came from the official Sioux tribal governments. Following the delegation’s press conference, both the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Reservation publicly rejected Means’s and the delegation’s declaration of secession.
Rodney Bordeaux, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, unequivocally stated, "They’re individuals acting on their own. They did not come to the Rosebud Sioux tribal council or our government in any way to get our support, and we do not support what they’ve done. We do not support what Means and his group are doing, and they don’t have any support from any tribal government I know of. They don’t speak for us."
Bordeaux’s statement underscored the fact that the Lakota Freedom Delegation lacked the official sanction of the established tribal governments, which are recognized as the legitimate representatives of the Sioux people. This lack of support significantly undermined the delegation’s claim to speak on behalf of the entire Lakota Nation.
Potential Support from Other Groups
Despite the rejections from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Reservation, Archer indicated that the Pine Ridge Reservation’s council would "consider the proposal." Additionally, a representative for the Standing Rock Reservation’s council stated that that reservation was also considering Lakotah Oyate’s proposal.
Furthermore, Lakotah Oyate had been engaged in discussions with approximately 150 other indigenous organizations in the United States, with particular mention given to the Native Hawaiians. These discussions suggested that the Lakota Freedom Delegation sought to build alliances and garner support from other indigenous groups who shared similar concerns about sovereignty and treaty rights.
Conclusion
The Lakota Freedom Delegation’s declaration of withdrawal from treaties with the United States was a bold and controversial move that sparked significant debate and division within the Lakota community. While the delegation, led by Russell Means, garnered considerable media attention and presented a compelling vision of an independent Lakota nation, it ultimately failed to secure the official endorsement of established Sioux tribal governments. Internal disputes, allegations of a "hijacked" organization, and the lack of widespread support from the Lakota people contributed to the delegation’s inability to achieve its stated goals. The events surrounding the Lakota Freedom Delegation serve as a reminder of the complexities and challenges inherent in asserting tribal sovereignty and navigating the historical relationship between Native American nations and the United States government.