Sioux Nation Treaty Council - est 1894

Hello Everyone,

With the current situation in the world as it is, rather chaotic, I am going to try to send more Newsletters as we submit reports or receive information from the United Nations. That way, hopefully, information won’t be lost, and you can keep up to date on what is happening.

1. INCOMINDIOS Project

In the last Newsletter, I mentioned the video and information project that was being funded by the International Committee for the Indians in the Americas located in Switzerland. We are still not finished. Hopefully that last video on Revitalization of our Nation will be finished in a couple of weeks. I’ll let you know. 

2. Attached is a Report to the UN Expet Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) on the topic of Post Conflict situations. Edward Valandra, Ph. D. and a Sicangu delegate helped with the report. Thank you, Tahansi. Really appreciate it. 

3. A reminder that on March 20th, I will be at Little Wound School in James McDonald’s classes. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if anyone wanted to listen in as we will be discussing the Treaty and probably the International work. Hope we have good discussions.

4. Still looking for funds to attend the UN Decolonization Meeting in New York during the 2nd or 3rd week of June, and the 62nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, the third week in Sept. 2026. We need a resolution from the General Assembly that our Nation should be put on the list for Decolonization, and these two committees should help us according to the UN Charter. Letters will be sent to the Chairperson of the Decolonization Committee asking for time on their agenda. The HRC already has a special time for our request next Sept.

As we do not get any money from any government, we need donations for the travel expenses. Usually one or two others attend the meetings with me depending on the funds. Thank you in advance for any donations. 

Respectfully submitted by

Charmaine White Face Zumila Wobaga__
Charmaine White Face, Spokesperson Zumila Wobaga, Itancan

Enc: Report to EMRIP 

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Submission to

the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

in their Study on “the rights of Indigenous Peoples 

in Conflict and Post-conflict situations.”

January 2026

Submitted by

Zumila Wobaga (Charmaine White Face), Spokesperson

&

Waŋbli Wapȟáha Hokšíla (Edward Valandra, PhD), Delegate

Post Office Box 2003

Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 USA

www.siouxnationtreatycouncil.org

The Sioux Nation is an ancient Indigenous nation which was originally located in 24 American states and 4 Canadian provinces in the middle of the North America continent for thousands of years. The European invasion did not reach the middle of the continent and the remainder of the Sioux Nation until the early 1800s. However, unable to subdue the western part of the Sioux Nation, the United States (US) asked for a treaty for peace to allow passage to the northwestern part of the continent. The Sioux Nation agreed as the Treaty provided that the Treaty territory would be “for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians.” This was in Article II of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. However, the US had no intention of upholding the Treaty and allowing us to be undisturbed as will be shown.

This submission presents a few examples of the ongoing conflict since 1868 to the present and its impact on our human, collective, and sovereign rights. We highlight challenges in protecting our sovereign rights, especially our 1868 Treaty rights, and show how, despite our efforts to resolve them, our prolonged involvement with conflict resolution remains ignored by the US and the United Nations (UN). We have attended and participated in many meetings at the UN over the past forty (40) years presenting our situation over and over again only to be dismissed.

The conflicts between the Sioux Nation and the United States has persisted since the early 1800s, beginning with a US-sanctioned expedition trespassing through our territory in 1804. Most recently in 2016, we challenged the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to bring tar sands oil through our unceded Treaty territory. However, even before 1804, the origins of the US reveal an inherent, structural violence against Indigenous Peoples. This violence is rooted in a fictional Christian Doctrine called the Doctrine of Discovery. At its core, the Doctrine simply claims that Indigenous Peoples do not hold an Absolute—only an Aboriginal—Title to lands in North America and other places. In reality, this is false. The Doctrine “grants” to Indigenous Nations the Aboriginal Title: a right to use and occupy land. However, settler states such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and others illegally claim an Absolute Title under the guise of that Doctrine. In our case, as the examples below demonstrate, US settlers arbitrarily and unilaterally pre-empt Aboriginal Title and Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations as they wish. These are clear violations of International Law and would be considered acts of war.

 

Non-Consensual Annexation and Genocide, 1873-Present

•1873 Buffalo Extermination. The US government knew that the Buffalo provided all that was needed for the Sioux people. The Buffalo was not just our economy but provided vital nutrients needed for our health. From an article by the US National Parks Service states, “In 1873, the Secretary of the Interior noted that ‘[t]he civilization of the Indian is impossible while buffalo remain on the plains’; following this logic, the Army provided free ammunition to hide hunters, who brought bison to the brink of extinction.” This was only five (5) years after the signing of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty but the US knew that the Indians would die without the Buffalo. Therefore, destroying the Buffalo would destroy the Indians. Not only were the Buffalo almost totally exterminated but also the Sioux people as well.

•1877 Black Hills Act. This illegal Act made into law by the US government is known as the Sell or Starve Act. It was the US settler states’ retaliation against our resistance, armed and otherwise, to their colonization. When we refused, even under the threat of being starved, to give consent to ceding our territory, the US unilaterally annexed and then nationalized the Treaty Territory, opening it to white settlement. This Act not only violated the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty, Article 12 but also Article 2 which delineated the Treaty territory for our “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation.”

•1889 Sioux Agreement. This 2 March 1889, illegal “agreement” which annexed our remaining territory, opened it to white settlement, and established several Prisoner-of-War camps called “reservations”. Like the 1887 Black Hills Act, this act violated the Fort Laramie Treaty, specifically Article 12 which required the US to obtain our consent before any land cession was valid. To date, we have never given consent to any land cession since the 1868 Treaty. This is also a violation of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

•1889 South Dakota Enabling Act. Eight months after the 1889 Sioux Agreement, which annexed and then nationalized our territory, the states of North and South Dakota were admitted to the US on 2 November 1889. Because the US never obtained our consent for any land cession, North and South Dakota’s establishment remains an ongoing illegal settler occupation and trespass.

Non-Consensual Political Incorporation, 1885-Present

•The 1885 Major Crimes Act. This illegal Act usurps our sovereignty and violates the jurisdictional terms of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, specifically Article 1. This Article states that any offense committed where both the offender and victim are Sioux people falls under the jurisdiction of the Sioux Nation, not under US jurisdiction. This Act asserted concurrent US jurisdiction over our Treaty territory without our consent. As a result, it has caused a disproportionate number of our citizens to be held in US and state prisons today. The population of the Sioux people in South Dakota is only nine percent (9%) but in 2015, seventy-five percent (75%) of pretrial detainees were Indigenous (Vera Institute of Justice, December, 2019).

•The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. This US settler Act unilaterally declared all Indigenous Peoples to be US citizens. It politically incorporated the Sioux Nation into the US without determining whether we desired US citizenship. The act neither provided for individual choice, such as naturalization, nor required the Sioux Nation to hold a national referendum on the citizenship question. Only when questions about Sioux Nation sovereignty and jurisdiction arise do settlers question the Act’s legitimacy. In today’s understanding, this Act would be considered an Act of War and a violation of many International laws.

•The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). This US settler Act established modern Tribal governance but denied true self-determination. The Tribal governments were forced on many of the reservations in violation of the Act when the people resisted. A reading of the Act shows that the Tribes had the option to adopt a constitution and bylaws. However, the Act’s exceptions and limitations demonstrate that the US enforces Tribal sovereignty, which allows the settlers’ US Supreme Court to define tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” In other words, colonizing Indigenous territory remains an ongoing US settler policy. Perhaps the most recent expression of this policy involves the US settler state’s desire to colonize Greenland. The US wants to annex Greenland, which is home to Indigenous Peoples who make up the majority of the population. This US desire to acquire Greenland reflects a historic pattern where the US annexes and then nationalizes Indigenous territory.

•1968 Indian Civil Rights Act. During the 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the US, when landmark civil rights and voting rights became US settler law, it drew settler attention that Indigenous Peoples “deserve” or “need” civil rights protections, too. These Indian civil rights are modeled on several amendments of the settlers’ constitution, though some anomalies exist, such as the omission of the right to keep and bear arms. First, like previous settler laws concerning Indigenous Peoples, our participation came in the form of providing testimony, as any US citizen could, to Congress rather than through a nation-to-nation basis. Second, this settler act, like the 1885 Major Crimes Act, infringes on the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty’s jurisdictional framework and, therefore, our sovereignty. Third, this settler act applies only to Indigenous governance, whether IRA or traditional. Fourth, with the exception of habeas corpus, there is ambiguity about whether settler courts can review Indigenous civil court rulings, as in cases involving settlers and Indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction. Fifth, this settler law imposes individual rights on Indigenous Peoples versus our collective or group rights.

•1978 Oliphant Decision. The settlers’ US Supreme Court unilaterally ruled that Indigenous Peoples have no criminal jurisdiction over settlers, often called “non-Indians” in federal Indian law. This settler ruling ignored the “bad man” clause in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which affirms our sovereignty to apprehend, detain, and release to US authorities those non-Indians who violate treaty terms or commit crimes. This ruling allows state and federal jurisdictions to operate within our territories without our consent or a negotiated amendment to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Today, this settlers’ ruling has virtually allowed settlers to commit crimes, such as human or drug trafficking, with impunity. Although recent settler laws recognize this imbalance, they are written to provide more protection to settlers who commit crimes than to the Indigenous individuals, communities, or nations that are harmed.

•1980 Sioux Nation of Indians v. the United States. The settlers’ US Supreme Court ruled that the Sioux Nation of Indians were entitled to compensation for the “taking” of our territory pursuant to the 1877 Black Hills Act mentioned previously. The settler court deemed the annexation and nationalization of our territory as an “eminent domain” taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which mostly pertains to individuals. Eminent domain is a domestic, not international, law and thus inapplicable; and there is no identifiable public purpose for this taking. The settler court manufactured a Fifth Amendment argument out of the air, ignoring the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty provisions regarding land cessions and their own US Constitution’s Article VI which states that “treaties are the Supreme Law of the land”. The Sioux Nation of Indians have refused the settlers’ monetary compensation and instead demands the return of our land as land cannot be bought or sold according to Sioux culture.

Furthermore, since January 2025, the US has implemented Project 2025, which includes a blueprint for restructuring Sioux Nation—US settler relations. Most concerning is the fact that the United States does not require Indigenous Peoples’ Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). For the Sioux Nation, this FPIC language aligns with the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty between the “Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States.” This treaty requires our consent before ceding our national territory, the Great Sioux Reservation, and other adjacent treaty territory. The United Nations must recognize that the US’s annexation of our territory is no different from the proposed annexations of other territories inhabited by Indigenous Peoples, such as “running” Venezuela, or claiming Greenland, or continuing to help Israel with destroying the Indigenous peoples of Palestine, the Palestinians. As a nation belligerently occupied by the US, and experiencing for generations the loss of basic human rights and especially the right to true Self Determination, the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council opposes all US colonizing actions.

The US annexation of our territory and subsequent belligerent colonization represents the ongoing conflict we have with the US. For example, the US president has issued Executive Orders 14225 and 14241. These orders speed up resource extraction at the expense of ignoring Indigenous consent. At least 80,000 permits (for mining or exploratory drilling) have been issued in the Black Hills area, which is within our treaty-recognized territory. Concerns include the effects of mining, drought, water runoff from development, and more. Preliminary research indicates that this illegal occupation—where settlers’ environmental laws, regulations, and monitoring promote development—impacts our Sioux nation’s environment and human health. For instance, the Coeur Wharf Resources Mine is an active open-pit gold mine. Since 1985, it has expanded by 519%, from its original 0.31 acres. In 2023, it was reported that the mine’s expansion “will disturb an estimated 31.9 million tons of material, including 6.7 million tons of ore and 25.2 million tons of overburden and non-mineralized rock. Wharf’s 2022 gold and silver sales totaled over $150 million, and its net income was over $34 million. Wharf paid about $4.3 million in state [South Dakota] mineral severance taxes last year.” Although we have never ceded our sovereignty or territory, it is clear that neither the US nor South Dakota sought our FPIC when approving this mine and its expansion all these years.

Second, satellite imagery suggests that climate change (not to mention forestry management) increases wildfire potential in our semi-arid territory. Since 2001, several fires in the Black Hills forest area have destroyed tens of thousands of acres, indicating that the area’s drought is climate change related, and that spontaneous fires threaten our sacred places and cultural sites. The Black Hills are sacred to more than fifty (50) other Indigenous nations besides the Sioux Nation. However, our environmental concerns of potential fire hazards during drought-like conditions drew little attention when settlers proposed using fireworks for a combined 4 July 2020 political rally and commemoration. Though fireworks were eventually banned, other environmental health challenges emerged in 2020. 

The 2020 Sturgis, South Dakota, Motorcycle rally, which drew about 445,000 attendees from every US state and various countries was viewed as a COVID-19 spreader event. COVID-19, by that time, had reached pandemic levels. In fact, a few months earlier, our Sioux reservations in South Dakota established COVID-19 border check points as a precautionary measure to lessen the adverse health impacts on our people. Our determination to use check points to protect our people met settler hostility. The South Dakota white governor Kristi Noem, now US Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the US Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, both contested our sovereign authority to establish COVID-19 checkpoints at our reservation borders. Their actions showed that they were not thinking of the good health of our people, again as recently as 2020.

There are many other environmental concerns such as radioactive pollution in the air and water from the more than two-thousand (2,000) abandoned Uranium mines in our Treaty territory. Our people have the highest cancer rate in the nation including Alaska but nothing is done about the cause, the radioactive pollution caused by the abandoned Uranium mines, approved by the US without our FPIC in our Treaty territory. 

Therefore, the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council maintains that until the United Nations recognizes the Sioux Nation as a colonized Indigenous nation with a legal, International treaty with the United States, nothing will be done to enforce the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Our people will continually have health problems and be subjected to the threat of extinction. As a result, there will never be a “post-conflict situation.”  

 

 

Hello Everyone, 

We have been busy these past couple of months since returning from Geneva in September. Before the New Year starts, I wanted to get this newsletter out as there are still projects in the works that need to be finished.

 1. 1868 Knowledge Bowl

While I’m still in the glow of the first 1868 Knowledge Bowl held at the Monument Civic Center this past Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2025, I’m hoping there will be another one annually. We all owe our deepest gratitude to Julia Hernandez from Kyle on the Pine Ridge Reservation as this was her idea. She worked on this for more than a year and a half. After participating, I can see there would be great value in continuing this every year. More and more young people can get involved, as well as adults, to learn more about the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty and also what that meant in other areas such as education, health care, justice and policing, etc.

The event began with a prayer and a Roll Call of all the signatories to the Treaty. It was a very sacred and moving introduction. I’m sure all those ancestors will continue to help us keep educating everyone about the 1868 Treaty.

John Haas, a life-long educator did an excellent job explaining the history and current status of Indian Education, both as a procedure in schools, and as a tool for assimilation (AKA colonization).

As I was asked to talk about the Treaty and form questions for the students, I tried to remember how my grandmother taught me when I was a little girl. I wasn’t required to rote-memorize the articles, but rather she would explain things such as “You can catch as many fish as you want from the Missouri River, as the Treaty Territory starts on the East bank. That was one of the questions. If the student knew the Article, that was an extra point. A copy of the questions is attached. Use them if you want. They were taken from The Analysis of the 1868 Treaty. If you wish a copy of the Analysis, let me know. It is available online and in hard copy.

Oglala President Frank Star Comes Out helped in reading the names for the Roll Call and also acted as a judge for the students. A Navajo woman, Mary Freddie, who comes to LNI as a referee, was present and acted as a judge also so there would be no favoritism. As there were only two students from Little Wound School, of course, they won.

Even though there were very few students present, it reminded me of when the Big Foot Ride started. Two of my sons and my son-in-law were riding and there were only 15 riders. At the end of the four years, there were hundreds of people in attendance. Each year brought more to participate. Hopefully that will happen with this event. Thank you so much, Julia, for an excellent idea!

 

2. INCOMINDIOS Project

In the last Newsletter, I talked about doing a tour of all the reservations for day-long meetings. That idea was changed due to many safety concerns. Therefore, I asked the funders, INCOMINDIOS, if we could do a video project based on three topics: the Analysis of the Treaty, the International Work, and Revitalizing our Nation. These were topics I wanted to discuss at the in-person meetings. The funders said yes and we started doing videos to introduce and provide information for more discussion on these topics. 

The short video on the Analysis was completed and sent in mid November with a hard copy of the Analysis of the Treaty though the postal mail to all of the High Schools in the Treaty Territory including the Arapahoe. The Knowledge Bowl was explained and the schools were invited to bring students to participate. At the same time, the video and Analysis were sent via email to all of the Tribal Councils of all the Treaty Tribes. The short video on the Analysis can be found at https://youtu.be/k99L5BtM5Lk

Editing is being completed on the International Work. I will let you know as soon as that is available. We will begin working on the topic of Revitalizing our Nation in Jan. 2026. It also will be in video and hard copy.

 Jan. 2, 2026 continued

 As you can see, this newsletter wasn’t finished in 2025. 

 3. Decolonization

The topic of Decolonization is gaining more prominence in the world and we can never let it go until we, ourselves, are who the Creator made us to be, and our Nation is the Nation it was before the invasion by the colonists. At the United Nations (UN) is the Decolonization Committee. It was created to help colonized territories gain their freedom and independence from the colonizing governments. Since the 1868 Treaty speaks of the treaty territory being for our “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation”, many letters have been sent to the Decolonization Committee requesting their assistance. However, they need a resolution from the General Assembly that is why we have been going to the Human Rights Council. Hopefully, we will be able to attend the meetings of both the Decolonization Committee and the Human Rights Council in 2026.

Enclosed are two articles about Decolonization. Algeria is now a recognized nation at the UN but at one time it was colonized by France. Now the Algerian government has made colonization a crime. We are looking at how this might be able to help us at the UN.

The second article speaks directly about colonialism and the effects it has made on all of us. The American federal law called “Self-Determination” does not include ALL of the necessities of TRUE Self Determination. It was made to continue the assimilation or colonization by the U.S. only under the disguise of letting us think we were helping ourselves. If we had TRUE Self Determination, or Decolonization, we would have our own form of government, our own language, and our own values, customs, life philosophies, and spiritual beliefs. We would be living totally different than we are now. 

Often I am asked by individuals, “What can we be doing?” We need to begin revitalizing our nation one community at a time. Our ancestors always sought Spiritual Guidance, and with the way the world is now, we need spiritual guidance in our daily lives in everything we do. Try to become as self-sufficient as you can. Ask for help from our ancestors. This is what is meant by “Spiritual guidance”, advice from our ancestors and relatives on the other side. They want to help us but we have to ask.

My job at the International level has always been for the full enforcement of the Treaty, including land return, and to keep trying to win our freedom and independence from the colonization by the United States. The Decolonization Committee offers a non-violent way for this to happen although it will take a few years. The time seems right for us now as the U.S. is losing its influence across the world, and other nations are not as afraid to help. 

In a previous newsletter, I explained why the International Courts can’t help us...yet. We are like Palestine in that we are an ancient nation that is currently occupied by the U.S. Palestine is occupied by Israel with the help of the U.S. We also, just like Palestine, need recognition at the UN as a member nation before we can enter the International Court of Justice (ICE). Palestine has had other countries sponsor them at the ICE. 

If any of you would like to come with me as a witness, let me know if you are interested. You will need a passport. I usually take one or two people as I raise the money for the plane tickets, places to stay, food, and transportation. We do not take any funds from any government, federal, state, or tribal. We operate on donations, honorariums, and small grants.

4. Brian Brademeyer, Treasurer, Defenders of the Black Hills

As we are a nation separate from the United States, we cannot be a non-profit corporation under American law. Therefore, the organization, Defenders of the Black Hills has acted as our fiscal sponsor. Brian Brademeyer was the Treasurer and strongly supported the full enforcement of the Treaty. He went home the first part of December.

Attached is a Tribute that shows what kind of person he was.

 5. Spring Equinox, March 20, 2026

 James McDonald, a teacher at Little Wound School has asked me to speak to his classes on March 20th. I’m sure he won’t mind if any of you would like to sit in and listen. I will be there from 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM. If any of you wish me to speak to your schools or communities, just let me know. If you can help with travel expenses, that would be greatly appreciated. 

Hope you all have a safe and healthy Winter season.

Respectfully submitted by

Charmaine White Face Zumila Wobaga

Charmaine White Face, Spokesperson Zumila Wobaga, Itancan

Attachments (4): Treaty Questions; 
Echoes of Colonialism article; 
Algeria declares colonialism a crime article; 
Tribute to an Original Defender

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 1868 TREATY

Submitted by Charmaine White Face

The word “Sioux in these questions is used as the Treaty refers to the Sioux nation.

1. There were three (3) subnations of the Oceti Sakowin who signed the 1868 Treaty. Who were they?

Ans: Tituwan, Ihanktowan, Isantee

2. There was another nation that signed the 1868 Treaty along with the Sioux Nation and the United States. Which nation was it?

Ans: Arapaho Nation 

3. Is the 1868 Treaty an International Treaty? If so, why?

Ans: Yes, because it was made between two nations, the Sioux Nation and the United States. 

(This status was recognized at the United Nations, an international organization, in a “Study on Treaties, Agreements, and Constructive Arrangements made between colonizing governments and Indigenous nations” by Special Rapporteur Miguel Alfonso Martinez in 1999.)

4. Has the 1868 Treaty ever been changed by the Sioux people? If not, why?

Ans: No. Article 12 of the Treaty states that the Treaty can only be changed by three-fourths of the adult Sioux males agreeing to change it and this has never happened.

5. Can a Sioux person live anywhere they want to live in western South Dakota? If so, why?

Ans: Yes, because Article 2 set aside this land area only for the Indians. 

6. If a Sioux person kills another Sioux person in the Treaty Territory, how are they to be prosecuted?

Ans: According to Article 1 of the 1868 Treaty, if the Sioux people want the murderer tried in a court of the United States, the Sioux people can turn that person over to the United States. If the Sioux people willfully refuse to turn the murderer over, the United States will reimburse the victim for their injuries. The murderer then would be answerable to the laws of the Sioux nation. (See “Ancient Laws of the Oceti Sakowin” at www.siouxnationtreatycouncil.org) 

7. Article 1 was violated by the United States in 1885. What happened? 

Ans: The United States created a law in 1885 called the Major Crimes Act and took the ability away from the Sioux Nation to police and enforce our own laws. This was a major violation of the 1868 Treaty. The Tribal Council governments, also created by the United States, follow this American law. This has led to the chaos we experience today and is called “ghettoizing” where selective enforcement and prosecution is followed.

 8. If a white person commits a crime against a Sioux person in the Treaty Territory, how are they to be prosecuted?

 Ans: According to Article 1 of the 1868 Treaty, the white person is to be turned over to the authorities of the United States. 

 9. A certain portion of Article 1 has a special name. What is it called?

 Ans: This Article is also called “the Bad Man Clause” and has been upheld in federal courts of the United States. (See Elk v United States.)

10. Can a Sioux person catch as many fish as they want from the Missouri River? If so, why?

Ans: Yes. Article 2 says the Treaty starts on the East bank of the Missouri River.

 11. Can a Sioux person hunt in the Big Horn Mountains? If so, why?

Ans: Yes. The hunting area in Article 2 of the Treaty extends to the summit, or tops of the Big Horn Mountains, so Sioux and Arapaho people can hunt on the East side of the Mountains.

12. What is the most important phrase in the 1868 Treaty? Extra point for the Article Number.

Ans: “...For the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians...”

It is in Article 2.

 13. Was the 1868 Treaty a Treaty for the cession of land?

 Ans: The 1868 Treaty was a treaty for peace, not land cession and proves that the Treaty was changed AFTER it was agreed to by the Headmen.

 14. What was the “Chicago Rewrite”?

Ans: The Chicago Rewrite refers to the CHANGES made to the 1868 Treaty in favor of the United States AFTER it was agreed to by the Sioux and Arapaho headmen.

15. Name an Article made in the Chicago Rewrite.

Ans: Any one of the following Articles is correct: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and possibly 17. 

16. There is a phrase in Article 11 that shows the bad intentions of the United States and their desire to completely destroy the Indians. What was that phrase, or it’s intentions? (Extra credit)

Ans: The phrase is “so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase.” If all the buffalo were destroyed, the Indians would be destroyed as the buffalo provided everything for the Indians.

17. What is the Article most often quoted by the Sioux nation and why?

Ans: Article 12, as it can only be changed by three-fourths approval of adult male Indians.

18. Name an Article that talks about Health Care?

Ans: Article 4 and Article 13 mention a physician.

 19. Did the Indian children need an English education? Was this a violation of another Article in the Treaty? Why?

Ans: Indian children only needed to learn the English language to communicate with the colonizers/settlers, and to watch all agreements made with the United States or its citizens. This was a violation of Article 2 which stated that the Indians would not be disturbed.

 20. Did the insertion of health care, and English education, and economic development cost the United States extra money and how?

 Ans: Yes, the United States is still paying for these through the Indian Health Service, the Indian Education Department, the Economic Development Departments, and the Housing and Urban Development Departments.

---

The Echoes of Colonialism: Modern Challenges and the Push for Decolonization

By Jakob Staubmann 22/10/2024

The Legacy of Colonialism: Autonomy and Dignity Stripped Away

The enduring legacy of colonialism has profoundly impacted societies around the globe, with consequences that still resonate today. Upon colonization, nations frequently faced the systematic erosion of their autonomy, as colonial powers imposed foreign governance structures, economies, and social systems that undermined traditional ways of life. This loss not only stripped nations of their self-determination but also instigated a struggle for identity, as the imposed cultures often marginalized indigenous traditions and languages.

Many former colonies experienced an alarming decline in their political and economic sovereignty. For instance, in Africa, the arbitrary borders established during the colonial era disrupted social configurations and led to conflicts that persist in contemporary times. The stripping away of autonomy often resulted in increased poverty, reliance on foreign aid, and lack of development, perpetuating cycles of dependency that hindered progress. Such dynamics remind societies of their colonial past, as they navigate ongoing challenges to reclaim their rights and identities.

Furthermore, the psychological scars inflicted by colonialism cannot be overlooked. Communities often suffer from a collective trauma rooted in centuries of oppression, exploitation, and violence. The devaluing of indigenous cultures created a profound sense of inferiority that continues to affect generations. As these societies seek to reclaim their dignity, there is a growing demand for international acknowledgment of these historical injustices, which is essential for fostering healing and restoration.

The need for decolonization is more pressing than ever, as movements worldwide strive to redress these enduring inequities. By addressing the historical impact of colonialism, societies can initiate discussions about reparations, cultural revival, and the recognition of indigenous rights—elements that are crucial in the pursuit of true autonomy and dignity. As the world comes to terms with the shadows of its colonial past, it is vital to advocate for a future that respects and uplifts all cultural identities.

The Fourth Committee’s Role: Addressing Modern Forms of Colonialism

The Fourth Committee of the United Nations, formally known as the Special Committee on the Decolonization of Non-Self-Governing Territories, plays a crucial role in addressing contemporary forms of colonialism that persist in various contexts around the world. Established in 1961, this committee serves to promote the implementation of international mandates for decolonization, particularly in relation to the 17 non-self-governing territories that continue to seek independence. These territories encompass regions that have been significantly shaped by historical colonial rule, and their struggles resonate with the ongoing legacy of colonialism.

One of the pivotal moments in the decolonization process was the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) in 1960. This landmark resolution asserted the right of all peoples to self-determination and called for the immediate cessation of colonial activities. The resolution also highlighted the obligation of member states to foster independence for territories still under colonial rule. The significance of this resolution cannot be overstated as it laid the groundwork for subsequent efforts aimed at dismantling colonial structures and fostering sovereign governance amongst affected populations.

In recent years, the Fourth Committee has actively discussed the challenges faced by the listed territories, which include political, economic, and social struggles rooted in their colonial histories. These discussions reflect an evolving understanding of modern colonialism, extending beyond mere territorial occupation to encompass issues such as cultural imperialism and economic dependency. Furthermore, the increasing number of member states within the United Nations signifies a degree of success in decolonization efforts. As nations advocate for the rights of self-determination and independence, their collective voices contribute to the ongoing push for resolution in territories yearning for freedom. Ultimately, the Fourth Committee remains instrumental in amplifying these voices and fostering discussions that may lead to meaningful change in the modern colonial landscape.

Modern Neo-Colonial Practices: Economic Exploitation and Austerity

Throughout the 21st century, neo-colonial practices have emerged as significant challenges within the context of global politics and economics. These practices often manifest in the form of economic exploitation and the imposition of austerity measures by powerful nations upon less powerful ones. Such dynamics can be observed in various regions, notably in Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir, where the impact of neo-colonialism has led to serious implications for self-determination and economic stability.

In Palestine, the ongoing occupation and colonization have resulted in crippling economic restrictions that inhibit development and exacerbate poverty. The economy has been significantly shaped by external forces, including trade restrictions and reliance on foreign aid, which in many instances perpetuates dependency rather than fostering autonomy. The Israeli government’s policies have contributed to this exploitation, leading to a complex fiscal landscape that undermines local industries and exacerbates unemployment rates among the population. The struggle of the Palestinians for self-determination is thus closely intertwined with the ongoing fight against economic imperialism.

Similarly, Jammu and Kashmir have faced persistent challenges rooted in both political and economic dimensions of neo-colonialism. Following the region’s annexation by India, global powers have often overlooked the socio-economic ramifications of this conflict. Austerity measures creatively disguised as economic reforms have been thrust upon the local populace, placing undue burdens on vulnerable communities. The international community’s neglect has further compounded the crisis, calling for urgent interventions for self-determination and autonomy.

Responses from various nations advocating for decolonization highlight the necessity of international intervention and support. The push for self-determination in both Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir symbolizes a broader resistance against neo-colonial practices. Grassroots movements have emerged, emphasizing the importance of solidarity among oppressed nations in confronting economic exploitation and austerity. Therefore, recognizing these neo-colonial practices is crucial in amplifying voices seeking justice, equity, and genuine self-governance.

The Importance of Self-Determination: Ongoing Debates and Challenges

The principle of self-determination is pivotal in the context of decolonization, serving as a guiding tenet that empowers individuals and communities to determine their political, economic, and social futures. This principle not only affirms the right of people to choose their destiny but also serves as a crucial element in addressing historical injustices wrought by colonial powers. However, the practical implementation of self-determination remains a contentious issue, eliciting numerous debates and challenges.

One significant debate revolves around the legitimacy of elections held under military regimes. In many instances, military forces have taken control of governments, often undermining the democratic process. This raises important questions about the authenticity of electoral outcomes and whether they genuinely reflect the will of the people, thereby complicating self-determination efforts. The international community often grapples with how to engage with such regimes while promoting self-determination, highlighting the need for comprehensive approaches that respect human rights and democratic principles.

Moreover, the situations of the Malvinas Islands and Western Sahara exemplify the complexities involved in self-determination. The Malvinas Islands, claimed by both Argentina and the United Kingdom, highlight issues of national sovereignty versus the right of local populations to decide their status. Similarly, in Western Sahara, the struggle for self-determination has persisted for decades, with the Sahrawi people seeking autonomy from Moroccan rule. These cases illustrate the nuanced and often multifaceted nature of self-determination and the conflicting interests at play.

In reflecting on these ongoing challenges, it becomes evident that achieving true self-determination for all peoples requires sustained international dialogue and political solutions. The path toward decolonization is fraught with obstacles, yet the commitment to respecting the rights of individuals and communities remains vital for fostering a just and equitable future.

END

---

 

Algerian Parliament Declares French Colonial Rule A Crime

•By News Desk, The Cradle.

•December 26, 2025

•Resist!

Seeks reparations. 

The legislation affirms that Algeria and its people are entitled to compensation for the material and moral damage inflicted during French colonial rule.

Algeria’s parliament unanimously passed legislation on 24 December declaring France’s colonization of Algeria a crime, stating that “full and fair compensation for all material and moral damages” is an inalienable right of the Algerian state and people.

The law was adopted by Algeria’s lower house in Algiers, with lawmakers voting in favor of a bill explicitly assigning France “legal responsibility for its colonial past in Algeria and the tragedies it caused.”

The vote took place on Wednesday inside the Algerian parliament, with MPs marking the moment by standing in the chamber wearing national colors, chanting “long live Algeria,” and singing the national anthem before and after the vote.

This comes amid a prolonged diplomatic crisis between Algiers and Paris, which analysts describe as legally symbolic but politically significant as bilateral relations continue to deteriorate.

In the legislation, a range of acts defined as “crimes of French colonisation” were listed, including nuclear testing, extrajudicial killings, “physical and psychological torture,” systematic land seizure, and the plundering of resources, while rejecting claims that Algeria lacked political existence before 1830.

The law recalls the period of French rule between 1830 and 1962 and cites Algerian reports of 1.5 million deaths during the independence struggle, a figure rejected by French historians who estimate about 500,000 total deaths.

It also dictates that “full and fair compensation for all material and moral damages caused by French colonisation is an inalienable right of the Algerian state and people,” including restitution of archives, cultural property, human remains, and environmental remediation of nuclear test sites.

The legislation criminalizes the “glorification,” “justification,” or “apology for colonialism,” imposing prison sentences of five to 10 years and fines while extending responsibility to the media and digital platforms.

While Emmanuel Macron [French President] has previously described colonization as a “crime against humanity,” France declined to comment on what its Foreign Ministry described as “political debates taking place in foreign countries.”

The legislation marks a shift from earlier Algerian positions emphasizing historical “recognition” rather than formal demands for apologies and reparations.

END

---

“A Tribute to an Original Defender”

By Charmaine White Face Dec. 12, 2025

The word “Lakota” means “ally”. It doesn’t mean the people who speak the Lakota language. We are Tituwan. This tribute is to a person who was truly a Lakota and one of my good friends for nearly thirty (30) years. No, we were never romantically involved but were very committed in our endeavors to protect the environment of the 1868 Treaty Territory.

Brian Brademeyer was one of the original Defenders of the Black Hills. He was also our Treasurer since the beginning in 2002. For ten years before Defenders, he was the President of the Black Hills Sierra Club. Those members of the dominant society, including the U.S. Forest Service, constantly fought their barrage of well researched comments and legal documents he sent to them. 

In 1997, the Oglala Sioux Tribe officially recognized the efforts that Brian made to protect and preserve the sacred Black Hills. They honored him with a star quilt that he has to this day. Their honoring really touched him. Brian went home a few weeks ago, probably from a heart attack from shoveling snow. He lived by himself in a cabin in the Hills. He was seventy-five (75).

 Although Brian stated that he was an atheist, meaning he didn’t believe in god, he was always very respectful of our way of spirituality. (We don’t have a religion. The word ‘religion’ isn’t even in our language.) So one time when I asked if I could come to his place to offer and burn some prayer ties and flags, and he said yes, I was so surprised that he had built a special fireplace for my offerings. He even placed specially pointed stones in the proper directions, and filled the circle with dried pine cones as a fire starter. At our meetings and gatherings he always bowed his head when we aziliya (smudged) and prayed. When he told me his strange dreams, he would just shake his head when I told him the Spirits in the Hills liked him. So I’m glad they came after him at his home.

Brian volunteered his expertise for ten years for the Sierra Club. He was a Civil Engineer and received his Masters degree from MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most prestigious colleges in the world. After college, he continued to work for MIT on special projects. He even developed the transportation system for the country of Egypt. But to see him, no one would even know. He was very humble and usually had on faded, sometimes torn, jeans and long sleeved shirts. Depending on the length of his hair, he would wear a bandanna around his head, looking like a typical hippie.

In the late 1990s, I worked for the Sierra Club to protect the Grasslands and learned of Brian’s work writing the documents to protect the Hills. He knew of my weekly editorials in the Rapid City Journal every Wednesday for nearly five years regarding the Treaty and the illegal environmental decisions made by different federal agencies. So we had a meeting of the minds.

When the Sierra Club made an erroneous decision to remove him from their group, it was to our benefit. That was in August, 2002, when we decided to form a group of environmentalists and Native people to protect the environment of the 1868 Treaty territory. The original founders of Defenders of the Black Hills were: Brian, Jake Kreilick from National Forest Protect Alliance out of Missoula, MT; Jeremy Nichols from Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Laramie, WY; Carter Camp, from Oklahoma, the nationally known Native activist; Madonna Thunder Hawk, another activist from Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; Harley Eagle, a Dakota man who lived at Pine Ridge at the time; and me. The sacred number seven was important to me so I knew it was going to be a good group. As I had organized the meeting, they appointed me to be the Coordinator even though I’m a better worker bee.

Although we discontinued the very active projects of Defenders in 2016, after I was in a terrible car accident, we still had a few projects to continue. Brian always spearheaded any projects involving the Black Hills, especially with the U.S. Forest Service. I contributed to the sacred aspects in those documents. He was still working on a project regarding the building of a walking trail from Hill City to Mount Rushmore at the time he went home. We were against the project as it went through and disturbed the Black Elk Wilderness area.

Brian Brademeyer was defending the Black Hills long before there was an organization called Defenders of the Black Hills. We have lost a long time advocate for the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and the sacred Black Hills. He was a true Lakota. He is and will be sorely missed.