Quote from piezoe:
I'm not crazy about the idea of a monument to hugo chavez as suggested by zdreg, or was it another one of the usual nuts. Or even a monument, in the U.S. anyway, to Mandela, who was undoubtedly one of the great leaders of men (yes, and women too!)
But I think the idea of the Sioux agreeing not to carve giant images of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, and Black Elk into the side of the Washington monument facing the U.S. Capital in exchange for the U.S. living up to its 1868 Treaty Commitment is a 'capital' idea!
Under the Treaty, the Black Hills, including Mount Rushmore and the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abe Lincoln belong to the Sioux Indian Nation.. The U.S, Supreme Court agreed in 1980 that the land was stolen from the Sioux in violation of the 1868 Treaty.
From Wiki:
"Considering the Black Hills sacred and illegally taken, the Lakota (sioux) pursued a claim against the US government for the return of the land. In the 1980 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians the United States Supreme Court upheld their position in that the land had been taken illegally, and the US government offered financial compensation. The Oglala Lakota are persisting in their demand to have the land returned to their nation; the account with their compensation is earning interest.'
The only just "compensation" is either to return the land, or let the indians carve likenesses of any four Sioux leaders of their choice into the side of the Washington Monument!
