11-05-2003, 03:04 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
|
Indian Gaming, A boon or a plauge?
As a former New Mexico resident, remember the tales told of the wonders of Indian Gaming. The promises, the revolution that was going to come. Well its been ten years and Indians in New Mexic still suffer from alchol abuse in greater numbers than hispanics and whites, suffer from a higher murder rate, lower income, and even higher infant mortallity rate.
So where did all this money go? Indian gamming is a 4 billion a year industry. Where are all the new schools that were promiesed? Where are the hospitals? Where are the alchol abuse clinics, the Indian doctors and proffesions?
Where are the results? Well I read this essay and it made me think. What do you all think about Indian gaming?
Quote:
A Modern "Small-pox" for Native Culture
Clay Akiwenzie
Gaming will give tribes more money which will enable them to diversify and realize the long sought after goal of individual tribal sovereignty. At least, that is the succession of events that proponents of Indian gaming would like us to believe. While the allure of more money in communities that generally have precious little industry, nearly no liquid assets, and extremely high unemployment is fairly easy to see, what is often missing from a thorough discussion of gaming is a clear understanding of basic issues like what sovereignty actually means, how best to achieve it, and who exactly "counts" as Indian? These sort of basic questions about the terminology used in this debate are often sid-stepped altogether when more pressing questions come up like; where is all of this money actually going? Who decides where it goes? And of course, most importantly; when do I get mine? Among other things, the rising tide of crime on Indian reservations that have already instituted gaming, from the Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut to the Fort Regis Mohawk in New York to the Clear Lake Pomo Indian Colony in California, would seem to indicate that perhaps, Indian gaming does not represent the panacea for Indian country that we have been lead to believe.
The problems are practically uniform throughout Indian country. Disorganized, factionalized, and historically poor communities with limited infrastructure and little-to-no experience managing large sums of money are now being confronted with the daunting task of effectively managing a multi-million dollar corporation. Given the obvious enticements of Indian gaming, it should come as no surprise that many of the actual members from these reserves have accepted gaming with a less than perfect understanding of what they were getting into and, perhaps have made some less than ideal management decisions. This poor understanding of what gaming and sovereignty actually mean portends disaster for a disturbingly large number of tribes.
However, vague concepts and ideals aside, former proponents of Indian gaming have been echoing each other with warning calls to tribes pondering the plunge into the business of high stakes gambling. Beverley Louis, a registered band member of the Sault St. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians, noted in her letter to the editor in the July 6, 1995 edition of Indian Country Today that while her "tribe has grossed billions of dollars since the conception of casinos,...our people - our true Native Americans - remain indigent, disgracefully poor. We have no idea where the money is going, and diligent inquiry into this matter is met by silence - or in the alternative - misrepresentations." Ms. Louis repeated references to the disparity of wealth and subsequent friction between what she describes as the "true Native American," or full-blooded Indians, and the increasingly large numbers of migrating mixed breeds is a massive problem for nearly every single reservation in North America.
While the membership issue may seem like a completely separate issue from gaming , this power to decide who does and does not belong to the group becomes an absolutely crucial and potentially divisive issue when you start talking about gaming and the distribution of profits. Although, there are federal guidelines for membership criteria, each reserve implements their own membership criteria as an exercise of tribal sovereignty and self-government which the feds in turn refer to when allotting federal funding. The point being that membership roles, federal funding, and the distribution of wealth are all intimately connected and whoever controls membership, also controls the future of the Nation. Often, the irony of the situation is that the people who justify the continued existence of Indian Nations as distinct Nations(i.e. the people who keep the traditions alive), are often left out in the cold when the profits are divvied up.
One issue that always comes up with gaming is the issue of sovereignty and its relation to Indian gaming. Proponents of gaming invariably point to gaming as a means to the ultimate end, real, not just quasi-sovereignty, but real sovereignty for Native peoples. Few, however have a clear understanding of what sovereignty would actually mean to Indian tribes. For example, does sovereignty mean an end to the federal fiduciary relationship between Indians and the Federal government? What will sovereignty mean to the trust status of Indian lands? Will sovereignty legitimate us as Nations, states, or municipalities? Are we, as a collective group of Native peoples, ready for tribal sovereignty and all of its implications? If we aren't, and if gaming moves already unstable Nations towards some uncertain and undetermined fate, then all of this talk about sovereignty and economic independence may turn out to be another classic example of counting your chickens before the eggs are hatched.
Another similarly discussed, but never resolved issue in Indian country is to how best balance traditional cultural practices and moral belief systems with economic development. This idea of balance has been central to the debate over gaming on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona as well as on the Navajo Reservation which surrounds them. Both nations have chosen to reject gaming as a source of revenue because for them, the question takes on an either/or sensibility. Either you value your culture and moral values above all else, or you support economic development with the knowledge that culture will be inevitably compromised to one degree or another. While this may seem rigid and anti-progressive to some people, it is a very real concern to may of the traditional people whose reality exists outside the world of profit margins and economic theory.
So does gaming on reservations represent a new hope for an economic resurgence in Indian country? Maybe, but at best, it's still an unsure bet, and tribes should know the risks before entering into any agreement with any outside corporation, investors, or government. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that Indians have to be poor in order to be "real" Indians, or that casinos are "bad"; so we shouldn't have them. However, it is my fear that many tribes have rushed into these ventures without a clear understanding of what they wanted to gain from their involvement with gaming, aside from the vague assumption that more money means less problems.
Finally, without the right leadership, discussion, and understanding of gaming and all its implications, the ubiquitous construction of casinos on Indian lands across the continent could prove the most destructive and divisive element introduced to Native culture since Christopher Columbus brought the small-pox.
Clay Akiwenzie, Junior in North American Indian Studies
Saugeen Ojibway, Cape Croker Reserve, Ont
|
|
|
|
