5-member Miwok tribe to open large casino

[Dookus]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/9521865.htm


The proposed casino is less than an hour from my house. But shocked me was reading that the tribe behind it consists of 5 members, 4 of whom are one family who recently "re-joined" the tribe.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, I'm all for letting Native-Americans win the continent back. But I also feel whatever the benefits are that come from Indian gaming, they ought to be spread around a little more. Thoughts?

[politicat]

1. sounds like you need a call center or a drug manufactury more than a

casino.

Something that means real jobs....

Sorry, Dook. Casinos unfortunately hurt people who can least afford to be hurt. Hope's cheap until you open a casino.

Wish that Native Americans would come up with something else to make money from... But then again, it's pretty good revenge....

Pcat

[jwirr]

16. Minnesota Experience

Okay, some people do get hurt but no one is dragging them into those casinos. As for the good casinos have done on the reservations. JOBS, POSITIVE SELF-CONCEPT, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, SELF RULE, ETC.. I moved to an Indian reservation in the 70s and lived there for 5-6 years. I can remember only one man who went to work on a regular basis who did not work for the tribe. Today most of the people have jobs. They may not be making much money BUT they are giving their children work role models. Their children are graduating from high school and many are going on to college. Their lives have been changed and to me it seems to be for the better. There is a long way to go yet but it is a start. I am sure that those factories would be welcome on reservations but they do not go there - they go overseas. Where I lived they also did not hire Indian people in white businesses even now when the Indian casinos are hiring white people. One thing I do agree with you on is the small 5-10 person tribes. However if you live on the east coast that may be all the members that are left of the original tribes.

[Deja Q]

46. also consider

CRIME, BANKRUPTCY, EXPLOITATION, GREED, BIBLICAL SINFUL BEHAVIOR (of course, 'Christian' whitey does the same in Las Vegas too).

An economy based on gambling is deploreable, I don't give a fruck as to who is running the outfit. None of it is good. The ends do not justify the means.

It's no different than the unregulated, 'illegal' drug industry except the casino owners don't need to work covertly.

On the other hand, it IS poetic justice that they are doing this against the gullible whitey and they deserve no less given what our ancestors wrongfully took from them in the first place.

On the third hand, I disagree with how capitalism has mutated and prefer living in a society so this goes back to my first hand denouncing the concept of gambling.

[Ladyhawk]

51. Mi-Wuks are in California, mostly.

And I think there are still quite a few of them.

[jdj]

26. after the smallpox blankets, who are we to judge? n/t

[kispoko]

2. thing is.....

people want to make an issue of the fact that this miwok band consists of only 5 members, and are exerting their sovereignty.......


but why doesn't anyone ever bother to ask *why* there are only 5 members?


genocide hit california particularly hard, not that any other place escaped........ but it's been a near 500 year ongoing horror story, from encomienda-style slavery that made auschwitz look like what we did to the japanese, to rancherias and cultural genocide to complete the "conversion," to the gold rush, where many made their money on indian scalps instead, to termination......


so yeah, let's not bitch because only 5 of the miwok are allowed to do such things....... it is afterall, their goddamn land. there are ugly politics in these kinds of situations sometimes, but none uglier than those which caused them, to be reduced to only 5.


remember that.

[Dookus]

3. Nowhere

in my original post did I "bitch" about anything. If you want to start a thread about the history of Native Americans over the last 500 year, go ahead.

This thread is about a huge casino being operated for the benefit of five people.

[H2O Man]

5. Dookus:

one thing you might want to consider is that there may be other forces looking to benefit from the casino, who are using the 5 people you mentioned. In NYS, the government went way against the law as it related to dealings with the Haudenosaunee (6 Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and dealt with someone with no legal authority to do business with the state on behalf of the Oneidas. There's a big casino, that helps one family to a large degree, and a few more to a lesser degree, but has hurt most Oneidas over-all. Casinos often are connected to other extended families from Vegas etc.

[kispoko]

6. and nowhere

in *my* post, did i say you did..... but your language is very revealing.

you look at them as only being 5 people, instead of a sovereign polity. why? why are they not entitled to the benefits of such things, because they are only 5 deep? how convenient for the united states, and california then..... seems the plan worked.


how many would suffice for you then? does not a band of 5 have to build? if they have been torn down to only 5, i would think the answer to that is fairly obvious......

[Dookus]

7. This is what I'm trying to discuss.

And I don't know why you're dragging in other aspects.

As I said the OP, I sort of feel that if a large community (in this case, mine) has to deal with the effects of a large casino (and I'm NOT opposed to Casinos), I'd like to see the benefits of such an arrangement benefit more than 5 people. If there are billions to be made, I'd like to see some of the money benefit OTHER Native Americans, not just these 5.

[kispoko]

13. look......

i'm tired of non-native people thinking they should have much of a say about what indigenous people choose to do, in their own lands..... know what your benefit is? living on miwok land. if you don't like it, leave. the miwok never asked any of you there to begin with.


should you have concern about the effects of such things in your community? it would be almost unnatural for you not to..... but don't become so enamored with the illusion created in the u.s. that indians are supposed to care. or even should, for your benefit.


you're on miwok land. respect miwok autonomy, whether 1 or 1 million.

[Dookus]

15. OK

you have no interest in discussing this topic.

As far as I know, I don't live in Miwok land. I bought this place 7 years ago.

[kispoko]

17. "k.o."

-you have no interest in discussing this topic.

no, you have no interest in listening to what you don't want to hear.


-As far as I know, I don't live in Miwok land. I bought this place 7 years ago.

you ought to be proud of not even giving enough of a shit to know whose homeland you're living on now.

typical attitude.....

[Dookus]

20. LOL

you have made baseless assumption after baseless assumption about my views on this topic and about my personal situation. You have been DEAD-ASS wrong every time.

I have NOT said I'm opposed to this casino. I have NOT said I oppose Indian gaming. You are making rash and incorrect assumptions aobut EVERYTHING. You are determined to pick a fight where none need exist. Why not simply ASK me something before you assume how I feel about it?

As to not living on Miwok land, I simply don't. Even if we were to presume that tribes still owned the land I now live on, it was NOT Miwok territory.

If you had simply asked, I would've explained that. Instead you just want to be belligerent and NOT discuss the specific topic at hand.

Typical attitude...

On edit: Here's what I wrote in the OP:

'I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, I'm all for letting Native-Americans win the continent back. But I also feel whatever the benefits are that come from Indian gaming, they ought to be spread around a little more. Thoughts?'

Why not simply give your thoughts on the topic without turning it into a fight? I made VERY clear that I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. Instead of taking a chance to present your view reasonably, you just picked a fight. How smart is that?

[kispoko]

22. "lo*f*l"

-you have made baseless assumption after baseless assumption about my views on this topic and about my personal situation. You have been DEAD-ASS wrong every time.

name a couple of these times...... we'll see about this "every time" business, as well as the business of assumptions.



-I have NOT said I'm opposed to this casino. I have NOT said I oppose Indian gaming.

i have not said you are either. so good for both of us, i guess.


-You are making rash and incorrect assumptions aobut EVERYTHING. You are determined to pick a fight where none need exist. Why not simply ASK me something before you assume how I feel about it?

i am? you were the one determined to take general language used in my first post, and pretend it was a personal attack..... it wasn't. it was more a pre-emptive type of address for issues that arise every time....... i spend countless time on these issues, so i know where they tend to lead, and i won't sit back and wait for the inevitable, the first punch......

if you wanted to take that first bit of commentary personally, that was entirely on you. to speak of asking, why didn't you ask me to clarify whether or not it was aimed at you or in general? you should be able to notice a difference now......


-As to not living on Miwok land, I simply don't.

that's a subjective matter.


-Even if we were to presume that tribes still owned the land I now live on, it was NOT Miwok territory.

you just got finished saying you weren't sure if it was miwok territory or not.

which dookus am i to believe? i could look into it, if you care......


-If you had simply asked, I would've explained that. Instead you just want to be belligerent and NOT discuss the specific topic at hand.

ask what? i've only worked off what you've given me.



-Why not simply give your thoughts on the topic without turning it into a fight?

because it is a fight..... it's half-millennial fisticuffs.

i didn't turn it at you until you decided to take my first post as such...... why?


-I made VERY clear that I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other.

and i made it very clear i do.


-Instead of taking a chance to present your view reasonably, you just picked a fight. How smart is that?


go back and read my first post, then your response to it...... and if you could, reconcile your belief that it was aimed at you personally...... sure i'd think there would be specific language therein that would accomplish that, without any doubts whatsoever as to the intent where a simple question couldn't clarify.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kispoko]

24. yep......

you want discussion? answer my queries on the charges you tossed out, as substitute for the "discussion" you pretend to long for so badly.....

won't happen though. so there can be no discussion, and i wonder who's to blame, in as rhetorical a fashion as smart-assery can get.....


and i'm sorry you fail to understand that there are indeed historical ramifications encompassing the topic of the thread you created, beyond 5 people and how they might affect *you*....... i should not receive such flippant responses for understanding that, and thinking context is important, not that i'm unaccustomed to that or anything.....


sometimes, people don't wanna hear things

[jdj]

29. another way of saying it

"I have not signed a treaty with the U.S. government"
Chrystos (Menominee)

"nor has my father nor his father
nor any grandmothers
We don't recognize these names on old sorry paper
There for we declare the United States a crazy person
nightmare lousy food ugly clothes bad meat
nobody we know
No one wants to go there This U.S. is theory illusion
terrible ceremony The United States can't dance can't cook
has no children no elders no relatives
They build funny houses no one lives in but papers
Everything the U.S. does to everybody is bad
No this U.S. is not a good idea We declare you terminated
You've had your fun now go home we're tired We signed
no treaty WHAT are you still doing here Go somewhere else &
build a McDonalds We're going to tear all this ugly mess
down now. We revoke your immigration papers
your assimilation soap suds your stories are no good
your colors hurt our feet our eyes are sore
our bellies are tied in sour knots Go Away Now
We don't know you from anybody
You must be some ghost in the wrong place wrong time
Pack up your toys garbage lies
We Who are alive now
have signed no treaties
Burn down your stuck houses your sitting
in a nowhere gray gloom Your spell is dead
Go so far away we won't remember you ever came here
Take these words back with you"

[jdj]

27. I was curious so...encomienda

encomienda
Related: Latin American History

(ânkômyân´dä) , system of tributory labor established in Spanish America. Developed as a means of securing an adequate and cheap labor supply, the encomienda was first used over the conquered Moors of Spain. Transplanted to the New World, it gave the conquistador control over the native populations by requiring them to pay tribute from their lands, which were “granted” to deserving subjects of the Spanish crown. The natives often rendered personal services as well. In return the grantee was theoretically obligated to protect his wards, to instruct them in the Christian faith, and to defend their right to use the land for their own subsistence. When first applied in the West Indies, this labor system wrought such hardship that the population was soon decimated. This resulted in efforts by the Spanish king and the Dominican order to suppress encomiendas, but the need of the conquerors to reward their supporters led to de facto recognition of the practice. The crown prevented the encomienda from becoming hereditary, and with the New Laws (1542) promulgated by Las Casas , the system gradually died out, to be replaced by the repartimiento and finally debt peonage . Similar systems of land and labor apportionment were adopted by other colonial powers, notably the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the French.


from encyclpedia.com

[jdj]

28. I have to say....

sounds like a huge population being affected by an enterprise that only benefits a few.

[kispoko]

33. hmm......

-sounds like a huge population being affected by an enterprise that only benefits a few.


sounds like you could be talking about the "enterprise" which brought that population to the area in the first place, ya know?

[skygazer]

45. Every "civilized" nation everywhere

was created on land that had been "owned" by somebody else. That's just a fact. It certainly sucks for those whose cultures and lives were ripped apart and the idea of sovereign nations and Indian gaming is a way to try to right at least a few of those wrongs. But there is NOT only one side to it. History marches on and there are now other people living alongside the remnants of these tribes. It's illogical to suppose we can all just move somewhere and give the land back. We have to find ways to share it peaceably. The OP asked a reasonable question - whose interests trump whose in this situation - those of the many who are now living in the area or the 5 remaining members of the Miwok tribe. We can't go back and change the history that resulted in there being only 5 of them. All we can do is to attempt to reach a fair solution that hopefully benefits all.

[Ladyhawk]

52. I would like to read the history of the Mi-Wuks.

As I've said, there is a reservation here near Tuolumne City. They run a casino and do a lot of business there.

Is there a good book on Mi-Wuk history? Before the casino changed things, I always felt upset by the poverty of the local Mi-Wuks or MiWoks...it's spelled both ways in this county: not Mi-Wuk Village and MiWok Fire Station in Mi-Wuk village...confusing. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Casinos are as beneficial to communities as Wal*Marts. Discuss.

[Dookus]

8. NO let's not

start your own thread. Let's discuss this issue.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. All right. I will say that when a tribe here in Maine

wanted a casino this past year, I was torn between the benefits (some new jobs and tourism) vs. the drawbacks (clogged traffic ways, potential over-use of land, money being sent to parent casino operation rather than the being kept for the Natives.)

In the end, it was that last bit that made me decide to that the deal was more beneficial to the business owners rather than the tribe or the people of Maine. I suppose in the situation you are describing, you might want to take a look and see how much of that $ would actually go to the tribe, no matter how small it is.

[Dookus]

10. well of course there are powerful interests

who stand to benefit beyond the 5 named members of the tribe.

I know people in the casino business - a mixed bag all around. Some are scumbags, some are decent, honorable people making a living and providing a wanted service.

This is a huge project - 2000 slots, 200-300 room hotel, entertainment complex, etc. I have to believe that the typical california/Nevada gaming people are involved and are using this tiny tribe as their "in" to get a state license to print money, effectively.

I'm just questioning whether such a small tribe should be the sole Native American beneficiaries of such a landfall. I think I'd like to see Indian Gaming money, or a portion of it, being used to benefit people of ALL tribes in the US.

[jwirr]

18. The size of a tribe

is determined by the tribal membership rules or enrollment rules. Each original tribe determines what level of blood makes a tribal member acceptable. Usually it is 1/4 degree. Also each tribe is autonomous from any other tribe and often within a tribe there are autonomous families (bands). Each of these groups are owners of their own property and businesses. When you say these 5 people should share with other groups of Indians you are ignoring their individual rights and property rights. How would you feel if someone told you that you had to share your property with the family down the street?

[Dookus]

30. well

again, I'm not proposing anything specific.

I'm simply raising the topic for discussion. You make good points, but that presumes these 5 people have an inalienable right to open a casino? How about requiring a partnership among tribes in owning and operating the casino so that a population larger than 5 can benefit?

I have no problem, as I've said above, with Indian gaming. But there ARE costs to the greater community, and I'd like to see a greater number of people benefit from that.

[kispoko]

37. well......

-again, I'm not proposing anything specific.

I'm simply raising the topic for discussion. You make good points, but that presumes these 5 people have an inalienable right to open a casino?


under whose system of jurisprudence? that's an issue that has to be discussed as well, including the issues stemming from that.....

you continue to label what it a sovereign polity as "5 people." it is, but that belies the significance of these 'mere' "5 people." and so, it minimizes that, and skews perception.....


this is no ordinary group of 5. and you can't discuss the action without discussing that.


what about donal trump's group of 1? he isn't alone, you know..... but when he does it, he's a "shrewd businessman," someone for the suits and the rest of america by extension to idolize. others don't receive that same regard though...... heh


-How about requiring a partnership among tribes in owning and operating the casino so that a population larger than 5 can benefit?

noble idea, but who would require such a thing..... and more importantly though, what business is it of theirs to require native people to do certain things on their own land?

again, we tip toe around tribal sovereignty here.....



-I have no problem, as I've said above, with Indian gaming. But there ARE costs to the greater community, and I'd like to see a greater number of people benefit from that.


the time for "the greater community" to feign concern over the indians is about done..... "the greater community" had opportunities beyond compare to assist the starving populations of natives in their own backyard, and did nothing, but hope they would die sooner so they would no longer be a "problem," and the noble redman could finally ride off into the sunset so the fairy tale could have a nice completion.....

so, i am confused now as to why "the greater community" is supposed to be a concern of the people they made live, eat, breathe, live in and feel like shit for endless periods of time.......

???????



it is definitely interesting psychology.....



ultimately, and again, it is not about whether or not one cares for gaming, but whether or not one supports tribal autonomy, and with that, the right to choose which enterprises they will engage in, or not, as it were, on their own lands.

[Dookus]

41. read much?

you just wanna derail this discussion to your pet agenda.

I did NOT say the Indian Casinos should be used to benefit the greater community. I said there are COSTS to the greater community. I want the benefits to go to a WIDER range of Native-Americans, NOT the "greater community". If you're going to derail, at least try to address the points I made, NOT their opposites.

[kispoko]

42. eh.....

again, you don't understand what i'm saying, maybe because it didn't fit what you wanted to hear..... or because it was more convenient, than to address the simple points brought up in response.


neither did i say you intimated the casinos ought to be used for the "greater community." if you'll take note of what i said, i addressed both the "greater community's" concerns being catered to by natives because of the "costs," perceived or otherwise, as well as the idea that there ought to be some requirement of the proceeds split between all natives. the delineation there i thought was perty clear.


it's been shit like that, along with the baseless accusations thrown out earlier you refused to substantiate, that's derailed the discussion....... am very sorry it didn't go as you'd wanted it to, but that'll happen, especially when there are people with "pet agendae" involved, they otherwise consider as serious as life itself on a grander scale because of its ramifications, arrogant minimizations of that aside......

[H2O Man]

11. 5 people

can rarely afford to build a casino. Banks don't tend to make huge loans to sovereign peoples that have no collateral. Thus, if I were a betting man -- rather than a Water Man -- I'd bet someone is fronting.

[Dookus]

12. well of course someone is

the article doesn't claim these 5 are building it. In fact, I doubt ANY sizable Indian Casino is built and managed entirely by tribal members.

[jwirr]

19. Totally owned and operated

casinos exist in Minnesota. They borrowed the money to build it from the government and have already paid it back.

[Dookus]

21. cool

I'm glad to hear that.

[alarimer]

25. I read that about other casinos

I can't remember the specifics but the gist was that most of the profits went to the corporations and wealthy white people who funded the enterprise in the first place. People on the reservation were still poor because they jobs didn't actually pay very muh ($8/ hour or something). I have problems with casinos in the first place and I doubt they are a panacea for the problems of native Americans.

[Ladyhawk]

54. I don't know how the Mi-Wuks handle their casino operations.

It would be interesting to find out where most of the money goes, eh?

[bo44]

14. Yakima Dixie has been portrayed

as a drunk and petty criminal in the local freeper rag. I believe he wanted to build a casino near Sonora. The rag made a big deal out of him being less than a shining corporate Native symbol. There was a casino built in Sonora but I do not know of his association if any with that one.

As for my opinion. Highway 49 that runs through the Sierra Foothills/Gold Rush Country are littered with casinos. Pretty have hit saturation level there.

Methinks that the "tribe is being exploited." They found a money man, came up with the idea to build a casino convenient for Bay Area gamblers tiring of the 2 to 3 hour drive to the foothills casinos. If the plan goes ahead I would at least like to see Yakima Dixie end up with a nice chunk and some peace and quiet.

[Ladyhawk]

53. I live in Sonora. Black Oak Casino is the name of the place.

It's actually in Tuolumne City, a very small town. I don't know how much the local Mi-Wuks have prospered, but Tuolumne used to be a dive. I drove through it day before yesterday and it is being totally renovated.

Again, I'm not sure how much good has been done for the local tribe.

This topic interests me greatly. I've always felt badly for the local Mi-Wuks. Before the casino, they didn't integrate with local society, for which I judge them not. Seeing as how Tuolumne County is a red county, I don't integrate very well myself.

I think you're right about Highway 49. Jackson also has a casino. What about Auburn, which would be the next fairly large town? Is there one there? One in Mariposa County?

(There's another gambling spot on Chicken Ranch Road in Tuolumne County, but I don't think it has anything to do with the native population.)

[Jack_DeLeon]

31. Good for them.

[OHswingvoter]

32. I think gambling hurts

more people than it helps. Why not give the children scholarships to college instead?

[DrWeird]

34. Why not let them make their own decisions.

Jesus Christ. It's not like they're illiterate savages.

[OHswingvoter]

36. I don't mean just the native americans

I mean everyone in the community. Gambling brings in other associated things, drugs, prostitution, crime it is bad for everyone for miles around. My uncle was a black jack dealer working at the casinos is a rough life. Lots of poor folks go and gamble away their paychecks and then can't meet their bills. Gambling is a sickness and a disease just like alcoholism (I am a recovering alcoholic which is why I am militant about this). Gambling is fun for some people who will come and visit and leave, but for many others (not just the native americans) it will make shipwreck of their lives. There is nothing worse than being stuck under a crushing debt and owing money. I would rather give people opportunities to succeed that are not associated with so much misery. And I don't want gambling near my community and my children. It is addictive and highly attractive from the outside.

[Jack_DeLeon]

43. drugs and prostitution should be legal...

I see nothing wrong with gambling, drugs, or prostitution.

There are some people who have problems with addiction, can be any kind of addiction, however we should not stop doing everything just because there is a chance that someone somewhere might develop an addition to it.

[OHswingvoter]

47. Well I disagree. I

think that a life of prostitution for example is very demeaning to women. I don't believe in prosecuting the women, but I do believe that other ways of life should be encouraged. I don't want to put people in lifestyles that are miserable. I think a lot of men are for legalizing prostitution just because they like using women. But it is still not a very good lifestyle for the women.

[Cat Atomic]

35. Some of these "tribes" are completely new entities.

I don't know about this one in particular, but tribes are regularly created out of thin air simply to provide the opportunity for a casino. I don't like that at all and I agree with you- the policy isn't doing anything to help the wider Native American population.

I grew up outside of Palm Springs, with two reservations nearby. One was a relatively new tribe with Indian gaming. The other was outside the heavily travelled routes and so had no gaming. They don't even have electricity to this day. Most don't have running water.

As it stands now, a very few profit enormously, and whole communities are left in poverty. And no one cares because hey- "they've already got casinos".

[kispoko]

38. cat atomic

-I don't know about this one in particular, but tribes are regularly created out of thin air simply to provide the opportunity for a casino.

that doesn't mean they get one though, does it? no, in fact, none who have casinos now, or any form of gambling whatsoever, are "illegitimate" tribes..... so what was the point in bringing that up? it doesn't help anything, it only adds confusion really.


-I don't like that at all and I agree with you- the policy isn't doing anything to help the wider Native American population.


and its predecessor was working so well.....

actually "the policy" would do as much (help the wider native population) if the laws were worked more in favor of tribal sovereignty. as it is now, tribes can only permit the level of gambling as that within the state their land happens to fall within, even though tribes are legally a higher sovereign entity than those same states, whom have been allowed by the u.s. government to impose their will.


-I grew up outside of Palm Springs, with two reservations nearby. One was a relatively new tribe with Indian gaming.

the cahuilla? whadda ya mean "new tribe?" what are you talking about?


-The other was outside the heavily travelled routes and so had no gaming. They don't even have electricity to this day. Most don't have running water.

yes, more of that pre-indian gaming act policy in action.....


-As it stands now, a very few profit enormously, and whole communities are left in poverty. And no one cares because hey- "they've already got casinos".


yep...... at least that's the current excuse for inaction.

most of the casino models are based upon american business models..... it's no wonder though, when the u.s. is heavily involved in them. fantastic role model

[Cat Atomic]

39. I don't know what you mean.

'that doesn't mean they get one though, does it? no, in fact, none who have casinos now, or any form of gambling whatsoever, are "illegitimate" tribes..... so what was the point in bringing that up? it doesn't help anything, it only adds confusion really."

I said tribes are regularly established for the purpose of creating a casino. So yes, that means they put up a casino. Is that "legitimate"? I don't think so.

And no, I'm not saying the Morongo reservation is new. Only half of them are Cahuilla, I think, but they've been there since... eh... a long time. :P I was sort of muddled, though- it's late and my brain is doing short hand- forgive me. The newer tribes aren't on reservations near Palm Springs. If I recall, some have been established closer to L.A. or Orange County... that sort of thing.

*edited for coherence*

[kispoko]

40. couple things......

-I said tribes are regularly established for the purpose of creating a casino. So yes, that means they put up a casino. Is that "legitimate"? I don't think so.


to become "established," the tribe first must demonstrate longstanding intratribal (sometimes even intertribal, but within said group) contact and some form of group political influence, among other things, going back decades upon decades..... some of the criteria are really unfair, given that u.s. policy was established so they could not be met, in many instances.


the indian gaming act has not been established very long, since '88 off the top of my head..... and since '88, there haven't been ANY tribes recognizzed which hadn't petitioned before indian gaming was even permissible.....


so what are these "illegitimate tribes" you claim were established for the sole benefit of creating a casino?

let's also establish that, even if one were, that wouldn't make them illegitimate..... just a good ways 'lost,' in my opinion.......


but i want to hear from you which were created for these purposes, and aren't legitimate. it is hardly that easy, there are tribes who've been waiting around since the '70's just to ahve their petitions heard!



-And no, I'm not saying the Morongo reservation is new. Only half of them are Cahuilla, I think, but they've been there since... eh... a long time. :P I was sort of muddled, though- it's late and my brain is doing short hand- forgive me. The newer tribes aren't on reservations near Palm Springs. If I recall, some have been established closer to L.A. or Orange County... that sort of thing.

*edited for coherence*


please understand, just because some of them may seem "new" to you, they have nonetheless been around since time immemorial, whether the government recognized them or not.

many were also terminated in the '50's, and have recently "re-established" themselves in the area..... some are still waiting.


i promise you though, the kumeyaay, and others there are not "new" by any stretch of the human imagination. and those that survived have ALL been fighting to be recognized for many years now, even before casinos crossed anyone's mind.

[Cat Atomic]

44. Interesting

"since '88, there haven't been ANY tribes recognizzed which hadn't petitioned before indian gaming was even permissible...."

Is that so? I wasn't aware of that, to be honest. Do you have any background info or links on this? I'd like to read a bit more on it.

[kispoko]

48. yep

-"since '88, there haven't been ANY tribes recognizzed which hadn't petitioned before indian gaming was even permissible...."

Is that so? I wasn't aware of that, to be honest. Do you have any background info or links on this? I'd like to read a bit more on it.


you could look on the bia site on the dept. of interior's page, but it's been closed now for about a few years per judge's orders, because of the mockery gale norton has made of the process (not that it wasn't a mockery before, mind you, it's just that this administration typically outdid even that).

they have..... well, *had* listed, all groups petitioning, and broke down recent petitions, rejections and those recognized alike, so you could better see what went into the process. they also have/had listed when they first officially petitioned the gov.


there have, however, been a couple groups who've been recognized outside of that process, and come back into being since the act. perhaps this is where the confusion comes in, but it's of significant note to mention even they had been seeking recoginition by the same process, petitioning the bia, long before gaming came about. even those groups had historic presence as bands though, and had simply been terminated at some point, and seeking since then for proper re-recognition from the same congress which unlawfully abrogated the treaties and other ententes which recognized their sovereignty.

[Must_B_Free]

49. Revenge is sweet

heh suckers. You made the deal, now you have to stand by it.

[Ladyhawk]

50. The Mi-Wuks here have opened a casino.

The city of Tuolumne is revitalizing. I drove through it the other day and couldn't believe the changes. West Side reopened under the auspices of Black Oak Casino. Buildings that were falling apart have been renovated. As long as the money is being spread around--I don't know if it is--I'm all for it.

I don't gamble, though. I think it's addictive and lands folks in the poor house. White men used the native Americans' propensity for alcohol addiction. Maybe a little turnabout is fair play? I don't know.

[The Straight Story]

55. 2 Wrongs?

White men used the native Americans' propensity for alcohol addiction. Maybe a little turnabout is fair play?

turnabout perhaps had it been our distant relatives, but to say our ancestors did X so you can now do Y to people alive today to get back at them seems a tad iffy imho.

Indian tribes killed others indians long before we came here over land disputes and other things - one I can recall from the midwest actually forced the men of the tribe they conquered to live as women, and it was the leader of that tribe which struck a peace deal later on with Penn, I believe, in the pennsylvania area. This was some info I gleaned from 'New American History' circa 1935 (by Woodward, W.E.
an early liberal history of the US and an excellent read, my copy is at work where I have been re-reading it. You can still buy it from abebooks.com).

People have been screwing others over for centuries - perhaps our goal should not be to go out and correct all the mistakes, but to work together so that they stop and don't occur again. Giving someone a moral pass because of past wrongs done to them won't do anything but keep enabling the problem imho.

[Ladyhawk]

56. I guess one of the reasons I said this

is I'm not sure opening a casino is a wrong. :shrug:

I put gambling in the same category as other minor addictive behaviors. Should alcohol be illegal? Should marijuana be illegal? Should coffee be illegal? I don't think so.

What about the heavy addictive drugs? I'm not sure.

What about addictive casinos? I think they should be legal.

Addictive video games? Legal.

Also, our government has been oppressing these people for centuries. The oppression never really stopped. If they can find a loophole to lift their people out of poverty, why not let them?

[The Straight Story]

57. I would agree with you on this

We can say that it ruins lives but is this, in a sense, saying that people are weak and unable to make rational decisions themselves (in regards to what we deem is best for them?). I sort of take a Thomas Szasz view in this way on the whole thing.

Some are defining a moral right and wrong in this whole ordeal and want to legislate based upon the idea that some people will do the 'wrong' thing so we must limit their choices. That is not to say that a community can not judge based on their local values (which one can break down into moralistic and financial if they wish) what type of businesses they want to occupy their boundaries and deny permits to those which they feel will not make a positive contribution to the overall community (say for instance they examined stats from other similar communities and found that crime rose, traffic doubled, but the revenue generated was not enough to offset the cost to the city for the new needed services whereas they may find the opposite to be true for some other businesses. Or they could find they are making money but not enough to make it worthwhile in a longer term when they project the growth rate of revenue versus the increase in pay for additional police/other services over a ten year period, and so on).

Businesses use city owned services such as streets, et al, and so I don't see it as too big a deal that they have a say in what sort of businesses go into their city. There are exceptions we can find obviously, but just addressing the base idea.