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.