In North America, Native peoples established casinos as a way to better their tribes through increasing their income. While these casinos have improved the lives of some Native North Americans, they are also a source of conflict within and outside of tribes. Furthermore, casinos have also given rise to new stereotypes surrounding indigenous people because outsiders do not understand the benefits of gaming for the tribes. As my hometown contains a federally recognized tribe that runs a casino, I feel that by learning about gaming in Native tribes, I can better understand the advantages and disadvantages of casinos for tribes and the conflicts that arise because of them.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Native North Americans faced dire living conditions. …show more content…
They began by opening a bingo parlor, which quickly grew into a full casino. Once this happened, that state got involved because they believed they should have control over gaming on sovereign lands. To set the first precedent, the Seminoles won the case. This decision was repeated in the case against the Calabazon in Southern California. However, at this point, Congress decided to step in and regulate the casinos. Consequently, in 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed and it defined the classes of gaming in order to determine whether the tribe or other people regulate the casino. As a result, non-tribal members run the bulk of casinos on tribal land. In order to maintain some control in the management of casinos, tribes can establish compacts between the tribe and the state government. Once again, the Seminoles set a precedent when they sued the state of Florida for not agreeing to enter into a compact. In 1996, an amendment to IGRA declared that the Secretary of the Interior can enforce a compact without the state’s collaboration if the state refuses to cooperate. Other states, like California, have been more willing to negotiate with these sovereign nations. Historically, California has been supportive of Indian gaming, passing Proposition 5 in 1998, Proposition 1A in 2000, and Propositions 94-97 in …show more content…
For example, many groups of Native people attempting to become a federally recognized tribe have difficulties meeting the standards because they cannot prove historical and cultural continuity with a previous tribe (NAS 10 Jan 18, 2016). Often, this inability to verify a connection with their ancestral tribe is a result of “de-Indianization,” in which many indigenous people lost their lands and culture. After gaming became the norm, the process for becoming federally recognized became more stringent. Furthermore, within tribes, a practice of de-enrollment has sprung up to exclude those who do not meet the definition of a legitimate tribal member. There is disagreement within the tribe as to what constitutes a member. Processes such as de-enrollment and verification affect many contemporary indigenous people and their ability to be a part of a federally recognized
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Native North Americans faced dire living conditions. …show more content…
They began by opening a bingo parlor, which quickly grew into a full casino. Once this happened, that state got involved because they believed they should have control over gaming on sovereign lands. To set the first precedent, the Seminoles won the case. This decision was repeated in the case against the Calabazon in Southern California. However, at this point, Congress decided to step in and regulate the casinos. Consequently, in 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed and it defined the classes of gaming in order to determine whether the tribe or other people regulate the casino. As a result, non-tribal members run the bulk of casinos on tribal land. In order to maintain some control in the management of casinos, tribes can establish compacts between the tribe and the state government. Once again, the Seminoles set a precedent when they sued the state of Florida for not agreeing to enter into a compact. In 1996, an amendment to IGRA declared that the Secretary of the Interior can enforce a compact without the state’s collaboration if the state refuses to cooperate. Other states, like California, have been more willing to negotiate with these sovereign nations. Historically, California has been supportive of Indian gaming, passing Proposition 5 in 1998, Proposition 1A in 2000, and Propositions 94-97 in …show more content…
For example, many groups of Native people attempting to become a federally recognized tribe have difficulties meeting the standards because they cannot prove historical and cultural continuity with a previous tribe (NAS 10 Jan 18, 2016). Often, this inability to verify a connection with their ancestral tribe is a result of “de-Indianization,” in which many indigenous people lost their lands and culture. After gaming became the norm, the process for becoming federally recognized became more stringent. Furthermore, within tribes, a practice of de-enrollment has sprung up to exclude those who do not meet the definition of a legitimate tribal member. There is disagreement within the tribe as to what constitutes a member. Processes such as de-enrollment and verification affect many contemporary indigenous people and their ability to be a part of a federally recognized