Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

An Indian National Bank?

By David Yeagley
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 13, 2004

American Indians need our own national bank. The annual income from "Indian" casinos is now $16.2 billion. That's ten time's larger than the BIA Trust budget. President Bush's proposed 2004 budget for the entire Department of the Interior is $10.7 billion. Though that increases the BIA's Trust by $168.5 million, it still totals a mere half-billion dollars. It's time to talk seriously about new management of Indian money.

And the BIA itself stands accused of embezzling or otherwise losing track of anywhere from $10 to $176 billion over the last several decades. The BIA is simply an archaic and corrupt management bureaucracy, with a guaranteed revenue, and no incentive for fiscal responsibility. It must be replaced.

And let's correct an inconsistent concept about Indian money itself. Indian casino income should not be differentiated from treaty money. Casino money is still money that comes to Indians because we're Indians. Casino money exists by virtue of historical Indian treaties. Why declassify casino money as something other than treaty money? Indian business income is no different from treaty income. Therefore casino money should be dispensed equitably to all Indians.

But not through the BIA. Though the BIA was designed to distribute goods and services to the different tribes according to their different needs, and to "manage" Indian land and money, the BIA has failed to do this wisely. Its record is dismal.

An Indian national bank can do better. As a competitive business, the bank would have to be accountable, profitable, and have to expand its interests. The bank itself would compete with other banks. The Indian bank could invest and be invested in, like any other bank.

All casino money must be first turned over to the bank. No tribe should have any advantage over another. Right now, California and Connecticut "tribes" are bringing in some 40 percent of the total casino income. But half of America's historically ‘federally recognized' tribes don't even have casinos. Some 1.8 million Indians aren't affected by the staggering casino profits. In 2001, 39 of the 290 Indian casinos alone took in $8.4 billion. That means 13 percent of the Indian casinos made 66 percent of the profit.

How so? It depends on the location of the casino. "Indian" casinos are established just outside large cities. They draw crowds, but against the will of the non-Indian people of those suburban, rural communities. Casino management therefore pays off officials—from local town councilmen, to state representatives, to the Washington senators who approve the "federal recognition" for these new "pop-up" casino "tribes." There are 330 casinos today, and the number increases constantly.

An Indian national bank might curb the fraud. If by law all casino profits were deposited in the Indian bank, the money could at least be kept tract of. Eventually, the Indian bank could even own all the casinos. Perhaps the Indian bank could even replace the BIA.

The Indian bank could distribute funds to the tribes with equity, because each tribe could look to its own regional branch of the bank. Much of the demographic, need-based patterns established by the BIA could still be useful.

The "socialist" appearance of this management is not foreign to Indians. American Indians have always been classified as a "group" by federal law, and always dealt with as a group, despite our different languages, religions, cultures, and geographic locales. If we accept this, then we must accept an Indian national bank on the same basis.

Furthermore, some tribes bought their treaties with blood, while others surrendered without a fight, and never actually made treaties with the government. They are benefiting from the blood of other tribes. Interestingly, the "tribes" of Connecticut and California, with the most lucrative casinos, are precisely the most unworthy, if they're even Indian.

Some tribes are simply not capable of self-sustenance. They have no natural resources, and their populations are isolated. Right now, they still need the BIA. However, the Indian bank could provide them with more than the BIA ever could or ever will.

If syndicated casinos and corrupt politicians are not going away, then Indians need to make some serious decisions about our relationships to them. Gambling is a nasty business, with great liabilities. Indians have never been able to depend on the white man's word. Why are we so willing now to depend on his vices?

Without an Indian bank, non-Indian casino management companies may soon own the tribes. This spells the end of Indian sovereignty. An Indian bank may be our last hope.

Dr. David A. Yeagley is a published scholar, professionally recorded composer, and an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Liberal Studies. He's on the speakers list of Young America's Foundation. E-mail him at badeagle2000@yahoo.com. View his website at http://www.badeagle.com.

Rob's reply
>> The annual income from "Indian" casinos is now $16.2 billion. That's ten time's larger than the BIA Trust budget. <<

First, income isn't the same as profit. The profit after expenses is much lower.

Second, who cares what the BIA's budget for administering the scandal-plagued trust funds is. Why not compare Indian gaming income to the entire BIA budget, or the entire amount of trust funds owed to Indians (estimated at $300 billion by the Cobell plaintives)?

It seems Yeagley is trying to make some point about the large amounts Indians are earning from gaming. As usual, he makes his point badly.

>> And the BIA itself stands accused of embezzling or otherwise losing track of anywhere from $10 to $176 billion over the last several decades. The BIA is simply an archaic and corrupt management bureaucracy, with a guaranteed revenue, and no incentive for fiscal responsibility. It must be replaced. <<

Replaced by what...another government bureaucracy? Or is Yeagley advocating that the feds pay the full $176 billion (or $300 billion) owed and get out of the trust management business? Well, no, because he's a conservative. Conservatives only give away government money to the wealthy or the military. Otherwise they keep it to fund their deficit-based spending programs.

>> Indian casino income should not be differentiated from treaty money. <<

It shouldn't? Says who?

>> Casino money exists by virtue of historical Indian treaties. <<

No, not really. Tribes get government payments for health, education, and welfare because they signed treaties that remain valid. These government benefits are the equivalent of "treaty money." Tribes get casino earnings because the government passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to spur economic development on reservations.

The US would owe Indians "treaty money" whether it passed IGRA or not. It would owe them "treaty money" whether they were making money from gaming or not. The two sources of money are very different conceptually.

>> Why declassify casino money as something other than treaty money? Indian business income is no different from treaty income. <<

For purposes of establishing an Indian National Bank, maybe. Otherwise, they're different.

>> Therefore casino money should be dispensed equitably to all Indians. <<

Huh? First of all, who says "treaty money" gets distributed equitably? It doesn't. It should vary according to the terms of the treaties each tribe signed, although I don't know if it does. Perhaps more important, it varies according to the need. A huge reservation-based tribe like the Navajo won't get the same school or road funds that the tiny St. Augustine Band of Mission Indians gets.

To repeat for the nth time, Congress didn't intend Indian gaming to help all tribes equally. Nor does Congress intend its programs to help all states equally. Defense spending goes where the defense contractors are, farm subsidies go where the farms are, etc.

>> All casino money must be first turned over to the bank. <<

Ridiculous. By taking the money that funds their governments, this proposal would destroy tribal sovereignty.

>> No tribe should have any advantage over another. <<

Tribes already have huge advantages over other tribes. These advantages depend on their population, land base, natural resources, history and culture, and a host of other factors. You can't equalize tribes any more than you could equalize California and Rhode Island or Alaska and Delaware.

>> They draw crowds, but against the will of the non-Indian people of those suburban, rural communities. <<

If so, the non-Indians may want to move elsewhere. The Indians were their first. Their rights and privileges should have priority, for once.

>> Casino management therefore pays off officials—from local town councilmen, to state representatives, to the Washington senators who approve the "federal recognition" for these new "pop-up" casino "tribes." <<

Tribes and casino companies make campaign contributions to politicians, but Congress has recognized only seven tribes. Most tribes seeking recognition go through the BIA's recognition process and don't get approved. Senators who get contributions have nothing to do with these decisions.

>> An Indian national bank might curb the fraud. <<

What fraud? Yeagley hasn't established that fraud exists.

>> Eventually, the Indian bank could even own all the casinos. Perhaps the Indian bank could even replace the BIA. <<

Why don't we set up a non-Indian national bank to take over all the state and local government functions, while we're at it? This national bank might eventually replace the federal government. Does that sound like political and economic nonsense? The same goes for Yeagley's proposal.

>> The "socialist" appearance of this management is not foreign to Indians. American Indians have always been classified as a "group" by federal law, and always dealt with as a group, despite our different languages, religions, cultures, and geographic locales. If we accept this, then we must accept an Indian national bank on the same basis. <<

But Yeagley doesn't accept this. He's railed against the "socialism" (his mistaken word) inherent in the BIA, the reservation system, and the distribution of treaty benefits. But now he accepts and advocates "socialism"? Check his bank account; maybe some casino company has paid him to change his opinion 180 degrees.

>> Interestingly, the "tribes" of Connecticut and California, with the most lucrative casinos, are precisely the most unworthy, if they're even Indian. <<

Spoken like someone who lives in the Midwest and doesn't know much about Indian history, especially on the coasts. Some people have questioned the provenance of the three recognized tribes in Connecticut, but no one has questioned the long, well-documented history of California's 100-plus tribes. In some cases, these tribes have an archaeological record that goes back 10,000 years.

Check the accompanying pictures if you think California's tribes don't have centuries of history and culture behind them. Educate yourself so the rest of us don't have to do it.

>> Without an Indian bank, non-Indian casino management companies may soon own the tribes. <<

Wrong. IGRA limits the return a non-Indian managment company can earn from a contract with an Indian tribe running a casino. Non-Indians will always be minority participants in Indian gaming operations by statutory law.

>> This spells the end of Indian sovereignty. <<

If it could happen, it might spell the end of Indian sovereignty. Fortunately, it can't. But Yeagley's Indian national bank could. Who would control the money taken from Indian tribes? The federal government? A non-Indian board of directors? Or the 560-plus recognized tribes? What would they do: set up a parliament of 560-plus members, with at least one represent per tribe, to administer the bank?

Clearly the whole idea is unworkable. Yeagley hasn't thought one iota about how such a harebrained scheme would work. I imagine a "national bank" light bulb went off over his head and he wrote this column immediately. Try checking with a banking authority before you waste any more time on this, bright boy.

More bad-mouthing of "Bad Eagle"
A reply from Indianz.com posted 7/15/04:

Related links
Yeagley the Indian apple
The facts about Indian gaming
The facts about tribal sovereignty

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .