Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

From the Amador Ledger-Dispatch:

Rob's reply
J. Scully's main claim seems to be that tribes have "absolute power." That must be news to them.

>> The tribes could then mitigate these impacts -- if the tribes chose to. If the tribes felt these impacts were not important, our concerns would be ignored. After all, these tribes are a sovereign nation and our laws do not apply to them. <<

Wrong. Most federal laws and some state laws apply to tribes. Moreover, tribes have to negotiate a compact with their states before they can proceed with gaming. That compact allows non-Indians to negotiate restrictions on Indian casinos.

>> The casino's response was that they would conduct an internal investigation, however their overall attitude was, "Don't bother with a lawsuit, we are a sovereign nation, untouchable by your laws." <<

If the tribe had their own judicial system, a person could sue in their courts. Some tribes have a judicial system, some tribes don't.

Of course, we don't know whether this "attitude" is something the tribe expressed or something the author imagined. Given Scully's obvious bias, it's probably the latter.

>> Hardly a day goes by without a newspaper article about a planned casino or misdeeds at an existing casino. <<

The vast majority of which are about planned casinos, not misdeeds at casinos. This shouldn't be surprising since Indians have a few hundred casinos either completed or in various stages of construction or expansion.

>> Every time when local citizens rise to protect their property or assert their rights, the standard answer is, "We are a sovereign nation, there is nothing you can do to stop us." <<

I'd love to see this phony "standard answer" quoted somewhere. No, the standard answer is more like, "We will work with the local community to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks of our casino."

>> To my great dismay I have heard attorneys and even some judges regurgitate this "sovereign nation" mantra as they throw up their hands in professional surrender. <<

Why wouldn't they "regurgitate" this "mantra," since it's the law of the land? Apparently Scully is dismayed at his own ignorance of constitutional law. (I assume Scully is a "he.")

>> Our legal community tells us it is the "law of the land" and they are powerless and so are the citizens. <<

More likely the legal community tells you you'll have to work through the standard compacting process set forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. You can't impose your will on the tribe any more than it can impose its will on you.

>> The legal community tells us we must helplessly stand by, while "sovereign nations" trample and ignore every law, code or regulation from land use to sexual harassment. <<

See above about how tribes are subject to federal and state laws.

Bush, Schwarzenegger, and tribes corrupt?
>> The "sovereign nation" status translates into absolute local power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. <<

I wonder if Scully opposes President Bush's war on Iraq, or Governor Schwarzenegger's raid on local tax revenues, for this very reason. I'm guessing not.

Tribes don't have absolute power, since they're subject to federal law just like states. In fact, a state government is the best analogy to a tribal government.

Is Scully worried about the "absolute power" of state governments over local concerns? Probably not. Only those brown-skinned Indians seem to scare him.

>> " Slavery and poll taxes are just two examples of numerous social horrors that once were the "laws of the land." These laws were changed when Americans decided that change was so imperative that it was worth fighting for. <<

Yes, you certainly can limit the tribes' power by getting Congress to pass laws. Therefore, quit whining and complaining about how tribes have absolute power and are beyond the democratic process. Neither claim is true.

>> As Americans we are bound by a sacred duty to fight laws which contradict all of our values about equality and our right to decide our own local destiny. <<

The Revolutionary War and the US Constitution weren't about deciding "our own local destiny." They were about forming a union with a representative national government. If Scully thinks the Founders wanted to establish autonomous city-states, he's sadly mistaken.

>> Will we reward these men's sacrifices by telling them we stood by, while a "sovereign nation" essentially invaded our community? <<

Here may be the crux of Scully's problem. Sovereign Indian nations haven't invaded Scully's community. Scully's community has invaded sovereign Indian lands. The Indians were their first, in other words. If Scully doesn't like it, he can move elsewhere.

>> The fist of a united Amador County must firmly grasp the sword of free speech and plunge it in the heart of the "sovereign nation" concept until it is dead. <<

I doubt free speech will be enough to do it. Especially free speech as ill-informed as this essay. Try passing a constitutional amendment overturning almost 200 years of accepted Indian law. That's about the only way to eliminate the "sovereign nation" concept.

>> We must come together and speak as one angry community that will never tolerate any "sovereign nation" or outside money interests that would dictate to us how we develop as a community. <<

The federal and state governments, which are both "sovereign," have far more impact on Scully's community than an Indian nation does. Does Scully plan to plunge a sword into Sacramento or Washington DC?

>> This will not be easy, but if we focus our outrage on the proper state and federal officials and continue to pound them with negative publicity and their blatant disregard of core American values, we can embarrass the politicians. <<

By "core American values," I assume Scully means greed and self-interest. Yes, those have always been core American values ever since the Europeans began decimating the first Indians they met.

>> For the record, I have no problem with the tribes being self-governing. <<

For the record, this statement is a crock. If Scully were really concerned about infringements on the local government, he'd be complaining about federal and state as well as tribal sovereignty.

Tribes govern surrounding communities?
>> However, these laws have evolved to the extent that they are in effect governing the surrounding communities. <<

Every sovereign body affects every other with its laws and actions. Especially its neighbors. If other states use up the Colorado River, for instance, it directly affects the availability of water in California.

That Scully has just discovered that one sovereign affects another is testament to his political blindness. Or he's been aware of the issue all along, but is only now upset because Indians are the ones asserting their sovereignty.

>> Only then will they change this well-meaning but poorly crafted law. <<

Tribal sovereignty is based on almost 200 years of law, not one "well-meaning law." If the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act were to vanish, tribes would still assert their sovereign rights under many other laws.

>> We are fighting for our homes. <<

So are the Indians, and again, they were here first.

Related links
The facts about tribal sovereignty
The facts about Indian gaming

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

. . .