Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

Rob's reply
>> That's because the New York constitution outlaws this type of gambling ... unless you check the "American Indian" box on your census survey. <<

For starters, New York allows several types of gambling. So the author's screed is focused narrowly on a couple types of gambling. There's no "monopoly" on gambling overall.

More important, his characterization of who gets to operate casinos is flatly wrong. It has nothing to do with checking the "American Indian" box on the Census; in fact, individuals can't open Indian casinos. As with state lotteries, only governments—i.e., federally recognized Indian nations—can open Indian casinos.

>> Since Indian tribes are considered sovereign nations, they are able to operate these casinos after negotiating with the government. <<

They're considered sovereign nations because they were sovereign nations before the United States curtailed their independence. That is, before the US existed.

>> One question: Why does a foreign country need our permission to run a casino?

The answer is money. <<

Wrong. The answer is that the US has broken the treaties it signed with Indian nations, drastically reduced their land and population, and forced them into a quasi-sovereign status. If the tribes had their way, they'd have the freedom to act independently.

Which money is the author referring to, anyway? The money states force tribes to pay for the "privilege" of operating a casino? If that's such a windfall for states, why wouldn't they open up gaming to all comers and reap more revenues? They certainly have the right to do so.

>> The government/gatekeeper certainly gets a substantial cut of this in exchange for giving these tribes a monopoly over an entire industry. <<

It's not "a monopoly over an entire industry." It's a limited monopoly over a few games within a huge industry.

But let's say the author's characterization of the "gatekeeper" role is correct. How is it the tribes' fault that the US government has set up the states as gatekeepers for them? Does he think the tribes want it that way? Does he think the states want to end the so-called monopoly but can't? Wrong on both counts.

>> I use the term "monopoly" because any New Yorker who is not an American Indian cannot open the same type of business. <<

The author uses the term "monopoly" incorrectly. No American Indian can open that type of business either. Only a federally recognized tribal government can.

>> Indian tribes get to transcend the law and do something white, black and Hispanic people can't do. <<

Wrong again. US law establishes what the federal, state, and county governments can do. It also establishes what tribal governments can do. Tribes aren't "transcending" the law, they're obeying it.

The key word here is "tribes." Tribes can do things that states can do because both are quasi-sovereign political entities. Both states and tribes can do things that individuals—whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Indians—can't.

>> The only problem seems to be the law. <<

Yeah, it's such a problem that Indian tribes are acting within the law as duly passed by the US Congress.

>> The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires Indian gaming occur on Indian lands. That means the casino is operating illegally. <<

If that ruling stands, the Oneida nation may close its Turning Stone casino. So what? That has nothing to do with the hundreds of other Indian casinos that are operating legally.

>> This sort of contradiction was inevitable. <<

It's inevitable that one exception has arisen to a legally constituted and smoothly functioning industry? Talk about the exception proving the rule.

>> We have learned throughout history that giving a certain race or ethnic group a legal preference is morally wrong. <<

How many times do we have to hear this misstatement of Indian law? The US Congress and courts have given a "legal preference" to political entities—that is, Indian nations—not racial entities. Indian nations could be and sometimes are multiracial and it doesn't affect their sovereign rights.

>> Turning Stone is a fun place to go, but I don't see why the color of my skin or my European ancestry should determine whether I can open one, too. <<

It doesn't. Indians can't open casinos; only tribes can. Convince a federally recognized tribe to enroll you as a member and you too can share in running a casino.

Related links
Indian rights = special rights
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

. . .