Received: from [144.92.182.116] by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id NAA36210; 8.6.9W/42; Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:57:07 -0600 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 14:02:34 CST From: "jim blair" Sender: jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu Message-Id: <50570.jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu> To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu, jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu, alt-politics-greens@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Tribes, Treaties and Libertarians Status: RO Tribes, Treaties and Libertarians Many people are starting to question the obvious inequality that is being incorporated in current court decisions and policies regarding the status of Indian Tribes. Are all US citizens equal before the law? Or, are members of the tribes citizens of other sovereign countries with which the US is bound by treaties? The history of court decisions has not been consistent in this area. The original treaties, signed in the last century (and not honored very consistently) were treaties with foreign countries. In the early 20th century the social atmosphere favored assimilation of the various immigrant cultures, and this carried over to policy towards the Indians. They were taught English in their schools and in the 1920's the members of the various tribes became United States citizens. When anyone else became a US citizen, they surrender any allegiance to, and terminate their citizenship with, their other nation. It was assumed that this applied to the Indians as well. From then until the 1960's , the many treaties granting the tribes special hunting and fishing rights were ignored, it being assumed that as US citizens, they were subject to the same laws as everyone else. Then in the 1960's and 70's a series of court decisions brought the treaties back to life. And some tribes which had lost their status (terminated) were restored. FIRST GAMBLING, WHAT NEXT? By the late 1980's the tribes were asserting their claims as sovereign nations, and one consequence of this was the spread of legalized gambling. When court decisions upheld the right of tribes to operate first Bingo Halls, and then casinos, legal gambling quickly spread from Nevada and Atlantic City. Indian gaming is only a small portion of the total gambling picture in terms of total dollars, but it is still the cause of the rest. Since people know that there will be casinos, they figure that they may as well have them too. The opposition was blown away. WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? There are two different ways to view this development. I think to a political conservative and also to a supporter of the concept of equality of all citizens before the law, this is a potentially very dangerous. Things which are legal for some are forbidden to others, based on their tribal status, almost the same as their race. This whole idea is contrary to the ONE NATION and "melting pot" model of America. Political Liberals generally support tribal sovereignty, since they support the model of a "multi- cultural" America composed of different ethnic groups which compete for special quotas and protection for members of their group. The "salad" model of America. I think there is an instinctive support among many for anything which "helps the Indians". This is based on a guilt feeling over the destruction and displacement of the Indian tribes during the past 500 years. As though policies today can alter the past. But most who feel this guilt are not prepared to follow the logic to its conclusion, and pack up and move back to where "they came from". The attitude seems to be that it is OK to rob the "indigenous people" of their land as long as we feel guilty about it. I will leave it to a psychologist to discuss the implications to a society which is taught, not pride in themselves and their history, but rather guilt over their very EXISTENCE. At any rate the logical end consequences of establishing some 500 Indian tribes as sovereign nations within the borders of the US has not been explored very thoroughly. They will be similar to the "independent homelands" in South Africa, which also exercised their sovereignty by building casinos. Then some of them had the elected government overthrown by a military dictatorship, putting the government of South Africa to the test of their commitment to the sovereignty of the "home lands". How will the US government respond when an Indian tribe is taken over by a non-elected tribal government? THE LIBERTARIAN DILEMMA For libertarians there is a dilemma. While I think most libertarians support equal rights for all citizens, and are skeptical of special "group rights", they also favor the legalization of not only gambling but also drugs and prostitution. We would not have legal casinos now except for the sovereign status of the tribes. And the same process could lead to the legalizing of the other "vices". ,,,,,,, _________ooo__(_O O_)__ooo___________________________________ (_) (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) University of Wisconsin, Madison USA