scholarly journals A Raw Deal: Conflicts Over Tribal Sovereignty and Casino Proliferation

Elements ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mooney

Federalism has played an important role in the explosion of legalized gambling in the United States in the last two decades. Indian gaming, in particular, has challenged state and national governments to come to terms with the place of American Indian tribes within the federalist system and organize a meaningful framework for the expansion of gaming on tribal lands. Now largely controlled by a federal statutory framework, Indian gaming has left states in a subordinate position in negotiating the establisment of major casino enterprises within their own borders. Confusion in states' rights during negotiations has further weakened their bargaining position, leading to extensive tribal casino development. The cooperation between states and tribes and states and casino corporations have facilitated casino proliferation throughout the United States, a trend that appears destined to contiue until the market is fully saturated.

Anthropology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Killsback

Federal Indian law (FIL), also known as American Indian law, is the body of doctrine that regulates the political relationship between American Indian and Alaska Native governments and the federal government. FIL is best understood as the development of this “government-to-government” relationship, which intersects with other bodies of law like constitutional law, criminal law, and environmental law. FIL is comprised of legal doctrines, statutes, judicial decisions, treaties, and executive orders, all of which have direct influences on the rights and sovereignty of Indian tribes. In the United States there are 573 federally recognized tribes that are subject to the rights and privileges, as well as the consequences, of FIL. These federally recognized tribes are the third sovereign authority in the United States—the other two are states and the federal government—that retain inherent rights and that exercise and enjoy sovereignty and self-governance on their own lands. The historical development of FIL in the United States constitutes an important starting point in understanding the special relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government. The origins of FIL lay in three US Supreme Court cases known as the “Marshall trilogy,” after Chief Justice John Marshall, the presiding chief justice of Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). At that time, the primary questions centered on the sovereign rights of Indian tribes, that is, whether Indians have dominion over themselves and their lands. Throughout the development of FIL, until today, questions of Indian tribal sovereignty—or Indigenous nation sovereignty—remained contentious as Indians continued to fight for treaty rights, autonomy, and self-determination. FIL can be described as a series of wins and losses for American Indians in their fight for sovereign rights. In the end, however, the study of FIL is equally the study of how the United States was able to legally subjugate America’s indigenous peoples and acquire their lands. FIL is basically the study of America’s justification for Native America’s colonization and the genocide perpetrated against American Indians. The literature on FIL or American Indian law is vast, but the most valuable resources are authored by and for attorneys and for students of law. Although the disciplines of Native American and Indigenous studies encompass facets of American Indian and Indigenous peoples’ lives, scholarship in FIL has proven to be beneficial. The resources cited in this article represent some of the widely used texts that provide a solid foundation for studies in FIL.


1979 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Svensson

Individualism is the foundation of democratic theory and practise in the United States. A multi-ethnic, but not really a multi-communal society in the same sense as Northern Ireland or India, the United States has not generally had to confront the nature and justification of its historical opposition to group rights and communal social and political organization. Only the American Indian tribes, with their treaty-mandated communalism, have presented exceptions to this pattern. This paper explores the assumptions underlying liberal democratic attitudes towards communalism, the ways in which group claims pose challenges to conventional notions of justice and equality, and the utility of introducing alternative assumptions about the nature and role of groups in democratic society. Discussion centers on the most recent attempt to reduce the group rights of American Indian tribes.


1982 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Anthony Ryan

The federal role in American Indian education has its basis in the treaty and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In the early years of the republic it was recognized that, in the interest of protecting the borders of the Western frontier, the cost of war with the Indians was much higher than the cost of education. Until 1871, in accordance with international law, the United States treated with Indian tribes as separate nations. Commissioners appointed by the President frequently negotiated treaties with specific provisions for education, whose Christianizing and civilizing functions were perceived to be instrumental in obtaining amicable relations. Through the quid pro quo of the treaty process, the United States and Indian tribes established their peculiar relationship. This required that tribes surrender their external powers of sovereignty to the United States. Generally, this meant that they would not engage in treaties with competitive foreign powers such as Great Britain, France, or Spain. Treaties also acknowledged a federal title to their lands, subject to their rights of occupancy. When tribes ceded certain tracts of land that they already occupied, they were permitted to retain their internal powers of sovereignty and to receive financial consideration through specific treaty provisions and through a more generalized duty of care and protection from the United States. As a result, specific and general treaty provisions on education promised to educate American Indians. Appropriation acts pursuant to specific treaty provisions and for the Civilization Fund confirmed the basis and became the policy of the United States in its early federal role in American Indian education.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Kirkwood

In the first decade of the twentieth century, a rising generation of British colonial administrators profoundly altered British usage of American history in imperial debates. In the process, they influenced both South African history and wider British imperial thought. Prior usage of the Revolution and Early Republic in such debates focused on the United States as a cautionary tale, warning against future ‘lost colonies’. Aided by the publication of F. S. Oliver's Alexander Hamilton (1906), administrators in South Africa used the figures of Hamilton and George Washington, the Federalist Papers, and the drafting of the Constitution as an Anglo-exceptionalist model of (modern) self-government. In doing so they applied the lessons of the Early Republic to South Africa, thereby contributing to the formation of the Union of 1910. They then brought their reconception of the United States, and their belief in the need for ‘imperial federation’, back to the metropole. There they fostered growing diplomatic ties with the US while recasting British political history in-light-of the example of American federation. This process of inter-imperial exchange culminated shortly after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles when the Boer Generals Botha and Smuts were publicly presented as Washington and Hamilton reborn.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document