Oneida Nation casino, May 2004.
Oneida Nation casino, May 2004.
Chippewa Nation casino, May 2004.
In 1993, Uncle $am cleared the way for recognizing First Nations people as having their own authority above that of states in the united $tates. Various treaties and the Constitution itself mandate that tribes be treated the same way as other countries. Since 1993 casinos have arisen very quickly in the indigenous controlled territories of North America.
Governors of various u.$. states have not been happy and tend to think of these First Nations in ways contrary to the U.S. Constitution--namely as someone else to apply state taxes to. In MIM's opinion, the governors should back off and leave the choice of casinos to the First Nations as a sort of ironic reparations within a sick capitalist logic.
Opinions on the casinos in the First Nations divide into three main camps:
1) Those who oppose the whole idea of casinos and say it is detrimental to indigenous culture.
2) Those who support "development" and seek to put the First Nations on a firmer economic basis.
3) Those who support the casinos but do not like the distribution of their profits.
MIM has no line on these particular divisions, because each contains an element of truth contributing toward the socialist future. The First Nations people need to unite to move forward.
Those against casinos on moral grounds have their point. The risks of exposure to organized crime mentality are not to be denied. On the other hand, most of the money is coming from the oppressor nation retirees who find casinos thrilling. One may also question the wisdom of avoiding the setup of huge corporations such as casinos. However, unlike Greens, we at MIM believe corporations are just manifestations of capitalism. Rejecting corporations instead of capitalism is not a solution. Capitalism will still bring disaster whether or not First Nations set up mega-corporations.
There is the opinion of the capitalist-minded tribal leaders who see jobs and money flowing from casinos, a way to jump-start economies when First Nations often contain the most poverty and unemployment in North America. They point out that traditional indigenous people did not stand still in their time and also tried to improve their material conditions hundreds of years ago before the white man. These tribal leaders tend to see the other two camps as simply misunderstanding the difficulties of functioning in the capitalist world.
Then there is the third camp of opinion we have heard from lower-paid but regularly employed First Nations workers. They tend to favor the casinos but wonder why they are not receiving bigger profit-shares. People would be wrong to assume MIM supports this third camp. Many in this camp ominously hint that most of the money going into the casino is hidden and that tribal leaders abscond with the funds, with the underlying notion that First Nation people are really no different than Enron-type Amerikkkans. Such an opinion may intend to inflame state authorities for oppressor nation action, so while MIM understands the concerns about accountability, MIM does not endorse this particular opinion above the others. One supporter of this view self-critically and sardonically asks why the tribes don't let them "drink" away the profits. This raises another flaw of the view of lower-paid First Nations workers, because the whole history of indigenous people points to a more group-oriented approach: 1) land should not be sold by individuals 2) money is not distributed to individuals before programs for First Nations as a whole.