I know that my sister worked at Foxwoods, and while it was a decent job, the difference between the way NA workers and non-NA workers were treated shows that racism is alive and well on the reservation as well.
My first assumption is that this stems from the conflict between "traditionals" and "assimilated" Indians that has been around since Europeans had political power in the Americas. Do you think that is the case?
It is that intra-tribal conflict that perpetuated a lot of the problems on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the seventies. AIM members were invited to the reservation because traditionals on the reservation received no aid, acknowledgment from the government. Assimilated Indians were given cushy jobs by the Tribal Council Chair, Dick Wilson. There's a guy who lived up to his name. Both sides of the tribe were pitted against each other over the scarce resources available on the reservation, especially in way of employment.
They fear change, plain and simple. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them.
I am talking about institutional racism here as well. It wasn't a nod and a wink....Indians were promised a job with a huge salary, even if they just chose to clean the bathrooms. Huge being a relative measure, of course. They didn't even show for work most of the time, but they still got paid, while my sister got hurt lifting change bags and they screwed her hardcore because they aren't bound by any labor laws.
She had spotless reviews, and was the #1 non-Indian employee up for promotion, but she was never promoted. Go figure. She was employee of the month 3 times, too, so it's not like this was all sour grapes.....
They are their own nation, within the borders of the US.
At least that's how the lawyer explained it to my sister when explaining that her lifetime 10% disability wouldn't get her shit from them, despite the fact they admitted it happened on the job. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of the plains tribes adopted the use of horses and firearms. I don't think there is a resistance to technology in general, but to technology that exploits the land and it's resources. It was AIM's publicly declared stance against these practices that had them named one of the nation's my dangerous groups.
That may not be true for ALL tribes or current reservations, but it was definitely a large for the Lakota. (The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne being the two tribes I know the most about both historically and concerning contemporary issues.)
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Kwea, that's my point exactly. (In response to the post where you outlined what you understood me to be saying).
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: The Nazi card was totally relevant. Why couldn't the Indians (Jews) just wake up and see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board?
I may not know a lot about modren American Indian culture, but I know enough about WWII that I'll hand this one off to any Jewish people who might want to point out some relevant inconsistencies in the comparison.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only valid point of comparison...and to be honest it is a point that makes a lot of modern people uncomfortable...it that some parts of modern society DID try to completely wipe all Indians off the face of the Earth.
We used disease, slash and burn tactics, and trickery at times to win our "manifest destiny".
That being said, we won. It is our land, not just theirs....and they weren't all noble savages either. They took it (the land) from others, often times in bloody wars, and practiced slavery with war captives as well.
What matters is where we go from here. I don't buy into a sense of entitlement that some Indians seem to have, nor will I take the blame for their current living conditions. It hardly seems fair to paint us, and our modern way of life, as abusing them and evil....and then turn around and insist we give them all our advantages of that same way of life.
There has to be SOME level of personal responsibility, somewhere, or things will never get any better for them.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Thank you Kwea, that's my point exactly. (In response to the post where you outlined what you understood me to be saying).
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: The Nazi card was totally relevant. Why couldn't the Indians (Jews) just wake up and see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board?
I may not know a lot about modren American Indian culture, but I know enough about WWII that I'll hand this one off to any Jewish people who might want to point out some relevant inconsistencies in the comparison.
Your point exactly? You have yet to clarify how you feel Indians should progress socially and spiritually.
And I stand by my analogy thus far. Genocide is genocide. The suffering and oppression of the Indians doesn't decrease or de-validate the suffering of the Jews and vice versa.
If Rivka or Tante or Lisa or anyone else on the board wants to inform me or help me understand as to why they might hold a different opinion or find my analogy to be unfounded I will listen and might even change my mind. I earnestly and humbly welcome being corrected. I have no problem admitting where I am wrong or could stand to learn something new. I enjoy learning. I've done it in this thread several times already.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, the problem was they didn't want to reform or assimilate the Jews, they wanted to exterminate them (and all other "undesirable" groups.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That being said, we won. It is our land, not just theirs....and they weren't all noble savages either. They took it (the land) from others, often times in bloody wars, and practiced slavery with war captives as well.
What matters is where we go from here. I don't buy into a sense of entitlement that some Indians seem to have, nor will I take the blame for their current living conditions. It hardly seems fair to paint us, and our modern way of life, as abusing them and evil....and then turn around and insist we give them all our advantages of that same way of life.
There has to be SOME level of personal responsibility, somewhere, or things will never get any better for them.
IMO, of course.
I agree with some of these points. However, "we" didn't win, someone's ancestors won. Many of us, like myself, probably have ancestors on both sides.
It is also important that we acknowledge that this is not one large group of people. The American continents were populated with thousands if not millions of distinct cultures. And the decimation of the majority of those people and their cultures was absolutely systematic and deliberate. The Spaniards wanted the gold, the English wanted the land.
I do believe we need to move forward from where we are now, giving a fair voice to all sides involved. But I also think it is important to know where we have come from, and what mistakes have been made, on both sides. Hell, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act wasn't passed until 1978.
And as has been mentioned, the Oglala Sioux have refused to accept the millions offered to them as a means of settling the consequences of the Fort Laramie Treaty being broken. But they don't want the money. They want their land. We need to think about that, and try to understand why.
Not all traditional Indian people are against change in general, as you noted. Many of the tradionals of the Oglala were working with AIM members to set up their own businesses and were shut down by the BIA and FBI at the behest of Dick Wilson and his goons.
I think you might be take interest in American Holocaust by Stannard. It isn't moderate by any means, but is illuminating as to what was done to those who experienced First Contact. The death that was caused by disease is often emphasized to draw attention away from death caused by being fed to dogs.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Um, the problem was they didn't want to reform or assimilate the Jews, they wanted to exterminate them (and all other "undesirable" groups.)
this was often the case with Native Americans. Wish I could find that Reagan quote about how humoring their primitive ways was a mistake, and how we should have wiped them out completely instead, so we wouldn't be left with all these people to deal with. Gonna go look for that.
Indians, in order to assimilate into mainstream American society, were asked to stop being Indians. It is only pretty recently that things are changing. Sometimes I take for granted that I grew up in an environment where diverse cultures and traditions are celebrated rather than feared.
I am not saying that the Jewish Holocaust and the American Holocaust are the same, but that there are similarities. Then again I guess all genocides have similarities. Ugh.
Unforunately there were Jewish individuals that had to revoke and hide their heritage in order to survive the horrors of WWII. It is deeply upsetting that they had to go to that extreme in order to survive. It is that loss of identity and persecution of belief that I am equating. I see where it is coming off wrong. I'll drop it.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problems come from comparing the modern situation of Native Americans with the situation of the Jews in Germany. Nobody is exterminating the American Indians now (which is who I've been talking about, the modern American Indians and their modern problems).
More importantly, the idea that the Jews had any option to "see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board." Are you still sure you want to say that's a realistic analysis of the situation?
Further, I've been talking about the modern American Indians all along, to whom there is no genocide going on. I'm talking about the American Indians who I saw languishing in their reservation when I drove through several times a month. Nobody was revering the land (which I'm to believe is their soul). This was prime farm land in the central valley of California, where not 20 miles away there are countless ranches, farms, and orchards.
Why aren't the people on the reservation making something of themselves, now, today? I certainly can't blame what happened to their distant relatives 200 years ago, when so many other people - including other American Indians - have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made something of themselves.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:this was often the case with Native Americans.
Right. But as Mighty Cow said, you seemed to be making a comparison between the Holocaust and the suggestion that the Native Americans should be assimilated.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Not that I agree with MightyCow on most of what he says-- my understanding of the cultural and social and economic and health problems they face are totally different than his, and I have a completely different view of what he calls "languishing" and of the land issues than he does.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That THEY weren't beaten and almost destroyed. Their ancestors were, which brings us all up to date.
BTW, the land they want is far more valuable than the settlement offered, which DOES need to be considered. As recent tribal politics show, in regard to casino's at least, greed isn't just a white thing either.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to think of a comparison and I think that Black/African-Americans, especially a few decades ago, is the best comparison I can come up with.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My problems come from comparing the modern situation of Native Americans with the situation of the Jews in Germany. Nobody is exterminating the American Indians now (which is who I've been talking about, the modern American Indians and their modern problems).
Actually, genocide of indigenous peoples is still occurring in South and Central America. It is not cool to admit that you're Indian down there.
quote:More importantly, the idea that the Jews had any option to "see that the European (Aryan) way was superior and get on board." Are you still sure you want to say that's a realistic analysis of the situation?
It is not a realistic analysis of the modern North American situation.
What I didn't appreciate, Mighty Cow, was your lumping an entire ethnic group stubbornly primitive under the brush of your experience driving into one reservation.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:this was often the case with Native Americans.
Right. But as Mighty Cow said, you seemed to be making a comparison between the Holocaust and the suggestion that the Native Americans should be assimilated.
I agree with you, and see where I was inaccurate, however, I want to point out that it wasn't really that long ago that the choice was assimilate or be obliterated by our army. Or, settle where we tell you to, or we will assume you are hostile and blast the bejebus out of you. And even the word assimilate carries a different connotation for us than it did for relatives even just thirty years ago.
And the Nazi card was pulled in the first place because even the fact that it was genocide and a holocaust is largely ignored, especially in American public education curriculum.
And I am still waiting to be enlightened as to how MC thinks Native Americans should progress spiritually. Maybe I will find myself corrected about that, too.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about very specific people here, those American Indians who are currently having trouble in reservations and living in poverty, experiencing high mortality rates, short life expectancy, and so forth. I think I was quite clear about that.
I would appreciate it if you would not try to argue against me by saying that I'm neglecting to include all Native peoples in all the Americas from the beginning of European colonization. I think it's clear that those are very different conversations, and I'm not sure how you're reading so much into mine.
I think I've reached the end of my ability to engage in a productive conversation on this topic, so I'll bow out again. It doesn't seem that we're really discussing the same things at all anyway.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
I completely agree. On all points. I didn't there was a current campaign, just as I do not think there is a campaign to exterminate Jews (I know, different, but I really am getting to a point), but that neither respective group would be hot on tag teaming with the people nor institutions that oppressed their relatives. Does that makes sense? I can accept if it doesn't. Twasn't my main point anyway, but a historical analogy with modern influence.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm talking about very specific people here, those American Indians who are currently having trouble in reservations and living in poverty, experiencing high mortality rates, short life expectancy, and so forth. I think I was quite clear about that.
I would appreciate it if you would not try to argue against me by saying that I'm neglecting to include all Native peoples in all the Americas from the beginning of European colonization. I think it's clear that those are very different conversations, and I'm not sure how you're reading so much into mine.
I think I've reached the end of my ability to engage in a productive conversation on this topic, so I'll bow out again. It doesn't seem that we're really discussing the same things at all anyway.
But originally we were. I took complete offense as to your opening statement as pertaining to modern American Indians refusing to progress socially, economically, spiritually, etc, and how that was the problem. The other analogies came up later.
Then you got really sarcastic and called me an expert. Which did not help me see your point at all.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As I have already said, I don't think assimilation should or can be the goal, and I do agree that we may think of more benign ways of "assimilating" than was considered proper in the very close past. (My sister had a boyfriend once who was a Canadian Native who had been forcefully taken from his parents and adopted by a white couple on the grounds that they were unfit to raise him-- because they were Canadian Natives. Similar programs ran in our country in living memory. One of my own, fairly recent, ancestors was affected by "Indian Schools.") But anyway, I do think it's improper to imply that the government is actively bent on destroying the Natives here through hostility. Neglect and prejudice exist, yes. Unequal treatment, definitely. But I don't think there's a current campaign on to commit genocide.
I completely agree. On all points. I didn't there was a current campaign, just as I do not think there is a campaign to exterminate Jews (I know, different, but I really am getting to a point), but that neither respective group would be hot on tag teaming with the people nor institutions that oppressed their relatives. Does that makes sense? I can accept if it doesn't. Twasn't my main point anyway, but a historical analogy with modern influence.
THAT point makes a lot more sense to me.
Of course, the Nazis are not currently in power in Germany-- in fact, they're outlawed, so...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And not many of those Jews survived. Pretty much sucks 360-- I'm sure most of us can agree racism, genocide, and imperialism all suck.
Edited to add: I went back and read the initial posts that spawned bringing up Nazi Germany and it was relevant. It had to do with choosing to renounce your identity as a means of survival. Though it was MC's need to be sarcastic about me being upset and shocked over general statements of prejudice that got me started in the first place. GEEz. My dad was right. Indian-loving liberal, indeed.
posted
He was talking about specific points in specific locations he personally had seen and experienced. While it may not make him an expert, it does mean that it is possible you were NOT talking about the same things, which is why you got offended and he got sarcastic.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mm, no, he added that later. I was not the only one to be offended, but I was the only one to be attacked. His first comment was very general and flippant. If you agree with his initial post I don't mind disagreeing with you, as well.
And if that (the lack of merit in the intial post and that he merely attacked me instead of explaining his stance) can't be acknowledged there's really no point in me discussing anything else I find to be unjust, as it seems I will continue to be discredited as being uppity at the least and a bizatch at the worst. No thanks.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have ancestors on both sides of this, as someone said, but I'm admittedly ignorant about Indian culture. One non-Holocaust-related quibble:
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: As per the casinos (as far as my understanding goes):
Only a few tribes run successful casinos. They are permitted to do so because tribes are under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
The motivation behind starting casinos was because ...[etc]
Federally recognized tribes (and federal recognition is a whole 'nother topic) are permitted to run casinos only in states where casinos are allowed to others. If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.) Basically, if anyone in the state is allowed to run a type of gambling operation, then tribes are allowed to also, by federal law. This allows some state control of the gambling in their borders, and seems to me like a fair compromise between competing state, federal and tribal interests. This is one reason why there are not more Indian casinos in every state.
Kwea pointed out that many Indians casinos have foreign investments. I lived in Connecticut when Foxwoods was being planned and built, and according to the local papers the tribe repeatedly tried and failed to get domestic financing. It was considered too risky. So the tribe went to an Asian gambling syndicate for initial financing.
quote:If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
Morbo, that seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of how Indian casinos work in California.
I thought it was negotiated on a state-by-state basis.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Rivka! There are some negotiations between the states and the tribes, I'm hazy on the details. I know my home state Georgia and many other states deny casinos legality, and therefore tribes cannot have casinos in those states either (unless they have some special negotiations for it, I've never heard that though. Though come to think of it, are casinos generally legal in California?) Though they can still play bingo or whatever's legal.
quote:Before a Tribe may lawfully conduct class III gaming [basically, casino-type games--Morbo], the following conditions must be met: (1) The Particular form of class III gaming that the Tribe wants to conduct must be permitted in the state in which the tribe is located; (2) The Tribe and the state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary must have approved regulatory procedures; and (3) The Tribe must have adopted a Tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the Chairman of the Commission.
posted
Ahhh, I didn't know that, especially interesting is the impact the Indian casino money had on CA politics.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: I took complete offense as to your opening statement as pertaining to modern American Indians refusing to progress socially, economically, spiritually, etc, and how that was the problem. The other analogies came up later. ... Edited to add: I went back and read the initial posts that spawned bringing up Nazi Germany and it was relevant. It had to do with choosing to renounce your identity as a means of survival.
Something has been bothering me a bit about this thread and it took me a while to figure out exactly what.
From my POV, MC using the terms "progress spiritually or socially" are unfortunate and highly debatable in general if not in specific. The idea that a particular society can be undebatably superior to another "socially" overall rather than "socially" in specific areas is a bit obnoxious but not well, worthy of the vitriol or rhetoric that it seemed to provoke.
The response despite defending the natives annoyed me in quite a different way, more interesting anyways. The closest way I can describe is that it almost seems condescending. Adaptation to the modern world, technologically or economically is conflated with assimilation.
If I can personalize this, some of us are also living in cultures where the Western world, as with the natives, also busted in and did attempt to demonstrate what they thought was a superior way of life in each of those various ways. However, our cultures did adapt and examine the Western world "economically, spiritually, socially, technologically" and then absorbed those ideas that *were* found to be superior.
No, the path was not the best way and there could certainly have been better ways to get to this point. But to those of us in these cultures, we may not appreciate the notion that we may have sold out, been assimilated, or are "renouncing our identity."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
Morbo, that seems to be inconsistent with my understanding of how Indian casinos work in California.
I thought it was negotiated on a state-by-state basis.
That may be true now, but IIRC it wasn't always. Now it is state by state, but at first it wasn't, because it is considered Federal Land, and they are not bound by a lot of laws the states are because of their status.
Foxwoods changed the way a lot of things are run, both because of the way they declared themselves a tribe and "reclaimed" the land and because they proved how successful such ventures could be. The Department of the Interior changed a lot of the rules specifically because of the way things were handled in CT.
One cool fact.....the town Foxwoods is in had to play hardball with them, because they would have received no revenue from Foxwoods at all. It was a small town, with single lane roads, and the infrastructure was not made to deal with any sort of traffic. They approched the Pequots and were told to go punt.
So they simply waited for the casino to be half done, and announced plans to close every single road that lead to the reservation.
They still lose money every year, because the settlement didn't take into consideration how popular Foxwoods would be, because no one expected it to explode the way it did, but at least they get something to help maintain the roads.
BTW, for the first 7 years, starting 11 days after opening, Foxwoods was under construction, building more gaming space. THAT'S how popular it is, and how large.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me either, Tom. However, to the degree that they help Indian tribes be self-supporting and reclaim their land and identity, I am for them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I don't know about the specific conditions of the Lakota Sioux reservation system, but most of the reservations I've seen don't seem like they would fare well as independent nations. There's too much of a lack of infrastructure, and too many absent services; while those things are often underprovided as part of the United States, one worries that as a sovereign nation, they might more or less cease.
It's true that without the exploitation of reservation resources there might be the possibility of improvement, but I'd wonder if that future possibility would be worth such a drastic course. Are the problems lakotafreedom describes likely to improve without significant exterior assistance?
Well, I'm not an expert, either, but my historical understanding suggests that by the mid 1850's, disease (cholera, small pox) and overhunting of buffalo (European) and the gradual push westward for land pretty well destroyed the social systems of clan and kinship care that were in place at the time that would in most cases prevent abject poverty.
I'm not a betting woman, but I'd perhaps speculate that some of the goals or dreams *shrugs* might be to gain enough land back to go back to a lifestyle that supported small family groups within the tribal structure to live off of the land in the patterns their ancestors did . . . and I could be all washed up.
I do believe that there is a difference between "federally recognized" tribes and "sovereign nations." I'm wondering if that what is going on? As the Cherokee are a sovereign nation within the USA, are the Lakota pulling together multiple tribes into one umbrella nation?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd perhaps speculate that some of the goals or dreams *shrugs* might be to gain enough land back to go back to a lifestyle that supported small family groups within the tribal structure to live off of the land in the patterns their ancestors did . . .
posted
No, I think you're right, Tom. It won't. But sometimes, a dream is all we have to hold onto -- that keeps us going. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Me either, Tom. However, to the degree that they help Indian tribes be self-supporting and reclaim their land and identity, I am for them.
Me too.
Man, we've thought the same stuff a lot lately. I'd say "are you sure we're not the same person?" except I borrow your stuff so I know we're not 'cause you have books and DVDs I don't.
Which reminds me that we need to see you some time and I'll give back your book. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Casinos: Think of it as evolution in action.
I do a lot of programming work for casinos (almost exclusively Indian ones). I wish I could make a living doing something with some added value to the world, but what are you going to do?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is it with you people? Nighthawk makes his income by making spammers better. I was thinking about going back to freelancing, but I'm afraid I'd wind up writing Suicide Pill plug-ins for Firefox or something at the behest of organized crime.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Samprimary already pointed out the Russell Means connection on page 1. But I find it fascination how headline writers + non-local reporters so often leads to total overreaction and, frankly, coverage for stories that may not deserve it.
Which is not to say that discussion about the issues in this thread aren't important. In fact, I've found it all very interesting.
posted
Thank you for your posts, Porcelain Girl. I have been interested in this topic since I first heard about Leonard Peltier years ago. I did some research at the time (research = read lots of internet sites) but it was hard to get a grasp of all the facts or synthesize all the viewpoints. I appreciate the knowledge that you have gathered. I'd take you up on your book offer, but it would end up sitting in my to-be-read stack for ever, since I've got a ginormous backlog.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: A LOT (as in over 90%) of the money to build those casino's came from investors from outside the US, and a ton of the profits (in some cases 80% or more) go back to those investors.
My understanding--and it's hard to find documentation, so my understanding could certainly be full of it--is that both the Miccosukees of Florida and the Seminoles of Florida have made a ton of money for themselves with their casinos. Now, maybe that's dwarfed by what they've made for some foreign investors. I don't know. But I have been told that every member of the Miccosukee tribe is on the board of trustees or whatever for their casino, and draws a salary either of us would consider hefty from that. (I so wish I could document that bit of hearsay, so anyone with better Google Skillz than I, have at it.) As for the Seminoles, the parlayed their partnership with Hard Rock into being able to buy every Hard Rock casino outside of Vegas, and the entire chain of restaurants. As I understand it, they own it, not foreign investors. They seem to have done well with their gambling winnings.
(It may be that these two tribes didn't need all that outside money because they slowly, over the course of forty years, built up money with their massive Bingo operations. [And don't sneer at bingo if you've never been to the Miccosukee Bingo Hall, especially before they built their real casino. It was--is--an enormous operation, with jackpots in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They turned nothing at all besides a bingo hall into an eight-story casino.])
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: If bingo and similar games are all the state allows but no casino-type games (blackjack, roulette, craps, etc), then the tribes in that state are limited to those games (hardly worth building bingo casinos.)
I believe that's the case in Florida. However, you can pretty much get around that with "slot machines." The slot machines at the Seminole Hard Rock, as I understand it, are basically bingo games, done at a pace of dozens per minute. You even have little bingo cards visible on your machine--if you squint. (Of course, doing it this way makes for terrible odds. It makes the gambling a "pari-mutuel" game, which has anexpected value set by the state at around $0.87. Compare that to slot odds in Atlantic City which can make it well into the $0.90 range.) And again, don't tell me that building bingo halls isn't worth it. The Seminoles played their bingo halls into owning the Hard Rock Cafe.
-o-
Ironically enough, as I was typing this post, Cor came in with today's mail, which included complimentary tickets to see Bill Cosby at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood Florida. Put that together with a $49 a night room offer, and I think we just found our anniversary plans!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Thank you for your posts, Porcelain Girl. I have been interested in this topic since I first heard about Leonard Peltier years ago. I did some research at the time (research = read lots of internet sites) but it was hard to get a grasp of all the facts or synthesize all the viewpoints. I appreciate the knowledge that you have gathered. I'd take you up on your book offer, but it would end up sitting in my to-be-read stack for ever, since I've got a ginormous backlog.
I wrote a paper that sorta summarizes the whole ordeal at Pine Ridge if you ever want a refresher. My To Read shelf at GoodReads.com is definitely competing with my Read shelf.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a pretty good grasp on the facts both parties agree to. It's the disagreements that leave me at a loss as to who must be lying--other than the inescapable conclusion that the FBI is lying in at least some particulars. But does that lead to the conclusion that Peltier is an innocent man and that the FBI is lying about all things? Or was the FBI just trying to cut corners to bring about what they were convinced was justice?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I was thinking about going back to freelancing, but I'm afraid I'd wind up writing Suicide Pill plug-ins for Firefox or something at the behest of organized crime.
