Location: Blogs Law Library Life |
 | | Posted by: Brian Baker | Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:28:18 AM | I read an interesting article today in the North County Times. Mr. Jim Trageser wrote a piece about a lawsuit over whether Indian casinos in California were paying enough money to the State of California for the privilege of operating their casinos.
Interestingly enough, the plaintiff in the law suit is not the State of California, but a non-Indian resident (how that gets him standing, I'm unsure). In fact, the State of California says that the casinos are paying the state exactly what they owe. This person simply believes it isn't enough.
The case was dismissed at the District Court level, but was reinstated by an Appeals Court yesterday.
The article raises other interesting concepts. By U.S. Treaty, these Indian Reservations are sovereign nations. Yet, the U.S. Government regularly meddles in their affairs, telling them what they can and cannot do.
Would the U.S. Government do this to any other sovereign nation, with the exception of Iraq? No.
Why, and by what authority, do we do it to the Indian Nations?
EDIT:
After I finished the above, I found an article stating that the United Nations had just passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This non-binding declaration "sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as
well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment,
health, education and other issues. . . .It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and
promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that
concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their
own visions of economic and social development."
Of course, with America's treatment of our indigenous peoples, the Native Americans, we had to be one of the four countries to vote against it - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
It is interesting that all four of these countries are former British colonies with abysmal records with regards to the rights of indigenous peoples.
| | | Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (3) Add Comment
|
Re: Are American Indian Nations/reservations/rancherias truly given Sovereign Nation status? | By Reading Rainbow, SJCL Unit on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:46:00 PM | One could begin to answer these, and other questions pertaining to tribal gaming and sovereignty, by reading law review articles. Although these are long, intellectually demanding documents, which can be boring, they are much more informative and reliable than the diatribes found in internet Op-Ed pieces.
"Are states beating the house?: The validity of tribal-state revenue sharing under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act" by Eric S Lent, Georgetown Law Journal, Jan 2003, is a good start.
But you do not have to take my word for it, that article, and others on Federal/State/Tribal government relations and gambling can be found at your local law library or via its internet. Our journals are located on the library's second floor. Wi fi internet is available throughout the building.
With respect to the growth and wealth of nations, well that is a horse of another color. Anyway, the Declaration is one against human rights violations. Last I checked tribes receive federal assistance and have excellent legal counsel who are used to participate in a judicial system they are not barred from participating in. Nor is our government providing the masses with 10 cent machettes to wipe out Tachi Yokut Palace Casino & Resort owners and patrons. Not to say that countries which voted in favor of the declraration have done so in the past decade, which would make their vote for such document pure hogwash. Or, have they? |
| |
Re: Are American Indian Nations/reservations/rancherias truly given Sovereign Nation status? | By Jim Trageser on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:46:07 PM | | I like the plug to my column, but would argue that the former British colonies have, in general, treated indigenous peoples far better than, say, former French, Portuguese or Spanish colonies. The British always seemed to understand that the colonial era was temporary, and trained the locals in how to set up and run an infrastructure for life after eventual independence. When you compare India, Singapore, Malaysia, etc., with places like Angola, Vietnam, et al, well, the Brits don't come off looking all that bad. Not that it excuses colonialism - but I'm not willing to condemn the Euros for that, either. It's simply human nature - if the Native Americans or Africans had developed the sort of large-scale agriculture that allowed Europe and China to develop the kind of division-of-labor economies that allow for the rise of professional scientific, engineering and military classes, they would have had no compunction about "discovering" Europe, conquering the locals and colonizing them. We're all pretty much the same in that regard. |
| |
Re: Are American Indian Nations/reservations/rancherias truly given Sovereign Nation status? | By Diwata on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:42:13 PM | This is an article in the High Country News (news about the West) that has interesting information on sovereignty that you might be interested in.
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17679&fhp |
|
|
|
| | |