Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Indian gaming regulatory act
Indian gaming regulatory act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Indian gaming regulatory act
When the word “Native American” is mentioned, the first thing most people will think of is Indian gaming. As many people know, only Native Americans can conduct gaming while people from other ethnicity cannot. This leads to the belief that it is an indirect way for the American government to repay the tribal government for taking their lands. This is partially true. The right to conduct gaming on reservations begins with the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA). Since its establishment in 1988, hundreds of tribes are able to negotiate an agreement with the governments to operate casinos on reservation lands. However, this is not the only intention of IGRA. Although Congress says that the real purpose of IGRA is to allow Indians to open casinos so tribes can support themselves, it is merely a set of laws that limits the tribe’s right on gaming. According to Congress, the goal of IGRA is to use gaming as a mean of “[promoting] tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government,” while ensuring that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly (“Gaming Tax Law and Bank Secrecy Act Issues”). Congress created this act for several reasons. First, they thought that Indian gaming was established as a way to strengthen tribal government, but tribes had been opening casinos solely as a way of making money for tribal government. Second, they believed that tribes had cross the boundary of the contract many times, but the federal government cannot do anything to them because the previous contract was not very clear on how tribes should operate Indian gaming. Lastly, they felt that tribes had been given too much power for being able to regulate gaming exclusively on their own without any prohibition from the federal or stat... ... middle of paper ... ...need this kind of rights. Before IGRA was established, tribes already have the right to conduct gaming as defined by tribal government. When IGRA comes into play, the tribe’s right to conduct gaming is limited greatly. It reduced the tribe’s authority to govern its people and its right to freely control its gaming industry. Furthermore, it sets a law on the type of gaming that tribes can conduct and what tribes have to do to conduct a certain type of gaming in their casinos. In addition, it also governs how tribes should spend their gaming profit. In other words, tribes cannot spend their revenue on things other than those that are stated under IGRA’s lists. Although Congress mentioned that IGRA was created to help tribes with their economic problems through gaming, it really is just a set of rules that limits the tribe’s power to control their gaming industry.
The failure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to manage this trust fund properly led to legislation and lawsuits in the 1990s and early 2000s to force the government to properly account for the revenues collected. The aim of the act was to encourage American Indians to take up agriculture and adopt the habits of civilized life and ultimately.... ... middle of paper ... ...upon the survey of the lands so as to conform thereto; and patents. shall be issued to them for such lands in the manner and with the restrictions as provided herein.
Fishing and hunting have been at the core of many American Indian cultures like the Nisqually since precontact. Indian hunting, fishing and gathering were conducted then—as they are now—not for sport, but for food and for a livelihood. This was well understood by the early colonists and later by the U.S. government. Thus, many of the treaties (e.g., Medicine Creek, 1854) negotiated between the federal government and Indian tribes in the nineteenth century contained provisions guaranteeing rights to hunt and fish. In the trea¬ty negotiated by Isaac Stevens, the tribe ceded to the U.S. some of the Nisqually vil¬lages and prairies, but Article Three reserved the tribe’s right to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens of the Territory.” (FL 12) But the growth of the European American population, and with it the proliferation of fenced lands, the destruction of natural habitat, and often the destruction of wildlife itself, drastically curtailed the Indians' ability to carry on these activities. Charles Wilkinson’s thesis declares that the “messages from Frank’s Landing” are “messages about ourselves, about the natural world, about societies past, about this society, and about societies to come.” (FL 6)
The two items which are defined in the document are “(1) The tribal organization. (2) The Indian reservation.” For one, the United States government set up the Indian reservations, creating poor living conditions that would hinder the ability to progress at the rate that the Untied States formulated for them. The soil, for instance, in Oklahoma, where most of the reservations were at during this time, were awful for farming. Therefore, the Indians would starve and be in ill health. Again, the United States contradicted itself in regards to Indian policy, by choosing to ignore the most crucial parts of history that led to the poor conditions of the
...se. The tribe is currently building many welfare programs, educational programs, establishing health benefits, plus laying aside money to distribute to the entire tribe. The money is currently collecting interest in a trust until the Bureau of Indian Affairs gives approval to a distribution plan. The lawsuits to reclaim the land have been put on hold. The Tigua are getting what they want through the casino. They are by choice quietly buying land that is legally theirs anyway. Though they are the rightful owners, the Tigua do not wish to make a big scene. They prefer to achieve economic independence on their own, hopefully reducing the chances of being taken advantage of again. Only six full-blooded Tigua remain, and they still plow and keep their traditional lands. They continue to teach children and grandchildren how to be Tigua.
The land of the Native Indians had been encroached upon by American settlers. By the
In regard to law, Deloria defines the relationship between the US Government and the Indians as paternalistic. The US Government treated and governed the Indians as a father would by providing basic needs but without given them rights. There has been some improvement with the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. This act allowed the return to local self-government on a tribal level and restored the self management of their assets. By allowing the Indians to self govern it encouraged an economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Unfortunately only a few tribes have fully taken advantage of this act, while others continue to struggle for survival.
Wilcox, B. (1996). Dennis Banks runs for justice on behalf or American Indian Rights. Metro, 14-20.Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://siouxme.com/lodge/banks.html
The governmental leaders of the United States of America began implementing Indian policies from its inception. As Euro-Americans they expected all non-whites in the U.S. to assimilate into a Euro-American (Christian) lifestyle, without reciprocation or sympathy to the traditions and history of our native people. Our founding fathers and subsequent leaders of the United States at varying times have used suppression, segregation, aggression, and assimilation to manage what they perceived as an Indian problem, and civilize them. The native peoples of North America have responded to these actions by, at times, complying with the U.S. government and allowing themselves to be relocated to other areas of the country leaving behind their ancestral
Deloria defines the relationship between the US Government and the Indians as paternalistic. The US Government treated and governed the Indians as a father would by providing basic needs but without given them rights. There has been some improvement with the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. This act allowed the return to local self-government on a tribal level and restored the self management of their assets. By allowing the Indians to self govern it encouraged an economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. Unfortunately only a few tribes have fully taken advantage of this Act, while others struggle for survival.
The Indian Act is made up from the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. The Gradual Civilization Act encouraged the Indian people to give up their status and become a Canadian citizen. The Gradual Enfranchisement Act gave the government full control over the Indian people. They were able to decide everything from who kept their status, received benefits, and even who were able to keep their children. In 1876, these acts together alongside with other rules and regulations formed the Indian Act. The government thought it was best to be able to control every aspect of the First Nations people’s lives. It was stated in annual report of the Department of the Interior Indian Affairs in 1876:
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
For Status Indians various activities have expanded nearby control under the Indian Act and permitted the arrangement of new administrative structures to supplant that act. On the other hand, numerous First Nations keep up that any type of assigned power is conflicting with an intrinsic right of self-government. Inuit have sought after self-government through open government courses of action in the north in conjunction with area claims, while the Métis have progressed different cases for area and self-government. Native people groups have additionally drawn on the privilege of self-determination and worldwide law to bolster their cases. The creating assemblage of global law on human rights has concentrated much consideration, as of late, on the privilege to self-determination as it applies to Aboriginal people groups. Native associations have contended that the characteristic right of self-government is a part of the privilege of self-determination perceived in the United Nations Charter and in the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
... of sex crimes. Furthermore, granting tribes full authority to prosecute any crime may create injustice for accused non-native individuals as well as creating more complication between tribes (Gede, 2012).
The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31, and the conflict still is left unresolved until this day.
In 1787 the United States Constitution Article 1 section 8 established a federally mandated relationship between the government and the people of Indian Nations in regards to commerce. Although this agreement and many treaties subsequently thereafter were disregarded on the part of the United States (Smith, 2002), it established an official responsibility between the two nations. In 1921 the Snyder Act, which established authorization for the federal government to provide basic healthcare for members of federally recognized United States Indian tribes, was passed (Wallechinsky, 2010).