Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Rob's reply
>> We broadly oppose granting the sovereignty inhering in "federal recognition" to Indian tribes without it now. <<

It's not a grant, it's a recognition—of previously established sovereignty. That's why the process is called "federal recognition," not "federal granting." The US government is reestablishing the sovereignty it demolished through its tawdry, appalling, and shameful actions.

>> Yet we fail to see how creating sovereign entities complete with rights and entitlements beyond federal, state, and local authority addresses legitimate tribal needs. <<

There must be dozens of ways to dismiss this foolish comment. Here's one. Compare tribes exercising their sovereignty today to the same tribes 100 years ago, when we didn't protect or encourage their sovereignty. Are the tribes better off now than they were a century ago? If yes, then sovereignty has helped them restore their traditional strength and independence.

>> Nevertheless, if sovereign grants are deemed the way, then those grants should be accompanied by mandates that large percentages of (frequently untaxed) profits generated by casinos or other revenue-producing enterprises in those tribal lands be dedicated to addressing tribal problems (education, poverty, addiction) that federal monies demonstrably have not. <<

What makes these people think the profits aren't dedicated to addressing tribal problems? Where do they think the money is going? Have they studied or seen the vast improvements occuring on reservations because of revenue-producing enterprises?

In fact, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act mandates that tribes spend their revenues on their people's well-being. I don't think IGRA requires a percentage, but the process is working as intended. Compared to that, whether the amount being spent is exactly the "right" amount is a trivial detail.

>> Failure to fulfill such percentage mandates -- indeed persistent failure to produce profits -- would require the lifting of the sovereign status of the affected tribes and lands. <<

I'm not sure why tribes should have their sovereignty "lifted" if their businesses fail. Do mainstream corporations have their charters revoked if their businesses fail? Are their failed leaders forbidden from participating in future businesses? Why should we treat Indians differently from, say, George W. Bush, who has persistently failed as a business executive?

>> Stipulate that sovereignty means responsibility -- and enforce the stipulation. Call it enforced responsibility. <<

This implies some tribes are using their sovereignty irresponsibly—harming their own people through neglect or malfeasance. There's no evidence of that here, and precious little in screeds such as TIME magazine's. If a single tribe is worse off since it exercised its sovereignty to build a casino, I haven't heard of it.

Note the paternalistic tone in these editorial comments. Tribes aren't capable of taking care of themselves. We need to pass laws for their own good. Otherwise, they'll—I don't know—get drunk, steal our money, or go on the warpath.

Related links
The facts about tribal sovereignty
The facts about Indian gaming
Too-powerful Indians
Greedy Indians

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .