Millions upon millions of Indian campaign dollars (so handy to use all that untaxed income) are going to DEMOCRAT politicians here for the governors race etc. Now they have bought a huge piece of prime property in Puyallup. It will house theaterS, restaurantS, gambling casinoS (an Indian Disneyland, if you will) ALL OF WHICH ARE OFF THE TAX ROLLS! Guess who will be asked to make up the difference in lost taxes to support schools, government, programs, transportation etc?
Our state has been sold down the river and if we don't get it back soon, just get ready to say "How" when visiting Washington. These people are not stupid. They have learned they can get it all, and probaby feel it is justified. But the real culprits are the so-called "elected representatives" who have brokered these massive schemes. BTW The tribes, I have been told, are currently looking into gas stations. Again, NOT paying tax to the state. This so-called "(dependant) "sovereign nation" is truly becoming a HUGE state within a state to the detriment of the citizens of Washington State. And is coming to your town if you don't say no. LOL The Indians may end up with all the land back, after all.
The Indians may end up with all the land back, after all.
That would be ironic wouldn't it? The government wants to renege on every promise made to the Indians. The sovereignty of Indian lands has been on-going since they are starting to make a little money. Its all about the money.
Ping. Need you to join in. BUMP
This view didn't sit too well with the state and local governments that wanted their lands. Hence we have part of the dilemma which we are in today. I suspect that the Indians in the west were treated differently.
How right you are, and it isn't just some kind of accident.
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
EMPOWERMENT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
SIR SHRIDATH RAMPHAL
at the
Olof Palme International Foundation's Seminar Governance at the End of the Millennium Barcelona, Spain
26 February 1999
This new vigour of civil society both reflects and enhances a large increase in the capacity and will of people to take control of their own lives and to improve or transform them. The number and proportion of people who can make their voices heard is nevertheless vastly greater in all parts of the world today than, say, 50 years ago, in 1945. This is principally the product of decolonization, economic improvement, and the spread of democracy. Beyond elections, however, people are beginning to assert their right to actively participate in their own governance. They include indigenous peoples long deprived by settlers of control over traditional lands, ethnic minorities seeking a role in government, and regional and local groups who feel their interests have been neglected by national leaders. These groups have all become more effective in asserting their rights.
Chapter Two -- Values for the Global Neighbourhood
http://www.cgg-ch.ae.psiweb.com/chap2.html
Self- Determination
The second core principle of the existing international order is self- determination. Not as venerable as sovereignty, it derives from the rise of democracy and the national idea, both of which contributed to the consolidation of divided European principalities into modern nation- states, the collapse of European empires in the Americas, and the breakup of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.
The Versailles Peace Conference after World War I recognized the principle of self- determination, but it was not until the founding of the United Nations in 1945 that it became an effective norm equally applicable world- wide. Throughout the post- war era, self- determination was generally viewed as a right limited to territorially defined populations living under colonial rule. As such, it played a crucial role in the process of decolonization that has brought a succession of new sovereign states into being.
During the past decade, two kinds of developments have occurred that have forced the world to re- examine the issue of self- determination. The first was the breakup of countries, the two most dramatic being the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Both were multinational federations that had been held together by iron- fisted central governments. With the political cataclysms of the early 1990s, these governments lost both their legitimacy and their power--and the constituent national units were able to become independent states. Similar, albeit much more peaceful, negotiated separations occurred in Czechoslovakia and in Ethiopia, where there had earlier been a protracted conflict. While the violent and unsettling consequences of the Soviet and Yugoslav breakups have raised serious concerns about the exercise of the right of self- determination, it is arguable whether they involve any new issues of principle.
A much more far- reaching development is the growing assertion of a right to self- determination by indigenous populations and other communities in many parts of the world. In these cases, self- determination involves a complex chain of historical and other questions that go far beyond the issue of establishing a new state on the basis of a pre- existing territorial entity. Issues of identity, human rights, and empowerment that have little to do with previous boundaries are also involved.
Self- determination is a right of all nations and peoples, as long as it is consistent with respect for other nations and peoples. The challenge now is to find ways to define and protect this right in the environment of the global neighbourhood. It is becoming ever more difficult to resolve the problems raised by competing claims to self- determination on the basis of separate nationhood for each claimant. A process of territorial dismemberment could be set in motion that would leave much of the world far worse off and would greatly increase insecurity and instability. Moreover, redrawing maps will not succeed in reducing injustice and the risks of civil strife if the new states still lack workable formulas to reconcile conflicting claims to authority, resources, status, or land.
The problem is not made easier by the absence of any clear definition of what constitutes 'a people' or 'a nation'. It is time to begin to think about self- determination in a new context--the emerging context of a global neighbourhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states.
The demand for separation and the resort to violence in support of it often follow the frustration of constitutional efforts to secure less drastic changes. This points to the importance of governments being sensitive to the aspirations of ethnic or other groups that feel alienated or threatened. Most of the nearly 200 nation- states in the world consist of more than one ethnic group. There is consequently considerable scope for discord and conflict over the sharing of resources and authority and the policies that governments follow. But there is also a positive side to pluralism as manifest in several successful multiethnic states. Diversity need not become a cause for division. A challenge to governance is to make it a source of enrichment.
If tragedies are not to be multiplied one- hundredfold, concern for the interests of all citizens, of whatever racial, tribal, religious, or other affiliation, must be high among the values informing the conduct of people in the world that has now become a neigh-bourhood. There must be respect for their rights, in particular for their right to lead lives of dignity, to preserve their culture, to share equitably in the fruits of national growth, and to play their part in the governance of the country. Peace and stability in many parts of the world could be endangered if these values are neglected. The world community needs to strengthen protection of these rights, even as it discourages the urge to secede that their frustration can breed. Governance in the global neighbourhood faces no stronger challenge.
The Indian tribes were recognized as separate nations by the federal government over a century ago as a part of the efforts to pacify the country.
Now that the Indians have kept their side of the bargain (and have been robbed blind for keeping it) they have finally found a way to make economic progress.
Your opinion is that we should now unilaterally set aside the treaties which were made with the full faith and credit of the federal government.
What honor is there in this path?
IF,everything you say is true, as an Indian, I say good for us. The reason we were put on reservations was for our protection from whites and to find ways to make a living and be sovereign. Now that Casinos are discovered and some tribes are becoming rich and prosperous, I see a lot of white envy and in some cases see a little hate boil up to the surface. Take Donald duck Trump for instance. He is so tiffed that he has to pay taxes on his casino and the Indians don't, he keeps going to Washington to get his political friends to try to stop it. Every time I see that A hole on TV crying , I laugh my butt off. People like him would have been the first to put Indians on a reservation for their own good. In case some of you don't know, the richer reservations share with the poor ones that don't have casinos. My tribe does not have a casino and last year we got $250 thousand from the casino fund. This goes to housing for the Elderly and food programs etc.
`1000% correct. I'm similar outraged. These world class scam artists are sovereign nations only when it suits them. For casinos and selling gasoline and smokes. The largest American casino is owned by a phony, cobbled together, very little Indian blood in 'em, tribe, the "Mashantucket Pequot"
And 95% of the time it's connected (mafia style) Democrat lawyers who ram and scam Indian casinos through state legislatures. Thus the RATS get subsidized by these tribes come election time
This hit a nerve with me. When I lived in Wisconsin, a federal judge gave the Chippewa Indians the right to hunt, trap and fish on all of the northern half of Wisconsin and as I remember Minnesota. They are allowed to go on to private land and public lakes and harvest game and fish however and whenever they like. I think it was something like if you are 1/16th Chippewa then you have these rights.
They went back to their traditional ways of fishing. They speared breeding walleyes, northern pike, muskies, and bass during the breeding season at night. Except rather than use flaming torches for light, they use power generators and spotlights. The breeding fish (trophy size) populations in some lakes were all but wiped out. The bag limits were then severly lowered for sportsmen and the resort business was decimated.
I thought "All men are created equal" in this country.
I know I'm late to the party, but the Tribes here control the tabacco cartel. And I say thank goodness.
I can get a carton of Viceroys for $17.95 at the smoke shop, or pay $3.00 a pack at WalMart.
The gaming thing gripes me, but my entire county is on the Res and all these things are either grandfathered in or are so entrenched that nothing is going to change.
Any entity that can gain exemption from paying taxes has my hat off to them! Your problem is with your government and your democraps, not the Indians.......
Go get em, sis. Next time don't forget the dang amphitheatre near Enumclaw.