he history of federal policy toward Native Americans has reflected
changing ideas about whether Indians should be assimilated into white
society or whether tribes should retain their sovereignty—their right to
be independent and selfgoverning entities. Native Americans have always
maintained that each individual tribe is a sovereign nation and should
therefore be authorized to govern itself without outside influence.
Official recognition of Native American sovereignty has fluctuated
according to the beliefs of presidents, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme
Court. Consequently, the rights of Native Americans have been expanded
and curtailed at various times throughout the nation’s history.
When Europeans first colonized North America, each settlement recognized its neighboring Indian tribes as self-governing, independent entities. The settlers negotiated treaties with Indians to secure peace and regulate trade and the expansion of white settlements. After the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Constitution gave Congress “plenary” power over all tribes; Congress continued to recognize Indian tribes as foreign nations and negotiated treaties with them as equal governments.
Federal policy toward America’s native residents changed, however, when Andrew Jackson—renowned for his military campaigns against the Indians—became president in 1829. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 required most of the eastern tribes to give up their lands and move west of the Mississippi River, despite any guarantees of permanent residence in their existing treaties with the government. When the Cherokees sued the state of Georgia in 1831 to prevent the enforcement of the act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, declaring that Indian tribes were “domestic dependent nations” that had lost their status as independent, foreign nations. Forty years later, Congress enacted legislation that changed the status of tribes forever; the new law (known as Section 71) eliminated the need for treaties with the Indian nations altogether by allowing Congress to use legislation— which did not require the Indians’ consent—to govern the tribes.
The Dawes Act of 1887 further changed the lives of Indians. The act, also known as the General Allotment Act, attempted to force the assimilation of Indians into white culture by mandating the education of Indian children in specially built schools, forbidding Native American ceremonies, and dismantling the reservations. Individual Indians were given plots of reservation land to farm; the remaining land was sold to white farmers. Congress hoped that surrounding the Indians with white culture would encourage them to adopt white beliefs and practices, but this policy failed abysmally because most Indians did not want to give up their culture.
During the Great Depression, Congress passed legislation intended to restore some sovereignty to Indian tribes: the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. The purpose of the new law was to “rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life and to give him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism.” The IRA prohibited the further breakdown of reservations, added land to existing reservations, and encouraged tribes to adopt their own constitutions and become self-governing.
Federal Indian policy shifted course again in 1953 under a congressional resolution known as “termination.” The new policy was an attempt to assimilate Native Americans into white society and to encourage self-sufficiency by terminating federal benefits to the tribes and by abolishing the reservations. Under this policy, federal benefits for more than one hundred tribes were eliminated. Many reservations were broken up, tribal assets were distributed among the tribes’ members, and tribal governments were dissolved. Moreover, for the first time Congress gave some state governments full jurisdiction over criminal offenses and partial jurisdiction over civil matters that occurred on the reservations. Up until then, the states had never had any jurisdiction over Native Americans, their land, or their property.
From the 1960s through the 1980s, several laws were enacted that were designed to secure Native American rights and encourage development on Indian reservations. One new law sought to promote self-determination and economic development by forbidding states to acquire any more authority over tribes without the tribe’s express approval (1968). Other legislation established loan programs to develop Native American businesses and resources (1968); allowed tribes to administer federal programs themselves (1975); granted tribes many of the tax benefits enjoyed by state governments (1982); and permitted tribes to sponsor high-stakes bingo and gambling in states that permitted any other form of gambling (1988).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 has been the cause of much debate in recent years. The law requires tribes to negotiate agreements, or “compacts,” with state governments about the types of gambling that will be allowed on their reservations. The act also ensures that Indian casinos are wholly owned by the tribe so that the tribe collects the profits. Neither the states nor the tribes are entirely happy with IGRA; the states maintain that the act forces them to accept forms of gambling that they may not want, while the tribes contend that the act limits their sovereignty by forcing them to negotiate with the states.
Another disagreement between the tribes and the states concerns the revenues from Indian casino gambling and other tribal businesses. In 1996, profits from Indian gaming in over 230 high-stakes bingo parlors and gambling casinos in 29 states were about $6 billion. Under IGRA, tribes are required to use their gaming revenues to pay for tribal government operations and services, to improve the welfare of their citizens, to support economic development, and to make charitable donations. The tribes maintain that gaming proceeds have given them the money they long have needed to pull themselves out of poverty, become selfsufficient, preserve their heritage, and take charge of their future. “The tribes don’t have any money unless we do gaming, because we don’t have a tax base,” asserts Rick Hill, a Wisconsin Oneida Indian and chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association. “We have lived in Third World poverty conditions, but gaming has proven to be mutually beneficial to state and tribal governments.” While the states are unable to tax tribal revenues, Hill explains, Indian gaming is beneficial to states because state governments can tax the non-Indian businesses—such as hotels and restaurants and their suppliers—that spring up around the casinos. Native Americans adamantly insist that tribal enterprises remain untaxed by state governments. Ada Deer, assistant secretary of Indian Affairs, asserts that Indian tribes are sovereign governments and, as such, are immune from taxation by the state:
Furthermore, according to some critics of Indian gaming, the proceeds from casinos and other tribal enterprises put non-Indian businesses at a distinct disadvantage. Indian-owned reservation businesses—such as casinos, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and stores—do not have to pay business, property, or sales taxes. Non-Indian companies, on the other hand, are required to pay such taxes and must pass on the cost to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Critics contend that the higher prices charged by non-Indian businesses encourage many consumers to make their purchases on the reservation, thus threatening the survival of non-Indian businesses.
The debate over taxation reflects the broader question of sovereignty—that is, whether or not Indian tribes should be considered independent, self-governing entities. Sovereignty is at the heart of the issues considered in Native American Rights: Current Controversies. Throughout this anthology, authors discuss the rights of Native Americans regarding Indian culture, religion, gaming, and control over natural resources.
http://www.enotes.com/native-american-article
When Europeans first colonized North America, each settlement recognized its neighboring Indian tribes as self-governing, independent entities. The settlers negotiated treaties with Indians to secure peace and regulate trade and the expansion of white settlements. After the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Constitution gave Congress “plenary” power over all tribes; Congress continued to recognize Indian tribes as foreign nations and negotiated treaties with them as equal governments.
Federal policy toward America’s native residents changed, however, when Andrew Jackson—renowned for his military campaigns against the Indians—became president in 1829. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 required most of the eastern tribes to give up their lands and move west of the Mississippi River, despite any guarantees of permanent residence in their existing treaties with the government. When the Cherokees sued the state of Georgia in 1831 to prevent the enforcement of the act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, declaring that Indian tribes were “domestic dependent nations” that had lost their status as independent, foreign nations. Forty years later, Congress enacted legislation that changed the status of tribes forever; the new law (known as Section 71) eliminated the need for treaties with the Indian nations altogether by allowing Congress to use legislation— which did not require the Indians’ consent—to govern the tribes.
The Dawes Act of 1887 further changed the lives of Indians. The act, also known as the General Allotment Act, attempted to force the assimilation of Indians into white culture by mandating the education of Indian children in specially built schools, forbidding Native American ceremonies, and dismantling the reservations. Individual Indians were given plots of reservation land to farm; the remaining land was sold to white farmers. Congress hoped that surrounding the Indians with white culture would encourage them to adopt white beliefs and practices, but this policy failed abysmally because most Indians did not want to give up their culture.
During the Great Depression, Congress passed legislation intended to restore some sovereignty to Indian tribes: the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. The purpose of the new law was to “rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life and to give him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism.” The IRA prohibited the further breakdown of reservations, added land to existing reservations, and encouraged tribes to adopt their own constitutions and become self-governing.
Federal Indian policy shifted course again in 1953 under a congressional resolution known as “termination.” The new policy was an attempt to assimilate Native Americans into white society and to encourage self-sufficiency by terminating federal benefits to the tribes and by abolishing the reservations. Under this policy, federal benefits for more than one hundred tribes were eliminated. Many reservations were broken up, tribal assets were distributed among the tribes’ members, and tribal governments were dissolved. Moreover, for the first time Congress gave some state governments full jurisdiction over criminal offenses and partial jurisdiction over civil matters that occurred on the reservations. Up until then, the states had never had any jurisdiction over Native Americans, their land, or their property.
From the 1960s through the 1980s, several laws were enacted that were designed to secure Native American rights and encourage development on Indian reservations. One new law sought to promote self-determination and economic development by forbidding states to acquire any more authority over tribes without the tribe’s express approval (1968). Other legislation established loan programs to develop Native American businesses and resources (1968); allowed tribes to administer federal programs themselves (1975); granted tribes many of the tax benefits enjoyed by state governments (1982); and permitted tribes to sponsor high-stakes bingo and gambling in states that permitted any other form of gambling (1988).
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 has been the cause of much debate in recent years. The law requires tribes to negotiate agreements, or “compacts,” with state governments about the types of gambling that will be allowed on their reservations. The act also ensures that Indian casinos are wholly owned by the tribe so that the tribe collects the profits. Neither the states nor the tribes are entirely happy with IGRA; the states maintain that the act forces them to accept forms of gambling that they may not want, while the tribes contend that the act limits their sovereignty by forcing them to negotiate with the states.
Another disagreement between the tribes and the states concerns the revenues from Indian casino gambling and other tribal businesses. In 1996, profits from Indian gaming in over 230 high-stakes bingo parlors and gambling casinos in 29 states were about $6 billion. Under IGRA, tribes are required to use their gaming revenues to pay for tribal government operations and services, to improve the welfare of their citizens, to support economic development, and to make charitable donations. The tribes maintain that gaming proceeds have given them the money they long have needed to pull themselves out of poverty, become selfsufficient, preserve their heritage, and take charge of their future. “The tribes don’t have any money unless we do gaming, because we don’t have a tax base,” asserts Rick Hill, a Wisconsin Oneida Indian and chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association. “We have lived in Third World poverty conditions, but gaming has proven to be mutually beneficial to state and tribal governments.” While the states are unable to tax tribal revenues, Hill explains, Indian gaming is beneficial to states because state governments can tax the non-Indian businesses—such as hotels and restaurants and their suppliers—that spring up around the casinos. Native Americans adamantly insist that tribal enterprises remain untaxed by state governments. Ada Deer, assistant secretary of Indian Affairs, asserts that Indian tribes are sovereign governments and, as such, are immune from taxation by the state:
It is a fundamental principle of law that governments do not tax other governments. The logic is that government revenues should be used to support the governmental services, functions, and activities of each respective government.While the tribes may believe that gaming income benefits both Indians and non-Indians, others think differently. According to some state and local government officials, Indian gaming revenues should be subject to the same taxes as non-Indian casinos. They argue that the high numbers of customers at the reservations’ casinos put a strain on the local roads and police and fire departments. Critics complain that the casinos receive the benefits of improved roads and fire and police protection, yet they do not pay their fair share to support these services. Such a drain on the limited tax revenues is unfair, they maintain.
Furthermore, according to some critics of Indian gaming, the proceeds from casinos and other tribal enterprises put non-Indian businesses at a distinct disadvantage. Indian-owned reservation businesses—such as casinos, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and stores—do not have to pay business, property, or sales taxes. Non-Indian companies, on the other hand, are required to pay such taxes and must pass on the cost to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Critics contend that the higher prices charged by non-Indian businesses encourage many consumers to make their purchases on the reservation, thus threatening the survival of non-Indian businesses.
The debate over taxation reflects the broader question of sovereignty—that is, whether or not Indian tribes should be considered independent, self-governing entities. Sovereignty is at the heart of the issues considered in Native American Rights: Current Controversies. Throughout this anthology, authors discuss the rights of Native Americans regarding Indian culture, religion, gaming, and control over natural resources.
http://www.enotes.com/native-american-article
