Monday, November 2, 1998
Prop. 5 will not enforce rights
of tribal people
PROP5: Initiative will grant too much power to historically
abusive tribal governments
By Dwight Youpee
I will be voting no on Proposition 5, which concerns Indian
Gambling in California.
Here are just a few lay observations on tribal sovereignty and
the present status of civil rights on Indian reservations, as they
may relate to Proposition 5.
My tribe resides on the Fort Peck reservation in Montana, where
I have lived, farmed, ranched and taught elementary school most of
my life until moving to California in 1979. Although some of my
comments on tribal government may seem somewhat harsh, I make them
in the spirit of my deep respect for my people and my belief in the
individual integrity of those who serve in tribal government.
Indeed, some are very close and dear relatives and friends.
In regard to concerns about civil rights on reservations, people
are correct in their fears of probable abuses. Ironically, the
perpetuation of civil rights violations by tribal governments in
Native American country may be traced to the enactment of the
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Yes, the concept of "Indian civil
rights" sounds "reasonable and just." In reality, however, there is
a stifling absence of civil rights within Native American
country.
Those familiar with the situation on Indian reservations
throughout the country  where tribal governing and judicial
institutions have been in place for quite some time  are most
likely aware that, in practice, the Indian Civil Rights Act has no
civil rights enforcement on Indian reservations. Indeed, tribal
governments, in their role of governing within their tribal
jurisdiction, routinely ignore, override and subvert their own
established policies, procedures and regulations for the sake of
expedience and convenience in dealing with matters at hand. This is
to the detriment of their people and their non-Native American
neighbors.
With the current stance of the federal court system, complaints
alleging civil rights violations by tribal governments are not
being addressed in federal court. The ominous stickler grows out of
the argument that a tribe cannot be sued under the claim of
sovereign immunity.
Not surprisingly, "tribal sovereignty" has become the proverbial
"double-edged sword," with its sharpest edge  despotic power
under the guise of sovereignty  aimed toward Native Americans
themselves and the non-indigenous who have chosen to engage in some
sort of association with tribes. Many tribes now have long
histories where tribal governments regularly run roughshod over
individual civil rights, as well as intrude in the processes of
their court systems under the cover of such catch phrases as "self
determination," "sovereignty," "tribal member preference" (not
Indian preference), and now "self reliance," (perhaps another term
for a fast buck) as a means to advance unknown or questionable
interests.
The point, and the tragedy for both Native Americans and
non-Native Americans alike, is that such situations are widespread
throughout reservations.
It behooves California voters to consider whether Proposition 5
is perhaps a "Pandora’s box" that will rain a multitude of social,
political, legal and cultural troubles upon the Native Americans
and the citizens of California.
On a personal note, I have never supported this type of gambling
in any venue. Also, it appears Indian gambling is already working
to instill yet another negative stereotypical image of Native
Americans in the minds of the general public. This cruelly adds to
other vices already associated with our people  and we all
know what those images are.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]