Regulation:
the new racism
![]()
Posted: June 21, 2000 -
4:26pm EST
by Rebecca Adamson /
Columnist / Indian Country Today
America's history of
brigandage against Indian tribes hasn't ended, but in our enlightened times we
call it regulation.
We could just as well call it racism.
Our longest-running, made-in-the-USA theme is that whenever Indians have
anything good enough for others to want, it must be taken from them. The world
knows well of this process in its historical setting: religion, land, water,
resources, even the freedom that fired Europeans to come here in the first
place, all had to be forcibly seized from American Indians, Alaska Natives and
Native Hawaiians.
This is the historical pattern, based as we know on the false assumption that
Native people are "Nature's children" who never quite graduated to the
realm of engineering human progress in conditions of scarcity (as Western
economic terminology would have it).
But let Native people make significant, undeniable gains by the guidance of that
very model, either through the courts or the political system, the free market
or their own dedicated efforts, and what the pattern requires is variation.
Because, when American Indians make honest progress despite the obstacles placed
in their paths, the message they send is this: you were and are wrong about us -
deeply wrong in every respect that matters. And that could never be.
This message, then, must not be admitted to consciousness. That is where the new
racism of regulation comes in. Native American success becomes comprehensible if
the regulations weren't just right, if we didn't quite play by the rules, if we
cheated a little or a lot. A regulatory fix will serve us right. The message of
Native capacity will die on the vine. The knowledge of historical wrongs will
cease to agitate the national consciousness.
But the wrongdoing overlooked by such exercises in denial will go on and on.
Particularly now, as a critical mass of Native communities and individuals
pursue the promise of self-determination, it seems the regulators are working
overtime. As I write, a host of racist efforts are underway to regulate
high-profile tribal prosperity into abeyance.
A congressional effort is underway to banish tribal cigarette sales because a
tortured logic has been found for linking them with federal funds. The
abandonment of ordinary standards for the sake of making a case against Indians
has been particularly obvious here. A congressman insists, without evidence,
that tribal cigarette outlets sell willingly and by design to minors. A
journalist insinuates that because a single merchant in a larger tribal complex
answers the phone "smoke shop," federal block grants have been
misused. But when it becomes obvious that a military PX, also untaxed and also
benefiting from federal funds, also relies on cigarette sales to get folks into
the store for other purchases ... well, never mind that the military has
proceeded along precisely these lines for many years. Easier to pick on tribes.
A non-issue is amassing pressure for a sure-to-come campaign against Indian
gaming. A recent book that would have no credibility, and surely no publisher,
if it were not flailing away at Indian success seeks to deny the authenticity of
the Mashantucket Pequot - they of Foxwoods Resort Casino fame. Now when any
relatively small group of people is taking in $66 million a month from gaming
alone, the temptation to find fault is human nature. But Indian people should
take a sweat before they decide a tract for teens and a chance to unload on
wealthy relatives really counts for anything compared with Pequot history. Make
no mistake about it; this bookish flap is the warm-up for further attacks aimed
at regulating Indian gaming into submission. And space doesn't even exist to
consider the escalating demands for profit-sharing that states place on
successful casino tribes. There is more of the same, much more. But two
exceptions that prove the rule also deserve to be noted.
Tribal and individual trust funds have been embroiled in regulatory maneuvers
ever since it became clear in 1994 that tribes stand to realize some small part
of the lost returns on their trust accounts.
An initiative to bring fairness for tribes into tax regulations on bond issuance
is at an impasse, in large part because tribes might seek the same strategic
advantages for economic development that states have always enjoyed.
These are exceptional cases in that the lack of firm, fair regulation in trust
funds and taxation deals heavy losses to Indian people and tribes. Here they
would welcome regulations that provide a level playing field. The political
system's failure to provide them over the course of decades, in dramatic
contrast with its regulatory zeal the minute tribes get a toehold on genuine
prosperity, means we can all see anti-Indian regulation for what it really is:
the ongoing, racially motivated plunder of tribal resources by peaceful means.