Gaming and Violence on Reservations
The current use of gaming as an alternative form of revenue on reservations
may be producing negative effects on tribal communities. For instance, many
who oppose gaming claim that casinos are associated with increased crime.
In addition, the issue of gaming itself is an occasional source of conflict
among tribe members, conflict which in the past has erupted into violence
between opposing factions. This conflict often involves concern over the
impact gaming might have upon tribal culture. Just as frequently, this discord
arises from suspicions that profits are being dishonestly funneled into
the bank accounts of the few. Recent events in the Elem Indian Colony in
Lake County, California underscore the possibility of violent confrontation
resulting from gaming on reservations.
For many tribes, gaming is a chance for alternative income in the face of
decreasing federal aid, the traditional source of revenue on most reservations
where natural resources are scarce and lack of infrastructure discourages
private investment. The implications of partial sovereignty allotted to
reservation Indians were initially realized in 1979 when the Seminoles opened
the first high-stakes bingo hall on a Florida reservation. Following a series
of court decisions favoring gaming on reservations, the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act of 1988 precipitated the present situation of widespread Indian gambling
initiatives. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, approximately
one third of federally recognized Indian tribes in the continental US have
negotiated agreements to run casinos, over a hundred of which are currently
in operation. These casinos, along with other smaller-scale gambling operations,
generated close to $4 billion in gross revenues last year.
While gaming has produced clear financial benefits for a number of tribes
as well as the communities surrounding their reservations, it has caused
deleterious effects as well. First, some have claimed that gaming results
in increased crime. Second, there have been several instances of intratribal
violence linked to disagreements over the existence or implementation of
gaming.
Increased crime
Even without gaming, reservations experience crime rates significantly higher
than the national averages. In one of many disparities, 15.4 homicides are
reported among every 100,000 Native Americans every year, whereas only 9
homicides occur for every 100,000 US residents in general. Whether crime
rates such as this have increased since the era of gaming began is presently
being debated.
A 1992 study of the effects of casinos on one Lower Sioux reservation in
Minnesota suggests that crime - including drug use and domestic violence
- increased significantly after gaming commenced. This finding corroborates
the apprehensions of many who believe that gaming inescapably exudes the
stench of crime. One such person is Genevieve Jackson, a council member
of Shiprock Navajo reservation in Arizona, who claims that casinos are associated
with "increased family violence and child abuse." Others worry
about the possibility of violent theft of cash-carrying gamblers, while
still others fear organized crime activity. Here in California, at least
two tribal leaders have been murdered after claiming that Indians were not
receiving a fair share of profits from casinos run with the help of outsiders.
Nevertheless, many disagree that gambling is tied to increased violent crime.
Federal authorities who deal with crime on reservations, such as the FBI
and US attorneys, have reported no increase in violence related to casinos.
Richard Hill, Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA),
corroborated this assessment last month when he addressed the House Judiciary
Committee, asserting that tribes are actually experiencing a decrease in
crime. He explained this alleged decrease as resulting from fewer crimes
being committed "which spring from poverty, unemployment, alcoholism,
and despair."
Intratribal conflict
Although it might be too soon to gauge the effect gaming will have on crime
in general, there have been several outstanding occasions on which the very
issue of gaming itself has resulted in conflict and even bloodshed among
tribe members. Over the years, both violent and nonviolent confrontations
have been attributed to factional disputes concerning the existence and/or
implementation of gaming on reservations from New York to North Carolina
to Arizona.
The latest example of violence occurred at the beginning of October here
in California, less than one hundred miles north of San Francisco. On October
7, violence exploded at Clear Lake's Elem Pomo Indian Community between
two factions disputing tribal Chairman Thomas Brown's control of the reservation's
two casinos. Over the following six days, 10 residents were wounded in gun
battles while nearly 70 others fled the rancheria to escape the violence.
The conflict arose from a lawsuit filed in March accusing Brown of embezzling
money from one of the rancheria's casinos. On October 13, the same day law
enforcement officials achieved a cease-fire between the warring factions,
the NIGA decreed the closing of both casinos.
This episode in California is only the most recent in a series of gambling-related
confrontations on the nation's reservations. Earlier this year, three men
were killed in a shoot-out at a Seneca reservation in New York during a
power struggle believed by many to have been exacerbated by the presence
of casinos. New York is also home to the St. Regis Mohawk reservation where,
in 1990, two men were killed in gunfights during a "civil war"
between pro- and anti- gaming factions. In nonviolent friction on a Cherokee
Reservation in North Carolina, the Tribal Council refused to hold a referendum
on whether to allow a proposed casino despite the existence of a petition
requesting one signed by 70 percent of the registered voters.
As with other gaming-linked violence, federal officials have been quick
to dismiss occurrences of armed intratribal confrontation involving casinos
as isolated and rare. Following the recent Elem disturbance, a spokesman
for the National Indian Gaming Commission stated, "It's something we
haven't really seen elsewhere." These sentiments echo those expressed
in response to similar incidents in the past. For example, a Bureau of Indian
Affairs attorney in Washington said of the St. Regis conflict: "It
certainly is not a reflection of Indian gambling in general."
Current legislation and court decisions leave regulation of reservation
gaming largely to tribe members themselves. Local and state authorities
can enter intratribal confrontations only after shots have been fired, and
the federal government must wait until violence has occurred or a suit has
been filed. Therefore, as suspicions of corruption within tribal organizations
and dismay over waning traditions continue to surface, reservation inhabitants
must develop new ways of dealing with discord or face the likelihood of
increased armed conflict.
Dan Stettler is Features Editor of The Thinker
Featured Opinions
Everyone Wiuns with Indian Gaming; Time Sanchez
A Modern "Small-pox" for Native Culture;
Clay Akiwenzie
Background
Gaming and Violence on Reservations; Dan
Stettler
Other Opinions
A "Golden" Gopher?; Matt Kelso
Quick Thoughts . . .
Return to Indian Gaming
Return to Thinker
This page created: January 1996
Copyright 1996, The Thinker All rights reserved.