|
The notion of a new
reservation benefiting a
single tribe (or two or three) should also be
examined closely by policy makers who can
approve or reject projects. In none of the six
cases is a tribe (or tribes) seeking a new
reservation
on lands that were clearly their own
tribal lands in a long-term, historical sense.
The southern Wisconsin area with the
Shullsburg, Beloit and Kenosha proposed
projects,
and the Outagamie County area with its
proposal were traditionally Winnebago (or Ho
Chunk) lands, yet the proposals are sponsored
by Chippewa tribes. The Hudson and La
Crosse region was traditionally a Sioux tribe
area, yet the proposals for casinos are by
Chippewa and Ho Chunk (Winnebago) tribes.
(The Ho Chunk area was originally close to the
La Crosse area).
While there is no historical basis for
awarding sites to specific tribes, there are
plenty
of historical reasons for Wisconsin, as well
as federal officials, to cooperate with tribes
to
alleviate historical wrongs as well as to deal
with current social and economic deprivations
for certain groups of citizens within the state.
These needs are pervasive and not bound by
the boundaries of specific tribes. It is time to
explore the notion of cooperative agreements
among all the tribes of the state, which will
permit a sharing of casino revenues among all
the Native American peoples
of the state in a manner
addressing the real
social and economic
needs of the people.The Role of the Prairie Band
Casino Business in the Area
Economy: Jackson and
Shawnee Counties in 1999
David L. Darling
Xiaolou Yang
Chatura B. Ariyaratne
Back to casino
news
|
