Charles Trimble: Discipline needed to preserve tribal sovereignt

Opinion

Monday, August 23, 2010

I often cringe when I log on to indianz.com and read headlines that blare out new controversies over gaming or taxes, especially those that exacerbate ever-tense state/tribal relations. I’m aware that the tribes involved are exercising their sovereignty, and in most cases, rightly so. And if some tribes had not boldly exercised their sovereignty, there would not be tribally owned casinos and other revenue-generating developments.

But I can also imagine a situation of pure irony in which a growing force of non-Indians feel that tribes are invading their territories and corrupting their communities in pursuit of greater wealth and power.

And if it is the case of a growing number of non-Indians feeling the sting and not appreciating the poetic justice involved, it may appear as only a public relations problem. But in this national atmosphere of simplistic populism and revolt, such stuff can escalate into another widespread backlash when it is exaggerated and exploited by some state leaders who have long been resentful of tribal sovereign immunities and prerogatives.

And we can walk right into such a backlash. With the success of their casinos, some tribes have much new wealth. This windfall is a good thing that gives tribes the capital wherewithal to finally address problems of infrastructure needs, educational needs, and self-government. But new wealth may bring arrogance, over-confidence, carelessness, and greed for more wealth on the part of tribal leaders. And sometimes, in pursuit of greater wealth, tribal leaders may push the envelope of sovereignty to the limits of destruction.

Discipline is needed for the preservation of tribal sovereignty. The dignity and decorum of tribal sovereignty should be carefully nurtured in the public eye. It must not be ostentatiously flaunted in political power-mongering, or appear to be imposed on neighboring governments and communities. Further, mismanagement and corruption in the tribal gaming tends to bolster public fears that their casinos will attract criminal elements to their region.

Especially when pushed by financiers, lawyers and advisors from Las Vegas or Atlantic City to take risks that press the tolerance of neighboring communities and jurisdictions, tribes need a sounding board to discuss the implications of any proposed venture. Leaders need to know when they are jeopardizing the sovereignty of all the tribes. They won’t get answers to these issues from anyone out of Vegas or Atlantic City.

As I have often done over the years with many issues, I have discussed this with Sam Deloria, and he agrees that there is a potential problem that needs to be anticipated. “What is needed is a mechanism whereby tribal governments can AND WILL talk about sovereignty, how it is inter-related, and how the actions of individual tribes can affect it positively or negatively,” he wrote. “In fact, there are plenty of opportunities for such discussions, but they never take place.”

“It may be difficult for such talks to have concrete outcomes,” he said, “but what troubles me more is that tribal leaders don’t seem to see the need for them; and NCAI tends to hide behind the notion that Indians shouldn’t criticize other Indians.”

In my keynote address to the NCAI Convention in Palm Springs last October, I suggested that NCAI take on the role as a “family of nations,” for the attitude of family is needed to address potential problems that could arise from actions of any tribe to put at risk the sovereignty of all tribes.

If there could be such a meeting as Deloria proposes, I would hope that the first order of business would be an intertribal agreement that sovereignty is a common right, and not “owned” by any individual tribe. This comes from the fact that the loss of a sovereign right or prerogative is a loss to all tribes, not just to the tribe whose unwise litigation or jurisdictional fight brought about the loss.

According to Deloria, “The idea of individual tribal (sovereign) autonomy is attractive, but like most principles, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. So while each tribe needs to take its prerogatives into account in deciding what to do, its leaders also need to consider the effect of the actions of individual tribes on tribes as a whole, and on a host of others affected – individual Indians and the larger society.

“The problem with our politics is that we agree so passionately about the very things we need to be looking closely at, so when we deliberate, there is no ‘other side’ to hear. We need to reformulate our political discussion, not to legitimize a ‘side’ of the argument that we now perceive to be anti-Indian, but to have a way to examine all sides of issues dispassionately. The very best lawyers are not the ones who present their clients’ arguments with great flair and passion. They are the ones who keenly perceive the weaknesses of their own case, and the strengths of the other side’s argument. We do not do that, and that is why we keep walking into the fan.

“When a tribe overreaches and tries to exercise powers that are beyond what federal law will probably tolerate or powers that, if exercised, will bring about a strong political backlash, every tribe and every Indian interest is affected. So to shield such actions from comment by tribes, it is no answer to say the action was within the sovereign prerogative of the tribe.”

There can be another anti-tribal backlash, as there was in 1976-1977, and this is more likely if economic stress from a lengthy recession causes white resentment of tribes’ growing wealth. And although basic tribal sovereignty will ultimately prevail, the fight can be very costly, in terms of resources, policy, economies and rights of the tribes. As can be seen in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act itself, sovereign powers can be curtailed by making them virtually subject to veto by neighboring states. Without appearing to diminish tribal sovereignty, much mischief can be done by tribal adversaries or enemies.

Perhaps the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Gaming Association should jointly sponsor a meeting of all tribes – those involved in gaming and all others – solely to discuss sovereignty, from the very nature of the concept to the responsible exercise of its powers, and how it is viewed by the general public. New tribal wealth can certainly afford a national survey to learn how Indian gaming is viewed in the public eye. Perhaps the meeting could even result in establishing a joint committee to act as a sounding board and to advise tribes when they appear to be jeopardizing the sovereignty of Indian America as a whole.

I am not aware that such a meeting is in the plans of NCAI or any other national organization; but if it isn’t, it darn well should be.

Charles “Chuck” Trimble, Oglala Lakota, was principal founder of the American Indian Press Association in 1970, and served as Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians from 1972-78. He may be reached at cchuktrim@aol.com. His website is iktomisweb.com.