![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
In no small part, Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory in the 2003 California recall can be credited to his campaign's ability to define him as an ‘outsider’ who would save the state from casino-owning indigenous tribes that were seemingly taking over the political system and refusing to pay their ‘fair share.’ This strategy invoked the American sentiment of colonialist anti-tribalism: the view that argues for holding back any expression of tribal sovereignty that may allow tribes to thrive, because thriving tribes are a danger to America. American efforts to prevent tribal casino development, and keep tribes in a state of dependency, often fall back on anti-tribalism in this way. The first part of this article shows how anti-tribalism played a critical role in the Schwarzenegger campaign. The second part then uncovers the active nerve-center of contemporary anti-tribalism in the work of right-wing citizen groups. In all, I argue that anti-tribalism is not consigned to the American past but in fact persists as an active contemporary phenomenon that, in this case, can be clearly traced from the center-right mainstream to the far right margins of American politics.
Notes
“The Casino That Ate California,” a flier produced by Yes on 68: A Fair Share for California, supported by Horse Racing and Card Clubs, major funding by Magna Entertainment Corp. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 2004.
Specifically, Proposition 68 proposed that indigenous tribes either agree to surrender 25% of their gaming enterprise revenues to the state and comply with state laws and court jurisdiction or lose their state-wide exclusivity over casino-type games, specifically a form of slot machine known as a video lottery terminal. See: Attorney General of California, “Official Title and Summary of Proposition 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gaming Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute,” available online at: < http://www.no68and70.org/>. Read the Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis.
“Tribal sovereignty” is a contested concept, without easy definition. I utilize it here with an understanding that it is comprised of two dimensions, stemming from both sides of the US–indigenous relationship: 1) Inherent sovereignty stems from the historical, cultural, and political existence of tribes as communities that expressed autonomy over their lives prior to European contact and have continued to seek to do so since that time. 2) Federally recognized sovereignty refers to a tribe's status in relation to the US federal government. Tribes gain, or are supposed to gain, control over certain programs and have claim to rights and resources when recognized by the US government as self-governing, historically persistent cultural and political communities. For an important, often-referenced work on the complex history and politics of tribal sovereignty, see: Vine Deloria Jr. and Clifford Lytle, The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984). For briefer and very helpful discussions and definitions of tribal sovereignty, see: Frank Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Life. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995), pp. 50–56. David Wilkins, American Indian Politics and the American Political System (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), p. 339.
To be clear, while the case under discussion implicates what I see to be the predominant force/group driving the contemporary critique of indigenous sovereignty—those being political actors variously termed conservatives, right-wing, Republican—the history of US policy towards indigenous people implicates actors, groups, and parties across the American political spectrum, from right to left, conservative to liberal, Republican to Democrat.
The notion of indigenous tribes as dependencies of the American nation and state has a very clear historical lineage institutionally, culturally, and legally. The legal lineage, one that has shaped viewpoints in government institutions and the American culture as a whole, can be most clearly traced to the 1831 Supreme Court decision in Cherokee v. State of Georgia, in which, in dicta, Justice John Marshall famously define the political status of indigenous tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia (1831) 30 U.S. (Pet. 5) 16-17.
Aime Cesaire, “From Discourse and Colonialism,” in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman (eds), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 179.
“Library and Resource Center, Indian Gaming Facts,” National Indian Gaming Association, Washington DC, available online at: < http://www.indiangaming.org/library/index.html#facts>.
“Growth in Indian Gaming; Tribal Gaming Revenues by Region, Fiscal Year 2003 and 2002,” National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington DC, available online at: < http://www.nigc.gov/nigc/tribes/tribaldata2003/gamerevenue.jsp>.
I grant that “casino tribes” is a rather inelegant phrase. By it, in no way do I mean to flatten the uniqueness of any tribe's historical, cultural, and political identity. Instead, I utilize it here for the sake of brevity that also pinpoints the similarity (the operation of gaming enterprises) among those tribes that seem to be at the center of the many public debates and conflicts over tribal sovereignty in contemporary American politics.
“Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988”, Pub. L. No. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467. 25 U.S.C.G. Sec. 2701. Findings (5). The historical, legal, and political development of this law and the practices and problems with Indian gaming policy is not the direct concern of this essay. For a few of the important works that engage such analyses, see W. Dale Mason, Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000); William R. Eadington (ed.), Indian Gaming and the Law (Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, 1990); Wayne J. Stein, “American Indians and Gambling: Economic and Social Impacts,” in Dane Morrison (ed.), American Indian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Contemporary Issues (New York: Peter Lang, 1997), pp. 145–166; Franke Wilmer, “Indian Gaming: Players and Stakes,” Wicazo Sa Review: The Journal of Native American Studies 12:1 (1997), pp. 89–114.
In 1997, total casino revenue was an estimated $1.4 billion. In the area of job creation, tribal casinos during this year employed “14,571 California residents, 90% of whom are not Indians.” Additionally, an estimated 33,800 indirect jobs relied on the tribal casino economy. See the study “The Economic and Fiscal Benefits of Indian Gaming in California”, July 1, 1998, prepared by Analysis Group/Economics, Inc. It is available on the website of National Indian Gaming Association, “Library and Resource Center,” Reference # 1040, available online at: < http://www.indiangaming.org/library/resource-center/index.html>.
This was called the Pala compact and became known as the Pala model, named after the first tribe to sign such an agreement. For details of what the Pala model compact entailed, see Robert Smith, “Testimony before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission,” July 29, 1998, San Diego, CA. Transcript at National Gambling Impact Study Commission available online at: < http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/meetings/jul2998/p210729.html>.
According to the State's official summary, Proposition 5 “Specifies terms and conditions of mandatory compact between state and Indian tribes for gambling on tribal land”; “Mandates Governor to sign compact upon request by tribe. Permits alternative compacts only if consistent with prescribed compact”; “Permits gambling devices and lotteries at tribal casinos”; “Amends California law to allow slot machines and banked card games at tribal casinos”; “Provides for contributions to trust funds benefiting nongaming tribes, statewide emergency medical care programs, and programs benefiting communities near tribes, if tribes retain monopoly on authorized gambling”; and “Provides for reimbursement of state regulatory costs.” California Secretary of State, Vote 98, “Proposition 5: Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General: Tribal-State Gaming Compacts. Tribal Casinos Initiative Statute,” available online at: < http://vote98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/5.htm>.
Steve Scott and Melissa Mikesell, “Follow the Money,” California Journal 30:10 (October 1999), accessed through Lexis-Nexis Academic.
Kevin Fagan, “Big Casinos Move Fast to Cash In,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2000, p. A1.
Griselda Barajas (small business owner), Jack Gribbon (California political director, HERE, AFL-CIO), and Sheriff Glen Craig (former president, California Police Officers’ Association), “Argument Against Proposition 5,” Vote98 – VoterGuide (Published by California Secretary of State), available online at: < http://vote98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/5noarg.htm>.
Stand Up for California! “The Case Against Casino Gambling: An Analysis of Proposition 5, The Casino Gambling Initiative” (Sacramento, CA, 1998).
On the fundamental and all too familiar European/American construction of the “savage” and the “civilized,” two excellent texts to consult are Robert Berkhofer, The White Man's Indian (New York: Vintage, 1979); and Roy Harvey Pearce, Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).
Quoted in “A Gamble that Paid Off,” California Journal 29:12 (December 1998), accessed through Lexis-Nexis Academic.
“Proposition 5’s Legacy – California Indian Gaming Wars are Changing the Face of Initiative Politics,” California Journal 30:10 (October 1999), accessed through Lexis-Nexis Academic.
Thad Kousser, “The California Governor's Recall,” Spectrum 77:1 (Winter 2004), p. 32.
There were 7.5 million total votes in the 2002 gubernatorial race, which meant that 897,158 signatures were needed to qualify a recall for the ballot. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, “Frequently Asked Questions About Recalls,” 2003, available online at: < http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/recall_final.pdf>, p. 8.
Other states usually have a threshold of 25% or above. For this comparative state information as well as the general history of recalls in California, see ; Kenneth Miller, “The Davis Recall and the Courts,” American Politics Research 33:2 (March 2005), pp. 135–142; and Shaun Bowler and Bruce Cain, “Introduction – Recalling the Recall: Reflections on California's Recent Political Adventure,” PS: Political Science and Politics 37:1 (January 2004), p. 7. For the lack of success historically in efforts to place gubernatorial recalls on the ballot prior to 2003, see Ibid.; and Mark Baldassare, “The Role of Public Opinion on the California Governor's Recall in 2003,” American Politics Research 33:2 (March 2005), p. 166.
Bowler and Cain, op. cit., p. 8.
In their detailed research of campaign coverage in the major California newspapers, Brian K. Arbour and Danny Hayes quantified the increase in coverage. For example, the Los Angeles Times “published 58% more stories about the recall in the last month of the campaign that it did in the last month of the 2002 contest.” Brian K. Arbour and Danny Hayes, “Voter Turnout in California Recall: Where Did the Increase Come From?” American Politics Research 33:2 (March 2005), pp. 204–205, including Table 5.
California Secretary of State. “Statement of Vote, 2003 Statewide Special Election, October 7, 2003, Vote Summaries, Official Declaration of the Result on Statewide Measures,” 2003, available online at: < http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2003_special/sum.pdf>, p. 3.
David W. Moore. “Schwarzenegger Leads Gubernatorial Race,” Gallup News Services, August 11, 2003, available online at: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci = 9013>.
Frank Newport. “California Recall, Public Schools, The Economy, Civil Rights, Top Colleges,” Gallup News Services, August 26, 2003, available online at: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci = 9112>. This movement and general trend in the polls at the time is also substantiated in Daron Shaw, Mark J. McKenzie and Jeffrey Underwood, “Strategic Voting in the California Recall Election,” American Politics Research 32:2 (March 2005), p. 227, Figure 2: ‘Second Ballot Choice in California Recall Election.’
David W. Moore. “The California Recall: A Tale of Three Polls,” Gallup News Service, September 2, 2003, available online at: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci = 9184>.
“Los Angeles Times Poll Alert: Californians, Tuned in and Turned on by Recall,” Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2003, Study #486.
Christopher Parkes, “Schwarzenegger States His Goal,” Financial Times, September 4, 2003, p.2.
Barry Witt. “Critics Attack American Indian Tribe's Donation to Bustamante,” San Jose Mercury News, September 3, 2003; and Barry Witt, “Schwarzenegger Scores $4 Million in Campaign Contributions,” San Jose Mercury News, September 11, 2003.
Christian Berthelsen, “$80 Million in Contributions in 75-day Recall Campaign,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2003, p. A1.
Margaret Talev, “Two Candidates in California Recall Election Offer Support for Tribal Gaming,” The Sacramento Bee, August 29, 2003.
For this controversy over tribal donations and the uncertain status of California state campaign finance law, see Mark Simon and Zachary Coile, “State Urged to Shut Loophole in Campaign Law: Tribe's Donation to Bustamente at Issue,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 4, 2003, p. A10.
Barry Witt, “Schwarzenegger Takes Heat for Loan Loophole,” Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, October 3, 2003, p. 1. After the election, a state superior court judge ruled that Schwarzenegger's loan to his campaign did violate the state's campaign laws by engaging in the loan in the first place as well as trying to raise money to repay the loan instead of repaying it himself. See Tom Chorneau, “Judge Calls Schwarzenegger's $4.5 Million in Campaign Loans Illegal,” Associated Press, January 27, 2004; and Alexa H. Bluth, “Judge Targets Governor's Bank Loan. Stop Raising Money To Repay It, Capital Jurist Orders,” Sacramento Bee, January 27, 2004, p. A1.
For critique made during the campaign of Schwarzenegger's distinction between seeing tribes and unions, but not corporations, as special interests, see John Marelius, “Contradictions Abound for Schwarzenegger,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 31, 2003, p. A1. For a list of the top 10 donors to his 2003 campaign, see Berthelsen, op cit. For further confirmation of these figures and Schwarzenegger's ties to “longtime Republican donors, many of whom will have interests in legislation and decisions made by the governor and his administration,” see Dan Morain, “Tracking Money in the California Recall Election: Newspapers Miss a Major Element of Campaign Coverage if they Give Short Shrift to Campaign Money,” Nieman Reports (Winter 2003), p. 63.
Statement by Don Sipple during “Panel IV, The Governor's Race” at California's 2003 Governor's Race: The Recall, a conference hosted by the University of California, Berkeley, October 18, 2003. A web stream of Panel IV is available online at: < http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/events/recall.html>.
Statement by Don Sipple during “Panel IV, The Governor's Race” at California's 2003 Governor's Race: The Recall, a conference hosted by the University of California, Berkeley, October 18, 2003. A web stream of Panel IV is available online at: < http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/events/recall.html>
Carla Marinucci, “Actor Reaches Top in a Mere 9 Weeks,” The San Francisco Chronicle, October 8, 2003, p. A1.
“Los Angeles Times Poll Alert,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2003, Study #487. In fact, on the “special interest” question, Bustamante came in fourth behind former Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth (12%) and McClintock (7%).
For more on these as well as others pertaining to the process and outcome of the recall, see the articles in American Politics Research 33:2 (March 2005) and PS: Political Science and Politics 37:1 (January 2004). Both journals dedicate all or a significant part of these issues to articles on the California recall. However, not a single one of these articles spends any more than a single paragraph, and in fact not one of the articles in American Politics Research has even a sentence or a word, on the political impact of the casino tribes on the campaign.
“Los Angeles Times Poll Alert,” Los Angeles Times, October 1, 2003, Study #488. In Q30-31, the two pertinent questions posed to voters were: 1) “Does knowing that Bustamante has taken campaign contributions from Indian tribes make you more or less likely to vote for him for governor, or does that not make a difference one way or the other?” and 2) “Does knowing that Schwarzenegger has taken campaign contributions from donors with business before the state government make you more or less likely to vote for him for governor, or does that not make a difference one way or the other?”
Statement by Garry South during “Panel IV, The Governor's Race”, op. cit. On the idea that large tribal contributions were a key player in Bustamante's failed campaign, a generally accepted in view in political, academic, and journalism circles, see Kousser (2004), p. 34; and Thomas Higgins, “The ‘Govinator’: Report from California,” Commonweal 130:18 (October 24, 2003), p 6.
Michelle DeArmond. “Schwarzenegger Campaign in Riverside; Republican Hopeful Vows to Meet With Tribes,” The Press-Enterprise, September 5, 2003, p. A01.
Anthony York, “Movers & Shakers – Native American Tribes,” California Journal 35:9 (September 2004), p. 43.
“Analysis of New Arnold Schwarzenegger Ads,” Associated Press, September 23, 2003.
Carla Marinucci. “Schwarzenegger Spars with Davis on Gaming: Candidates Take on More Aggressive Tone,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2003, p. A1.
The language of the “fair share” had been articulated previously in other states, although obviously never with as much notoriety and thereby effect as the Schwarzenegger ads. For an earlier version of the “fair share” argument and discourse, see William N. Thompson and Robert Schmidt, “Not Exactly a Fair Share: Revenue Sharing and Native American Casinos in Wisconsin,” Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, 15:1 (February 2002).
“Schwarzenegger Far Off the Mark on Tribal Governments,” CNIGA Press Release, September 23, 2003, available online at: < http://www.cniga.com/media/pressrelease_detail.php?id = 40>.
CNIGA Press Release, September 23, 2003. The figure of $130 million is cited in “Tribal Leaders Fire Back at Schwarzenegger over ‘Fair Share’ Ad,” San Diego Union-Tribune, September 25, 2003, p. A16.
IGRA stipulates that revenues from any form of tribal gaming “are not to be used for purposes other than”: “to fund tribal government operations or programs,” “to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members,” “to promote tribal economic development,” “to donate to charitable organizations,” or “to help fund operations of local government agencies.” IGRA, Sec. 2710, Tribal gaming ordinances.
James P. Sweeney, “High Stakes Gambling,” California Journal 35:7 (July 2004), p. 28.
Joseph Perkins, “Gaming Tribes Have Gone Too Far,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 19, 2003, p. B7.
March 1, 1871. Congressional Globe,. 41st Congress, 3rd Session, Part III, p. 1824. Harlan was not only a leading legislator in the successful effort to end the US policy of treaty-making with tribes, but from 1865–1866 he left the Senate for a period of time in order to take charge of administering US Indian policy as the Secretary of the Interior.
“Editorial: Our View, Recall Winner; Indians,” The Press-Enterprise, September 3, 2003, p. A10.
“Editorial: Our View, Winners and Losers,” The Press-Enterprise, October 9, 2003, p. A10.
One Nation United, “Who We Are,” available online at: < http://www.onenationok.com/>.
The symmetry in wording is a product of the fact that, in January 2005, One Nation United and United Property Owners announced that they would merge under the single banner of One Nation United. At the time of this writing the merger was still in process, and thus I will continue to refer to and cite each organization separately in this article, unless otherwise needed.
United Property Owners, “The Problem,” available online at: < http://unitedpropertyowners.org/index.html>.
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, “Interest of Amicus Curiae,” and “CERF and CERA's Mission Statement,” CERA News 9:1 (January 2004), p. 2. CERF was established by CERA.
All three organizations are registered 501c(4) non-profits. One Nation United has been based out of Oklahoma, United Property Owners out of Washington State, and the Citizen Equal Rights Alliance out of Montana. On estimates of membership, Barb Lindsay, “new national director of One Nation United, says her group has more than 300,000 members in all 50 states.” Eric Leach, “Group Seeks Indian Equity,” Knight Ridder Business News, February 12, 2005, p. 1. This 300,000 figure does not include CERA. Accounting for CERA brings the numbers up to possibly 450,000 or more. See Julie Titone, “Flexing Too Much Muscle? Some Non-Indians Feel Threatened by Tribal Governments,” The Spokesman Review, December 25, 2000, p. A1; Zoltan Grossman, “Treaty Rights and Responding to Anti-Indian Activity,” The Fourth World Documentation Project (Olympia, WA: Center for World Indigenous Studies, 1999), available online at: < www.cwis.org/fwdp/Americas/anti-ind.txt>; and Elaine Willman. “CERA Notes: We Go, Grow and Gain Ground!” CERA News 8:2 (July 2003).
Rebecca L. Adamson, “Anti-federal Indian Policy Groups Make a Lame Showing But Then Again…”, Indian Country Today, August 4, 2004, p. A3.
For an important collection of essays on anti-Indianism, see Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, Anti-Indianism in Modern America: A Voice from Tatekeya's Earth (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001). Cook-Lynn's range of essays offer evidence of the often but not always implicit articulations of anti-Indianism in, for example, cultural productions such as artistic and literary forms, in scholarship produced by indigenous and non-indigenous writers, in forms of legal reasoning, and in political conflicts such as that over the Sioux Nation's Black Hills territory in South Dakota. See, especially, the author's comprehensive definition of anti-Indianism, the first component of which is: “it is the sentiment that results in unnatural death to Indians. Anti-Indianism is that which treats Indians and their tribes as though they don't exist, the sentiment that suggests that Indian nationhood (i.e. tribalism) should be disavowed and devalued” (p. x). In this regard, I differ slightly from Cook-Lynn's definition in that I see anti-tribalism as a position that serves as the central meeting point for, and thus it is in an important way distinct from, expressly racist anti-Indian positions on the one hand and those positions that seem to be sincerely focused on concerns about development, in particular that of casino development, on the other hand. Still, Cook-Lynn's attentiveness to the ubiquitous and pernicious presence of anti-Indian sentiment in America informs my own attentiveness to the same concerns, if through a slightly different argument and with a focus on a different set of political actors and institutions.
For an excellent analysis of the development of this discursive strategy, see Ken Toole, The Montana Human Rights Network, Drumming Up Resentment: The Anti-Indian Movements in Montana (Helena, MT: The Montana Human Rights Network, 2000). As the title suggests this study is focused on what has occurred in Montana, but the activities in that state were and remain key sources of contemporary anti-tribalist politics. Toole notes the change in the political discourse as these groups evolved and adapted: “Anti-Indian activists say they have nothing against Native Americans. They say their complaint is with the system of laws, rules, and regulations which govern the relationship between Native American people, tribal members, their non-Indian neighbors and the U.S. government” (p. 6).
Elaine Willman, “From CERA's Chair: In Between our Splendid CERA Conferences,” CERA News 10:1 (April 2005), p. 2.
United Property Owners website, National Update, available online at: < http://unitedpropertyowners.org/issues.htm>.
See, for example, Grossman, op. cit.; Robert Taylor, “‘Hate Group’ Member Seeks GOP Nod,” Indian Country Today, February 27, 2002; Dave Lundgren, “CERA: The Ku Klux Klan of Indian Country,” Indian Country Today, June 22, 2004; and Editors Report, “Educate America or Perish is Challenge for Indian Country,” Indian Country, November 12, 2004.
Kurt Chandler, “Some Whites Say 19th-century Treaties should be Set Aside,” Star-Tribune Newspaper of the Twin Cities, Mpls.-St. Paul, April 17, 1998, p. A23; and Grossman, op. cit.
Lighting the 7 th Fire, produced and directed by Sandra Johnson Osawa (Seattle, WA: Upstream Productions, 1994).
Protect Americans’ Rights and Resources, American Rights Guardian Update 7:2 (Spring 2002), p. 1. Bolded emphasis in original.
David Yeagley, “Why Communism Loves Indian Extremists,” American Rights Guardian Update 7:2 (Fall 2003), pp. 7–8.
“Elaine Speaks Out”, PARR Equal Rights and Treaty Rights link's page, available online at: < http://www.parr1.com/ElaineWillman/Elaine%20Willman.htm>.
In Toole, op. cit., the author notes the connection between the expressly anti-Indian groups in Montana and CERA, pp. 7, 22–23, 38, 40, 43.
Elaine Willman, “CERA Notes,” CERA News 8:1 (September 2003).
“Arnold Says Tribes Must Pay ‘Fair Share,’” Update: United Property Owners (Winter 2004), p. 4.
Jan Golab, “Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War,” The American Enterprise 15:1 (Jan/Feb 2004), p. 39.
Update, op. cit., p. 4.
Update, op. cit., p. 4
Golab, op. cit., p. 40.
Golab, op. cit., pp. 36–41, 49; and Jan Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty,’” The American Enterprise 15:6 (September 2004), pp. 26–31.
The American Enterprise Institute was founded in 1943, with listed fellows that include former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Lynne Cheney, conservative author and wife of US Vice President Dick Cheney. Thus, clearly, it is an organization with a direct line of connection to the present ruling Republican regime.
Excerpt of “Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War,” in Update (Winter 2004), p. 8; and excerpt of “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty,’” in Update: United Property Owners (December 2004), p. 11.
Golab, “Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War,” op. cit., pp. 36–37.
Golab, “Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War,” op. cit., p. 39; and Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty,’” op. cit., pp. 28–29.
Golab, “Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds for Indian War,” op. cit., p. 49.
Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty,’” op. cit., p. 29.
Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty,’” op. cit., p. 29.
Peterman was president of UCE until 2004. For his listing as UCE president and UPO advisor, see “Advisory Committee Members,” Update (Winter 2004), p. 1.
Joseph P. Kalt and Joseph William Singer, Myths and Realities of Tribal Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Indian Self-Rule (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2004), p. 1.
Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph N. Kalt, American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 2005), p. xi. The specific percentage increases and decreases listed by Taylor and Kalt for non-gaming and gaming tribes, respectively, are: real per capita income, +25 and +36; median household income, +14 and +35; college graduates, +1.7 and 2.6; family poverty, − 6.9 and − 11.6; child poverty, − 8.1 and − 11.6; unemployment, − 1.8 and − 4.8.
Eric Henson and Jonathan B. Taylor, Native America at the New Millenium (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, April 2004). See, in particular, “Figure 1: Measures of Socio-economic well-being” and “Figure 2: Measures of Socio-economic distress,” pp. 6, 8.
Taylor and Kalt, op cit., p. xi.
Kalt and Singer, op. cit., p. 3.