a couple months back, i was thinking about reparations - reparations, what a controversial word - and indigenous peoples in america. i asked if we see limited government regulation of indigenous-owned casinos as a sort of reparations, what would it look like if extended to African-Americans? specifically, gambling - formally illegal in most states - could be analogized to marijuana. marijuana though illegal as a recreational drug in the united states is not blanketly illegal globally and is not illegal for medicinal use in some areas of the united states. what would it look like if marijuana was legalized and African-Americans were able to have a monopoly of the sale of it? (and i want to be careful in suggesting marijuana because of the historical correlation between Af-Ams and marijuana/illegal drugs - i simply chose that because it is a vice that could potentially be legalized like alcohol and gambling.)
that was my initial question. after a bit of google-search research, i am shifting the question and annotating my commentary. after reading a semi-angry letter from the national indian gaming association in response an op-ed entitled "indian casinos open way for black reparations" published in the latimes, i want to tread very lightly in an effort not to make my argument clear. bluecorncomics features both the article and responses as a stereotype of the month. what the arthur, dickey, does not do well is explain his argument and in failing to do so, offends native peoples. so, here's for doing a bit better than him.
first of all, i am not arguing that the indian gaming regulatory act was in any sense reparations in the traditional sense. if we see reparations as the making of amends for a wrong that has been done by paying money or otherwise helping those who have been wronged, the regulatory act was certainly not this because it was not framed as part of an apology for genocide, economic depravement, etc. nor does it help all indigenous peoples in the united states - it only helps a select population. additionally, i am not contending that indigenous peoples and african americans are essentially the same. there are some huge differences - the fact that indigenous peoples are sovereign, etc. but, both populations have important similarities: historical policies that were directed towards each group in order to create and preserve racial hierarchy including but not limited to economic depravation, lack of quality education, housing and utilities, and continued lack of true political clout. i hope to provide some food for thought - some theoretical food for thought and i hope that it doesn't stereotype or belittle indigenous populations, but instead, helps us consider the nature of reparations, affirmative actions, economic justice and the legalization of vices.
when both dickey and i think reparations - maybe a more appropriate term would be affirmative action or perhaps a new term not yet popularized or created (incidental positive action policy?). but, for the sake of not being too complicated, let's just call it affirmative action. policy that has been acted that affirmatively helps to level the playing field by giving a historically disadvantaged group increased opportunity for economic and social equality. affirmative action also seems appropriate because some of the objections to the regulatory act uses the same language as objections to affirmative action. An article I found on a Berkeley University site writes how Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop the growth of reservation casinos filed a civil suit alleging the regulatory act unconstitutional and claiming that it gives preferential treatment and an unfair advantage - two (false) arguments often used by people attacking affirmative action policies.
in part, the regulatory act was created in order to assist the indigenous peoples in achieving greater economic development. although, there have been both positive and negative consequences since then, it can't be argued that for some tribes, it has had an incredibly positive economic affect. In The Social and Economic Impact of Native American Casinos,William Evans and Julie Topoleski, they contend that "The casinos have changed the economic climate in and around the reservations. Examining the effects of casinos after at least four years of operation, the authors find that positive changes include: young adults moving back to reservations, fueling an 11.5 percent population increase; adult employment increasing by 26 percent; and a 14 percent decline in the number of working poor. In counties with or near a casino, the employment- to- population ratio has increased and mortality has declined." Additionally, JoAnn Jones, a tribal chair of the Wisconson Winnebago Nation has said, authors
Tribal governments realize that a casino is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve what no state or federal economic development program has been able to achieve for Indian people in 200 years--the return of self-respect and economic self-sufficiency.
so, because of federal policy, indigenous peoples have been able to more easily set up casinos with less overhead than non-indigenous casinos. they have profited and been able to benefit economically from the policy. in many ways, the stated goal of increasing economic development has been achieved.
so, with that background, could we extend a similar program to african americans? instead of cutting a check (as a one-time 'i'm sorry' that would only affect one or two generations and not in a substantial way), could we enact a policy which allows african-americans to have a larger market share of an in-demand item (possibly tax-free)? if african-americans could corner the market on some other vice (like marijuana) what sort of economic growth would occur? should reparations programs look more like this instead of a one-time payment?
