Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Essay

In 1988, Congress passed the Indian gambling regulatory performance establishing gaming on Indian reservations as a means of helping tribes become self-sufficient and less dependent on government dole-outs. Donald Bartlett and James B. Steele co-wrote an expression which appe bed in Time cartridge clip on December 16, 2002 entitled Wheel of Misfortune negatively criticizing the consequences of instituting the verbalize Act. A day later, the native Australian American Times published an chromatography column which contains dissenting arguments against the first article.According to Bartlett and Steele, the major defect of the Act is the unequal redistri exclusivelyion of profits derived from gaming in the reserves It gives billions of dollars to the albumin backwardsers of Indian crinklees and nonhing to hundred of Native Americans living in povertyhundreds of millions of dollars to angiotensin-converting enzyme Indian tribe with a few dozen numbersand not a penny to a tri be with hundreds of thousands of members(78) The bulk of the essay expounds and provides express to these assertions. It also points to the fact that while these tribes earn tax-free revenues, they continue to fool millions in government aid.The Native American Times tower, meanwhile, accuses the Time powder store article as simply a piece that fan the flames of racism with lies (Indian Gaming 84) and proceeds to either refute or let off the points raised of the latter. Bartlett and Steele claim that only a few Indians argon benefiting financially from the Native-American gaming industry thus defeating the purpose of the act, which is to raise the bonnie Native American out of poverty. At the same time, a elevated percentage of the profits from these lucrative casinos go to the wealthy leaders of tribes.The chromatography column counters this argument by stating that there are varied reasons why whatever tribes do well than opposites. It cites the case of Oklahoma, home to more Native Americans than each other state. The state prohibits Class III gambling thus preventing an probability for the Native Americans in Oklahoma from realizing the Congressional Act. Today tribes continue to commove with every resource available to them to hold off those who would send them back to the metaphoric reservation (Indian Gaming 85). The editorial also praises the winner story of the Shakopee tribe which the Time magazine article derides.The success is well-deserved, harmonise to the editorial, since this group has experienced one of the most harrowing histories of violence inflicted against Native Americans. For all its passionate defense and criticism of the Time magazine article, the editorial of the Native American Times does not touch on the other issues raised by the former like cronyism among the tribal leaders, the involvement of white Americans behind the casino operations, and the applications for recognition by extinct tribes that suddenly resurre cts because of the business opportunity.Then again, the former is a lengthier and more detailed presentation tell apart with figures and facts, in keeping also with its being an investigative article. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the editorial does not need to refute the Time magazine article point by point and that its entire argument is summed up when the editorial writer states that the reason why people like Bartlett and Steele are being too critical about the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is because the thought of rich Indians is against nature we can only shine (85). Inequality, anomalies, and other issues about the Native American and their casinos may exist but they are no different to those in regular gaming industries. patronage some wealthy members, Native Americans are still the poorest and most victimise people in America.