4 ms·
Why should tribal sovereignty be diminished yet again in order to benefit the American state and people? Edit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to
by chimpanzee 2y ago
Why should tribal sovereignty be diminished yet again in order to benefit the American state and people?
Edit: I see now that OP was specifically referring to restricting the promotion of gambling. Such restrictions seem reasonable where it doesn’t infringe on the sovereignty of the tribes.
- ndriscoll 2y agoAssuming we're talking about online gambling, and taking for granted that we ought to ban gambling, presumably sovereign tribes should have the same rules as betting sites from any other sovereign nation, which I think at least previously meant that it would be illegal and payment processors weren't allowed to facilitate it? Likewise it would make sense to ban any advertising of casinos off of tribal land.
- chimpanzee 2y agoGiven that GP called out the tribes specifically, I figured they were referring to the casinos on tribal land. Online gambling restrictions are sensible in that “online content/services” are a kind of import when accessed from within non-tribal US territory (To me at least, but IANAL).
- ndriscoll 2y agoThey did say they shouldn't be allowed to promote it (which I take to mean outside tribal land). A ban on advertising gambling in places where it's illegal seems reasonable to me. They could put a billboard right on the border like some states have with e.g. fireworks.
- chimpanzee 2y agoAh I did miss the narrowing to “promote it”. I have no issue with that either, as ads presented within the territory of the US, are again a kind of import. Might need to narrow the wording further though, since as you point out, billboards are advertising and could be erected solely on tribal land and should probably be protected for reasons of tribal sovereignty.
- silexia 2y agoNo group in America should have a legalized advantage over others solely based on race.
- chimpanzee 2y agoIt’s about their (partial) sovereignty, which was given back to the nations as recompense. It has nothing to do with race.
- silexia 2y agoI am native American (Choctaw) myself and it is all about race. Every tribe only allows those of provably pure blood to join.
- chimpanzee 2y agoThat’s determined by the tribe, not the US government. Not sure how else the tribes would manage it without extensive record-keeping or some sort of “re-citizenship” test/process. But again, that’s their/your sovereign right to determine for yourselves. Either way, the US government isn’t making these casino allowances based on race. (There is the CDIB, which I’m sure you’re aware of, which is used to confer federal assistance in other areas but doesn’t confer tribal membership. Sounds like you might disagree with that race-based assistance as well? But I’m not sure how else the government is supposed to repair the race-based harms it already inflicted. Seems like if you knock a family down for being X, then when you go and later lift them up, the reason your lifting them up is not because they’re X; it’s because you knocked them down in the first place.)
- silexia 2y agoOnce people open the door to using race based discrimination as a tool, they often find it is used in ways they find reprehensible. No one alive today is responsible for the harms of our ancestors, and all of us have had ancestors who were slaves at one point or another. No one should get special treatment based on race.