Akaka bill and gaming in Hawaii

The Advertiser has an article today about how "Sen. Dan Inouye, an outspoken critic of gaming in Hawai'i, is accepting more money than ever from wealthy contributors linked to American Indian tribes that run casinos."

The third quarter of the article turns to "whether or not Native Hawaiians will be allowed to have gaming rights."

"According to Inouye, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — which he helped write — does not permit Indian gambling in states that prohibit gambling. The Akaka bill itself was modified in 2001 to state explicitly that it does not authorize a Native Hawaiian governing body to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Also, nothing in the Akaka bill provides eligibility to participate in any program provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which oversees Indian issues such as gaming."

But the article says: "That doesn't mean it still couldn't happen."

Inouye says: "I hope and pray that Native Hawaiians do not get involved in gaming enterprises. As an insular state, we may find ourselves burdened with a host of problems that we clearly do not need."

Barb Lindsay, national director for One Nation, a grassroots organization based in Oklahoma that opposes Indian gambling, says in the article, "If ethnic Hawaiians were to receive tribal sovereignty, I would imagine with the backing of non-tribal gambling interests they wouldn't have any trouble raising $50 million or more to convince the population in that state to change the law to allow gambling." She said the best way to prevent gambling from coming to Hawai'i is to "prevent passage of the Akaka bill because the whole point of creating an ethnic Hawaiian government is to give them sovereignty. And once they have sovereignty, they can do whatever they want, whenever they want."

Well, I don't think that last part is accurate, because domestic tribal so-called sovereignty is way more restrictive than real sovereignty, ie. independence (which, by the way, will not be ethnically based).

Even though I oppose gaming, like many prominent supporters of independence, I don't really agree that this in itself is a reason to prevent passage of the Akaka Bill, since gaming could also happen with independence. I believe we should oppose gaming within any context—state, federal recognition, and independence—based on the " host of problems" Inouye, to his credit, mentions. And I believe we should prevent passage of the Akaka bill for a host of other reasons as well. So yes, oppose gaming; yes, oppose the Akaka bill. But not necessarily one because of the other.

Oh, and there's also an article on the "shameful" history, according to Inouye, of U.S. relations to Native Americans, and his involvement with the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. When I was in college at Tufts in 1987, I learned of the Iroquois influence on the Constitution because of a book that was published with testimonies from hearings that Inouye held in that committee on the bicentennial of the constitution, and that information had a profound affect on how I viewed American history and my whole historical frame of reference. Probably had something to do with how I perceived Hawaiian history when I returned to the islands and started learning about it in the early 90s. So, even though I disagree with Inouye on the Akaka bill and many other issues, I do give him credit for that! As well as for opposing gaming in Hawaii.

Posted: Sun - August 29, 2004 at 09:18 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C608676235"); >

Akaka bill and gaming in Hawaii

> >