The Wake

“Indians get screwed, again!” Not by whites, but by ourselves! Sometimes I think we are our own worse enemies.

Although Pawlenty did not create the division, he has certainly has taken advantage of the tremendous disparity between the haves and the have-nots. He has created a win- loose situation. Guess who’s the winner? Not the Indians! The northern reservations with the largest native population have nothing. On the other hand, the smallest reservations in the south have great wealth. You would think after centuries of “divide-and-conquer” practices, we would have learned. But no, we haven’t!

Pawenty’s plan with the three northern reservations, which Attorney General Mike Hatch says is unconstitutional, puts all the decision and power in the hands of the Minnesota State Lottery. Tribal governments lose their sovereign right to decide how Indian assets are spent. The proposed legislation specifically gives tribal governments responsibility to bear all cost related to the facilities and day-to-day operations, but gives “overall control” to the state. In other words, reservations take all the financial risks and the state collects the profit – plus a $200 million casino license fee renewable every two-years.

Ironically, in another proposal, Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, and Sen. Dick Day, R-Owatonna, argue that Indian-owned casinos have an unfair advantage over Canterbury Park. They propose a “Racino,” which authorizes the state lottery to operate slot machines and black jack tables at Canterbury Park. In this case, the state is assuming the financial risk while the wealthy owners of Canterbury Park collect additional revenues.

Fortunately, Senate committees voted both proposals down.

As for the future, we, the Indian people of Minnesota, need to put our differences aside and proactively develop our own proposal that is in the best interests of all Minnesota Indians, not the state.

But how do we reconcile the differences between the poorest reservations with large populations and the wealthiest reservations with small populations? Maybe offering each reservation a 5 percent share and splitting the remaining profits on a per capita basis might be a good compromise? A 5 percent share in profits would help offset any potential reduction in revenue by current metro area casinos resulting from a new metro area casino. At the same time, the per capita split will help northern reservations will provide necessary revenues to support their larger populations.

Now, where to build a joint casino? The Mall of America has expressed an interest in developing a casino as a part its expansion plans. It is one of the world’s most-visited sites. A casino at the MOA would not necessarily rely upon the limited entertainment dollars of the local community, but rather rely on new revenue generated from out-of-state consumers. The MOA site offers the greatest potential return and everyone ultimately wins.

Conspicuously absent from this proposal is the s tate of Minnesota. Certainly, the state would have to get “their share,” but rather than giving away our sovereign rights, a united Native community can enter into negotiations with the state and reach an agreement that is not one-sided.

Mark Bellcourt is a counselor in General College and welcomes comments at .