To the editor:

I found the timing of the articles on the diversification of tribal economies interesting. Prior to the upheaval of native people that Christopher Columbus and Hernando De Soto caused, native peoples had extensive trading and agricultural economies. Imagine the offers of “economic improvement(?)” that President Reagan offered in 1985: The storage of spent nuclear rods on tribal lands, or legalized gaming, via the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Which would you choose?

The talk of the ills of Indian gaming is quite interesting. States like Wyoming, Nebraska, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Maine, and Texas, infringe on rights of tribal sovereignty. If there isn’t racism involved, why isn’t there opportunity? The excerpt from Indian Country Today fails to mention the only truthful part of the Time magazine article on tribal gaming: the success of the Prairie Band Potawatomi in improving tribal services and infrastructure.

Ironically, the Sept. 22 editorial sounds like Termination-era talk of tribal independence. This country should never be allowed to relieve itself from the trust and treaty responsibility it has due to taking lands in the 1700s-1900s. If Republican state governments weren’t trying to downsize everything, they’d realize there’s benefits to working with tribes. Tribal enterprise would also be easier if politicians stopped abusing tribal sovereignty and Republicans stopped trying to tax tribal sales.

A recent Native Peoples magazine article stated that out of the 570 federally recognized tribes, 307 are in Alaska, 263 are in the lower 48, and 97 have gaming operations. Is the truth being told about Indian gaming?

Mike Ford,

Lawrence