December 15, 2009

Shinnecock "Indians" get their casino

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration said Tuesday that the Shinnecock Indians on Long Island meet the criteria for federal recognition, signaling the end of a 30-year court battle and clearing a path for the tribe to pursue its plans for a casino in New York City or its suburbs.

The announcement all but assures that the 1,066-member Shinnecock Indian Nation will receive formal federal recognition, though a public-comment period of up to six months must be held before the final order is issued.

The news could mean significant changes for the relatively poor tribe, most of whose members live on 800 acres in Southampton, N.Y., not far from some of Long Island’s wealthiest communities and expansive celebrity-owned estates.

Shinnecock leaders have long argued that a casino could turn around the tribe’s fortunes.

“This recognition comes after years of anguish and frustration for many members of our Nation, living and deceased,” Randy King, chairman of the Shinnecock trustees, said in a statement, adding, “Perhaps this recognition will help some of our neighbors better understand us and foster a new mutual respect.”

Once it is federally recognized, the tribe would be entitled to build a “Class II” casino on its land that could have thousands of video slot machines but no table games. That has worried some local officials because of the implications that such a casino would have for traffic and tourism in the wealthy resort areas. ...

The tribe is also hoping to resolve more than $1 billion worth of land disputes in the Hamptons, including its claim to the site of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, which has played host to the U.S. Open several times.

The article doesn't mention that the Shinnecock "Indians" are well known to be triracial, with ample African and white ancestry. That's just too complicated for New York Times readers, I guess.

Here, for example, is a photo I found of Randy King, chairman of the Shinnecock trustees, who is mentioned (but not, of course, pictured) in the NYT article. In the same picture there is also one white guy and three NAACP officials. Try to guess which is which. It's not too hard, but it's not totally obvious either. (The answer appears in the Comments.)

I'm not saying that zillion dollar casinos shouldn't be handed out to mixed race people based on their ancestry, just that you might think that the New York Times would at least mention in a long article why it took from 1978 until the Obama Administration for the federal government to accept that the Shinnecocks are Indians under the law. I mean, I live 3,000 miles away and I knew all about the Shinnecocks' ancestry for decades, but, apparently, no word about it is fit to print in the NYT.

Indeed, decades ago I read an article about how the first African-American to play in the U.S. Open golf tournament was in 1895, when a Shinnecock who had helped build the first course on the site, competed in the Open.

For example, here's the 1892 oil painting Shinnecock Indian Girl by William Merrit Chase. The text explains: "In the features was to be seen a curious blending of the two types, Indian and African."

Or, here's a picture of tribal trustee, Lance Gumbs, who looks a little like comedian David Allan Grier.

And here's a picture of Peter Smith, who was head groundskeeper at Shinnecock Hills, a position long reserved for a Shinnecock, for the 1995 U.S. Open. There was a big to-do about racism when he was replaced by a groundskeeper from Pebble Beach to get ready for the 2004 Open. Smith looks rather like Hugo Chavez, whose ancestry isn't that different from the Shinnecocks.

One interesting thing is how within a couple of hundred years, a moderately endogamous population of highly divergent antecedents can develop a fairly homogeneous look.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

55 comments:

green mamba said...

It's funny and ironic how uncomfortable liberals are with the reality of race-mixing.

Most prefer to think in simple categories like "black guy". To them, Barack Obama and Tiger Woods are "black guys" just like all the rest. Cognizance of the complexity of racial makeup is somehow racist.

Steve Sailer said...

Here's the caption to the color picture:

"NAACP Eastern Long Island Branch President Lucius Ware, Vice President for Advocacy/Director, NAACP Washington Bureau, Hilary Shelton, New York State NAACP President Hazel Dukes, Shinnecock Trustee Chairman Randy King and author/activist Bob Zellner."

So, the Indian is the fourth person, reading from left to right, and the white is the fifth.

pat said...

This "Indian" tale reminded me of the story about Jackie Kennedy Onassis and her struggles with Indians land claims. She fought them tooth and nail ... and then settled.

Kennedys love minorities, except when minorities try to live near them.

This is from encyclopedia.com ...

EDGARTOWN - After more than 10 years of legal wrangling, a settlement was reached yesterday with the Vanderhoop clan of the Gay Head Wampanoags that will enable Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis to take ownership of a 1.5-acre oceanfront parcel that her 370-acre retreat on Martha's Vineyard encircles.

In turn, the group of Wampanoags secured ownership of a nearby oceanfront parcel that some of the tribe believe has as much or more spiritual significance as the disputed land in Gay Head.

Canadian Cassandra said...

Now, remember The Fundamental Theory of Obama: he wants to turn America into Canada.

I read recently that Obama signed off on $1.5 billion to settle some Indian grievance or other, you can expect a lot more of that.

Next, they'll claim that the white man "stole" their land, and that you are all squatting on unceded Indian land. You're looking at trillions to settle the land claims.

The word Indian will be changed, mostly to create an opportunity for Indians to feign offense at being called Indians.

What else...hey, did you know that Indians in Canada have a substantially higher crime rate than black people? We're the only industrialized country in the world, it is said, where it is safer to live in the city than in the country because rural Indian crime is so out of control.

Oh, two-tiered sentencing, that's one you're going to love. Indians, as a matter of policy, will receive shorter prison sentences than whites for committing similar crimes.

Protests and shutting down of highways and downtown areas, that's coming. Canadian cops love arresting white Canadians who raise a peep about illegal - actually terrorist - protests that the Indians are so fond of. Flying the American flag near an Indian protest will get you arrested for inciting violence.

How come our Indians up here in Canada are so much more a problem than in the States, or everywhere else in the Americas, anyway? I suspect the root problem is an HBD one and that the Canadian Indian's late discovery of agriculture and hence booze certainly doesn't help matters.

Free college education, an exemption from taxes, that's coming down the pipes too. I'm actually a bit surprised come to think of it that the American Victim Industry has left this lucrative vein of gold sitting there in the ground, they don't normally miss opportunities like these.

What's your take on Kennewick Man Steve? Indians, particularly the plains Indians, always "looked" like they had some Caucasian DNA in them to me.

john henry's hammer said...

Ah, but Candadian Indians (First Nations) are cold adapted. Even more so than Northern Europeans. Surving the winter in the subarctic is about as severe a test of intelligence and long range planning as you can get. Life anywhere in Mediterranean Europe is a picnic by comparison.

Not just that but their genetics are East and/or Central Asian. They couldn't have problems with booze and crime.

Neither can the Russians. They're white and cold adapted. So, very soon, they'll quit murdering each other at the same rate that black Americans do. They'll be as prosperous and organized as the southern Chinese. It'll happen. Just you wait.

Anonymous said...

Canadian Cassandra,

I'm an American who has been reading a lot about the Canadian violent crime rate lately, but mostly urban violence. It seems the violent crime rate is generally lower in all of Canada's major cities, compared to U.S cities, even when compared to New York City which has a "low" violent crime rate compared to places like Detroit and St. Louis.

The black crime pandemic(large concentrations of black African people = almost always a significantly higher violent crime rate as well as "general dysfunction") seems to be increasingly affecting Canada's large cities, especially Toronto I've noticed(still far safer than New York City though). Many of the violent criminals are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Jamaica and Haiti.

I was unaware of the terrible crime wave in rural Canada, although I've heard of the problems among the indigenous Canadians and Metis(mixed French and Native Canadian), which roughly parallels the problems among Native Americans. I often hear how bad the child poverty rate among the Metis is; in fact, these mixed-race people seem to have their own unique culture and political agendas that separate them from both white Americans and Indigenous(or "Native") Canadians. This unique separation of the Metis(French for "Mestizo") from white Canadian and native Canadian political causes and culture is similar in many ways to Hispanic political causes(Spanish-speaking Native Americans in the U.S southwest seem to be better represented than their English-speaking counterparts further north, even though they may have roughly the same experiences and grievances).

I think(I may be mistaken) that the mostly white run Quebecoix separatist movement has often found reliable allies among the Metis political groups. Perhaps the French have convinced the "Indians" or "Natives" as well as the Metis or whatever, that they are better friends than the Anglos.

Of course there are many mixed-race Canadians who are half Native-Canadian and half British or other European. Are these mixed-race people as "troublesome" as the French-speaking Metis? Or does Metis cover the English-speaking mixed race Canadians too?

The Canadian Indian/Native population(3.5%?) seems much larger than the Native American(1%?) population in the U.S. Maybe this explains things? Except that so many Hispanics in the U.S are often just Spanish-Speaking natives...

Tel Aviv Scots-Irish said...

Somebody somewhere said:

"Everyone needs to be part of a group - part of a conspiracy. All individuals need a network and group identity in order to survive because the competing conspiracies - competing group networks - that are already out there are going to eat your individual lunch."

jack strocchi said...

john henry's hammer said:

Not just that but their genetics are East and/or Central Asian. They couldn't have problems with booze and crime.

Although the Amerindians and Polynesians are related to East Asians there is a pretty large genetic and geographic distance between these strains of the Mongoloid race. Apparently this race began to differentiate some 42,000-21,000 years ago.

This phylogenetic tree indicates that Native Americans, although closer to East Asians, can be considered a seperate race.

Obviously the Native Americans missed out on having Genghis Khan spreading his seed about and all the Confucian philosophy. Both nature and culture conspire to make East Asians more co-operative and less criminally tending.

Again, john henry's hammer deserves credit for presenting evidence rather than just "point and splutter". Unfortunately for his argument his evidence is anecdotal rather than relying on genomic statistical analysis.

jack strocchi said...

Neither can the Russians. They're white and cold adapted. So, very soon, they'll quit murdering each other at the same rate that black Americans do. They'll be as prosperous and organized as the southern Chinese. It'll happen. Just you wait.

Russians are not criminally inclined under conditions of normal governance. Unfortunately Russia has tended to not have normal governance these past hundred years or so.

In fact when they immigrate to Western countries they mostly tend to integrate and approach the Caucasian norm for social pathology.

This is in stark contrast to Africans who in all cases tend to present with relatively high levels of social pathology, both at home and abroad.

And lets not get started on the monumental contributions that Russia has made to modern culture. Although Africans are brilliant at sports and entertainment they do not have the same all round record of scientific and cultural achievement as the Russians.

Russia did after all beat the Germans in WW2. That took some doing.

OhioStater said...

This seems like a silly business plan since there is already a lot of competition nearby and the local demographic is not ideal.

In Jersey there is Atlantic City, and in Connecticut is Mohegan Sun and FoxWoods, all world class casinos. All of these are along the interstate 95 corridor, to the west of the Shinnecock land on Long Island.

So you build a casino on Long Island, but it's hard to get out there. I went to the Open at Bethpage, and it wasn't easy. Maybe New Yorkers like traffic, and won't mind, but it's not ideal.

A lot of people live on Long Island of course, but are either wealthy WASPs (not heavy gamblers) or are Jewish and Italian. In my experience, Jews and Italians would rather own the casino, or fix games, rather than throwing money away at a craps table.

So you will attract a large number of blacks from Queens to Long Island, to a casino owned by Indians, and managed by Jews and the mob. The WASPs glower as usual.

Steve Sailer said...

I went to the 2004 U.S. Open as a guest of a member of the National Golf Links of America, which adjoins Shinnecock Hills. We just parked on the tenth fairway of the National, walked through the door in the fence, and instantly were on the 3rd hole of Shinnecock, surrounded by thousands of spectators who had spent four hours getting there from NYC.

Membership has its privileges.

Shawn said...

We did take this land by force, essentially, from the Indians. But if you ask most Indians where they got the land they will likely say, "oh, we just stole it from some other tribe." In other words, they got the land from shady actions as well. So go the course of history and thank goodness we had technological superiority over the Indian tribes, which allowed us to conquer this great land!

rightsaidfred said...

US reservations are quite the boondoggle: most land is exempt from local property taxes, and money earned on such land is exempt from income tax. The feds provide health care gratis on reservations, plus various and sundry other transfer programs administered by individual tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Obama et al approved an overly generous $3 billion plus settlement, and Sen. John Tester is shepherding a $500 million payment to just one tribe in Montana which is pretty much pure pork. Ah, the political power of western senators to transfer money from big eastern population centers.

Pat Shuff said...

Oregon family at heart of sticky issue: Does intermarriage threaten Native American culture?

By Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
November 06, 2009, 5:10PM

"We do need to let the people know, 'If you continue on this way, there will be a sunset to our tribe, maybe in 70 or 80 years,'" he says. "What is the point of fighting for all these treaty rights if there is nobody left to exercise them?"

Estimates of intermarriage rates are imprecise. A 2000 book by Harvard professor Werner Sollors says more than half of married Native American adults in the U.S. in 1990 were married to a non-Native. The Encyclopedia of American History puts that number at about two-thirds in 2000.

Garrison says it's impossible to know. No one tracks it, and a study would be costly and difficult because some tribes "don't want to be studied."

Paradoxically, intermarriage has played a role in increasing the Native population. The U.S. census counted just 240,000 American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut in 1900, down from estimates of as many as 12 million or more in North America before Europeans arrived.

But last year, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the American Indian and Alaska Native population at more than 3 million (nearly 5 million counting those who identify themselves as Natives of mixed race), with 54,000 in Oregon. Those numbers are expected to grow.

Not everyone thinks intermarriage is a problem. Joseph Myers, executive director of the National Indian Justice Center in Santa Rosa, Calif., says Natives should focus on educating people about their heritage.

"I don't think we do each other any justice by getting stuck on this idea that you can save Indian culture and traditions by blood quantum," says Myers, whose center provides legal education and training.

http://tinyurl.com/yz9fv55

Basically intergenerational transfer
of wetware encodings unrelated to biological twistings. It does enable the continued transfer of private property reparations. Half in 1990, two thirds by 2000. Where groups gather in traditional garb to observe past traditions, the main difference between a pow-wow and a northern ID Mountain Man Jamboree is the casino license monopoly.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend who has made a living out of being an advocate for Indians, aka, Native Americans (many prefer the former term.) She is not actually biologically Indian though she looks it a bit, but she partly grew up on a reservation and has "adopted" Indian relatives.
She has worked for a couple government agencies in the D.C. area and is really annoyed at how black Indians in the D.C. have taken over the native American identity scene. Most of the pow wows are attended by mostly blacks who may or may not be Indian -- great-great grandmother 1/2 Cherokee, that sort. There are whites who claim to be Indian with similarly little ancestry, but they rarely identify as Indians. My friend thinks that blacks now find the Indian identity more lucrative from a victim pov, and perhaps more "cool." But she is dead miffed at how they have taken over the Indian scene in the D.C. area.

john smith said...

"...Indians, particularly the plains Indians, always "looked" like they had some Caucasian DNA in them to me."

They did have a lot of "Roman" noses didn't they? But overall, from the 19th & early 20th c. photos I've seen, they had extremely broad, sort of Mongol faces. The American Indians who most resembled Caucasians were the tribes who lived along the eastern seaboard, especially the mid-Atlantic, around the time the Europeans arrived. One account described Indian maidens as being similar in beauty to English damsels, lacking only the fair complexion (they weren't into sun tans in those days.) Most descriptions of east coast Indians--I don't know about the ones in New England and Canda though -- portray a type closer to middle eastern, or even Asian Indian, than to the Mongol types further west.

Anonymous said...

"This is in stark contrast to Africans who in all cases tend to present with relatively high levels of social pathology, both at home and abroad."

What's the crime rate for black african immigrants to the U.S again?

Anonymous said...

Steve, as your article shows, the whole thing is basically a scam.

I work with a "native American" lady. She has blue eyes, light brown hair and fair skin. So how did she get to be a "Native American"? Easy. Her grandfather was born in the Netherlands. His parents died shortly after they immigrated to the US. He was adopted by a "Native American" couple, who, of course, made him a full-fledged member of their tribe. So his granddaughter is one-fourt "Native American," and very proud of it. She wears Indian jewelrey and is very active in tribal affairs. She also gets a check every month from her tribe's casino, which may have something to do with her interest in her ancestry.

Nothing but a scam, IMHO.

- Black Death

Conrad Bibby said...

What I've never understood is why the formal recognition of Indian tribal status automatically translates into the construction of a casino. Was casino gambling a big part of Native American culture, traditionally? I must have missed that in the second grade.

Seriously, isn't it a bit of contradiction that a policy that is ostensibly intended to show respect for Indian heritage is being deliberately employed in a way that makes a mockery out of Indian culture?

David said...

Meanwhile.

But hey, let's keep giving billions of bucks to any people of color we can find, for any reason. After all, theirs are "reasonable requests," aren't they?

Anonymous said...

The casinos are built because (a) they're a lucrative, proven source of income, and, (b) tribal reservations are (as I understand it; correct me if I'm wrong) distinct jurisdictions that are not under state laws but directly under the federal government, and hence not affected by state-level bans on gambling.

A and B complement each other; in most states tribal casinos have an effective monopoly.

MarAkin said...

When I saw the picture, I said to myself: "those aren't Indians! they be blacks!"

Rememnber the Chris Rock line????

Peter A said...

So why can't Mexicans, who by and large have a far better claim to being "native" Americans than most of these "Indian" tribes, start opening casinos? Or is that the next step?

Anonymous said...

Gambling is for suckers, everybody knows that. If these "Indians" want to cash in on the sucker trade, let them. Why should the game be monopolized by the elite, well heeled, mainstream businessmen we have now? Let's be democratic about this and spread the wealth. There's enough chumps out there for everyone.

MarAkin said...

There's an article in the NYT Magazine about Nancy Meyers and Women working hollywood.

You're going to write about that right??

I skimmed through it and found it pretty boring to be honest.

MarAkin said...

I did not find Nancy Meyers to be a compelling figure.

She seems like a nice lady though

glaucus said...

U.S. Reparations for people that would never have been born without the U.S. is a morally bankrupt idea.

Virtually all Indians and blacks in this nation are mixed race. Ergo, none of them would have been born without this country, [b]and[/b] its oppression of [i]some of[/i] their ancestors.

We are 'repairing' what, exactly? The tragic injustice that all living African-Americans and Amerindians exist?

Anonymous said...

Steve, completely OT, but here is an amazing example of how insane the left(and unfortunately too much of the right) is when it comes to the environmental crisis and immigration. They are actually using climate change to advocate policies that are the very opposite of what needs to be done!

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/15-9#comment-1369021

Anonymous said...

Mixed-race is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not as if a mixed-race person inherits equal portions of his ancestors' traits. Whites have recessive characteristics. Thus a black-white mixed child, for instance, will usually resemble more the black parent and less the white parent.

Chief Seattle said...

I guessed the guy in the Hawaiian shirt was the Indian based on the complexion (and the shirt). I guess this race thing is all a social construction.

My father has a theory that basically anyone of French Canadian descent living in Canada or New England has some Indian blood. His reasoning is there just weren't enough white women to go around. I think he's onto something there.

Anonymous said...

There's a fair amount of overlap between Michif/Metis and French-Canadians. There was a cultural conference held last summer on the reservation near where I grew up celebrating the French heritage and Metis/Michif culture. It drew French speakers and Metis from across the Canadian border and people with a French-American background as well as Michif people on the reservation. Most of the people in the tribe have French surnames and are descended from French trappers who married Indian women. Michif, the language, is a mixture of French, English, and Cree. It's spoken by Metis in Canada and on the Indian reservation where I grew up. The people are pretty well mixed but I'd say that the Indian side is emphasized.

Anonymous said...

I've often heard that the Shinnecock greens keeper at Shinnecock did zero maintenance on his equipment during his ten year tenure. It became a kind of local joke. Hopefully the casino will be Queens or Nassau--the traffic issues on the East End get pretty intense. Steve, keep working on your golf game for the next time you get invited to the National.

gwood said...

"the Vanderhoop clan of the Gay Head Wampanoags..."
If I were a member of the Gay Head Wampanoags I'd probably tell everyone I was a Comanche.

Anonymous said...

Gambling is for suckers, everybody knows that. If these "Indians" want to cash in on the sucker trade, let them. Why should the game be monopolized by the elite, well heeled, mainstream businessmen we have now? Let's be democratic about this and spread the wealth. There's enough chumps out there for everyone.
Non-natives in many jurisdictions are not allowed to own casinos. It isn't fair that some citizens have the right to right to own types of businesses that others cannot (or that some citizens have to pay taxes when others don't). I don't understand why natives simultaneously enjoy both citizenship and special native rights of their own.

Middletown Girl said...

I wonder what names prevail among the Shinnecocks.

Crazyass Horse?
Sittin' Bulljive?
Geronimofo?

Vito said...

Hey Steve, didnt know you was down with Dyani Brown.

Melykin said...

Canadian aborignals have a very high rate of alcoholism and other addictions. A lot of them have fetal alcohol syndrome. I think it would be impossible to know what their IQ and criminality would be naturally unless the addiction problems is fixed. (It is going to be hard to fix it since it is taboo to even talk about it, much less to suggest it is genetic).

In Mongolia there is also a great deal of addiction. The Mongolian people also look a lot like the aborignal people in the northern and western parts of Canada.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3138806.stm

The Inuit in Canada's north suffer greatly from addiction. If they can't get alcohol or drugs they sniff gasoline.

Before Europeans came they were hunter/gatherers and addiction wouldn't have been an issue. No doubt they had a hard, butal existance before the Europeans, but we have certainly screwed them over with smallpox (which killed entire communities), alcohol, drugs and an agricultural diet (they have very high rates of diabetes).

The aboriginal crime is most notable
on the reserves (such as around Hobbema,Alberta) or in skid row areas of cities such as Winnipeg and Regina (about 10% of the population is aboriginal in these cities).
----------------
"4% of the total canadian adult population - (2006 Census)
24% of admissions to provincial/territorial sentenced custody
18% of admissions to federal prisons
19% of admissions to remand
21% of male prisoner population
30% of female prisoner population
In Manitoba, Aboriginal people accounted for 71% of sentenced admissions in 2005/2006 (and make up 16% of the outside population), up from 58% in 1996/1997.
In Saskatchewan -- Aboriginal adults make up 79% of the total prisoner population (15% of outside population)

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html

Middletown Girl said...

"Steve, as your article shows, the whole thing is basically a scam."

I guess it's revenge for having handed Manhattan to the white man for a beany necklace.

patrick said...

The affinity between the Metis and the Quebecois is natural- the former are basically French Canadians with partial Indian ancestry, and many Quebecois supported the Red River Rebellion in the 1880s. People of mixed Anglo-Canadian and First Nations ancestry tend to identify either as white or as First Nations- they aren't so much a separate group.

As for the Shinnecocks, they are one of a number of "triracial isolates"- groups with Native, African and European ancestry- who live in rural parts of the eastern US. The Shinnecocks seem have a stronger claim to Indian ancestry than some other such groups (e.g. the "Ramapo Indians")

Dahlia said...

I remember Steve mentioning that the average Mexican has about 5% African ancestry (I think I'm stating that correctly).

I wonder what the percentage of Cherokee ancestry would be in the South amongst the individual groups of Blacks and Whites. If you were born in the Bible belt you are part Cherokee, period.
I remember a story about detectives using DNA to physically profile an unknown murderer in Louisiana and the assailant turned out to be a very average thug-looking black man when it was all said and done. I remember the DNA said he was primarily African but with 15% Native American ancestry!

Without looking much into it, I've wondered if the high amount of Cherokee ancestry is because the predominate religion here is Baptist which was founded by Roger Williams, the most liberal theologian and humanist of his time in regards to the Indians.

My husband happens to be both a descendent of Roger Williams and is part Cherokee. I remember on the Roger's ancestral line that it only took a couple generations (can't remember if it was g-child or gg-child) for it to leave Rhode Island for the South. Every single generation was Baptist, but it ended with him.

Serendipitously, I'm descended from the Rev. Obadiah Holmes, one of the first Baptist ministers who knew Williams. My line quickly converted to Methodism, moved to Maine and stayed in the North and later the Midwest until the 1910's. The result? Lots of animosity with the Indians in which two of my ancestors were killed (Rhode Island and Maine) by them and no Indian ancestry.

Anonymous said...

"His reasoning is there just weren't enough white women to go around."

The problem was partially solved by their Indian allies who raided New England and New York and brought back white girls who could be purchased from the Indians.

Anonymous said...

a casino owned by Indians, and managed by Jews and the mob

Now that this blog has gone mainstream, are we still allowed to point out that there is a Jewish mafia [as in "a casino owned by Indians, and managed by Jews of the mob"]?

Puck said...

I wonder if this incident hints at a new direction for the American "civil rights" movement: giving all of its clients "Indian" status!

Suppose the Akaka bill passes and transmutes 400,000 so-called "native Hawaiians" into "American Indians," with all the (unconstitutional) legal privileges and benefits that status confers.

That would increase the number of legally-privileged Indians (now ~2.2 million) by about 20%[1] and incite the envy of every "victim of historical oppression" in the country.

I can easily imagine Black (and "hispanic," especially Mexican) activists demanding the same deal. Of course current Indians wouldn't want to share. But think of the confusion such a proposal would produce among SWPL-types!

To get the ball rolling the Shinnecocks just need to start adopting other blacks into their tribe.

"Now," you're thinking, "they won't do that-- that would dilute their casino royalties."

If they're smart, though, the Shinnecocks will realize they can pick up more money by selling memberships than they'll ever see from some 2-bit casino on Long Island, especially after the concessionaire who really runs the casino creams off most of the profit as management fees.

The Shinnecocks could take in all those "Black Cherokees" the real Cherokees expelled from their tribe. They could levy "adoption contributions" and tribal income taxes on thousands of (new) members. The Shinnecock tribal council would spend that cash; the new members would get tax-free ciggies and free healthcare from the Indian Health Service!

Shinnecock bands living far away from the Shinnecock homeland could ask the Federal government to take their locally-owned property (for example, Black churches) "into trust," converting said property legally to "Indian Country" and exempting its occupants from taxes.

Do you think Obama would oppose such a scheme?

Not a chance. First and foremost, it would be good for (some) blacks, and we know how Obama feels about that. Second, it would be pro-Indian, thus pleasing to SWPL Democrats. After all, what could be more pro-Indian than increasing the number of Indians and putting them on the Federal dole?

Barack Obama could be the new Great White* Father, taking his Indian children under his benevolent protection.

As for the Mexicans, many of them really are descended from Indios[2] so they wouldn't even need the formality of adoption. As soon as the opposition of racists and extremists is overcome, Congress will pass "Akaka II" to make all Mexicans in the US into Federally-recognized Indians in one fell swoop![3]

[1] The rapidly growing Census total for "Indians" (~4.5 million) counts millions of people who claim to be "Indians" (now that it's cool to be an Indian) who do not belong to recognized tribes.

*So to speak.

[2] Indios aren't cool in Mexico, but millions of Mexicans would swallow their Raza-based pride if offered tax-exemption and casino royalties!

[3] The "immigration reform" lobby would be happy to support this scheme-- instant naturalization!

Anonymous said...

Arn't the two oldest sets of human remains found in North America European? One in the Pacific northwest, the other in Mexico.

Kent Gatewood

Ronduck said...

This reminds me of the fraudulent Pequot tribe.

Mount Shasta Inquirer said...

It's not surprising that the tribe looks more black. The natives had no resistance to a lot of diseases, and a few African genes in the second generation would probably be much more likely to survive and reproduce.

Mr. Anon said...

"Canadian Cassandra said...

I'm actually a bit surprised come to think of it that the American Victim Industry has left this lucrative vein of gold sitting there in the ground, they don't normally miss opportunities like these."

The indians in the U.S. are not a big voting block and they're mostly rural - probably just not worth the trouble for the most part.

Mr. Anon said...

“This recognition comes after years of anguish and frustration for many members of our Nation, living and deceased,” Randy King, chairman of the Shinnecock trustees, said in a statement, adding, “Perhaps this recognition will help some of our neighbors better understand us and foster a new mutual respect.”

Yeah, nothing builds respect like going into the casino business. I have enormous respect for people who tend video poker machines.

Shame about all those frustrated dead guys though.

Anonymous said...

Look for a big push by the Moriches-area Poospatucks (not federally recognized, although the State is terrified of them for political reasons) to achieve tribal recognition, with a push back by the Shinnecocks, who will not want the competition. Frankly, the stakes are just to big here for them to ignore it. Right now, they make most of thier money peddling untaxed cigarettes, etc., to the palefaces.

Neshobanakni said...

Patrick is probably right; they're a triracial isolate. However, culturally, they're Indian. A continuous history and a reservation. Note that their app pre-dates any thoughts of casinos. Their claim is solid, and much stronger than the (most recent) Pequots.

No, Indians are in no way exempt from income taxes. Adoption can never make you a tribal member. And I challenge anyone to show where a tribal casino is controlled by a mafia, Jewish or otherwise.

I'm a long-time and regular reader of Steve's site and Vdare. There's so much BS about Indians, even here,that it's scary. Indians are all about ancestry (having no choice), that HBD readers should pay a little more attention.

The U.S. negotiated with us, and we accepted the role of little tiny "states." We receive some federal transfer payments in lieu of a "lease" on huge areas the U.S. asked us to cede jurisdiction over (an elegant alternative to war). The rest of federal money we get is through grants and contracts that we compete with other local governments for, across the country. Some of us are pretty frik'n successful at it - but that's the free market (if you can use that label for gov't largess).

Most tribes are pretty tight about membership; here it's fifty percent blood quantum. As far as health care; somehow the idea got around that it was some kind of gov't to gov't agreement. I've never actually seen a treaty guaranteeing health care; however, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it on the QT, I don't want to pay it for my family if I can get it for free.

Puck said...

Contra Neshobanakni, adoption can make you an Indian instantly. Federal law says that anyone who belongs to a Federally-recognized tribe as determined (only) by that tribe's Federally-recognized government is an Indian. Some other people are Indians too.

Also, Indians are exempt from state income taxes (and sometimes from Federal taxes) for income earned in "Indian Country" (e.g., on a reservation, or in a casino). They get some other tax benefits (e.g., sometimes exempt from income taxes on income earned by fishing). Indian tribes and their businesses are exempt from State taxes and Federal income taxes. Indians are not taxed on the value of Indian-only benefits like free IHS health care.

Just Google for state rules or browse to www.irs.gov and put "indian" into the search box.

The reasons for the confusion are:

(a) The Federal government, Indian tribes, and Indian "activist" organizations pump out intentionally misleading propaganda statements similar to: "Indians pay the same Federal income tax as everyone else." Those who administer the gravy train want to head off the righteous anger of ordinary citizens.

(b) Indians off the reservation working for non-Indians or investing in non-Indian businesses are subject to income tax on those earnings.

Also, Indians get (obviously unconstitutional) extreme hiring preference for Federal jobs in BIA and IHS and somewhat less extreme preference for other Federal jobs. (Even if you think it proper that Indian tribes are exempt from anti-discrimination laws, there's no excuse for even the BIA and IHS preferences, much less the others. Of course, speaking some recondite Indian language could be a BFOQ for certain Federal jobs.)

Anonymous said...

Here's a gallery of Shinnecock Indians:

http://tobatucker.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=shinnecock

Steve Kammerman said...

Let the Indians/Native Americans run their casino in peace for crying out loud. Amazing how anti-gambling the government is....yet the war on drugs spins out of control. If people just want to drink and throw away a few dollars, is that so wrong?

V. Poker said...

I was unaware of the terrible crime wave in rural Canada, although I've heard of the problems among the indigenous Canadians and Metis(mixed French and Native Canadian), which roughly parallels the problems among Native Americans. I often hear how bad the child poverty rate among the Metis is; in fact, these mixed-race people seem to have their own unique culture and political agendas that separate them from both white Americans and Indigenous(or "Native") Canadians. This unique separation of the Metis(French for "Mestizo") from white Canadian and native Canadian political causes and culture is similar in many ways to Hispanic political causes(Spanish-speaking Native Americans in the U.S southwest seem to be better represented than their English-speaking counterparts further north, even though they may have roughly the same experiences and grievances).

Star Flower said...

i find it offensive that this "author" decides to not only comment,mock & display an obnoxious stance on the Shinnecock Indians but that he has the audacity to put the word "Indians" in quotations.
Have any of you seen or been around West Coast Natives??
majority are mixed with spanish or white and a lot of them look every bit the part...
so because we happen to have outside blood we're less Indian according to your standards ignoring the fact that many cultures have come and gone in that area & yet traditions are still observed & honored!
Racism whether put politely or covered up is still BIGOTRY & all you who decided to comment are just as guilty & ignorant!