[Dilbert San Diego]

I know there’s a long history of difficult relations with Indian tribes. Way too much to talk about here.

But on the specific issue of what happens on Indian land, don’t the tribes have sovereignty over their own land and resources? Legally speaking, don’t they have the right to develop as they see fit?

It seems to me the decisions should be up to the tribes, as to what happens on their land.

[Sacajaweau]

We give them millions every year. We have a say...

[bobbo666]

I donot get how/why indians (yes, indians, small case like whites. And, not native A’s) think Democrats should treat them better. What, they don’t realize that to any Democrat an indian is simply a red(ish) N***?
Demos are racists, ‘cause it makes it easier to bully anyone not in their group.

A significant problem with development on tribal land is that in most cases a small business loan from the feds is forbidden.

[Retrofitted]

Boy, is that a tough one! Short answer: no, they don't. They can't even sell the land unless it's what is sometimes "allotment land", but basically means privately owned and not granted by the federal government (who hold the land in trust because poor injuns can't do anything without the *liberal* white man saving them, dontcha know).

Think of it this way: remember that stink about the states being allowed to use the resources on the state's land that is a "federally protected"? Apply that here. That's a huge oversimplification, but gives you an easy way of seeing things.

[discostu]

The res system is basically designed for maximum convenience and power for the US/ state government. So anything that would be annoying for the government is the tribe’s “responsibility”. Anything that would empower them, they don’t get to say. So they have to provide their own police, but “we” get to decide if they can drill.