Posted on 07/04/2002 7:45:02 PM PDT by brityank
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:40:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A flock of politicians gathered in a corner of Southern California's outback Monday to pay homage to an Indian tribe as it opened California's newest gambling casino.
In scarcely more than a decade, tribal leaders have moved from complete political impotence to total hegemony. And they won that power the old-fashioned way -- by buying it. Tribes have spent upward of $150 million on "political action" over the last decade, including tens of millions to pass two ballot measures, lavish contributions on political parties and individual politicians, and pay fees to high-powered lobbyists.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Unintended consequences?
And how much do you want to bet that a given tribe's "judgment" will coincide exactly with the Sierra Club's position on a development in question?
In a year, you will find that getting a permit requires a payment to the native american religious impact fund; some percentage of this money will then be redirected to politicians helpful to the natives.
All the years the Indians tried to unite to hold off the "white man" ...
When all they had to do was set up riverboat gambling on the Ohio River and then work their way east.
Precisely.
Ping.
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
EMPOWERMENT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
SIR SHRIDATH RAMPHAL
at the
Olof Palme International Foundation's Seminar Governance at the End of the Millennium Barcelona, Spain
26 February 1999
This new vigour of civil society both reflects and enhances a large increase in the capacity and will of people to take control of their own lives and to improve or transform them. The number and proportion of people who can make their voices heard is nevertheless vastly greater in all parts of the world today than, say, 50 years ago, in 1945. This is principally the product of decolonization, economic improvement, and the spread of democracy. Beyond elections, however, people are beginning to assert their right to actively participate in their own governance. They include indigenous peoples long deprived by settlers of control over traditional lands, ethnic minorities seeking a role in government, and regional and local groups who feel their interests have been neglected by national leaders. These groups have all become more effective in asserting their rights.
Chapter Two -- Values for the Global Neighbourhood
http://www.cgg-ch.ae.psiweb.com/chap2.html
Self- Determination
The second core principle of the existing international order is self- determination. Not as venerable as sovereignty, it derives from the rise of democracy and the national idea, both of which contributed to the consolidation of divided European principalities into modern nation- states, the collapse of European empires in the Americas, and the breakup of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.
The Versailles Peace Conference after World War I recognized the principle of self- determination, but it was not until the founding of the United Nations in 1945 that it became an effective norm equally applicable world- wide. Throughout the post- war era, self- determination was generally viewed as a right limited to territorially defined populations living under colonial rule. As such, it played a crucial role in the process of decolonization that has brought a succession of new sovereign states into being.
During the past decade, two kinds of developments have occurred that have forced the world to re- examine the issue of self- determination. The first was the breakup of countries, the two most dramatic being the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Both were multinational federations that had been held together by iron- fisted central governments. With the political cataclysms of the early 1990s, these governments lost both their legitimacy and their power--and the constituent national units were able to become independent states. Similar, albeit much more peaceful, negotiated separations occurred in Czechoslovakia and in Ethiopia, where there had earlier been a protracted conflict. While the violent and unsettling consequences of the Soviet and Yugoslav breakups have raised serious concerns about the exercise of the right of self- determination, it is arguable whether they involve any new issues of principle.
A much more far- reaching development is the growing assertion of a right to self- determination by indigenous populations and other communities in many parts of the world. In these cases, self- determination involves a complex chain of historical and other questions that go far beyond the issue of establishing a new state on the basis of a pre- existing territorial entity. Issues of identity, human rights, and empowerment that have little to do with previous boundaries are also involved.
Self- determination is a right of all nations and peoples, as long as it is consistent with respect for other nations and peoples. The challenge now is to find ways to define and protect this right in the environment of the global neighbourhood. It is becoming ever more difficult to resolve the problems raised by competing claims to self- determination on the basis of separate nationhood for each claimant. A process of territorial dismemberment could be set in motion that would leave much of the world far worse off and would greatly increase insecurity and instability. Moreover, redrawing maps will not succeed in reducing injustice and the risks of civil strife if the new states still lack workable formulas to reconcile conflicting claims to authority, resources, status, or land.
The problem is not made easier by the absence of any clear definition of what constitutes 'a people' or 'a nation'. It is time to begin to think about self- determination in a new context--the emerging context of a global neighbourhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states.
The demand for separation and the resort to violence in support of it often follow the frustration of constitutional efforts to secure less drastic changes. This points to the importance of governments being sensitive to the aspirations of ethnic or other groups that feel alienated or threatened. Most of the nearly 200 nation- states in the world consist of more than one ethnic group. There is consequently considerable scope for discord and conflict over the sharing of resources and authority and the policies that governments follow. But there is also a positive side to pluralism as manifest in several successful multiethnic states. Diversity need not become a cause for division. A challenge to governance is to make it a source of enrichment.
If tragedies are not to be multiplied one- hundredfold, concern for the interests of all citizens, of whatever racial, tribal, religious, or other affiliation, must be high among the values informing the conduct of people in the world that has now become a neigh-bourhood. There must be respect for their rights, in particular for their right to lead lives of dignity, to preserve their culture, to share equitably in the fruits of national growth, and to play their part in the governance of the country. Peace and stability in many parts of the world could be endangered if these values are neglected. The world community needs to strengthen protection of these rights, even as it discourages the urge to secede that their frustration can breed. Governance in the global neighbourhood faces no stronger challenge.
The Indian veto over outside development will have more to do with maintaining their monopoly or their new economic power. Projects will get vetoed by the Indians when they don't get their cut -- be it bribe or a share of the project. The Sierra Club will have nothing to do with it.
With no provision made for Law and Treaty obligations and restrictions. Divide and conquer; Agenda 21 in action? I don't believe the treaties grant any ex-territorial powers to the signers which is why even the feds have to get permission of the tribal councils to function on the reservations.
"Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of jackals by jack asses."
--H. L. Menken
Thanks for the reference.
They've found a better place to start -- the Granola Bowl AKA California. It seems that most of the detrimental changes to our society have --if not directly started in CA -- gathered support there.
(I don't include CA FReepers in the 'fruits/nuts/flakes' depiction, but there's too damn few to affect the results on the rest of the country.)
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.