American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steinman, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 50, No. 3, 296-314 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764206292767

(Mixed) Perceptions of Tribal Nations’ Status

Implications for Indian Gaming

Erich Steinman

University of Washington, Seattle

This article examines the multiple and contradictory ways that tribes, as anomalies within American governance, have been conceptualized within popular opinion and federal Indian policy. It is the inconsistent treatment tribes have received, based on these differing conceptions, that makes Indian gaming so confusing and conflictual. Tribal gaming is conducted based on rights derived from an understanding of tribes as sovereign nations represented by governments. This status and the rights associated with it appear to conflict with perceptions and treatment of tribes as wards, minorities, rights holders, and corporations. Absent unlikely action by Congress to establish greater coherency across Indian policies, widespread variation, uncertainty, and conflict will continue to characterize tribal gaming. However, an understanding of tribes as sovereign governments is slowly being institutionalized within American governance and may shift the terms through which tribal gaming is publicly discussed.

Key Words: tribal sovereignty • institutionalization • federal Indian policy • Indian gaming


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?