Victimization: In The Eye of the Player
This extremely politically correct piece in the Washington Post twists itself into a mutli-knotted pretzel attempting to portray a major Abramoff-linked Indian tribe as purely innocent victims.
Reporter Peter Whoriskey lards the piece with self-serving quotes like this one: "Abramoff and his partner are the contemporary faces of the exploitation of native peoples," said David Sickey, a member of the tribal council. "In the 17th and 18th century, native people were exploited for their land. In 2005, they're being exploited for their wealth."
And this one from a tribal maintenance worker: "It's like the old days -- they're still robbing us blind," he said.
No question that the Louisiana-based Coushattas – who Casino Jack referred to in e-mails as “monkeys,” “troglodytes,” and “morons” -- got sleazed by Abramoff. But let’s slow down for a moment.
The 837 member tribe was perfectly willing to hand over a barge load of cash to Abramoff --$32 million to be precise—in hopes that he could achieve their primary goal: to block a nearby tribe of equally deserving (or undeserving) Native Americans from having a casino just like the Coushattas have. A casino, by the way, that generates a mammoth $300 million a year profit for this band of less than a 1,000 people.
The Coushattas got their wish. Thanks to Abramoff’s clout and grease the nearby Jena Band of Choctaws were denied their own gambling operation. If they wanted to get rich, well, they could just come over to the Coushatta casino and try their luck at, say, the slots.
So while much of the tribal money sucked up by Abramoff went to other, undisclosed and surely nefarious ends, the truth is that the Coushattas got what they wanted for their $32 million; for barely a month’s revenue they shut down threatening potential competition.
Indeed, the Post piece can’t really come up with a single specific example of how Abramoff let down the Coushattas. The best the article can come up with is this ambiguity: “…there are a number of other instances where, tribe members say, the services that were provided were unclear and some of the money simply went to the coffers of Abramoff's allies.”
Just what are these instances? And how do they compare to Abramoff’s successful protection of the tribe’s golden egg of a casino? The answers go missing from the piece.
The bigger victims in this piece, of course, are the Choctaws who got completely screwed out of any gambling revenue thanks to the Abramoff-Coushatta alliance. Curious it is that the Post reporter didn’t bother to get a single quote out of them.
One of the principle reasons that Abramoff was able to put his scam together was the reluctance of just about any member of Congress to speak out against the underlying scam: the genetic monopoly of gambling rights granted to (some) Indian tribes. Instead of confronting this for what it is -- the creation of wealthy and politically powerful elites-- Republicans and Democrats alike indulge in the fiction that tribal casinos have something to do with civil rights and racial justice.
As the Abramoff scandal evolves, the media should drop the absurd pretense that the tribes were merely naïve victims. There was nothing at all naïve about their pacting with Abramoff. The gambling tribal leaders are hardball political players determined to do what necessary to protect their money-minting operations. At worse, they got seriously overcharged by Abramoff. It was the gambling tribes’ own greed and naked self-interest (and willingness to hose down other tribes) that provided the financial basis of the whole scheme. Abramoff fleeced them like any pro would. But everyone was sitting at the table voluntarily.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:27 am
It’s as if there were no intra-tribal competition ever. There always has been.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:16 am
A general comment peripherally on-topic: treating non-white groups in the US as grown-ups, assuming we all have the same level of moral responsibilities and standing, is the essence of where we should be. (So, nice post.)
I’m in a job where we have “racism training” (note: not discussion, but “training”) forced upon us, and while it may have some value in some respects, the experiences I’ve had with it make me think it’s based on something very different than that assumption. So it’s actually harmful and if you follow the logic, almost dark, in that it promotes the very dangerous victim and bitterness things.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Incidentally, as I struggle to get more specific and clear on what I mean when I talk about “liberal media bias,” with the help of equally intelligent and insistent people here (speaking generally), the article Marc covers is a good example.
The word “bias” when applied to an invidividual reporter is perhaps unfair; the word applies to the general result of major print media.
Just because a person becomes a reporter doesn’t automatically mean he or she is particularly bright. I’d posit that a great many reporters are not capable of seeing things the way Marc does here, at least unless prodded. At least at this point. It’s group-think’s effect on a pool of average, well-meaning people.
Evets mentioned a couple of days ago that the bias is generally liberal only in some areas, and less so in others; and that the real issue may be group-think. There may be something to that. It may be that on the hot-button issues of the day that bug the hell out of me, the effect seems to me to be generally liberal.
January 7th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I got basically the same take from the article, though I find it hard to make myself be so serious. Good job, though.
Is it possible that this may reflect anti-trust beahvior on the part of Indian tribes?
January 7th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Noble savage myth is one thing, screwed in business is another. They probably did there is a history of Indians, a European misnomer, being taken to the cleaners by the Eurpoeans. This is a fact all the way through our history.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Well, Marc, as we’ve discussed many times, and with all due respect to our oppressed brothers and sisters, the whole casino tribes set-up is one of the great scams of contemporary American history.
One of the best things Arnold did was confront it and defeat twice at the ballot box, first in his own election during the recall, then in November 2004 beating the casino initiatives.
One of the worst things he has done, which I will be getting on him about, is losing interest in translating those election victories into levering real revenue out of these “sovereignties.”
January 7th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I think you hit the nail exactly on the head, Mr. Cooper. The press has indeed been handling the tribes as if they were soley victims. Thanks for calling the kettle black.
Also, I think I’m basically in sinc with Mr. Bradley about confronting the California tribes and taxing them properly. Great point Bill!
January 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
CBS reports tonight Abramoff took money from one tribe in Texas to shutdown another, then went to the shutdown tribe and took the millions they had left under the guise of lobbying to change the law that shut them down. He knew there was little chance of that happening. That, folks, is a con no one has mentioned here. Until now.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
A Thirty-two million dollar payoff is only about 10 percent of the 300 million dollars the Coushatta’s rake in—that seems like the going rate for “protection.†But the story is even more complicated than that.
Abramoff worked hand in hand with is old Brandeis College buddy Ralph Reed. The real interesting part of the scam is Ralf Reeds implication in the whole affair. Reed was Executive Director of the official anti-gambling Christian Coalition, and helped Abramoff squeeze those Indian nickels from the Choctaw chiefs.
Reed intensified the efforts of the Christian anti gambling coalition for the sole purpose of blocking Choctaws’ gambling operation. Reeds efforts made it a cinch for Abramoff and sleaze bag Mile Scanlon to shake-down the Choctaw for some big wampum.
Reed again helped Abramoff advance tribal gambling interests in another state – this time for the Coushatta’s in Louisiana – by organizing “grassroots†opposition to gambling next door in Texas. Hallelujah Shakedown time again!
Reed wasn’t working for free, he received cash payments through the Alabama Christian Coalition which originated with the Choctaws. The money came from a $1.5 million donation the Choctaws made to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), which as a 501(c)4 was legally able to pass a large portion of that money to the Alabama Christian Coalition without disclosing its original source.
Aren’t these guys imaginative–did Abramoff acquire is skill for creative scamming during his film making days in Hollywood and maybe, while he sits around serving time, he’ll have a chance to come up with a new script or think about one more ingenious scam. Has Abramoff thought about tossing the dice with the Inuit’s or is that like selling ice to Eskimos?
January 7th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
If taxation and greater scrutiny of the Indian casinos is the product of this scandal, then they may not be exploited victims, but losers in the political aftermath. Of course, this regulation and a greater cognizance of the political power these casinos wield could be a good thing. But they could be cast by the Republicans as the true menace here. This could help shift the focus away from the where it belongs, on the sleazy workings of our political system. Along with giving the Republicans a place to point the finger, such scapegoating would also work to rally the base against the “evils†of gambling.
A scenario to be wary of?
January 8th, 2006 at 5:59 am
“with the Inuit’s or is that like selling ice to Eskimos?”
Ted Stevens handles that. The Kaktovik Inuit are more comfortable with roads and drilling than wildlife management techniques used by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. Now that’s progress. Hardly noble by any reckoning.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Just reviewed the post and realized the snafu IS the gist of marc’s point. Sorry, however playing one tribe against the other across state borders is the Abramhoff con. It’s not the first time that’s happened either. It’s right on script. Unlike the WP CBS played the angle as it is to their credit.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Mark, “playing one tribe against the other” is both one accurate potrayal of the situation and as you say not the first time it’s happened.
However, in these days of modern times, where we have instant communication and what-not, it’s condescending to the tribes to characterize them as purely victims. Not that you’re doing that, I suppose, but the article evidently does.
They’re grown-ups. Call the other tribe up. Don’t let the fucker get away with it. Unless of course you do in fact want to screw the other tribe. Fine, but it’s their choice, not anyone else’s.
Crunchy – the Republicans will try to do that, and it will have almost no effect on anyone except their most loyal base. And since it’s not a lie, that’s okay, right?
If you’re looking for – as a result of this and other alleged right-leaning crimes – near-total conversion on the part of the American public to a left-leaning view of the right as the only non-dark outcome of this and the whole last five years or more, you will be disappointed.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:47 am
CBS had no trouble with it, so Post editors have a hand in the final product. We don’t know that the reporters didn’t. Sometimes these committees make the wrong choices as we’ve see at the NYT lately.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
In re the Mark A. York posts, see:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/8tigua.html
January 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
That’s it with all the torrid details. Good work.
January 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Playing one special interest against another is classic lobbyist strategy. Chum the waters and churn and burn.
This Abramoff character is a classic LA hustler who somehow successfully masqueraded for years as a Reaganite true believer.
January 8th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
When politicians control what is bought and sold the first thing bought and sold is politicians.
January 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Eleanore writes:
“Thirty-two million dollar payoff is only about 10 percent of the 300 million dollars the Coushatta’s rake in…”
The truly frightening/depressing thing about the pay-for-influence scandals now breaking (including the one that did in the San Diego congressman) is the *phenomenally low* prices these politicians choose to sell out for. Paying off lawmakers or regulators has to be one of the highest-leverage transactions out there for a large business. (Hence the frightening aspect – where there’s money to be made, the money will flow, and most of us are the losers in this game.)
A corollary:
The fact that pols are willing to sell off so cheap must mean they are pretty confident, in general, that they won’t get caught.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Yep, the Post is too afraid to take on the newly rich Tribes, but are more than happy to dump on Beverly Hills Jock-made-good Abramoff.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Oh, next you’re going to say that they fought wars before the white man came. Kevin Costner told me it was all peace and oneness with nature before we ruined it for everybody here.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:34 am
No Freddy what we’re saying is the opposite of that myth.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Some of these posts seem to perceive the Indian “monopoly” on casino income to be some sort of liberal affirmative action scheme. Sorry, it is not, though it is to some degree it is the result of spitballing solutions at the US Supreme Court level.
The “preference” really is a manifestation of the historical/political fact that Indian tribes are sovereign “nations” and your local Indian reservation “might as well be Albania,” as my friend Speedy Rice (who taught American Indian Law at Gonzaga Law School) once put it.
On the one hand, sovereign means sovereign. There is no apparent status such as “sovereign but…” So if the Indians want to swallow peyote and out-bingo the Catholics, no one (i.e. no local, state or federal law enforcement official) is going to stop them. However, the tribes and their members do not exist solely on tribal lands, and they mix with and among people and corporations over which those officials do have jurisdiction. And those people have rights that nontribal governments are bound to recognize.
So in a variety of areas–peyote rituals, application of criminal laws, taxation of individual Indians and tribal enterprises and, yes, operation of otherwise-unlawful casinos–the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court were required to come up with some sort of compromise in an environment where the rights and duties were irreconcilable.
They came up with this concept of the “compact” between each of the tribes and the states. These compacts “permit” the tribe to do what it arguably could do anyway, and the tribe “promises” to abide by certain principles that closely resemble state and federal laws. In the end, the concept is, effectively, that the tribes are governed by law-like principles as a matter of contract–”willingly”, in other words. And the tribes “agree” to “submit voluntarily” to the jurisdiction of the courts.
The point is, the preferences allotted to the tribes–which I think are unjust and among other things deny their employees the protection of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws–are not a result of affirmative action. They result from an agreement by both sovereign entities to pull back from the brink of figurative and literal war.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
And this literal “limbo” ironically leaves them open for exploitation yet again, after languishing on remnant lands where poverty is the order of the day, and would be for anyone living in such places. Excellent points Michael.
It also reminds us why the Inuit like oil development [they see it as temporary, bizarrely so] while wildlife monitoring is forever. What they want is money for themselves and the foreigners out. Nothing new about that on this planet.
January 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Hi guys. Really neat. Nana will get a kick out of it when I show her.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 am
Just checking to see if any relation are out here
http://vintage-barbie.olddj.com
July 25th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.vwj
August 1st, 2006 at 9:21 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Progressive Auto Insurance…
baldness abstractors:conducting Safeco Auto Insurance [url=http://www.aautoinsuranceclaim.com/#]Safeco Auto Insurance[/url] http://www.aautoinsuranceclaim.com/# …
February 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I’d just like to thank you for taking the time to create this internet website. It has been extremely helpful