Since the middle of the 20th century, Native Americans have been provided the opportunity to raise funds through having casino and slot parlors on their land partly to compensate for former abuses done to their ancestors. However, this paper will focus on the abuses of this opportunity by groups who are truly not Native Americans.
Further, these enterprises exploit Native Americans by subjecting them to temptations without providing the groups with a percentage of the funds raised by these gaming reserves.
The general discussions of the financial justification of casino and slot parlors serve as a useful backdrop when developing a profile of the Native American. They suggest the need to distinguish among different types of casino and slot parlors activities, both in terms of characteristics of the particular type of casino and slot parlors (e.g., win probability; take-out rate) and characteristics of the particular Native American.
This pattern existed for all casino and slot parlors types except sports books, where the percent of income bet was progressive, and casinos, where it took a u-shape. Considering the combined effects of participation of different income groups in different casino and slot parlors activities, and the takeout rates of the latter, the report concludes that low income bettors have a higher proclivity to high take-out games (Fromson 71).
The position is moderated somewhat, however, when each type of casino and slot parlors is considered, for illegal sports books and casino activities are shown to be progressive. But before one uses this to advocate the legalization of casino and slot parlors for an equitable revenue source, findings for Nevada residents in particular must be considered.
To the extent that the overall efficiency of casino and slot parlors is related to the distance necessary to travel to participate in this activity, Nevada residents are not as affected by travel costs. Therefore, casino and slot parlors in Nevada actually becomes highly regressive. Moreover, all other forms of casino and slot parlors activity are found to be more regressive for Native Americans (Calloway 43).
The advisability of legalizing casino and slot parlors in order to generate revenue for the state must be assessed in terms of the equity of casino and slot parlors as a tax source, i.e. casino and slot parlors taxes, and the efficiency of raising revenue through casino and slot parlors taxes, i.e. the cost-effectiveness of casino and slot parlors legalization.
Related to the second criterion, the revenue potential of legalizing casino and slot parlors is determined by
- the total amount wagered on presently legal forms of casino and slot parlors;
- the total amount wagered on presently illegal forms of casino and slot parlors;
- which forms of casino and slot parlors are legalized;
- the degree of substitutability among the various forms of casino and slot parlors and between legal and illegal forms of casino and slot parlors; and
- the price elasticity of the demand for casino and slot parlors, i.e. the sensitivity of the potential Native American to total casino and slot parlors take-out rates, including government-imposed tax rates. Critics consider in turn the equity and efficiency arguments of casino and slot parlors legalization (Fromson 65).
As has been noted, there is disagreement as to the regressive nature of casino and slot parlors taxes as a source of revenue. The argument against gaming is supported by the observed pattern of casino and slot parlors behavior for persons of different income groups. One counterargument is a more theoretical one. It maintains that casino and slot parlors demand depends on the structure of prizes and not the pay-out ratio.
Proponents of legalization cite it as a way for the state to raise additional revenue for new or expanded programs while not provoking any latent antitax sentiments of its citizenry. Such legalization is merely rendering to the state monies that would otherwise be lost either to states where the activity is legal or to illegal operations. Moreover, there are desirable spillover effects in the reduced need for law enforcement and the stimulus to existing and/or new business (Calloway 67).
The opposition contends that needed revenue should be provided by more predictable and less morally offensive means. Many raise the problem of the potential conflict for the state performing the dual role of operator and regulator. Others cite the inevitable subordination of the control of casino and slot parlors to revenue considerations.
Moreover, critics claim that revenue gains are exaggerated by ignoring the effects of competition from other legal and illegal forms. Spillover effects are also judged undesirable: communities are debased by a proliferation of casino and slot parlors establishments and activities, casino and slot parlors enterprises are supported at the expense of legitimate economic activity, and the need for social services and law enforcement is increased (Fromson 132).
The core of these arguments points to the need for a cost-benefit analysis in assessing the efficiency of raising revenue through various levies on casino and slot parlors activity. This will, of course, consider the expenditure necessary to generate a dollar of revenue. Total legalization of all forms of casino and slot parlors is not likely.
However, there are no available estimates on the effects of legalizing only some casino and slot parlors activities. Proponents of state-sponsored lotteries have argued that legal lotteries would not only provide much-needed revenue but would also serve to reduce participation in illegal numbers games (Hatfield 43).
This contention ignores important differences between lotteries and numbers and correspondingly exaggerates the degree of substitutability between them. While both are considered less active than casino or horse track casino and slot parlors, numbers betting does involve more active participation in the selection of the number than the mere purchase of a lottery ticket.
Lottery ticket purchase, the acceptance of a small probability of winning a large sum of money, may be the visible expression of one’s only hope of accumulating a large sum of money. Therefore, it must be realized that these two games attract different kinds of buyers, On the contrary, justification tends to favorably dispose persons to casino and slot parlors in general with a consequent increase in legal and illegal forms (Calloway 98).
In native lands, the degree of substitutability between legal and illegal casino and slot parlors is greatly affected by such factors as credit policies of a casino and slot parlors enterprise and tax policies toward casino and slot parlors and casino and slot parlors winnings. Here again arises the inherent conflict between the desire to be competitive with illegal operations and the need to raise revenue.
Casino and slot parlors demand has been shown to be price elastic, i.e. a reduction in the take-out rate results in an increase in the total amount wagered. But, to the extent that the lower take-out rate is from a lower tax, total government revenue will decline if the increased handle can not compensate for the lower tax rate.
Therefore, policymakers must use the tax rate that maximizes tax revenue (Hatfield 43). The effects of the tax rate on demand and revenue can be illustrated with national horse racing. The lowered tax rates brought a small increase in wagers, but a much greater reduction in government revenue.
Other examples of this phe-nomenon have been cited for Nevada Horse and Sport-Betting parlors. A related problem of competition stems from the fact that illegal casino and slot parlors winnings are not subject to income taxation. It is not totally outrageous to suggest a similar exclusion for all casino and slot parlors winnings.
This practice exists outside the United States where casino and slot parlors is legal and is applied to lottery winnings in the United States. Such an exclusion of winnings for the casual bettor has been endorsed by former officials of the Internal Revenue Service (Wilmer 140).
In order to develop a theory of gaming and Native Americans, two separate issues must be examined: the dynamics of casino and slot parlors as a social phenomenon, and the social reaction to casino and slot parlors. Devereux notes that societal disapproval and participation in the behavior co-exist; their interrelation must be examined for the function of casino and slot parlors to be thoroughly understood. The structural features of capitalism require motivation and specific characteristics among the members of society (Wilmer 81).
The society must attempt to standardize particular beliefs and behaviors. Economic goals are to be rational (profit making) rather than emotional, competition and upward mobility are encouraged, and cultural definitions or values are created that maintain the motivations necessary. These values have their origin in the Protestant ethic which stresses hard work and the acquisition of private property (Calloway 87).
These characteristics often lead to strain in addition to the desired outcomes. American capitalism conflicts with some of the values found in Native American culture. Hard work and self-denial are often replaced with self-seeking, acquisitive actions. The competition of the economic order contrasts with the ideals of love and self-sacrifice. Casino and slot parlors represent a violation of the tenets of capitalism, for rewards may come from chance rather than hard work.
Those aspects of casino and slot parlors which are deplored are not unfamiliar ones, but are quite similar to values found in the legitimate economic system (Wilmer 140). Since the economic system can not be attacked, casino and slot parlors provide an opportunity to reject these values and reinforce the dominant order. Casino and slot parlors then become a safe scapegoat for society and the prohibition of it serves a function of social control.
Casino and slot parlors provides an opportunity to protest against economic rationality and budgeting funds, to experience excitement and escape from ethical (puritanical) constraints, and to act in a setting that allows one to indulge in competitiveness and autonomy in decision making without effects on one’s “real life.”
The element of chance also provides an escape from the rationality of the culture since casino and slot parlors permits one to rely on fate and superstition. Finally, casino and slot parlors itself is pleasurable. The sport event (football game, horse race) may be of intrinsic interest and placing a bet on one’s favorite team or horse only heightens the interest.
The social setting of a casino or a racetrack may encourage non-bettors to participate and join the fun. By participating one may also play the “sport of kings” which provides at least a temporary status passage (Minerd 10).
The wealthy bet large amounts of money and do so in an atmosphere of sociability and exclusiveness. Here, betting is consistent with notion of “conspicuous consumption,” for wealth is put in evidence through heavy wagering. Interestingly, betting is also typically on the favorites, which Herman interprets as an outcome of sociability rather than security concerns. Symbolic independence would seem to be an experience sought most frequently by those who have the least freedom in their daily lives.
Also, if casino and slot parlors serves a “safety valve” function for those in society who are least successful, lower-class members should engage in games of chance more frequently than persons in middle and upper status positions. This assumption has led to several studies which focus on lower-class casino and slot parlors (Wilkinson 128).
Researchers (Wilkinson 128) describe the Native American setting of the tavern as one in which men are able to control their fate, achieve goals, and gain recognition from their peers without risking their actual status in the outside world. The tavern is cut off from their dayto-day lives, thus offering a “safe” environment in which to beat the system and indicate their ability to control their fate.
Here casino and slot parlors provides a release for hostility against the society, but also reinforces and preserves major values of the larger society. The Native American who places his bets on the basis of available information such as past performance of horses, past positions, and track conditions is given the highest prestige, while the lowest prestige is afforded those who bet on the basis of a hunch or random choice. Figuring out the choice, or using rational information is a socially approved technique for decision making (Calloway 83
Social structure of Native Americans leads to casino and slot parlors due to inconsistent values and a scarcity of outlets for chance taking in other areas of one’s life. Different social status groups engage in this behavior due to their own needs, but the lower class Native American participates due to status frustration and alienation from his work.
Generally, these analyses describe casino and slot parlors as a needed safety valve for those with high levels of motivation, but who have few opportunities for making decisions, working independently, or governing their own fate. Casino and slot parlors offers an enjoyable means of releasing frustration and utilizing one’s motivation to achieve.
Casino and slot parlors are to be a result of marginal-class culture by some social scientists. Emphasis on fate and immediate gratification encourage betting on games of chance, and although the “belief in luck” was found to be more characteristic of the working class than the middle class, it was not related to a propensity to gamble.
Casino and slot parlors were related to propensity to gamble across social classes, not just in the working class. It must be noted that other ethnic groups (Jews and Italians) also report high amounts of illegal casino and slot parlors activity. Illegal casino and slot parlors were most prevalent in central cities, so the ethnic group participation may be a result of sub-cultural values among group members favoring casino and slot parlors (Wilkinson 128).
Access to opportunities for this may be enhanced due to residential segregation in urban areas where illegal betting operations have been conducted for some time. Evidence for these explanations is present in the survey results. Exposure to and availability of casino and slot parlors were found to be excellent predictors of participation for all respondents (Rand and Light 111).
For Native Americans, casino and slot parlors provide excitement and entertainment for participants. In the past, these aspects of placing bets have been overlooked or treated as secondary in importance to the financial desires for gain and upward social mobility. A more accurate perspective on casino and slot parlors must emphasize that this is a leisure activity which provides consumers with an opportunity to directly engage in playing with money.
One cannot deny that there are Native Americans who gamble compulsively or attempt to obtain wealth by taking chances on lotteries, numbers, horse races, and sports events. However, these participants may constitute a small proportion of all those who gamble in the USA (Calloway 91
Some researchers explain obsession of Native Americans as unconscious anal fixation. They the behavior as obsessional neurosis. Based on Freud’s (1953) contention that infants who tend towards constipation develop a feeling of great value for feces, which in later life is replaced by money, Fuller argues that the Native American is displacing his desire to play with feces.
Since all casino and slot parlors is characterized by playing with money, casino and slot parlors, according to Fuller, represents a general regression to the anal stage of development. In support of this conclusion, Fuller points to idiomatic useage of feces in the lexicon of the Native American such as the game “craps” replete with “coming out the hard way,” “they’re rolling,” “the don’t pass line” and “making it the hard way.”
This anecdotal evidence is far from convincing. One could easily point to phrases common to geology such as “fault slippage,” “sink holes,” “extrusions” and “bowels of the earth” and arrive at the conclusion that geologists, too, suffer from a general anal fixation (Rand and Light 111).
It is my contention that casino and slot parlors behavior is similar to all other types of behavior in both its development and maintenance. The various forms of casino and slot parlors may be understood by noting the salient features in the environment which accompany the behavior; namely, the stimulus situation and the pattern of reinforcement. The act of casino and slot parlors is common to most Native Americans’ experience; and it even occurs in other species (Calloway 58).
Rather, it is a label commonly applied to behavior resulting from a fairly sophisticated combination of personal reinforcement history, and prevailing reinforcement contingencies. Although others have argued that Native Americans behave in order to satisfy a repressed wish to punish themselves, or to achieve dominance (in spite of the fact that most Native Americans finally lose), the author views the behavior as an inevitable by-product of a person’s particular sensitivity to variable ratio schedules of reinforcement (Light and Rand 66).
In sum, casino and slot parlors situations provide a fertile environment for the Native American people and their behavior, since the response is contingently reinforced on a variable-ratio schedule. Further, the situation leads to the possibility of maximizing the positive reinforcing factors of winning. Although the application of activity effective positive reinforcement in casino and slot parlors situations is admittedly infrequent, it is likely that it does occur.
Casino and slot parlors produce extremely persistent behavior among Native Americans. By viewing the aspects of casino and slot parlors, it is clear that the situation provides powerful contingencies for maintaining negative behavior patterns. In order to understand why Native Americans are more susceptible to variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement, we must briefly examine how personality variables interact with reinforcement.
Native Americans, in the course of their lives, experience consistent relationships between sets of problems and means of solutions. Personal expectations develop as a result of previous reinforcement. One important expectation Native Americans develop involves the degree to which they see themselves as instrumental in effecting changes in the environment. Specifically, Native Americans develop a belief in the degree to which their own behavior controls the availability of reinforcement.
This finding indicates that heavy gamers do not see their behavior as instrumental in producing rewards and punishments. Rather, rewards and punishments are largely a matter of fate or luck among Native Americans. It is important to note that an external locus of control is a generalized expectation followed by Native Americans. For Native Americans, this would not only influence their casino and slot parlors behaviors, but their entire behavioral change.
Works Cited
Calloway, C.G. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Fromson, B. D Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.
Hatfield, D. L. The Stereotyping of Native Americans. The Humanist, Vol. 60. 2000, 43.
Kevin K. Washburn, “The Legacy of Bryan v. Itasca County: How an Erroneous $147.
County Tax Notice Helped Bring Tribes $200 Billion in Indian Gaming Revenue” 92 Minnesota Law Review 919 (2008).
Light, S. A. and Kathryn R.L. Rand, Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Minerd, J. Native Americans vs. Environmentalists. The Futurist, Vol. 34, 2000.
Rand, K. R. L. and Steven Andrew Light, Indian Gaming Law and Policy. Carolina Academic Press, 2006.
Wilkinson, Charles. Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations. 1st. Ne York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2005.
Wilmer, Frank. Indian Gaming: Players and Stakes. Wicazo Sa Review, 12(1), 89-114. Retrieved from JSTOR. (140-164).