{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024366471734892786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.583333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intratribal Contention Concerning Indian Gaming

As Indian gaming operations proliferate and public deliberations concerning the propriety of casinos intensify, the academic literature devotes little attention to debates within tribes about Indian gaming. This article interrogates this divergence by examining a specific mode of intratribal contention. Gaming-related occupations staged by factions at the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas are described. After locating these practices in the context of approximately half a century of Native American contentious politics, the author considers four questions raised by these cases: (a) Does casino gaming, regardless of the class, have a place on the reservation? (b) How should communities manage the social and economic impacts of casino gaming? (c) Who is, and is not, a member of the community eligible to share in the benefits anticipated to be accrued through gaming? and (d) Who is “traditional” and what does traditional mean?