The coach from Calgary to Banff didn’t just pass through prairie and forest. There were a few settlements on the way too, one of which was a First Nations* village of the Stoney Nakoda, its buildings scattered across a wide area. One of the buildings, I noticed, was a casino. This surprised me. I had heard of “Indian casinos”, of course, but I thought they were an American thing. For all their similarities, Canada and the US are politically and legally very different countries – so how does Canada have these native casinos as well?
For a start, despite the similar accents, Canada has almost no equivalents to America’s most distinctive social, political, or historical features: no written constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms, no seismic legacy of slavery, no war of independence, etc. The closest point of similarity is their treatment of the continent’s native peoples, and even then, there are differences. Native Americans consist of around 1% of the US population, while First Nations make up 3% of Canada’s population. For all the brutality of Canada’s “assimilation” policies, a quick scan of Canadian history show less violence towards its natives compared to the litany of horrors that is American history. That said, there are similarities too, as both governments forced native peoples onto reserves and adopted repressive, paternalistic policies in the 19th and 20th centuries to assimilate the “savage Indians” by destroying their cultures and ethnic identities.
The legal statuses of both First Nations and Native Americans have undergone constant revision as governments changed their attitudes and tribes launched legal challenges, but ultimately the natives of both countries have ended up in much the same situation – living on reserves, blighted by poverty. It was the Seminole Tribe of Florida that first thought to raise money by running bingo games in 1979. Despite the fluctuating legal status of Native Americans over the years, one concept that remained more or less intact was that of tribal sovereignty. A 1982 court case confirmed that this exempted the Seminoles from state regulations, and their bingo games could offer jackpots of $100,000, rather than be limited by state law to $100. Another court case in 1987, involving the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, extended this principle to poker, ultimately resulting in many tribes establishing casinos on their reservations, with varying degrees of success.
First Nations established their first casinos in Ontario and Saskatchewan in the 90s, after an initial refusal to allow them by the provincial authorities of Ontario and Manitoba, and a resulting complicated legal fight about the self-government rights of First Nations. In this regard, the Canadian First Nations’ right to self-government (established by the Constitution Act of 1982) offer the same legal advantage as the American concept of tribal sovereignty. By 2018, there were 16 casinos across the country, and each province has its own regulations concerning First Nation casinos. For example, Alberta, where the Stoney Nakoda casino is, designates the casinos as charities, as they are expressly for the purpose of improving living conditions on reserves.
Given that their casinos were established later, the First Nations of Canada seemingly did get the idea from Native Americans. Although their arcs of displacement, oppression, and fluctuating legal rights had been a little different, they had both arrived at the same destination of impoverished reserves. So same problem, same solution. In the limited number of cards they had to play, they turned to their legal loopholes. They offered hope.
Sources: CIA World Factbook, Canadian Government website, The Rough Guide to Canada, North American Indians: A Very Short Introduction by Theda Perdue & Michael D. Green, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Belanger, Yale. “First Nations Gaming in Canada: Gauging Past and Ongoing Development.” Journal of Law and Social Policy 30. (2018): 175-184, Alberta Gaming, Liquor & Cannabis
*Lengthy note on terminology: Terms for colonised native groups are always a fraught subject. However, if you follow some very broad generalisations of the official terminology, I find that a neat pattern emerges: “First Nations” are the natives of Canada, “Native Americans” are the natives of the USA, and “Aboriginals” are the natives of Australia (not “Aborigines”, which is considered offensive). This is the highly simplified method I use, in any case, but among people who are not me, these terms are sometimes used interchangeably – Aboriginal Canadians, Australian First Nations, etc. Personally, I was persuaded not to use the term “indigenous” by a New Yorker article that pointed out that, although people think that term means “native”, the way it’s actually used is usually to refer to people who are seen as being exotically primitive.** Native Americans generally don’t seem to mind being called “Indian”, but, ultimately, they’re just not from India.
**It’s Time to Rethink the Idea of the “Indigenous” by Manvir Singh
Wandering/Wondering 