Originally posted by shots
For years, the Shinnecocks have sought to build a casino on tribe-owned land in Hampton Bays, but the project has been opposed by neighbors and local lawmakers and is tied up in litigation. There has been speculation the lawsuit stems from the casino battle. But the Shinnecocks argue that their claim to the land long precedes any controversy over the gaming palace.

Didn't know there were Casino's around 12000 years ago...

Shots-- just a note for an edit -- in the closing part of the story you spelled Southampton with 2 h's -- you had it right everywere else.

One quick note on this--where they want to put the casino would be a beautiful place for a casino but the I have concerns about what it would do to the bay it will be on. No one would be allowed to build something of that size on the property. There are zoning laws that would prevent anyone from doing it.

Edited to make more than one line.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by justme1640]

Originally posted by justme1640
Shots-- just a note for an edit -- in the closing part of the story you spelled Southampton with 2 h's -- you had it right everywere else.


[edit on 16-6-2005 by justme1640]

Bangs spell checker on the head



Don't ya hate that when that happens? Too late for edit now the story has been upgraded.

[edit on 6/16/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
For years, the Shinnecocks have sought to build a casino on tribe-owned land in Hampton Bays, but the project has been opposed by neighbors and local lawmakers and is tied up in litigation.

I thought that as long as a Tribe wanted to build a casino on its own land it had to right to do so without interference of the government? Am I wrong about that?

This is an interesting case. THe Shinnecock tribe made a deal with the early settlers for land use originally, and then the settlers, I think this was pre-civil war, met with some people from the tribe, apparently plied them with liquor, and made a new deal in which the land belonged to the americans. This was also apparently done after a federal law was made in which Congress has to approve native land deals, but that was not done in this case.

The Natives did have a bid for a casino on their land, and the town shot it down. Apparently NY State has been settling Native land claims by offering casinos and tax free liquor and tobacco (my my, how things change..). But the Natives are stating that the two things are unconnected, or at least that they aren't using this as a way of bargaining for a casino.

To a degree, their gripe makes sense, the land was 'sold' by people without authority, and now, a hundred years later, when they simply want to have a casino or something to revive their community, they get shot down by people in the Hamptons who don't want the traffic. So they, apparently, figure, 'screw this, give us our god damned land back'.

One of the places under 'threat' is the Southampton Golf Course. Ludicrously, the newspapers had comments from one guy who scoffed at the viability and intentions of the Native claim while walking his poodle. Just rather funny if you ask me, bunch of Hamptonites walking their poodles, sipping starbucks, and strolling around golf courses guffawing at native land claims.

The state government, however, does tend to take these things seriously. It woudl surely be a bizzare situation if the golf club and surrounding areas returned to native control.

Lets see we have had approximately 190 views so far and no one has picked up on the part I intentionally left out that is very important to this whole issue. Come on put your thinking hats on, you can do it

If you want a true conspiracy, do some serious research into land rights and claims by native americans...

technically... if the US is to truly honor its original treaties... then the native americans own everything EXCEPT new england...(and various hamlets of private ownership)

ownership is somewhat screwed up thru the years due to tragedies like the mass murder of Osage adults to illegally adopt their children and absorb rights.
(as well as the trail of tears and many others)

er, shots? What was left out? The Status of the claimant as actual natives perhaps?

Originally posted by Nygdan
er, shots? What was left out? The Status of the claimant as actual natives perhaps?

Can you expand on what you mean? Please be specific.

The Shinnecocks aren't even legally entitled to build the casino yet. They haven't been federally recognized. They've only been recognized by NY.

Pressuring the Feds to speed up the timeline perhaps, by threatening lawsuits?

Originally posted by Nygdan
THe Shinnecock tribe made a deal with the early settlers for land use originally, and then the settlers, I think this was pre-civil war, met with some people from the tribe, apparently plied them with liquor, and made a new deal in which the land belonged to the americans.To a degree, their gripe makes sense, the land was 'sold' by people without authority, and now, a hundred years later, when they simply want to have a casino or something to revive their community, they get shot down by people in the Hamptons who don't want the traffic. So they, apparently, figure, 'screw this, give us our god damned land back'.

I think that every time I want to build a cookfire in the back yard, pitch a tipi on my front lawn, or grow corn for the homeless on an 'abandoned lot'. All of which are illegal now.

Gambling as a means of equitable redistribution of wealth is an original part of our cultures. It ensured no one was left with too little- or too much.

"Suppose I come to you and sell you my neighbor's horse without his consent. If we sold our land, this is how it was done." Chief Joseph

As for Federal recognition, it means nothing. We exist.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in 1985 ruled that Indian land claims were not barred by a statute of limitations.

I guess I don't really understand why Americans think they're entitled to land their ancestors owned before they were Americans, yet still maintain that they're American. Now that was a convoluted sentance! The land is now part of America, and the native Americans call themselves exactly that: Americans. They are entitled to all the privlidges Americans are, like voting, welfare, social programs, legal protection, citizenship, etc. Yet, on top of that, they also want additional stuff, like land that was once lived on by their ancestors (remember, before Europeans got here, Native Americans had no concept of land ownership. The land belonged to the land.), pre-USA (and in some cases post-USA). What's the deal?

US laws regarding First Nations claims are something I am quite unfamiliar with. But I think there is a deadline coming up that would force the BIA to proceed with the recognition decision. I think if the Shinnecock status is not decided, one way or another, by the end of July, they can go to court and force a decision. I could be wrong on this though.

And Federal recognition may not mean anything, in the sense that it is a tribe and there is no denying it; but Federal recognition does have benefits that would make it a desirable goal.

New York did not become a state until July 26, 1788. DUH. Me thinks they better get some new writer's

Good eye shots. Guess they learned a few things from the white man, like get him drunk and steal his money as in building a casino.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

New York did not become a state until July 26, 1788. DUH. Me thinks they better get some new writer's

Good eye shots. Guess they learned a few things from the white man, like get him drunk and steal his money as in building a casino.

I am not sure exactly what you are getting at.

I wrote what I did, simply because they do not know how to add? They meaning the Shinnecock website stated it was 400 years that the state was aware of the tribe, when that is impossible because New York was not a state in 1605. To be specfic at that time there was no United States either we were then a colony of England. Any agreements made at that time were with the British not the US, yet they are now trying to apply something that happened with England as if the US made the agreement which they did not.

[edit on 6/16/2005 by shots]

Ithink that they can be forgiven for saying New York State, when infact the orignal authority would've been New York Colony. Hell, maybe they'd have a claim with the British, or, hell, even the Dutch.

Heck, if the natives can sue for their land, can the Dutch sue for New Amsterdam? That wasn't even taken as peacably as the shinnecock land was.