299 INDIAN AND NON-INDIAN ALIKE herald gaming as the most significant development to occur in Indian country since the United States stopped terminating its recognition of tribal sovereignty over thirty years ago. Beginning with the high-stakes bingo games launched by the Seminoles and Miccosukees in Florida in the late 1970s, Indian gaming has expanded since then to include casino-style gambling conducted by nearly 200 of the 560 federally recognized Indian nations. The aggregate wealth generated by these new businesses is staggering. In 1995, tribal gaming revenues were $5.5 billion.1 Only four years later, this figure had nearly doubled to $9.6 billion.2 While impressive, these numbers are nonetheless skewed in favor of a relatively few Indian nations, with only 11% of the gaming facilities generating 61% of all tribal gaming revenue.3 But gaming has been embraced by a significant number of Indian nations which, while not having “wildly” successful operations, have been able to generate enough income to enhance their overall economic position. Others, however, have not been so successful, with nearly 30% of tribal gaming operations generating only 1% of the aggregate tribal gaming revenues.4 Generally, it seems, there is broad support for Indian gaming. Both the citizens and leaders of gaming Indian nations trumpet the improvement that has been brought to their lives. So too with the non-Indians, who—simply by virtue of the fact that they constitute the vast majority of the patrons at Indian gaming facilities—look to the establishment of these operations as an exciting new source of entertainment. In addition, many American political leaders, from the local to the federal levels, support Indian gaming because of the economic stimulus it provides. Not all, however, are enthused by the Indian gaming phenomenon. Indigenous traditionalists and others concerned about the social and cultural transformation associated with gambling decry this form of economic development. And non-Indians—including moralists who oppose government-sponsored gambling generally, monopolists who seek to preserve Nevada and New Jersey as gaming enclaves, and Indian haters, who oppose any enhancement of Indian economic and political power— have sought to prevent the expansion of tribal gaming ventures whenever possible. Despite these objections, however, the overall consensus appears to be that gaming conducted by Indian nations is a good thing for all affected and that it should continue into the future. Against this backdrop, it is obvious how little attention is given by proponents to the long term effects of gaming on Indigenous societies. If one listens to the rhetoric, there is apparently no down side to gaming. The rationalization is