Brenda Meade, the president of the Corkill Indian Tribe, has spoken out against the criticism and misinformation spread by tribes that oppose the controversy surrounding the Corkill Indian Tribe’s proposed casino project. The project has faced significant backlash from several tribes in California and Oregon, who claimed that the Corkill tribe “shopped reservations” and attempted to unfairly add land.
The casino project needs to strengthen the community
Mead explained how the casino project came to exist at Oregon Live. In 2012, the Corkill tribe applied to be trusted with land in Medford, part of a designated service area for a new reserved casino. She noted that the proposed casino would be small but allow it to expand its service and address the needs of citizens, families, and the wider community.
Mead explained that Medford justified the casino business with the second highest concentration of Kokile people at the time of tribal recovery. She expressed dismay that ignorance and misinformation continue to undermine their rights and sovereignty, emphasizing that the Kokile people’s struggle for recognition and rights is fraught with challenges stemming from historical injustice, including termination and disposition. 토토사이트 모음
Criticizing the claims of a lack of opposition to “off-booking” games and “booking shopping,” Mead explained that the accusations were unfounded and rooted in misunderstandings about tribal land rights. She drew attention to the Coquille Restoration Act, which established five county service areas for reserved buildings, influenced by federal policies that dispersed tribes throughout the landscape.
Continued lobbying could damage tribal sovereignty
According to Mead, misleading claims by other tribes for fear of losing their undisputed gaming monopoly along Oregon’s I-5 corridor have been gained by excessive lobbying. She referred to the Kokile Restoration Act as solid evidence that the tribe has the right to carry out casino projects, noting these claims as unfounded.
Mead appealed to fellow tribal leaders and tribal rights supporters to prioritize tribal sovereignty over competitive interests. She described how the Kokile tribe once faced competing concerns from neighboring tribes but decided to support tribal rights rather than maintain exclusivity. The resulting agreement benefited both parties, highlighting that cooperation can build lasting prosperity.
Mead argued that the current backlash could set an unfortunate precedent, and that tribal restoration could face years of legal action as millions were wasted on lobbying efforts. Her calls for unity and respect for sovereignty were a poignant reminder of the importance of support in tribal communities’ ongoing fight for recognition and self-determination.