[at-l] Re: Cherokee, Harrah's, the Smokies, and a wimpy tripreport/pics link

[nealb@midlandstech.com (William Neal)]

Cherokee was quaint at one time.  Mostly with white "owned" businesses --
some whites owned them below "see" level.  Most of the Cherokees were poor.
Good people, but dirt poor.  Like most "native Americans", they had very
little.  Now Indians have casinos and money is coming into the casino
reservation areas.  Unfortunately the number of tourists often destroys
"quaintness" and the surrounding areas.  Their impact on the Smokies has got
to be anything but good.  Luckily most of the area around Cherokee is
national and/or state owned or is owned by the Cherokee Nation.  So
developement is slowed down somewhat.  And it's rugged land; which means
that most of the truly private land will be hard to impossible to develope
for the kind of tourists who want to come to gamble.  On the other hand,
there will be little that we can do if the Cherokees decide to bulldoze
right up to the park boundary.  Technically that is a "foreign" nation.
Guess it is pay back time for the "Native Americans".

William, The Turtle

PS  I like Gatlinburg, but then I like Myrtle Beach.  Sometimes I crave
health food and sometimes I crave junk food.  Just as long as it's not too
much of one thing for too long.


> "I like it too.  I guess the answer is to spend some time in Cherokee (or
> Pidgeon Forge), then Gatlinburg won't seem half bad. <vbg>"
>
> I liked Cherokee in '92. It was 'quaint' :O)
> I hear Harrah's Casino has really changed the atmosphere?