Payback?
The so-called 'Native Americans', whose ancestors migrated from Asia, held the Americas as a result of a sweeping, northwest-to-southeast movement of butchery with the most vicious family bands slaughtering, enslaving, or driving the previous residents' family bands before them. They zealously practiced the 'principle' - "Might makes right". When Europeans migrated to the Americas, the 'Native Americans' succumbed to opponents that used -
A. Accidental and covert germ warfare (the small-pox virus for example, however, the Americas respond by introducing virulent, venereal diseases to the Europeans)
B. Substance abuse (alcohol, although the Americas responded with tobacco)
C. Commercialism (although the 'original' sale of Manhattan Island was a con game 'pulled' by tribal leaders from upstate New York who were visiting the area and willingly 'sold' the island they did not hold, so the island had to be 'repurchased' later)
D. The 'endless' stream of immigrants
E. Violent aggression to over-whelm them.
As for 'Indian land�, real-estate was not owned by 'Native Americans'. It was occupied by force-of-arms - whoever was the strongest held the lands until they were, in turn, muscled aside. The concept of legal ownership of land did not exist for them.
An interesting aspect of the 'Indian' casinos is the 'tribes' are frequently minority partners in the venture, used as fronts by the moneymen to obtain casino licenses. Some 'tribes', seeking federal recognition, have even inflated tribal populations by adopting persons with no 'Native American' heritage. A practice that can backfire, since adoptees have seized control of some tribes by expanding and controlling the adoption process to the point they control the majority vote of the tribe.
So your idea of payback is a joke, since most profits generated by 'Indian' casinos do not aid the majority of tribal members, instead ending up in the pockets of the moneymen, who are not �Native Americans�, or the few persons controlling the tribal governments.