Native American identity in the United

States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information •

Jump to: navigation, search

In the United States, there are over 560 federally recognized tribes, and over 1.8 million
Native Americans.

Native American identity in the United States is an issue which seeks to define "Native
American" or "(American) Indian" both for people who consider themselves Native
American and for people who do not. An identity is sought which will provide for a
stable definition for legal, social, and personal purposes. There are a number of different
factors which have been used to define "Indianness," and the source and potential use of
the definition play a role in what definition is used. Facets which characterize
"Indianness" include culture, society, genes/biology, law, and self-identity.[1] An
important question is whether the definition should be dynamic and changeable across
time and situation, or whether it is possible to define "Indianness" in a static way.[2] The
dynamic definitions may be based in how Indians adapt and adjust to dominant society,
which may be called an "oppositional process" by which the boundaries between Indians
and the dominant groups are maintained. Another reason for dynamic definitions is the
process of "ethnogenesis," which is the process by which the ethnic identity of the group
is developed and renewed as social organizations and cultures evolve.[3] The question of
identity, especially aboriginal identity is common in many societies worldwide.[4]

The future of their identity is extremely important to Native Americans. Activist Russell
Means bemoans the crumbling Indian way of life, the loss of traditions, languages, and
sacred places. He remarks that there may soon be no more Native Americans, only
"Native American-Americans, like Polish-Americans and Italian Americans." As the
number of Indians has grown (ten times as many today as in 1890), the number who carry
on tribal traditions shrinks (one fifth as many as in 1890): "we might speak our language,
we might look like Indians and sound like Indians, but we won’t be Indians."[5]
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Definitions
o 1.1 Traditional
o 1.2 Constructed as an imagined community
o 1.3 Blood quantum
o 1.4 Residence on tribal lands
o 1.5 Construction by others
o 1.6 United States government definitions
o 1.7 Self-identification
 1.7.1 Personal reasons for self-identification
• 2 Historic struggles
• 3 Unity and nationalism
• 4 Examples
o 4.1 Cherokee
o 4.2 Navajo
o 4.3 Lumbee
• 5 Footnotes

• 6 Bibliography

[edit] Definitions
There various ways in which Indian is defined. Some definitions seek universal
applicability, while others only seek definitions for particular purposes, such as for tribal
membership or for the purposes of legal jurisdiction[6]. For the individual, it is important
that ones personal identity match social and legal definitions, although perhaps any
definition will fail to correctly categorize the identity of everyone.[7]

American Indians were perhaps clearly identifiable at the turn of the 20th century, but
today the concept is contested. Malcolm Margolin, co-editor of News From Native
California muses, "I don’t know what an Indian is... [but] Some people are clearly Indian,
and some are clearly not."[8] Cherokee Chief (from 1985-1995) Wilma Mankiller echoes:
"An Indian is an Indian regardless of the degree of Indian blood or which little
government card they do or do not possess."[9]

Further, it is difficult to know what might be meant by any Native American racial
identity. Race is a disputed term, but is often said to be a social (or political) rather than
biological construct. The issue of Native American racial identity is discussed in Russell
(2002, p68), "American Indians have always had the theoretical option of removing
themselves from a tribal community and becoming legally white. American law has made
it easy for Indians to disappear because that disappearance has always been necessary to
the 'manifest destiny' that the United States span the continent that was, after all,
occupied." Russell contrasts this with the reminder that Native Americans are "members
of communities before members of a race"[10].

[edit] Traditional

Reservation life has often been a blend of the traditional and the contemporary. In 1877,
this Lakota family living at South Dakota's Rose Bud Agency had both teepees and log
cabins.

Traditional definitions of "Indianness" are also important. There is a sense of

"peoplehood" which links Indianness to sacred traditions, places, and shared history as
indigenous people.[11] This definition transcends academic and legal terminology.[12]
Language is also seen as an important part of identity, and learning Native languages,
especially for youth in a community, is an important part in tribal survival.[13]

Some Indian artists find traditional definitions especially important. Crow poet Henry
Real Bird offers his own definition, "An Indian is one who offers tobacco to the ground,
feeds the water, and prays to the four winds in his own language," Pulitzer Prize winning
Kiowa author N. Scott Momaday gives a definition that is less supernatural but still based
in the traditions and experience of a person and their family, "An Indian is someone who
thinks of themselves as an Indian. But that's not so easy to do and one has to earn the
entitlement somehow. You have to have a certain experience of the world in order to
formulate this idea. I consider myself an Indian; I've had the experience of an Indian. I
know how my father saw the world, and his father before him."[14]

[edit] Constructed as an imagined community

Some social scientists relate the uncertainty of Native American identity to the theory of
the constructed nature of identity. Many social scientists discuss the construction of
identity. Benidect Anderson's "Imagined Communities" are an example. However, some
see construction of identity as being a part of how a group remembers its past, tells its
stories, and interprets its myths. Thus cultural identity are made within the discourses of
history and culture. Thus identity may not be a fact based in the essence of a person, but a
positioning, based in politics and social situations.[15]

[edit] Blood quantum

Main article: Blood quantum

A common source of definition for an individual being Indian is based on their blood
quantum (often one-fourth) or documented Indian heritage. Almost two thirds of all
Indian federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States require a certain blood
quantum for membership.[16] Indian heritage is a requirement for membership in most
American Indian Tribes.[17] The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 used three criteria:
tribal membership, ancestral descent, and blood quantum (one half). This was very
influential in using blood quantum to restrict the definition of Indian.[18] The use of blood
quantum is problematic as Indians interracially marry at a higher rater than any other
United States ethnic or racial category, which ultimately could lead to absorption into the
rest of American society.[19]

[edit] Residence on tribal lands

BIA map of reservations in the United States

Related to the remembrance and practice of traditions is the residence on tribal lands and
Indian reservations. Peroff (2002) emphasizes the role proximity to other Native
Americans (and ultimately proximity to tribal lands) plays in ones identity as a Native
American.[20]

[edit] Construction by others

Students at the Bismarck Indian School in the early twentieth century.

European conceptions of "Indianness" are notable both for how they influence how
American Indians see themselves and for how they have persisted as stereotypes which
may negatively affect treatment of Indians. The noble savage stereotype is famous, but
American colonists held other stereotypes as well. For example, some colonists imagined
Indians as living in a state similar to their own ancestors, for example the Picts, Gauls,
and Britons before "Julius Caesar with his Roman legions (or some other) had ... laid the
ground to make us tame and civil"[21].

In the nineteenth and twentieth century, particularly until John Collier's tenure as
Commissioner of Indian Affairs began in 1933, various policies of the United States
federal and state governments have amounted to what some consider an attack on Indian
cultural identity. These policies have included the banning of traditional religious
ceremonies, forced cutting of Indian boys' hair, forced "conversion" to Christianity by
withholding rations, forcing Indian children to go to boarding schools, boarding schools
where the use of Native American languages was not permitted, freedom of speech
restrictions, and restricted allowances of travel between reservations[22]. This was also
true in the Southwest sections of the U.S. then under Spanish control (until the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hildago in 1848), where the majority (80%) of inhabitants were
Indigenous[23].

[edit] United States government definitions

Main article: Native American recognition in the United States

President Coolidge stands with four Osage Indians at a White House ceremony

Some authors have pointed to a connection between social identity of Native Americans
and their political status as members of a tribe[24]. There are 561 federally recognized
tribal governments in the United States, and in the eyes of the U.S. federal government,
these tribes possess the right to establish the legal requirements for membership[25]. In
recent times, preference is given to "political" definitions where legislation has identified
Indians based on their membership in federally recognized tribes[26]. The government and
many tribes prefer this definition because it allows the tribes to determine the meaning of
"Indianness" in their own membership criteria. However, some still criticize this as the
federal government's historic role in setting certain conditions on the nature of
membership criteria means that this definition does not transcend federal government
influence[27]. Thus in some sense, one has greater claim to a Native American identity if
one belongs to a federally recognized tribe, recognition that many who claim Indian
identity do not have[28]. Holly Reckord, an anthropologist who heads the BIA Branch of
Acknowledgment and Recognition discusses the most common outcome for those who
seek membership: "We check and find that they haven't a trace of Indian ancestry, yet
they are still totally convinced that they are Indians. even if you have a trace of Indian
blood, why do you want to select that for your identity, and not your Irish or Italian? It's
not clear why, but at this point in time, a lot of people want to be Indian"[29].

The Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 takes into account the limits of definitions based in tribal
membership. In the act, having the status of a state recognized Indian tribe is discussed,
as well as having tribal recognition as an "Indian artisan" independent of tribal
membership. In certain circumstances, This allows people who identify as Indian to
legally label their products as "Indian made," even when they are not members of a
federally recognized tribe[30]. In legislative hearings, one Indian artist whose mother is not
Indian, but whose father is Seneca and who was raised on a Seneca reservation said, "I do
not question the rights of the tribes to set whatever criteria they want for enrollment
eligibility; but in my view, that is the extent of their rights, to say who is an enrolled
Seneca or Mohawk or Navajo or Cheyenne or any other tribe. Since there are mixed
bloods with enrollment numbers and some of those with very small percentages of
genetic Indian ancestry, I don't feel they have the right to say to those of us without
enrollment numbers that we are not of Indian heritage, only that we are not enrolled.... To
say that I am not [Indian] and to prosecute me for telling people of my Indian heritage is
to deny me some of my civil liberties...and constitutes racial discrimination."[31]

Using federal laws to define "Indian" signals to some a continued government control
over Indians, even as the government seeks to establish a sense of deference. Thus
Indianness becomes a rigid legal term defined by the BIA, rather than an expression of
tradition, history, and culture. Many groups which claim descendants from tribes that
predate European contact not federally recognized. According to Rennard Strickland, an
Indian Law scholar, the federal government uses the process of recognizing groups to
"divide and conquer Indians: "the question of who is 'more' or 'most' Indian may draw
people away from common concerns."[32]

[edit] Self-identification

In some cases, one's opinion about ones self is sufficient to define one as Indian. One can
often choose to identify as Indian without outside verification when filling out a census
form, a college application, or writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper[33]. A "self-
identified Indian" is a person who may not satisfy the legal requirements which define a
Native American according to the United States government but who understand and
express their own identity as Native American.[34] However, many people who do not
satisfy these requirements identify themselves as Native American - whether due to
biology, culture, or some other reason. The United States census allows citizens to check
any ethnicity without requirements of validation. Thus, the census allows individuals to
self-identify as Indian, merely by checking the racial category, "Native American/Alaska
Native," [35]. In 1990, about 60 percent of the over 1.8 million identifying themselves in
the census as American Indian were actually enrolled in a federally recognized tribe[36].
Using self identification allows both uniformity and includes many different ideas of
"Indianness."[37] It also avoids marginalizing the nearly half a million who receive no
benefits because they are unenrolled members of a federally recognized tribe, or full
members of tribes that have never been recognized or whose recognition was terminated
by the government during programs in the 1950s and 1960s.[38] Identity is in some way a
personal issue; based on the way one feels about oneself and one's experiences. Horse
(2001) describes five influences on self-identity as Indian:

• "The extent to which one is grounded in one’s Native American language and
culture, one’s cultural identity"
• "The validity of one’s American Indian genealogy"
 • "The extent to which one holds a traditional American Indian general philosophy
or worldview (emphasizing balance and harmony and drawing on Indian
spirituality)"
• "One’s self-concept as an American Indian"
• "One’s enrollment (or lack of it) in a tribe"[39]

University of Kansas Sociologist, Joane Nagel traces the tripling in the number of
Americans reporting American Indian as their race in the U.S. Census from 1960 to 1990
(from 523,591 to 1,878,285) to federal Indian policy, American ethnic politics, and
American Indian political Activism. Much of the population growth was due to "ethnic
switching," where people who previously marked one group, later mark another. This is
made possible by our increasing stress on social constructions role in determining
ethnicity[40]. The use of self identification in US censuses has changed since 2000 as now
people are allowed to check multiple categories, which is a factor in the increased
population after the 1990 census.[41] Yet, self-identification is problematic on many levels.
It is sometimes said, in fun, that the largest tribe in the United States may be the
"Wantabes."[42]

Garroutte identifies some practical problems with self-identification as a policy, quoting

the struggles of Indian service providers who deal with many people who had ancestors,
some steps removed, who were Indian. She quotes a social worker, "Hell, if all that was
real, there are more Cherokees in the world than there are Chinese."[43]

[edit] Personal reasons for self-identification

Many Individuals seek broader definitions of Indian for their own reasons. Some people
whose careers involve the fact that they emphasize the Native American heritage and
self-identify as Native American face difficulties if their appearance, behavior, or tribal
membership status does not conform to legal and social definitions. In some there is a
longing for recognition. Cynthia Hunt, who self-identifies as a member of the non-
federally recognized Lumbee tribe, says: "I feel as if I'm not a real Indian until I've got
that BIA stamp of approval .... You're told all your life that you're Indian, but sometimes
you want to be that kind of Indian that everybody else accepts as Indian."[44]

The importance that one 'look Indian' can be greater than ones biological or legal status.
Native American Literature professor Becca Gercken-Hawkins writes about the trouble of
recognition for those who do not look Indian; "I self-identify as Cherokee and Irish
American, and even though I do not look especially Indian with my dark curly hair and
light skin, I easily meet my tribe's blood quantum standards. My family has been working
for years to get the documentation that will allow us to be enrolled members of the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Because of my appearance and my lack of enrollment
status, I expect questions regarding my identity, but even so, I was surprised when a
fellow graduate student advised me—in all seriousness—to straighten my hair and work
on a tan before any interviews. Thinking she was joking, I asked if I should put a feather
in my hair, and she replied with a straight face that a feather might be a bit much, but I
should at least wear traditional Native jewelry."[45]
Cherokee/Choktaw author Louis Owens discusses his feelings about his status of not
being a real Indian because he's not enrolled. "Because growing up in different times, I
naively thought that Indian was something we were, not something we did or had or were
required to prove on demand. Listening to my mother's stories about Oklahoma, about
brutally hard lives and dreams that cut across the fabric of every experience, I thought I
was Indian."[46]

[edit] Historic struggles

Florida State anthropologist J. Anthony Paredes considers the question of Indianness that
may be asked about pre-ceramic peoples (what modern archaeologists call the "Early"
and "Middle Archaic" period), pre-maize burial mound cultures, etc. Paredes asks,
"Would any [Mississippian high priest] have been any less awed than ourselves to come
upon a so-called Paleo-Indian hunter hurling a spear at a woolly mastodon?" His question
reflects the point that indigenous cultures are themselves the products of millennia of
history and change.[47]

The question of "Indianness" was different in colonial times. Integration into Indian tribes
was not difficult, as Indians typically accepted persons based not on ethnic or racial
characteristics, but on learnable and acquirable designators such as "language, culturally
appropriate behavior, social affiliation, and loyalty."[48] Non-Indian captives were often
adopted into society, including, famously, Mary Jemison. As a side note, the "gauntlet"
was a ceremony that was often misunderstood as a form of torture, but was seen as a way
for the captives to leave their European society and become a tribal member.[49]

Cherokee chief John Ross

But since the mid 19th century, things have become more controversial. In the early
1860s, novelist John Rollin Ridge led a group of delegates to Washington D.C. in an
attempt to gain federal recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" which was a faction
that was opposed to the leadership of rival faction leader and Cherokee Chief John
Ross.[50]

In the 1920s, a famous case was set to investigate the true ethnic identity of a woman
known as "Princess Chinquilla" and her associate Red Fox James (aka Skiuhushu).[51]
Chinquilla was a New York woman who claimed to have been separated from her
Cheyenne parents at birth. She and James created a fraternal club which was to counter
existing groups "founded by white people to help the red race" in that it was founded by
Indians. The club's opening received much praise for supporting this purpose, and was
seen as very authentic; it involved a Council Fire, the peace pipe, and speeches by Robert
Ely, White Horse Eagle, and American Indian Defense Association President Haven
Emerson. In the 1920s, fraternal clubs were fairly common in New York, and titles such
as "princess" and "chief" were bestowed by the club to Natives and non-Natives.[52] This
allowed non-Natives to "try on" Indian identities.

In 1911, the Society of American Indians was founded by Arthur C. Parker, Carlos
Montezuma, and others as the first national association founded and run primarily by
Native Americans. The group campaigned for full citizenship for Indians, and other
reforms, goals similar to other groups and fraternal clubs, which led to blurred
distinctions between the different groups and their members.[53] With different groups and
people of different ethnicities involved in parallel and often competing groups,
accusations that one was not a real Indian was a painful accusation for those involved. In
1918, Arapaho Cleaver Warden testified in hearings related to Indian religious
ceremonies, "We only ask a fair and impartial trial by reasonable white people, not half
breeds who do not know a bit of their ancestors or kindred. A true Indian is one who
helps for a race and not that secretary of the Society of American Indians."

Just as the struggle for recognition is not new, Indian entrepreneurship based on that
recognition is not new. An example is a stipulation of the Creek Treaty of 1805 which
gave Creeks the exclusive right to operate certain ferries and "houses of entertainment"
along a federal road from Ocmulgee, Georgia to Mobile, Alabama, and which went over
parts of Creek Nation land purchased as an easement.[54]

[edit] Unity and nationalism

1848 drawing of Tecumseh was based on a sketch done from life in 1808.
The issue of Indianness had somewhat expanded meaning in the 1960s with Indian
nationalist movements such as the American Indian Movement. The American Indian
Movement unified nationalist identity was in contrast to the "brotherhood of tribes"
nationalism of groups like the National Indian Youth Council and the National Congress
of American Indians.[55] This unified Indian identity has been cited to the teachings of
19th century Shawnee leader Tecumseh to unify all Indians against "white oppression."[56]
The movements of the 1960s changed dramatically how Indians see their identity, both as
separate from Anglos, as a member of a tribe, and as a member of a unified category
encompassing all Indians.[57]

[edit] Examples
Different tribes have unique cultures, histories, and situations that have made particular
the question of identity in each tribe. Tribal membership may be based on descent, blood
quantum, and/or reservation habitation.

[edit] Cherokee

Historically, race was not a factor in the acceptance of individuals into Cherokee society,
since historically, the Cherokee people viewed their self-identity as a political rather than
racial distinction.[58] Going far back into antiquity based upon existing social and
historical evidence as well as oral traditions among the Cherokee themselves, the
Cherokee society was best described as an Indian Republic. Theda Perdue (2000)
recounts a story from "before the American Revolution" where a black slave named
Molly is accepted as a Cherokee as a "replacement" for a woman who was beaten to
death by her white husband. According to Cherokee tradition, vengeance for the woman's
death was required for her soul to find peace, and the husband was able to prevent his
own execution by fleeing to the town of Chota (where according to Cherokee Law he was
safe) and purchasing Molly as an exchange. When the wives family accepted Molly, later
known as "Chickaw," she became a part of their clan (the Deer Clan), and thus
Cherokee.[59]

Inheritance was largely matrilineal, and kinship and clan membership was of primary
importance until around 1810, when the seven Cherokee clans began the abolition of
blood vengeance by giving the sacred duty to the new Cherokee National government.
Clans formally relinquished judicial responsibilities by the 1820s when the Cherokee
Supreme Court was established. When in 1825, the National Council extended citizenship
to biracial children of Cherokee men, the matrilineal definition of clans was broken and
clan membership no longer defined Cherokee citizenship. These ideas were largely
incorporated into the 1827 Cherokee constitution.[60] The constitution did, state that "No
person who is of negro or mulatlo [sic]parentage, either by the father or mother side, shall
be eligible to hold any office of profit, honor or trust under this Government," with an
exception for, "negroes and descendants of white and Indian men by negro women who
may have been set free."[61] Although by this time, some Cherokee considered clans to be
anachronistic, this feeling may have been more widely held among the elite than the
general population.[62] Thus even in the initial constitution, the Cherokee reserved the
right to define who was and was not Cherokee as a political rather than racial distinction.
Novelist John Rollin Ridge led a group of delegates to Washington D.C. as early as the
1860s in an attempt to gain federal recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" which
was a faction that was opposed to the leadership of rival faction leader and Cherokee
Chief John Ross.[63]

[edit] Navajo

Most of the 158,633 Navajos enumerated in the 1980 census and the 219,198 Navajos
enumerated in the 1990 census were enrolled in the Navajo Nation, which is the nation
with the largest number of enrolled citizens. It is notable as there is only a small number
of people who identify as Navajo who are not registered.[64]

[edit] Lumbee

When the Lumbee of North Carolina petitioned for recognition in 1974, many federally
recognized tribes adamantly opposed them. These tribes made no secret of their fear that
passage of the legislation would dilute services to historically recognized tribes.[65] The
Lumbee were at one point known by the state as the Cherokee tribe of Robeson County
and applied for federal benefits under that name in the early 20th century.[66] The Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians has been at the forefront of the opposition of the Lumbee. It is
sometimes noted that if granted full federal recognition, the designation would bring tens
of millions of dollars in federal benefits, and also the chance to open a casino along
Interstate 95 (which would compete with a nearby Eastern Cherokee Nation casino).[67]

[edit] Footnotes
1. ^ Garroutte (2003), Paredes (1995)
2. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
3. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
4. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
5. ^ Peroff (1997) p492
6. ^ Bowen (2000)
7. ^ Garroutte (2003)
8. ^ Peroff (1997) p489 quoting Fost (1991) p. 28
9. ^ Sheffield p107-108 quoted from Hales 1990b: 3A - Hales, Donna. 1990a "Tribe Touts
Unregistered Artists. " Muskogee (Okla.) Daily Phoenix, Septmnber 3, 1990 1A 10A
10. ^ Russell (2002) p68 is quoting López (1994) p55
11. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
12. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
13. ^ Etheridge (2007)
14. ^ Bordewich (1996) p67
15. ^ Hall (1997) p53
16. ^ Garroutte (2003) p16
17. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
18. ^ Brownell (2001) p284
19. ^ Peroff (1997) p487 gives the rate of interracial marriage for Native Americans as 75%,
whites as 5% and blacks as 8%
20. ^ Peroff (2002) uses complexity theory methods to model the maintenance of traditions
and self-identity based on proximity
21. ^ quoted from Robert Johnson, promoter for the fledgling Virginia Colony in Dyar
(2003) p819
22. ^ Russell (2002) p66-67
23. ^ Russell (2002) p67
24. ^ Ray (2007) p399
25. ^ This right was upheld by the US Supreme Court in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez in
1978, which is discussed in Ray (2007) p403, see also The U.S. Relationship To
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes. usinfo.state.gov. Retrieved on February 08,
2006..
26. ^ Most often given is the two-part definition: an "Indian" is someone who is a member of
an Indian tribe and an "Indian tribe" as any tribe, band, nation, or organized Indian
community recognized by the United States
27. ^ Brownell (2001) p299
28. ^ Nagel remarks that 1,878,285 people marked Native American as their ethnicity on the
1990 US Census, while the number of members of federally recognized tribes is much
smaller, Nagel (1995) p948
29. ^ Bordewich (1996) 66
30. ^ Brownell (2001) p313
31. ^ Brownell (2001) p314
32. ^ Brownell (2001) p302
33. ^ Peroff (1997) p487
34. ^ Garroutte (2003) p82
35. ^ Brownell (2001) p276-277 notes that much of the $180 billion dollars a year in federal
for the benefit of Indians are apportioned on the basis of this census population
36. ^ Thornton 1997, page 38
37. ^ Brownell (2001) p315
38. ^ Brownell (2001) p299
39. ^ Horse (2005) p65
40. ^ Nagel (1995) p948
41. ^ Russell 149
42. ^ Brownell (2001) p315
43. ^ Garroutte (2003) p83
44. ^ Brownell (2001) p275
45. ^ Gercken-Hawkins (2003) p200
46. ^ Eva Marie Garroutte opens with these lines in her book, Real Indians: identity and the
survival of Native America (2003)
47. ^ Paredes (1995) p346
48. ^ Dyar (2003) p823
49. ^ Dyar (2003) p823
50. ^ Christiensen 1992
51. ^ Carpenter (2005) p139
52. ^ Carpenter (2005) p143
53. ^ Carpenter (2005) p141
 54. ^ Paredes (1995) p357
55. ^ Bonney (1977) p210
56. ^ Particularly cited is Tecumseh's concern with the alienation of Indian lands and his
1812 statement about Indian unity as discussed in Bonney (1977) p229
57. ^ Schulz (1998)
58. ^ AIRFA Federal Precedence Applied in State Court
http://www.nativeamericanchurch.net/stott.html
59. ^ Perdue (2000)
60. ^ Perdue (2000) p564
61. ^ Perdue (2000) p564-565
62. ^ Perdue (2000) p566
63. ^ Christiensen 1992
64. ^ Thornton 2004
65. ^ Brownell (2001) p304
66. ^ Barrett (2007)
67. ^ Barrett (2007)

[edit] Bibliography
• Barrett, Barbara. (2007) "Two N.C. tribes fight for identity; Delegation split on Lumbee
recognition" The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina) April 19, 2007

• Bonney, Rachel A. (1977) "The Role of AIM Leaders in Indian Nationalism." American
Indian Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 209-224.

• Bordewich, Fergus M. (1996) Killing the White Man's Indian: Reinventing Native
Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century. First Anchor Books, ISBN 0385420366

• Bowen, John R. (2000) Should We Have a Universal Concept of 'Indigenous Peoples'

Rights'?: Ethnicity and Essentialism in the Twenty-First Century Anthropology Today,
Vol. 16, No. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 12-16

• Brownell, Margo S. (2001) "Who is an Indian? Searching for an Answer to the Question
at the Core

of Federal Indian Law." Michigan Journal of Law Reform 34(1-2):275-320.

• Carpenter, Cari. (2005) "Detecting Indianness: Gertrude Bonnin's Investigation of Native

American Identity." Wicazo Sa Review - Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2005, pp. 139-
159

• Carter, Kent. (1988) "Wantabes and Outalucks: Searching for Indian Ancestors in Federal
Records". Chronicles of Oklahoma 66 (Spring 1988): 99-104 (Accessed June 30, 2007
here)

• Cohen, F. (1982) Handbook of Federal Indian law. Charlottesville: Bobbs-Merrill, ISBN

0872154130
 • Dyar, Jennifer. (2003) "Fatal Attraction: The White Obsession with Indianness." The
Historian. June 2003. Vol 65 Issue 4 pages 817–836

• Etheridge, Tiara. (2007) "Displacement, loss still blur American Indian identities" April
25, 2007 Wednesday, Oklahoma Daily, University of Oklahoma

• Field, W. Les (with the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe). (2003) "Unacknowledged Tribes,
Dangerous Knowledge, The Muwekma Ohlone and How Indian Identities Are 'Known.'"
Wicazo Sa Review 18.2 pages 79-94

• Garroutte, Eva Marie. (2003) Real Indians: identity and the survival of Native America.
University of California Press, ISBN 0520229770

• Gercken-Hawkins, Becca (2003) "'Maybe you only look white:' Ethnic Authority and
Indian Authenticity in Academia." The American Indian Quarterly 27.1&2 pages 200-202

• Hall, Stuart. (1997) "The work of representation." In Representation: Cultural

Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall, 15-75. London: Sage
Publications, ISBN 0761954325

• Horse, Perry G. (2005) "Native American identity" New Directions for Student Services.
Volume 2005, Issue 109 , Pages 61 - 68

• Lawrence, Bonita. (2003) "Gender, Race, and the Regulation of Native Identity in
Canada and the United States: An Overview" Hypatia 18.2 pages 3-31

• Morello, Carol. (2001) "Native American Roots, Once Hidden, Now Embraced".
Washington Post, April 7, 2001

• Nagel, J. (1995) "Politics and the Resurgence of American Indian Ethnic Identity,"
American

Sociological Review 60: 947–965.

• Paredes, J. Anthony. (1995) "Paradoxes of Modernism and Indianness in the Southeast."

American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3. (Summer, 1995), pp. 341-360.

• Perdue, T. "Clan and Court: Another Look at the Early Cherokee Republic." American
Indian Quarterly. Vol. 24, 4, 2000, p. 562

• Peroff, Nicholas C. (1997) "Indian Identity" The Social Science Journal, Volume 34,
Number 4, pages 485-494.

• Peroff, N.C. (2002) "Who is an American Indian?" Social Science Journal. Volume 39,
Number 3, pages 349

• Pierpoint, Mary. (2000) "Unrecognized Cherokee claims cause problems for nation".
Indian Country Today. August 16, 2000 (Accessed May 16, 2007 here)
 • Porter, F.W. III (ed.) (1983). "Nonrecognized American Indian tribes: An historical and
legal perspective." Occasional Paper Series No. 7. Chicago, IL: D’Arcy McNickle Center
for the History of the American Indian, The Newberry Library.

• Ray, S. Allan. A Race or a Nation? Cherokee National Identity and the Status of
Freedmen's Descendents. Michigan Journal of Race and Law. Vol. 12, 2007 (Accessible
as a working paper as of July 12, 2007 here).

• Russell, Steve. (2004) "Review of Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native
America" PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. May 2004, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp. 147-153

• Russell, Steve (2002). "Apples are the Color of Blood". Critical Sociology Vol. 28, 1,
2002, p. 65

• Schulz, Amy J. (1998) "Navajo Women and the Politics of Identity." Social Problems,
Vol. 45, No. 3. (Aug., 1998), pp. 336-355.

• Sturm, Circe. (1998) "Blood Politics, Racial Classification, and Cherokee National
Identity: The Trials and Tribulations of the Cherokee Freedmen". American Indian
Quarterly, Winter/Spring 1998, Vol 22. No 1&2 pgs 230-258

• Thornton, Russell. (1992) The Cherokees: A Population History. University of Nebraska

Press, ISBN 0803294107

• Thornton, Russell. (1997) "Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of

'Old' and 'New' Native Americans". Population Research and Policy Review Vol. 16,
Issue 1, p. 33 ISBN 0803244169

• "Census 2000 PHC-T-18. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States:
2000" United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, Special Tabulation (Accessed May 27,
2007 here)

Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_identity_in_the_United_States"