Write Your Answer In Essay Format, With A Minimum Of One Full Page In Single-Space Format With Font No Larger Than 12

A scan request has been submitted. Please see the details below:

Requestor Information

Name Ariane Dalla Dea

Email [email protected]

Status Faculty/Academic

Department Anthropology

Item Information

Title Multiculturalism in the United States : current issues, contemporary voices

ISBN/ISSN 0761986480 (alk. paper)

Section to Scan The politics of ethnic authenticity: building native American identities and communities / Joane Nagel

ISBN/ISSN Search URL

• httDs://roaer.ucsd.edu/search~S9?/i0761986480 (alk. paper)

R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S O F R A C E A N D T H E P O L I T I C S O F I D E N T I T Y

9

The Politics of Ethnic Authenticity: Building Native American Identities

and Communities Joane Nagel

No one knows for sure how many indigenous North Americans were present when Colum­ bus landed in 1492, although estimates sug­ gest that numbers were in the several mil­ lions. Over the next 400 years, there was a dramatic decline in the native population; by the end of the nineteenth century, the U.S. Census Bureau counted fewer than 250,000 Native Americans in the United States.1 The decrease in the number of native people was accompanied by a marked reduction in the number of native societies or "tribes." Dis­ tinct language and dialect communities at the time of contact were estimated at more than 1,000 (Swanton 1952).2 This number has dwindled to around 320 Indian groups or "entities" in the lower 48 states that are offi­ cially recognized by the U.S. Department of the Interior in the 1990s.3

In spite of these declines, the twentieth century has seen a remarkable increase in the American Indian population, from its nadir of 237,196 in 1900 to 1,874,536 in the 1990 census (Snipp 1989; U.S. Census Bureau 1991). This growth is summarized in Table 9.1. As we can see, native population figures

for the past 90 years represent a reversal of 4 centuries of decline in the North American Indian population: beginning with fewer than one half million at the turn of the cen­ tury, climbing back up to nearly 2 million in 1990. Although these trends reflect a tragic pattern of death and decline, they also reveal an extraordinary trend toward recovery and renewal. The twentieth century resurgence of the American Indian population is a truly re­ markable story of ethnic survival and re­ birth.

Population projections undertaken by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1986 suggest that Native American demo­ graphic recovery is far from over. The OTA projected the American Indian population for the next century using as a base popula­ tion the number of Indians in 1980 living in 32 states with federal reservations according to various degrees of native ancestry (so-called blood quantum). Table 9.2 shows these projections.

As we can see from Table 9.2, the total in­ crease in the Indian population during the next century is expected to be twelvefold,

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 113

Table 9.1 American Indian Population—1890-1990

Year Number % Change

1890 248,253 1900 237,196 -5

1910 276,927 17

1920 244,437 -13

1930 343,352 40

1940 345,252 1 1950 357,499 4 1960 523,591 46 1970 792,730 51 1980 1,364,033 72 1990 1,873,536 38 Sources: 1890-1970: Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), p. 160; figures for 1980 and 1990 are from U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of the Census Releases 1990 Census Counts on Specific Racial Croups (Census Bureau Press Release CB91 -215, Wednesday, June 12, 1991), Table 1.

growing from 1.3 million in 1980 to 15.8 mil­ lion in 2080. What is especially interesting about these projections is the changing inter­ nal composition of Native America. Snipp (1989) reported on the projections made by the OTA using Bureau of Indian Affairs blood quantum data and taking "into account the prevalence of racial intermarriage among In­ dians based on data from the 1980 census" (p. 166).

The OTA projection begins in 1980 with 1.1 million individuals with 50 percent or

more Indian ancestry (blood quantum), 120,068 with 25 percent to 49 percent native blood quantum, and 46,636 with less than 25 percent native ancestry. A century later, the demographic picture would look very differ­ ent. By 2080, the OTA projects a stable num­ ber of Indians with blood quanta of 50 per­ cent or more (1.3 million in 2080). However, the OTA predicts a tremendous growth in the other two categories, with 5.2 million indi­ viduals with blood quanta ranging from 25 percent to 49 percent and 9.3 million native people with less than one quarter Indian an­ cestry. This population explosion of Indians of mixed ancestry reduces the percentage of the native population with 50 percent or more Indian ancestry from 86.9 percent of the native population in 1980 to only 8.2 per­ cent of the native population in 2080. Con­ comitantly, the percentage of the Indian pop ulation with 25 percent to 49 percent blood quantum rises from 9.5 percent in 1980 to 32.9 percent in 2080, and the percentage of the Indian population with less than 25 per­ cent blood quantum increases the most, ris­ ing from 3.6 percent of the population in 1980 to 58.9 percent in 2080.

What do these predicted changes in the ancestry of American Indians mean? This fu­ ture portrait of Native America painted by the OTA is one of increased racial diversity, with more and more Native Americans of mixed Indian/non-Indian ancestry. The im­ plications of this mixing are important for understanding what it will mean to be an

Table 9.2 Office of Technology Assessment: Indian Population Projections (1980-2080)

Percent Indian Ance

Year 50% and above 2596-4996

1980 1,125,746(86.9%) 123,068(9.5%) 46,636(3.6%) 1,295,450(100.0%) 2080 1,292,911 (8.2%) 5,187,411 (32.9%) 5,187,411 (58,9%) 15,767,206(100.0%) Source: C. Matthew Snipp, American Indians: The First of This Land (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988), p. 167.

1 1 4 Multiculturalism in the United States

American Indian in the next century, in par­ ticular in light of contemporary controver­ sies about Indian authenticity and debates over what constitutes legitimate claims to In­ dian ancestry and group membership.

The puzzle of why the American Indian population increased so dramatically in the last decades of the twentieth century and the implications of the racial diversity of future generations of Native Americans are two of the main reasons for my interest in American Indian history and contemporary political and social life. For a sociologist, both puzzles and change pose a challenge. Puzzles are to be solved, and change is to be understood. My solution to the rising numbers of American Indians in the post-Second World War era can be summarized as a combination of fac­ tors involving the urbanization, education, and political activism of American Indians, all of which led to an increased sense of ethnic pride and thus an increased likelihood of identifying oneself as "American Indian" (for a full explanation, see Nagel 1996). My analy­ sis of the implications of past and future ra­ cial diversity among Native Americans is that Indian ethnicity will be a subject of debate and controversy for the foreseeable future. Questions about native ethnic group mem­ bership and who has a right to American In­ dian identity and resources are the focus of the remainder of this chapter.

American Indian Ethnic Diversity

Since the 1970s, more than half of all Ameri­ can Indians have lived in cities (Sorkin 1978; U.S. Census Bureau 1992a, table 44). Al­ though tribal origin and affiliation continue to have enormous currency among these of­ ten first-generation native urban immi­ grants, demographic differences inevitably have emerged between urban and reservation Indians in education, health, income, life­ style, interests, and perspective. These differ­

ences reflect the worldwide impact of ur­ banization on formerly rural populations: increased income and employment, higher levels of education, lower rates of fertility, more intermarriage, and native language loss.4

Despite a great deal of reservation-urban circular migration, differences between ur­ ban Indians and those residing on reserva­ tions represents an important ethnic bound­ ary between the two groups, one characterized by some strain and suspicion. One source of this tension is the concern of reservation In­ dians that their urban coethnics have lost touch with reservation needs and concerns while having disporportionate access to power and influence in national arenas gov­ erning Indian affairs. In an article tided "So Who Really Represents Indian Tribes?" one commentator criticized the prominent role played by "urban Indians" in federal Indian policy, arguing that, although educated, ur­ ban Indians are "thoroughly grounded... in municipal bonds, capital formation, and other esoteric topics They do not under­ stand the perspective of tribal leaders, or of Indian people" who must contend with such reservation problems as health, education, housing, cultural preservation, environmen­ tal protection, or language preservation (Chavers 1993:A5).

Urban-reservation differences, although obviously important, represent but one source of diversity among a socially, econom­ ically, politically, linguistically, and culturally plural Native American population. Tribal distinctions represent an even greater source of variability. More than 350 Indian tribes and communities in the lower 48 states are separately recognized by federal and state au­ thorities.5 Each has its own government, legal system, justice system, educational system, and economic, social, and cultural organiza­ tion (for an overview of many tribal political differences, see O'Brien 1989). These differ­ ences are reinforced by geographic distances among tribes and the isolation of many res-

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 115

ervations. Historical patterns of conflict, competition, or cooperation also remain a legacy that shades contemporary intertribal relations, as does the fact that Indian com­ munities often see one another as competi­ tors for scarce federal funding or federally regulated resources. Competition can be­ come especially bitter when federally nonrecognized groups seek access to Indian resources. Challenges to tribal authenticity can result.

For instance, in 1979, the Samish and Snohomish tribes of Puget Sound in Wash­ ington State were judged by the federal gov­ ernment to be "legally extinct" and were ex­ cluded from native access to the region's fishing economy. Recognized tribes who had won rights to half the annual salmon catch in the landmark federal district court "Boldt" decision in 1974 opposed the Samish and Snohomish efforts. "It boils down to trying to protect tribal fisheries from groups which the Tulalips [a recognized tribe] view as not gen­ uine Indians" (Egan 1992:8).6 The impor­ tance of resource competition in intertribal relations can be seen in the situation of the Lumbees of North Carolina. One of the larg­ est tribes in the 1980 census, numbering 26,631 (U.S. Census Bureau 1989, table 1:26), the Lumbees have long sought federal recog­ nition, only to receive limited acknowledg­ ment with the proviso that the tribe would re­ ceive no federal services (Blu 1980). There are many such tribes seeking social and federal acceptance as legitimate Indian communi­ ties. Their presence represents another level of complexity in Indian ethnicity.

Debates over Indian Ethnic Authenticity

Challenges to authenticity can be leveled against individuals and their claims to ethnic group membership. For instance, in 1982 I visited an American Indian7 community cen­ ter in an eastern city. I was greeted by the di­

116 Multiculturalism in the United States

rector, a man wearing jeans and a plaid shirt, whose dark hair was woven into braids bound by beaded ties. He told me about the Indian center's history and about its current activities, which were designed to provide a sense of community for the city's several thousand American Indian residents. The most successful undertaking, he reported, was a summer camp program, where local In­ dian children from diverse tribal back­ grounds, most of whom had been born and lived their lives in the city, were sent to spend 2 weeks on his home reservation more than a thousand miles away to learn about reserva­ tion life and their native heritage. I found the conversation interesting and informative. Several months later, while I was visiting a Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Washing­ ton, DC, the Indian center director's name came up in conversation. To my surprise, I was told matter-of-factly by a person working there (who identified himself as a member of a recognized Indian tribe) that the director, Sam Smith (not his name), was "not really an Indian." When I inquired into this statement, the official said, "Well, maybe his grand­ mother had some Indian blood," but, he reit­ erated, "Sam Smith is not really an Indian."

Reading the Indian affairs literature and listening to native people, the question of who is really an Indian comes up again and again. The query is often made in an atmo­ sphere of skepticism and sometimes bitter contention.8 The question is posed to tribes as well as to individuals. For instance, in an "open letter" to the Governor of Georgia, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller denounced the state's decision to officially recognize two groups claiming Cherokee ancestry, expressing con­ cern these groups were "using the Cherokee Nation's name, history, culture, and reputa­ tion . . . and posing as Indian tribes" (Mankiller 1993:A4).9 Such concerns often arise because of the potential loss of scarce tribal resources to an ever-increasing pool of collective and individual recipients.

Individual Indian ethnicity is at least as problematic as that of groups, due to wide variability in the criteria and standards of proof of Indian ancestry and Indianness. Again, the doubts and suspicions seem great­ est when ethnically tied resources are at stake and when benefits are seen to accrue to indi­ viduals who claim Indian ancestry or special Indian knowledge. This challenge to authen­ ticity is extended to a wide variety of authors, artists, scholars, and activists, and individu­ als claiming Indian identity or interests.10 Again, although the debate here focuses on American Indian ethnic boundaries and is­ sues of authenticity, similar debates can be found in other ethnic communities (African Americans, Asians, Latinos, to name a few) and among other bounded social groups (age, gender, disabled, veterans). In some of these cases, the issues do not center so much on lineage or biology—who is really black or who is really female; rather, the focus is on what kind of upbringing, class position, or life experience qualifies an individual to speak for or represent the interests of the group. In other cases, the issues center more on actual personal characteristics (ability to speak Spanish or not; having been in combat or not; degree of disability)." In the case of American Indians, the authenticity de­ bate often centers on ancestry (see Gates 1991),12 namely, just how much and what kind of Indian background qualifies individ­ uals or groups to have the rights of American Indians.

Another source of controversy concerns how an individual acquires authentic Indian ethnicity—through self-definition or by the acknowledgment of others. Again, resources seem to be a key issue. For instance, at its an­ nual meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1993, the Association of American Indian and Alaskan Native Professors (AAIANP) issued a statement on "ethnic fraud," stressing the importance of official tribal recognition of individuals' Indianness in classifying univer­ sity students and faculty. The statement was

intended to register the organization's con­ cern about

ethnic fraud and offer recommendations to en­ sure the accuracy of American Indian/Alaska Na­ tive identification in American colleges and universities... and to affirm and ensure Ameri­ can Indian/Alaska Native identity in the hiring process. We are asking that colleges and universi­ ties: Require documentation of enrollment in a state or federally recognized nation/tribe with preference given to those who meet this criterion (AAIANP 1993).13

David Cornsilk, assistant director of admis­ sions at Bacone College in Muskogee, Oklahoma, provided this rationale for such a policy:

I believe in membership as the foundation of sov­ ereignty. ... I believe the authority of the tribe, the right of the tribe, stems from the group, the community. ... I don't believe in the right of self-identification. I believe that's an assault on the right of the group. (Reynolds 1993:A3)M

Tim Giago, editor of Indian Country Today and The Lakota Times, affirmed the tribal membership approach to establishing Indian authenticity and underlined the issue of re­ sources in making distinctions between "real" Indians and others who claim Indian ancestry.

It was in the 1970s that people claiming to be In­ dian began to take jobs intended for Indians and to write books claiming to be authorities on Indi­ ans. These instant "wannabes" did us far more harm than good. Not only did they often give out misleading information about Indians, they also took jobs that left many qualified genuine Native Americans out in the cold. .. . Before you can truly be considered an Indian you must become an enrolled member of a tribe. I think most Indi­ ans would agree that this is the only way you can truly be accepted as Indian. (Giago 1991:3)

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 117

Alphonse Ortiz echoed these concerns about scarce resources allocated to self-identified recipients:

These are people who have no business soaking up jobs and grants, people who have made no claim to being Indian up to their early adult­ hood, and then when there's something to be gained they're opportunists of the rankest stripe, of the worst order. ... We resent these people who just come in and when the going's good skim the riches off the surface. (Reynolds 1993:A1)

Although convincingly argued, this em­ phasis on official enrollment (membership) in recognized tribes in determining Indian ethnicity is at odds with the way in which most Americans (and perhaps most Ameri­ can Indians) acquire their ethnicity. Though estimates vary, somewhere between two thirds and one half of American Indians counted in the 1980 and 1990 census were en­ rolled members of recognized tribes.15 Thus, the official enrollment rule would throw into question the ethnicity of a significant propor­ tion of Americans who designated their "race" as Indian in the U.S. census, not to mention the millions more who identified an Indian ethnic ancestry on census forms. This restrictive approach to constructing Native American ethnic boundaries is not typical of strategies used by most ethnic groups in con­ temporary America, who often seek to widen ethnic self-definitions to compete more ef­ fectively in local, state, and national political arenas. Indeed, the AAIANP's reliance on ex­ ternal (tribal) ascription represents a chal­ lenge to the widely held notion in American society that ethnicity is, at least in part, a pri­ vate, individual choice (a notion that is shared by the U.S. Census Bureau).

These debates can be trying to the targets of authenticity inquiries, as critical author and activist Ward Churchill's comments re­ veal:

118 Multiculturalism in the United States

I'm forever being asked not only my "tribe," but my "percentage of Indian blood." I've given the matter a lot of thought, and find that I prefer to make the computation based on all of me rather than just the fluid coursing through my veins. Calculated this way, I can report that I am pre­ cisely 52.5 pounds Indian—about 35 pounds Creek and the remainder Cherokee—88 pounds Teutonic, 43.5 pounds some sort of English, and all the rest "undetermined." Maybe that last part should just be described as "human." It all seems rather silly as a means of assessing who I am, don't you think? (Jaimes 1992:123)16

Although many methods of calculating in­ dividual Indian or tribal authenticity are of­ ten ludicrous and sometimes offensive (anal­ yses of urine and earwax, chemical tasting abilities; Snipp 1989:30-31), unfortunately, the enterprise is by no means capricious. It turns out to be deadly serious in the many cases in which individual and community life-sustaining resources hang in the balance as judgments of "real" Indian authenticity are decided. These cases routinely involve such important matters as child custody rights, health benefits, scholarships, legitimate means of livelihood, land claims, mineral and resource rights and royalty payments, politi­ cal and criminal jurisdiction, taxation, and myriad other personal and financial matters. The truth is embedded in the common socio­ logical fact: Although ethnicity is socially and politically constructed and is thus arbitrary, variable, and constantly negotiated, it is no less real in its consequences.

Changing Definitions of Indianness

Embedded in many discussions of Indian au­ thenticity and membership regulations is a question about whether the rules defining Indianness and tribal membership should be relaxed or tightened, that is, made more inclusionary or more exclusionary. For in-

stance, Trosper (1976) described the adop­ tion of tighter, more exclusionary enrollment rules by the Flathead Tribe of Montana in re­ sponse to pressures to "terminate" the tribe (i.e., dissolve the federal trust relationship) in the 1950s. Federal officials charged that Flat­ head's Salish and Kootenai tribal members were acculturated and no longer needed fed­ eral services or protection. This prompted a move by tribal leaders to pursue a kind of eth­ nic purification strategy by adopting a stricter set of blood quantum rules to designate membership. Thornton (1987) reported an opposite, loosening or inclusionary strategy on the part of some nonreservation-based groups, mainly in Oklahoma, where groups such as the Cherokees or Choctaws face less competition among members for shares of tribally held or land-based resources (Thorn­ ton 1987). In these instances, inclusion can have positive political consequences in an electoral system, because a relatively large percentage of the Oklahoma population is American Indian.17

Some critics call for the entire abolish­ ment of ancestry or blood quantum regula­ tion of tribal membership, arguing that such rules, particularly when applied by the fed­ eral government, tend to heighten tension among Native Americans, creating disunity and suspicion. For instance, activist Russell Means raised questions about the meaning and legitimacy of ancestry tests of Indianness:

Our treaties say nothing about your having to be such-and-such a degree of blood in order to be covered When the federal government made its guarantees to our nations in exchange for our land, it committed to provide certain services to us as we defined ourselves. As nations, and as a people. This seems to have been forgotten. Now we have Indian people who spend most of their time trying to prevent other Indian people from being recognized as such, just so that a few more crumbs—crumbs from the federal table—may be available to them, personally. I don't have to

tell you that this isn't the Indian way of doing things. The Indian way would be to get together and demand what is coming to each and every one of us, instead of trying to cancel each other out. We are acting like colonized peoples, like subject peoples. (U.S. Census Bureau 1991:139)

Like Means, StifFarm and Lane (1992) challenged the assumptions underlying an­ cestry and blood quantum tests of Indianness and tribal membership, asking whether American Indians

will continue to allow themselves to be defined mainly by their colonizers, in exclusively ra­ cial/familial terms (as "tribes"), or whether they will (re)assume responsibility for advancing the more general and coherently political definition of themselves they once held, as nations defining membership/citizenship in terms of culture, so­ cialization, and commitment to the good of the group. (P. 45)

They wonder whether American Indian tribes cannot take seriously their semisovereign sta­ tus with regard to citizenship, bringing "'out­ siders' . .. into their membership by way of marriage, birth, adoption, and naturaliza­ tion" (Stiffarm and Lane 1992:45).

Such a strategy certainly would open the door to an expansion of Indian ethnic mem­ bership, as well as tribal citizenship, which might be resisted by Indian communities faced with distributing already scarce re­ sources and by a federal bureaucracy at­ tempting to keep the lid on or reduce Indian expenditures.18 However, many tribes may be forced to come to terms with their own blood quantum rules in the very near future. The rate of racial intermarriage for American In­ dians is the highest of all American racial cat­ egories, with fewer than half of American In­ dians marrying other Indians, compared with racial endogamy rates of 95 percent and higher for whites, blacks, and Asians (Snipp 1989:157; see also Sandefiir and McKinnell 1986; Thornton, Sandefur, and Snipp 1991).

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 119

The consequence of this intermarriage is an increase in the number of Indian/non-Indian offspring with ever-diminishing degrees of Indian ancestry. One result of tribal blood quantum restrictions, even as low as one quarter, is that an increasing proportion of these children will not qualify for tribal membership even though one or both of their parents are tribal members, and despite their having lived on the reservation since birth.19

Conclusion

As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, the Native American population is expected to continue to grow during the next century, and that growth will produce an increasingly racially mixed, urban Indian population. Contemporary tensions between reservation and urban native communities and current debates about the rules for determining au­ thentic Indian identity, rights, and tribal membership have enormous implications for the descendants of today's native people. A case from history might be useful in explor­ ing these implications.

The Yamasees were an indigenous group living in the southeastern United States at the time of European contact with North Amer­ ica. They no longer exist as an identifiable tribe, and few individuals report Yamasee tribal affiliation.20 The Cherokees, in con­ trast, have several federally recognized, state-recognized, and nonrecognized com­ munities, and, in the 1980 census, they sur­ passed the historically numerically dominant Navajo Nation as the most populous tribe in the United States. Young (1987) noted that the Cherokees have been described as accul- turated, of mixed ancestry, and successful at adopting white economic and political prac­ tices. Young challenged the underlying dis­ paragement of these characteristics: "Chero­ kee people today still have a tribal identity, a living language, and at least two government

bodies.... That's more than one can say of the Yamasee" (p. 81).

It is instructive to keep this comparison in mind as we contemplate the future demo­ graphic shape of Native America. As we saw in Table 9.1, the 1980 census reported a 72 percent increase in the number of Americans who identified their race as "American In­ dian." The question has arisen: Are the roughly one half million new Indians in the 1980 census (not to mention the 6 million re­ spondents who reported some degree of In­ dian ancestry; Snipp 1989) really Indians? Thornton et al. (1990) asked a similar ques­ tion about the contemporary Cherokee pop­ ulation—a group whose numbers have in­ creased dramatically in recent years (more than 300 percent from 1970 to 1980), in­ creases that account for a good deal of the growth in the total Indian population.21 His answer fits our question as well:

Common to all the Cherokees is an identity as Cherokee. All of the 232,344 individuals de­ scribed here—fully 17 percent of all American Indians in the United States in 1980, according to the census definition and resulting enumera­ tion—identified themselves as Cherokee. So they are. (Thornton et al. 1990:175)

This answer will not be satisfying to those concerned with Indian racial purity and the potential cultural change that many fear will result from the growth and racial mixing of the Indian population (Deloria 1986:3—4, 7-8). There is no doubt that native popula­ tion growth has mixed consequences for American Indian ethnic and cultural survival and change. On the one hand, Indian popula­ tion increases guarantee the demographic survival of Native American communities and ethnicity.22 On the other hand are those pitfalls identified by Ron Andrade (1980), a former head of the National Congress of American Indians, who defended tribal mem­ bership restrictions (mainly involving degree of Indian ancestry) to avoid a loss of tribal re-

120 Multiculturalism in the United States

sources to individuals living off-reservation and to protect against what he viewed as the dilution of tribal cultures and traditions (Andrade 1980:13).23 Yet, as the comparison of the Yamasees and Cherokees suggests, al­ though there may be social, economic, politi­ cal, and cultural changes caused by Indian population growth and a relaxation of ethnic boundaries, the costs these changes incur may be considerably less than the price of fail­ ing to make them.

Notes 1. Estimates of the number of North Ameri­

can Indians at the time of European contact range from 18 million (Henry Dobyns 1983) to fewer than 1 million (Alfred Kroeber 1939).C.Matthew Snipp (1989) reported that most estimates range between 2 million and 5 million (p. 10).

2. For two reasons, this is a conservative esti­ mate of the number of precontact tribes in the lower 48 states. First, the figure is based on coding procedures that included only separate linguistic groups and their major dialectic and/or regional subdivisions. Villages or bands often were quite autonomous (Driver 1961; Dobyns 1983), but they were not included as separate tribes in the coding. Second, Swanton (1952) used the early 1600s (more than a century after first contact) as his starting point. Many researchers believe that the first century following contact dramatically al­ tered traditional Indian lifestyles and affected the viability of many tribes due to the virulence of Old World diseases that swept across the continent ahead of the waves of European settlers (Dobyns 1983).

3. In 1988, the U.S. Department of the Inte­ rior listed 309 recognized tribes in the lower 48 states ("Indian Tribal Entities Recognized" 1988). In 1992, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, identified another 9 recently recognized tribes not appearing on the 1988 list: the Coquille Tribe of Oregon; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; San Juan Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Scotts Valley

Band of Porno Indians, California; Lytton Rancheria of California; Guidiville Rancheria of California; Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine; and Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California (personal correspondence, August 3,1992, from Bureau of Indian Affairs).

4. See Snipp (1989) for a survey of rural/ur­ ban, metropolitan/nonmetropolitan, and reser- vation/nonreservation characteristics in the Amer­ ican Indian population; for a case study of one ur­ ban Indian community, see also Weibel-Orlando (1991).

5. In addition to the 318 federally recognized tribes in the lower 48 states, more than a dozen tribes are recognized by individual states (e.g., the Shinnecocks of New York and the Schaghticokes of Connecticut).

6. In an interesting twist in this case, Samish leaders discovered that Judge Boldt died from Alz­ heimer's disease in 1984. They believe he was suf­ fering from the disease in 1978, a year before he declared their tribe to be legally extinct. Other rec­ ognized tribes fear that if the Samish pursue this issue in court, the important (and unpopular with non-Indian fishermen) 1974 Boldt decision guar­ anteeing native tribes' fishing rights also might be thrown into question. See also Miller 1993).

7. I use the terms "American Indian," "Native American," "Indian," and "native" interchange­ ably in this chapter. This varying usage is consis­ tent with formal and informal designations of Americans of indigenous ancestry by themselves and others, and these terms are used widely and interchangeably by both native and non-native re­ searchers and writers (see, e.g., Snipp 1993, foot­ note 1).

8. For instance, see the introduction and first chapter of James Clifton's edited work The In­ vented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies (1990), as well as the chapters by some of his contributors (especially David Henige and Stephen Feraca) for a particularly virulent chal­ lenge to the ethnic authenticity of a variety of American Indian individuals and groups; his ear­ lier Being and Becoming Indian (1989) is a some­ what less acrid inquiry into Indian identity using biographical sketches.

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 121

9. Ironically, even the Cherokee Nation itself has been challenged on occasion because of the patterns of intermarriage and cultural blending practiced by many members (see Baird 1990).

10. An interesting exception to this is reflected in the enthusiasm of Mashantucket Pequot tribal member Joseph J. Carter's response to tribal growth following casino gambling successes. "He savors the flood of would-be Indians— 'Hey, ev­ erybody wants to be a Mashantucket"' (Clines 1993, p. A18).

11. For an interesting discussion of the emer­ gence of deaf culture and "ethnicity," with its own language, culture, outlook, and boundary dis­ putes, see Dolnick (1993).

12. In addition, questions of upbringing, membership in an Indian community, lifestyle, and outlook also can arise.

13. The notion of ethnic fraud appears to be gaining some attention. In an October 1993 con­ ference sponsored by the American Council on Education in Houston, Jim Larimore (Assistant Dean and Director of the American Indian Pro­ gram at Stanford University) and Rick Waters (As­ sistant Director of Admissions at the University of Colorado, Boulder) presented a session titled "American Indians Speak Out Against Ethnic Fraud in College Admissions."The session was de­ signed to "identify the problem and its impact on the American Indian community... [and to] dis­ cuss effective institutional practices for docu­ menting and monitoring tribal affiliations" (American Council on Education 1993).

14. These concerns about ethnic fraud parallel a wider skepticism about ethnic claims in general (not just those of Native Americans) when rights, jobs, and resources are at stake. In discussing the minority status of a particular individual, a fellow academic once told me, "I don't know if s/he's re­ ally a(n) , or has just found a horse to ride to tenure."

15. The Indian Health Service conducted a survey of federally recognized tribes to obtain tribal enrollment figures in 1986 and counted 746,175 enrolled members in 213 tribes in the lower 48 states (see Lister 1987). This is a signifi­

cant undercount, because there are more than 350 recognized tribes. However, most of the more siz­ able tribes (e.g., the Navajos and Cherokees of Oklahoma) were included in the survey. The 1980 and 1990 census figures for American Indians were 1,364,033 and 1,873,536, respectively (see U.S. Census Bureau 1992b).

16. Churchill has been singled out for particu­ larly virulent attacks on his ethnic authenticity (see the series of articles, columns, and letters in Indian Country Today beginning with the Sep­ tember 8,1993 issue). Partly to defuse the issue of his ethnicity, in spring 1994, Churchill became an officially enrolled member of the Keetoowah Cherokee Tribe (personal communication, Ward Churchill, May 1994).

17. The proportion of Oklahomans who are Indian was 12.9 percent in 1990 (U.S. Census Bu­ reau 1991).

18. For instance, in 1986, the Reagan adminis­ tration put forth a proposal to adopt an official one quarter blood quantum definition of "In­ dian" for the purpose of receiving services from the Indian Health Service. Tribal organizations, led by the National Congress of American Indi­ ans, protested and lobbied effectively to stop the effort. There is no reason to believe that will be the last such attempt (see Jaimes 1992, p. 133).

19. Despite a growth in the number of Na­ tive Americans of less than one half or one quarter Indian ancestry, estimates of the total American Indian population over the next century predict increases among those whose ancestry is more than 50 percent native (U.S. OTA 1986).

20. For example, in both published and un­ published lists of tribal affiliations coded from the 1980 census, there were no Yamasees, although I have seen some native scholars report their ances­ try as Yamasee.

21. The number of Cherokees increased from 1970 to 1980 by 166,194. Although this number is considerably less than the 571,000 increase in the total Indian population during the 1970-1980 pe­ riod, Cherokee population growth represents 29.1 percent of the total increase (Thornton, Snipp, and Breen 1990, appendix).

122 Multiculturalism in the United States

22. Even without massive ethnic conversions from non-Indian to Indian, Snipp (1989) re­ ported that the OTA's projections of the American Indian population from 1980 to 2080 show con­ tinued growth in the Indian population: Those with 50 percent or more Indian ancestry ("blood") are projected to grow slightly during the century (an increase of about 170,000); those with one quarter to one half Indian ancestry, to increase from 123,000 in 1980 to 5.2 million in 2080; those with less than one quarter Indian ancestry, to in­ crease from 47,000 to 9.3 million; and a total American Indian population growth from 1.3 million in 1980 to 15.7 million in 2080 is projected (Snipp 1989, p. 167).

23. Andrade referred to individuals seeking to profit financially from Indian tribal membership but not willing to participate in tribal life and res­ ervation development as "Indians of conve­ nience." In contrast, critics of restrictive tribal en­ rollment criteria point out that tribal councils and enrolled tribal members also can be seen to profit personally from their participation in tribal life and reservation development (M. Annette Jaimes, personal communication, April 1994).

References American Council on Education. 1993. Educating

One-Third of a Nation FV: Making Our Reality Match Our Rhetoric. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Andrade, Ron. 1980. "Are Tribes Too Exclusive?" Ameri­ can Indian Journal IV: 13.

Association of American Indian and Alaskan Native Professors. 1993. "AANIAP Statement on Ethnic Fraud." Press release, June 28, Washington, DC.

Baird, David. 1990. "Are There 'Real' Indians in Oklahoma: Historical Perceptions of the Five Civi­ lized Tribes." Chronicles of Oklahoma 6:4-23.

Blu, Karen L. 1980. The Lumbee Problem: The Making of an American Indian People. Cambridge, UK: Cam­ bridge University Press.

Chavers, Dean. 1993. "So Who Really Represents Indian Tribes?" Indian Country Today, May 19, p. A5.

Clifton, James. 1989. Being and Becoming Indian. Belmont, CA: Dorsey.

,ed. 1990. The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Clines, Francis X. 1993. "With Casino Profits, Indian Tribes Thrive." New York Times, January 31, p. A18.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1986. "The New Indian Recruits: The Popularity of Being Indian." Americans Before Co­ lumbus 14:3-8.

Dobyns, Henry. 1983. Their Number Become Thinned. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Dolnick, Edward. 1993. "Deafness as Culture." Atlantic, September, pp. 37-53.

Driver, Harold E. 1961. Indians of North America. Chi­ cago: University of Chicago Press.

Egan, Timothy. 1992. "Indians Become Foes in Bid for Tribal Rights." New York Times, September 6, p. 8.

Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. 1991. "'Authenticity,' or the Les­ son of Little Tree." New York Times Book Review, November 24, pp. 1,26-28.

Giago, Tim. 1991. "Big Increases in 1990 Census Not Necessarily Good for Tribes." Lakota Times, March 12, p. 3.

"Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible to Re­ ceive Services from the United States Bureau of In­ dian Affairs." Fed. Reg. 52829-52834 (1988).

Jaimes, M. Annette. 1992. "Federal Indian Identifica­ tion Policy: A Usurpation of Indigenous Sover­ eignty in North America." Pp. 123-138 in TheState of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Re­ sistance, edited by M. Annette Jaimes. Boston: South End.

Kroeber, Alfred. 1939. "Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America." American Archaeology and Ethnology. No. 38. Berkeley: University of Califor­ nia Press.

Lister, Edgar. 1987. "Tribal Membership Rates and Re­ quirements." Washington, DC: U.S. Indian Health Service. Unpublished table.

Mankiller, Wilma. 1993. "An Open Letter to the Gover­ nor of Georgia." Indian Country Today, May 26, p. A4.

Miller, Bruce G. 1993. "The Press, the Boldt Decision, and Indian-White Relations." American Indian Culture and Research Journal 17:75-97.

Nagel, Joane. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of Culture and Iden­ tity. New York: Oxford University Press.

O'Brien, Sharon. 1989. American Indian Tribal Govern­ ments. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Representations of Race and the Politics of Identity 123

Reynolds, Jerry. 1993. "Indian Writers: Real or Imag­ ined." Indian Country Today, September 8, p. Al.

Sandefur, Gary D. and Trudy McKinnell. 1986. "Ameri­ can Indian Intermarriage." Social Science Research 15:347-71.

Snipp, C. Matthew. 1989. American Indians: The First of This Land. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

. 1993. "Some Observations about the Racial Boundaries and the Experiences of American Indi­ ans." Paper presented at the University of Washing­ ton, Seattle, April.

Sorkin, Alan. 1978. The Urban American Indian. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Stiffarm, Lenore A. and Phil Lane, Jr. 1992. "The De­ mography of Native North America: A Question of American Indian Survival." Pp. 23-53 in The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Re- sistance, edited by M. A. Jaimes. Boston: South End.

Swanton, John. 1952. The Indian Tribes of North Amer­ ica. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Thornton, Russell. 1987. "Tribal History, Tribal Popula­ tion, and Tribal Membership Requirements." (Newberry Library Research Conference Report No. 8: "Towards a Quantitative Approach to Ameri­ can Indian History"). Chicago: Newberry Library.

Thornton, Russell, Gary D. Sandefur, and C. Matthew Snipp. 1991. "American Indian Fertility Patterns: 1910 and 1940 to 1980." American Indian Quarterly 15:359-67.

Thornton, Russell, C. Matthew Snipp, and Nancy Breen. 1990. "Appendix: Cherokees in the 1980 Census." Pp. 178-203 in The Cherokees: A Population History, edited by Russell Thornton. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Trosper, Ronald. 1976. "Native American Boundary Maintenance: The Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana, 1860-1970." ErAinicily 3:256-74.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1989. Census of the Population, Subject Reports, Characteristics of American Indians by Tribes and Selected Areas: 1980, Vol. 2, Section 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

. 1991. "Census Bureau Completes Distribution of 1990 Redisricting Tabulations to States." Press Release CB91-100, March 11.

. 1992a. "Census Bureau Releases 1990 Census Counts on Specific Racial Groups." Press Release CB91-215, June 12.

. 1992b. Census of the Population, General Popu­ lation Characteristics: United States, 1990, PC-1-1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 1986. Indian Health Care. Washington, DC: Government Print­ ing Office.

Weibel-Orlando, Joan. 1991. Indian Country, L.A.: Maintaining Ethnic Community in Complex Society. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Young, Mary. 1987. "Pagans, Converts, and Backsliders, All: A Secular View of the Metaphysics of In­ dian-White Relations." Pp. 75-83 in The American Indian and the Problem of History, edited by C. Mar­ tin. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nagel:

1. Why is there a controversy over who is authen­ tically Native American?

2. Discuss the significance of being defined as a "true Indian." What are the benefits and disad­ vantages of doing this successfully? What are some of the political reasons for altering defi­ nitions of Native-Americanness?