Indigeneity, Nationhood, Racialization, and the U.S. Settler State: Why Political Status Matters to Native ‘Identity’ Formation

This essay is a chapter excerpted from my forthcoming book, Who Gets to be Indian: Ethnic Fraud and Other Difficult Conversations about Native American Identity The chapter shows the ways that Indianness, framed as Indian or Native American “identity”, is inseparable from state subjectivity based on the history of political relations between tribes and the United States. It argues that tribes’ political status and relationship to the state are central to how Native American identity is shaped, rejecting the understanding of Native identity as race-based. The term “Indigenous” is discussed as not being equivalent to “Native American” and is not a racial formation in international fora. Social changes during the twentieth century brought new ways to diffuse and co-opt Nativeness through disaggregating it from political status and reinforcing racialization with the rise in urban pan-Indianism and neo-tribalism. Distinguishing Nativeness as political status from racialization is critical given ongoing attacks on tribal sovereignty in Supreme Court challenges based on alleged violations to the equal protection principle. Native American “identity” is inextricable from tribal nationhood and state formation, and thus cannot simply be dismissed as a colonial construct.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Genealogy
Published
2024-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8030116
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.58

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Indigeneity, Nationhood, Racialization, and the U.S. Settler State: Why Political Status Matters to Native ‘Identity’ Formation

Dina Gilio-Whitaker
3 citations
Genealogy
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
1.58
article

Indigeneity, Nationhood, Racialization, and the U.S. Settler State: Why Political Status Matters to Native ‘Identity’ Formation

Dina Gilio-Whitaker
article en
3 citations

Abstract

This essay is a chapter excerpted from my forthcoming book, Who Gets to be Indian: Ethnic Fraud and Other Difficult Conversations about Native American Identity The chapter shows the ways that Indianness, framed as Indian or Native American “identity”, is inseparable from state subjectivity based on the history of political relations between tribes and the United States. It argues that tribes’ political status and relationship to the state are central to how Native American identity is shaped, rejecting the understanding of Native identity as race-based. The term “Indigenous” is discussed as not being equivalent to “Native American” and is not a racial formation in international fora. Social changes during the twentieth century brought new ways to diffuse and co-opt Nativeness through disaggregating it from political status and reinforcing racialization with the rise in urban pan-Indianism and neo-tribalism. Distinguishing Nativeness as political status from racialization is critical given ongoing attacks on tribal sovereignty in Supreme Court challenges based on alleged violations to the equal protection principle. Native American “identity” is inextricable from tribal nationhood and state formation, and thus cannot simply be dismissed as a colonial construct.

GenealogyVol. 8(3)
California State University, San Marcos (US)
Australian Government
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
1.58
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.