Defining Native American

Abstract This paper explores the question of who is defined as a Native American within the jurisdictions of the United States. Determining individual status can be seen as a two-step process: Is a given individual recognized by a specific tribe as a member? Then, is that specific tribe acknowledged by a relevant governmental unit? Though both seem simple questions, this paper illustrates that the question “Is Person X a Native American?” sometimes can be quite fraught, and manifests what I have described previously as definitional gaps and definitional ruptures. Ultimately, as is typical of regulatory definitions, the choice of definitional criteria to apply is a question of values, interests, and politics. I begin with a description of the varied definitional frameworks at work in determinations of whether a given group of people constitute a recognized tribe, then note how tribes themselves are institutions empowered to define who does or does not count as members through practices of enrollment and disenrollment. I then describe three case studies of definitional phenomena—one as a case of a definitional gap (college professors described as “Pretendians”), the second as a case of definitional rupture (determining Native American eligibility for free tuition within the University of California system), and a third as an illustration of regulatory versus self-definition (U.S. Census practices).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Topoi
Published
2024-10-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10108-w
Primary Topic
American History and Culture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Defining Native American

Edward Schiappa
Topoi
American History and Culture
article

Defining Native American

Edward Schiappa
article en

Abstract

Abstract This paper explores the question of who is defined as a Native American within the jurisdictions of the United States. Determining individual status can be seen as a two-step process: Is a given individual recognized by a specific tribe as a member? Then, is that specific tribe acknowledged by a relevant governmental unit? Though both seem simple questions, this paper illustrates that the question “Is Person X a Native American?” sometimes can be quite fraught, and manifests what I have described previously as definitional gaps and definitional ruptures. Ultimately, as is typical of regulatory definitions, the choice of definitional criteria to apply is a question of values, interests, and politics. I begin with a description of the varied definitional frameworks at work in determinations of whether a given group of people constitute a recognized tribe, then note how tribes themselves are institutions empowered to define who does or does not count as members through practices of enrollment and disenrollment. I then describe three case studies of definitional phenomena—one as a case of a definitional gap (college professors described as “Pretendians”), the second as a case of definitional rupture (determining Native American eligibility for free tuition within the University of California system), and a third as an illustration of regulatory versus self-definition (U.S. Census practices).

TopoiVol. 43(5)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
American History and Culture
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.