Misplaced Pages

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Health mental in poverty Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia In-group Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Outgroup Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Autistic Black Chauvinism Female Illusory Jewish Male Nordicism Tigraynization Ultranationalism White Transphobia 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Australian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Fulani Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movement in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Untermensch Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Transphobia in the US House of Representatives Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation LGBTQ rights opposition MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Part of a series on
Native Americans in the United States
History Paleo-Indians Lithic stage Archaic period in the Americas Formative stage Classic stage Post-Classic stage Woodland period Age of Discovery European colonization of the Americas Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas Genocide Paper genocide Slavery Slavery in the United States Partus sequitur ventrem Indian Removal Act Trail of Tears Native American slave ownership Indian Territory American Civil War Dawes Rolls Cultural assimilation of Native Americans Racism against Native Americans Indian Appropriations Act Racial Integrity Act Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Jim Crow laws Blood quantum laws Native Americans and World War II American Indian boarding schools Civil rights movement Red Power movement Native American rights Alcohol and Native Americans Native American temperance activists
Culture Mississippian culture Adena culture Hohokam culture Iroquois culture Art Food Music Pow wow Dance Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Film Indigenous Peoples' Day Literature Fashion Neighborhoods Health Tribal sovereignty
Wars Beaver Wars Anglo-Powhatan Wars Pequot War Kieft's War Peach Tree War Esopus Wars King Philip's War Tuscarora War Yamasee War Dummer's War Pontiac's War Lord Dunmore's War American Revolutionary War Cherokee–American wars Northwest Indian War War of 1812 Creek War Arikara War Seminole Wars / Second Seminole War Osage Indian War American Civil War Texas–Indian wars (1836–1877) / Comanche Wars (1836–1877) / (1858)|Antelope Hills expedition / Comanche Campaign (1867–1875) / Red River War (1874–1875) / Buffalo Hunters' War (1876–1877) Cayuse War Apache Wars (1849–1924) / Jicarilla War (1849–1855) / Chiricahua Wars (1860–1886) / Tonto War (1871–1875) / Victorio's War (1879–1880) / Geronimo's War (1881–1886) / Post 1887 Apache Wars period (1887–1924) Yuma War Ute Wars(1850–1923) / Battle at Fort Utah (1850) / Walker War (1853–1854) / Tintic War (1856) / Black Hawk War (1865–1872) / White River War (1879) / Ute War (1887) / Bluff War (1914–1915) / Bluff Skirmish (1921) Posey War (1923) Sioux Wars (1854–1891) / First Sioux War (1854-1856) / Dakota War (1862) / Colorado War (1863–1865) / Powder River War (1865) / Red Cloud's War (1866–1868) / Great Sioux War (1876–1877) / Northern Cheyenne Exodus (1878-1879) / Ghost Dance War (1890–1891) Rogue River Wars (1855–1856) Yakima War (1855–1858) / Puget Sound War (1855–1856) / Coeur d'Alene War (1858) Mohave War(1858–1859) Navajo Wars (1849–1866) Paiute War(1860) Yavapai Wars(1861–1875) Snake War (1864–1869) Hualapai War (1865–1870) Modoc War (1872–1873) Nez Perce War (1877) Bannock War (1878) Crow War (1887) Bannock Uprising (1895) Yaqui Uprising (1896) Battle of Sugar Point (1898) Crazy Snake Rebellion (1909) Last Massacre (1911) Battle of Kelley Creek (1911) Battle of Bear Valley (1918)
Political movements Civil rights movement Self-determination Women in politics Nationalism American Indian Movement (AIM) Red Power Movement Occupation of Alcatraz Trail of Broken Treaties Occupation of Wounded Knee MMIW (Red handprint)
Religion American Indian Religious Freedom Act Christianity Eagle Feather law Mormonism Traditional religions Native American Church Longhouse Religion Sun Dance Keetoowah Society Midewiwin Wabunowin Wocekiye
Groups National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Native American Rights Fund (NARF) National Congress of American Indians National Indian Youth Council (NIYC) Women of All Red Nations (WARN) The International Indian Treaty Council (IITC)
Ethnic subdivisions Black Indians Indigenous peoples of the Americas Louisiana Creole
Languages English American English Native American languages
Demographics Neighborhoods Societal statistics Reservations Tribal disenrollment Reservation poverty
Geography by region Great Basin Northeastern Woodlands Northwest Plateau Pacific Northwest The Great Plains Southeastern Woodlands Southwest by state Alaska Arizona California Colorado Florida Hawaii Iowa Maryland Michigan Nebraska North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Virginia Wisconsin
Lists Native Americans artists actors war leaders musicians congressional politicians Native American Medal of Honor recipients List of federally recognized tribes List of federally recognized tribes by state List of Indian reservations in the United States
v t e

Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are laws in the United States that define Native American status by fractions of Native American ancestry. These laws were enacted by the federal government and state governments as a way to establish legally defined racial population groups. By contrast, many tribes do not include blood quantum as part of their own enrollment criteria. Blood quantum laws were first imposed by white settlers in the 18th century. Blood quantum (BQ) continues to be a controversial topic.

History of blood quantum law

In 1705, the Colony of Virginia adopted the "Indian Blood law" that limited the civil rights of Native Americans and persons of one-half or more Native American ancestry. This also had the effect of regulating who would be classified as Native American. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the US government believed tribal members had to be defined for the purposes of federal benefits or annuities paid under treaties resulting from land cessions. According to the Pocahontas Clause of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, a white person in Virginia could have a maximum blood quantum of one-sixteenth Native American ancestry without losing his or her legal status as white.

The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears led to a major enumeration of Native Americans as well as controversies and misunderstandings about blood quantum that persist to this day. As they were being forcibly driven out of their ancestral homelands and subjected to genocide, many Natives understandably feared and distrusted the government and attempted to avoid enumeration. But the only way to do this was to completely flee the Native American community during a time of widespread persecution. Native Americans who tried to refuse, if they were not already in a prison camp, had warrants issued for their arrests; they were forcibly rounded up and documented against their will. It is a modern misconception that this enumeration was equivalent to contemporary tribal enrollment, or in any way optional.

The concept of blood quantum was not widely applied by the United States government until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. At the time, the federal government required persons to have a certain BQ to be recognized as Native American, and thus eligible for financial and other benefits under treaties or sales of land. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 marked the beginning of the US government's widespread application of the blood quantum idea. At the time, for someone to be recognized as Native American and be qualified for financial and other benefits under treaties or land sales, they had to meet a specific BQ requirement set by the federal government.

Native American tribes did not formally use blood quantum law until the government introduced the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, instead determining tribal status on the basis of kinship, lineage, and family ties. Some tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, did not adopt the type of written constitution suggested in that law until the 1950s. Given intermarriage among tribes, particularly those that are closely related and have settled near each other, critics object to the federal requirement that individuals identify as belonging to only one tribe when defining blood quantum. They believe this reduces an individual's valid membership in more than one tribe, as well as costing some persons their qualification as Native American because of having ancestry from more than one tribe but not 1/4 or more from one tribe. Overall, the number of registered members of many Native American tribes has been reduced because of tribal laws that define and limit the definition of acceptable blood quantum.

Native American nations have continued to assert sovereignty and treaty rights, including their own criteria for tribal membership, which vary among them. In the early 21st century, some nations, such as the Wampanoag tightened their enrollment criteria and excluded persons who had previously been considered members. Challenges to such policies have been pursued by those excluded. Native American tribes have maintained their claims to sovereignty and treaty rights, as well as their own membership requirements. By the early 21st century, many Native American tribes had modified their enrollment requirements and banned people who were already considered members. Those who are not members had tried to challenge policies to become a member.

Measuring an individual's blood quantum

A person's blood quantum (BQ) is defined as the fraction of their ancestors, out of their total ancestors, who are documented as full-blood Native Americans. For instance, a person who has one parent who is a full-blood Native American and one who has no Native ancestry has a BQ of 1/2. Nations that use blood quantum often do so in combination with other criteria. There are different BQ that are required for enrollment in different tribes. For example, to be eligible for enrollment, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska requires a BQ of 1/4 Native American and descent from a registered ancestor, while the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma just requires lineal descent from a proven Cherokee ancestor recorded on the Dawes Rolls and has no BQ requirements at all. Others use a tiered system, with the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma using lineal descent for general enrollment, but requiring a BQ of "at least one-fourth" for all tribal council candidates.

Tribe requirements for membership

Prior to colonization, individual tribes had established their own requirements for membership, including the practice of banishment for those who had committed unforgivable crimes. Some traditional communities still hold to these precontact standards. Tribes that follow lineal descent may require a Native American ancestor who is listed on a prior tribal rations-issue roll, such as the Dawes Rolls for the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma or a late 19th-century census. In some cases, they may also require a certain percentage of Native American ancestry and demonstrated residence with a tribe or commitment to the community. Few tribes allow members to claim ancestry in more than one tribe. The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians accept persons of 1/4 Native American ancestry plus documented descent from an ancestor listed in specific records. In part, this recognizes that the Odawa people historically had a territory on both sides of what is now the border between the US and Canada. Each federally recognized tribe has established its own criteria for membership. Given the new revenues that many tribes are realizing from gambling casinos and other economic development, or from settlement of 19th-century land claims, some have established more restrictive rules to limit membership. Between 1904 and 1919, tribal members of mixed African and Native American ancestry were disenrolled from the Chitimacha tribe of Louisiana, and their descendants have since then been denied tribal membership.

In 2007 the Cherokee Nation voted in the majority to exclude as members those Cherokee Freedmen who had no documented ancestors on the Cherokee-by-blood list of the Dawes Rolls. However, the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that they were legitimate members of the tribe at that time. After the Civil War, the US required the Cherokee and other Native American tribes that had supported the Confederacy to make new treaties. They also required them to emancipate their slaves and to give full tribal membership to those freedmen who wanted to stay in tribal territory. The Cherokee Freedmen often had intermarried and some had Cherokee ancestry at the time of the Dawes Rolls, qualifying as Cherokee by blood, but registrars typically classified them as Freedmen.

Similarly, in 2000, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma attempted to exclude two bands of Seminole Freedmen from membership to avoid including them in the settlement of land claims in Florida, where Seminole Freedmen had also owned land taken by the US government.

Since 1942, the Seminole have, at times, tried to exclude Black Seminoles from the tribe. The freedmen were listed separately on the Dawes Rolls and suffered segregation in Oklahoma. More recently, the Seminole refused to share with them the revenues of 20th-century US government settlements of land claims. The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed an amicus brief, taking up the legal case of the Black Seminoles and criticizing some officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for collaborating in this discrimination by supporting tribal autonomy in lawsuits. By treaty, after the American Civil War, the Seminole were required to emancipate slaves and provide Black Seminoles with all the rights of full-blood Indian members.

"American Indian tribes located on reservations tend to have higher BQ requirements for membership than those located off reservation.... ver 85 percent of tribes requiring more than a one-quarter BQ for membership are reservation based, as compared with less than 64 percent of those having no minimum requirement. Tribes on reservations have seemingly been able to maintain exclusive membership by setting higher blood quanta, since the reservation location has generally served to isolate the tribe from non-Indians and intermarriage with them."

Issues related to blood quantum laws

Many Native Americans have become used to the idea of "blood quantum". The blood quantum laws have caused problems in Native American families whose members were inaccurately recorded as having differing full or partial descent from particular tribes. In some cases, blood quantum has strained families and relationships.

At certain times, some state governments classified persons with African American and Native American admixture solely as African American, largely because of racial discrimination related to slavery history and the concept of the one drop rule. This was prevalent in the South after Reconstruction, when white-dominated legislatures imposed legal segregation, which classified the entire population only as white or colored (Native Americans, some of whom were of mixed race, were included in the latter designation).

It related to the racial caste system of slavery before the American Civil War. Some critics argue that blood quantum laws helped create racism among tribal members. The historian Tony Seybert contends that was why some members of the so-called Five Civilized tribes were slaveholders. The majority of slave owners were of mixed-European ancestry. Some believed they were of higher status than full-blood Indians and people of African ancestry. Other historians contend that the Cherokee and other tribes held slaves because it was in their economic interest and part of the general southeastern culture. Cherokee and other tribes had also traditionally taken captives in warfare to use as slaves, though their institution differed from what developed in the southern colonies.

Population decline due to exogamy

Nationwide, 54-61% of all Native Americans marry non-Natives, which is a much higher rate than for any other racial group. It is projected that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe will experience a gradual population decrease in the coming decades, unless it lowers its current membership requirement of at least 25% Native ancestry, as a consequence of tribal members having children with non-Native Americans for several generations.

Issues with DNA ancestry testing

No federally recognized tribe enrolls members solely based on DNA testing, as it generally cannot distinguish among tribes. Some tribes may require DNA testing only to document that a child is related to particular parents. Many researchers have published articles that caution that genetic ancestry DNA testing has limitations and should not be depended on by individuals to answer all their questions about heritage.

Many African Americans believe they have some Native American ancestry. But, in the PBS series led by historian Henry Louis Gates Jr., called African American Lives, geneticists said DNA evidence shows that Native American ancestry is far less common than previously believed; of the group tested in the series, only two of the people showed likely Native ancestry.

Only 5 percent of African Americans have at least one-eighth Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent). On the other hand, nearly 78 percent of African Americans have at least one-eighth European ancestry (the equivalent to one great-grandparent), and nearly 20 percent have at least one-quarter European ancestry (the equivalent to one grandparent.)

In response, one critic asserted the percentage must be higher because there are so many family stories (the reasons for which Gates and, notably, Chris Rock explored in the documentary), but felt that many people did not always talk about it because to acknowledge it would be to deny their African heritage.

Some critics thought the PBS series African American Lives did not sufficiently explain such limitations of DNA testing for assessment of heritage. In terms of persons searching for ethnic ancestry, they need to understand that Y-chromosome and mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) testing looks only at "direct" line male and female ancestors, and thus can fail to pick up many other ancestors' heritage. Newer DNA tests can survey all the DNA that can be inherited from either parent of an individual, but at a cost of precision. DNA tests that survey the full DNA strand focus on "single nucleotide polymorphisms" or SNPs, but SNPs might be found in Africans, Asians, and people from every other part of the world. Full survey DNA testing cannot accurately determine an individual's full ancestry. Though DNA testing for ancestry is limited more recent genetic testing research of 2015, have found that varied ancestries show different tendencies by region and sex of ancestors. These studies found that on average, African Americans have 73.2–82.1% West African, 16.7%–29% European, and 0.8–2% Native American genetic ancestry, with large variation between individuals.

A notable debate in 2019 over the validity of DNA testing for Native American ancestry arose over the controversies surrounding Elizabeth Warren's ancestry.

Issues with tribal rolls

Basing citizenship off specific enrollment rolls, like the Dawes Roll (that were taken after more than 80 years after Removal, after the Civil War, and after tribal government restructuring), is what scholar Fay A. Yarbrough calls "dramatically different from older conceptions" of tribal identity based on clan relationships, "in which individuals could be fully," for example, "Cherokee without possessing any Cherokee ancestry." And that by the tribe later "developing a quantifiable definition of Cherokee identity based on ancestry," this "would dramatically affect the process of enrollment late in the nineteenth century and the modern procedure of obtaining membership in the Cherokee Nation, both of which require tracing and individuals’ lineage to a ‘Cherokee by blood.’" Thus, the Dawes Roll still upholds "by blood" language and theory of its time even though the tribe does not require blood quantum. Author Robert J. Conley has stated that if a tribe like the Cherokee Nation are "really serious about exercising its sovereignty and determining its membership," then it should not use the roll that "was put together by the U.S. government and then closed by the U.S. government," meaning that a tribal nation is still subject to the settler definitions of its members when other outside nations do not require rolls, ethnicity, race, or blood quantum for citizenship, but rather birth location and descendance.

U.S. Census

The U.S. Census is conducted every 10 years and is used to get a population count. The National Research Council noted in 1996, "The U.S. census decennial enumerations indicate a Native American population growth for the United States that has been nearly continuous since 1900 (except for an influenza epidemic in 1918 that caused serious losses), to 1.42 million by 1980 and to over 1.9 million by 1990." In the 2000 census, there were 2.5 million Native Americans. Since 1960, people may self-identify their ancestry on the US Census. Native American activism and a rising interest in Native American history appear to have resulted in more individuals identifying as having Native American ancestry on the census.

Implementation

Many Native American tribes continue to employ blood quantum in current tribal laws to determine who is eligible for membership or citizenship in the tribe or Native American nation. These often require a minimum degree of blood relationship and often an ancestor listed in a specific tribal census from the late 19th century or early 20th century. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina, for example, require an ancestor listed in the 1924 Baker census and a minimum of 1/16 Cherokee blood inherited from their ancestor(s) on that roll. Meanwhile, the Cherokee Nation requires applicants to descend from an ancestor in the 1906 Dawes roll (direct lineal ancestry), but does not impose minimum blood quantum requirement. The United Keetoowah Band requires a minimum 1/4 blood quantum.

The Mashantucket Pequot tribe on the other hand, base their tribal membership on an individual proving descent, by recognized genealogical documentation from one or more members of the eleven families included on the 1900 US census of the tribe.

The Northern Ute Tribe require a 5/8 blood quantum, making them the only tribe to require a number greater than 1/2. The Miccosukee of Florida, the Mississippi Choctaw, and the St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin all require one-half "tribal blood quantum", also among the higher percentages.

At the other end of the scale, some tribes, such as the Kaw Nation, have no blood quantum requirement.

Many tribes, such as Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town and the Wyandotte Nation, require an unspecified amount of Indian ancestry (known as "lineal descendancy") documented by descent from a recognized member. Others require a specified degree of Indian ancestry but an unspecified share of ancestry from the ancestral tribe or tribes from which the contemporary tribal entity is derived, such as the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians. Many tribes today are confederations of different ethnic groups joined into a single political entity making the determination of blood quantum challenging.

Other tribes require a minimum blood degree only for tribal members born "off" (outside) the nominal reservation. This is a concept comparable to a combination of the legal principles of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis in the nationality laws of modern sovereign states.

The Red Lake Nation of Minnesota declared in 2019 that all original enrollees on the tribe's 1958 roll were to be "considered full-bloods", regardless of their actual blood quantum as recorded on the roll. Since the tribal blood requirement for membership was (and still is) 1/4, the implication of this "resetting" of the original tribal members' blood quantum is that the grandchild of a person on the 1958 roll who was recorded as 1/4 Chippewa is now eligible for tribal membership, thus effectively setting the requirement at 1/16.

Tribes requiring to a certain degree blood quantum for membership

Tribes determining membership by both blood quantum and lineal descent

These tribes require both a specified blood quantum and lineal descent from an individual on a designated tribal roll.

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation – Since 1993, have required 1/4 descent from any federally recognized Native American tribe, plus being the biological child or grandchild of an already-enrolled member.
• Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
• Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
• Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
• Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Other examples

The U.S Territory of American Samoa restricts the alienation of non-freehold land to any person who has less than one-half native blood. "'Native' means a full-blooded Samoan person of Tutuila, Manu’a, Aunu’u, or Swains Island."

Similar usage

In Australia, the racial laws inflicted on the Stolen Generations have been compared to blood quantum laws, as mixed-race Indigenous Australian children were removed from their families to biologically absorb them into the white population under the assumption that full-blooded individuals were doomed to extinction.

See also

• Castizo, in colonial Hispano-America, a person of 3/4 White (usually Spanish) ancestry and 1/4 Native ancestry
• Dawes Act (1887)
• Dawes Rolls
• Impact of Native American gaming
• Indian Register – the list of First Nations Canadians who are eligible for treaty benefits
• Kamehameha Schools Admission Policy, Hawaii
• Multiracial Americans
• Native American identity in the United States
• Native American reservation politics
• Native American self-determination
• One-drop rule
• Tribal disenrollment
• Tribal sovereignty
• Walter Plecker

References

1. Charles Hudson, The Southeastern Indians, 1976, pg. 479
2. Professor Jack D. Forbes (2008). "THE BLOOD GROWS THINNER :BLOOD QUANTUM, PART 2". University of California-Davis. Archived from the original on 2010-06-10. Retrieved 2009-08-07.
3. Russell Thornton (2008). Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of "Old" and "New" Native Americans. The National Academic Press. doi:10.17226/5355. ISBN 978-0-309-05548-2. PMID 25121291. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
4. ^ Christopher D. Haveman (2016). Rivers of Sand: Creek Indian Emigration, Forced Relocation, and Ethnic Cleansing in the American South. University of Nebraska Press.
5. ^ Daniel F. Littlefield; James W. Parins (2011). Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. Note: The fact many tried to understandably avoid this, plus the fact that there were multiple waves of departure on the Trail of Tears, each less and less "voluntary", has led to the myth that "enrollment" was somehow optional. If they refused, warrants were issued and people were hunted down by soldiers. They had to sign up or face criminal charges.
6. Spruhan, Paul (2001). "A Legal History of Blood Quantum in Federal Indian Law to 1935". South Dakota Law Review. 51 (1). Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. SSRN 955032.
7. Ellinghaus, Katherine (2017). Blood Will Tell: Native Americans and Assimilation Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-1-4962-0160-7.
8. Kimberly Tallbear (2003). "DNA, Blood, and Racializing the Tribe". Wíčazo Ša Review. 18 (1). University of Minnesota Press: 81–107. doi:10.1353/wic.2003.0008. JSTOR 1409433. S2CID 201778441.
9. Paul Spruhan (2008). "THE ORIGINS, CURRENT STATUS, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF BLOOD QUANTUM AS THE DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAVAJO NATION" (PDF). Tribal Law Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-12. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
10. Hill, Norbert (2017). The Great Vanishing Act: Blood Quantum and the Future of Native Nations. Fulcrum Publishing. ISBN 9781682750650.
11. "Tribal Constitution - Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Tribal Law Gateway, National Indian Law Library; Native American Rights Fund". narf.org. National Indian Law Library. Archived from the original on 2019-05-29. Retrieved 2019-05-29.
12. "LTBB". www.ltbbodawa-nsn.gov. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Nation. 1 January 2014. Archived from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
13. Russell Thornton (2008). Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of "Old" and "New" Native Americans. The National Academic Press. doi:10.17226/5355. ISBN 978-0-309-05548-2. PMID 25121291. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
14. "Lalosttribe Resources and Information". ww16.lalosttribe.com. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
15. Evans, Ben. "Dems ask DoJ to probe treatment of Indian freedmen." Archived 2009-05-22 at the Wayback Machine Indian Country Today, 2009-05-08 (retrieved 2010-04-20)
16. Jeff Fogel; Barbara Olshansky & Shayana Kadidal (2008). "CCR Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Black Seminoles". Center for Constitutional Rights. Archived from the original on 2011-11-26. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
17. Jeff Fogel; Barbara Olshansky & Shayana Kadidal (2008). "CCR Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Black Seminoles". Center for Constitutional Rights. Archived from the original on 2011-11-26. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
18. Thornton, Russell (1996). "5 Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of "Old" and "New" Native Americans". In Sandefur, Gary D. (ed.). Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health. National Academy Press. p. 108.
19. ^ Professor Jack D. Forbes (2008). "THE BLOOD GROWS THINNER :BLOOD QUANTUM, PART 2". University of California-Davis. Archived from the original on 2010-06-10. Retrieved 2009-08-07.
20. Paul Spruhan (2008). "THE ORIGINS, CURRENT STATUS, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF BLOOD QUANTUM AS THE DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAVAJO NATION" (PDF). Tribal Law Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-12. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
21. Christina Berry (2008). "Blood Quantum - Why It Matters, and Why It Shouldn't". All Things Cherokee, personal website. Archived from the original on June 10, 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-07.
22. Landry, Alysa (27 March 2017). "Paying to Play Indian: The Dawes Rolls and the Legacy of $5 Indians". IndianCountryToday.com. Archived from the original on 10 January 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2019.
23. Villazor, Rose Cuison. Blood Quantum Land Laws and the Race versus Political Identity Dilemma. Berkeley: School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
24. Tony Seybert (2009). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865". New York Life. Archived from the original on 2004-08-04. Retrieved 2009-06-20.
25. William Loren Katz (2008). "Africans and Indians: Only in America". William Loren Katz. Archived from the original on May 13, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-20.
26. "Interracial marriage: Who is 'marrying out'?". 12 June 2015.
27. "Minnesota Chippewa Tribe: Population Projections" (PDF). Retrieved 28 June 2024.
28. MartinRogers, Ph.d., Nicole; Gillaspy, Ph.d., Tom (May 2014). "Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Population Projections Methodology Report" (PDF). Retrieved 28 June 2024.
29. Brett Lee Shelton; J.D. and Jonathan Marks (2008). "Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity". Counsel for Responsible Genetics. Archived from the original on 2008-07-25. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
30. "Tribal Enrollment and Genetic Testing - Genetics". genetics.ncai.org. Archived from the original on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2017-10-28.
31. ScienceDaily (2008). "Genetic Ancestral Testing Cannot Deliver On Its Promise, Study Warns". ScienceDaily. Archived from the original on 2008-06-11. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
32. Troy Duster (2008). "Deep Roots and Tangled Branches". Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
33. ""African American Lives" - "African American Lives" is a PBS Series about Race and DNA". 2009-03-13. Archived from the original on 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
34. "African American Lives 2". PBS. Archived from the original on 2017-11-01. Retrieved 2017-08-24.
35. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp. 20-21
36. Sherrel Wheeler Stewart (2008). "More Blacks are Exploring the African-American/Native American Connection". BlackAmericaWeb.com. Archived from the original on 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2008-08-06.
37. Troy Duster (2008). "Deep Roots and Tangled Branches". Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
38. Brett Lee Shelton; J.D. and Jonathan Marks (2008). "Genetic Markers Not a Valid Test of Native Identity". Counsel for Responsible Genetics. Archived from the original on 2008-07-25. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
39. John Hawks (2008). "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2010-07-10. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
40. Katarzyna Bryc; Adam Auton; Matthew R. Nelson; Jorge R. Oksenberg; Stephen L. Hauser; Scott Williams; Alain Froment; Jean-Marie Bodo; Charles Wambebe; Sarah A. Tishkoff; Carlos D. Bustamante (January 12, 2010). "Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 (2): 786–791. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107..786B. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909559107. PMC 2818934. PMID 20080753.
41. Katarzyna Bryc; Eric Y. Durand; J. Michael Macpherson; David Reich; Joanna L. Mountain (January 8, 2015). "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 96 (1): 37–53. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.11.010. PMC 4289685. PMID 25529636.
42. Soheil Baharian; Maxime Barakatt; Christopher R. Gignoux; Suyash Shringarpure; Jacob Errington; William J. Blot; Carlos D. Bustamante; Eimear E. Kenny; Scott M. Williams; Melinda C. Aldrich; Simon Gravel (May 27, 2015). "The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity". PLOS Genetics. 12 (5): e1006059. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006059. PMC 4883799. PMID 27232753.
43. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., "Exactly How ‘Black’ Is Black America? Archived 2021-08-14 at the Wayback Machine", The Root, February 11, 2013.
44. Yarbrough, Fay A. (21 November 2013). Race and the Cherokee Nation Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 43. ISBN 9780812290172. Archived from the original on 22 July 2023. Retrieved 18 March 2023.
45. Conley, Robert (2008). Cherokee thoughts, honest and uncensored. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 153–166. ISBN 9780806139432.
46. Armstrong, Marc. U.S. Census Bureau Area Measurements for Sub-County Areas and Clarence Batschelet's U.S. Population Density Map of 1942. Abingdon: Routledge.
47. ^ Russell Thornton (2008). Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of "Old" and "New" Native Americans. The National Academic Press. doi:10.17226/5355. ISBN 978-0-309-05548-2. PMID 25121291. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
48. Hauptman, Laurence M. ""A Review" of Jeff Benedict's Without Reservation: The Making of America's Most Powerful Indian Tribe and Foxwoods, the World's Largest Casino Indian Gaming". Archived from the original on 12 October 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
49. "Constitution of the Kaw Nation." Archived 2019-08-03 at the Wayback Machine Kaw Nation. 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2012.
50. "Pocket Pictorial." Archived 2010-04-06 at the Wayback Machine Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission. 2010. (retrieved 10 June 2010)
51. "Constitution of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians." Archived 2008-11-28 at the Wayback Machine Native American Rights Fund. 1 June 1985 (retrieved 25 Nov 2010)
52. Resolution notice Archived 2020-07-21 at the Wayback Machine redlakenation.org
53. "CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF THE CHIPPEWA CREE INDIANS OF THE ROCKY BOY'S RESERVATION MONTANA". thorpe.ou.edu. Archived from the original on 2010-07-01. Retrieved 2015-03-31.
54. ^ "Pocket Pictorial." Archived 2010-04-06 at the Wayback Machine Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commission. 2010. (retrieved 10 June 2010)
55. "Constitution and By-Laws of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians". thorpe. ou.edu. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2015-03-22.
56. "JBCI - Enrollment". Archived from the original on 2023-04-10. Retrieved 2023-04-10.
57. "CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF AK-CHIN (PAPAGO) INDIAN COMMUNITY" (PDF). nptao.arizona.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-02.
58. "CONSTITUTION OF THE MICCOSUKEE NATION". www.indigenouspeople.net. Archived from the original on 2019-05-31. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
59. "Constitution and By-Laws For the Blackfeet Tribe Of The Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana". thrope.ou.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2015-03-31.
60. "Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians". www.choctaw.org. Archived from the original on 2019-06-12. Retrieved 2019-05-31.
61. "Enrollment". Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Retrieved 2023-08-14.
62. "isletapueblopolitics.com" (PDF). ww38.isletapueblopolitics.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2023.
63. "Fort Independence Articles of Association." Archived 2013-01-07 at the Wayback Machine National Indian Law Library. Retrieved 2 July 2012.
64. "Archived copy" (PDF). Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-03-04. Retrieved 2019-05-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
65. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Human and Natural Resources. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1977. Archived from the original on 2023-07-22. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
66. "Constitution of the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona". Native American Constitution and Law Digitization Project. University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian Law Library. Archived from the original on 2021-10-27. Retrieved 2023-07-22.
67. "RESOLUTION No. 2000 - 10". National Indian Law Library. Archived from the original on 2 November 2019. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
68. "Constitution and By-Laws of the Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada." Archived 2010-07-01 at the Wayback Machine Native American Constitution and Law Digitization Project. (retrieved 5 May 2010)
69. "FCP Constitution 1982".
70. "Enrollment Notice". klamathtribes.org. Archived from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2015-03-09.
71. "Native American Rights Fund" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
72. "Home :: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community". Archived from the original on 2021-05-01. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
73. "Enrollment Department." Archived 2010-08-18 at the Wayback Machine Otoe-Missouria Tribe. 2010 (retrieved 22 July 2010)
74. "Constitution of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas." Archived 2013-07-21 at the Wayback Machine Native American Constitution and Law Digitization Project. Retrieved 13 Sept 2013.
75. "Enrollment". Laguna Pueblo. Retrieved 2023-08-13.
76. "Member Services." Archived 2010-11-26 at the Wayback Machine Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. (retrieved 2 Feb 2011)
77. Ahtone, Tristan. "Native American Intermarriage Puts Benefits At Risk." Archived 2017-11-03 at the Wayback Machine NPR: Around the Nation. 31 March 2011 (retrieved 31 March 2011)
78. "Constitution of the Spokane Tribe-Spokane Reservation" (PDF). Spokane Tribe of Indians. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
79. "Enrollment Ordiance." Archived 2011-07-07 at the Wayback Machine Utu Utu Gawitu Paiute Tribe. (retrieved 5 May 2010)
80. "The Pueblo of Zuni". Archived from the original on 12 August 2014.
81. "Chapter 2, Section 2.01: Enrollment Criteria" (PDF). Enrollment Code of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. July 7, 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 10, 2016. Retrieved May 15, 2015.
82. "A.S.C.A. §37.0204(b)". Am. Samoa Bar Assoc. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
83. "A.S.C.A. §37.0201(c)". Am. Samoa Bar Assoc. Archived from the original on 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-22.

External links

• A Legal History of Blood Quantum in Federal Indian Law to 1935
• The Origins, Current Status, and Future Prospects of Blood Quantum as the Definition of Membership in the Navajo Nation
• Indian by identity: a look inside tribal enrollment, by Alyssa Kelly
• Blood Quantum: A Relic Of Racism And Termination, by Jack Forbes
• Blood Quantum — Why It Matters, and Why It Shouldn't, by Christina Berry

• Self-Determining Citizenship - Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, YouTube short documentary showing one tribe's solution to overcoming Blood Quantum laws

• African–Native American relations
• Native American culture
• Native American history
• Native American law
• Race legislation in the United States
• History of racism in the United States
• Blood in culture