Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smmurphy (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 11 July 2007 (→Congressional Precedence: frad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

American Indian identity article (Who is Indian?)

The following discussion is copied from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America here, so that further discussion can take place away from the general project page. Smmurphy 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After a recent ado at Cherokee, I decided to pull my notes together (and add more) to make an article on Cherokee identity. I wasn't happy with the article, however, and expanded the scope, which I've collected as some notes at User:Smmurphy/American Indian identity. I'd like it if anyone has any comments on the project. Right now the article is long (but not longer than many other articles), and I'm not sure if many sections can be spun off, although much could be cut, and much of it probably already exists elsewhere (such as in blood quantum). Also, articles like this usually are tough to title (see Who is black, Who is a Jew?), does anyone have an idea or preference about the title? Thanks, Smmurphy 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice research! I would agree that American Indian Identity is a good title for the article as it stands on your talk page, as it's not a world-wide view. Although we could also stub out sections to challenge other editors to fill in the blanks. (eg: Métis people has very little about identity presently) Vagary 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective primarily seen in the US, yes, this is an excellent article; however, this isn't quite how it works in Canada, and for Indigenous peoples cut in half by the international boundary, the issue becomes even more complex, mainly due to differing policies between Canada and the United States, though differing from each other, they both go against the very notion of "peoplehood". To this mix, if we then throw in treatment of indigenous peoples in Mexico and their Mestizos, the results of past French, British and Spanish colonial policies to which Canada, United States and Mexico inherited, the issue becomes extremely complex. However, the article proto-type you have started is segmented in a way to allow the reader to explore key topics in detail, which is very good... but more of these key topics with links to each of their "Main Article" are needed. I think if we have a further developed topic intros with these key handle-bar links to articles to bring light more on these issues, the article will be one of the strongest out there. It already is well on its way there. Good job. CJLippert 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. Most of the material is based on US authors, who cite and are cited by mostly other US authors, which furthers the bias. I hadn't thought about like that, but you are right that things become very complex if you try to broaden the scope more so that issues in many different countries are included. I still feel the article is hardly more than a collection of notes, and I'm humbled that you appreciate the work. I do think it would be ok to de-userfy it. Based on CJLippert's comment, and after removing the feminist criticism of Canada's Indian Act, I think the most correct title might be "American Indian identity in the United States," unless American and US are somehow redundant. What do you (anybody) think about the title and readiness for article space? And as always, feel free to make edits there if you like. Thanks, Smmurphy 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping this US-centric and spinning off full articles as data from Canada and Mexico becomes available. (For example, the Indian Act feminist critique can either be put into Indian Act or an article about Native American gender issues.)

I don't think "American Indian" gets used very often in Canada, so to a Canadian American Indian identity is unambiguous, but to an American it probably is? Native American identity in the United States would follow the precedent set by Native American name controversy. Vagary 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it might be more encyclopedic to use "Native American" rather than "American Indian,' although "American Indian" is used more by the sources I've seen (for whatever reason). Convention sounds like the best reason to go with any particular name, though. Although, "Native American identity in the United States" is a bit long, it seems to satisfy both political correctness and universal understandability. If there isn't any reason not to, we can probably move it to article space (and this discussion can go to the articles talk page, especially so that "not-quite-as-major" content issues are discussed there rather than here).

BTW, I'm sorry that the sources, my time, and my experiences didn't let me bring Canadian and Mexican indigenous identity into the article. I know there are plenty of other sources for Canadian identity issues (much of the Indian power movements came out of Toronto, and their literature might be a good starting place), but I don't know much about the Mexican side at all. Even so, I'd be happy to help get a stub started on both, but I'm just as unsure about what the titles would be as I am about the content. Would it be "First Nations identity in Canada," and "??? in Mexico"? Do you (anybody) think a stub there would be a good idea?

Thanks a lot for your advice. Best, Smmurphy 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now live here. Thanks, Smmurphy 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "Aboriginal identity in Canada" might be better, depending on how big a scope you intend to cover. The term Aboriginal includes members of the First Nations, plus the Metis and Inuit people. --Maelwys 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent for readability)I'd only be capable of a stub, and the reason I'd write it was to begin to show an attempt at CSB. With that in mind, however, the larger scope makes sense, at least for now. Smmurphy 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground for making a case for Federal recognition. This article also contains a large amount of original research and sources I cannot verify. I have tagged it and after careful review, may either try to remove the original research and correct it or AFD it for deletion. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of research (quite different from original research, i.e. unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories). What I see here is a collection of academic theories and opinions ranging from governmental to anecdotal. The subject seems to be (as the title says), identity, not recognition. If there's anything to criticize, it's the essay tone (an encyclopedic entry should rather be clear prose, as opposed to good prose). I've digged up some ISBNs for the sources, could the author(s) provide more of that (so that editors can easily verify the sources)? Thanks. --Qyd 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd like to address both of your points, but I'm not 100% sure how. For the references, are there things like ISBN numbers for journals, or are links to online repositories like JSTOR something that people want and/or would be useful (I've never seen it done elsewhere)? Let me know if there is any way I can help make any references clearer, I'm not always consistent with my styles, as I get to use bibtex and automatic bibliography makers in real life, but I try to be clear and complete.

As for the scope, the word identity in the title is to allow the article to discuss recognition (the US government definition parts) as well as other aspects of identity. Links to articles like cultural identity go into the concept more in depth, and cite more general articles, and I didn't see any articles about the psychological aspects of the difficulty with identity for Indians, or anything like that, but I think a broad view on identity is appropriate.

As for the prose, Template:Inappropriate tone is sometimes used to mark where the tone is not encyclopedic. I don't disagree that things I write are not always the right tone, but I think for the most part I follow WP:TONE, which asks for general-neutral pronouns, third person authorship (this article uses "one" too often, which needs to be fixed), minimized jargon (the worst section for that is the constructivism section, I think), and avoiding regionalisms (I have a hard time recognizing and avoiding using some Americanisms, so they are possible). If you have advice or corrections, that would be helpful. If you just feel a cetain section is particularly egregious, mark it, and I'll try to fix it up. Best, Smmurphy 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, only printed books would have and ISBN. If you can find online content for the magazine articles (some have online archives), that would be great. --Qyd 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the cited materials can be verified. Someone needs to point me to an online reference for them. Most of the contentr is the opinion of the editor without any backup. Reverted. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific. "Most of the content" is weasel. Please discuss particular issues, and don't delete wholesale. Regarding online resources, please note that, while they are very convenient, they are not requisite per WP:CITE. Printed bibliography is actually preferred. Thank you. --Qyd 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) PS: please be aware of the 3 revert rule. --Qyd 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on stub-version of the article

It seems that there is (in the stub-version) some confusion between the terms "Native American identity" and "Indian". The article starts with the statement "Native American identity in the United States is legal term defining who is or is not considered American Indian by the United States..." and then goes on to legally define "(1) the term `Indian' means a member of an Indian tribe;". I don't think that the original article was in any way meant to imply that the definition of Indian (or even American Indian) was anything different than the legal definition. The article was simply discussing different groups and different historical circumstances that individuals or groups related to the Native American identity, in spite of whether or not they were legally defined as such. --Maelwys 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting topic

A good analytical history of the practice of "self-identifying" as Indian in the US is Phil Deloria's "Playing Indian," viewable on Google here: . Basically, it traces this practice to the revolutionaries at the Boston Tea Party, some of whom disguised themselves as Mohawks in carrying out the founding act of the Revolutionary War. To colonial eyes, "Indians" were symbols of authentic "Americanness," something colonials themselves could never be, and so they dressed themselves up as Indians in order to symbolically assert "native sovereignty" against Britain. Of course, as we all know, Indians themselves were hunted down like dogs, while faux Indian practices were secretly celebrated at Moose and Elks lodges, and "Indians as symbols" became popular as identifiers for sports teams, malt liquor, military aircraft, etc. Amerique 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to bring in Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, which evokes national identity in terms of "adapting to the wilderness," "becoming Indian," etc. There is a lot to the phenomenon, it's not limited to people pretending to be be Indian in order to sell artwork, build casinos, or increase their odds of college admission! Amerique 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although, with all the above in mind, this sentence should be qualified or rewritten:

The question of "Indianness" was less important in colonial times...

I would say the question was vitally important, but understood differently than it is today. Those "Indian captives" that are the subject of the paragraph became seen as "non-white" and couldn't effectively be reintegrated into white society... The peculiar horror and fascination Indian society held for the US has to do with how the savagery/civilization distinction was used in determining "the Frontier" and in justifying westward expansion. The John Wayne film The Searchers is about this... "Indianness" was important historically, if not more so than today, as Indian culture became the means by which "savagery" was distinguished from "American civilization" and, at the same time, the means by which what was unique or authentic about American identity was understood or considered attainable. Amerique 01:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the question of "who was who" between different tribal societies was always vitally important. Tis why that whole "divide and conquor" strategy worked so well... Amerique 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So these two things are a sort of "American identity through 'Indianness,'" right? I think it would be good to put that into the section on construction by others, which right now is a very weak section. For instance, the image is of a school, but no mention is given to how schools sought to change peoples self-identity.

On the other hand, the "Historic struggles" section could use a rewrite. The section is much shorter than the concept, and the exact topic of the section is a bit ill defined, as the events recounted are (in order): "idea that aboriginal culture has massively changed since man first came to North America," "lack of struggle to get recognized by (some) aboriginal societies," "struggles to get their group recognized by the dominant society," "struggles of people to get themselves recognized by the dominant society," and "historic anecdote about 'houses of entertainment' to draw parallel with casinos today as a part of the identity question." To me, all of these are relevant, but they might each be better in subsections, and it be made clear that the events are just that, individual events, and do not represent the entirety of the situation at the time or for any group (i.e. the sentece, "The question of 'Indianness' was less important in colonial times" needs to be fixed).

If you feel like trying to fix up either of these, go right ahead, of course. Right now much of this article is written by one person, but I put it live because at a certain point I'm no longer able to improve the article very much myself, and distributed authorship becomes a good alternative (plus, authors need oversight). Best, Smmurphy 16:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just looked at "Playing Indian," and it is quite beyond my abilities to organize into material in this article. The book seems largely to be talking about something a bit different, anyway (American identity through "Indianness"). Do you have a good idea how the material could be brought into this article? Perhaps a different article would be more fitting for an in depth discussion of the books thesis. Let me know what you think. Best, Smmurphy 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:"a sort of "American identity through 'Indianness,'" right?" Yes, but the "rub" tends to be that both colonial and "Indian" identities needed to be displaced for "American identity" or "civilization" to gain a secure foothold as the "national consciousness". Another good source for this is Roy Harvey Pierce "Savigism and Civilization," also partially viewable on Google here

Re:"Playing Indian" I agree the question it addresses is different... I personally am not sure if the identity issue can be seen as strictly seperate from or parcel of the performativity aspect, or vice versa, or neither. The interesting thing about this and related debates is, of course, no one back then was trying to "prove" they were Indian... that phenomenon does seem to be a modern practice or construct. But the question of "Indianess" was important then, at least in white society, as it tended to distinguish the "civilized" from the "uncivilized" and in so doing it helped determine Frontier policy.

I think you've made a good start on this... the article might not presently be that coherent, but then, neither are the criteria for determining the subject matter! Anyway, I've been looking over some sources for an article on the NIYC... When that is through, I may try expanding the "historical struggles" section. Best, Amerique 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The noble savage idiom discussed by Pearce is vaguely referred to in the article, but it could definitely use an expansion. I was thinking about this, and I had the idea that an article called "Native American representation in the United States" might be interesting. On the other hand, "representation" as a subject doesn't have as strong of a backing as identity (I think), so an article on something like that might be hard to write and hard to keep stable. Anyway, that and the issues of performativity you refer to are bordering on way beyond what I can speak intelligently about, but I'd be happy to help the best I could with any material you have related to that that fits here or elsewhere.

The social movements, AIM, NIYC identity stuff is another thing I put in as a sort of placeholder for someone else who knows more to fill in. It would be wonderful to have more there. Best, Smmurphy 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on that... possibly by this weekend, I'll have something up. In the meantime, how would you feel about separating the material on federal and state "recognition of sovereignty" from the material on "personal identity"? The two concepts are not equal, and, as you know, a tribal group with the political wherewithal can expunge other members on pretty much any pretext... It might make the overall concepts easier to digest if recognition of tribal sovereignty were discussed as a separate issue from personal identity, I think. Amerique 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing. Right after I mentioned "Native American representation in the United States," I realized that "Native American recognition in the United States" is just as easily a separate topic. Thus in one way, this article would be an ok place to collect and organize material for all three (identity, representation, recognition), but they all could easily get their own article/stub, too. I think it is important to note the connection between recognition and identity, but I agree that if the section is to be in depth (which it already kinda is), the material might be better in its own article (although a mention and a link from here is fine). Smmurphy 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

State recognized tribes

Article states that "10 states in the East" have these - but neither lists which states or provides any source. Perhaps the 10 could just be listed in a footnote. Rmhermen 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This list shows 11 states. Michigan is listed although that tribe gained federal recognition in 1999 (but the state must have had a state recognition process before that and perhaps still) One of the other states listed is Oklahoma -- which doesn't meet my definition of "in the East". Rmhermen 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Brownell reference to page 303 is this one. She references to Sheffield, Gail (1998) Arbitrary Indian: The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. University of Oklahoma Press, pages 63-73, listing the ten states as: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia. I don't have Sheffield's book, and there isn't great access online, so I can't see where she gets her figures. I might be able to find it later this week, but we could change it to "at least 10 states" and in the references, mention the ten referenced by Brownell/Sheffield and the others from the web. Smmurphy 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just finished looking through Sheffield's book and typed up some notes on the story. I think that the whole section could be combined with these notes to a "state-recognized Indians" article, which would be controversial, but, hmm, interesting. Anyway, I userfied my notes, commenting on the names of tribes which are not mentioned on the genealogy page you mentioned, and noting which have been denied federal recognition (others are in various stages in the federal process, but since the book is dated, I only noted which have been denied, as the "application in progress" isn't current enough to be interesting). For now the notes are at User:Smmurphy/Stream of conscious, but it could be brought here, or, ultimately, to its own article. Anyway, Sheffield references state Indian Affairs offices (or other cultural affairs type offices where applicable), so for us to go further, we can see if web-pages exist for those offices (or we can contact them ourselves (which sounds too close to OR for me). Best, Smmurphy 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologism. There is no such entity as a state recognized tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it is a neologism, and certainly Horse, Brownell, and Sheffield (as well as the Arts and Crafts Act ) are reliable sources. Best, Smmurphy 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

sources questions

Hi, these references you are citing cannot be verified. please point me to an online version. I cannot find these books and they have undue weight. 67.186.225.240 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material can be found at a local research library (for instance a nearby university). If you are willing to "pay-per-view", I can point you to that option as well. Not having online versions is not a reason to remove materials, and academic publications are fine sources, even if they are not online. If you have additional questions about sources, feel free to ask at my talk page. Best, Smmurphy 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pay per view does not verify these materials. The one source of yours I did check did not say what you claimed. I am going to get copies of these books and review them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which source was that? Thanks, Smmurphy 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Precedence

This article is out in the weeds with its claims "there are multiple legal definitions". The way legal precedence works, whatever is the last definition of congress is the controlling one. At present, this would be AIRFA. The way the article is worded is inaccurate in this area and is POV pushing. The article also needs to mention that claiming to be an Indian when someone is not a member of a Federally recognized tribe is a Felony in the United States. I realize its a much debated and interesting topic, but Misplaced Pages needs to place a disclaimer since perpetuating this false belief people can do this and get away with it may wind the misinformed in lots of trouble. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Congressional precedence works this way. In fact, the concept isn't really relevant to many cases because usually the language of bills is such that definitions are made in a law in order that they be applicable only to that law.

I have been involved in Native American litigation and criminal prosecution of non-indians misusing our culture in the past (I a not involved in such now). I am afraid it does work this way and this is the law. Trust me, I know. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal precedents are (I think) set by the higher courts, which are discussed in part in the footnotes. If you look at the language in the bills, I believe that most of them are written in this way, because the lawyers in the legislature know that they need for their definitions to be precise, and that the scope of the definition needs to be accurate, or they may change the definition in an old bill in a way which they might not want such a change. That is why the line reads, "there are upwards of 33 separate definitions of "Indian" used in federal legislation, increasing dramatically if one includes tribal enrollment statutes." That is, the definitions are used in federal legislation, ie there aren't multiple legal definitions writ large, but rather, in the many different pieces of legislation where a definition of Indian is pertinent, there are various definitions that may be used in different situations. Consider the broad definition for the Indian Arts and Crafts Act as an example. The broad definition is used because it is necessary that Indian be defined in a way that includes more than just tribal, federally recognized persons.

Also, the Arts and Crafts Act itself comes well after AIRFA, and I don't think many would claim that the definition in that law should be the definition that is most binding. Best, Smmurphy 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some reference to this law making 'native impersonation' a felony ought to be included in the prose of the article. Mr. Merkey, can you provide us with the relevant section of the legal code or some other equivalent sourcing for this, so that it may be included? - Ehheh 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. The United State Attorney has stated its criminal. There are dozens of statutes, some involve peyote, some health care, some casino operations, and some involve the basic issues of sovereignty. When Mooney was being prosecuted, I was astounded with the range of legal tools the US Attorney used. They charged this person with 19 first degree felony counts under a dozen statutes. It depends on the circumstances, but making the claim someone is a "self-identified Indian" is sufficient under these laws to prosecute. This is why I have been so adamant on this topic. Having improperly tagged materials could subject the Wikimedia Foundation to indictment for which it has **NO** Section 230 CDA immunity. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Congress of the United States, The Federal Courts, and State Courts have repeatedly upheld this sovereignty of Native Tribes and define their relationship in political rather than racial terms, and have stated such as a compelling interest of the United States. Federal prosecutors have asserted fraudulently claiming to be a member of an American Indian tribe violates Federal Law.

Here is some good materials to start with that define the legal issues. This case involves peyote laws, but it quotes some of the relevant laws in other cases. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, the Mooney case was about drugs (peyote) under the auspices of religion, and therefore AIRFA was the relevant legislation (Jeffrey cites and in the Cherokee article), but when a different issue is in question, different legislation is used, and a different definition may be relevant. Best, Smmurphy 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, That "impersonating" an Indian in certain circumstances is a crime is (to me) more relevant to the proposed "representation" article; putting it here for now is a great idea. Smmurphy 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You had better read up on the preemptive nature of the Commerce Clause before spouting out inaccurate legal advice to the general public about controlling law in this area. Impersonating an Indian is a crime. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Commerce clause (200 years before AIRFA)? So are you referring to impersonating an Indian in order to have treaty rights with the US? Yes, there are many ways in which impersonating an Indian is illegal. There are also cases where it is legal. We were talking about AIRFA, which is related to your peyote case. I mentioned the Arts and Crafts Act, which is a evidence that different definitions of Indian are used in legislation, even legislation more recent than AIRFA, then "impersonating" was brought up, which is related to the earlier discussion, about the book "Playing Indian" and the idea of "Native American representation" and how impersonating Indian has had different meanings - including satirical, educational, exploitative, nationalistic, etc - and is not in some cases illegal. I don't think that the Commerce clause itself is a necessary part of the discussion. When we discuss Indians as relevant to the Commerce Clause we are usually talking about Indians as groups organized into tribes (nations, clans, etc.), which then enter into treaty relationships with the US government (although not always). Not every legislative definition uses tribes as the only fundamental marker of "Indianness," however, and not every personal definition, or definition used by anthropologists, sociologists, legal scholars, political scientists, major Indian leaders, et al uses tribes as fundamental to "Indianness," which is the main topic of this article. Consider Wilma Mankiller who said, "An Indian is an Indian regardless of the degree of Indian blood or which little government card they do or do not possess." Best, Smmurphy 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, fraud implies personal gain, so "fraudulently impersonating" is impersonating to get personal gain, which is usually illegal, regardless of who or what you are impersonating, and requires no "warning." Again, this article is about something different. Smmurphy 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning Tag

I am placing a warning tag in these wannabee articles to notify the public these materials should not be considered legal advice or authoritative. The public should be advised as well as casual readers claiming to be an Indian when they are not can get them into a lot of trouble. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to add, please do so. If you have any specific complaints, feel free to address them here at the talk page, and we can seek consensus. Tagging articles in this way is not helpful, and the tags should be discussed specifically and individually, or they may be removed. Thanks, Smmurphy 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added and tagged the article with a disclaimer. This allows just about any inaccurate content to be present in the article since it absolves Misplaced Pages of criminal liablity and warns readers of the possible consequences of claiming to be an Indian when they are not tribal members of a Federally recognized tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)