Federal Indian Identification Poucy: A Usurpation of Indigenous Sovereignty in North America

The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative North American Literature

“…15 For detailed readings of border-crossing processes in Silko, see Sadowski-Smith 2008;Sarkowsky 2007; in King see Davidson, Walton, and Andrews 2003;Andrews and Walton 2006;Gruber 2007. 16 This and other passages as well as many texts by Indigenous authors raise not only the question of the nation but also of citizenship (see, for instance, Denis 1997Denis , 2002Fleischmann et al 2011;Jaimes 1992;Sarkowsky 2012;and ch. 6 in this volume).…”

Native Mascots and Ethnic Fraud in Higher Education: Using Tribal Critical Race Theory and the Interest Convergence Principle as an Analytic Tool

“…Further, given that these treaties remain on the books and thus are binding upon both parties, it follows that North American indigenous peoples continue to hold a clear legal entitlementeven under U.S. law-to conduct themselves as completely sovereign nations unless they themselves freely determine that things should be otherwise. (p. 90) Given the sovereign status of tribal nations, it should be undisputed that they have the sole right to determine membership within their nations (Jaimes, 1992). Unfortunately, however, a number of institutions and government entities have infringed upon this right by failing to guard against ethnic fraud among Indigenous students, faculty, and staff.…”

Sovereigns and citizens? The contested status of American Indian tribal nations and their members

“…The policy expressed the white imagination that turning Indians into productive family farmers would successfully incorporate them into the nation, and also clarified that tribal membership and Indian culture were incompatible with US citizenship. Furthermore, because the Dawes policy also utilized blood-based categorizations (Basson 2004), many tribes began to incorporate blood quantum as a tribal membership criterion (Jaimes 1992; see Lavelle (1999) for a critical response refining this analysis). While clearly imposed on tribal communities, this conceptualization of identity linked tribal membership to racial frameworks rather than emphasizing tribes as political communities, thus contributing to tensions regarding the status of tribes and their members.…”