Talk:Native American identity in the United States

American Indian identity article (Who is Indian?)

The following discussion is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America here, so that further discussion can take place away from the general project page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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. [Even the material that isn't specific to the US government is (mostly?) based on researchers working with US Indians.] 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now live here. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

Wikipedia 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^(Talk) 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: [1]. 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^dialectics 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^dialectics 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^dialectics 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^dialectics 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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 [2]

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^dialectics 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^(Talk) 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^dialectics 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^(Talk) 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 [3] 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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 [4]) are reliable sources. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly excited about moving forward on the discussion of state recognized tribes. On one hand, this seems to be a pretty heady list of tribes, and along with the accessgeneaology.com and Sheffield's list make up a good start for a list. Google Scholar gives plenty of papers, but this one seems particularly good, although I'm not sure if it is published yet, this says its forthcoming in the Santa Clara Law Review. Anyway, to me, the advantage of putting together a good page on Native American recognition in the United States is (beyond because it is an interesting, notable topic) it allows us to make this page more specifically about identity as a social concept, by pushing some of the more legal-ish stuff over there (does this sound like a good idea?). The disadvantage is, well, I don't know how to put it, but I don't enjoy being treated like a "negative" member of the community because of Jeffrey's and my differing perspectives on how controversial issues should be discussed here. Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone has anything compelling to say about the issue (I'm fairly likely to be bold and create the article anyway), and I'd like to let everyone know who might like to help out. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you like the legal definition section (with some content from the recognition section) now that I've made the move. Also, feel free to help out the new page at Native American recognition in the United States. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Historic struggles section could stay here, but much of it probably belongs in the recognition article, right? The same is true with the "examples." Perhaps the entirety of the examples could go, and we could use the quotes in the self-identity section as "personal examples," and try to get some more material from the perspective of full members. What do you think? Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:48, 15 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 [5] 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^(Talk) 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.[6] Federal prosecutors have asserted fraudulently claiming to be a member of an American Indian tribe violates Federal Law. [7]

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, I understand that engaging in various protected activities (such as religious peyote usage, operating a casino, and so on) when one is not actually a member of a federally recognized tribe could result in a felony charge. But, for example, there was a checkbox for American Indian on the 2000 census. If someone who was not a member of a recognized tribe checked that box, would they have been violating some felony portion of the criminal code? If so, that's very interesting information and mention of the relevant statute belongs in the article. - Ehheh 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Someone setting up a website claiming to be an indian probably would not rise to the level of US involvement. Despite that, there are laws that make it a crime. They vary state to state. The Federal statutes define intent to defraud or claim benefits. It is criminal for someone to sell navajo rugs as genuine when they are not navajo to defraud the public -- yes, its fraud. It involves the laws that deal with claiming you are something you are not and there are a lot of them. So it varies case to case. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:13, 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 [8] and [9] 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 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^(Talk) 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you are not an attorney or have been involved in the legal issues of Native American Laws. The Commerce Clause provides the United States Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, foreign commerce, and dealings with Indian Tribes. The Commerce Clause is preemptive under Federal law. This means it trumps state laws, the bill of rights, constitutional rights, etc. It is an exclusive Federal Power for which all other powers are considered "repugnant" under the law. This means it trumps an individuals rights to be a "self-identfied indian". It also makes tribes sovereign and defines their relationship. I have a good legal brief I wrote on the power of the commerce clause in the Mooney case from Federal Case law. I will download and post it here for you to read. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It regulates commerce with nations, foreign states, and Indian tribes. That is why the line you quoted was about fraudulent impersonation. And the congresses power, as used in the Arts and Crafts Act (in 1991) has defined Indian more broadly than just membership in a federally recognized tribe (as have many federally recognized tribes). I think the article is clear on that. You do not need to post your legal brief here, you can link it or userfy it if you wish, but this discussion is already overlong. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you claim to be an Indian and you are not a member of a Federally recognized tribe, under Federal Law it is considered fraudulent. I am going to lunch with my wife before she leaves for Germany tommorrow and afterward we are going to see Harry Potter. After I get home, I will download the legal brief on this topic for you to read and post a link to it here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So saying, "I am an Indian by blood," and then never doing anything else related to that statement (i.e. peyote, eagle feathers, casinos, whatever), that statement is, in and of itself, a federal crime? Then the 2000 US Census identified hundreds of thousands of federal criminals. I expect Alberto Gonzales to jump right on this. I imagine there's a fine involved, as well as jail time, and what better way to fix the federal budget than have a few hundred thousand people chip in their $100,000 each? Easy-peasy, slam-dunk, you already signed your confession when you checked the box on the form in 2000.

Per WP:V, please provide the reference, i.e. title and section in the US Code, which states that claiming to be an Indian when one is not a member of a federally-recognized tribe is, in and of itself, a crime. Certainly, claiming to be an Indian when one is not, and using that claim to then smoke peyote, open a casino, or possess eagle feathers, yes, that would be criminal. But the crime seems to be primarily the activities, not the claim to be an Indian. The paper that you personally wrote may not acceptable proof, either per WP:OR or WP:COI. That would depend on what the paper cites. I'd still be interested to see it, though.

Your credibility on this issue will skyrocket, and I will personally apologize for ever doubting you, when you provide the reference and it unambiguously supports your position, particularly that Wikipedia is somehow liable for what others write.

Congress has passed a lot of idiotic laws over the many years, so there's a decent chance that you're absolutely correct. In which case, the apology will be well-deserved. But I'll briefly chide you for not citing the law much earlier and preventing a lot of this churn. Pfagerburg 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, my statements above are how I understand your position. I offer this timeline to help me figure out what is being claimed, and possibly as an aid to others.

1. John Doe is entirely of Northern European descent.
2. John Doe says, "I am an Indian." (Do you believe that at this point, a federal offense has occured?)
3. John Doe opens a casino / smokes peyote / possesses eagle feathers, offering his Indian-ness as proof that he can legally do these things. (I believe that the criminal offenses happen here.)

If I have misunderstood your position, I invite your correction. If not, my request still stands for a citation of the exact federal law that unambiguously states that the crime occurs at step 2. Pfagerburg 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent, apologies in advance for off-color remark) Hmm, someone should alert the Cleveland Indians of this interpertation of federal law, ha! I wonder if they could qualify for BIA recognition. Seriously though, it sounds to me that Merkey's line of reasoning hasn't been tried before in the mascot context. I can see it potentially being effective in the lawsuits against professional sports teams. Amerique^dialectics 01:09, 12 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^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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)

Administrative impact of Native America self-identification / Administrative recognition of Native American status

I came to Wikipedia to look for some guidance in finding information regarding what "defines" a person as Native American, after I had to complete a State of Texas form that has a different (much narrower) definition that the one used by the US Census. By the US Census someone like I is (also) Native American, albeit mixed. By the State of Texas such a person would be "Hispanic".

Now, looking at this article and others regarding Native Americans, I see that very, very little is said about these administrative issues and their impact. Yet these are important for many Federal, State, local, private programs in College, Small Business... While Wikipedia is not meant to be authoritative about regulatory matters, I wish at least it were informative. 72.183.114.253 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Review

Hi. There are several articles about tribal issues, which contain WP:COI content from a published author and Wikipedian named Markedwinmiller, synthesizing and citing his own books. I don't know anything about the content, and I imagine that it may be fine, but an uninvolved party needs to ascertain that by acquiring the book and reviewing it against the Wikipedian contributions for neutrality and accuracy. Then you can reintroduce the content, hopefully properly formatted and cited. Until then, it's here for this article and in the user's history for the other articles. I have notified the editor, requesting that he'll propose future changes on the Talk pages of the articles. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Native American identity in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519065837/https://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/January/200501281313241CJsamohT0.7689478.html to http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/January/200501281313241CJsamohT0.7689478.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929230402/http://www.nativeamericanchurch.net/stott.html to http://www.nativeamericanchurch.net/stott.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)