The Shifting Sands of Identity: How the U.S. Government Defined "Indian"
For centuries, the United States government has grappled with a seemingly simple question that has profound implications: "Who is an Indian?" Far from a static biological or cultural classification, the federal definition of "Indian" has been a fluid, often contradictory, and deeply politicized construct, shaped by colonial ambitions, legal precedents, and evolving relationships with Indigenous peoples. This evolving definition has determined access to land, resources, treaty rights, and even the very right to self-governance, making it one of the most consequential administrative acts in American history.
From the earliest encounters, the concept of "Indian" was inherently a colonial one, created by European settlers to categorize the diverse Indigenous nations they encountered. Initially, the U.S. government recognized these groups as sovereign nations, engaging in treaties that established boundaries and defined relationships. However, this early recognition was quickly undermined by westward expansion and the insatiable demand for land. The initial "definition" was one of a collective political entity – a tribe or nation – rather than an individual.
The Era of Removal and the "Ward" Status (Early 19th Century)
As the 19th century progressed, the U.S. government’s view hardened. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, epitomized a shift towards viewing Indigenous peoples as obstacles to "progress" rather than co-equal nations. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832) famously described Indian tribes as "domestic dependent nations" and their relationship with the federal government as akin to "a ward to his guardian." While not a direct definition of "Indian" in terms of individual identity, this legal framework established a paternalistic relationship that would profoundly influence subsequent definitions. It stripped tribes of their full sovereignty, placing them under the plenary power of Congress, and set the stage for federal control over who qualified for benefits and protection under this "guardianship."
Allotment and the Rise of Blood Quantum (Late 19th Century)
The most insidious and enduring federal definition emerged with the Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) of 1887. This landmark legislation aimed to break up tribal communal landholdings into individual parcels, a policy designed to "civilize" and assimilate Native Americans by turning them into independent farmers. To implement allotment, the government needed a way to identify who qualified for these land parcels. This led to the widespread adoption of "blood quantum" – the degree of "Indian blood" an individual possessed.
Federal agents, often with little understanding of Indigenous kinship systems or cultural practices, meticulously created tribal rolls, assigning fractions of "Indian blood" based on parentage. A person might be designated "full-blood," "half-blood," "quarter-blood," or even less. This system was not a pre-existing Indigenous concept but a colonial imposition. As historian Patricia Limerick notes in "The Legacy of Conquest," "The concept of ‘blood quantum’ was a white invention, a tool to divide and conquer, to separate Indians from their land and their identity."
The implications of blood quantum were devastating. It created internal divisions within communities, as those with higher blood quantum were often deemed "more Indian" and sometimes prioritized for resources, while those with lower fractions faced challenges to their identity and rights. Moreover, it was a tool for land theft: individuals deemed to have "less than a certain degree" of Indian blood could be deemed "competent" to manage their own affairs, leading to the sale of their allotted land and the further erosion of the tribal land base. The irony was that while the government aimed to make "Indians" disappear through assimilation, it simultaneously created a rigid, pseudo-scientific racial category to control who received land and services.
The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and Tribal Self-Definition (1930s)
The disastrous effects of allotment and assimilation policies became undeniable by the 1930s. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 marked a significant policy shift, aimed at ending allotment, preserving tribal cultures, and promoting self-governance. The IRA allowed tribes to adopt their own constitutions and establish their own criteria for membership. This was a crucial step towards recognizing tribal sovereignty in defining identity.
However, the IRA still carried the baggage of blood quantum. Many tribes, influenced by decades of federal policy, incorporated blood quantum requirements into their newly drafted constitutions, often setting a minimum of one-quarter "Indian blood" for membership. While the power to define was nominally shifted to the tribes, the federal government still exerted influence, often approving or rejecting tribal constitutions based on criteria that sometimes included blood quantum. This period marked a complex transition, where federal definitions slowly began to cede ground to tribal self-determination, yet the shadow of past policies lingered.
Termination and the Attempt to Erase "Indian" Status (1950s-1960s)
A darker chapter in federal policy emerged in the mid-20th century with the "termination" era. Driven by a desire to end federal responsibility for Native Americans and assimilate them fully into mainstream society, the government sought to "terminate" its trust relationship with specific tribes. Under this policy, tribes lost their federal recognition, and their lands and assets were often liquidated.
During termination, the definition of "Indian" became crucial for determining who lost their status and, consequently, their rights and protections. The focus shifted from who was an Indian to who would no longer be an Indian in the eyes of the federal government. This policy was devastating, leading to immense poverty, loss of land, and cultural disintegration for the terminated tribes. It underscored how deeply government definitions impacted the very existence of Indigenous communities.
Self-Determination and Tribal Sovereignty (1970s-Present)
The termination era was largely repudiated by the 1970s, giving way to the "self-determination" era. Key legislation like the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975 empowered tribes to administer federal programs and services themselves, rather than having them dictated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This period saw a significant shift in federal policy, moving towards respecting tribal sovereignty and their inherent right to define their own citizens.
Today, the primary federal definition of "Indian" for most purposes relies on tribal membership. The government generally recognizes an individual as "Indian" if they are an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe. This acknowledges that tribes, as sovereign nations, have the authority to determine their own citizenship.
However, even this seemingly clear-cut definition is not without its complexities.
- Federal Recognition of Tribes: The initial hurdle is whether a tribe itself is federally recognized. The process for gaining federal recognition is arduous, expensive, and often politically charged, leaving many Indigenous communities without this crucial status.
- Tribal Enrollment Criteria: While tribes define their own membership, these criteria vary widely. Some tribes still use blood quantum requirements (e.g., one-quarter or one-eighth), while others rely on lineal descent from a tribal member on an early roll, or a combination of factors. This means that a person who might be considered "Indian" by one tribe’s standards might not be by another’s.
- Disenrollment: A growing and painful issue is the disenrollment of tribal members by tribal governments, often due to political disputes or disagreements over casino revenues. While these are internal tribal matters, they highlight the ongoing challenges to identity and belonging, even within the framework of self-determination.
- Specific Legislation: Some federal laws have their own specific definitions of "Indian." For instance, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 defines an "Indian child" as any unmarried person under 18 who is either a member of an Indian tribe or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. This broader definition is designed to protect Indian families and keep Indian children within their communities.
- The Census Bureau: The U.S. Census Bureau allows individuals to self-identify their race and ethnicity. This has led to a significant increase in the number of people identifying as "American Indian or Alaska Native," including those who may not be enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe. This highlights the growing gap between legal/political definitions and personal/cultural identity.
A landmark Supreme Court case, Morton v. Mancari (1974), affirmed the political nature of "Indian" status. The Court held that federal programs benefiting Native Americans are not based on race but on their unique political relationship with the federal government, stemming from treaties and the trust responsibility. This ruling was crucial in upholding the legality of specific programs and preferences for Native Americans, establishing that "Indian" is a political, not racial, classification in the eyes of the law. As the Court stated, "The preference is not a ‘racial’ preference, but rather a preference for those who are members of federally recognized tribes."
Conclusion
The history of how the U.S. government defined "Indian" is a complex tapestry woven with threads of conquest, assimilation, paternalism, and ultimately, a grudging recognition of Indigenous sovereignty. From the initial recognition of nations to the imposition of blood quantum, the devastating policies of termination, and finally to the era of self-determination, the definition has always been a tool of power.
Today, while tribal governments largely hold the authority to define their own citizens, the legacy of federal definitions continues to shape realities on the ground. The ongoing debates over federal recognition, tribal enrollment criteria, and the very meaning of "Indian" underscore that identity, for Indigenous peoples, is not merely a matter of personal choice but a contested terrain where history, law, culture, and sovereignty intersect. The journey of defining "Indian" by the U.S. government is a stark reminder of the enduring impact of colonial policies and the ongoing struggle of Native nations to assert and protect their inherent right to self-determination, including the right to define who they are, on their own terms.
