SREXXX10.1177/2332649218821450Sociology of Race and EthnicityMcKay 821450research-article2019 Racial and Ethnic Identities Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2021, Vol. 7(1) 12 –25 Real Indians: Policing or © American Sociological Association 2019 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218821450 10.1177/2332649218821450 Protecting Authentic sre.sagepub.com Indigenous Identity? Dwanna L. McKay1 Abstract Research shows that the institutionalization of legitimacy criteria has created contested meanings of being indigenous to the United States, which leads to an unrelenting debate about authentic indigeneity among indigenous people and between indigenous communities. While instituted through colonizing federal Indian policy, the “real Indian” trope is now a social fact for American Indians. Thus, indigeneity claims commonly encounter resistance in the United States, even within indigenous communities. This work explores how indigeneity claims encounter opposition at interpersonal and group levels and the consequences of authenticity policing. I ask two guiding questions: What authenticity markers hold the most value for American Indians? How do American Indians justify authenticity policing? Using a qualitative approach and an indigenous epistemology, I examine the phenomenon of internalizing the real Indian trope and the impact of policing authenticity through conversations with 45 indigenous people. I find that achieving authenticity is elusive because of its dynamic nature within the local specificity of social contexts. I present and discuss two major signifiers of American Indian identity and major sites of authenticity contestation: (1) blood as protection, culture, and belonging, and (2) Indian cards as protection, responsibility, and belonging. Keywords indigeneity, authenticity, legitimized racism, blood quantum, internalized oppression Contested meanings of being American Indian1 in Policing authentic indigeneity boundaries pro- the United States reinforce an unrelenting debate duces collective representational challenges for about indicators of authentic indigeneity (Robertson American Indians. Because of the intense social- 2013). Authenticity policing indicates the power to ization of what constitutes authenticity, American challenge another’s belonging or tentative inclu- Indians internalize and continue to reify the collec- sion within a group. Birthed in colonizing oppres- tive belief that they must be distinguished, at the sion, European acts of othering, settler colonialism, very least, on a tribal level, and at best, at both and federal Indian policy, the “real Indian” trope is tribal and federal levels. Contemporary authentic- a social fact for American Indians. That is, there is ity markers like blood quanta, phenotype, cultural a collective belief that authentic indigeneity performance, and tribal citizenship are particularly exists—one that transcends and exerts external meaningful—symbolically, politically, and legally.2 constraint over individual understandings. Thus, Our lives gain meaning with validating symbols indigeneity claims commonly encounter resistance like language, ceremony, and shared histories. But in the United States. Even within American Indian 1 communities, individuals often employ the real Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO, USA Indian trope by inquiring or commenting about the Corresponding Author: legitimacy of another person’s claim of Indianness Dwanna L. McKay, Colorado College, 14 E. Cache La among and against one another (Garroutte 2003; Poudre St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903, USA. Hamill 2003; Pack 2012). Email: [email protected] McKay 13 tribal-specific traditions, knowledges, and values THE PARADOX OF often get lost among institutional signifiers of INDIGENOUS IDENTITY IN THE American Indian identity (Archuleta 2005). Lived experiences of being American Indian get dis- UNITED STATES placed among enrollment numbers, federal and According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number tribal recognition, and fractional blood heritage of people who self-identify as American Indian has (Simpson 2014). sharply increased in the past 50 years—from Racial boundary policing did not originate as an 524,000 in 1960 to 5.2 million in 2010. The Bureau indigenous phenomenon. Therefore, my intent is of Indian Affairs (BIA; 2018) estimates only 1.9 not to depict the prejudices and bigotry of American million people are enrolled members of 567 feder- Indians. Dominant groups enjoy a long history of ally recognized tribes. According to these numbers, policing racial boundaries to exclude those deemed more than 67 percent of people self-identify with a inferior. Because race is socially created, modified, racial identity of American Indian (and an ethnic and transformed within sociohistorical contexts identity if they purport a tribal affiliation) without among powerful political interests (Omi and Winant official tribal membership status. Russell 2008), racial boundaries are messy and inherently (1999:131) states that self-identification leads biased. Operating within hegemonic whiteness, “Indians to joke that the largest tribe in the United nondominant groups often police actions and cul- States soon will be the ‘Wanabi.’” tural proclivities within racial boundaries to deter- Scholars argue that the claim of authenticity is mine authenticity for community inclusion yet another issue by which American Indians can (Roediger 2005). Failure to express group identity be divided and conquered (Garroutte 2003; Pack through locally prescribed authenticity distinctions 2012; Robertson 2013; Schmidt 2011; TallBear undermines the credibility of people claiming it. 2003). Self-identified people do not automatically This study provides one example of the complexity gain acceptance as American Indians. Contem- of policing racial borders, somewhat differentiated porary authenticity criteria vary greatly by tribe, because of the mercenary, incessant legal regimes social organization, and regional location. People of federal Indian policy that used tactical exclusion- may hold adequate markers within one or more cat- ary measures regarding Indian identity. egories but not within all. Possessing phenotypical Colonial powers used genocidal policies, eco- authenticity does not indicate cultural capacity or nomic deprivation, corporate violence, and eras of tribal membership. Cultural standing does not forced disenfranchisement, internment, displace- depend on phenotype or belonging to a federally ment, and assimilation to oppress indigenous peoples recognized tribe. Tribal citizenship is not equiva- (Deloria 1969; Dunbar-Ortiz 2014). Invaded on lent to holding traditional knowledge, community every side, first by Europeans and then by Americans, belonging, or racial identifiability. Unless accom- indigenous peoples resisted and survived to sustain panied by expected authenticity markers within and adapt traditional knowledges and ways of tribal-specific communities, claims of indigeneity belonging. Thus, no single project can do justice to are heavily contested (Dennison 2012; Pack 2012; the complexity of contemporary American Indian Robertson 2013; Simpson 2014). When facing identity. My goal is to expose the impact of centuries such ambiguity within multiple categories of per- of oppression against American Indians as mani- formativity, many individuals find navigating dis- fested in the authenticity policing of imposed racial courses of authentic indigeneity to be particularly boundaries. In that spirit, I examine the real Indian challenging. trope by asking the following questions: What Two problematic assumptions structure indige- authenticity markers hold the most value for nous authenticity policing (Taylor 1994). First, American Indians? How do American Indians justify there is the assumption of an “ideal” authentic indi- authenticity policing? Using an indigenous episte- geneity, which artificially imposes a binary of mology and a critical qualitative approach, I examine authentic/not authentic. Second, there is the the impact of policing indigenous authenticity assumption that since an authentic indigeneity through conversations with 45 people who identify exists, it must be distinguishable to others. as American Indians. I begin with an overview of Conversely, inauthentic indigeneity also must exist indigenous identity, provide an overview of racializa- and be recognizable. As a result, performativity is tion processes and policies, follow with a description likely to be censured, rejected, and excluded if of the methods of the research, give an overview of judged to be inconsistent with accepted indigeneity the findings, and discuss the study’s implications. authenticity measures. Harris (2013) provides a 14 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1) concise explanation of the intensity of performing federally recognized tribal nation or within a non– and policing of authentic indigeneity: federally recognized tribe or may hold no member- ship at all. They may belong to an urban Indian There is a great deal of symbolic capital that center, participating in activities linked to a multi- ensues from authentic performance, especially tribal identity rather than a specific tribal entity. in the absence of group access to important They may participate politically but not contribute economic and political resources. Who culturally, or vice versa. They may hold emotional establishes the boundaries within which one ties to ancestral homelands or ceremonial grounds must perform? Forces both from within and or