SREXXX10.1177/2332649218821450Sociology of Race and EthnicityMcKay research-article8214502019

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 . 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 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 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 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 to the idea of an Indian community-at-large. outside of indigenous communities seek to They may or may not be racialized by others as construct, define, name, and police indigenous American Indian. Finally, they may have any com- identities, and in doing so, a constant battle bination of the presence or absence of the previ- ensues in the shifting sands on which the play ously named characteristics and an inestimable for authenticity is performed. (P.12) number of others not discussed within this research. This is the paradox of indigenous identity in the But increasing numbers of self-identifying United States. American Indians do raise concerns about ethnic Forced to participate in the cultural codes and fraud and (Chavers 2009; forms of the West, many American Indians have Grande 2015; Tsosie 2005). Ethnic fraud occurs learned to speak the language of their oppressors when people use fictitious ancestry to benefit from and have adopted their meanings of difference identifying as Indian for personal, economic, cul- (Poupart 2003). My intent is not to simplify the tural, or professional reward. The practice of ethnic complexity of contemporary indigeneity, reaffirm a fraud by non-Indians is well documented (Brayboy monolithic trope of the real Indian, nor create any 2005; Garroutte 2003; Pewewardy and Frey 2004). other. Contemporary indigenous people may not Cultural appropriation occurs when non-Indians even racialize themselves as American Indians but take, use, re-create, or reproduce, without permis- instead signify belonging to particular people in the sion, the artifacts, ceremonial rituals, social expres- language of their ancestors. This study focuses on sions, and knowledges of indigenous peoples. Tsosie the creation, occurrence, and impact of racialized (2005) argues that “one of the most powerful forms American Indian authenticity claims and authentic- of assimilation is to appropriate the key cultural ity policing through a racialized lens. symbols of another group and transform them into part of the dominant society” (p. 95). Barth (1995), Racialization, Federal Dennison (2012), Garroutte (2003), Simpson (2014), and others contend that the heterogeneity of Indian Policy, And indigenous societies has been reduced to a colonial Strategies Of Exclusion formation of “culture” that all too often takes on a American Indians did not exist before European static shape used for the perpetuation of stereotypes. invasion. People were here, but the first inhabitants Grande (2015) argues that ethnic interlopers tour were heterogeneous groups that were fluid and reservations, acting as “cultural predators loose in dynamic, living in hundreds of alliances with com- Indian theme parks” (p. 109). Consequently, existing plex political structures, diverse languages, exten- indigenous languages, practices, and knowledges sive trade networks and economic centers, and become commodified as mythical culture products superior agricultural cultivation (Dunbar-Ortiz for consumption and reproduction. 2014; Garroutte 2003; Nagel 2000; Wilkins 2009). American Indians may justify authenticity Without the concept of race, indigenous peoples policing as a protective measure against ethnic held a subjective view of who belonged—with no fraud and cultural appropriation. But a myriad of exclusionary hard boundaries (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014; options exists for individuals who self-categorize Wilkins 2009). People frequently migrated outside as American Indians: They may hold a lot, a little, of their groups of origin, gaining memberships or no cultural knowledge. They may express affili- with other groups of different languages, cultures, ation to one tribe, multiple tribes, or no tribe. They and traditions through “systems of naturalization may or may not be known within their tribe or that could confer group membership on non-kin” another Indian community. They may live on a res- (Castile 1996:743). Communities maintained their ervation with or without belonging to the jurisdic- cohesion via ancestral ties but also adopted people tional tribe. They may hold membership within a outside of the group (Garroutte 2003; Wilkins McKay 15

2009). Common values and needs outweighed New Mexico were not really Indians because they objective considerations of familial ties or blood behaved in intelligent, virtuous, and industrious lineage (Castile 1996; Wilkins 2009). ways. The Court then reversed its decision in the For more than five centuries, the dominant dis- 1913 case US v. Sandoval, finding that the Pueblos course justified the genocide of Indians as well as were Indians, after all, because BIA reported that systematic land and resource theft (Dunbar-Ortiz the Pueblos drank, danced, and lived communally 2014; Fenelon 2006). Processes of identity con- (Brownell 2001:279). Consequently, the use of struction, maintenance, ascription, and enforce- behavior as a racial marker was deemed too inclu- ment are indicative of racialization in our society. sive for designating people as American Indian; In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, colonizers thus, the federal government intensified its exclu- used concepts like “heathen” and “savage” to sionary efforts with the idea that physical differ- impose a collective identity that became known as ences indicated different races. In 1914, the Justice Indian and the racialized term “tribe” to indicate Department contracted anthropologists to deter- shared cultural similarities or geographic location mine blood quantum of the Chippewas on the (Wilkins 2009). Through racialized discourse, White Earth Reservation based on hair texture— Europeans reframed unbridled colonial greed as straight hair indicated full blood and curly hair, half righteous and godly, serving to justify eradication blood or less (Schmidt 2011). The United States measures against Indians (Poupart 2003), and fur- also used racist laws, like the one-drop rule, to ther disrupted the autonomy of indigenous peoples divide communities and exclude claims of indige- by designating them as “tribes” (Wilkins 2009). neity (Coleman 2013). In 1936, BIA sent an anthro- Lawrence (2003) contends colonial racial dis- pologist to North Carolina to determine whether course has appropriated “the right to define indig- the Lumbees were actually Indian by slipping a enous citizenship, reducing the members of pencil through their hair (Brownell 2001; Coleman hundreds of extremely different , ethnici- 2013). If the pencil slipped easily, they were classi- ties, and language groups to a common raced iden- fied as Indian; if not, they were classified as tity as Indian” (pp. 4–5). Thus, the question of “Negroid.” Only 22 of 209 people were racially authentic indigeneity “has deep roots within colo- designated as Indian, with children and their par- nial racism” (Sissons 2005:43). ents and siblings designated as different races The systematic colonial racialization of indige- (Brownell 2001). nous peoples into one monolithic group and the Only since the late nineteenth century, blood erasure of their independent governments, cultures, quantum has been privileged in defining individual and histories is reified by federal Indian policy. Indian identity and tribal membership (Meyer Motivated by the desire to reduce and eventually 2004; Spruhan 2006). The concept of Indian legiti- terminate financial responsibility to Indians, the macy by blood was birthed in federal legislation by United States was the first authenticity police of the Dawes Act of 1887 (Simpson 2014). The Indianness (Brownell 2001). To ensure unremitting Dawes Act abolished tribal governments and westward invasion, Congress forcibly removed and removed communal lands from tribal ownership to relocated (e.g., Indian Removal Act of 1830, Indian portion out predetermined allotments. Individuals treaties) Indian tribes and confined Indian tribes to were required to enumerate their blood quantum on reservations (e.g., Indian Appropriations Act of allotment applications. With less than 40 percent of 1851) (Dunbar-Ortiz 2014). Concerns soon esca- applications approved, tribal census rolls docu- lated about expenses for providing subsistence mented people with a percentage of “Indian by rations and paying military personnel to ensure blood” or “Indian not by blood” (Debo 1989). American Indians stayed within geographically What exactly is blood quantum? It is a metaphori- ascribed borders (Russell 1999). Seeking to limit cal construction that refers to an ancestral heritage contractual obligations by reducing the number of that is measured by degrees or fractions of blood people to be covered within the agreements, the inheritance. federal government applied increasingly restrictive But the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act firmly boundaries around the race of Indian. established the concept of federal recognition as The United States first claimed that the sup- the defining criterion for tribal legitimacy and posed inferior behavior of American Indians made blood quantum as the standard for tribal member- them racially distinct. In the 1877 case US v. ship. Since ratification of the Indian Reorganization Joseph, the Supreme Court decided that even Act, only Indian tribes that are recognized are eli- though they looked like Indians, the Pueblos in gible to receive protections and services: “The term 16 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1)

‘Indian’ as used in this Act shall include all persons members of federally recognized tribes. Tribal of Indian descent who are members of any recog- cards are issued only to people who meet their nized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, tribal standards for citizenship. American Indians and … all other persons of one-half or more Indian may possess one or both cards. Specific blood blood” (Quinn 1990:356, emphasis added). The quanta are often required to receive services such “Report on Indians Taxed and Not Taxed” set the as Indian housing, employment preference, educa- stage for the concept of federal recognition with the tional opportunities, and health care (Meyer 2004; suggestion to abandon reservations and consolidate Robertson 2013). Blood quantum, lineal descent, tribes because “this will save millions of dollars” and proof of Indianness are embedded in the racial (U.S. Census Bureau 1894:73). The Supreme Court paradigm birthed in colonialism, institutionalized has ruled that Congress possessed plenary power— through federal Indian policy, reified though tribal full and complete authority—to limit, modify, or restrictions, and internalized within indigenous eliminate tribal rights (Wilkins 2009); in other communities. words, it may “assist or destroy an Indian tribe as it sees fit” (Pevar 2012:59). Simpson (2014) describes recognition as a biopolitical project that moved Methodology tribes away from the status of autonomous sover- My personal lens shapes this research. As an eignties “into the conceptual and legal ambit of enrolled citizen and former employee of a federally racialized minorities” (p. 138). recognized tribe, I witness authenticity policing on Racialization remains an exclusionary strategy personal, interpersonal, and institutional levels. As to simultaneously decrease U.S. financial responsi- a person raised within my tribal boundaries and tra- bilities to tribes and their citizens and systemati- ditions, I attest to the frequency with which people cally reduce the political and economic power of claim indigeneity without any connection to a spe- Indians (Robertson 2013; Tsosie 2005). The Indian cific tribe. As a researcher and scholar, I know the Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of exclusionary impact of federal Indian policy eras. 1975 gave federally recognized tribes the authority Consequently, my American Indian status, famil- to construct their own membership criteria (Wilkins iarity with various Native communities and cul- 2009). One third of tribes now require lineal descent tures, and scholarly expertise allowed me to rather than a set blood quantum. Even though tribes connect with participants in an empathetic and set the criteria for tribal membership, Congress can understanding manner. Whereas I am an insider as deny or revoke acknowledgment of any tribe and its an American Indian, I also could be considered an members. Federal agencies have exclusive power to outsider when talking with people who have been determine tribal membership for disbursement of questioned about the authenticity of their indigene- federal program funds and may ignore tribal mem- ity. In addition, the participants represented various bership lists altogether. The United States insists and distinct tribes. Although I relate through my tribal members “must have some Indian blood; con- identity of being American Indian, my own unique sequently, a non-Indian adopted into an Indian tribe tribal perspective often differed by geographic cannot be considered an Indian under federal law” location, language, and history. To balance this (Pevar 2012:19). Race as a biological concept has subjectivity, I exercised assurance and reciprocity been discredited but continues to be a concrete in conversations and activities. expression of Indianness through blood quantum Between June 2009 and May 2015, I conducted restrictions and blood heritage for federal recogni- extensive one-hour to two-hour conversations with tion and tribal membership. 45 people from 29 distinct tribes, who live in To receive federal services or protections as an Oklahoma; New York; California; Arizona; Maine; American Indian, a person must present proof of a North Carolina; Montana; Colorado; Texas; Ohio; Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card Washington, D.C.; and Massachusetts. I used pur- or tribal membership card issued from a federally posive sampling (a method of selecting participants recognized tribe (i.e., Indian cards). This card lists with specific characteristics) because the partici- the person’s name, date of birth, tribal affiliation, pants needed to identify as American Indian. I and blood quantum. Under federal law, American recruited participants at ceremonial events, Indian Indians are issued CDIB cards in one of two ways: churches, and Indian health clinics and on indige- (1) BIA authenticates people with one half blood nous studies listservs. I followed this up with quantum or more who are not members of any fed- snowball sampling (a method of expanding the erally recognized tribe, or (2) people are citizens or sample by asking one participant to recommend McKay 17 others for interviewing). Of the participants, 24 “coding” themes. As a concession, I used a blended were women, and 21 were men. Ages ranged from approach for analysis (Creswell 2009). I read each 21 to 85, but the average age was 42; average transcript several times before I identified themes. annual income was $30,567. I did not request proof As themes emerged, I went back to all the data— of Native identity through identification or com- transcribed conversations, analytic memos, and munity reference. self-reflexive journals—for a fresh look at emerg- As participants preferred, I spoke with 33 peo- ing bundles of themes. I present the data as wholly ple in person, 7 by telephone, and 10 online through as possible with integrated theme coding in a modi- video calling. When gathering general demo- fied grounded theory method (Creswell 2009). I graphic and tribal information, I was sensitive to examined contextual assumptions about the poli- distinctions used for affiliation preference (e.g., by tics of identity and policing authenticity. I looked tribe and/or pan-Indian labels such as American for discourses linked to political and social institu- Indian, indigenous, and Native). I asked open- tions that reproduce authenticity discourses through ended questions about being indigenous in the dominance and power as well as subsequent “real United States. We reflected about our experiences, Indian” rhetoric. I present my research in a the- feelings, ideas, knowledge, and opinions about matic version with illustrative narrative quotes American Indian identity symbols. We discussed from conversations with participants. Accuracy of our individual tribal histories, language, customs, the research was ensured through the participants’ and membership requirements. I shared my own checking of the conversations (Maxwell 2005). I perspective and reflections with participants to bal- use pseudonyms to identify the participants. The ance respect and reciprocity (Kovach 2009). If nec- next section presents my findings about accepted essary, I contacted the participants again to clarify indicators of indigeneity and the impact of policing wording or meaning and ask follow-up questions. I authentic indigenous identity. recorded and transcribed the conversations, supple- mented the work with written reflections, and noted any additional information that might help Findings with the interpretation (Rubin and Rubin 2005). My conversations with participants indicate that I use a blended critical and indigenous interpre- indigeneity is dynamically formed, challenged, tive lens—a standpoint that emphasizes participa- resisted, and reformed within local, historical, and tive, emancipatory research and requires holistic, culturally specific social contexts. Therefore, this relational, decolonizing ethics like empathy, respect, is an attempt not to simplify that complexity but to and reciprocity (Grande 2008; Kovach 2009; understand how policing authenticity functions for Miranda 2013; Smith 1999). A critical qualitative and affects not only those whose identity is being approach centers the voices of marginalized group monitored but also for those who police indigene- members, giving value and expression to their lived ity standards. Two questions guided this work: experiences in a historically contextualized way What authenticity markers hold the most value for (Kovach 2009; Marshall and Rossman 2006). Jacob American Indians? How do American Indians jus- (2013) describes indigenous epistemology as a “crit- tify authenticity policing? Conversations with par- ical healing approach”—one that positions indige- ticipants indicate that achieving authenticity is nous people as experts in our own lives, capable of elusive because of its dynamic nature within the assigning meaning and significance to our lived local specificity of social contexts. I present two realities, experiences, and challenges in the ongoing themes mentioned most often by participants as struggle of the decolonization of our existence. major signifiers of Indian identity and major sites Western epistemology positions the researcher as of authenticity contestation: (1) blood as protec- the authority and contends that research must be tion, culture, and belonging, and (2) Indian cards as conducted under a neutral and objective gaze (Smith pride, responsibility, and belonging.4 1999). Indigenous epistemology acts to decolonize the Western scientific practices and to develop research approaches based on indigenous knowl- Blood as Protection, Culture, and edge and voice (Grande 2008; Smith 1999). Belonging The analysis should serve to clarify and honor Blood quantum certainly qualifies as a privileged, the narrative. Deeply personal stories and subse- broad boundary meant to include “real” Indians to quent vulnerability and pain within the conversa- the exclusion of all other racial groups. Perdue tions made it difficult to parse out bits and pieces as (2003:x) argues that indigenous communities 18 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1) experience substantial conflict “by using ‘blood’ to example of two American Indians and made their privilege some individuals, to discredit others, and tribal origin and gender the same as the participant ultimately to racialize Native societies in ways that I was speaking with: One woman had a lower blood are foreign to Native cultural traditions.” Every quantum (one-eighth) but was very active in the participant knew and stated his or her blood quan- community, driving elders to appointments or tak- tum, even though I never asked or initiated the con- ing food to people who were ill. Another woman versation about a person’s blood quantum. This had a higher blood quantum (three-fourths) but did illustrates the depth to which a racialized identity not participate in the community. I then asked, has been internalized. Of 45 participants, 36 believe “Who do you think is the real Indian?” A common that blood ancestry is necessary. When asked story emerged from the conversations. I provide whether blood quantum was a good measure of Natalie’s commentary as an example of the overall Indianness, the participants responded with mixed message: messages. For the majority of participants, blood quantum protects the tribe’s autonomy but also I knew [an Indian] woman who worked in the limits personal belonging for individuals. Tom, a [tribal] program. She abstained from alcohol, tribally enrolled man, explains that his tribe always voting, always in the community helping requires one-half blood quantum or more for hold- the elders, picking up kids and giving rides to ing political office and complains that this restricts school. She worked to preserve the traditions his ability to belong and contribute: and was raising her daughter that way. She was very involved, but she was blond haired. Then Blood quantum is good in a way because it there was another woman who was full blood keeps the Nation run by Nation people. But in a and she looked it. But she was an alcoholic. sense, I think it’s discriminatory by saying okay, Didn’t preserve the ways at all. She only voted your grandparents or great grandparents are on if somebody came and got her. I think they are the [tribal roll], but you don’t have enough both Native. A lower quantum doesn’t make blood to be part of who we are. So if there’s a you not an Indian if you work hard for the full blood who is okay with sitting back, “Well, community. But if you have a higher quantum, what can the tribe do for me? How can the tribe not participating culturally doesn’t invalidate pay my bills this month?” And they’re not doing you. They’re both Indian. anything. What makes him better than me for the tribe? If he’s gonna sit back and just take, Blood quantum often symbolizes belonging take, take from the tribe, and I want to be the without any participation requirement. Other type of person who gives back to the tribe and research notes that blood hegemony has been inter- brings our tribe up. Why limit me with the nalized to the extent that marrying a non-Native and blood quantum? having children is directly associated with cultural loss (Dennison 2012; Pack 2012). Congress esti- Tom expresses the tension many participants feel mates that by 2080 less than 8 percent of American about privileging blood quantum over ties Indians will have one half or more of Indian blood and community participation. Not having a high (Thornton 1997). Pack (2012:179) reports that all enough blood quantum restricts Tom from partici- his informants emphasize “the importance of pre- pating within the political leadership of the tribe, serving their culture by keeping their bloodlines and he feels demoralized. Tom argues against this pure.” Instead, this study shows that participants limitation by highlighting his cultural participa- struggle with the application of blood quantum for tion: “I’m always out at the grounds and taking future generations. Janet expresses that blood quan- medicine. I look out for the old ones and young tum is very important for her but attributes cultural people. Why limit me with blood?” Tom feels like understanding as most important to her son: blood quantum is privileged over his cultural par- ticipation. But Tom and most others believe that It’s easy for me because I’m full blood. I know blood quantum protects tribal sovereignty against how much I am, but for my son, it’s like a part further encroachment by non-Indians. of me is trying to figure out. I tease my husband Participants often expressed resistance by stat- because he’s only an eighth: “Oh you were just ing that cultural participation is much more impor- enough to push him over the halfway mark.” tant than blood quantum. To test this, I gave an My son’s nine-sixteenths. “Yeah exactly, thanks McKay 19

babe, that sliver did it, babe.” But you know, it’s distinction. A total of 10 participants expressed a important because we are all intermingled. We desire for more blood quantum. Jennifer discusses aren’t all full blooded anymore. And for my blood quantum in a double-minded way: son, it’s gonna be important to me for him to know how much he is and what he is. I think it’s a bad thing, although I wish that I was a full blood. Because I feel like if I were I Clearly, Janet regards the threshold of more would be more Indian. That sounds crazy, but than one half as meaningful, but when I question that’s how I feel. I would have more right to Janet about whether a higher blood quantum indi- claim being a really real Indian, not to being cates someone is more Indian, she states, “No. It’s just Indian. After all, I am Indian. like with me being a full blood and I still don’t know all that I should know with our culture.” In When I ask what having a higher blood quantum other words, Janet dismisses the equivalence of means, most participants reply with answers that higher blood quantum into cultural belonging. She indicate they would experience less policing and reasons that she still feels culturally lacking, even gain more authenticity. Lynn states, “More blood though she is full blood.5 Consequently, when dis- means looking more Indian. I wouldn’t have to cussing future generations, Janet, and other partici- explain my blue eyes because I’m half white and pants, privilege cultural understanding as more half Indian. I would just be accepted.” Blood quan- precious and harder to attain than blood quantum. tum and phenotype act as intertwined tools of Shelly feels ambivalent about blood quantum, but exclusion that encourage American Indians to like other participants with children, she recog- “rework racial notions, entangling blood in their nizes its limiting nature when she thinks of her own understandings of relation and survival” kids. (Dennison 2012:62). Most participants express consent to the oppres- I am happy to say, “Yes, I am half [tribal name].” sive nature of blood quantum because it establishes But my kids are a quarter and their kids are their authenticity and right to belong. Scholars gonna be one eighth. And when you start to get argue that the assignment of blood quanta and sub- to those low doses, that’s when it starts being a texts of lineal descent maintains a racialized big deal. My husband is totally offended that American Indian identity. TallBear (2003) explains, they lowered the blood quantum in his tribe to “Blood talk and, increasingly, talk of DNA have an eighth. He doesn’t want people that don’t unfortunately infiltrated tribal political life and are have anything to do with, not just the traditions, used to help justify cultural and political authority. but that community. Because that’s where he Such biological measures reaffirm racial defini- grew up. That’s his home, his people. He tions of the tribal nation and who rightly claims doesn’t want somebody who got adopted out, tribal citizenship” (p. 83). Within this study, blood coming back and running his community. So quantum is deployed as privilege, protective mech- he’s really offended by it. anism, and cultural belonging. None of the partici- pants thought that blood heritage should be Shelly appreciates her own blood quantum because in eliminated from tribal membership criteria. her community, “being half is considered as good as full blood.” Shelly also struggles with the exclusivity of blood quantum as the sole indicator of Indianness Indian Cards as Pride, Belonging, and when she recognizes its adverse effects on her chil- Responsibility dren. Shelly’s mention of her husband shows that, like CDIB and tribal citizenship cards represent the Tom, many people equate diminishing blood quan- protection of tribal autonomy and pride of belong- tum with a loss of sovereignty. Dennison (2012) sup- ing as well as function as cultural surrogates for ports this finding among the Osage. many participants. Tribal citizens are socialized to A common reductionist dichotomy between routinely provide this type of proof for social or phenotype and blood quantum translates into the legal services. Some people stress that Indian cards assumption that full-blood Indians will look the also protect indigenous culture and tribal resources most Indian. Sturm (2002) asserts that American from further appropriation (Deloria 1998; Indians respond more positively to people who Robertson 2013). Others argue that that identity look Indian—even to the extent of assigning vary- validation is foreign to the very nature of being ing degrees of social importance to phenotypical Native (Hamill 2003; Schmidt 2011). Altogether, 20 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1)

Indian cards play significant roles in some commu- the first five minutes of our conversation. Teresa nities—protect resources, indicate belonging, and grew up traveling the powwow circuit with her highlight responsibility. Two thirds of the people I family, dedicating every weekend to cultural activi- spoke with imbued the cards with cultural value. ties with her large extended family, and she laugh- Others stress that they prove racial belonging. ingly says, “My family didn’t go to church. We Joseph recounts how he felt the day he received his powwowed.” Teresa has obvious indicators of indi- CDIB card, assigning immense symbolic value and geneity but still needed to marry a “real Indian” to pride to it: conform to her family’s expectations of authentic- ity: “Our culture was really big, at least for my I was 14 years old. And uh, when you got CDIB grandmother, that I marry Indian, so my husband card, then you were full-blown Indian. That was had to work hard and get his Cherokee documented. like getting your social security card, your Everybody’s happy that he got a card.” I ask, driver’s license, it was your identity. When you “[Your grandmother] didn’t think [your husband] got that CDIB card, you told people you were was an Indian until he got a card?” Teresa answers, Indian and you could show them that you were “Exactly. I was the oldest grandchild for a long Indian. There was a certain amount of pride time, and there was a lot of pressure. I couldn’t associated with it. It was documented. A lot of handle it, hardly. Of course, our grandmother was people knew you were Indian, and a lot of the center of everything. And so it was very impor- people didn’t. Like when I went to prison out in tant to her but not to me.” Teresa’s grandmother California, they interviewed you whenever they reserved her blessing until Teresa’s husband could were booking you into prison. And this guy authenticate his indigeneity. Teresa explains that, said, “So you’re white.” And I said, “No, I’m for her grandmother, a card represented proof that American Indian.” He said, “You’re gonna have his community accepted him, not that he was certi- to produce the paperwork.” I told him, “Look in fied by the federal government as Indian. Teresa my wallet for my CDIB card. It’s a federal questions the purpose of cards but actively works card.” And he got that out and said, “Well, by to reduce any feelings of dissonance. Teresa’s deci- god, you are an Indian. You do have your sion, though intertwined with racialized objects paperwork with you.” I told him, “I can use this imposed by the federal government, is based in tra- card anywhere in the United States of America. dition. Teresa felt strongly her grandmother’s cul- I can go to another state and if I need help, I can tural honor was the “center of everything.” She take this to the BIA or the local tribe and ask for explains that her grandmother’s motives were cul- help. And I can get it whether they’re my tribe turally driven. Approval from older members of the or not.” So getting that CDIB card when I was family is crucial to the development of a strong young made me really, really proud. I was proud indigenous identity (Pewewardy 2002). Teresa’s to be an Indian anyway, but I was really, really grandmother was the symbolic leader within her proud because I had documentation of it. family, holding the wisdom and traditions, and her approval preserved harmony and balance within Joseph attaches meaningful achievement to his the family. CDIB card—with its arrival, he was “full blown.” Almost one third of participants understood that Joseph also describes the normality of CDIB cards, Indian cards have overwhelming implications as equating getting one to getting a social security racialized objects. Every participant mentioned card. I ask Joseph why the prison guard thought he that no other race or ethnicity was required to pro- was white. Joseph laughs and explains he is often vide legal proof of blood ancestry. Joy, who lives thought to “be Hispanic and all those forms say within her nation, acknowledges that it “seems rac- white for that.” Joseph expresses pride in being ist having to show a card showing I am this much able to prove his indigeneity and enjoyed educating Indian.” But she also feels secure and valid with the prison worker about how his Indian card signi- her tribal card—being able to show that she is a fies the responsibility of the federal government “real Indian”: “I’ve had to pull out the card a few and all Indian tribes to him. times to prove to people. An international student For some, having Indian cards serves as a proxy from Kenya was like, ‘No way, you can’t be for cultural belonging. Teresa, a professional Indian.’ So I pull my card out, and he said, ‘You woman in her 30s, continues to live within the have to carry this? Isn’t this racism?’” Joy laughs political boundaries of her federally recognized as she repeats what the Kenyan student asked her. tribe. Teresa reveals that she is “full blood” during The symbolic value of cards is high for participants McKay 21 who lack other indicators of indigeneity, particu- Convenient Indians break the social norm of an larly phenotype. When an exchange student easily expected performance of reciprocity within recognizes the inherent racism of Indian cards, Joy Indigenous communities. Whereas some people justifies it as necessary for keeping out the wan- may use Indian cards when convenient or benefi- nabes or “all those people who were Indian in a cial, for participants in this study, they represent former life.” According to Joy, she does not look responsibility. On the other hand, a few participants Indian but regularly participates in tribal cultural do accuse those who use Indian cards as being events. Joy laughs and says that people tease her inauthentic and assimilated. Bob questions the about her looks and call her a “whindian” (white intent of Indian cards: “It’s not that card. It’s the Indian). Joy wants to make it clear that she does not dollars associated with that card. And that’s tragic just self-identify by showing her card to me as we because that means those Indians have adopted eat lunch in a busy café. This indicates that Joy another culture’s ways.” Some participants believes that people who self-identify without expressed emotional hurt that other community proof are not “real Indians” and conversely that members would privilege Indian cards over claims people who have Indian cards are “real Indians.” of indigeneity, arguing that asking about a card Joy finds comfort in being called a whindian rather actually shows a lack of authenticity by the chal- than a wannabe. In other words, people who do not lenger. In other words, participants often respond look Indian may or may not be wannabes, but peo- by monitoring the authenticity of those who police ple who do not have cards are wannabes. them. For example, Lisa expresses her frustration Consequently, claims of cultural belonging do not when people question whether she has a card: “One substitute for legal validation of Indian identity. girl even said, ‘You have no proof.’ That bothered For example, Steve Russell (2003) explains that he me. It was insulting for me. It would be insulting uses his CDIB and tribal cards to “notify white for anyone to tell someone else, ‘You aren’t who people of my tribal identity and, when combined you are.’ That’s not Indian. I wouldn’t do that.” with my birthplace, tell Indian people (should there Lisa’s reaction typifies the conflict over Indian be any) that I was not an ‘instant Indian’ seeking cards. Individuals who police authenticity, rather special favors” (p. 401). Russell’s statement also than the federal Indian policy that manifests in shows that the strength of the card depends on the tribal membership criteria, are identified as the audience and phenotype. If individuals do not look problem. This allows self-identified Indians to Indian, then cards validate their belonging. maintain racial identities without being enrolled in The symbolic value of Indian cards varies by federally recognized tribes. They also can forgo the presence of other indicators of Indianness. any anger with the tribes that do not accept them as According to this study, being Indian only when it citizens. In the absence of standard racialized is convenient exposes inauthentic indigeneity. authenticity indicators like phenotype or high Even people with Indian cards experience authen- blood quantum, the power of legal belonging repre- ticity policing. Most participants contest people sented by an Indian card is greater than cultural who take no part in community responsibilities or participation. Indian cards may be racist in origin, deny their heritage but take advantage of Indian but most participants see them as necessary for services, labeling them as “convenient Indians.” proof of belonging. Most participants repurposed Shane’s comments reflect the overall feeling and rearticulated Indian cards as symbols of pride, toward them: belonging, and responsibility. Federal Indian policy has ensured the complic- I know people who have CDIB cards, but they ity of American Indians and Indian tribes by legis- don’t tell anybody. It’s not something they talk lating boundaries of Indianness and imposing the about. I go to the [denomination] church. internalization of those margins. Internalized Indians call it the white church. I would see oppression results when people internalize the ste- people at the Indian clinic that I see at church. reotypes and negative myths communicated about And no one would know that they are Indian. their groups by the oppressive regime (Poupart They come for their services, but they go out 2003), causing even the oppressed to have a stake and live the rest of their lives, like they don’t in their subordinated identity (Pyke 2010:557). want to identify with being Indian. It’s like Legitimized racism is the (1) systemic racial dis- they’re ashamed of it or something. I know course of inequality that exists in federal Indian older people, people in their 40s, and even policy and (2) deeply embedded and normalized people younger than me act that way. anti-Indian racism accepted as nonracist (Robertson 22 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1)

2015). Internalization occurs when the racialized Indian. Without community approval, blood quan- group accepts that the racial identities, constraints, tum becomes the gold standard for authenticity. traditions, behaviors, terminology, and institutions Blood quantum—even though inherently racist— are real and not harmful. Since the real Indian trope establishes the right to belong within the commu- developed within U.S. federal institutions, the nity and greater Indian country, which exposes the policing of authentic indigeneity manifests as an contradiction of this study. On one hand, partici- expression of internalized oppression and an exten- pants present cultural understanding as more impor- sion of legitimized racism. These findings corrobo- tant than blood quantum. But when questioned rate previous findings that indigenous communities about community involvement and living cultur- experience substantial conflict about the criteria for ally, the majority of participants privilege higher claiming authenticity. Furthermore, this study blood quantum. The symbolic value of Indian cards shows that American Indians have internalized the varies by the presence of other indicators of belief that federally derived and racist artifacts rep- Indianness. Indeed, we discredit our authenticity if resent authentic indigeneity, which results in an we utilize our card without participating in the tribal internalized legitimized racism that displaces cul- community. Yet in the absence of phenotype or high tural knowledge and community ties. blood quantum, the power of symbolic markers like cultural knowledge or participation weakens rather than strengthens. Thus, having an Indian card is Conclusion deemed better than just self-identifying. After centuries of constructions of otherness, Within American Indian communities, blood enforced cultural codes, and institutionalized iden- quanta and Indian identification cards are central in tity measures, American Indians negotiate stagger- the performance of indigenous identity. Indian ing expectations of cultural purity and performance, identity has been framed as blood and ancestry social recognition within the community and legal with meanings of underlying power and prejudice recognition from both tribal and federal govern- that we now use against one another, expressed ments, high degrees of blood quantum, and geo- through Indian cards and blood quantum. In other graphical location (Robertson 2013). Produced words, public discourse has produced a bastardized through centuries of Western legitimized racism, version of Indianness that has manifested in a the real Indian trope is a social fact that manifests in monolithic caricature of the real Indian trope. As a racial, cultural, and legal authenticity expectations. result, American Indians justify policing other Even participants with strong cultural and political American Indians about their identity. They see belonging desire to be identified as racially Indian Indian cards as proxies for cultural belonging and because they recognize authenticity policing occurs protection of resources even as they recognize the on multiple levels—racial, cultural, and legal. Any restricting and exclusiveness of blood quantum. shared discriminatory beliefs and common stereo- The acceptance of these symbols reduces indigene- types that American Indians hold against and/or ity to racialized objects. about one another originate in the racist discourse Many advocate that indigenous communities of the colonial conquest and domination. should know each other by shared values, norms, and Policing these authenticity boundaries presents thought patterns when determining authentic great challenges for indigenous communities. What Indianness (Pewewardy 2001). Others argue that cul- authenticity markers hold the most value for tural definitions impose “misleading and timeless American Indians? My findings show that tribal homogeneity onto tribes” (Garroutte 2003:67). communities and indigenous people have internal- Whether using racial or cultural boundaries, expecta- ized and continue to reify federally defined criteria tions for group membership may result in an essen- for authentic indigeneity. That is, documented tialized vision of community that requires a specified belonging in the form of Indian cards and high blood set of attributes to belong. Ultimately, essentialized quanta bear substantive and significant importance. communities give birth to racial and cultural gate- How do American Indians justify authenticity polic- keepers to operate within a legitimized racism para- ing? American Indians have accepted and incorpo- digm. Because tribal nations and American Indians rated the definitions and objects used against them desire to protect their cultural and political authority within the embodiment of indigeneity. from further colonized encroachment, they hold Suspicions about ethnic fraud and cultural tightly to an established means to differentiate—even appropriation have grown alongside the increasing if that involves the commodification of Indian iden- of people claiming to be American tity through legitimized racism. McKay 23

But to view blood as merely racial ignores the in this study used a multitude of terminology that role of power and community in indigenous iden- I wish to honor in this work. The terms “Indian,” tity formation and shifts. The symbolism of blood “American Indian,” “tribe,” and “tribal” are racial and ancestry goes beyond racialization. Indigenous terms imposed by colonizing forces. Having lived conceptions of blood are not comparable to the in Indian country most of my life, I hear elders and others use these terms on a daily basis. I work in colonized idea that blood means ancestry and rights the academy but must live within my communi- of heir (Meyer 2004). Historically, blood does not ties. For the purpose of this research, I use the term connote physiological meaning but rather belong- “American Indian” because of its usage by federal ing. That is, blood is a relational concept through agencies. I use the term “Indian” because it is the which we assert cultural autonomy (Simpson legal term used within federal Indian policy, judi- 2014). Mihesuah (1998) contends that blood as cial review, and other regulatory language. I use the kinship is crucial to the development of contempo- terms “Native” and “indigenous” interchangeably, rary American Indian identity. Krouse (1999) as my preferences. I apologize in advance for the maintains that blood and descent are especially distraction and messiness, but labels are the conse- important among urban Indians who lack ties to quence of colonial racism. 2. Some argue that discussing and analyzing concepts their tribes of origin, establishing rights of access for categories of difference (e.g., race and blood to cultural knowledge that allow displaced Indians quantum) contribute to the reification of essentialist to participate in the urban pan-Indian community. thinking about socially constructed concepts; that Blood and ancestry remain fundamental to is, we perpetuate the notion that these categories are American Indian identity and tribal sovereignty. real and not the product of creation. There Western domination unabatedly demanded both is a social reality to these social categories in that cultural and structural changes for American they produce real effects on racialized and othered Indians—leaving us little to recognize ourselves actors; therefore, it is important to highlight and by—yet we still do recognize ourselves. Indigenous contrast the social dynamics that produce the cat- communities have always monitored belonging by egories as well as the social categories themselves. 3. Scholars point out that more than demographics, kinship, relationship to the land, and other indica- such as increased birth rate, decreased death rate, tors. Weaver (2001) says, “Given the strong empha- or improved health, accounts for such a growth in sis on the collectivity in indigenous cultures, it is population (Liebler 2010; Snipp 2004; Thornton problematic to have an individual who self-identi- 1997). The most common reasons acknowledged fies as indigenous yet has no community sanction for this increase are changing patterns of racial or validation of that identity”(p. 247). Self- self-identification and improved procedural collec- representation and boundaries of belonging have tion of census data. Since 1960 people have been been important tools for resisting the racialized allowed to choose their racial identification, rather constraint and exclusion of colonialism and federal than having it assigned by a census taker. Indian policy. How will we decide to honor the sur- 4. Framing symbolic documentation, identifiability, and blood heritage as proxy for indigeneity was vival, resistance, and resilience of their ancestors? developed solely within this project and is not A promising start would be the incorporation of the meant to indicate that all indigenous people experi- peoplehood matrix (Holm, Pearson, and Chavis ence the same. 2003). Peoplehood is a complete system that cen- 5. I do not use these terms as essential categories but ters and integrates the temporality, diversity, and as social constructions that have been essentialized. interrelatedness of indigeneity through four aspects—language, sacred history, place territory, and ceremonial cycle. Through the lens of people- References hood, we may discover old ways and determine Archuleta, Elizabeth. 2005. “Refiguring Indian Blood new ways of belonging—ways that forgo racial- through Poetry, Photography, and Performance Art.” ized objects meant to divide and exclude. Studies in American Indian Literatures 17(4):1–26. Barth, Fredrik. 1995. “Other Knowledge and Other Ways of Knowing.” Journal of Anthropological Research Notes 51:65–68. 1. Passionate debate persists in academia over the Brayboy, Bryan McKinley. 2005. “Toward a Tribal most useful term(s) to describe indigenous peoples Critical Race Theory in Education.” Urban Review of what is currently known as the United States. I 37(5):425–46. make no claim over which terms should be used, Brownell, Margo S. 2001. “Who Is an Indian?” University but I offer the following thoughts: The participants of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 34:275–331. 24 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7(1)

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2018. Indian Entities Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2006. Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Washington, CA: Sage. DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 17, Maxwell, Joseph A. 2005. Qualitative Research Design. 2018 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-01- London: Sage. 30/pdf/2018-01907.pdf). Meyer, Melissa L. 2004. “Race and Identity in Indian Castile, George Pierre. 1996. “The Commodification of Country.” 51(4):799–803. Indian Identity.” American Anthropologist 98:743– Mihesuah, Devon A. 1998. “American Indian Identities.” 49. American Indian Culture and Research Journal Chavers, Dean. 2009. Racism in Indian Country. New 22(2):93–226. York: Peter Lang. Miranda, Deborah. 2013. Bad Indians. Berkeley, CA: Coleman, Arica L. 2013. That the Blood Stay Pure: Heyday. African Americans, Native Americans, and the Nagel, Joane. 2000. “False Faces.” Pp. 81–106 in Identity Predicament of Race and Identity in Virginia. and Social Change, edited by J. E. Davis. New Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design. Thousand Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 2008. Racial Oaks, CA: Sage. Formation in the New Millennium. London: Debo, Angie. 1989. And Still the Waters Run. Princeton, Routledge. NJ: Princeton University Press. Pack, Sam. 2012. “What Is a Real Indian?” AlterNative Deloria, Philip Joseph. 1998. Playing Indian. New 8(3):176–88. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Perdue, Theda. 2003. Mixed Blood Indians. Athens, GA: Deloria, Vine. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins. New University of Georgia. York: Macmillan. Pevar, Stephen L. 2012. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Dennison, Jean. 2012. Colonial Entanglement. Chapel New York: Oxford University Press. Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Pewewardy, Cornel. 2001. “‘I’ Is for Indigenous.” Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. 2014. An Indigenous Peoples’ MultiCultural Review 10(2):30–33. History of the United States. Boston: Beacon. Pewewardy, Cornel. 2002. “Learning Styles of American Fenelon, James V. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples and the Indian/Alaska Native Students.” Journal of American Modern State.” Contemporary Sociology 35(3):249– Indian Education 41(3):22–56. 50. Pewewardy, Cornel, and Bruce Frey. 2004. “American Garroutte, Eva Marie. 2003. Real Indians. Berkeley, CA: Indian Students’ Perceptions of Racial Climate, University of California Press. Multicultural Support Services, and Ethnic Fraud Grande, Sandy. 2008. “Red Pedagogy.” Pp. 233–54 in at a Predominantly White University.” Journal of Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, American Indian Education 43(1):32–60. edited by N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, and L. Tuhiwai Poupart, Lisa M. 2003. “The Familiar Face of Genocide.” Smith. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hypatia 18(2):86–100. Grande, Sandy. 2015. Red Pedagogy. Lanham, MD: Pyke, Karen D. 2010. “What Is Internalized Racial Rowman & Littlefield. Oppression and Why Don’t We Study It?” Hamill, James F. 2003. “Show Me Your CDIB Card.” Sociological Perspectives 53(4):551–72. American Behavioral Scientist 47(3):267–82. Quinn, William W. 1990. “Federal Acknowledgement of Harris, Michelle. 2013. “Emergent Indigenous Identities.” American Indian Tribes.” American Journal of Legal Pp. 10–25 in The Politics of Identity, edited by M. History 34(4):331–64. Harris, M. Nakata, and B. Carlson. Sidney, Australia: Robertson, Dwanna. 2013. “A Necessary Evil.” American UTS. Indian Culture and Research Journal 37(4):115–39. Holm, Tom, J. Diane Pearson, and Ben Chavis. 2003. Robertson, Dwanna. 2015. “Invisibility in the Color-blind “Peoplehood.” Wicazo Sa Review 18(1):7–24. Era.” American Indian Quarterly 39(2):113–53. Jacob, Michelle. 2013. Yakama Rising. Tucson, AZ: Roediger, David. 2005. Working toward Whiteness. New University of Arizona Press. York: Basic Books. Kovach, Margaret. 2009. Indigenous Methodologies. Rubin, Herbert J., and Irene Rubin. 2005. Qualitative Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krouse, Susan Applegate. 1999. “Kinship and Identity.” Russell, Steve. 1999. “A Black and White Issue.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal Georgetown Public Policy Review 4(2):129–47. 23(2):73–89. Russell, Steve. 2003. “In Search of the Meritocracy.” Lawrence, Bonita. 2003. “Gender, Race, and the American Indian Quarterly 27(1/2):400–11. Regulation of Native Identity in Canada and the Schmidt, Ryan W. 2011. “American Indian Identity and United States.” Hypatia 18:3–33. Blood Quantum in the 21st Century.” Journal of Liebler, Carolyn A. 2010. “Homelands and Indigenous 2011:1–9. Identities in a Multiracial Era.” Social Science Simpson, Audra. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus. Durham, Research 39(4):596–609. NC: Duke University Press. McKay 25

Sissons, Jeffrey. 2005. First Peoples. London: Reaktion. U.S. Census Bureau. 1894. Report on Indians Taxed and Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodolo- Not Taxed. Washington, DC: Government Printing gies. London: Zed. Office. Snipp, C. Matthew. 2004. “In Search of Indians.” Weaver, Hilary N. 2001. “Indigenous Identity.” American Contexts 2004(Fall):71–73. Indian Quarterly 25(2):240–55. Spruhan, Paul. 2006. “A Legal History of Blood Quantum Wilkins, David. 2009. “A Tour of Indian Peoples and in Federal Indian Law to 1935.” South Dakota Law Indian Lands.” Pp. 71–86 in Rethinking the Color Review 51(1):1–50. Line, 4th ed., edited by C. A. Gallagher. New York: Sturm, Circe. 2002. Blood Politics. Berkeley, CA: McGraw-Hill. University of California Press. TallBear, Kim. 2003. “DNA, Blood, and Racializing the Tribe.” Wicazo Sa Review 18(1):81–107. Author Biography Taylor, Charles. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition.” Pp. Dwanna L. McKay, PhD (formerly Robertson) is a citi- 25–73 in Multiculturalism, edited by A. Gutmann. zen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and an assistant pro- Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. fessor of sociology and indigenous studies at Colorado Thornton, Russell. 1997. “Tribal Membership Require- College. McKay’s research focuses on the reproduction ments and the Demography of ‘Old’ and ‘New’ of social inequality within the structure of policy, particu- Native Americans.” Population Research and Policy larly for American Indians. Her work appears in American Review 16(1/2):33–42. Indian Quarterly, American Indian Culture and Research Tsosie, Rebecca. 2005. “The New Challenge to Native Journal, Research in the Sociology of Work, European Identity.” Washington University Journal of Law & Sociological Review, and the Oxford Encyclopedia of Policy 18(1):55–98. American Business, Labor, and Economic History.