What Percentage of Native American Do You Have to Be to Receive Benefits

5 Tribal Membership Requirements and the Demography of "Old" and "New" Native Americans

Russell Thornton

Introduction

Afterwards some 400 years of population reject beginning presently after the arrival of Columbus in the Western Hemisphere, the Native American population northward of United mexican states began to increase around the plough of the twentieth century. The U.S. census decennial enumerations indicate a Native American population growth for the United States that has been virtually continuous since 1900 (except for an flu epidemic in 1918 that caused serious losses), to 1.42 1000000 by 1980 and to over 1.9 million by 1990.¹ To this may be added some 740,000 Native Americans in Canada in 1986 (575,000 American Indians, 35,000 Eskimo [Inuit], and 130,000 Metis), plus some boosted increment to today and maybe xxx,000 Native Americans in Greenland. The total and then becomes around 2.75 million in Due north America n of Mexico—obviously a significant increment from the perhaps fewer than 400,000 effectually the turn of the century, some 250,000 of which were in the United States. Notwithstanding, this 2.75 1000000 remains far less than the estimated over 7 million circa 1492 (meet Thornton, 1987a). It is also just a fraction of the total current populations of the United states of america (250 meg in 1990) and Canada (over 25 meg in 1990) (see Thornton, 1994a, 1994b).

The population recovery amidst Native Americans has resulted in role from lower mortality rates and increases in life expectancy as the effects of "Old Earth" diseases and other reasons for population pass up associated with colonialism have diminished (come across Thornton, 1987a; Snipp, 1989). For example, life expectancy at birth increased from 51.6 years in 1940 to 71.ane years in 1980, compared with an increase from 64.ii to 74.4 years among whites during the aforementioned period (Snipp, 1989). The population recovery has besides resulted from adaptation through intermarriage with non-native peoples and changing fertility patterns during the twentieth century, whereby American Indian birth rates have remained college than those of the average North American population. In 1980, for example, married American Indian women aged 35 to 44 had a mean number of children ever built-in of three.61, in comparing with two.77 for the total U.Due south. population and only 2.67 for whites. Intermarried American Indian women generally had lower fertility rates in 1980 than American Indian women married to American Indian men; however, intermarried American Indian women still had higher fertility than that of the total U.Southward. population (Thornton et al., 1991).

"One-time" And "New" Native Americans

The twentieth-century increment in the Native American population reflected in successive U.S. censuses tin also exist attributed to changes in the identification of individuals equally "Native American." Since 1960, the U.S. census has relied on self-identification to ascertain an individual'southward race. Much of the increase in the American Indian population—excluding Eskimo (Inuit) and Aleuts—from 523,591 in 1960 to 792,730 in 1970 to 1.37 million in 1980 to over i.viii million in 1990 resulted from individuals not identifying themselves as American Indian in an before census, just doing and then in a after one.² One might judge, for example, that these changes in identification business relationship for near 25 percent of the population "growth" of American Indians from 1960 to 1970, near sixty per centum of the "growth" from 1970 to 1980, and about 35 percent of the ''growth" from 1980 to 1990 (meet Passel, 1976; Passel and Berman, 1986; Thornton, 1987a; Harris, 1994; Eschbach, 1995).³ Why did this occur? The political mobilization of Native Americans in the 1960s and 1970s, along with other indigenous pride movements, may have removed some of the stigma attached to a Native American racial identity. This would exist especially true for persons of mixed beginnings, who formerly may have declined to disclose their Native American groundwork for this reason. Conversely, withal, individuals with only minimal Native American background may have identified themselves as Native American out of a desire to assert a marginal indigenous identity and their "romanticized" notion of existence Native American (see, for example, Eschbach, 1995).

Tribal Membership Requirements

Many different criteria may be used to delimit a population. Language, residence, cultural affiliation, recognition by a community, degree of "claret," genealogical lines of descent, and self-identification have all been used at some point in the past to define both the total Native American population and specific tribal populations. Of course, each measure produces a different population, and the decision about which variables to use in defining a given population is an arbitrary one. The implications of the determination for Native Americans can be enormous, notwithstanding.

Native Americans are unique among ethnic and racial groups in their formal tribal affiliations and in their relationships with the U.Southward. regime. Today, 317 American Indian tribes in the United States are legally recognized past the federal authorities and receive services from the U.Due south. Agency of Indian Affairs (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1993). (There are some tribes recognized by states only non by the federal government.) In addition, there are some 125-150 tribes seeking federal recognition and dozens of others that may do then in the future (U.South. Bureau of Indian Diplomacy, personal communication).⁴

Contemporary American Indians typically must be enrolled members of 1 of the 317 federally recognized tribes to receive benefits from either the tribe or the federal government. To exist considered enrolled members, they must in turn meet various criteria for tribal membership, which vary from tribe to tribe and are typically set forth in tribal constitutions canonical by the U.Southward. Agency of Indian Affairs. Once recognized every bit members, individuals are typically issued tribal enrollment (or registration) numbers and cards that identify their special status equally members of a particular American Indian tribe.

The procedure of enrollment in a Native American tribe has historical roots that extend back to the early on nineteenth century. As the U.Due south. government dispossessed native peoples, treaties established specific rights, privileges, goods, and money to which those party to a treaty—both tribes every bit entities and private tribal members—were entitled. The practices of creating formal censuses and keeping lists of names of tribal members evolved to ensure an accurate and equitable distribution of benefits. Over time, Native Americans themselves established more formal tribal governments, including constitutions, and began to regulate their membership more advisedly, specially with regard to country allotments, royalties from the sale of resources, distributions of tribal funds, and voting. In the twentieth century, the U.Southward. government established additional criteria for determining eligibility for such benefits as educational aid and healthcare. The federal regime also passed the Indian Reorganization Deed of 1934, under which almost current tribes are organized. These tribes typically have written constitutions that contain a membership provision (Cohen, 1942).⁵ Generally, these constitutions were either first established or, if already in place, modified subsequently the act of 1934.

A variety of court cases have tested tribal membership requirements. From the disputes, American Indian tribal governments take won the right to determine their own membership: "The courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of limited legislation by Congress to the contrary, an Indian tribe has consummate authority to determine all questions of its own membership" (Cohen, 1942:133).⁶

Individuals enrolled in federally recognized tribes too receive a Document of Degree of Indian Blood (referred to equally a CDIB) from the Agency of Indian Affairs, specifying a certain caste of Indian blood, i.due east., a blood quantum. The Bureau of Indian Affairs uses a blood quantum definition—generally one-fourth Native American blood—and/or tribal membership to recognize an individual as Native American. Yet, each tribe has its own ready of requirements—generally including a blood quantum—for membership (enrollment) of individuals. Typically, blood quantum is established by tracing beginnings back through time to a relative or relatives on before tribal rolls or censuses that recorded the relative'due south proportion of Native American blood. In such historical instances, the proportion was mostly merely self-indicated.

Enrollment criteria have sometimes changed over time; often, the modify has been to establish minimum blood quantum requirements. For instance, in 1931, the Eastern Ring of Cherokee Indians established a one-sixteenth blood breakthrough requirement for those born thereafter (Cohen, 1942). Sometimes the modify has been to establish more stringent requirements: the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes accept tightened their membership requirements since 1935 and in 1960 established that only those born with a i-quarter or more than blood quantum could be tribal members (Trosper, 1976). Conversely, tribes may reduce their blood quantum requirements, sometimes fifty-fifty eliminating a specified minimum requirement. Cohen (1942:136) states: "The full general trend of the tribal enactments on membership is away from the older notion that rights of tribal membership run with Indian claret, no matter how dilute the stream. Instead it is recognized that membership in a tribe is a political relation rather than a racial attribute."

Blood breakthrough requirements for membership in gimmicky tribes vary widely from tribe to tribe (U.Due south. Agency of Indian Diplomacy, unpublished data). Some tribes, such as the Walker River Paiute, require at least a i-one-half Indian (or tribal) blood quantum; many, such as the Navajo, require a one-fourth claret breakthrough; some, generally in California and Oklahoma, require a ane-eighth, one-sixteenth, or i-xxx-second blood quantum; and many have no minimum claret quantum requirement, but crave merely a documented tribal lineage (see Thornton, 1987a, 1987b; Meyer and Thornton, 1991). A summary of this information is given in Table 5-1.

Table five-1

Blood Quantum Requirements of American Indian Tribes by Reservation Footing and Size.

Around one-4th of American Indians in the The states live on 278 reservations (or pueblos or rancherias) or associated "tribal trust lands," according to the Census Bureau. The largest of these is the Navajo Reservation, abode to 143,405 Native Americans and five,046 non-Indians in 1990 (Thornton, 1994a).⁷ American Indian tribes located on reservations tend to have higher claret breakthrough requirements for membership than those located off reservation. As indicated in Table 5-1, over 85 percent of tribes requiring more than a 1-quarter blood quantum for membership are reservation based, as compared with less than 64 pct of those having no minimum requirement. Tribes on reservations have seemingly been able to maintain exclusive membership by setting higher blood quanta, since the reservation location has generally served to isolate the tribe from non-Indians and intermarriage with them. Tribes without a reservation footing have maintained an inclusive membership by setting lower blood quanta for membership, since their populations have interacted and intermarried more with non-Indian populations.

As additionally indicated in Table v-1, tribes with more restrictive blood quantum requirements tend to be somewhat smaller than those with less restrictive requirements, although the differences are non especially striking. Obviously, requiring a greater percentage of American Indian blood limits the potential size of the tribal population more than requiring a smaller percent.

In the early 1980s, the full membership of federally recognized tribes was near 900,000 (U.Due south. Agency of Indian Diplomacy, unpublished data). Therefore, many of the 1.37 1000000 individuals identifying themselves as American Indian in the 1980 demography were not actually enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. In fact, simply almost two-thirds were. In the late 1980s, the total membership of these tribes was somewhat over i million (U.S. Agency of Indian Affairs, unpublished data); hence, merely nearly sixty pct of the i.8+ million people identifying themselves as American Indian in the 1990 census were actually enrolled in a federally recognized American Indian tribe (Thornton, 1987b, 1994a).

Such discrepancies vary considerably from tribe to tribe. Most of the 158,633 Navajos enumerated in the 1980 census and the 219,198 Navajos enumerated in the 1990 demography were enrolled in the Navajo Nation; however, just nearly one-tertiary of the 232,344 Cherokees enumerated in the 1980 census and the 308,132 Cherokees enumerated in the 1990 census were actually enrolled in ane of the 3 Cherokee tribes (the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians [of North Carolina], or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma) (see Thornton, 1990, 1994a). Thus the Navajo Nation is the American Indian tribe with the largest number of enrolled members, but more than individuals self-identifying as Native American identified themselves equally "Cherokee" in the 1980 and 1990 censuses than as members of any other tribe.

Implications Of Urbanization And Intermarriage

Urbanization and associated increases in intermarriage accept resulted in new threats to Native Americans in the last half of the twentieth century.

The 1990 census indicated that 56.2 percent of Native Americans lived in urban areas (U.S. Agency of the Census, 1992; Thornton, 1994b). Cities with the largest Native American populations were New York City, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tulsa, Los Angeles, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Anchorage, and Albuquerque.

In 1900, just 0.4 percent of Native Americans in the United States lived in urban areas. This percentage increased gradually during the early decades of the century. At mid-century, still but some 13.4 percentage of Native Americans in the United States lived in urban areas. During subsequent decades, however, more than rapid increases in urbanization occurred; the 1980 demography indicated that for the get-go time in history over one-half of all Native Americans lived in urban areas.

The above-described trend toward requiring depression percentages of Indian blood for tribal membership and dealing with the federal regime to certify it may be seen in part as a issue of "a demographic legacy of 1492." Every bit the numbers of Native Americans take declined and Native Americans accept come into increased contact with whites, blacks, and others, Native American peoples take increasingly married non-Indians. As a consequence, they accept had to rely increasingly on formal certification as proof of their Indian identity. This pattern has accelerated equally urbanization has increased the numbers of not-Native Americans encountered by American Indians and other Native Americans and thus increased intermarriage rates. Today, almost 60 percent of all American Indians are married to non-Indians (Sandefur and McKinnell, 1986; Thornton, 1987a; Snipp, 1989; Eschbach, 1995). Moreover, it has been argued that the "new Native Americans" who have changed their census cocky-identification, as discussed to a higher place, are more probable to be intermarried (Eschbach, 1995; meet besides Nagel, 1995).

Urbanization has also seemingly brought nearly some decreased emphasis on Native American tribal identity. For example, overall, virtually twenty percentage of American Indians enumerated in the 1970 census reported no tribe, only merely about ten percent of those on reservations reported no tribe versus about 30 percentage of those in urban areas (Thornton, 1987a). (Comparable data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses are not available; the 1980 census indicated that about 25 percent reported no tribal amalgamation [Thornton, 1987a], while the figure in the 1990 census was virtually fifteen percentage [computed from data available in U.Due south. Agency of the Census, 1994].) Equally indicated in the 1990 census, merely well-nigh 1-fourth of all American Indians speak an Indian language at dwelling; withal, census enumerations also indicate that urban residents are far less likely than reservation residents to speak an Indian language or even participate in tribal cultural activities (encounter Thornton, 1987a; U.S. Agency of the Census, 1992).

If these trends proceed, both the genetic and tribal distinctiveness of the total Native American population volition be greatly lessened. A Native American population comprising primarily "old" Native Americans strongly attached to their tribes will modify to a population dominated by "new" Native American individuals who may or may not have tribal attachments or even tribal identities. Indeed, information technology may make sense at some hereafter time to speak of Native Americans mainly equally people of Native American ancestry or ethnicity.

Taking into account the high rates of intermarriage, it has been projected that inside the adjacent century, the proportion of those with a half or more claret quantum will refuse to only eight percent of the American Indian population, whereas the proportion with less than a one-fourth blood quantum will increment to effectually threescore percentage (see U.Southward. Congress, 1986). Moreover, these individuals will be increasingly unlikely to be enrolled equally tribal members. Fifty-fifty if they are tribal members, a traditional cultural distinctiveness may be replaced by mere social membership if language and other important cultural features of American Indian tribes are lost. Certainly the total Native American population as a distinctive segment of American society will be in danger. Moreover, if individuals who place themselves equally Native American cannot see established claret breakthrough enrollment criteria, they volition have no rights to the associated benefits. Stricter requirements will operate to restrict the eligible Native American population, every bit well every bit, ultimately, the number of federally recognized Native American entities. As long as reservations exist, there volition undoubtedly exist a quite distinct—genetically and culturally—segment of the Native American population that is very different from the full U.Southward. population. However, for the U.Due south. government, decreasing blood quanta of the full Native American population may be perceived as significant that the numbers of Native Americans to whom information technology is obligated have declined.

Conclusions

Native American peoples in the United States (and Canada) accept experienced a population recovery during the twentieth century. Yet, new demographic and tribal threats may be faced during the twenty-first century. Intermarriage with non-Native Americans may continue to undermine the basis of the Native American population every bit a distinctive racial and cultural group. In the next century, tribal membership may well be the benchmark for determining who is distinctively Native American, irrespective of how that membership may be determined. Tribes with high blood breakthrough requirements may notice themselves with a shrinking population base unless they manage to command marriages between tribal members and not-Native Americans (or even Native American non-tribal members)—or, of course, unless they lower their blood quantum requirements. Connected urbanization is likely non only to result in increased intermarriage equally more and more Native Americans come up in contact with non-Native peoples, simply also to diminish further the identity of Native Americans as distinctive tribal peoples tied to specific geographical areas.

References

• Cohen, F. 1942. Handbook of Federal Indian Constabulary . Washington, D.C.: U.Southward. Government Printing Office.

• Eschbach, 1000. 1995. The indelible and vanishing American Indian: American Indian population growth and intermarriage in 1990. Indigenous and Racial Studies eighteen:89-108.

• Harris, D. 1994. The 1990 Census count of American Indians: What do the numbers actually hateful. Social Science Quarterly 75:580-593.

• Meyer, M.Fifty., and R. Thornton 1991. The blood quantum quandary. Unpublished paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (Pacific Declension Branch), Kona, HI.

• Nagel, J. 1995. Politics and the resurgence of American Indian indigenous identity. American Sociological Review 60:947-965.

• Osborn, Chiliad. 1990. The Peoples of the Chill . New York: Chelsea House.

• Passel, J.S. 1976. Provisional evaluation of the 1970 census count of American Indians. Demography 13:397-409. [PubMed: 955175]

• Passel, J.Due south., and P.A. Berman 1986. Quality of 1980 census data for American Indians. Social Biology 33:163-182. [PubMed: 3563542]

• Porter, F.Due west. III, editor. , ed. 1983. Nonrecognized American Indian Tribes: An Historical and Legal Perspective . Occasional Paper Serial No. 7. Chicago, IL: D'Arcy McNickle Eye for the History of the American Indian, The Newberry Library.

• Sandefur, M.D., and T. McKinnell. 1986. American Indian intermarriage. Social Science Research fifteen:347-371.

• Snipp, C.Chiliad. 1989. American Indians: The First of This Land . New York: Russell Sage.

• Thornton, R. 1987. a American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 . Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

• 1987. b Tribal history, tribal population, and tribal membership requirements: The cases of the Eastern Ring of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. Towards a Quantative Approach to American Indian History , Occasional Papers Serial No. 8. Chicago, IL: D'Arcy McNickle Middle for the History of the American Indian, The Newberry Library.

• 1990. The Cherokees: A Population History . Lincoln, NE: Academy of Nebraska Press.

• 1994. a Population. Pp. 461-464 in Mary B. Davis, editor. , ed., Native Americans in the 20th Century: An Encyclopedia . New York: Garland.

• 1994. b Urbanization. Pp. 670-672 in Mary B. Davis, editor. , ed., Native Americans in the 20th Century: An Encyclopedia . New York: Garland.

• Thornton, R., Thousand.D. Sandefur, and C.M. Snipp. 1991. American Indian fertility history. American Indian Quarterly 15:359-367.

• Trosper, R.50. 1976. Native American boundary maintenance: The Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana, 1860-1970. Ethnohistory 3:256-274.

• U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992. Demography of the Population: General Population Characteristics, American Indian and Alaskan Native Areas, 1990 . Washington, D.C.: U.South. Authorities Press Function.

• 1994. 1990 Census of Population: Characteristics of American Indians by Tribe and Language . Washington, D.C.: U.Due south. Government Printing Office.

• U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 1993. Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the Usa Agency of Indian Affairs. Federal Register 58:54364-54369.

• U.S. Congress (Office of Technology Assessment) 1986. Indian Health Care . OTA-H-290. Washington, D.C.: U.Southward. Government Printing Office.

1

Irresolute definitions and procedures for enumerating Native Americans used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census also had an effect on the enumerated population size from census to census during this century.

two

The 1980 U.S. census obtained information that some vii 1000000 Americans had some caste of Native American ancestry. Native American ancestry ranked tenth among the total Usa population in 1980. In descending guild, the ten leading ancestries were English, German, Irish gaelic, Afro-American, French, Italian, Scottish, Shine, Mexican, and Native American.

3

Put in other words, the "error of closure"—the difference between natural increase and the enumerated population from in one case catamenia to some other (assuming no migration)—was 8.5 pct in the 1970 census count, 25.2 percent in the 1980 demography count, and nine.two percent in the 1990 census count (meet Passel, 1976; Passel and Berman, 1986; Harris, 1994).

iv

Criteria used to establish whether a Native American group can become a federally recognized tribe are presented in Porter (1983).

5

The Pueblo of Taos, for example, has no written constitution; rather, it has what information technology calls "a traditional form of authorities" (Pueblo of Taos, personal communication).

six

As Cohen (1942:133) notes, the ability of an American Indian tribe to determine its own membership "is limited only by the diverse statutes of Congress defining the membership of certain tribes for purposes of allotment or for other purposes, and past the statutory authority given to the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate a final tribal gyre for the purpose of dividing and distributing tribal funds."

vii

Around 60 percent of the Native American population of Alaska lives is "Alaska Native Villages." The Agency of Indian Affairs recognizes 222 Native American villages, communities, and other entities (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1993). Alaskan Eskimo (Inuit) and Aleuts present a somewhat different flick than American Indians. Most of the 50,555 enumerated in the 1980 census were tied closely to small, local communities, representing ancestral grounds rather than government reservations. For example, at that place were approximately 100 Eskimo (Inuit) villages, each having 600 or fewer people. About one-third of the slightly more than 8,000 Aleuts in Alaska in 1980 lived in the 12 surviving villages of the Aleutian and Pribilof islands; the others lived in either rural communities or urban areas (Osborn, 1990). Typically, membership is expressed in terms of a "common bond of living together," and all living in the village may be members.

goodenthessavout.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233104/

Share this post