How To Get Registered As Native American

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

Russell Thornton

Introduction

Afterward some 400 years of population pass up beginning presently after the arrival of Columbus in the Western Hemisphere, the Native American population due north of Mexico began to increase around the turn of the twentieth century. The U.S. census decennial enumerations indicate a Native American population growth for the United States that has been nearly continuous since 1900 (except for an influenza epidemic in 1918 that caused serious losses), to ane.42 million by 1980 and to over 1.9 1000000 by 1990.^ane 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 additional increase to today and possibly 30,000 Native Americans in Greenland. The total then becomes effectually 2.75 million in North America north of Mexico—obviously a significant increase from the possibly fewer than 400,000 around the plow of the century, some 250,000 of which were in the U.s.. All the same, this two.75 meg remains far less than the estimated over 7 million circa 1492 (see Thornton, 1987a). It is as well but a fraction of the total current populations of the United States (250 one thousand thousand in 1990) and Canada (over 25 million in 1990) (run into Thornton, 1994a, 1994b).

The population recovery among Native Americans has resulted in office from lower bloodshed rates and increases in life expectancy every bit the furnishings of "Former Globe" diseases and other reasons for population pass up associated with colonialism accept diminished (see Thornton, 1987a; Snipp, 1989). For example, life expectancy at nativity increased from 51.half-dozen years in 1940 to 71.1 years in 1980, compared with an increment from 64.2 to 74.4 years among whites during the same flow (Snipp, 1989). The population recovery has likewise resulted from adaptation through intermarriage with non-native peoples and irresolute fertility patterns during the twentieth century, whereby American Indian birth rates have remained higher than those of the average Northward American population. In 1980, for example, married American Indian women aged 35 to 44 had a hateful number of children e'er built-in of 3.61, in comparison with 2.77 for the total U.S. 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; yet, intermarried American Indian women still had college fertility than that of the total U.S. population (Thornton et al., 1991).

"Old" And "New" Native Americans

The twentieth-century increase in the Native American population reflected in successive U.S. censuses can also exist attributed to changes in the identification of individuals as "Native American." Since 1960, the U.Due south. census has relied on self-identification to ascertain an individual'south 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 meg in 1980 to over 1.8 million in 1990 resulted from individuals non identifying themselves as American Indian in an before census, merely doing so in a subsequently one.² 1 might estimate, for example, that these changes in identification account for about 25 percent of the population "growth" of American Indians from 1960 to 1970, about 60 pct of the "growth" from 1970 to 1980, and nigh 35 per centum of the ''growth" from 1980 to 1990 (run across Passel, 1976; Passel and Berman, 1986; Thornton, 1987a; Harris, 1994; Eschbach, 1995).ⁱⁱⁱ Why did this occur? The political mobilization of Native Americans in the 1960s and 1970s, forth with other indigenous pride movements, may have removed some of the stigma attached to a Native American racial identity. This would be especially true for persons of mixed ancestry, who formerly may have declined to disclose their Native American background for this reason. Conversely, however, individuals with only minimal Native American background may accept identified themselves as Native American out of a desire to affirm a marginal ethnic identity and their "romanticized" notion of being Native American (see, for instance, Eschbach, 1995).

Tribal Membership Requirements

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

Native Americans are unique amidst 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 by the federal government and receive services from the U.Due south. Bureau of Indian Diplomacy (U.S. Agency of Indian Affairs, 1993). (At that place are some tribes recognized past states but not by the federal government.) In addition, there are some 125-150 tribes seeking federal recognition and dozens of others that may practise so in the time to come (U.South. Bureau of Indian Affairs, personal communication).⁴

Gimmicky American Indians typically must be enrolled members of one of the 317 federally recognized tribes to receive benefits from either the tribe or the federal regime. To be considered enrolled members, they must in plow run across various criteria for tribal membership, which vary from tribe to tribe and are typically set forth in tribal constitutions approved by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. One time recognized as members, individuals are typically issued tribal enrollment (or registration) numbers and cards that place their special condition as 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 nineteenth century. Every bit the U.S. government dispossessed native peoples, treaties established specific rights, privileges, appurtenances, and money to which those party to a treaty—both tribes as entities and individual tribal members—were entitled. The practices of creating formal censuses and keeping lists of names of tribal members evolved to ensure an authentic and equitable distribution of benefits. Over time, Native Americans themselves established more formal tribal governments, including constitutions, and began to regulate their membership more carefully, peculiarly with regard to land allotments, royalties from the sale of resources, distributions of tribal funds, and voting. In the twentieth century, the U.S. government established additional criteria for determining eligibility for such benefits every bit educational help and healthcare. The federal government also passed the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, under which most current tribes are organized. These tribes typically accept written constitutions that incorporate a membership provision (Cohen, 1942).⁵ Generally, these constitutions were either first established or, if already in identify, modified after the act of 1934.

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

Individuals enrolled in federally recognized tribes also receive a Document of Degree of Indian Blood (referred to as a CDIB) from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, specifying a certain degree of Indian blood, i.e., a blood quantum. The Bureau of Indian Affairs uses a blood breakthrough definition—generally ane-4th Native American blood—and/or tribal membership to recognize an individual as Native American. However, each tribe has its own set up of requirements—generally including a blood breakthrough—for membership (enrollment) of individuals. Typically, blood quantum is established by tracing ancestry back through fourth dimension to a relative or relatives on earlier tribal rolls or censuses that recorded the relative'south proportion of Native American blood. In such historical instances, the proportion was more ofttimes than non but self-indicated.

Enrollment criteria have sometimes changed over fourth dimension; often, the modify has been to establish minimum claret 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 change has been to institute more stringent requirements: the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have tightened their membership requirements since 1935 and in 1960 established that merely those built-in with a one-quarter or more blood breakthrough 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 general trend of the tribal enactments on membership is away from the older notion that rights of tribal membership run with Indian blood, 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 quantum requirements for membership in contemporary tribes vary widely from tribe to tribe (U.South. Bureau of Indian Affairs, unpublished data). Some tribes, such as the Walker River Paiute, require at least a one-half Indian (or tribal) blood breakthrough; many, such equally the Navajo, require a one-fourth claret quantum; some, generally in California and Oklahoma, require a 1-eighth, i-sixteenth, or one-30-second claret quantum; and many have no minimum blood quantum requirement, only require only a documented tribal lineage (run into Thornton, 1987a, 1987b; Meyer and Thornton, 1991). A summary of this information is given in Tabular array 5-1.

TABLE v-one

Blood Breakthrough Requirements of American Indian Tribes past Reservation Basis and Size.

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

Every bit additionally indicated in Table 5-1, tribes with more than restrictive blood quantum requirements tend to be somewhat smaller than those with less restrictive requirements, although the differences are non particularly hitting. Obviously, requiring a greater percentage of American Indian claret limits the potential size of the tribal population more than than requiring a smaller percentage.

In the early 1980s, the total membership of federally recognized tribes was about 900,000 (U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, unpublished data). Therefore, many of the ane.37 one thousand thousand individuals identifying themselves as American Indian in the 1980 demography were not really enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. In fact, simply about two-thirds were. In the late 1980s, the total membership of these tribes was somewhat over i 1000000 (U.S. Bureau of Indian Diplomacy, unpublished data); hence, only about 60 percent of the ane.8+ million people identifying themselves as American Indian in the 1990 demography were actually enrolled in a federally recognized American Indian tribe (Thornton, 1987b, 1994a).

Such discrepancies vary considerably from tribe to tribe. About of the 158,633 Navajos enumerated in the 1980 census and the 219,198 Navajos enumerated in the 1990 census were enrolled in the Navajo Nation; all the same, only about i-third of the 232,344 Cherokees enumerated in the 1980 census and the 308,132 Cherokees enumerated in the 1990 demography were actually enrolled in one of the three Cherokee tribes (the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians [of N 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 individuals self-identifying every bit Native American identified themselves as "Cherokee" in the 1980 and 1990 censuses than as members of whatever other tribe.

Implications Of Urbanization And Intermarriage

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

The 1990 demography indicated that 56.2 per centum of Native Americans lived in urban areas (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992; Thornton, 1994b). Cities with the largest Native American populations were New York City, Oklahoma Metropolis, 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, withal only some thirteen.four percent of Native Americans in the United states of america lived in urban areas. During subsequent decades, still, more than rapid increases in urbanization occurred; the 1980 census indicated that for the showtime fourth dimension in history over half of all Native Americans lived in urban areas.

The above-described tendency toward requiring low percentages of Indian blood for tribal membership and dealing with the federal regime to certify it may be seen in part as a consequence of "a demographic legacy of 1492." As the numbers of Native Americans have declined and Native Americans have come into increased contact with whites, blacks, and others, Native American peoples have increasingly married not-Indians. Equally a issue, they have had to rely increasingly on formal certification as proof of their Indian identity. This design has accelerated every bit urbanization has increased the numbers of non-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 take changed their census self-identification, as discussed above, are more likely to be intermarried (Eschbach, 1995; see too Nagel, 1995).

Urbanization has as well seemingly brought about some decreased emphasis on Native American tribal identity. For example, overall, about 20 per centum of American Indians enumerated in the 1970 census reported no tribe, but only most 10 percent of those on reservations reported no tribe versus most 30 percent of those in urban areas (Thornton, 1987a). (Comparable data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses are not available; the 1980 census indicated that near 25 percent reported no tribal amalgamation [Thornton, 1987a], while the figure in the 1990 census was about 15 percent [computed from information available in U.Southward. Bureau of the Demography, 1994].) As indicated in the 1990 census, but about one-quaternary of all American Indians speak an Indian language at home; nonetheless, demography enumerations likewise betoken that urban residents are far less probable than reservation residents to speak an Indian language or even participate in tribal cultural activities (see Thornton, 1987a; U.S. Bureau of the Demography, 1992).

If these trends go on, 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 fastened to their tribes will alter to a population dominated by "new" Native American individuals who may or may not have tribal attachments or even tribal identities. Indeed, it may brand sense at some future time to speak of Native Americans mainly as people of Native American beginnings or ethnicity.

Taking into business relationship the high rates of intermarriage, information technology has been projected that within the next century, the proportion of those with a half or more claret breakthrough will refuse to only eight percent of the American Indian population, whereas the proportion with less than a one-fourth claret quantum will increment to around sixty percentage (see U.South. Congress, 1986). Moreover, these individuals will be increasingly unlikely to be enrolled every bit tribal members. Even 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 exist in danger. Moreover, if individuals who identify themselves as Native American cannot see established claret quantum enrollment criteria, they will accept no rights to the associated benefits. Stricter requirements volition operate to restrict the eligible Native American population, every bit well as, ultimately, the number of federally recognized Native American entities. As long as reservations be, there will undoubtedly be a quite distinct—genetically and culturally—segment of the Native American population that is very different from the full U.Southward. population. Even so, for the U.S. authorities, decreasing blood quanta of the full Native American population may be perceived as meaning that the numbers of Native Americans to whom it is obligated have declined.

Conclusions

Native American peoples in the United States (and Canada) have experienced a population recovery during the twentieth century. Withal, new demographic and tribal threats may be faced during the twenty-showtime century. Intermarriage with non-Native Americans may continue to undermine the footing of the Native American population every bit a distinctive racial and cultural grouping. In the adjacent 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 loftier blood quantum requirements may notice themselves with a shrinking population base unless they manage to control marriages betwixt tribal members and not-Native Americans (or even Native American non-tribal members)—or, of grade, unless they lower their claret breakthrough requirements. Continued urbanization is likely not only to result in increased intermarriage as more than and more Native Americans come in contact with non-Native peoples, but also to diminish farther the identity of Native Americans every bit distinctive tribal peoples tied to specific geographical areas.

References

Cohen, F. 1942. Handbook of Federal Indian Law . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Function.
Eschbach, K. 1995. The indelible and vanishing American Indian: American Indian population growth and intermarriage in 1990. Ethnic and Racial Studies 18:89-108.
Harris, D. 1994. The 1990 Census count of American Indians: What practice the numbers really mean. Social Science Quarterly 75:580-593.
Meyer, Thou.L., and R. Thornton 1991. The claret quantum quandary. Unpublished newspaper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (Pacific Coast Branch), Kona, HI.
Nagel, J. 1995. Politics and the resurgence of American Indian ethnic identity. American Sociological Review 60:947-965.
Osborn, K. 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.S., and P.A. Berman 1986. Quality of 1980 census data for American Indians. Social Biological science 33:163-182. [PubMed: 3563542]
Porter, F.West. Three, editor. , ed. 1983. Nonrecognized American Indian Tribes: An Historical and Legal Perspective . Occasional Paper Series No. seven. Chicago, IL: D'Arcy McNickle Center for the History of the American Indian, The Newberry Library.
Sandefur, Thousand.D., and T. McKinnell. 1986. American Indian intermarriage. Social Science Enquiry 15:347-371.
Snipp, C.M. 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 Ring of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. Towards a Quantative Approach to American Indian History , Occasional Papers Serial No. 8. Chicago, IL: D'Arcy McNickle Heart for the History of the American Indian, The Newberry Library.
1990. The Cherokees: A Population History . Lincoln, NE: University 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.One thousand. Snipp. 1991. American Indian fertility history. American Indian Quarterly 15:359-367.
Trosper, R.Fifty. 1976. Native American boundary maintenance: The Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana, 1860-1970. Ethnohistory 3:256-274.
U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992. Census of the Population: General Population Characteristics, American Indian and Alaskan Native Areas, 1990 . Washington, D.C.: U.Due south. Authorities Printing Office.
1994. 1990 Census of Population: Characteristics of American Indians past Tribe and Language . Washington, D.C.: U.Southward. Government Printing Role.
U.Due south. Bureau of Indian Affairs 1993. Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Agency of Indian Affairs. Federal Annals 58:54364-54369.
U.Due south. Congress (Role of Technology Cess) 1986. Indian Health Care . OTA-H-290. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Role.

i: Irresolute definitions and procedures for enumerating Native Americans used by the U.South. Bureau of the Census too had an consequence on the enumerated population size from census to demography during this century.
2: The 1980 U.Due south. census obtained data that some 7 1000000 Americans had some degree of Native American beginnings. Native American beginnings ranked tenth amongst the total United states of america population in 1980. In descending order, the 10 leading ancestries were English, German, Irish, Afro-American, French, Italian, Scottish, Polish, Mexican, and Native American.
3: Put in other words, the "error of closure"—the difference between natural increment and the enumerated population from one time catamenia to another (assuming no migration)—was 8.5 per centum in the 1970 census count, 25.2 per centum in the 1980 census count, and 9.two pct in the 1990 census count (see Passel, 1976; Passel and Berman, 1986; Harris, 1994).
4: Criteria used to establish whether a Native American grouping 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 it calls "a traditional course 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 express only by the various statutes of Congress defining the membership of sure tribes for purposes of allocation or for other purposes, and by the statutory authority given to the Secretarial assistant of the Interior to promulgate a concluding tribal coil 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 Bureau of Indian Affairs recognizes 222 Native American villages, communities, and other entities (U.Southward. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1993). Alaskan Eskimo (Inuit) and Aleuts nowadays a somewhat dissimilar picture 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 regime reservations. For example, in that location were approximately 100 Eskimo (Inuit) villages, each having 600 or fewer people. About one-3rd of the slightly more 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 hamlet may be members.