|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 50, No. 4,
462-477 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764206294056
Who Are Indigenes? A Comparative Study of Canadian and American Practices
Bruce Granville Miller
University of British Columbia
There are currently hundreds of groups in the United States and Canada that clamor for state-to-state recognition by the federal governments as bona fide Indigenous peoples. This comparative study of American and Canadian policy and practice toward these nonrecognized communities is set in a historical perspective, focusing on legislation, administrative policy, and legal judgments that affect conceptualizations of Indigenes. This article argues that differences in these policies arise from divergences in national understandings regarding who Indigenous peoples are and how they can be administered and costs suppressed. The author contrasts the ways in which a formal and elaborate U.S. bureaucracy assesses candidate communities for recognition by applying flawed legal tests with a Canadian practice that largely overlooks the issue of nonrecognized communities.
Key Words: Aboriginal peoples • federal recognition • public policy
References
- American Indian Policy Review Commission. (1976). Report on terminated and nonfederally recognized Indians (Task Force Ten: Final Report to the American Indian Policy Review Commission). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
- American Indian Policy Review Commission. (1977). Final report (Vols. I & II). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
- Beinart, P. (1999). Lost tribes. Lingua Franca, 9(4), 32-41.
- Bill C-31 (Act to Amend the Indian Act), R.S.C. c.32 (1st Supp.), 1985.
- Branch of Acknowledgement and Research. (1988, May). Overview of the federal acknowledgement process [Pamphlet]. Washington, DC: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
- Bureau of Indian Affairs. (1978). Guidelines for preparing a petition for federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe. Washington, DC: Author.
- Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, Schedule B (U.K.).
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S.C. 1 (1831).
- Cohen, F. (1942). Handbook of federal Indian law. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
- Federal Acknowledgement Process: Hearings before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate Oversight Hearing on Federal Acknowledgement Process, 100th Cong., 2nd Session (1988) (testimony of Wayne Suttles).
- Federal Register, 59, No. 38, 9291 (1994).
- Field, L. (1999). Anthropologists and the "unacknowledged tribes" of California. Current Anthropology, 40(2), 193-201.[CrossRef]
- Frideres, J. (1989). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Contemporary conflicts. Scarborough, ON, Canada: Prentice Hall.
- General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 338.
- Greenbaum, S. (1985). In search of lost tribes: Anthropology and the federal acknowledgement process. Human Organization, 44(4), 361-367.
- Greenbaum, S. (n.d.). In search of lost tribes: Anthropology and the federal acknowledgement process. Unpublished manuscript.
- Harmon, A. (1998). Indians in the making: Ethnic relations and Indian identities around Puget Sound. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Indian Act of 1868, 31 Vic. cap. 2.
- Indian Act of 1876, 39 Vic. cap. 18.
- Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (n.d.). Newly constituted bands. In New bands/Band amalgamation (NBBA), lands manual. Available from http://www.anc-inac.gc.caMashpee
- Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 592 F.2d 575 (1979).
- McCulloch, A. M., & Wilkins, D. (1995). Constructing nations within states: The quest for federal recognition by the Catawba and Lumbee Tribes. American Indian Quarterly, 19(3), 361-390.
- Miller, B. (1991). The forgotten Indians and federal recognition. Friends Journal, 37(9), 22-24.
- Miller, B. (2003). Invisible Indigenes: The politics of nonrecognition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
- Miller, B., & Boxberger, D. (1994). Creating chiefdoms: The Puget Sound case. Ethnohistory, 41(2), 267-293.[CrossRef]
- Morris, C. (1988). Termination by accountants: The Reagan Indian policy. Policy Studies Journal, 16(4), 731-750.[CrossRef]
- Quinn, W., Jr. (1992). Federal acknowledgement of American Indian tribes: Authority, judicial interposition, and 25 C.F.R. 83. American Indian Law Review, 17(1), 37-69.
- Roth, G. (1988). Comment in reply: Dialogue on federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Practicing Anthropologist, 10(2), 21-22.
- Ruby, R., & Brown, J. (2001). Esther Ross: Stillaguamish champion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
- Sider, G. (1993). Lumbee Indian histories: Race, ethnicity, and Indian identity in the southern United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Slagle, A. (1989). Unfinished justice: Completing the restoration and acknowledgement of California Indian tribes. American Indian Quarterly, 13(4), 325-346.
- Slagle, A. (1994). Branch of Acknowledgement and Research. In M. B. Davis (Ed.), Native America in the twentieth century: An encyclopedia (pp. 195-196). New York: Garland.
- Steckley, J., & Cummings, B. (2001). Full circle: Canada’s First Nations. Toronto, ON, Canada: Prentice Hall.
- Surtees, R. (1988). Canadian Indian policies. In W. E. Washburn (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4: History of Indian-White relations (pp. 81-95). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute.
- United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913).
- United States v. Washington, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975).
- Wheeler-Howard Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 984-986.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
