The Identity Of Alaskan Natives And Native Americans And

Identity in Native America is directly associated with culture and language. As a result, some of the issues today which are important in shaping the identity of modern Native Americans include: representations of native people by the media in sports and popular culture; how indigenous languages are being revitalized and maintained; and identity reclamation. The Native American lifestyle has changed significantly during the last half of the 20th century and that is because views on the Native people have drastically changed over time. They have had many hardships that have greatly impacted their culture over the past few centuries leading up to today.

In the poem, “Some like Indians Endure,” Paula Gunn Allen (Laguna Pueblo) novelist compares two different types of people to talk about oppression and injustice. The two types of people being compared is about lesbians, which Allen refers as ‘dyke’ to Indians. Her usage of ‘dyke’ is to present how it can be seen as offensive to lesbians, just like how ‘Indian’ is offensive to many Native American people. Novelist Allen represents strongly as a lesbian and a proud Native American. With the understanding that she is a lesbian, the usage of dyke lessens the fact of it being used as a derogatory term.

By 1940, Native Americans had experienced many changes and counter-changes in their legal status in the United States. Over the course of the nineteenth century, most tribes lost part or all of their ancestral lands and were forced to live on reservations. Following the American Civil War, the federal government abrogated most of the tribes’ remaining sovereignty and required communal lands to be allotted to individuals. The twentieth century also saw great changes for Native Americans, such as the Citizenship Act and the Indian New Deal. Alison R. Bernstein examines how the Second World War affected the status and lives of Native Americans in American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Bernstein argues

An Indigenous People 's’ History of the United States. A history book claimed to go above and beyond what has been stated in text before it. Every page is packed with details and references to other accredited historians, or examples of the mindset that has been historically infused. At first glance you think you already know about the history of the Native Americans. How we saw it fit to take their land, put them on ever shrinking “gifted” lands that would never allow them to strive again. How they are simply a conquered people who fought back and lost. Alas this book takes what you thought you knew and makes it more real, focusing on the unnecessary genocide. Admittedly this book was very difficult for me to read, I found myself trailing off, being confused with the connections. There were however quite a few spots that stuck out to me, especially those we have covered in our race lectures.

According to the Indian Act (1876), we determined someone’s status by one’s parentage of blood quantum to know how much Indian were they? A First Nations woman, who married with white man, lost her entitlements as Indian, so did her children. However, regardless of race or ethnicity, if another raced woman married a First Nations man, she gained “status” under the terms of the Indian Act. I feel that was completely unfair, and obviously discriminatory, that horrific situation continued until 1985.

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

Before reading Joel Spring’s text, Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality, I assumed by the late 1800s that Native Americans would be allowed to be citizens in the United States. So I was shocked to discover that the first Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1901. Unfortunately, the only Native Americans to receive citizenship at the time were ones were considered civilized because they adopted European culture (Spring, 2016). It is astonishing to me that our government forced Native Americans to give up their culture and adopt ours if they

As previously mentioned, society has a history of oppression and forced assimilation of the Native population. Today, society still fails to regard tribes as being sovereign nations within our nation. But, social movements like the Dakota Access Pipeline protests are shifting societies view of tribal nations as being autonomous. Media coverage of such issues is important because it reaches a wider audience and helps gain attention for tribal issues. Outreach programs like the one I work for also help to mediate between CPS and tribes on behalf of Indian children’s welfare and support the ICWA’s

The Native American culture is the original culture of the United States. Members of Native American tribes live throughout the country. “There are an estimated 4.9 million persons, in 565 federally recognized tribes who are classified as American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AI), alone or in combination with one or more other designated racial classifications. This demographic group compromises 1.6% of the U.S. population” (Horowitz, 2012). Wisconsin is home to the Ho-Chunk (Winnebago), Ojibwa (Chippewa), and the Potawatomi tribes (“American”, 2014). It is important for nurses within this state, as well as any other state, to understand the Native American belief system in order to provide a quality healthcare experience. Nurses are the primary point of contact in the healthcare setting. Client advocacy is one of the nurse’s major roles. Therefore, the nurse should have the highest level of diversity understanding for the cultures within the local region.

Indeed it is important to stress the point that in many tribes and in many reservations there is not a unified consensus regarding engagement with the United States or its culture. Many Native Americans are understandably worried about education, jobs, assimilation and healthcare

Reference to the European racial construct of the “one-drop” rule, which considered anyone with any trace of African origin to be Black, has been used by the federal government and Indian nations to negate the existence of any Native American blood in African Americans. The shared historical partnership and miscegenation between African Americans and Native Americans challenges the legal attempts to define the “purity” of Indians. Freedpeople, no strangers to fighting for recognition from Euro-Americans, continue to fight for recognition and their rightful place within the Seminole

However, Hamilton states, “Disenrollment weakens the People, individually and collectively. Former tribal members lose their identities, their culture, and their benefits. Sometimes they lose their jobs and their homes. They struggle to put food on the table,” thus giving insight to the detrimental effects of disenrollment (n.d.). He also goes to explain that more often than not, tribes that disenroll their members experience instability and a plethora of other problems that may last for many generations (Hamilton, n.d.). Hamilton continues with facts such as blood quantum and disenrollment not being among tribal traditions, as they spawn from the U.S. federal government; “I personally think blood quantum should play some role in determining who is an Indian . . .Disenrollment should only be executed in the most extreme cases” (n.d.). The Association of American Indian Physicians (AAIP) lists other reasons against tribal disenrollment, “. . . tribal disenrollment leads to the loss of cultural identity and access to health care, education opportunity, job opportunity, and housing which are social determinants of health. . .” (Walker, 2015). Perhaps one of the most riveting effects of disenrollment would be the federal government no longer considering you an ‘Indian’ (Stretten, 2014). Following disenrollment, you would no longer be able to partake in any federal funds that are sent to the tribe, or receive any of the benefits that come with federal support (Stretten, 2014). Some of those benefits include education, law enforcement, and agriculture and range management (Stretten, 2014). Although disenrollment is not necessarily moral in all cases, it remains a part of the Native tribes’ culture and tradition

The U.S. Department of the Interior, in 1932, supported the federal government’s treatment of Alaskan Natives as American Indians. The result of American policies impacted Alaskan Native land claims and settlement. The 1885 Major Crimes Act stripped the Tlingit of their right to deal with criminal matters according to traditional customs. The U.S. purchase of Alaska consisted of a profound impact on the Tlingit politically, territorially, culturally, and

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

Those who stayed behind found that they had to sign treaties and use other compliance mechanisms in order to survive in the United States government. There was yet another group that remained behind but did not receive recognition from the United States. Currently, there are around 500 tribes of Native Americans in the country (Bird, 1999). This paper discusses the ways and reasons through which the Native Americans have