Sara Stratton

It seems that in the Brownell article, the motive for defining Indian has nothing to do with individual or community identity but with the bureaucracy of government agencies. Defining 'Indian' decides who and who does not receive government benefits, that is to whom is and is not the government responsible in providing services, whether to right historical wrongs, or to lighten the heavy load of marginalization and discrimination. Defining the term 'Indian' is not for the sake of the Indian/Native American in question, but rather to benefit the government and exempt them from providing services that they are responsible for in other cases 'off the rez.'

It appears that some government agencies, at least the BIA if not also the DOI and DHH, believe that many individuals, Indian or not, are motivated to identify and register as Indian simply to recieve benefits provided by the BIA, as well as scholarships and health benefits. While this may be true for some, it is an exaggerated assumption that someone would identify as Indian and risk ostracism by the tribe (if they were not 'truly' Indian) or risk discrimination by dominant society (due to widely held stereotypes about Native Americans).

Legislation and regulations base definitions of 'Indian' on 1. Blood quantum, 2. Tribal status, 3. Lack definition all together.

This article brings up larger questions about the state and bureaucracy. What/who is the responsibility of the state? Whom does the state serve? How does bureaucracy enable the state to evade responsibility and confuse citizens/constituents, so much so that they are unable to really understand what rights they deserve, let alone be able to demand and defend those rights.

p. 291-92 offers a perfect example of this bureaucracy, where state and federal agencies give Indians the 'run-around' by constantly changing laws/regulations within the institutions, thereby making requirements for membership and definitions of 'Indian' so confounded and convoluted that it makes it easier for the state and federal government to deny rights and benefits to Indians due to simply mis-readings and mis-understandings of regulations/legislation.

Possible class activities:
- Take a look at the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA). In what ways is this a race-based Act? Why would a race-based Act now be considered unconstitutional? What flaws are there in this Act? What is it missing? What loop holes are there? What problems does it create for Indians/Native Americans? What problems does it create for state/federal agencies providing services for Indians/Native Americans?

- How is the BIA itself a racist/race-based organization? (See section B. BIA Keepers of Blood Quantum, starting on p. 288, and the obvious ways they are establishing and enforcing race-based regulations and policies). (Side note: How is Physical Anthropology different than Phenotype, Eugenics?)

Questions I had:
- Why does the government get to decide who is indian/of indian descent? What other governing body could/would make this decision? Why can't the tribe itself make this decision? Who has the authority to make this decision?
- If there is an obviously racial basis for many of the acts, regulations, and policies on Indian welfare, why do they persist if they are clearly unconstitutional (Civil Rights Act 1964? & Immigration Act 1965?)
- Is she proposing a 'multicultural' solution? What are the problems with that? With multiculturalism and its history of being a very loaded term, and often used in imperialist neoliberal policies towards indigenous peoples and 'minorities.'
- Whom do these definitions serve? Do many indians know all of these complexities to the 'legal' or 'legislative' or 'bureaucratic' definitions of what it means to be Indian? (See p. 285 for examples)?