Indigeneity, Nationhood, Racialization, and the U.S. Settler State: Why Political Status Matters to Native ‘Identity’ Formation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While your article and book focus on the U.S., this work has great relevancy for Canada. 

I do have a couple of context FYIs or minor suggestions that can be ignored if you wish. 

- p 3, line 138 -- You note that 'Aboriginal' and 'First Nation' are terms of common usage in Canada.  Many 'First Nations' reject the use of 'Aboriginal' as it is a government imposed term via the 1982 Constitution and Canadian Law.  First Nation, Indigenous, and Indian remain preferred.  Generally, Aboriginal is the Settler Canadian preferred/legislated term. 

- p4 line 190 - 194 -- the placement of the international border through Indigenous lands is more complicated than you imply here.  For instance, the the Michigan Sault Tribe will or did accept members from Garden River and Batchewana First Nations. Garden River FN is specifically referenced in an 1855 Treaty as having rights in the US/Michigan, albeit these are not entirely enacted/recognized/legislated. Many Blackfoot/Blackfeet fall into the same boat.  In fact, the US is more accepting at recognizing the legal status of First Nations migrating or accessing traditional lands than Canada. Albeit there are court cases that are altering this.   Hence "being an Indigenous person of Canada ... living in the United States [doesn't necessarily] make them Native American..." The key is doesn't necessarily as it is complicated and oft site, tribe, or blood quantum dependent. 

  What about Taiaiake Alfred's work on identity and tribal/Indigenous sovereignty?

 

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

While your article and book focus on the U.S., this work has great relevancy for Canada. 

I do have a couple of context FYIs or minor suggestions that can be ignored if you wish. 

- p 3, line 138 -- You note that 'Aboriginal' and 'First Nation' are terms of common usage in Canada.  Many 'First Nations' reject the use of 'Aboriginal' as it is a government imposed term via the 1982 Constitution and Canadian Law.  First Nation, Indigenous, and Indian remain preferred.  Generally, Aboriginal is the Settler Canadian preferred/legislated term. 

• p4 line 190 - 194 -- the placement of the international border through Indigenous lands is more complicated than you imply here.  For instance, the the Michigan Sault Tribe will or did accept members from Garden River and Batchewana First Nations. Garden River FN is specifically referenced in an 1855 Treaty as having rights in the US/Michigan, albeit these are not entirely enacted/recognized/legislated. Many Blackfoot/Blackfeet fall into the same boat.  In fact, the US is more accepting at recognizing the legal status of First Nations migrating or accessing traditional lands than Canada. Albeit there are court cases that are altering this.   Hence "being an Indigenous person of Canada ... living in the United States [doesn't necessarily] make them Native American..." The key is doesn't necessarily as it is complicated and oft site, tribe, or blood quantum dependent.

Thank you for these helpful comments. I did add some qualifying language regarding your second point.

  What about Taiaiake Alfred's work on identity and tribal/Indigenous sovereignty?

Alfred's work on sovereignty definitely gets included in another chapter of the book. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a crucial intervention. As I read it, the central argument of the piece is that racialization and indigeneity are distinct categories. The article emphasizes that defining indigeneity is complex and contested. The author centers a definition that rests on ancestral ties to land and relationships, as well as community claiming you in the present. To illustrate this pivotal point, the author looks at historical cases and relations between the US and sovereign indigenous nations to show how US state labels have evolved and enforced non-consensual racial categorizations. 

 

 The key argument that rests on early cases that defined difference in terms of religion and culture. While this is a compelling point, it needs more development. Research in different fields (Trouillout, Mignolo, Omi and Winant) suggest that religion and culture are in fact racializations, at least in the sense that Omi and Winant define the term. To highlight the intervention of this piece, the author needs to more directly engage with the concept of racialization and Omi and Winant’s definition.

 

Clarifying the boundaries of racialization, which is tied to political contestation, and indignity as a political status would strengthen the piece. My understanding here, is that racialization connotes a category created by the state. As Omi and Winant theorize racialization, these categories change as new actors enter the fray AND through protest movements to change/reform the state. The argument I see this article making is that indigeneity is a political relationship between two sovereign nations. In this sense, racialization cannot capture the social and material relations between the US state and tribes. In fact, this point is cogently made in the conversation around indigenous people that migrate to the US. Clarifying  the difference between racialization as a political process versus the political relationship between sovereign nations will help clarify the important contribution of this piece. 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

This is a crucial intervention. As I read it, the central argument of the piece is that racialization and indigeneity are distinct categories. The article emphasizes that defining indigeneity is complex and contested. The author centers a definition that rests on ancestral ties to land and relationships, as well as community claiming you in the present. To illustrate this pivotal point, the author looks at historical cases and relations between the US and sovereign indigenous nations to show how US state labels have evolved and enforced non-consensual racial categorizations. 

 

 The key argument that rests on early cases that defined difference in terms of religion and culture. While this is a compelling point, it needs more development. Research in different fields (Trouillout, Mignolo, Omi and Winant) suggest that religion and culture are in fact racializations, at least in the sense that Omi and Winant define the term. To highlight the intervention of this piece, the author needs to more directly engage with the concept of racialization and Omi and Winant’s definition.

Thank you for that important point. I made revisions in the Introduction that highlight (and trouble) these points, hopefully creating a stronger case for the argument I'm making.

 

Clarifying the boundaries of racialization, which is tied to political contestation, and indignity as a political status would strengthen the piece. My understanding here, is that racialization connotes a category created by the state. As Omi and Winant theorize racialization, these categories change as new actors enter the fray AND through protest movements to change/reform the state. The argument I see this article making is that indigeneity is a political relationship between two sovereign nations. In this sense, racialization cannot capture the social and material relations between the US state and tribes. In fact, this point is cogently made in the conversation around indigenous people that migrate to the US. Clarifying  the difference between racialization as a political process versus the political relationship between sovereign nations will help clarify the important contribution of this piece. 

Hopefully I have achieved this mark.