Perfect Model Article Review On American Indian Identity.

Two articles, A Necessary Evil: Framing an American Indian Legal Identity by Dwanna L. Robertson and Indian Identity by Nicholas C. Peroff address a very simple and yet almost endlessly complicated issue of modern Indian identity in the American society. Dwanna Robertson identifies three different types of Indian identity – ethnical, racial and formal. Nicholas Peroff has another tri-component classification system of Indianness (with a capital “I”), indianness (with a small “i”) and emerging third hybrid new indianness. Both authors provide arguments as to how they arrived at their classifications and what it means in real world and to real people. The authors then conclude that even though the classification does exist, as a social phenomenon the defining features of each category change over time and as a result of the human interaction.
Dwanna Robertson conducted a research among the American people who identify themselves, even though in various ways, as Indians. She argues that the ethnical Indian identification lies in the common language, cultural traditions, religion and mode of dress. It does not have any territorial of official boundaries. Anybody, who lives within an ethnical group can consider oneself a member of this group. Thus, ethnical Indians in America might not have the qualifying features of blood quantum, direct descent or official tribal recognition.
Racial identification, on the other hand, is often enforced by the outsiders and deals with the genetics, genotype, historical discrimination, etc. It is often referred to as a “white men understanding of Indians”.
Finally, there is an official American Indian Legal Identity (AILI) that represents another identification scheme. It has nothing to do with ethnical or racial approach and deals with legal status. The criteria are complex and vary from state to state. Interesting observation, provided by Dwanna Robertson, shows that the majority of American Indians, with or without AILI status, view it as a positive factor that helps to protect Indian Identity from total dissimilation into the modern American Society.
Nicholas Peroff’s classification, even though quite different in terminology, has a lot in common with Robertson’s. Nicholas’s idea of Indianness and indianness is based on the ethnical and social criteria. He claims that modern Indianness is not and individual, personal status or identity. Indianness acquires its full meaning only as a process of interaction among the members of the social group. In other words, only by living together and interacting with each other the Indians become Indians. This is very close to Robertson’s thesis of ethnical Indian identity that arises from common language or culture.
Peroff opposes Indianness, as an Indian-generated phenomenon to indianness – a somewhat illusory concept that was formed in the minds of non-Indian members of the modern American society. In simple words, indianness is what white or black Americans think the Indians are. Some of the attributes of such indianness are media imposed stereotypes, superstitions or racial discrimination results.
American society progress, in the most broad meaning of the term, form a new Indian identity. Not tribally-formed and not white-formed in nature, according to Peroff. It is a mixture of identification factors that are created by the development of what Peroff calls a “dominant society”, where Indians are a minority. The features of the new Indian identity are constantly transforming and gaining new attributes.
The perception of Indian identity has changed over time. The meaning of who is an Indian was different during colonization or white expansion to what it is in the modern world. There are no clear-cut boundaries or an error-free test that can be used to identify Indianness. It is a matter of personal realization, ethnical distinction and social perception of the phenomenon.