In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Logic of RecognitionDebating Osage Nation Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century
  • Jean Dennison (bio)

The Osage Nation’s debate over citizenship reform between 2004 and 2006 sheds light on the complicated nature of asserting sovereignty in twenty-first-century Native America. Located in present-day north-central Oklahoma, with a population of around fifteen thousand, the Osage Nation was governed by a complex corporate system of citizenship tied to subsurface natural resources for almost a hundred years. From 1906 until 2004 the US government insisted that an individual had to possess what was termed a “headright,” also referred to as a “share,” in the mineral estate located under the Osage Reservation in order to vote in or run for Osage elections. By 2004 only four thousand of sixteen thousand Osage descendants had a vote, with many only having a fraction of a vote, thus inspiring Public Law 108-431, whereby the United States recognized the Osage Nation’s inherent sovereign right to determine its own citizenship and governance structure.

In the process of reconfiguring this problematic and imposed criterion, the Osage were forced to confront some of settler colonialism’s subtler guises. By exploring the logic of recognition and how it becomes implicated in assertions of self-recognition, a case study of the 2004–6 Osage citizenship reform debates reveals the impact that the ongoing settler-colonial process has had on the Osage and, by extension, other indigenous communities. In exploring this impact, this case elucidates the role that territory must play in rebuilding American Indian nations in the twenty-first century.

A key component of all settler-colonial processes, of which the United States is a clear example, is the “logic of elimination.”1 Settlement requires territory and thus necessitates the elimination of others’ claims [End Page 1] to the land. Outright violence and forced removal are two obvious examples that “free up” land for settlement, but the logic of elimination permeates many aspects of the ongoing settlement process. From the beginning of the colonial era, this desire for land was couched in rhetoric that attempted in various ways to justify displacement, including the doctrine of discovery. In his papal bull of 1455, Pope Nicholas V sanctioned colonialism by calling for widespread Christian conversion. So long as other Christians did not already inhabit the territory, it was Europeans’ “duty” to take it over and “civilize” its inhabitants.2

The doctrine of discovery was eventually woven into the US legal system. In Johnson v. McIntosh a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling cited this doctrine of discovery as its central justification for extinguishing Native title to land: “Discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy.… The Tribes inhabiting this country were fierce savages whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness.”3 By labeling the “discovered” land as “wilderness,” Europeans and subsequently Americans attempted to erase the preexisting authorities within the territory. For indigenous peoples this “logic of elimination” has become an ever-present part not only of continuing US government policies but also of internal understandings of self and nation.

A fundamental but less frequently acknowledged aspect of this logic of elimination is recognition. Recognition is most commonly used in the context of the United States to describe the process whereby the US government enters into political relationships with American Indian nations. Originating in treaties, this process of recognition currently acknowledges American Indian nations’ ability to control their internal affairs, such as citizenship and self-governance. It also allows them exemption from many state laws and taxes and provides them with a variety of other unique rights based on American Indian nations’ preexisting and continuing sovereignty. While there are many productive studies focused on the impact of this recognition process for those seeking and excluded from federal recognition, there is less discussion about the impact of this relationship of recognition on American Indian nations more generally.4 This is article will contribute to this discussion by considering the impact of the logic of recognition within the context of the 2004–6 Osage reform...

pdf