restricted access Chapter 2 Indian, Indian Tribe, and Indian Country
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

15 Indian, Indian Tribe, and Indian Country 15 P.48. Delete the last five lines of the text and the associated footnotes, and replace the deletion with the following: 2010 Census, 2,932,248 persons identified themselves as one-race Indians, while 5,220,579 persons identified themselves as either one-race or multiplerace Indians.3 In the prior Census, 7,876,568 persons claimed American Indian “ancestry or ethnic origin”4 but this question was not asked on the 2010 census. The 2010 Census data indicated that 43.8 percent of persons identifying themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native reported such status in combination with one or more other races.5 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, at 7 (March 2011). 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Ancestry: 2000, Census 2000, Census 2000 Brief at 3 (June 2004). 5 U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, at 7 (March 2011). P.49. Delete the text of the first incomplete sentence and the text of n.5. P.49, n.6. Delete “see also” in line 3 of the footnote and add the following after semi-colon: Kirsty Gover, Genealogy as Continuity: Explaining the Growing Tribal Preference for Descent Rules in Membership Governance in the United States, 33 Am. Indian L. Rev. 243, 247, 263 (2008–2009) (examination of 322 tribal constitutions indicates , inter alia, that (1) “[t]ribes are increasingly likely to use lineal descent and blood-quantum rules after 1970, in place of the parental-­enrollment or residency rules that were dominant in constitutions adopted in the 1930s” and thus “increasingly use tribe-specific measures of blood quantum, in contrast to the pan-tribal concept of Indian blood quantum used in federal policy[;]” and (2) quoting from Circular No. 3123 (Nov. 18, 1935) issued by Chapter 2 Indian, Indian Tribe, and Indian Country 16 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition Commissioner for Indian Affairs John Collier to Bureau of Indian Affairs field personnel which observed that the Department of the Interior historically had sought to exclude in its review of tribal constitutions “ ‘a large number of applicants of small degree of Indian blood’ ” from tribal membership); Add the following to line 7 of the footnote after “see also”: Bethany R. Berger, Red: Racism and the American Indian, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 591, 633, 636 (2009) (contrasting forms of racism experienced by American Indians and African-Americans; during the Assimilation Era, for example, “[d]espite the color prejudice many Indians experienced, individual Indian integration was publicly celebrated as another symbol of the triumph of European-­American civilization over savagery” and “[p]olicymakers . . . explicitly support[ed] intermarriage with Indians as an assimilation tool”); P.49, n.7. Add the following to line 8 of the footnote following the semi-colon: Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1185 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (federal court refuses to intervene in dispute between tribal factions over legitimacy of disenrollment because it is “without authority” to “interfere in the internal affairs of the Tribe”); Add the following to the end of the footnote: See also, Kirsty Gover, Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism: Membership Governance in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, 35 Law &. Soc. Inquiry 689 (2010) (comparing approaches to the selection of tribal membership within four nations; concluding that tribes in the United States are “moving away from a race-based tribal membership” toward a “sui generis construction of membership, in the form of ‘genealogic’ tribalism’”); Brian L. Lewis, So Close, Yet So Far Away: A Comparative Analysis of Indian Status in Canada and the United States, 18 Willamette J. Int’l. L. & Disp. Resol. 38, 39 (2010) (addressing “[w]ho is politically an Indian in Canada and the United States”). P.51, n. 14. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: see generally, Katharine C. Oakley, Defining Indian Status for the Purpose of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction, 35 Am. Indian L. Rev. 177, 193 (2010)(“Each court applies the [Rogers] test differently, leading to inconsistent holdings”); cf. Eagle v. Yerington Paiute Tribe, 603 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (although Indian Civil Rights Act sets affirmative limits on tribal criminal jurisdiction by defining the term “Indian” by reference to 18 U.S.C. §1153, tribe possessed the “inherent power of self-government to define its child abuse offense without an Indian status element and to create a procedural...