Explore the vast range of titles available.

This Companion is comprised of 27 original contributions by leading scholars in the field and summarizes the state of anthropological knowledge of Indian peoples, as well as the history that got us to this point. Surveys the full range of American Indian anthropology: from ecological and political-economic questions to topics concerning religion, language, and expressive culture Each chapter provides definitive coverage of its topic, as well as situating ethnographic and ethnohistorical data into larger frameworks Explores anthropology's contribution to knowledge, its historic and ongoing complicities with colonialism, and its political and ethical obligations toward the people 'studied'

This article examines the history of the South Dakota “Mitigation Act” (as it is commonly know by Lakota people) in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Mitigation Act, enacted in 1998 and implemented over a period of nine years, was meant to create a negotiated agreement between tribal governments and the state for jurisdiction over the regulation of hunting and fi shing on the Missouri River that would avoid a long history of bitter litigation over jurisdictional contests. The act was also meant to return lands held by the US Army Corps of Engineers, originally acquired for the purpose of constructing three main-stem dams on the Missouri, to the tribes that had originally held the land, and to the State of South Dakota. Both the goal of negotiating state and tribal jurisdiction, and returning lands to the state and the tribes, led to heightened intensity of the very tribal- state conflicts that the act was meant avoid. Based primarily on the senatorial records of Senator Thomas Daschle (D-SD) and the gubernatorial papers of William Janklow (R), the article examines the logic of the “treaty imaginary” among Lakota tribal governments and their constituencies, and the liberal democratic principle of negotiation by “all interested parties” at the center of development of the Mitigation Act. The article ties the conflict over the act to its fundamental misrecognition of the continuing validity of treaties for Lakota people, and the family resemblance the act had to the illegal taking of the Black Hills for many Lakota and other Great Sioux Nation tribes.

In this article, I seek to complicate scholars' understanding of the \"modular\" form of the nation-state by examining four kinds of indigenous political space that figure in contemporary American Indian struggle in the United States: (1) \"tribal\" or indigenous-nation sovereignty on reservation homelands; (2) comanagement of off-reservation resources and sites shared between tribal, federal, and state governments; (3) national indigenous space in which Indian people exercise portable rights beyond reservations; and (4) hybrid political space in which Indian people exercise dual citizenship and assert rights as tribal citizens under treaty and other federal Indian law, as U.S. citizens under the Constitution, and as social or cultural citizens within a multicultural U.S. society.

Examination of jurisprudence in a single Ojibwe tribal court and the trials that take place in it over alleged violations of recently codified tribal law on off‐reservation hunting suggests that many of these communities are becoming statelike and that tribal courts are instrumental in producing this transformation. As instrumentalities of tribal sovereignty, tribal courts facilitate the ongoing stratification of local Indian societies as particular kin networks consolidate their hold on political power. Enmeshed with the federal and state government in the realization of their sovereignty in the federal Indian‐policy era of self‐determination, tribes typically default to trading off the institutional cultural distinctiveness that has survived colonization even as symbolic and rhetorical expressions of cultural difference flourish and proliferate.

This article traces the means by the which the Lakota people of Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations in South Dakota were internally pacified, that is, penetrated by the state apparatus in the form of the United States of Office of Indian Affairs during the period from 1880 to the mid-1930s. The focus is on how the state constructed new kinds of bureaucratically knowable and recordable individuals, with new kinds of self-interests that could be predicted and manipulated by the officials. These new Lakota individuals were made by means of four administrative processes that I call, after Foucault, modes of subjection: property ownership, determination of \"competence,\" registration of Indian \"blood\" quanta, and recording of genealogy. [Native Americans, colonialism, internal pacification, Lakota, political economy, subjection]

Examination of jurisprudence in a single Ojibwe tribal court and the trials that take place in it over alleged violations of recently codified tribal law on off-reservation hunting suggests that many of these communities are becoming statelike and that tribal courts are instrumental in producing this transformation. As instrumentalities of tribal sovereignty, tribal courts facilitate the ongoing stratification of local Indian societies as particular kin networks consolidate their hold on political power. Enmeshed with the federal and state government in the realization of their sovereignty in the federal Indian-policy era of self-determination, tribes typically default to trading off the institutional cultural distinctiveness that has survived colonization even as symbolic and rhetorical expressions of cultural difference flourish and proliferate. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]