Home  /  Chapters  /  Indigenous Identity & Sovereignty

Indigenous Identity & Sovereignty

9 terms · 9 published · 0 planned

Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, First Nations, Tribal, reservation — how source guides frame Indigenous peoples through identity, sovereignty, and political relationship. The chapter sits apart from Race & Ethnicity because most sources here frame Indigenous identity through sovereignty rather than race.

What this chapter covers

This chapter gathers terms that source guides frame through Indigenous identity, sovereignty, and political relationship: umbrella terms (Indigenous, Native, Native American, American Indian, First Nations), specific structural terms (tribe, Tribal Nation, reservation), the legal and geographic vocabulary that sits alongside them (Indian Country, treaty rights, federal recognition), the bare “Indian” with its self-identification and disambiguation rules, and the Native-only identity term Two-Spirit.

Indigenous & Tribal Sovereignty is separate from Race & Ethnicity by design. Most sources in the corpus that engage Indigenous identity frame it through sovereignty — treaty relationships, federally recognized nations, government-to-government interaction — rather than through race. The commons follows that framing: Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Tribal, and related vocabulary live here, not in the Race & Ethnicity chapter.

The strongest cross-corpus consensus call in this chapter is positive, not negative: name the specific nation. Every active source guide engaged with this chapter — NAJA, NGC, Sierra Club, GCJT, DSG, RET, APA — agrees that the specific nation name beats any umbrella term whenever the reference is to one nation or one person. The umbrella terms are not interchangeable shortcuts; they are tools for the specific case where the reference is genuinely collective and multi-tribal.

How sources position themselves

Sources in this chapter divide along two axes: Indigenous-led versus ally-led, and U.S.-focused versus cross-border. The Indigenous-led U.S. guides (NAJA / Indigenous Journalists Association, Native Governance Center) push hardest on specificity, capitalization, and the sovereignty framing. The ally-led guides (Sierra Club, GCJT, SumOfUs) adopt those positions and add their own — Sierra Club’s etymological framing of “reservation” as treaty-reserved land, SumOfUs’s anti-possessive rule, GCJT’s adoption of NAJA’s precision rule into trauma-informed journalism. The aggregators (DSG, RET) treat the choices as audience-dependent and supply historical context.

Source coverage in this chapter spans:

• Indigenous Journalists Association / NAJA (2017) — Indigenous-led primary source; the originating voice for the multi-tribal precision rule and the headline-specificity standard most other guides cite back to.
• Native Governance Center Style Guide (2021) — Indigenous-led U.S.; the operational style reference for Native-led nonprofit communicators. Source of the Tribe / Tribal capitalization convention and the reservation-versus-nation distinction.
• Sierra Club Equity Language Guide (2021) — Substantial Tribal Sovereignty and Public Lands section; the etymological framing of “reservation” and the bans on “tribalism” and “rez” as outsider language.
• Diversity Style Guide (2023, entries updated through 2024) — Peer aggregator; richest historical and legal context across the chapter. Source for HR 4238 (2016) and the federal-tribe membership definition.
• Global Center for Journalism & Trauma (2021) — Adopts NAJA’s framing into trauma-informed journalism context; cited as bridge between Native-led editorial standards and mainstream journalism style.
• SumOfUs Progressive Style Guide (2016) — Pre-2020 framing; First Nations section is strong on geographic scope and possessive-construction caution. Predates the broader capital-T Tribe convention; useful as a chronology marker.
• Racial Equity Tools (2023) — Academic and training context; treats the choices as audience-dependent. The “nations within” framing of tribal sovereignty.
• APA (2023) — Academic / clinical guide. Strongest position on preferring “peoples” or “nations” over “tribes” in generic descriptors.
• Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013) — Listed Native American in the post-civil-rights AP convention; pre-dates the broader engagement with sovereignty framing visible in post-2020 guides.

Chronology

Three inflection points shape this chapter’s content:

• 1960s — “Native American” gained traction as the preferred federal-era replacement for “American Indian” (NAJA, DSG).
• 2016 — HR 4238 formally replaced “American Indian” with “Native American” in federal law (DSG).
• 2020–2021 — The post-George-Floyd shift across progressive style guides settles capitalization conventions (capital-T Tribe, capital-N Native, capital-I Indigenous) and pushes specificity-first into mainstream guidance.

Most differences across the in-scope corpus collapse to these three breaks. Read date markers as chronology, not as objection.

Cross-cutting principles

1. Lead with the specific nation. The strongest cross-source consensus in this chapter is also the simplest: when the reference is to one nation or one person, name the nation — Diné, Cheyenne, Nooksack, Cherokee, Confederated Salish and Kootenai — not 'the tribe,' not 'Native Americans,' not 'American Indians.' NAJA, NGC, Sierra Club, GCJT, and DSG all push the same way. Umbrella terms apply only to genuinely multi-tribal collective references, and NAJA's precision rule (echoed by GCJT and DSG) extends this even to which umbrella is acceptable when: 'Native American' and 'American Indian' describe two-or-more people from different tribal affiliations, not an individual.
2. Sovereignty, not race, is the framing principle. Indigenous nations are sovereign political entities, not racial or ethnic groups. The terms in this chapter carry political content that 'race' framing flattens — treaty rights, federal recognition, land-base distinctions, government-to-government relationship. NGC's definition is the cleanest: 'A reservation refers to a Native nation's current land base as defined by the federal government. A Native nation is a sovereign political entity.' Conflating reservation with nation (or tribe with nation) collapses the political distinction every guide in this chapter is trying to preserve.
3. Self-identification is primary. Whenever an individual or community has stated a preferred term, that overrides house style. NGC's rule for American Indian — 'use when requested by a particular interview subject or when quoting another work' — is a tight, workable default that generalizes across this whole chapter. The umbrella terms are pluralistic by design; the moment a specific preference is on the record, the default question disappears.
4. Capitalization is a respect convention. Capitalize Native, Indigenous, Tribe, Tribal, Native American, American Indian, First Nations, and Métis as racial, ethnic, cultural, or political identifiers. NGC and Sierra Club are explicit on Tribe and Tribal — capitalize whether or not they appear in a proper noun. SumOfUs (2016) capitalizes proper names of tribes but predates the broader capital-T-Tribe convention; that's a date marker, not a divergence. Reservation is the one term in this chapter that stays lowercase as a generic — it's capitalized only when part of a specific named reservation.
5. Possessive constructions erase sovereignty. 'Canadian First Nations,' 'Canada's Indigenous people,' 'America's Native Americans' — SumOfUs and DSG both flag possessive framings as the language of the colonial state. The construction implies belonging-to. The corrective puts people first and uses prepositions, not possessives: 'Indigenous peoples in Canada,' 'First Nations in Canada,' 'Native nations in the United States.'
6. Don't borrow Indigenous vocabulary for metaphor. Sierra Club explicitly bans 'tribalism' as a metaphor for political polarization. DSG draws a harder line against 'tribal warfare' — naming it as a Eurocentric label applied to ethnic conflict among people of color while comparable conflicts among white populations get neutral terminology like 'civil war.' APA generalizes the point. The pattern is consistent: borrowed Indigenous vocabulary as metaphor for irrationality, factionalism, or atavistic violence is not value-neutral, and the harm consistently lands on Indigenous nations or on conflicts involving people of color.

Terms in this chapter