Cherokee Nation officials celebrate the restoration of the Cherokee National Capitol building, which was built in 1869, on September 20, 2015. Present were, from left: David Walkingstick, Cherokee Nation Tribal Council; Crosslin Smith, Cherokee spiritual leader; Rex Jordan, CNB board of directors; Chuck Hoskin Jr., Cherokee Nation secretary of state; Joe Byrd, speaker of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council; Cherokee Nation Deputy Principal Chief S. Joe Crittenden; Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker; Shawn Slaton, CNB chief executive officer; Curtis Snell, Cherokee Nation Tribal Council; and Todd Hembree, Cherokee Nation attorney general.

Culture Zones and Indigenous Identity

Duane Champagne
1/17/16

American Indians and other Indigenous Peoples are often classified as living within culture zones. An advantage of the cultural zone approach is that the indigenous nations within cultural zones live and engage in economy within similar ecological environments. North American culture zones include the Arctic regions, Plains, Southwest, California, and others. Peoples living in similar ecological zones will exploit their local environments and are confronted with similar challenges. Consequently, there are some economic and ecological similarities among the Indian peoples of a cultural area, and some cultural and economic patterns that are similar among the Indigenous Peoples of a particular cultural zone. 

In terms of indigenous identity, few Indian tribes identify with a region. Rather Indigenous Peoples have specific creation teachings, kinship groupings, languages, ceremonial teachings, and other features that distinguish them from other tribes in a common cultural zone, and more broadly. Indigenous identities tend to be local and organized around villages or kinship groupings.

The traditional Cherokee, classified in the Southeastern Cultural zone, had numerous politically autonomous villages and seven clans that were present in almost all village areas. The Creek, also from the Southeastern cultural zone, lived next to the Cherokee, but had many more clans, and politically autonomous villages organized into two groups of “red” and “white” towns. The red and white designations can be understood as something like earth people (red) and sky people (white). The Cherokee and Creeks spoke different languages. Cultures varied significantly within cultural regions even though the various Indian nations exploited similar environments and ecologies. In terms of identity and history, indigenous people have chosen identity through common political, cultural and territorial location. In this way of classifying the indigenous world, there are many indigenous nations, each with very specific and different cultures, political organizations, kinship groups, and specific territories. The commonality of cultural zone or ecological environment does not predetermine Indians historical or cultural actions.

Many Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. and Canada are living on reservations, which do not enable the hunting and gathering, or horticultural, livelihood of historical cultural zones. Since most U.S. and Canadian Indigenous Peoples cannot exploit their local ecological environments in ways they traditionally have done, reservation life makes Indigenous Peoples depend on markets and/or government aid.

Contemporary classifications of cultural zones become less relevant, because the policies of the national government have greater day-to-day impact. Nation states and their policies toward Indigenous Peoples have become increasingly powerful influences over indigenous governments, land, economy, culture, and political identity. Today, if we want to understand the most pressing external impacts on indigenous nations we can look to nation states. What are nation state policies concerning Indigenous Peoples? Attitudes? Definitions of Indigenous Peoples? Favored Relations? Vision for the future?

Contemporary Indigenous Peoples can be grouped together as under the influence of a nation state. Indigenous Peoples still form nations with politically autonomous histories and governments. Now, however, nation states to a large degree greatly influence the political, economic, territorial, and cultural choices of Indigenous Peoples. Nation states have more powerful influence over Indigenous Peoples than do international organizations. In many ways, the United Nations is a coalition of nation states, and generally expresses and protects the common interests and views of nation states.

Nowadays, Indigenous Peoples can be classified by which nation state extends its policies and rules over them. United States, Canadian, and Mexican nation states have differing histories and policies toward their residence Indigenous Peoples. This is not to say the Indigenous Peoples are prisoners of nation states, but rather Indigenous Peoples are limited to making choices within the context of nation state political, economic, cultural and legal powers and influences. Ecological zones are still not without their impacts on Indigenous Peoples, but now national and international political relations, as well as national and international markets and cultures, play an increasingly powerful role in the futures and contemporary actions of Indigenous Peoples.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page

POST A COMMENT

Comments

hesutu's picture
hesutu
Submitted by hesutu on
Several indigenous people from various cultures, and many whites as well, have proposed various determinants of what should be considered to be valid indigenous identity. There are a lot of takes on this issue. Accepting a particular take from one indigenous person over another is often closely related to accepting a particular world view. As we know, indigenous peoples have different world views. With more in common with each other perhaps than with european colonialist cultures but still different. Here is one proposal. Another viewpoint would be to note that indigenous nations are connected to their land, exactly as all nations in the world without exception recognized by the UN are as well. That viewpoint does in fact disenfranchise a very small number of nations such as the Roma who originate in India but who are continually wandering and stateless. As well as the Jewish people before 1947. As well quite a few other indigenous landless states who exist to this day. Another way of being, which I think is more common, is to be connected to land. It has been said that "Indio sin tierra, es indio muerto." This is worth considering. The nature of indigenity is related to land. The hebrews wandered for centuries but always knew what land was their and which they must return to to fulfill and restore their complete identity. This is as it is for many of us. The author of the article proposes this as irrelevant and casts land connected indigenous people as some sort of falsehood or minority status which I feel is not an accurate evaluation. A tribe is mentioned, the Cherokee of Oklahoma, which we know historically was comprised of assimilated white people with indian ancestry who submitted to white authority and who moved to territory belonging to completely unrelated nations. Contrariwise, other members of this linguistic grouping stayed behind or escaped and retained their identity and ancestral lands. Now of course this group should have autonomy and true nation status despite their history of abandonment of their culture and language and rituals and assimilation into white practices such as slave ownership, brutal treatment of other humans by claiming they are slaves, and occupation of the land of other innocent nations. This nation, which has fallen far and is a shadow of what anyone would consider a legitimate nation, should be permitted the time and space to recuperate and recover their identity and nationality if that is what they choose. Or to assimilate as many have into a white supremacist culture they feel more comfortable with, and perhaps join the military of those who murdered their ancestors, or become a federal judge, or other actions that prove their complete and total abandonment of their distant indigenous identity. However people are individuals and there will be those that reject assimilation, look back, embrace their ancestors, speak or search for their language, raise their children as free and autonomous individuals who are members of their nation. This struggle is to be encouraged and celebrated. The position of strugging in resolution and accepting the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and the implied supremacy of the brutal animalistic genocidal european white cultures is something that must be acknowledged by those seeking fame and wealth in the white system. Becoming a traitor to and abandoning one's cultures is something that happens and needs to be understood rather than denied or joined. Those returning from this false doctrine should be embraced and restored and healed. But we should never see the position of viewing the white european domination and theft of our lands and destruction of our culture and ripping apart of our connection to our lands as legitimate or as a definition of indigenous identity because that goes beyond being merely incorrect, it is a violent genocidal assault on our fundamental identity which should be resisted and rejected with every element of our being, lest that which is left of our native identity be completely annihilated in apathetic resignation.
1