| Part ofa series on |
| Genocide |
|---|
 |
| Issues |
| Related topics |
| Category |
Paper genocide is the systemic removal of a group of people from historical records, such ascensuses, which gives the impression that that group has disappeared or becomeextinct. A 2023 article published byCultural Survival defines the term as "intentional destruction of documents and records related to a particular group of people, usually with the intent of erasing their histories and cultures",[2] while a 2019 article inNational Geographic characterizes the term thusly: "Paper genocide means that a people can be made to disappear on paper".[3] The term is often used to refer to government policies regardingNative Americans in the United States and theindigenous peoples of the Caribbean, primarily theTaíno. According to Cultural Survival, paper genocide can lead togenerational andhistorical trauma for the communities affected.[2]
A common example of a paper genocide is that of theTaíno, anindigenous peoples of the Caribbean.[3] Following thefirst voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492, the Taíno population began to significantly decline in the ensuing years, primarily due tovirgin soil epidemics and the enslavement and harsh treatment of the Taíno bySpanish colonizers in such labor-intensive fields asgold mining and the cultivation ofsugarcane.[3] Estimates for the Taíno population on the island ofHispaniola range from 60,000 to 8 million in 1492, with contemporary writerBartolomé de las Casas claiming a population of around 3 million.[4] However, by 1542, this number had declined to around 200.[4] According to a 2019 article inNational Geographic, shortly after a 1565census that showed only 200 "Indians" living on Hispaniola, the Taíno were declared extinct.[3] Similarly, on the island ofPuerto Rico, where there were an estimated 1 million indigenous people in 1493,[5] a 1787 census recorded only 2,300 non-mixed-race indigenous people were recorded.[3] In the next census conducted on Puerto Rico in 1802, no indigenous people were recorded,[5] and according toNational Geographic, historical records after this point indicate that no indigenous people remained in the Caribbean.[3]
Despite the apparent elimination of indigenous peoples from the Caribbean, several historians note that a paper genocide may have obscured the continued existence of groups such as the Taíno.[3][5] A 2022 article in theBrown Political Review notes that, in Puerto Rico, SpanishCatholic priests, who were responsible forbirth registry, may have been inclined to classify people with some Taíno ancestry as "mestizo" or "mulatto", in part to diminish the representation of Taíno people on the island.[5] A 2019 article inNational Geographic also notes possible undercounting of Taíno people due to the classification of people born to Spanish fathers and Taíno mothers.[3] That same article also mentions that, following the abolition of legal slavery of indigenous peoples of the Americas by theSpanish monarchy in 1533, many slaveholders in the Caribbean may have been inclined to simply reclassify their enslaved people as African rather than grant them theirmanumission.[3] Additionally, according to the magazine, many censuses inLatin America did not provide an option for indigenous peoples, instead requiring respondents to identify as either "Hispanic", "white", "black", or mixed-race.[3] In Puerto Rico, this practice continued after theUnited States gained control of the island.[5]
In the early 1990s, descendants of indigenous peoples of the Caribbean began a revival of indigenous cultures and language, including participating inpowwows and other festivals,[3] and openly refuted the historical narrative that indigenous peoples in the region had been eliminated.[5] In the 2010s, genetic research, including the construction of the genome of a Taíno person who had lived between the 8th and 10th century,[5] found that a significant population of the current Caribbean population have traces ofDNA from indigenous peoples.[3] In 2016, 164 Puerto Ricans were tested and all were found to have traces matching the Taíno DNA.[3] That same year, a National Geographic study indicated that 61 percent of Puerto Ricans have indigenous mitochondrial DNA.[5] Jorge Estevez, a Taíno activist, said of the results, "It shows that the true story is one of assimilation, certainly, but not total extinction".[4]
In 2020, after options for identifying as "Indian or indigenous" were added to theUnited States census for Puerto Rico,[3] over 92,000 Puerto Ricans identified as such.[5] Additionally, as of the 2020s, several Taínoadvocacy groups exist, such as theUnited Confederation of Taíno People, the Taíno Jatibonícu Tribe of Boriken, and the Taíno Nation of the Antilles.[5]
In a 2020 blog for the Law School Survey for Student Engagement atIndiana University,Vickie Sutton, alaw professor atTexas Tech University and member of theLumbee Tribe of North Carolina, described the "policies of firstGreat Britain and then the United States against the indigenous population in America" as "genocidal", both physically and in paper form.[6] Regarding the latter, Sutton states that both nations "[eliminated] references to Native Americans in property records, census records, birth anddeath records in a paper genocidal policy".[6]
The paper genocide of Native American tribes can have an impact on gaining federal recognition,[5] an important aspect oftribal sovereignty in the United States.[7] For example, in the state ofRhode Island, theNarragansett people spent several centuries attempting to gain federal recognition, which was granted in 1983.[5] Starting in the late 18th century, government officials in the state began to record Narragansett people as "black", "colored", or "negro" on official documents, a practice that was upheld in the 1793Rhode Island Supreme Court caseAldrich v. Hammer.[8] This was part of an effort by the state to do away with indigenous identity and forcecultural assimilation onto the Narragansett.[9] In a similar case, theMashpee Wampanoag Tribe ofMassachusetts began seeking federal recognition in the 1970s, but their efforts were hurt due to inconsistent data from theUnited States Census Bureau.[7] It wasn't until 2007 that the tribe became federally recognized.[7]
In 2009, theSupreme Court of the United States ruled inCarcieri v. Salazar that the federal government could only hold land intrust for tribes that were federally recognized in 1934, when theIndian Reorganization Act was passed.[7] Critics have stated that the ruling could have negative consequences on tribes that have gained recognition since then, in some cases because of a lack of adequate historical documentation.[7]
Blood quantum is a system of measuring Native American ancestry based on the ancestry of an individual's parents, such that, for example, a child who is the offspring of a father with a Native American blood quantum level of one-fourth and a mother whose level is one-half would have a blood quantum level of three-eighths.[10] The system is used by some tribes to determine eligibility for membership, and related concepts have appeared in several treaties between the federal government and tribes, such as in the 1825Osage Treaty with theOsage Nation.[10] The system was further codified by the federal government in acts such as the 1887Dawes Act and the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.[7][10] Blood quantum levels for Native Americans can be recorded by theBureau of Indian Affairs, who issue Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood to individuals that are used in tribal recognition.[7][10]
Regarding the concept, Jill Doerfler, the head of theUniversity of Michigan's American Indian and Indigenous Studies Department, said in 2021, "What blood quantum does isracialize American Indian identity. It is an outside concept used todisenfranchise Native people and tribes from their legal and political status. And it's the best way to eliminate ongoing treaty obligations".[10] In an article forVoice of America's website entitled "Some Native Americans Fear Blood Quantum is Formula for 'Paper Genocide' " Doerfler further elaborated that the system could be used by the federal government to deprive tribes of land and recognition in what she termed a "paper genocide".[10]
Starting with thefirst federal census in 1790, indigenous people were not often recorded.[11] Between 1790 and 1850, Native Americans were largely excluded from the survey, with a major exception occurring in the1850 census, whenPuebloans in theNew Mexico Territory were recorded as "Copper".[7] The1860 census was the first in which Native Americans living alongside white people andfree people of color in the general population were recorded.[7] Even then, the conductors of the census were instructed to only record "families of Indians who have renounced tribal rule, and who under state or territory laws exercise the rights of citizens".[7]
With the1880 census, and continuing over the next several censuses, the Census Bureau introduced a rubric for recording the racial identification of Native American respondents, primarily utilizing the blood quantum system, but also allowing some discretion on the part of the surveyor with regards to other factors, such as how the individual is perceived in their community.[7] The1890 census was the first to record both Native Americans living among the general population as well as in tribal communities, but due to a fire that destroyed many of the documents, the1900 census is typically considered the oldest one to give an inclusive count of the country's Native American population.[7] The passage of theIndian Citizenship Act in 1924 affected how indigenous peoples from Latin America who were living in theSouthwestern United States were recorded.[7] As the Census Bureau was concerned that laborers fromMexico would attempt to portray themselves as Native Americans, many indigenous people from Latin America were recorded only as Hispanic orLatino.[7]
Starting with the1960 census, the Census Bureau allowed for individuals to self-report their race, leading to many mixed-race individuals who may have previously been recorded by surveyors as another race to report themselves as Native American.[7] Additionally, starting with the2000 census, respondents could record more than one race, again leading to an increase in mixed-race individuals recording at least one of their races as Native American.[7]
A 2019 article published byRewire News Group listed "American Indians andAlaska Natives" as the most undercounted group in the United States.[7][12] According to a report from the Census Bureau, Native Americans living on Indian reservations were undercounted by 12.2 percent in the1990 census.[7] This figure declined to 4.9 percent in the2010 census.[7] According to the bureau, approximately 26 percent of Native Americans in the United States live in "hard-to-count" census tracts,[12] and American Indians and Alaska Natives are categorized by the bureau as "hard-to-count populations".[7] According to Judy Shapiro, aNative American civil rights attorney, census data is often used by the federal government for "gatekeeping" federal recognition, saying, "Through the federal recognition process, they determine who is Native, who continues to exist, and who they are responsible for [maintaining trusts and treaties]".[7]
In 1924, thegovernment of Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act.[13] The law both prohibitedinterracial marriages and codified strict racial distinctions, with all people in the state being recorded as either "white" or "colored".[13] This meant that allNative Americans in Virginia were officially categorized alongside black people as "colored", and instances of "Indian" being used on birth certificates issued prior to 1924 were updated to read "colored" instead.[11][13] The law was in effect until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court struck it down asunconstitutional in theirlandmark case ofLoving v. Virginia.[13][14]
According to theNational Park Service, the law's "strict definitions of whiteness and blackness led to a masserasure of Virginia Indian identity. As a result ... Virginia Indians often have difficulty in proving an unbroken lineage, one of the many requirements to becoming a federally recognized Tribe".[13] Chief Stephen Adkins of theChickahominy Tribe referred to the act as "paper genocide", a sentiment echoed by leaders of other tribes in Virginia,[1] such as theMonacan Indian Nation.[13] In 2018, the United States Congress passed legislation extending federal recognition to six tribes in Virginia whose records had been affected by the law: the Chickahominy, theEastern Chickahominy, the Monacan Indian Nation, theNansemond Indian Nation, theRappahannock Tribe, and theUpper Mattaponi Tribe.[14] In March 2024, on the centennial of the act's passage, leaders from several tribes in Virginia hosted a panel at theLibrary of Virginia to discuss the act and its continued legacy.[1]
In 2020, Sutton wrote about the exclusion of Native Americans from surveys and statistical studies as a form of paper genocide.[6] As examples of Native American exclusion, Sutton pointed to a 2019 incident in which a spokesperson for theAmerican Institute of Architects announced during a meeting of theAmerican Indian Council of Architects and Engineers that they would no longer collect data on Native American architects due to it being such a small group, as well as a decision byThe Princeton Review to cease collection on data regarding Native American university enrollment.[6] Additionally, Sutton highlighted a report issued by the NALP Foundation and the Center for Women in Law at theUniversity of Texas School of Law titled "Women of Color: A Study of Law School Experiences" that did not include Native Americans as a distinct group.[6] While the researchers said in the introduction that the paper "analyzes the experiences reported by women of color byAsian/Pacific Islander, Black/African-American, and Hispanic/Latina students", Native American women were simply included in a catch-all "women of color" category.[6]
Speaking of the responsibility of researchers, Sutton wrote:
To avoid paper genocide, researchers have an obligation to be purposeful in their methods to reach and include Native Americans and share their disaggregated perspectives as part of reported findings. When researchers do not do this, at worst, they continue the practice of paper genocide and at best, it is an unapologeticmicroaggression.
In 2024, television stationKGPE ofFresno, California, reported that thePicayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, a tribe that owns and operates theChukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, had disenrolled several members of the tribe after requesting proof of heritage andallotment papers.[15][16][17] Several of those who had been disenrolled said that the process was unjust, with Claudia Gonzales, a former member of thetribal council, saying, "If we knew this was coming, then we would have taken precautions and measures to protect the general membership from those few that decided they want to try to create paper genocide".[15]
| Forms | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes |
| ||||
| Social |
| ||||
| Religious | |||||
| Race / Ethnicity |
| ||||
| Manifestations |
| ||||
| Discriminatory policies |
| ||||
| Countermeasures |
| ||||
| Related topics |
| ||||
