search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
the census. When they were finally included, the census significantly undercounted the Native population. By 1950, the undercount- ing was so great that almost one-third of all Indians were left out, leading to a “popula- tion explosion” in Indian numbers from 1970 through to 1990 as a result of the statis- tics catching up to reality. To be fair, the task confronting the Cen-


sus Department was not easy. The decennial census is a massive undertaking. Ever since it was introduced in 1790, it has never been free from controversy. Until relatively recently the majority of Indians lived on isolated lands with few paved roads; they were difficult to get to, even after the widespread introduction of the automobile. For Native Americans, even simple questions could be contentious. The census discovered this in 1890 when it found the very first question asked, “Are you an Indian?” was met “with a serious difficulty.” Because Indian people belonged to many sep- arate nations before they were incorporated into the United States, the definition of who was an Indian was a matter of culture and law, not simply that of race. Different government departments would impose different criteria that would change over time. Much confusion was also fostered by the common practice of grouping other indigenous peoples, such as the Eskimos and Aleuts, with Indians. In addition to the challenges of gathering


the information accurately, the amount of data is so great that it takes five to seven years for the Census Department to compile and release a comprehensive report on the Native American population. Unfortunately these reports are often subject to budget constraints and shift- ing priorities, so their quality over the years has been uneven. Given that Natives come from many different tribes, each with its own distinctive situation and needs, it is important to break down the data by tribe. In 1910, the census report differentiated 280 tribes and provided detailed statistics on each of them. In 1930, it only differentiated 100. In many years, such as 1940 through 1960, there was no tribal breakdown. Sometimes the breakdown is incomplete. In recent censuses people were often grouped in catchall categories, such as “pueblo,” even though they may have been from specific pueblos, such as Taos or Zuni. For all of its controversies, the decennial


census is ultimately the largest scientific study in the world. More than 500,000 people are hired every 10 years to ensure its accuracy and to compile and categorize the data. The survey focuses on a range of social issues, not simply absolute numbers, and includes questions


about income and wealth, housing, health, educational attainment, language use, citi- zenship and urbanization, among others. So despite its shortcomings, the census data is a goldmine of information about the American people and is widely used by scholars, govern- ment agencies and private industry. The information is also invaluable in


understanding the tremendous changes in Native life over the past 150 years. Since the census of 1890, the population of Indians has grown more than ten times, from ap- proximately 250,000 to 2.9 million in 2010. In the latter year, an additional 2.3 million respondents said they had some American Indian ancestry. In 1890, the vast majority of Indians lived on reservations, but today only one in five do so. Indeed, as of 2010, New York City has now the second largest Indian population in the U.S., greater than any res- ervation except the Navajo. Whereas in 1890 most Indians had not at-


tended school, much less graduated, in 2010 more than 77 percent of Indians over 25 had a high school diploma or equivalent, and 13 percent had a college degree. But the census indicates that assimilation has come with a price; for 100 years ago almost every Indian could speak their tribal language, but today less than one in four still do so. And despite the perceived wealth of gaming on reserva- tions, poverty is still a major scourge in Indian communities. According to the census, more than 28 percent of all Indians live in poverty, almost twice the national rate. The information from the census is vital


to understanding current social issues such as poverty and inequality, language and cultural loss, identity and assimilation. Overcoming long-held mutual suspicions, the Census De- partment has been working with tribal lead- ers to correct the deficiencies of the past. The hope is that when the 2010 data is released in full, it will provide a more comprehensive look at Native life and be a useful tool in pro- tecting Indian rights and cultures. X


Alexander Ewen (Purepecha), is the director of the Solidarity Foundation and the author (with Jeff Wollock) of the forth- coming Encyclopedia of American Indians in the 20th


Century


(University of New Mexico Press). Ivana Maravic is a research associate, mathematician and statistician for the Solidarity Foundation. Ewen and Maravic are working on the forthcom- ing Demographic History of American Indian Languages.


18902010


SINCE THE CENSUS OF 1890, THE POPULATION OF INDIANS HAS GROWN MORE THAN TEN TIMES, FROM APPROXIMATELY 250,000 TO 2.9 MILLION IN 2010.


SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 55


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100