Preface to Indian Country: Geography and Law

Abstract

One will look in vain for Indian Country on most maps. Although many observers would readily identify it with tribes in the hinterland, few would recognize the unique polity of this place. As a toponym, or place name, Indian Country seems to belong to the past. Yet, it has prevailed in the literature for more than a century-not only in legal discourse and law, but also in historic reference. Associated in the past with the frontier-essentially beyond the frontier-Indian Country at one time or another was identified with tribes whose territories remained generally intact. From the perspective of territorial government, Indian Country was extraterritorial. The refinement of the concept of Indian Country, more than its better delimitation as a real place, has relied on law, not history, and essentially means lands held in trust.\nAlthough the geographical delimitation of Indian Country beyond the bounds of reservations has remained somewhat elusive, efforts to ascertain such bounds began to take on new meaning as non-Indians squatted on tribal lands or otherwise secured homesteads on land ceded by treaties. Increased encroachment by the white majority, leading to conflicts and hostile negotiations, brought Indians and non-Indians into closer contact by dint of adjacent landholding and day-to-day living. When later laws opened reservations subsequent to the distribution (allotment) of land to individual tribal members, non-Indians became permanent inhabitants of many reservations and, hence, "citizens" of Indian Country. In fact, in selected areas of the West (e.g., in California and parts of the Northwest) the number of non- Indians exceeds that of Indians as residents of many reservations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.