NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION PATTERNS

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: Chicago/Turabian: Author-Date: NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=chiad and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines. Reference List Shumway, J. Matthew, and Richard H. Jackson. 1995. "Native American population patterns." Geographical Review 85, no. 2: 185. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 18, 2013).  NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION PATTERNS ABSTRACT. Regional concentration characterizes the distribution of Native Americans. They have been concentrated in the rural American West through three centuries of governmental intervention to create "Indian States." The last four decades have witnessed important changes in the geography of Native Americans. The majority of them are now urban residents, and migration and more precise census enumeration have resulted in significant population growth in non-indian States. In spite of these changes, the current patterns of Native American population are only marginally different from the geography consequent to three centuries of governmental intervention in locational decisions. Key words: American Indians, migration, Native Americans, regional patterns, urbanization. The distribution of Native Americans in the United States has created widely recognizable geographical regions. In this article we examine changes in the numbers and distribution of the people identified as Indian by the United States Bureau of the Census to determine their geography at the end of the twentieth century. Ethnic identification is a handicap in an analysis of the Native American population. Identification of a person is further compounded by attempts to assign individuals to membership in a Native American group. These groups refer to themselves by designations that range from the widely used--if commonly misapplied--tribe to nation, people, confederation, band, or some other label that can be understood only in the context of the individual or the group making the designation. Page 1 of 12

The difficulty of defining individual or group status has primary importance in examining changes in numbers and distribution of the Native American population, but there is no agreement on definitions. Designation as a Native American or as a member of a group may bring unique rights and privileges, including guarantees of services from the federal government. Consequently, it has used a wide variety of definitions of "Indianness," each of which is specific to a federal agency providing the service (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980). Historically, Indians were able to recognize their own ancestry and identified themselves as Indian. During the nineteenth-century efforts to define who was a Native American, blood quantum became the primary basis for determining the percentage of an individual's ancestry derived from a specific ethnic group. If the father and mother of a child are both descendants of full-blooded Indians, then the child has a 100 percent blood quantum. If the child is descended from a full-blooded Indian parent and a parent with no indian blood, it has a blood quantum of 50 percent. Many Indian tribes still define membership as a blood-quantum percentage, ranging from one-half to one-sixteenth, although a majority seems to rely on the one-fourth blood-quantum requirement, which means at least one grandparent was a full-blooded Indian. Where blood quantum was not directly used as a definition of Native American, enrollment in a federally recognized tribe was the basis for proving Indian ancestry. However, these enrollments are subject to the same uncertainties, because each tribe relied on its own membership definition (Chaudhuri 1985). Underenumeration of Native Americans in recent censuses results in part from the shifting definitions used by the Bureau of the Census (Snipp 1989). Since the 1980 census the bureau has asked individuals to state either their ethnicity or their ancestry. The terms were mutually exclusive. POPULATION The issue of definition is crucial in determining the current population of American Indians. Clearly, the number of individuals who are of Native American ancestry has been repeatedly underenumerated in the federal censuses of population. When the census first began to compile figures for American Indians, the tallies were much lower than even the lowest estimates for pre- Columbian times and reached a low of 250,000 in 1890 (Thornton 1987). From 1890 to 1950 Native American population growth was slow. The pattern in part resulted from the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, which extended rights of United States citizenship to all Native Americans and which thus led to more accurate enumeration of all Indians, because both reservation and nonreservation residents were counted. The 1950 census reported a Native American population of nearly 380,000. In each of the six decades from 1900 to 1950, the number of Native Americans increased by slightly more than 7 percent. The greatest population increase occurred in 1960 after the Bureau of the Census adopted selfidentification: Native American population rose to almost two million in 1990, a 455 percent increase in forty years. Significantly, the growth rate for each census after 1960 exceeded that for both the African-American and non-hispanic white majority of the United States. Between 1980 and 1990 the Native American population increased by 38 percent, in contrast with only 6 percent for African-Americans and 13 percent for non-hispanic whites. Causes of the rapid population Page 2 of 12

growth in the last few decades are numerous, including improved health care for reservation Indians; uniform census enumeration in rural and reservation areas; changes in overall census procedures for identifying Native Americans, of which the use of self-identification beginning in 1960 is most important; and a political and social milieu in which individuals are identifying themselves as Native Americans, a phenomenon associated with growing ethnic pride in many groups. The factors that have resulted in the rapid growth in numbers of Native Americans are expected to continue to operate. The Bureau of the Census projects a Native American population of 2.4 million by 2000 and of approximately 4.6 million by 2050. Although actual figures may vary substantially, the Native Americans are the ethnic group in the United States whose population is expanding most rapidly solely through natural increase. Some other groups have a higher rate, but it includes substantial additions through immigration. Still, Native Americans account for only 1 percent of the population of the United States, and if the projected growth rates are achieved, the proportion will be only 2 percent in 2050 (Day 1993). The geographical implication of the Native American population is regionally apparent at the individual tribe, federation, band, or other subgroup level. The 1990 census recorded 500 Indian groups, which the federal government collectively referred to as tribes, and 310 reservations (Fig. 1). Only four main Native American groups--cherokee, Navajo, Chippewa, and Sioux--reported a count of more than 100,000 in 1990. Six other groups--choctaw, Pueblo, Apache, Iroquois Confederation, Lumbee, and Creek--had populations of 40,000 to 100,000. Another fourteen groups had populations of 10,000 to 40,000, leaving 476 Indian groups with populations of fewer than 10,000. The distribution of the Native American population was highly influenced by the few large groups. Only 60 percent of the groups had recognized reservation lands, and even in groups with the greatest amount of land, such as the Navajo, not all members reside on the reservation. The second most important factor that has influenced Native American population during the last few decades has been large-scale migration to urban areas (Thornton 1987). In 1950, 13.4 percent of enumerated Native Americans lived in urban areas, but by 1990 the proportion had risen to 53 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). The growing urbanization of American Indians has generated other significant changes in the geographical patterns of Native American residence. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION One unique aspect of the geography of Native Americans that emerges from their long interaction with other Americans is the reservation system. The reservations are composed of four classes of recognized lands: reservations and trust lands, tribal jurisdictional statistical areas (TJSAs), tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs), and Alaskan national village statistical areas (ANVSAs). Each class has specific characteristics relative to its independence from federal intervention. Reservations and trust lands were generally established by treaty, statute, or executive or court Page 3 of 12

order (U.S. Department of Commerce 1980). There are 310 reservations in the United States, of which 298 are federal reservations and 12 are state reservations. Approximately 22 percent of the Native Americans defined by the 1990 census, a total of 437,431 individuals, resided on reservations or trust lands. TJSAs refer to portions of Oklahoma that were allotted to individual tribal members or to trust lands there that have been designated by tribal officials as areas of tribal jurisdiction for their Native American residents. The 17 TJSAs contained approximately 10 percent of the Native American population. TDSAs are identical to TJSAs but are located outside Oklahoma. The 19 TDSAs accounted for 3 percent of the Native American population. The ANVSAs are home to 2.5 percent of Native American population. In 1990, 37.6 percent of the total Native American population resided on these categories of land, a slight decrease from 38.1 percent in 1980. The decline of residency on Native American lands contrasts with the concurrent overall growth of the Native American population by 40 percent. This pattern indicates that growth rates were more rapid among Native Americans who did not live on Indian lands than among those who did. The actual number of Native Americans on an individual reservation varies widely, but approximately one-half resided on the largest reservations. The largest reservation is the Navajo, in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. It was home to 143,405 Native Americans in 1990, more than thirteen times as many as the second largest, the Pine Ridge Reservation in Nebraska and South Dakota, which contained slightly more than 11,000 residents. No other reservation had a population in excess of 10,000. One-third of all reservation Indians enumerated in the 1990 census resided on the Navajo reservation. The majority of reservations had fewer than 1,000 residents. Only two of the ten largest reservations are not in the western states, and seven of them are totally or partially in Arizona. Of these ten, only the Navajo, Fort Apache, and Rosebud had rates of population growth rates equal to or exceeding that for all Native Americans during the 1980-1990 census interval. Almost two-thirds of the total growth in reservation population was accounted for by the Navajo reservation (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). The federal policies that led to relocation of Native American groups are evident in the current population patterns. In 1980 two-thirds of all Native Americans lived west of the Mississippi River, and in 1990 nearly one-half of them were in this region (Fig. 2). The concentration in the West illustrated in Figure 2 is somewhat misleading, because it shows percentages of Native American population, which emphasizes the reservation lands in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and Oklahoma. The 1990 census reported that 46 percent of all Native Americans lived in the West census region, 30 percent in the South region, which includes Oklahoma and North Carolina, 18 percent in the North Central region, and 6 percent in the Northeast (Table I). The population of American Indians in the Northeast region rose from fewer than 16,000 to more than 121,000 between 1950 and 1990. Growth rates for the North Central and South regions were considerably higher. Of the four regions, the growth rate was slowest in the West, but it had nearly Page 4 of 12

a fourfold increase during the forty-year period. The magnitude of the increase in the Northeast, North Central, and South is illustrated by the fact that the population increase in the last decade alone totaled more than the Native American population reported in the 1950 census. The changes in regional distribution of Native Americans in the last four decades is only now beginning to reverse the historical western concentration that resulted from federal policies and the activities associated with westward-expanding settlements. The rapid growth of the Native American population in the traditionally non-indian States illustrates some significant changes in the processes that affect where Indians live. The fertility levels of American Indians are highest on reservations and other Indian-occupied lands (Indian Health Service 1990). Because most reservations are in the West, it is very unlikely that fertility rates have been the cause of the dramatic growth outside the West. The percentage of Native American migration between census regions is small; thus interregional migration does not appear to be the major determining factor in explaining the differential regional growth patterns (Sandefur and Jeon 1991). The explanation for the rapid increase outside the West seems to be the changed definition of Native Americans by the census bureau to self-identification and the growling willingness of individuals to declare themselves Native Americans (Passel and Berman 1986). The regional concentration of American Indians is exceeded by state concentration. Two-thirds of Native Americans are found in ten states: Oklahoma, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, North Carolina, Washington, Texas, New York, and Michigan. The 1990 Native American tallies for these ten states ranged from 252,089 in Oklahoma to 55,131 in Michigan. Twenty-nine states had 10,000 or more Native American residents in 1990, and their combined populations accounted for 88 percent of all American Indians, which was a decline from 96 percent in 1950 and 90 percent in 1970. Six states contained the majority of the 1990 Indian population. The term Indian States has been used to identify a distinct geographical region: the twenty states with at least 3,000 Indians in 1950 (Passel and Berman 1986). These states accounted for 92 percent of the 1950 Native American enumerated population but only 80 percent of the 1990 Indian population. Census data on Indian population by state since 1950, however, reveal that most of the change in regional concentration of Native Americans in the Indian States had occurred by 1970. The average growth rate of Native Americans remained relatively constant at between 120 and 130 percent a decade from 1950 to 1970. Fourteen states had above-average growth rates during that period, and only four of them were Indian States--North Carolina, California, Utah, and New York. Four of them were in the West--Colorado, California, Nevada, and Utah. The pattern was repeated from 1970 to 1990, when only five of the fastest-growing states were Indian States-- Michigan, California, Oklahoma, Washington, and New York; only four were in the West--Colorado, California, Washington, and Nevada. The states with the greatest growth in absolute numbers were Indian States, with the exception of Texas and Florida. Although the fastest growth rate for Native Americans was in areas outside the traditional Indian States in the last forty years, the largest absolute numerical increases were in the Indian States because of their larger Native Page 5 of 12

American population base. Although impressive gains were experienced by California, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, Florida, and Colorado, the largest relative declines were in states that had large Native American populations on reservations or other Indian-land populations: Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. The growth of Native American population among states and regions supports the hypothesis that increase in the states other than the Indian States, except in isolated cases, owes more to changes in self-identification than to migration. In spite of the rapid growth in states without reservations or other Indian lands, the ten states with the highest percentage of American Indians have not changed in the last forty years, except for redistribution among them. The states with large reservations or other Indian lands-- Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Montana, and Arizona--were historic Indian States, and, in each, Native Americans constitute more than 5 percent of the population. Similar factors have affected the distribution of American Indians in and among urban areas. In 1950, only 13 percent of Native Americans resided in urban areas, in contrast to the overall figure of 64 percent for the United States. The urban proportion of Native Americans rose dramatically after 1950 to 44 percent in 1970 and to 53 percent in 1990 (Thornton 1987; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992). The correlation of the nonurban status of Native Americans before 1990 with their high instances of poverty, shortened life span, high infant-mortality rates, and other socioeconomic factors is obvious. Increased urbanization during the last four decades results especially from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) relocation program that began in 1952 and from the rising number of individuals who are not resident in historically recognized Indian areas but who have identified themselves as Native Americans. The BIA relocation program contributed to the rise of Native American populations in large metropolitan areas like Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Oakland, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Tulsa. Some observers suggest that the present-day distribution of urban Native Americans, especially in Oklahoma and California, which have almost one-quarter of the entire Indian population, results from the federal relocation program and the subsequent chain migration (Snipp 1989). Self-identification accounted for the most rapid growth of Native American population in states that historically did not have a high proportion of Indians, and this new growth was almost always associated with urban areas. The most rapid growth occurred in Washington, D.C., and the New York City metropolitan area. Of the twenty metropolitan areas with the largest Native American populations, the four located east of the Mississippi River include the most rapidly growing numbers. The cities with the largest Native American populations are all in Indian States, but their growth patterns vary widely: in some cases a decline is apparent, as in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Many of the rapidly growing metropolitan Indian populations have more than 25 percent born in other states, which is especially true of those with the most rapid growth in the non-indian States. Page 6 of 12

For example, almost 70 percent of the Native American population in Washington, D.C., was born elsewhere. The American Indian metropolitan population can be categorized in three types of cities: cities that served as BIA relocation destinations, major cities in or near states with large Native American populations, and cities experiencing recent growth of Native American populations. These categories are not mutually exclusive and allow speculation about the factors that influence the current distribution of the metropolitan Native American population. The first factor affecting Native American urban residence seems to be relative location: cities near large reservations or other Indian lands provide the closest economic opportunity for Indians who migrate for economic reasons but want access to their reservation homelands. The second factor is the BIA relocation program, which provides a starting point for chain migration. Once established in an urban center, the migrants become a reference point and territorial base for other Native Americans attracted by economic opportunities. The third factor is the changing economic and educational opportunities available to Native Americans. For example, Washington, D.C., had the highest growth rate for Native Americans during the 1980s and remains a magnet for educated, trained Indians who work for the federal government. MIGRATION PATTERNS Movement of Native Americans from rural or reservation locations to metropolitan or other urban locales represents an important change in their geographical distribution. Examination of the regional variation resulting from this migration is made at two scales: nine census divisions, and the states as regions. To measure migration we define a migrant as a person whose residence at either scale differed in 1990 from that in 1985. Like most Americans, Native Americans tend to move short distances (Long 1988). Approximately 51 percent of Native Americans changed residence between 1985 and 1990, but 42 percent of that number moved locally, within the same county or metropolitan statistical area (MSA); 35 percent crossed county or MSA boundaries but stayed in the same state; only 23 percent emigrated to another state. Of interstate migrants, only 13 percent moved to a different census division. With one-quarter of the total migrant Native American population moving between state or census divisions, the level of migration was still relatively high. REGIONAL FLOWS The twenty largest migration flows between census divisions illustrate the effectiveness of migration (Fig. 3). Effectiveness is a measure of the net migration relative to the gross migration between two areas. The level of effectiveness is derived by dividing the net migration between two regions by the gross migration flow between them, which yields a percentage ranging from zero, when the numbers of migrants are equal, to 100, when movement is in one direction only (Plane 1984). At the census-division level, the most obvious movement was from the West South Central division, which had net flows to every other census division. Two other census divisions, the Pacific and the West North Central, had strong net outflows, but both had one or more net inmigration flows. Page 7 of 12

The effectiveness of migration between census divisions, in contrast to simple total net migration, demonstrates the linkages between census divisions. New England, for example, received major net inflows from the West South Central division, the Mid Atlantic division, and the Pacific division. Concurrently, it had large outflows to the Mountain division and the East North Central, West North Central, and South Atlantic divisions. The census divisions with the strongest net inflow were the South Atlantic, the Mountain, and the East North Central. The South Atlantic division was the strongest magnet for migrants, with a net effectiveness stream greater than 20 percent from four other divisions and with a small positive increment from a fourth. The East North Central division, with positive effectiveness from four divisions, and the Mountain division, with positive effectiveness from three divisions, were the other two net magnets, but at a weaker scale. The most efficient flows, representing the strongest one-way movements, fall into two groups. First are migrant flows between census divisions where one has a historically high percentage of Native Americans and the other a low percentage but is located in close proximity, as were the flows from the West South Central to the South Atlantic, New England, and Mid Atlantic divisions. The second is categorized as long-distance movement, such as that from the New England to the Mountain division or from the Pacific to the New England division. The least efficient migration flows were associated with census divisions where American Indian populations were most highly concentrated, as between the Pacific and Mountain divisions or the West North Central and West South Central divisions or areas farther west. Examination of the migration efficiency of Native Americans between 1985 and 1990 verifies that the primary migration was to areas east of the Mississippi River which traditionally had lower American Indian populations. STATE PATTERNS At the state level, the pattern of migration is generally reinforced, but in each census division certain states stand out as sending or receiving destinations (Fig. 4). Texas was the source for the largest number of migrants, with a net out-migration to seven other states. California was the second largest origin of total net migrants, with a loss of Native American population to six other states. Unlike Texas, California had positive in-migration from two other states. The other states with large out-migration were New York, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona. Of these, New York has no positive net in-migration from any other state, but the others have positive in-migration from at least one other state. The states with the greatest net receipts of migration flows are divided into two groups. Oregon and Washington are both migration destinations for Native Americans, with the latter having net inmigration streams from three states and the former from four, with no out-migration. Both are heavily affected by migrants from California, who represent between 20 and 30 percent of their total increase. The other large new receiver is Nevada, with more than one-half of the migrants coming from California. Examination of the state flow of net migration indicates a relationship among Indian States, BIA relocation centers, and Native American migration. Except for Florida, the states that had either the highest net in-migration or the highest net out-migration were all in Page 8 of 12

one of these categories. This pattern suggests that migration is between states with relatively large concentrations of American Indians. Oklahoma, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, the four states with the most Native Americans, act as spatial distributors (Roseman and McHugh 1982). The degree to which a state primarily experiences net out-migration or in-migration, or engages in a two-way migration flow with other states, is a function of economic opportunities at a specific time. For example, rapid growth in metropolitan Las Vegas largely accounts for the influx of Native Americans into Nevada from surrounding states (Jackson 1994). The general pattern of movement of Native Americans between states reinforces the importance of the original federal efforts in relocating them to the West. Although there are net flows from the Indian States to non-indian States, the four latter are dwarfed by the number of net migration flows between Indian States. Federal intervention in the spatial distribution of Native Americans during the past two centuries thus continues to reverberate through the lives of present-day Native Americans. To test the strength of the enduring effect of the federal role and to determine its status, migration between states was also measured as an effectiveness percentile (Fig. 5). As with the data on effectiveness of migration flow between census divisions, the effectiveness between states shows an increase in importance of migration to non-indian States. The net migration statistics emphasize movement between Indian States, and measurement of the effectiveness of migration flow reveals a greater migration to the East. Michigan, which was a net recipient of migrants from only two states, emerged as a receiver from five states in percent effectiveness of migration. Moreover, the percent effectiveness of states sending Native Americans to Michigan was nearly all at or near 50 percent or higher. Nevada, which on the basis of destination of large numbers of inmigrants ranked as the third highest recipient state, was a major destination as measured in percent effectiveness, but the strength of Nevada's attraction is revealed by effectiveness levels of more than 80 percent from three states and of 100 percent from Texas. In the historic Indian States, the attraction of Nevada is rivaled only by Oregon, but its effective migration levels are lower. East of the Mississippi River, Michigan emerges as the primary magnet for Native American migrants, but migration streams from Texas to North Carolina and South Carolina and, to a lesser degree, to Florida have positive values. In the states east of the Mississippi River, only New York is a principal migrant source area, with a net effectiveness of migration stream to Florida of more than 60 percent. The other interstate flows tend to be relatively small and are dwarfed by the effectiveness of migration between and among the historic Indian States. CONCLUSION The Native American population has grown dramatically in the last three decades as the result of both natural increase and increasing self-identification as Indian. Important spatial antecedents continue to affect spatial redistribution. The highest natural growth rates occur on reservation or other rural Indian-governed lands. Limited local economic opportunities combine with rising expectations and lack of territorial expansion to encourage out-migration. Much Native American Page 9 of 12

migration is internal to the state or census division of residence, but it still creates an important geographical change in the location of the Native American population. The chief migration is from rural or reservation lands to large metropolitan areas in the state or census division. The largest Native American populations are now found in urban and metropolitan areas that are close to reservations or in those that were the focus of Indian relocation under the BIA program. In each case the Native American population expanded in one or two large urban areas within each traditional Indian State. Economic opportunities in the urban areas are generally much more favorable than are those on the reservations, but at the same time they come with an important opportunity cost. Relocation to urban areas removes Native Americans from the support services provided by the BIA, tribe, or other organizations. Loss of medical care, education, or other services may result in a significant cost to the migrants. Native Americans in urban areas are diffused throughout a much larger non-indian population, which means the loss of the cultural support of tribal or other group members and of family. The potential for acculturation and related decline of traditional Indian heritage increases in such settings. The emergence and rapid population growth of Native Americans in cities east of the Mississippi River compound the potential for acculturation and loss of support services. The regional patterns of population growth and migration among Native Americans are important indexes of their changing geography. The South is the biggest net gainer of Native Americans, and the West is the largest net contributor. Because the interregional migration is actually a small percentage, the growth may largely reflect changes in self-identification. The actual growth of Native American populations in the eastern states appears to have slowed in the last decade, when compared with the 1970 and 1980 censuses, a shift which may indicate that most Americans who desired to identify themselves as Native Americans did so in 1980. If this assumption is correct, future growth rates of the Native American population east of the Mississippi River will result from ever-increasing migration from the traditional Indian States. American Indians constitute a small percentage of the total United States population, and Native American migrants have relatively little effect on regions outside reservations or other Indian lands. However, the migration of Native Americans to urban areas and to states east of the Mississippi River is an important geographical change. The magnitude and selectivity of this migration may have relatively large socioeconomic and demographic effects on reservations or other Indian lands and, more importantly, on individual Native Americans. TABLE I--NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATION BY REGION 1950--1990 REGION 1950[a] 1970[a] 1990[a] Northeast 15,947 45,720 121,551 (4) (6) (7) Page 10 of 12

North Central 76,829 144,245 333,998 (20) (18) (18) South 68,955 194,406 557,214 (18) (25) (30) West 215,564 408,350 865,222 (57) (52) (46) Total 377,295 792,721 1,877,985 Sources: Thornton 1987; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990. a Percentage of each census count in parentheses. MAP: FIG. 1--Native American reservations and communities. Sources: U.S. Department of the Interior 1941; Hilliard 1972. MAP: FIG. 2--Distribution of Native Americans by county of residence 1990. MAP: FIG. 3--Migration streams among census divisions by percent effectiveness 1990. MAP: FIG. 4--Largest net migration streams between states 1990. MAP: FIG. 5--Largest migration streams between states by percent effectiveness 1990. CITATIONS Chaudhuri, J. 1985. American Indian policy: an overview. American Indian policy in the twentieth century, ed. V. Deloria Jr., 20-21. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Day, J.C. 1993. Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1993-2050. Current Population Report, 25-110. Washington D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Hilliard, S.B. 1972. Indian land cessions [map supplement 16]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 62:374. Indian Health Service, Division of Program Statistics. 1990. Regional differences in Indian health. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Jackson, R. H. 1994. People and place in a harsh land: the culture geography of the Great Basin. Natural history of the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin, ed. H. Kimball and others, 125-149. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. Long, L. E. 1988. Migration and residential mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Page 11 of 12

Foundation. Passel, J. S., and P. A. Berman. 1986. Census data for American Indians. Social Biology 33:164-182. Plane, D. A. 1984. A systematized demographic efficiency analysis of U.S. interstate population exchange, 1935-1980. Economic Geography 33:294-312. Roseman, C. C., and K. E. McHugh. 1982. Metropolitan areas as redistributors of population. Urban Geography 31:22-33. Sandefur, G. D., and J. Jeon. 1991. Migration, race and ethnicity 1960-1980. International Migration Review 25:392-407. Snipp, C. M. 1989. American Indians: the first of this land. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Thornton, R. 1987. American Indian holocaust and survival: population history since 1942. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Census of population and housing, 1990: summary tape file 1 (all states). Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Economics and Statistics Administration. 1993. We the first Americans. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1980. Federal and state reservations and Indian trust areas. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1941. Indian reservations in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ~~~~~~~~ By J. MATTHEW SHUMWAY and RICHARD H. JACKSON DR. SHUMWAY is an assistant professor of geography at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, where DR. JACKSON is a professor of geography. Copyright of Geographical Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Page 12 of 12