The lack of literature on Indigenous conceptions of health and the social determinants of health (SDH) for US Indigenous communities limits available information for Indigenous nations as they set policy and allocate resources to improve the health of their citizens. In 2015, eight scholars from tribal communities and mainstream educational institutions convened to examine: the limitations of applying the World Health Organization's (WHO) SDH framework in Indigenous communities; Indigenizing the WHO SDH framework; and Indigenous conceptions of a healthy community. Participants critiqued the assumptions within the WHO SDH framework that did not cohere with Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies and created a schematic for conceptualizing health and categorizing its determinants. As Indigenous nations pursue a policy role in health and seek to improve the health and wellness of their nations' citizens, definitions of Indigenous health and well-being should be community-driven and Indigenous-nation based. Policies and practices for Indigenous nations and Indigenous communities should reflect and arise from sovereignty and a comprehensive understanding of the nations and communities' conceptions of health and its determinants beyond the SDH.

This article presents the concept of social inclusion as a means of addressing problems of poverty and social welfare and reviews the place of social inclusion in U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples within U.S. boundaries. We argue that there are a number of problems with the present policy application of social inclusion to Indigenous peoples in the United States, including external conceptions of needs, individualization, an orientation to distributional as opposed to positional politics, and the conditionality of inclusion. We review some of the ways that Indigenous peoples are challenging the assumptions that underlie inclusionary policy goals. We then consider how a revised concept of social inclusion that comprehends the distinctiveness of Indigenous aspirations for self-determination, nationhood, and collective self-government might benefit not only Native Americans but the United States itself and how it might contribute to a postracial America. Our argument throughout is not with social inclusion as an ideal but with the particular version of it that has characterized late 20th and early 21st century policy toward Native peoples in the United States.

Contemporary debates about poverty and its mitigation often invoke the idea of social inclusion: the effort to increase the capacities and opportunities of disadvantaged populations to participate more fully in the economy, polity, and institutions of developed societies. While practical outcomes have been inconsistent, this idea has been prominent in the social policies of both Canada and the United States. Both generally see themselves as liberal democracies committed to building socially inclusive societies, and both have adopted policies in support of that goal. However, we argue in this article that social inclusion, as presently conceived, fails to comprehend or address the distinctive situation of Indigenous peoples in both of these countries. Our critique focuses on four aspects of social inclusion as applied to Indigenous peoples: the external conception of needs, the individualization of both problems and solutions, the favoring of distributional politics over positional politics, and the conditionality of inclusion. We argue that both Canada and the United States need to reconceive social inclusion in ways that address these issues and that a more capacious conception of federalism may hold the key.

Health service provision has been an aspect of indigenous-United States relationships for over two hundred years, yet America's First Peoples continue to suffer from poor health outcomes when compared with other racial or ethnic groups in the United States. An important change over recent decades is that more and more tribes are managing their own health care services—a realignment of administration and authority that has the potential to substantially improve American Indian and Alaska Native health in years to come. This paper describes the history of health care provision to federally recognized American Indian tribes. It continues by documenting the sparse research literature on tribal management of health care services and identifying information still needed to bring knowledge of this topic up-to-date. Five challenges for tribal management of health-care services that should be considered by tribes and policymakers in their health-care efforts and brought to bear on future research are discussed. By addressing both tribal control of health-care services and the role of tribes in changes to federally provided health care, this paper adds the lens of tribal sovereignty to current discussions of the history and policy context for American Indian and Alaska Native health.

Over the last three decades, Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) have been reclaiming self-government as an Indigenous right and practice. In the process, they have been asserting various forms of Indigenous nationhood. This article argues that this development involves a common set of activities on the part of Indigenous peoples: (1) identifying as a nation or a people (determining who the appropriate collective “self” is in self-determination and self-government); (2) organizing as a political body (not just as a corporate holder of assets); and (3) acting on behalf of Indigenous goals (asserting and exercising practical decision-making power and responsibility, even in cases where central governments deny recognition). The article compares these activities in the four countries and argues that, while contexts and circumstances differ, the Indigenous politics of self-government show striking commonalities across the four. Among those commonalities: it is a positional as opposed to a distributional politics; while not ignoring individual welfare, it measures success in terms of collective power; and it focuses less on what central governments are willing to do in the way of recognition and rights than on what Indigenous nations or communities can do for themselves.

This article is about constitutionalism as an Indigenous tradition. The political idea of constitutionalism is the idea that the process of governing is itself governed by a set of foundational laws or rules. There is ample evidence that Indigenous nations in North America-and in Australia and New Zealand as well-were in this sense constitutionalists. Customary law, cultural norms, and shared protocols provided well understood guidelines for key aspects of governance by shaping both personal and collective action, the behavior of leaders, decision-making, dispute resolution, and relationships with the human, material, and spirit worlds. Today, many of these nations have governing systems imposed by outsiders. As they move to change these systems, they also are reclaiming their own constitutional traditions.

Unsettling Governance: From Bark Petition to YouTubeMorgan Brigg and Sarah Maddison Part 1: Framing Contemporary Governance Beyond Captives and Captors: Settler-Indigenous Governance for the 21st Century Morgan Brigg and Lyndon Murphy Reclaiming History for Indigenous Governance: Tasmanian Stories Patsy Cameron and Linn MillerIndigenous People in the Media: Telling it like it is and How it could be Kirstie Parker Part 2: Aboriginal Law and Contemporary Political Practice The Way of the Warlawarlara: Kapululangu's Two-Way Governance Zohl de Ishtar and the Women Elders of Kapululangu Aboriginal Women's Law and Cultural CentreAlcohol Restrictions in the Fitzroy Valley: Trauma and Resilience June Oscar and Howard PedersenNgarrindjeri Futures: Negotiation, Governance and Environmental Management Steve Hemming, Daryle Rigney, and Shaun Berg Part 3: Regional Governance and Collaboration Murdi Paaki: Challenge, Continuity and Change Sam Jeffries, Sarah Maddison and George Menham Indigenous Governance Structures in the Southwest of Western Australia Manuhuia Barcham The Redfern Aboriginal Housing Company Planning Process: Resilience, Resistance and Innovation Angela Pitts with Mick Mundine Part 4: Future Governing The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples: Changing the Relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and the State? Tom Calma and Darren Dick An Australian Dialogue: Decolonising the Country Patrick Dodson and Darryl Cronin Epilogue: Can the Settler State Settle with Whom it Colonises? Reasons for Hope and Priorities for Action Lester-Irabinna RigneyReferencesIndex

Since the 1970s, federal American Indian policy in the United States has been aimed at promoting self-determination through self-governance by federally-recognized tribes. This policy has proven to be the only policy that has worked to make significant progress in reversing otherwise distressed social, cultural and economic conditions in Native communities. The policy of self-determination reflects a political equilibrium which has held for four decades and which has withstood various shifts in the party control of Congress and the White House. While Republicans have provided relatively weak support for social spending on Indian issues when compared to Democrats, both parties’ representatives have generally been supportive of self-determination and local self-rule for tribes. Analysis of thousands of sponsorships of federal legislation over 1970-present, however, finds the equilibrium under challenge. In particular, since the late 1990s, Republican congressional support for policies of self-determination has fallen off sharply and has not returned. The recent change in the party control of Congress calls into question the sustainability of self-determination through self-governance as a central principle of federal Indian policy.

Since the late 1980s, the commercial gaming industry has grown rapidly on American Indian reservations. Today, more than 200 Indian nations own more than 400 gaming operations in 28 states, yielding revenues in 2006 of more than $25 billion. How did this come about and what are the effects on Indian nations and on non-Native communities? The organization of contemporary Indian gaming operations has its roots in tribal-state conflicts dating to the late 1970s. It is a governmental activity, carried out by tribal governments on the basis of the preexisting rights of Indian nations, although it has been substantially constrained by congressional legislation and federal court decisions. While gaming's effects are unevenly distributed across tribes, its political, economic, and social impacts on many Indian reservations have been significant and positive, and it has had positive economic effects on many non-Native communities as well, particularly in distressed areas. But our understanding of gaming's effects is hindered by a lack of comprehensive case studies of gaming-related tribal decision making and of gaming's effects on both Native and non-Native communities.

About the Authors Foreword Preface to the 2nd Edition Preface 1. The Puzzles Of Ethnicity And Race An Unexpected Persistence and Power A Puzzling Diversity of Forms Ethnicity and Race as Sociological Topics An Outline of What Follows 2. Mapping the Terrain: Definitions The Definition of Ethnicity The Definition of Race Ethnicity and Race Nationalism and Belonging Conclusion 3. Fixed or Fluid? Alternative Views of Ethnicity and Race The Assimilationist Assumption Primordialism Circumstantialism Primordialism and Circumstantialism Compared Conclusion 4. A Constructionist Approach The Construction of Ethnic and Racial Identities The Nature of Ethnic and Racial Bonds The Reconstruction of Circumstances The Logic of Ethnic and Racial Construction Reframing Intergroup Relations Conclusion 5. Case Studies in Identity Construction Case 1. The Power of Circumstances: Blacks and Indians in the United States Case 2. Between Assertion and Assignment: Chinese Americans in Mississippi Case 3. From Thick Ethnicity to Thin: German Americans Case 4. Constructed Primordiality and Ethnic Power: Afrikaners in South Africa Case 5. From Thin Ethnicity to Thick: Basketball and War in the Former Yugoslavia Case 6. Race, Culture, and Belonging: Who Is France? A Comparison of Cases Conclusion Chapter 6. Construction Sites: Contextual Factors in the Making of Identities Critical Sites Politics Labor Markets Residential Space Social Institutions Culture Daily Experience Summarizing Contextual Factors Conclusion Chapter 7. What They Bring: Group Factors in the Making of Identities Preexisting Identities Population Size Internal Differentiation Social Capital Human Capital Symbolic Repertoires Groups, Contexts, and Agendas Conclusion Chapter 8. Making Sense and Making Selves in a Changing World The Impact of Modernity Mixing and Multiplicity Separation and Consolidation Making Sense, Making Selves, Making Others Conclusion References

unit of the University of Arizona. Founded in 2001 by the university and the Morris K. Udall Foundation, NNI provides research, policy analysis, and executive education services to Native nations and other indigenous organizations in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Much of NNI' s work builds on and continues research originally carried out by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development at Harvard University. The two organizations share some staff and work closely together in a variety of research and educational activities.sity. Through applied research and service, the Harvard Project aims to understand and foster the conditions under which sustained, self-determined social and economic development is achieved among American Indian nations. The Harvard Project' s core activities include research, advisory services, executive education and the administration of a tribal governance awards program. In all of its activities, the Harvard Project collaborates with the Native Nations Insti-Stephen Cornell is professor of sociology and of public administration and policy and director of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, where he also is a faculty associate of the university' s Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy (NNI). He co-founded and today co-directs the Harvard Project on American Indian

and the United States are among the world' s wealthiest nations. 1 It is an often noted irony-and an occasional source of embarrassment to the governments of these countries-that the Indigenous peoples within their borders are in each case among their poorest citizens.The irony is either explained away or made all the greater, depending on your frame of mind, by the fact that the wealth of these countries has been built substantially on resources taken from these peoples, whose poverty-in the grand scheme of things-is a recent creation.Although my interest is not in the sources of Indigenous poverty but in how to overcome it, this poverty is the subject of this paper.In what follows, I consider the comparability of Indigenous peoples' situations in these countries, including the mismatch in all four cases between Indigenous demands for self-determination and state programs to address socio-economic disadvantage.I then summarize evidence from the United States that Indigenous self-determination and self-government are essential bases for improving the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples, 1.For example, according to the United Nations Development Progamme' s 2002 World Development Report, in 2000 Canada ranked third among countries of the world, Australia fifth, the U.S. sixth, and New Zealand nineteenth on the Human Development Index, which combines indicators of knowledge, individual longevity and the standard of living in each country (United Nations Development Programme 2003).

The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy (NNI) is part of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, a research and outreach unit of The University of Arizona. Founded in 2001 by the university and the Morris K. Udall Foundation, NNI provides research, policy analysis, and executive education services to Native nations and other indigenous organizations in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Much of NNI's work builds on and continues research originally carried out by The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development at Harvard University. The two organizations share some staff and work closely together in a variety of research and educational activities. and service, the Harvard Project aims to understand and foster the conditions under which sustained, self-determined social and economic development is achieved among American Indian nations. The Harvard Project's core activities include research, advisory services, executive education and the administration of a tribal governance awards program. In all of its activities, the Harvard Project collaborates with the Native The experiences of a wide array of societies around the world amply demonstrate that achieving sustained, self-determined economic development is a complex and difficult task. Certainly this is the case on the Indian reservations of the United States, where numerous obstacles face tribal leaders, managers, and other individuals concerned about the economic well-being of their peoples. In the introductory chapter, the editors of this volume review the specific obstacles that Indian nations face as they pursue their own development goals, outline the critical role that institutions of tribal governance play in the development process, and suggest ways that newly empowered tribal governments can improve tribes' own chances of achieving self-determined development success.