CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Indigenous Cultures and HistoryIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Sociological Perspectives on American Indians

Snipp, C. Matthew·1992·Annual Review of Sociology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The sociology of American Indians incorporates perspectives from across the social sciences. Recently, sociologists have taken a greater interest in American Indians, perhaps because American Indians have become increasingly visible in the diverse ethnic mosaic of American society. This review focuses on the position of American Indians in the US socioeconomic hierarchy: their numbers, where they live, and their social and economic well-being. The collapse and revitalization of the Indian population has been a central issue within American Indian demography. The recent growth in the population has been accompanied by increasing urbanization. These developments have significant implications for the socioeconomic well-being of American Indians in contemporary society.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002031

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For centuries, Native Americans have experienced internal colonialism.

    “For centuries, Native Americans have experienced internal colonialism (Snipp 1986(Snipp , 1992)), a situation in which a more powerful majority physically, socially, and/or culturally isolates an indigenous people and maintains economically exploitive relations with that minority.”

    From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Snipp 1992

  • PL 280 placed Native American defendants and Native American communities under state jurisdiction without originally requiring tribal consent, thus failing to recognize Native Americans' status as members of domestic sovereign nations.

    “PL 280 placed Native American defendants and Native American communities under state jurisdiction without originally requiring tribal consent, thus failing to recognize Native Americans' status as members of domestic sovereign nations (Droske 2008, Snipp 1992, Steinman 2012).”

    From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Snipp 1992

  • Many criticisms of PL 280 as a limitation to tribal sovereignty exist.

    “This coincides with many criticisms of PL 280 as a limitation to tribal sovereignty (Perry 2006, Snipp 1992).”

    From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Snipp 1992

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Snipp, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Snipp, C. Matthew
ORCID
Snipp, C. Matthew
Venue
Annual Review of Sociology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
1992-08
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
351-371
ISSN
  • 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2115
DOI
10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002031
OpenAlex
W2104226001
Cited by
142
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 24
FWCI
6.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
Native Americans, urbanization, socio-economic well-being, socioeconomic hierarchy, ethnic minorities, Native American tribes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review