Redefined Without Consent: How Urban Indigenous Identity Was Absorbed and How Self-Determination Is Being Restored

FPIC, ADRIP, and the Restoration of Indigenous Self-Determination in Urban America

Why Consent Matters in the Fight Against Identity Erasure

For generations, many Indigenous families who moved or were relocated into American cities found themselves gradually removed from official recognition as Indigenous peoples. In urban spaces, identity was often administratively absorbed into broader racial categories, leaving countless Indigenous descendants without proper acknowledgment, representation, or access to culturally appropriate services.

Today, international and hemispheric Indigenous rights standards provide powerful tools to address this legacy. Two of the most important are:

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP).

Together, they provide both the rights foundation and the decision-making standard needed to restore Indigenous self-determination in urban communities.

What is FPIC?

FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent is the principle that Indigenous peoples must have the right to approve or reject decisions that affect them, including decisions about identity, representation, and community status.

FPIC requires that decisions be:

Free – Without coercion, pressure, or manipulation. 

Prior – Made before policies or changes are finalized. 

Informed – Based on full disclosure of impacts and consequences. 

Consent-based – Communities must have the real ability to say yes or no.

FPIC is not simply consultation. Listening sessions or advisory meetings are not enough. Consent means Indigenous peoples must have actual decision-making authority.

At its heart, FPIC is about self-determination.

Film Shows The Government F--king Up Philadelphia With Urban Renewal - 1970

What is ADRIP?

The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP) was adopted in 2016 by the Organization of American States, establishing regional standards protecting Indigenous peoples throughout North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean.

ADRIP affirms that Indigenous peoples have the right to:

• Maintain their identity and cultural continuity

• Preserve their institutions and governance systems 

• Participate in decisions affecting them 

• Exercise self-determination 

• Seek remedies when rights are violated

Importantly, ADRIP recognizes Indigenous rights regardless of where Indigenous peoples live including cities.

Indigenous identity does not disappear when communities move or are relocated into urban environments.

Why FPIC and ADRIP Work Best Together

Think of ADRIP as defining what rights Indigenous peoples have, while FPIC explains how decisions affecting those rights must be made.

ADRIP Protects	FPIC Requires
Indigenous identity	Consent before identity changes
Participation rights	Decisions made with community approval
Self-determination	Communities control outcomes
Cultural survival	No imposed classifications

No institution should redefine Indigenous peoples without Indigenous consent. 

Identity Erasure as a Rights Issue

When Indigenous peoples are administratively absorbed into broader racial classifications, the consequences are not merely symbolic.

They affect:

• Access to Indigenous services and programs • Political and social recognition • Cultural continuity • Representation in policy and advocacy • Historical identity preservation

ADRIP recognizes Indigenous identity as a protected collective right. FPIC requires that decisions affecting identity occur only with Indigenous consent.

When classification or representation changes occur without consent, communities can argue that their rights to participation and self-determination were bypassed.

Historical Examples Often Raised in FPIC Discussions

Advocates examining identity misclassification frequently point to major policy and public shifts in terminology during the 20th century as moments where decisions affecting Indigenous-descended communities occurred without their participation or consent.

Two examples are commonly discussed.

The 1966 National Urban League Convention

Researchers and community advocates have pointed to developments surrounding the 1966 convention of the National Urban League as a period when advocacy frameworks increasingly centered on the classification “Negro” within urban civil rights discourse, often without distinction for Indigenous-descended populations living in cities.

Urban Indigenous descendants argue that many families who historically identified as Indian or Indigenous were administratively and socially grouped into broader racial categories during this era, reducing visibility of Indigenous identity in urban policy discussions.

From an FPIC perspective, advocates argue that:

• Indigenous-descended urban populations were not separately consulted 

• Indigenous identity distinctions were not preserved in representation frameworks 

• Decisions affecting identity and representation occurred without Indigenous community consent

If identity classifications affecting Indigenous peoples changed without Indigenous participation, modern FPIC standards suggest the required consent process was absent.

The Popularization of the Term “African American” in 1988

In 1988, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson publicly promoted adoption of the term “African American” as a preferred identity label for Black Americans, a shift that was widely embraced by media, institutions, and government agencies.

The term provided cultural and historical grounding for some Americans of African descent. However, some Indigenous-descended communities argue that the new classification further absorbed Indigenous lineages whose families had already been placed within earlier racial categories.

From the perspective of FPIC principles, critics argue:

• Indigenous-descended populations were not separately consulted before institutional adoption of the term • Identity categories affecting Indigenous ancestry shifted without consent • Government and institutional systems broadly applied the label without distinguishing Indigenous heritage

FPIC standards hold that identity-related decisions affecting Indigenous peoples should involve Indigenous participation and consent.

Why These Examples Matter Today

These historical developments are not universally interpreted as intentional acts of erasure. However, they illustrate how large-scale identity changes can occur without participation from all affected communities.

Under today’s FPIC and ADRIP standards, advocates argue that:

• Indigenous identity cannot be reassigned administratively without consent • Representation cannot be transferred without community approval • Participation must occur before identity frameworks affecting Indigenous peoples are established

Modern advocacy efforts seek not to diminish other communities’ identity gains, but to ensure Indigenous-descended populations are no longer invisible within broader racial classifications.

A Question of Self-Determination

The issue raised by Urban Indigenous advocates is not opposition to terms embraced by others, but rather the absence of Indigenous consent when classifications affecting Indigenous descendants became widely institutionalized.

FPIC and ADRIP standards now provide a framework to address those historical consequences and restore Indigenous self-determination in urban communities.

The question moving forward becomes:

Who has the authority to define Indigenous identity, the institutions, or Indigenous peoples themselves?

Add Your Voice: Sign the Petition for Recognition and Remedy

Recognition and self-determination are not abstract principles they affect real families, communities, and future generations. Many Urban Indigenous descendants continue to live with the consequences of historical misclassification that obscured Indigenous identity and limited access to rightful recognition and resources.

Community voices matter in correcting this history.

A public petition calling for remedy and recognition of those impacted by misclassification across North America is now gathering support. Signing the petition helps demonstrate that this issue affects thousands of families and deserves serious attention from policymakers, institutions, and civil rights organizations.

If this issue speaks to you, we invite you to lend your voice.

Sign the petition here:👉 https://www.change.org/p/remedy-for-the-misclassified-people-of-north-america

Every signature strengthens the call for accountability, recognition, and restoration of Indigenous self-determination.

History can be corrected but only if people stand together to demand it.

Why This Matters for Urban Indigenous Communities

Urban Indigenous populations often remain invisible within policy discussions because governments and institutions frequently assume Indigenous rights apply only within reservation or tribal jurisdictions.

ADRIP rejects this assumption. Indigenous peoples retain their identity and rights wherever they reside.

FPIC then requires that policies affecting urban Indigenous populations must still involve Indigenous consent.

This applies to:

• Identity classification systems 

• Representation decisions 

• Data collection about Indigenous populations 

• Social service programs 

• Cultural programming 

• Academic or nonprofit initiatives 

• Funding structures aimed at Indigenous communities

Urban Indigenous peoples are not new populations; they are Indigenous peoples living in cities.

Reclaiming Self-Determination

Urban Indigenous communities across the Americas are now using FPIC and ADRIP standards to reassert control over identity, representation, and community decision-making.

This includes:

• Establishing community decision processes • Demanding consent before institutions claim representation • Challenging policies that erase Indigenous identity • Building community-led governance structures • Documenting historical harms and seeking remedies

Self-determination begins when communities reclaim authority over how they are defined and represented.

The Principle Going Forward

The future of Indigenous recognition in urban America rests on a simple standard:

Nothing about Indigenous peoples should be decided without Indigenous peoples.

FPIC provides the method. ADRIP provides the rights framework.

Together, they offer a path toward restoring Indigenous voice, identity, and dignity in places where it was often lost.

Urban Indigenous communities are not seeking special treatment they are demanding recognition of rights already acknowledged throughout the Americas:

The right to self-definition. The right to consent. The right to participate. The right to determine their own future.

And that future begins with being recognized for who we have always been.

References

1. Organization of American States. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2016.

2. United Nations. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.

3. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples, 2013.

4. Food and Agriculture Organization. FPIC Implementation Manual, 2016.

5. International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, 1989.

FIRST TRIBE