Why “Urban Indian” Speaks Louder and more effective Than FBA or Freedmen

Reclaiming Identity Through Land, History, and Culture

In recent years, debates over identity labels have intensified. Some prefer Foundational Black American (FBA), a term meant to define descendants of enslaved Africans in the U.S. Others rally around American Freedmen, emphasizing emancipation and the struggle for citizenship rights. Both terms are important in acknowledging slavery’s legacy but neither captures the land-based history and cultural continuity of people whose ancestry ties them directly to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

This is where Urban Indian becomes a more accurate and effective description.

1. Land Is Not Just Background—It’s Identity

FBA and Freedmen are historical terms tied to enslavement and legal emancipation. But they do not explain where people come from in relation to the land itself.

By contrast, the term Urban Indian immediately signals both Indigenous lineage and the historical displacement of Indigenous peoples into cities. Federal relocation programs of the mid-20th century uprooted thousands from reservations and homelands, concentrating them in urban centers where new Indigenous communities were formed (see National Library of Medicine).

Analogy: FBA and Freedmen are like remembering only the chains and the courtroom papers, while Urban Indian remembers the soil beneath your feet, the forests, rivers, and sacred grounds your ancestors lived upon. Your Elders and Ancestors told you , you were Indian and had Indian in your Family not any of these acronyms and temporary terms.

2. Culture Cannot Be Reduced to Legal Status

The Freedmen designation is a legal one it refers to those emancipated from slavery and their descendants. While historically significant, it freezes identity in terms of bondage and release.

Similarly, FBA roots identity solely in enslavement, ignoring the Indigenous languages, foods, medicines, and spiritual systems that so-called “African Americans” often carried because of their American Indian heritage. FBA has a start date of 1526 as signified on their flag. That makes you a foreigner and immigrant not deemed as Indigenous to this land.  

Urban Indian centers living culture, not just historical status. It acknowledges the ceremonies, hair traditions, medicinal practices, and family structures that link people to Indigenous life whether practiced on ancestral land or in a modern city community (see Native Philanthropy Partnership).

Analogy: If Freedmen is like reading the emancipation document, Urban Indian is like hearing the drum at a powwow in Los Angeles it carries history forward into today.

3. Urban Indian Accounts for Migration and Survival

During the 1950s and 60s, U.S. relocation policies pressured American Indian people to leave reservations for city life. These policies reshaped Indigenous identity into what scholars now call “Urban Indian” identity—a mix of tribal belonging and adaptation to metropolitan environments (National Library of Medicine). 

For descendants of Indigenous people who were mislabeled as “Negro” or “Colored,” the term Urban Indian reflects survival in the cities while carrying Indigenous roots. Many were forced off ancestral land like Mississippi and relocated to cities like Chicago , Detroit and  Los Angeles  It is not about being disconnected from tribes it’s about the continuity of identity in modern environments.

FBA and Freedmen cannot account for this historical reality of Indigenous displacement.

4. Avoiding Exclusion and Narrow Gatekeeping

Critics of FBA have noted that it creates artificial boundaries, excluding people whose ancestry doesn’t fit its narrow framework. Freedmen, too, can be reductive, defining identity only by slavery status.

Urban Indian avoids this trap. It does not erase African lineage but insists that Indigenous heritage long hidden under imposed racial categories must be named. It is both more inclusive and more specific because it identifies a relationship to land, history, and culture rather than only legal or genealogical status.

5. Urban Indian Restores What Was Erased

For generations, colonial census takers reclassified Indigenous peoples as “colored,” “mulatto,” or “Negro.” This erasure is why many families today are called African American when, in truth, their roots are Indigenous.

Using Urban Indian as a self-description is an act of historical repair. It reconnects people not only to ancestry but also to land history and cultural belonging something FBA and Freedmen cannot fully achieve because they are limited to the framework of slavery and emancipation.

Term	What It Captures	What It Misses
Foundational Black American (FBA)	Ancestry tied to enslaved Africans in U.S.	Ignores Indigenous lineage and land history
American Freedmen	Legal identity of freed slaves and descendants	Culture reduced to legal status; erases Indigenous ties
Urban Indian	Indigenous heritage, land displacement, culture	Less commonly understood, but far more historically accurate

The Law of Continuity and Its Application to Urban Indians

Understanding the Law of Continuity

The Law of Continuity is a foundational legal and cultural principle rooted in common law and Indigenous sovereignty. In law, continuity refers to the concept that rights, identities, and statuses persist over time unless they are lawfully extinguished or voluntarily abandoned.

In Indigenous contexts, this principle has been upheld repeatedly in legal and policy frameworks. For example:

• Doctrine of Discovery (Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 [1823]) – While deeply flawed and colonial in its logic, the Court still recognized that Indigenous occupancy and title persisted unless explicitly extinguished by treaty or conquest.

• Worcester v. Georgia (31 U.S. 515 [1832]) – Affirmed that tribal sovereignty and territorial rights continued to exist despite state encroachment.

• United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 [1886]) – Reinforced the federal-tribal trust relationship based on existing and continuing status.

This continuity principle is echoed in federal policy, such as in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (1975), which presumes the ongoing legal existence of Indigenous peoples regardless of assimilation, relocation, or misclassification.

How Continuity Applies to Urban Indians

Urban Indians descendants of Indigenous peoples who were forcibly displaced into urban areas due to policies like the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 remain covered by this law of continuity.

• Lineage Over Location Urban Indians maintain lineal descent from Indigenous ancestors whose status has never been legally extinguished. Even when physical ties to reservations or tribal communities were disrupted, the bloodline and historical rights remain intact.

• Misclassification and Forced Erasure Through state laws like Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act (1924) or Jim Crow era census instructions, many Indigenous families were reclassified as “Colored,” “Negro,” or later “Black.” These administrative changes do not erase continuity of status—they are errors of record, not fact.

• Recognition in Federal Programs Urban Indians qualify for programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, the Urban Indian Health Program, and other federal frameworks because continuity of identity is recognized even outside of reservation systems.

Why Continuity Does Not Apply to FBA or the Generic “Black” Label

The terms Foundational Black American (FBA) or simply Black are sociopolitical descriptors, not lineal or legal identities tied to land, treaties, or specific nations.

• No Treaty Based Status Unlike Urban Indians, there are no treaties, trust relationships, or legal frameworks recognizing “Black” or “FBA” as distinct nations with territorial or sovereign rights.

• Cultural Generalization“Black” is an umbrella term imposed during the colonial and Jim Crow eras to homogenize diverse peoples African, Indigenous, Caribbean, and Creole into a single racialized category. It erases specificity and, by design, breaks the legal thread of continuity tied to land and historical rights.

• FBA as a Modern Construct The Foundational Black American identity is a recent social movement concept. While it centers Black contributions to U.S. history, it is not tied to legally recognized Indigenous continuity, historical occupancy of land, or a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.

Analogy for Clarity

Imagine land deeds and inheritance:

• If your ancestors owned a specific plot of land and the title was never lawfully transferred, the ownership claim remains valid. That is the Urban Indian position ancestral rights and legal continuity remain even after displacement or misclassification.

• In contrast, if there is no original deed tied to the land only general residency or association there is no continuity of title. This is the case for the generic Black or FBA designations: they are powerful cultural identifiers but lack a continuous, legally documented tie to specific Indigenous lands.

Primary Sources Supporting Continuity

• Indian Relocation Act of 1956, Pub. L. 84–959

• Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.

• 1940 U.S. Census Enumerator Instructions – codified forced racial reclassification of Indian families.

• Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 267 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D.D.C. 2017) – affirmed that lineal descendants retain rights regardless of administrative exclusion or racial mixing.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive No. 15 – defines American Indian based on origin, not cultural proximity.

Policy Implications

By invoking the Law of Continuity, Urban Indians can:

• Push for corrections to Census racial definitions, including removing the “tribal affiliation or community attachment” clause.

• Reaffirm their right to accurate classification in federal data, funding, and policy programs.

• Demand legal recognition that misclassification does not equal extinguishment of Indigenous rights.

Why Urban Indian Matters

Labels matter because they shape how history is remembered. FBA and Freedmen highlight enslavement and emancipation, but they keep identity bound to chains and legal documents.

Urban Indian, by contrast, tells the story of land, culture, and survival. It reflects the real history of those misclassified as “African American” but who carry the blood, traditions, and land ties of Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Choosing Urban Indian is more than adopting a term it is reclaiming erased identity, restoring land-based history, and grounding culture in truth.

Why “Urban Indian” Fits: Land, Law, and Living Culture vs. Bloodless Labels

If the purpose of a label is to tell the truth about land, history, and culture, then “Urban Indian” is often a better fit than identity terms that were designed around enslavement status or African-diasporic lineages. It’s not a replacement for tribal citizenship, and it’s not a genetic claim. It’s a legally recognized term rooted in federal law and public policy—one that points to Indigenous belonging and the modern reality that millions of Indigenous people live in cities.

1) “Urban Indian” is a term of art in federal law—not a slogan

Congress defined and funded “Urban Indian” programs in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). Under U.S. law:

• “Urban center” means any city with a sufficient Urban Indian population with unmet health needs, as determined by the Secretary. “Urban Indian” means an individual living in that urban center who meets statutory criteria tied to Indigenous status. See 25 U.S.C. § 1603 and Title V of the IHCIA. U.S. CodeLegal Information InstituteSocial SecurityGovInfo

• These definitions are operationalized in federal regulations for Indian Health (42 C.F.R. Part 136), which repeatedly reference “eligible Urban Indian” and Urban Indian Organizations that deliver care in cities. eCFR+1

• The Indian Health Service itself explains that the IHCIA is the cornerstone legal authority for care to American Indians and Alaska Natives and that Title V exists to serve Urban Indian communities. Indian Health Service

In short, “Urban Indian” has statutory, regulatory, and programmatic teeth. It signifies that a person is part of an Indigenous community in a city and that specific trust-responsibility services apply.

Why that matters

Because it’s backed by law, “Urban Indian” carries implications for health access, cultural programming, and federal responsibilities—things that terms like “Foundational Black American” or “American Freedmen” do not trigger. Those are meaningful identities for other purposes, but they don’t link someone to the Indigenous trust framework.

2) The urban part isn’t random it’s the result of federal policy on Indian land & people

The reason so many Indigenous people live in cities is not mere migration. It’s the legacy of termination and relocation:

• House Concurrent Resolution 108 (1953) announced the federal policy of termination ending the special federal-tribal relationship for many tribes. Digital HistoryUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks

• The Indian Relocation Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-959) created an official federal program to move Indigenous people into urban centers for training and work. The National Archives holds the relocation records and summarizes the policy’s impacts and Native resistance to it. National Archives

These are primary policy sources that literally shaped Indigenous demography and culture in Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, and beyond. If your story includes Indigenous lineage lived out in a city, “Urban Indian” is the term that maps that history.

Analogy: If your grandparents were moved from their village to the city by a government dam project, you wouldn’t only call yourself a “descendant of villagers”—you might also use the term the government created to manage and fund your displaced community in the city. That’s what “Urban Indian” is: a name for a community created by policy, not by accident.

3) Courts recognize Black–Indigenous histories as tribal histories—citizenship and treaty rights are not “add-ons”

In Cherokee Nation v. Nash (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2017), Judge Thomas F. Hogan held that the 1866 Treaty secures the Freedmen descendants’ right to Cherokee citizenship; the Nation’s constitution couldn’t override that promise. (See contemporaneous coverage summarizing the opinion.) TIME

Primary filings in the related Oklahoma litigation also reproduce and analyze the rulings and treaty-based reasoning. attorneygeneral.cherokee.org

Why it matters: These are not “extra” identities pasted onto Black communities; they are treaty rights inside tribal law. Where those families live in cities, “Urban Indian” correctly flags both the Indigenous legal anchor and the urban reality.

Pre–Civil War freedom suits with Indigenous roots.

 In Missouri, the Scypion freedom suits brought by the descendants of an Indian woman enslaved under colonial regimes—culminated in an 1830s Missouri Supreme Court decision freeing the family, widely recognized as a key moment in ending Indian slavery in Missouri. Archival guides and document collections preserve the case files and opinions. Missouri Secretary of Statedigital.shsmo.org

 Why it matters: These suits show Black and Indigenous histories crossing in courtrooms long before modern categories existed. When those descendants later appear in urban Indian communities, the “Urban Indian” label speaks to that legal and historical throughline.

4) “Urban Indian” counters a documented history of state misclassification that erased Indian identity

Across the 20th century, state and federal bureaucracies actively reclassified Indigenous people especially those seen as “mixed” as “Negro” or “colored,” erasing tribal identities in records.

• In Virginia, the Racial Integrity Act (1924) and Registrar Walter A. Plecker’s circulars pressured local officials to classify virtually all people claiming Indian ancestry as “colored,” and he altered records to enforce that. The Library of Virginia houses Plecker’s 1943 circular letter; the National Park Service and U.S. Senate hearing records describe his campaign and its impact on Virginia tribes. lva.omeka.net+1National Park ServiceCongress.gov

• Federal census instructions reinforced this erasure. The 1940 census enumerator manual told counters: “A person of mixed Negro and Indian blood should be reported as Negro unless the Indian blood greatly predominates and he is universally accepted in the community as an Indian.” That is an official, primary instruction. buffalolib.org

Bottom line: Many families with Indigenous lineage were administratively relabeled as “Negro.” “Urban Indian” helps recover what policy buried without relying on speculative blood-quantum talk. It yokes identity back to treaty, tribe, and community.

5) Why “Urban Indian” describes land, history, and culture better than the alternatives named

Compared with “American Freedmen”

 “Freedmen” is a legal status born of emancipation a powerful historical truth but it doesn’t tell you whether a person has tribal ties, treaty-based rights, or participation in Indigenous cultural life. “Urban Indian” does, and it connects to current services (health, cultural programs) in the exact places people live. U.S. CodeSocial Security

Compared with “Foundational Black American”

 FBA centers descendants of enslaved people in the United States, a lineage claim that says nothing about Indigenous land or law. It does not unlock IHS urban programs, nor does it register treaty or citizenship contexts affirmed in the Cherokee Freedmen decisions. TIMEJustia Law

6) Guardrails: what “Urban Indian” is and isn’t

• It is: a federally recognized category that helps identify Indigenous people in cities for health and cultural services; a signal of community belonging tied to federal Indian law and policy; a way to talk about Indigenous culture lived on urban land. U.S. CodeSocial Security

It isn’t: a substitute for tribal citizenship (each Nation decides its own citizens), nor a magic shortcut past genealogy, enrollment rules, or community acceptance. It also isn’t a catch-all for everyone in Black America only those who actually have Indigenous lineage and community connection.

Practical takeaways (for writing, advocacy, and self-description)

1. Use “Urban Indian” when the point is to highlight Indigenous belonging expressed in a city (community center, IHS Title V clinic, powwow circuit, cultural education) and to show the federal trust relationship still operates there. Indian Health ServiceeCFR

2. Cite the law, not just vibes. When challenged, point to 25 U.S.C. § 1603 and Title V’s purpose clause; this grounds the term in statute. U.S. CodeSocial Security

3. Name the history. If someone asks “why urban?”, reference termination and relocation policies that created large Native communities in cities. Digital HistoryNational Archives

4. Remember the courts. The Cherokee Freedmen rulings and Scypion files demonstrate that Black–Indigenous identity is a matter of treaty and case law, not a novelty. TIMEJustia LawMissouri Secretary of Statedigital.shsmo.org

Don’t erase tribal sovereignty. Using “Urban Indian” should go hand-in-hand with respecting each Nation’s citizenship rules and cultural protocols.

Selected Primary & Authoritative Sources

• Statutes & Regulations

  • Indian Health Care Improvement Act (definitions of “Urban Indian,” “Urban center,” Title V purpose). U.S. CodeSocial SecurityGovInfo

  • 42 C.F.R. Part 136 (Indian Health regulations; Urban Indian provisions). eCFR+1

  • House Concurrent Resolution 108 (1953) (Termination policy). Digital History

  • Indian Relocation Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-959) (Relocation to cities). National Archives

• Court Cases & Case Materials

  • Vann v. Kempthorne, 534 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Cherokee Freedmen treaty rights). Justia Law

  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, No. 13-01313 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2017) (district court decision upholding Freedmen descendants’ citizenship under the 1866 treaty). TIME

Missouri freedom suits (Scypion family) – archival summaries and document collections. Missouri Secretary of Statedigital.shsmo.org

• Government & Archival Documentation on Racial Classification

  • 1940 U.S. Census—Instructions to Enumerators (directive to classify mixed “Negro and Indian” as “Negro” unless Indian predominates and is universally accepted). buffalolib.org

  • Virginia’s Racial Integrity regime—Plecker’s 1943 circular (Library of Virginia) and context (NPS; U.S. Senate hearing on Virginia tribes’ federal recognition). lva.omeka.net+1National Park ServiceCongress.gov

• Programmatic / Agency Overviews

  • Indian Health Service explainer on IHCIA and Urban Indian health programs. Indian Health Service

National Archives guide to Bureau of Indian Affairs Urban Relocation records. National Archives

FIRST TRIBE