Take a look at the definition I quoted above. The key part is "and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political instituti

Take a look at the definition I quoted above. The key part is "and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political institutions". Ethnic Swedes have fully integrated their "social, economic, cultural and political institutions" into the national system. Back to the main point - just because something was the law 50 years ago doesn't mean returning to it wouldn't be radical now. > one wouldn't ask "well how precisely can you define a Dakota compared to some other Sioux tribe? That's bullshit. The Dakota are recognized by treaty, and membership defined by the tribes. Tribal recognition in general is a long, slow, and, yes, rigorous process. Eg, the seven criteria in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, "Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe."