You Might look for " American Indian Reservations of the United States",

in a GOOGLE search.

This is a highly complex question, at least in Canada. Are you looking at lands that are used/occupied/claimed by indigenous people? This would make for a significant part - if not all - of Canada. However, most land claims are still unsettled and the vast majority of ancestral lands are still not recognized as indigenous by the different government levels. Most nations have been fighting for decades - if not for centuries - to have their rights recognized over their ancestral lands, alas without success in most cases. Even the reserves are considered "Crown land". They are all very small anyway, as revealed by this quote from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: "... all the native reserves in Canada would fit into half of the Navajo nation reserve in Arizona...". There is also a lot of variation from nation to nation, or from region to region. Some nations were successful in having part of their rights recognized, and thus they (co)manage some territories or natural resources (e.g., protected areas, forest management units). Finally, you could look at so-called "modern treaties" signed by some nations and the government(s), see e.g.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/403/fish/subsitemay10/maps-e.htm

All this to say that I'm afraid you won't be able to obtain a simple figure of the proportion of indigenous land in Canada. Good luck with what might prove to be a very lengthy paper!

Thank you very much, Hugo.

I meant the lands that are used/occupied by the indigenous peoples. In Brazil, such indigenous lands I referred as 13% of the national territory are also considered property of the State. And there are many more claimed areas.

But let me solve a doubt: why don't you include the Inuit lands such as Nunavut in your account? What about the Métis? Are their lands also as small as the First Nations/Indians?

In Canada, the terms "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" refer simultaneously to First Nations, Metis and Inuit. I did not exclude anyone in my answer to your question. In fact, I stressed that situations can vary quite a lot depending on the nation/region considered. In Quebec, for example, Inuit communities have signed the same "modern treaty" as the Cree communities in the 1970's. In western Canada, situations are different whether you consider the Nunavut, Gwhich'in or Inuvialuit agreements (for example, there are others, see the map I provided a link to in my previous post). Now that I understand more clearly what information you want, I think you could probably find it in reports of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. But be careful how you interpret and use it, clearly defining what you mean (or not) by "indigenous lands".

In Mexico there is no consensus on how to define "indigenous" with regards to peoples or individuals. In the past the linguistic criterion prevailed, but language is only one element among many that constitutes culture, and in recent generations many indigenous people have lost their linguistic heritage. Five centuries of coexistence with people of European and African backgrounds (and Asian, to a lesser degree) make any sort of biological criterion just as blurry. Some of the criteria that can be considered, to get a rough idea based on census data, are: (1) speaking an indigenous language; (2) being part of a family in which someone speaks an indigenous language; (3) being part of a community which considers itself indigenous; and (4) self-adscription. Each criterion yields very different numbers.

Another problem is defining the phrases "in indigenous hands" and "indigenous lands". Some variables are: (1) private or communal ownership; (2) degree of autonomy of indigenous governments; (3) legislation concerning rights controlling natural resources like water, minerals, forests, etc. In Mexico, particularly after the Zapatista rebellion in 1994 (coinciding to the day with the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement), these variables were discussed, but the legislation that was finally passed during the early part of the past decade (and more recently at the state level in some parts of the country) notoriously diluted the issue of autonomy. Today there are major conflicts involving indigenous rights to the use of their natural resources, versus multinational corporations, especially mining companies (mostly from Canada). Water is a major issue and will be so more in the future.

My advice would be to do a complex, parallel study using distinct criteria and variables, thus showing the wide range of answers that result from considering different approaches. In this way the complexity of the problem would be underscored, and the risks of obtaining a somewhat arbitrary (and manipulable) numerical value due to oversimplification would be avoided. If this would mean multiplying the hours dedicated to gathering and processing the data, my advice would be to limit the geographic scope of the study to a manageable size. Perhaps an international team could agree on project design and methodology, with one or more people working on each country or regional group of nations. Numbers alone are insufficient; researchers should have a broad knowledge of the geography, history, anthropology, sociology, and politics of the region they are looking at; without this background any attempt at interpretation of the data would fall short of the mark.

I think the results of such a study, if it were done well, would be a major contribution to our knowledge of the present situation of native peoples of the Americas.

According to data from the National Council for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples (CDI), in Mexico, around 70% of the territory (yes, the national territory) lawfully belongs to Indigenous peoples. The land tenure here is divided into two: the 'ejido', which is owned by a group of persons (divided into parcels), but that could not be sold until recently (nowadays this land can be sold if there is consensus between the owners), and what is called 'common' land, which belongs to the community in general. The Indigenous population is calculated to be around 11 million people, and most of them live within or near natural protected areas, which makes it difficult for them to make use of their property for farming and agriculture. The majority of these social groups are highly marginalized and live in deep poverty.

It is also important to point out that there are at least 62 different languages spoken in the country, which accounts for an extraordinary diversity of cultures and world views!!

Putting a number on indigenous languages, like defining the number of indigenous people, depends on how you define "language." With Otomí, for example, there are nine speech varieties, and all have official status as languages under the law. If you set the intelligibility bar at 80% (that is, requiring 80% compehension between speakers of two varieties as a condition for grouping both as dialects of the same language), there are nine Otomí languages. If you lower the bar to 70% (which is rather low), you get two main Otomí languages, Western Otomí (spoken in the central and north central highlands of Mexico) and Eastern Otomí (spoken in the Eastern Sierra Madre), plus two languages spoken in the towns of Tilapa, near Toluca, and Ixtenco, in eastern Tlaxcala, for a total of four.

Many of the 68 language groups that in the past were considered languages are really sets of related languages, containing speech varieties with scant mutual intelligibility. The catalog published in the Diario Oficial in 2008, prepared by the National Institute of Indigenous Languages (http://www.inali.gob.mx/), lists 364 indigenous speech varieties which fall into 68 groups, the groups falling into 11 families. Officially each of the 364 varieties is considered a language, although some of these have high degrees of intelligibility with others.

So how many indigenous languages are spoken in Mexico? Somewhere between 364 and 68, depending on how much intelligibility you require before grouping two or more varieties into one "language." There are also historical, social and political factors that may be taken into account.

These considerations highlight the pitfalls of working with official statistics, as I pointed out in an earlier post on this thread. Reality is complex and our conceptual categories have to be clearly defined.

I am attaching the catalogue from 2008 (in Spanish), where there is detailed information about indigenous languages in Mexico, and the problem of defining "language" is discussed.

Related information and theoretical considerations can be found in the Etnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/), created and maintained by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a missionary group with the practical aim of translating the Bible into all languages of the world. While I don't agree with their ethnocentric motivations, the linguistic work they have undertaken over the last three quarters of a century is indispensable, and the practical aspects of their work have led them to devise methods to test intelligibility, which is at the heart of this problem. The measurements of intelligibility are included in the database of the Ethnologue. The numbers are probably not very precise, but it's the best overall information we have at present.

There is a more detailed discussion of this in section 2.2.2 of my doctoral thesis (again, in Spanish):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236900046_Los_otomes_cultura_lengua_y_escritura_%28vol._1%29

The bibiography is in volume 2: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236900081_Los_otomes_cultura_lengua_y_escritura_%28vol._2%29

I should add that speaking different languages does not necessarily imply having distinct cultures or world views. I find that regional geographical characteristics and contact between communities has a stronger bearing on non-linguistic aspects of culture than linguistic similarities. This goes back to the pre-Hispanic period, when in the central highlands of Mexico there was a relatively homogenous plurilingual culture shared by speakers of widely divergent language families. Language is but one element that constitutes culture, and ethnicity is another matter. People tend to equate language, culture, and ethnicity, but again I must insist that reality is more complex, and if we don't clearly separate all of our variables we can make serious mistakes in our research.

Thesis Los otomíes: cultura, lengua y escritura (vol. 1)

Thesis Los otomíes: cultura, lengua y escritura (vol. 2)

You must probe the data sources. There is no ready answer.

What do you mean by " indigenous lands"?

In the US, reservations are titled to the federal government, so no matter how much sovereignty the indigenous people have, technically they own, hold no land. It is "reserved" for them and they are allowed to live there.

I must thank you all very much for your kind answers. I think most of you will agree that indigenous situations vary to a great degree worldwide, to a point that it is difficult to propose generalizations or make comparisons.

In Brazil, indigenous lands, as defined in the Federal Constitution, are property of the Union and the indigenous communities keep its exclusive possession and the usufruct of the soil and the waters. Indigenous lands are the result of an Administrative procedure, by which the Union recognizes that such land is of traditional indigenous occupation. There are practically no private lands under the property of indigenous communities.

Of course, there are many other lands that are under litigation, about which the Administrative procedures of recognition have already started, but that are not taken ahead by the President, which is currently strongly against indigenous peoples, Mrs. Roussef. She has been the President who recognized the least indigenous lands since the end of the authoritarian military regime, in 1985. This has caused many conflicts, and the fazendeiros (ranch owners, agriculturers) and the settler societies of disputed areas harshly discriminate the dislocated indigenous communities. Many also commit direct violence. Still nowadays, there are indigenous people being shot in Brazil because of land disputes. In my state, most indigenous people live in terrible misery, and suffer other symptoms of social breakdown and oppression, such as alcoholism and suicide.

Sorry, I changed the subject a little -- from the definition of indigenous lands to the situation of indigenous peoples in Brazil -- but that's only because I think it's always a good opportunity to let the interested academic community know more about this bad situation.

That is a good point you make Joao; I am writing an article now to publish in a native news journal here in the US, and I have selected to talk about the Kaiowa-Guarani, perhaps the most dramatic case of all right now; the Munduruku of the Tapajos, who are threatened by hydroelectrics and mining; and those peoples (indigenous and non-indigenous) affected by Belo Monte. Another major victim of course is the Forest, which the Indians depend upon not only for their actual settlements but much more extensively for hunting fishing and gathering, and for their burial sites.. This is where the calculation of what lands indigenous peoples "use" or "occupy" is very complicated because they are not the same thing. Use areas are much larger than habitation areas (where villages are built). And, it is not known how much of the land that was taken away from the Indians because of the advancing frontier contains cemeteries of the ancestors of the living tribes, if they have been able to remain alive despite the colonization frontier.

Another complicating factor: it does not make much sense to calculate how much of Brazil the Indians occupy or use, because a great part of Brazil is still forest that has not been explored. There are upwards of 60 uncontacted tribes just in Brazil in inaccessible parts of the Amazon, such as the upper Javari valley, border with Peru.

As one commentator said: if you can figure out the answer to a question such as this, in a way that satisfies all parties, you will go down in history as a genius. Good luck !

There's a quirk in Canadian constitutional law which means that unless lands are specifically ceded through 'treaty or sale' they remain the property of first nations people and are held in trust by the Government of Canada. This has had major implications in the succession of negotiations about self-government and resource extraction and is, I think, a big part of the background to the establishment of Nunavut. It has been nearly 20 years since I looked at any of this, but it definitely will muddy your calculations because by some estimates the first nations in Canada essentially own nearly all of the country --- the threat from the Cree to the Quebec separatists has long been something like "if you leave Canada, we will leave Quebec, and we own all of the land on which Quebec Hydro has dams" which would financially kill any idea of an independent Quebec. I'm simplifying massively, but you can dig up more by following your nose from my very reductionist paragraph.

For more detailed information try combing through the Canadian rough equivalent of FUNAI -- http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/ -- the federal ministry for indigenous issues. The current government is not big on disclosing anything despite its rhetoric, but who knows what is burred on the site.

Well, "held in trust" means that that whoever is holding the lad in trust has the title and whoever has the title is really the owner. This is the same as in the US-- the government holds the land "in trust" for some other party. I, for one, do not accept this as true ownership and find it questionable when it is the same mechanism used for children/minors whose parents hold their land (or other property) "in trust"

I suppose the difference in Canada is that there are a lot of very good indigenous lawyers who have very successfully sued to have lands returned to the management of their peoples. Interestingly, I think has happened more often in the West of the country. I'm not living in Canada now, but back in the early and mid-2000s all sorts of very interesting court cases were working through various provincial and federal courts.

An exceptional case in North America is the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas. Twenty years after the uprising began on January 4, 1994 (the same day the North American Free Trade Agreement became operational), these Maya peoples continue to exercise a de facto autonomy in much of the Chiapas Highlands. The story of these autonomous communities, now called "caracoles", is fascinating. This movement forced the Mexican political class to reform the constitution, granting new rights to native peoples (including one of the most progressive linguistic rights laws in the Americas, passed in 2003), but many indigenous leaders and sympathetic intellectuals feel that not enough autonomy was granted. More was promised to end the armed phase of the movement, but less was written into the law passed in 2001.

I would try to obtain a database of the area of the reservations in Canada. I know some are quite big, but don't think you'd be impressed by the amount of land, although the Inuits may have quite a bit of space... Of course, this is without much knowledge of the subject.

I can only speak the the areas of the western states.In the east most of the lands were taken away. I belong to a tribe that lost its status but them reorganised only on the male side. Metis women like myself no longer have census numbers.Many tribes disenroll women who move away from the reservation even though this is not true of men who leave for work. Often land site leases always go to the women.

When I was married into the Zuni tribe if I had chidren as a non-Zuni I would not be allowed to leave with them and move off the reservation. Domestic Violence is a huge issue in homelessness and displacement. Women have ended up getting arrested for tresspassing (a 2 to 5 year sentence) trying to retireve their stuff from their inlaws with these situations. domestic violence is always a major cause of homelessness which can lead to losing a home site lease.People are relocated into housing projects off their homesite leases.You will see in these checkard board areas people livng in third world conditions next to land that was somehow acquired from a lost homesite lease with a mansion on it. I used to be involved in Indigenous Artist Cooperatives. These mansions belong to dealers while most of the artists live in third world conditions usually in isolated places.  

Some tribes have bought lands back. Some tribes because of casino politics and greed have put their blood quotas up to 50% disenrolling their grandchildren who are mixed or belong to two tribes. They are expected to choose one and lose half their status or all of it with the other tribe even if they are full blooded. Grandparents who still have land use who do not speak English are also tricked out of their lands. Some that lose their staus in this way and are no longer federally recognized.  

The only reason there are such large areas of reservation land in AZ and NM is because they areas were designated by Mexico when it went all the way to Wyoming. They were death marched off their lands when the US changed the borders. Most people do not know how to live on these lands.

If you get a political map out you will see checkard board areas. The lines of the Hopi and and Dine` reservation change according to where uranium is found forcing people off their homesite leases into the border towns. People did not know how to live on some of these lands so they went back to the tribes before urunium was an issue. Many tribes have lost there status and lands. Others have reorganized. it is a legal process that takes awhile Study political maps in NM and AZ to get the whole story currently. I have lived in checkered board areas and on reservations as an anthroplogists and Vista volunteer. I lived on and worked on many reservations.  Many reservations are located in isloated places. It surprises me there are so little reservations in Canada. Is it because of logging? I met Indigneous people on the islands when I was in Victoria.Not everyone can live there with the bears off the grid on an island full of bears that you have to cross an ocean to get supplies.

In the Columbia River Gorge between Oreogn and Washington the Corp of Engineers has changed the landscape with the dams. Wishram has been moved three times and there used to be a falls where the dams are now. The political maps show the strangeness of the situaton. The Yakima tribe for instance has the east side of my Adams and the Bureau of Land Management has the west side of the mountian. Fishing rights have been violated as well. It just depends what valuable resources are discovered on lands that were priviously considered worthless and unliveable to people not from that area.

Dear Mrs. Chavez,

Let me thank you for your contribution.

I have started to see my proposition in ResearchGate as a methodological procedure: this "posting a question in an academic social media" has sounded to me like a step I took in order to somehow access the empirical world. And that was thanks to many other very careful and professional contributions that I have had before. I'd like to cite Hugo Asselin, Sean Burges, David Charles Wright-Carr, but there were many others. I now want to describe this experiment and its results in the Methodological part of the Introduction to my PhD thesis.

But your answer, Mrs. Chavez, really wowed me. You gave a testimony. You bear witness. And you share. Sharing is the project number 25 in Linda Tuhiwai Smith's 25 Indigenous Projects (Decolonizing Methodologies, 1999, p. 156-160).

I'd also like to remember that number 19 is "networking", and that is a project that I also take much pride in [despite the fact that I am not indigenous - maybe the Brazilian version of the "colonizer of Left", described py Albert Memmi (Retrato do colonizado precedido pelo retrato do colonizador, 1977)?].

Soon I will post more about my PhD research, which I am now conducing in the International Relations Graduate Program at Universidade de Brasília (UnB), located at the Distrito Federal, Brasil.

For now, thank you very much all of you. 

 A mining/oil company would not start on an exploration adventure next to the Xingu territory in the Amazon, for example, without consulting the tribe beforehand.

The same in Canada. Lands near a native reserve will always be in dispute whether they belong to the native band or the federal government. But cooperation and consultation are advised prior to embarking on exploration work to avoid disputes/delays later.