In 1934, Congress passed the Wheeler-Howard Act, more commonly known as the Indian Reorganization Act or the Indian New Deal. Roosevelt had pushed Congress with the help of John Collier, the commissioner for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to get Congress to pass the legislation, as they believed it was a positive and necessary step to help improve the Native Americans' situation. The act would abolish the Dawes Act of 1887, which had been an instrumental part in the break down of the tribal system and a two thirds reduction in Indian lands. It would tackle poverty and sub-par education, as well as allowing participating tribes to create their own governments. As a result, 174 groups created their own constitutions and governments. Seventy eight tribes, however, rejected organizing their own governments out of suspicion towards American-style policies. Lastly, the act allowed the Secretary of the Interior to make any regulations “necessary to protect the range from deterioration, to prevent soil erosion, to assure full utilization of the range, and like purposes.”
Roosevelt signing the Indian Reorganization Act. (John Collier stands in the suit behind him)
The implementation of the Act had varying effects. For some tribes it was beneficial, providing the necessary funds to add millions of acres to the reservations. It also improved the health and education systems, allowing more than half of Indian children to be in school by 1950. Lastly, it encouraged Native Americans to play a larger role in civic life, and in turn many began to push for the franchise, which had technically been granted to them in 1924.
On the other hand, the act did have adverse effects. It set in place a one size fits all strategy that did not work in every case. Where it might have improved funding for some, it created an increase in government dominance and bureaucracy. For example, in the Navajo nation there was a massive livestock reduction program. Government officials purchased half of the livestock on Indian lands to have them removed/killed. This was done in an effort to decrease a surplus and protect the lands from overgrazing. However, as a result, the Navajo economy was devastated and they were denied economic independence.
Today, the debate over whether or not the Indian Reorganization Act was beneficial or detrimental to Native Americans is still going on. One thing is clear though, and that is that less and less attention is being given to it as time goes on. On its 50th anniversary, there was a conference in Sun Valley, Idaho to discuss the IRA's effects and what people should think of it. However, 25 years later on its 75th anniversary in 2009 there was nothing. It is important that we remember legislation like this because thousands of people are still living with its effects, and the IRA is still the foundation for legislation pertaining to Native Americans today.
Works Cited:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/franklin-delano-roosevelt-a-new-deal-for-indians/
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3449
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-Reorganization-Act
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/good-or-bad-indian-reorga_b_284940.html
I really enjoyed your post Ari, it was very focused which allowed for the deeper analysis of the Wheeler-Howard Act. As you mentioned in your introduction, we sort of overlook the Native Americans in class, but your research really allowed for a greater understanding of how efforts to solve the Great Depression helped or harmed them. However, when reading the purposes of the Wheeler-Howard Act, the wording at first glance made it seem as if the Act could only bring benefits, but the resulting effects were varied. This led me to wonder, would the situation of the Native Americans have been better if the government was more laissez faire? To extend that question even further, to what extent does government intervention actually benefit society? At least in terms of economic reform, I read an article explaining the flaws of the New Deal, and how the government should not have tried to bring extravagant change, and should have fought the urge to "do something." Could that be cross applied with social policies?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23view.html
I thought that this was a very well researched blog post and appreciated the amount of examples that you included for everything. I was most interested in how you mentioned that the government bought half the livestock of the Native Americans an that it had a huge negative affect on their economy. "Government officials purchased half of the livestock on Indian lands to have them removed/killed...the Navajo economy was devastated and they were denied economic independence." I decided to research that a bit more and found that the reduction of livestock was against many Navajo traditions, and destroyed a main source of their income. They actually considered their livestock sacred and integral to their lives.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Livestock_Reduction
Ari- cool post! I really appreciated that the topic of your article was about a marginalized group- which I agree, are talked about less and less as we get closer to the modern age. I thought it was interesting that although the Indians were granted greater autonomy in terms of getting better education etc (through the ending of the Dawes Act) , they were still marginalized economically by the government. I found that the Navajo Livestock Reduction was made mandatory in 1935- but then, in the 1950s, the Navajo Tribal Government was able to take control of the livestock quota system. This quota system is still being used today. As Belen mentioned above, sheep were regarded as sacred, and given to the Natives by the "Diné Bahaneʼ", or Holy People. Although natives were given control of their livestock quota at the end, it is sad to see that even today, natives are marginalized and often are forced to turn to government support.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Livestock_Reduction
As you mentioned in the beginning of the post, I did not really think about the Native Americans in American society, especially during this era. I think that this is a very interesting approach to one of the minor problems that was happening during this era. Furthermore, on a different source, I found that the Congress passed the "Indian Arts and Crafts Board" in 1935 to encourage traditional American Indian crafts and eventually expanded market sales.
ReplyDeletehttps://tinyurl.com/y9puv2v7