By Alex Wcislo
Spring 2025
In 1934, the U.S. government passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), a law intended to mark a significant shift in how the federal government dealt with Indigenous nations. However, the IRA could also be seen as a continued form of assimilation. After years of forced assimilation into American society and land allotment done without tribal consent, the IRA promised to reverse the current course of action. It ended tribal land allotment, returned some lands to their rightful tribal owners, and was supposed to support tribal self-governance. In theory, this all sounds amazing, however, it is more complicated than it sounds.
The IRA was part of the larger ‘Indian New Deal’, a series of policies under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration that aimed to reform federal Indigenous affairs. While some viewed it as a radical shift away from past assimilationist policies, others argued it was more of a way to reframe settler governance. The Indian New Deal was strongly pushed and masterminded by John Collier, commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Collier believed aspects of Native nations, especially Indigenous sovereignty, were worth preserving. His ideas were influenced by his admiration for southwestern nations’ communal structures. His visions of self-governance assumed Native nations needed federal guidance to adapt to modern governance, echoing previous assimilationist logic.
The U.S. government framed the IRA as beneficial for Native nations. The IRA had three main goals: stop land loss, support tribal governments, and fund education/economic development (part of the larger Indian New Deal). This meant that the US government would no longer break up tribal lands for individual ownership, let tribes create their form of government (policies and constitutions), and help tribes rebuild after generations of disastrous outcomes. On paper, this was deemed progress, but as historian Colin G. Calloway points out, the IRA wasn’t really about handing power over to tribes – it was about handing power over on U.S. terms. The government still had to approve tribal constitutions, and the IRA pushed for tribes to adopt a federal-style government. This was so that the U.S. government still had control over tribal governments. These new forms of government didn’t necessarily match traditional ways of governing tribes. Some tribes saw various opportunities in the IRA and tried to exploit the situation in order to regain their autonomy. Others, like the Navajo, were not fooled as they recognized the IRA as a policy still serving federal interests.
Not all Native leaders opposed the IRA. Henry Roe Cloud, a member of the Ho-Chunk tribe, was a strong supporter of the IRA. In a speech that he gave in 1934, he argued that the IRA would help tribes recover from the devastation of land allotment, the federal policy that had divided communal tribal lands into individual parcels since the 1887 Dawes Act. This system, designed to force assimilation, resulted in Indigenous peoples losing land which was sold off to non-Natives. He not only supported but also praised its promises of getting more land, funding, and self-governance. “This whole thing means the rehabilitation of our family life and new self-respect,” he said.
Even Cloud’s optimism has a catch. He also talked about Native people needing “three or four more generations of training” to adequately handle land ownership (like white Americans). This paternalistic idea echoed old assimilationist thinking. His speech shows how some Indigenous leaders tried to work within and adapt to the system, even when the flaws were obvious.
On the other hand, many Indigenous people were not buying into what the U.S. was selling. Cloud wasn’t the only Indigenous leader to speak at the congressional meetings. Lakota leaders like George White Bull and Oliver Prue called out the IRA on its empty promises. To put it bluntly, as Prue said, “We have been fooled so many times.”
The skepticism presented was not just paranoia; it was based on historical evidence. The U.S. had broken treaties countless times, stolen land, ignored, and put down tribal voices for decades. What reason would tribes have for trusting them now, with the IRA? White Bull pointed out that the IRA’s documents were in English, excluding many elders from the conversation. Others feared that the IRA would erase hard-earned treaty rights. As Collier pointed out, some tribes like the Navajo rejected it outright after the government used similar policies to justify past actions.
So, was the IRA a step forward or just assimilation in disguise? The answer…both. On one hand, it did stop land loss and gave some tribes the tools to rebuild. On the other hand, as Thomas Biolsi argues, the IRA was really about “indirect rule” – letting tribes feel autonomous and have a sense of self-governance while keeping federal power intact. The idea of self-government pretty much meant doing what the U.S. wanted, just with Native leaders signing off on it.
The IRA left behind a messy legacy. Some tribes used it to protect their futures, while others saw it as another colonialistic trick. The U.S. wasn’t willing to give up real self-determination and self-governance. The IRA shows how even “progressive” policies can carry hidden colonial baggage. For native nations, the fight for true sovereignty, on their terms, was far from over in 1934. In many ways, it still is far from over.
Citations
Biolsi, Thomas. “’Indian Self-Government’ as a Technique of Domination.” American Indian Quarterly 15, no. 1. 1991. (pp. 23–28).
Calloway, Colin. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History, 6th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2019, (pp. 442–452).
Cobb, Daniel M., ed. “‘As One Indian to Another’ (1934): Henry Roe Cloud.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, 59–63. University of North Carolina Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469624815_cobb.16.
Cobb, Daniel M., ed. “‘Fooled So Many Times’ (1934): George White Bull and Oliver Prue.” In Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887, 64–67. University of North Carolina Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469624815_cobb.17.
