During the 1940s and 1950s the United States government developed a new policy toward Native Americans, often known as “readjustment.” Because the increased awareness of civil rights in these decades helped reinforce the belief that life on reservations prevented Native Americans from exercising the rights guaranteed to citizens under the United States Constitution, the readjustment movement advocated the end of the federal government’s involvement in Native American affairs and encouraged the assimilation of Native Americans as individuals into mainstream society.
Topic
The U.S. government's "readjustment" policy toward Native Americans and the Oneida tribe's resistance in the 1950s.
Framework
Problem / Solution
Main Point
The Oneida tribe successfully resisted the U.S. government's readjustment policy in the 1950s by drawing on their historical experience and instead chose to strengthen their tribal identity and institutions. (The "Most Valuable Sentence" appears in the final paragraph: )
P1: Introduction of Policy and the Clash of Trends
The passage introduces the U.S. government's "readjustment" policy, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society and end federal involvement in their affairs. At the same time, Native American leaders were working to build tribal institutions and strengthen tribal identity. The conflict between assimilation and maintaining tribal identity is illustrated through the BIA's interactions with the Oneida tribe.
P2: The Government's Proposal to the Oneida
In 1956, the Bureau of Indian Affairs tried to persuade the Oneida to accept the new policy. The BIA offered them property ownership with taxation, freedom to sell land, and a lump-sum payment to replace their annual treaty annuity.
P3: Oneida’s Historical Perspective and Reasons for Refusal
The Oneida firmly rejected the proposal. Their experience with past government actions—such as land taxation leading to dispossession and speculators convincing individuals to sell their land—made them distrustful. They also opposed the lump-sum payment, fearing it might damage their legal claims to land under existing treaties.