Scholars of Native American history are profoundly interested in termi

Scholars of Native American history are profoundly interested in termination, the Truman-era policy of ending Indian tribes’ special status with the federal government. In ending federal wardship, the government sought to enhance individual and tribal “self-determination,” but, in fact, in most cases, the policy’s effect was quite the opposite: Indian individuals and communities were dispossessed of the land, rights, benefits, and aid that were their due and that were necessary for such self-determination. The policy is considered to have had devastating effects on terminated tribes’ economies, autonomies, and cultures.

To understand the failure of termination as a whole, historians have had to look at tribes individually, as each tribe’s relationship with the federal government was and is as nearly as unique as each tribal culture itself. Most notable, perhaps, for the complexity of the issue are the cases of California tribes. At the time, a significant number of Native Californians did not live on tribal land, so for the promise of per capita distributions, many initially supported termination. In 1958, 44 California Indian groups were terminated, with tribal lands to be distributed to individual tribal members, and general services, such as improved sanitation, water, education, and roads, to be delivered by the federal government. However, in many communities, the promised improvements never materialized. Moreover, in many cases, individual tribal members did not receive a land allotment.

Perhaps worse than the unkept promises of material improvements was the loss of autonomy tribes suffered with termination’s shifting laws and responsibilities. Once a tribe was terminated, and the government-to-government relationship severed, tribes were regarded as a state’s responsibility. In many cases, states were unwilling or unable to provide services for their new constituents. Moreover, Public Law 280, which gave six states—including California—criminal jurisdiction in previously sovereign Indian lands, was largely opposed by both states and Indian communities. States were disinclined to enforce laws on a larger area without any additional funding, and Indian communities were loath to have outside law enforcement without prior consent.

1. According to the passage, termination in California was

a. opposed by state lawmakers in California

b. originally supported by some California Indians without a tribal land base

c. one method for California Indians to access jobs in law enforcement

d. challenged by the state under Public Law 280

e. a source of federal income that the state could spend on increased local law enforcement

2. Which of the following words best expresses the opinion of the author concerning the welfare of Indians after termination?

a. self-determination

b. failure

c. unique

d. worse

e. disinclined

3. Which of the following best describes the relationship of the final paragraph to the passage as a whole?

a. The main idea is reinforced by the inclusion of additional evidence.

b. The main idea is summarized and a transition to a new topic is given.

c. The main idea is restated in contrast to a contradictory opinion.

d. Exceptions to the main idea are critiqued and dismissed.

e. Local history is included to show that the main idea does not apply in every case.

4. Which of the following statements does the author imply about termination as it is discussed in the second paragraph?

a. Its intent to create law enforcement jobs on California tribal lands would reduce crime there.

b. Its plan to improve roadways and water systems was stymied by state interference.

c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.

d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands.

e. Its plan to only allocate lands to those Indians who did not live on tribal land violated state law.