Self-Determination (1961-Present) I::

By the late 1950s termination policies were largely abandoned in favour of a more Native American-oriented view. The basic philosophies of the 'reorganisation' period were returned to and expanded, largely in response to the civil rights movement that began during this time and accelerated during the 1960s. In a climate of increased public and Congressional acceptance of cultural pluralism and self-determination for ethnic minorities, and of increased and more sophisticated Indian lobbying especially in the areas of civil rights, religious freedom, health care, education, and in claims to water rights and energy resources, federal Indian policy during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s changed and evolved once again.

As Congressional pressure mounted, the Eisenhower administration, for example, began to retreat from previous policies of termination and withdrawal. Under the Kennedy administration, major federal service programmes were expanded in the areas of education, vocational training and placement, housing, and industrial and community development. Assimilation, however, remained the ultimate goal.

Under Johnson the move toward self-determination accelerated still more, with agencies created to administer new poverty and community development programmes. Under these grant programmes, Indian communities were "treated as viable units of local government capable of delivering services to their constituencies" (Cohen 1982:184).¹ Greater Indian involvement in the BIA was encouraged, and in 1966, Robert Bennett, a Wisconsin Oneida, was the first Indian Commissioner of Indian Affairs to be appointed in almost a century.

In 1968, President Johnson delivered his Special Message to the Congress on the Problems of the American Indian: 'The Forgotten American', in which he proposed Indian programmes that stressed self-determination, and which promoted "partnership and self-help". The central element of his proposals was the following: "An opportunity to remain in their homelands, if they choose, without surrendering their dignity; [and] an opportunity to move to the towns and the cities of America, if they choose, equipped with the skills to live in equality and dignity" . Despite such ambitious, albeit rather paternalistic, words, the Ninetieth Congress passed no substantive Indian legislation other than the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) in 1968.

Notes::

• 1 - Felix Cohen. 1982 ed. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Co., Bobbs-Merrill.