e new programs and had no desire to give up their remaining allotments. Even internal members of the BIA would question Collier’s ideas. Chief BIA anthropologist, Scudder Mekeel, warned Collier that the IRA was conceptually flawed because it imposed “rigid white political and economic concepts in a situation which called for flexibility.” Mekeel’s analysis proved to be correct. Terms and concepts like constitution and corporate charters were confusing to most Native Americans. Many tribal superintendents also voiced concerns. For example, W. O. Roberts advised Collier that it was a mistake to treat the Sioux the same as southwestern Indians. Some scholars argue that the IRA only gave the appearance of giving Native Americans sovereignty. Tribal constitutions required the Secretary of Interior’s approval before enactment and often contained provisions within giving the BIA ultimate authority. According to Michael G. Lacy, “Indians do not see the tribe as organized under the IRA as their own democratic, legitimate government, but as an alien force.” Robert A Nelson and Joseph F. Sheley assert that the IRA actually gave the BIA more control of Native Americans rather than the reverse. Ultimately, only a minority of Indians participated in self-government. Only those tribes or bands recognized by the BIA were allowed to participate. Consequently, 50,000 Native Americans were excluded from the outset. Of the 181 tribes that voted to participate, only ninety-three adopted constitutions and only seventy-three incorporated. Furthermore, several of these tribes had been manipulated to participate by vote-counting tactics employed by the Interior Department. In the end, Collier’s failure to come to terms with Native American factionalism prevented him from creating an effective and sustainable Indian policy. Although John Collier failed to create his utopian vision of a cooperative commonwea...
