|
In 1887 the Dawes Act legislated wide-scale private ownership of reservation lands in the United States for Native Americans. The act allotted plots of 80 acres to each Native American adult. However, the Native Americans were not granted outright title to their lands. The act defined each grant as a “trust patent,” meaning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the governmental agency in charge of administering policy regarding Native Americans, would hold the allotted land in trust (in trust: adv.被托管) for 25 years, during which time the Native American owners could use, but not alienate (sell) the land. After the 25-year period, the Native American allottee would receive a “fee patent” awarding full legal ownership of the land.
Two main reasons were advanced for the restriction on the Native Americans’ ability to sell their lands. First, it was claimed that free alienability would lead to immediate transfer of large amounts of former reservation land to non-Native Americans, consequently threatening the traditional way of life on those reservations. A second objection to free alienation was that Native Americans were unaccustomed to, and did not desire, a system of private landownership. Their custom, it was said, favored communal use of land.
However, both of these arguments bear only on the transfer of Native American lands to non-Native Americans: neither offers a reason for prohibiting Native Americans from transferring land among themselves. Selling land to each other would not threaten the Native American culture. Additionally, if communal land use remained preferable to Native Americans after allotment, free alienability would have allowed allottees to sell their lands back to the tribe.
When stated rationales for government policies prove empty, using an interest-group model often provides an explanation. While neither Native Americans nor the potential non-Native American purchasers benefited from the restraint on alienation contained in the Dawes Act, one clearly defined group did benefit: the BIA bureaucrats. It has been convincingly demonstrated that bureaucrats seek to maximize the size of their staffs and their budgets in order to compensate for the lack of other sources of fulfillment, such as power and prestige. Additionally, politicians tend to favor the growth of governmental bureaucracy because such growth provides increased opportunity for the exercise of political patronage. The restraint on alienation vastly increased the amount of work, and hence the budgets, necessary to implement the statute. Until allotment was ended in 1934, granting fee patents and leasing Native American lands were among the principal activities of the United States government. One hypothesis, then, for the temporary restriction on alienation in the Dawes Act is that it reflected a compromise between non-Native Americans favoring immediate alienability so they could purchase land and the BIA bureaucrats who administered the privatization system.
22. Which one of the following statements concerning the reason for the end of allotment, if true, would provide the most support for the author’s view of politicians?
(A) Politicians realized that allotment was damaging the Native American way of life.
(B) Politicians decided that allotment would be more congruent with the Native American custom of communal land use.
(C) Politicians believed that allotment’s continuation would not enhance their opportunities to exercise patronage.
(D) Politicians felt that the staff and budgets of the BIA had grown too large.（C）
(E) Politicians were concerned that too much Native American land was falling into the hands of non-Native Americans.
不明白答案为什么是C，既然没有感到enhance their opportunities to exercise patronage，他们为什么要采取这个举措。请NN指教。谢谢！
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-4-23 16:14:10编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-4-23 16:10:00
楼主
