In Oklahoma's Indian New Deal, independent historian Jon Blackman argues that the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 (OIWA) provides an important and underinvestigated chapter in understanding Commissioner of Indian Affairs, John Collier's reform efforts and the broader Indian New Deal, as well as political and economic developments among Native peoples in the Sooner State. “Over several decades,” Blackman asserts, “federal allotment was formally ended, tribes were encouraged to organize for political and economic purposes, and economic development for both tribal groups and individuals was encouraged and fostered … In short, the OIWA allowed Oklahoma tribes and individuals to improve their lot” (5–6).

Oklahoma Indians were exempted from many of the provisions of the centerpiece of Collier's “Indian New Deal” reform program, the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. In the eastern part of the state, non-Native opposition was led by oil, mining, farming, and ranching interests, who cloaked their greed for Indian land and resources in the language of assimilation. In telling the story of the development of the OIWA—a “newer new deal”—Blackman is especially attuned to the conflicts between national policy reformers, such as Collier, and Oklahoma legislators such as Elmer Thomas and Will Rogers, who believed that Native people in their state “were further along the road to assimilation than tribal groups elsewhere” (90). Blackman also demonstrates varying levels of support for the Thomas–Rogers Bill (the legislation that would become the OIWA) among the different tribal communities in Oklahoma. For example, he focuses on Joseph Bruner, a Creek leader and the president of the American Indian Federation, who argued that the Thomas–Rogers Bill was “a step backward for all Native Americans” (95). Grady Lewis, a Choctaw and tribal attorney, “announced that the Choctaws strongly endorsed the Thomas–Rogers Bill” (97).

Oklahoma's Indian New Deal is thoroughly researched. Blackman dug deep into the manuscript collections of important legislators, as well as voluminous government records and newspaper publications, to unearth a story that has been overlooked in broader national studies. The first half of the book sets the stage by providing necessary background information about the local context, recounting first the histories of removal and territorialization, then describing the national reform movement that led to the Indian New Deal. It is in the second half, however, that Blackman's real strengths as a policy researcher lie. His narrative of the legislative development of the OIWA is clear and nuanced, and provides a useful window into the complicated issues at play between state- and federal-level policy making in early twentieth century Indian affairs. The book also offers useful appendices that include complete copies of the Indian Reorganization Act, the Thomas–Rogers Bill, and the OIWA.

Blackman's conclusions about the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act and its legacies are nuanced as well. The “truth,” he notes “lies somewhere … in the gray area between total success and failure” (147). Its immediate impact on lessening the suffering for tribal communities in Oklahoma caused by the Great Depression was positive, but limited. The author reveals that only 10% or so of those eligible actually took advantage of OIWA loan programs, only 36,000 acres or thereabouts were added to the Oklahoma tribal land base, and only eighteen Oklahoma tribes constituted new governing structures following the OIWA model (approximately 10%). Interestingly, Blackman asserts that these low statistics can be read as a kind of success; the OIWA, like the broader Indian New Deal, represented a movement away from some of the coercion that characterized the allotment and assimilation policies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. “Oklahoma Indians took advantage of choices offered to them by the act and chose not to participate … the fact remains that for the first time they could make that decision for themselves” (150).

Whereas the short-term results remained limited, Blackman concludes that the long-term intangible results were more significant, although difficult to measure. For example, Oklahoma tribal communities struggled to organize any intratribal response to federal legislators during the passage of the OIWA, but the political experiences shared by young Native leaders in these moments would blossom into the self-determination and nationalism movements of the late 1960s and 1970s. Additionally, the OIWA encouraged “increased participation by members in tribal affairs, an intensified and sustained effort to gain control of tribal resources, enhanced relations with white business leaders and all levels of government, increased cultural pride and self-esteem, and a stronger role in the administration of governmental programs” (157). Oklahoma's Indian New Deal tells an important story that can help scholars better understand the Indian New Deal era. Some might find the author's “gray area” conclusions to be a bit of a hedge, but the book is thought provoking and a welcome addition.