The recent history of Native Americans is both complex and controversial. Complex because of the rapid cultural change that has occurred in the twentieth century, particularly in the last half of the century; controversial because both Indians and non-Indians perceive that change differently. The perception of the status of Native Americans as the twentieth century comes to a close is like the classic perception of a glass half full of water. Some see it half full; some see it half empty. Some Native Americans, and some non-Native Americans, focus on the negative side (the empty half of the glass) and see what is missing rather than what has been gained. Indeed, as Native Americans achieve more, there are many who emphasize, with increasing vehemence, what they have not achieved. An example is the question of tribal self-government. In 1991 Native American leaders, in a meeting with President Bush, urged that the right of tribal governments in the United States to have jurisdiction over non-Indians and over Indians not members of the tribe claiming jurisdiction be “restored,” ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court decisions that mandated those restrictions did not claim to take such powers away, but ruled that they did not in fact exist. Indian leaders sought to overturn these Supreme Court decisions by urging the introduction of bills in Congress to “restore” those powers. The fact that they assumed that such bills would pass an overwhelmingly non-Indian Congress is a measure of the growing confidence that Native Americans possessed in the second half of the twentieth century. Their confidence was partially justified. While unwilling to recognize tribal power to prosecute non-Indians, Congress did recognize tribal authority to criminally prosecute non-member Indians. Even more indicative of the changing character of relations between Indians and non-Indians in the late twentieth century is the fact that, responding to the negative reaction of Indian peoples, the U.S. government moved deci sively away from a “termination policy” in the 1950s, a policy that threatened the very existence of tribal governments, to what Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have all termed a “government-to-government” relationship among tribal, state, and federal governments.