ICWA Supreme Court Justice John Roberts once said, “It’s a sordid business this divvying us up by race.” (Will “Blood”). In 1978 an act was passed in congress to preserve Indian tribal populations; it allowed tribes to terminate adoptions and place Indian children in Indian homes. The Indian Child Welfare Act has many positive impacts, including the promotion of strong Native-American identity, but there are also drawbacks, such as the lack of concern for the children’s safety and how they’re used as pawns to keep the tribes intact, no matter what the cost is for the kids. The Indian Child Welfare was passed in congress because Indian children were being removed from their homes and put into ones of other ethnicities unjustly; many …show more content…
Before the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed, Congress discovered a startling statistic. 25-30% of all American-Indian children were taken from their families custody and placed with non-Indian families (Fletcher). It is impractical to believe that that many American-Indian families were inadequate to have children in their care. Even after they were taken away, the government took no interest in the child’s cultural identity and placed them with families outside the tribe, where they were never exposed to their native culture. After the ICWA was passed and Indian families were kept together, many long-term benefits appeared: Security, pride in heritage, and participation in the use of cultural norms (Cross). When the Indian children were being placed within their tribes instead of with people of other ethnic backgrounds, the children grew up immersed in their families culture and grew up to practice it themselves. They learned where their …show more content…
Two twin girls were in the foster care of a woman in North Dakota from the ages of 9 mo. to 3 years-old. When they turned three, the woman attempted to adopt them, but the ICWA prevented her from doing so. The girls were sent to live with their grandfather at a reservation. His wife later threw one of the girls down a ditch, killing her, and it was later discovered that she had a history of abusing her own kids. (Will “Kids”). The act allows tribes to stop adoptions and remove kids from homes for no other reason than the fact that they have Native-American blood. They’re taken away from loving homes only to be hurt. 5-year-old Declan Stewart was removed from his mother’s home after his skull was fractured and he was sexually abused by his mother’s boyfriend. The Cherokee Nation objected the removal and he was sent back to live with his mother; he was beaten to death a month later. This young, little boy was being abused and justly taken from his mother’s custody because his safety was in danger. The Cherokee Nation didn’t want to lose a member so they objected, not taking into consideration the child’s well-being. Not even a month later the boy was beaten to death. “They were victims of the Indian Child Welfare Act which as constituted and applied
The term “Sixties Scoop,” was created by the writer, Patrick Johnson, to describe “the taking of thousands of Native children from their families, communities, and peoples during the 1960s to early 1980s” (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, 274). In the 1960’s, the government generally believed that an extension of child welfare services to reserves would be a practical approach to solving some of the problems on reserves. Although the social services may have had good intentions, “little attention was paid to the effect that extending provincial services would have on Indian families and communities [and there did not appear] to be any concern that provincial services might not be compatible with the needs of Indian communities” (Lloyd 2009). The majority of children that were placed for adoption were relocated to distant communities, different provinces and some were also placed in the United States to the dwellings of middle class Caucasian families.
The issue of identity also emerged in her commentary on how many Native American women are forced to prove their ethnicity for equality in health care and school: “For urban Indian women, who are not registered in federal government records, social services and benefits are difficult or almost impossible to obtain” (page 222). This governmental requirement for people to prove themselves as being “indian enough” can be damaging to one’s sense of self, and is proof of ongoing colonialism because the oppressors are determining whether one’s identity is legitimate.
Lives for Native Americans on reservations have never quite been easy. There are many struggles that most outsiders are completely oblivious about. In her book The Roundhouse, Louise Erdrich brings those problems to light. She gives her readers a feel of what it is like to be Native American by illustrating the struggles through the life of Joe, a 13-year-old Native American boy living on a North Dakota reservation. This book explores an avenue of advocacy against social injustices. The most observable plight Joe suffers is figuring out how to deal with the injustice acted against his mother, which has caused strife within his entire family and within himself.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
This program is part of the PBS series American Experience. In this episode, a critical eye is cast on the early efforts by Congress to "civilize" Native Americans. This homogenization process required the removal of Native American children from their homes and placing them in special Indian schools. Forced to stay for years at a time without returning home, children were required to eschew their own language and culture and learn instead the ways of the white man. Archival photographs and clips, newspaper accounts, journals, personal recollections, and commentary by historians relate the particulars of this era in American History and its ultimate demise. ~ Rose of Sharon Winter, All Movie Guide
At these boarding schools, Native American children were able to leave their Indian reservations to attend schools that were often run by wealthy white males. These individuals often did not create these schools with the purest of intentions for they often believed that land occupied by Native American Tribes should be taken from them and put to use; it is this belief that brought about the purpose of the boarding schools which was to attempt to bring the Native American community into mainstream society (Bloom, 1996). These boarding schools are described to have been similar to a military institution or a private religious school. The students were to wear uniforms and obey strict rules that included not speaking one’s native tongue but rather only speaking English. Punishments for not obeying such rules often included doing laborious chores or being physically reprimanded (Bloom, 1996). Even with hars...
Each year, there are thousands of children that are misplaced from their families and are seeking a permanent living placement. Their permanent placement may be found with family members or friends, or even through a private adoption. There are federal laws and state mandates that are implemented to ensure that the best interests of all children involved in an adoption or placement proceedings are heard. The best interests and needs of a child may include educational needs, medical needs, housing/placement preferences, or finding a family that reflects the ethnic and cultural heritage of the child in question. One federal mandate ensures that the heritage and familial background of children is protected and the best interests of the children are served. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 is a federal law that seeks to keep Indian-American children with Indian-American families. This law was created in response to an overwhelming population of Indian-American children being displaced from their families. This law was created to protect youth and help keep Indian-American children with their native tribes. In this paper, we explore the historical factors leading to the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the purpose of this Act. Further, we explore the development of this law, implementation of this federal law, and the contemporary debates that relate to the implementation of this law.
The Indian Removal Act drove thousands of natives off their tribal lands and forced them west to new reservations. Then again, there are those who defend Jackson's decision stating that Indian removal was necessary for the advancement of the United States. However, the cost and way of removing the natives was brutal and cruel. The opposition fails to recognize the fact that Jackson’s removal act had promised the natives payment, food, and protection for their cooperation, but Jackson fails to deliver any of these promises. Furthermore, in “Indian removal,” an article from the Public Broadcasting Service, a description of the removal of the Cherokee nation is given.
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
In our day and age where our youth are becoming more aware of the history of the country and the people who inhabit it, the culture of Native Americans has become more accessible and sparks an interest in many people young and old. Recent events, like the Dakota Access Pipeline, grab the attention of people, both protesters and supporters, as the Sioux tribe and their allies refuse to stay quiet and fight to protect their land and their water. Many Native people are unashamed of their heritage, proud of their culture and their ancestors. There is pride in being Native, and their connection with their culture may be just as important today as it was in the 1800’s and before, proving that the boarding school’s ultimate goal of complete Native assimilation to western culture has
“To kill the Indian in the child,” was the prime objective of residential schools (“About the Commission”). With the establishment of residential schools in the 1880s, attending these educational facilities used to be an option (Miller, “Residential Schools”). However, it was not until the government’s time consuming attempts of annihilating the Aboriginal Canadians that, in 1920, residential schools became the new solution to the “Indian problem.” (PMC) From 1920 to 1996, around one hundred fifty thousand Aboriginal Canadians were forcibly removed from their homes to attend residential schools (CBC News). Aboriginal children were isolated from their parents and their communities to rid them of any cultural influence (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Parents who refrained from sending their children to these educational facilities faced the consequence of being arrested (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Upon the Aboriginal children’s arrival into the residential schools, they were stripped of their culture in the government’s attempt to assimilate these children into the predominately white religion, Christianity, and to transition them into the moderating society (Miller, “Residential Schools”). With the closing of residential schools in 1996, these educational facilities left Aboriginal Canadians with lasting negative intergenerational impacts (Miller, “Residential Schools”). The Aboriginals lost their identity, are affected economically, and suffer socially from their experiences.
Each year, there are thousands of children that are misplaced from their families and are seeking a permanent living placement. Their permanent placement may be found with family members or friends, or even through a private adoption. There are federal laws and state mandates that are implemented to ensure that the best interests of all children involved in an adoption or placement proceedings are heard. The best interests and needs of a child may include educational needs, medical needs, housing/placement preferences, or finding a family that reflects the ethnic and cultural heritage of the child in question. One federal mandate ensures that the heritage and familial background of children is protected and the best interests of the children are served. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 is a federal law that seeks to keep Indian-American children with Indian-American families. This law was created in response to an overwhelming population of Indian-American children being displaced from their families. This law was created to protect youth and help keep Indian-American children with their native tribes. In this paper, we explore the historical factors leading to the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the purpose of this Act. Further, we explore the development of this law, implementation of this federal law, and the contemporary debates that relate to the implementation of this law.
Her book focuses on the myriads of issues and struggles that Indigenous men and women have faced and will continue to face because of colonialism. During her speech, Palmater addressed the grave effects of the cultural assimilation that permeated in Indigenous communities, particularly the Indian Residential School System and the Indian Act, which has been extensively discussed in both lectures and readings. Such policies were created by European settlers to institutionalize colonialism and maintain the social and cultural hierarchy that established Aboriginals as the inferior group. Palmater also discussed that according to news reports, an Aboriginal baby from Manitoba is taken away every single day by the government and is put in social care (CTVNews.ca Staff, 2015). This echoes Andrea Smith’s argument in “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing” that colonialism continues to affect Aboriginals through genocide (2006, p. 68). Although such actions by the government are not physical acts of genocide, where 90% of Aboriginal population was annihilated, it is this modern day cultural assimilation that succeeded the Indigenous Residential School System and the Indian Act embodies colonialism and genocide (Larkin, November 4,
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
In 1887 the federal government launched boarding schools designed to remove young Indians from their homes and families in reservations and Richard Pratt –the leader of Carlisle Indian School –declared, “citizenize” them. Richard Pratt’s “Kill the Indian… and save the man” was a speech to a group of reformers in 1892 describing the vices of reservations and the virtues of schooling that would bring young Native Americans into the mainstream of American society.