Differential Power and Indian Child Welfare: Part Four

Carol A. Hand

Following is the fourth installment of one of the exam papers written to complete a university degree (Hand, 1999). I am sharing the essay in installments, with minor edits and illustrations added, in hopes that it might be of interest and stimulate thoughtful dialogue. (Part One defined theory and discussed some of the relevant general theories that continue to guide research, policies, and practice paradigms that limit the exercise of sovereignty by tribal governments over the welfare of their citizens, lands, and resources. Part Two covered theories about the ways in which power over others is imposed and maintained. Part Three explored different theories related specifically to the colonial experience of Indigenous Peoples in what is now the United States.)

I wish to thank all of the readers and commenters who have been following this series. I have learned a lot from the thoughtful dialogue. Perhaps you’ll be grateful to know that there is only one final installment to come, the discussion and conclusion. Honestly, I don’t remember what it says – so I look forward to reading it and hope you all do as well.


Cultural survival is precisely the issue which reportedly led Native American people to press for the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 (Unger, 1978). The opening section of the Act explicitly notes Congressional recognition that “there is no resource more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children and the United States has a direct interest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe” (Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USCS, sec. 1901).


Photo: Carlisle Indian Boarding School (1879-1918) (Source)

As discussed at length in Preliminary Examination Paper 1 (Hand, 1999), the paradigms, institutions, professional standards, and practices that govern the implementation of ICWA have emerged from Euro-American society with only cosmetic modifications. Under ICWA, the standards of family caregiving against which abuse and neglect are measured, the methods for exploring and documenting cases of reported maltreatment, and the types of interventions used are, in most cases, indistinguishable from those used by state and county agencies (Wares, Dobec, Rosenthal, & Wedel, 1992; Plantz et al, 1989).

As presently implemented, ICWA may be contributing to the continuing erosion of some tribal cultures given the context of: (1) authority for implementation which is delegated to tribal governments that embody dominant institutional structures, values, and operations; (2) the Euro-American child welfare paradigms on which ICWA is based (values, intervention methodologies, and definitions of what constitutes child neglect and abuse); and (3) tribal communities where centuries of federal interventions have left a legacy of disrupted families and factionalized communities. One is led to ask if this situation is unique to Native Americans, or if, in fact, other oppressed peoples are similarly struggling to assure the safety of children within antithetical cultural paradigms.

Evidence from Cross-National and Cross-Cultural Literatures.

National and cultural comparisons reveal a number of important insights, illustrating both similarities in the treatment and impacts of colonialism for indigenous peoples, and national and cultural variability in definitions of child treatment, as discussed below.


Photo: Mathinna – 1842 – by Thomas Bock ( Indigenous Australians )

Cross-National Colonialism.

Fleras and Elliott (1992) and Armitage (1995) build on the transactional theme of relationships between colonial oppression and native resistance cross-nationally. (Please see Endnotes for a brief overview of these works.) As illustrated in Table 2, there are notable and significant similarities among the colonial policies which were imposed on indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. (Again, please refer to the Endnotes for additional information.) Under the unquestioned European “doctrine of discovery,” new lands were viewed as the legitimate property of the discovering nations, and indigenous peoples were viewed, at best, as subjects of colonial rule. As Europeans encountered new lands and peoples, they assumed the superiority of European “civilization” (e.g., agriculture, technology, government, religion, and written language), and, in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, indigenous peoples were seen as inferior, “uncivilized” heathens (Diamond, 1997; Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Dippie, 1982; Berkhoffer, 1979). Initial colonial policies imposed by Spain, Britain, and France were intended to wrest land and resources from the control of indigenous peoples, while later policies were focused on civilizing, Christianizing, and assimilating native peoples.

Table 2: Cross-National Comparison of Child Welfare Policies Imposed on Indigenous Peoples
Contact/Early Settlement Era

prelim 2 table 2 a

According to Armitage (1995, p. 5), the imposition of colonial control over indigenous peoples took two forms: extermination and “temperate conduct.” The “extermination” of indigenous peoples across continents followed immediately after European contact, most notably as a result of European-born diseases, with warfare and massacres further decimating indigenous populations and cultures (Diamond, 1997; Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Armitage, 1995).

“However, once a sufficient number of aboriginal people had been killed (i.e., enough to ensure British dominance), a set of policies based on a ‘temperate line of conduct’ frequently became possible. These policies relied upon a dominant military or civil police force for their ultimate enforcement and were aimed at managing aboriginal peoples by controlling their land use, settlements, governments, and daily life. They also called for introducing aboriginal people to missionaries” (Armitage, 1995, p. 5).

“The invaders invoked certain myths to legitimize and justify the colonization, displacement, and exploitation of aboriginal peoples in the name of evolutionary progress and national development…. The situation was viewed with both alarm and ethnocentric complacency, as if the extinction of aboriginal peoples were the inevitable price of “‘progress’” (Fleras & Elliott, 1992, p. 3).

Although there were similarities in the use of differential power by colonial powers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, significant differences also exist. The treatment of Aboriginal peoples in Australia was clearly the most brutal, and only the Maoris of New Zealand escaped relocation and isolation on reservations. Despite these differences, however, colonial policies have left a similar legacy. As Fleras and Elliott point out (1992, p. 4):

“While the specifics vary from one context to the next, aboriginal peoples share a number of social and economic features that stem directly from their status as encapsulated populations under colonialist rule…. No matter what economic index is cited — income, employment, education — aboriginal peoples, in a statistical sense, tend to occupy the bottom-most rung of the socio-economic ladder.”

Fleras and Elliott (1992, p. 5) add that the “loss of culture and control over life have in some instance led to chronic problems over personal identity, group integrity, and social solidarity,” the very issues Cornell (1988) identified as the central impacts of colonization.

Canada residential school

Photo: Canadian Indian Residential School ( Source )

Among these four nations, general colonial policies were accompanied by specific polices targeted toward children. As Armitage (1995, p. 5) points out:

“Child welfare policy was seen as one of the ‘softer” tools used to obtain compliance and, ultimately, to ensure the universal acceptance of British rule. In Britain, the Poor Law was already using child welfare policy as a means of managing families by separating the children of paupers from their parents.”

The 1837 House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines in Australia extended Poor Law practices to indigenous children as “the best means of ensuring that aboriginal peoples would be prepared for the responsibilities of Christianity, civilization, and British citizenship” (Armitage, 1995, p. 204). Institutions, called “dormitories” in Australia, “residential schools” in Canada, and “boarding schools” in the United States, became the preferred method for accomplishing this task. Only the Maoris of New Zealand were spared the British and colonial practice of forcefully removing generations of children from their parents to be raised in institutions, or later, in European homes (Armitage, 1995; Adams, 1995). Armitage points out that “Physical and sexual abuse occurred in many of the institutions, and, thus, patterns of violence between and towards children were introduced into the parenting behavior of the next generation of aboriginal peoples.” Lewis Meriam (1928) expressed a similar concern in 1928 with respect to the long-term impacts for Native American children who were raised in boarding schools within the U.S.

Conflict and Domination/ Paternalism and Isolation Era

prelim 2 table 2 b

prelim 2 table 2 c2

In all four nations, “special treatment” for indigenous peoples was replaced by a commitment to integration. As general child welfare services were extended to native communities the practice of removing high rates of aboriginal children from their parents continued, although the agents of child removal shifted from the agents of specialized bureaucracies dedicated to overseeing native populations to workers in general child welfare agencies. Armitage (1995) suggests a number of contributors to the continuation of disproportionate child removal during the integration period: (1) the unfamiliarity of courts and workers with aboriginal communities; (2) the imposition of non-aboriginal values and expectations on aboriginal communities; (3) the decreasing availability of extended family and community as a result of the increasing urbanization of aboriginal peoples; (4) high rates of alcohol and substance abuse among aboriginal peoples; and (5) the high proportion of aboriginal parents who had spent their childhoods in institutions who subsequently experienced difficulties raising their own children.

Assimilation Era

prelim 2 table 3 d

Yet, native resistance coalesced in all four nations during the 1970s in response to integration policies, resulting in the emergence of a period of limited self-determination and varying degrees of native control over family and child welfare. The Maori have developed community initiatives to preserve language and culture through pre-school emersion programs, and have had an impact on federal child welfare practice and legislation. In the United States and Canada, the role of band or tribal governments in child welfare has been recognized and expanded. In Australia, gains have been more modest, but federal recognition and resources have enabled Aboriginal peoples to begin the task of rebuilding families and developing services based on tribal customs. These changes have, across all nations, resulted in lower rates of out-placement for indigenous children, as summarized by Table 2. Yet, Armitage (1995) suggests that one should not be too optimistic about the willingness of federal governments to embrace self-determination for aboriginal peoples. An alternative view is that

“cultural assimilation has been replaced by institutional assimilation. In this view, aboriginal peoples are permitted to undertake administrative actions only on the condition that they develop policies and programs which mirror those of the mainstream cultures within which they are located. The illusion of self-government exists, but the reality is mainstream control, accomplished by the simple expedient of only funding programs that meet criteria defined by mainstream cultures (e.g., Canadian child welfare agreements). Thus, assimilation continues under the guise of self-government” (Armitage, 1995, p. 41).

Integration Era

prelim 2 table 2 e

prelim 2 table 2 f2

Fleras and Elliott (1992, p. 124) suggest that the empowerment of native peoples can follow one of two scenarios: either existing systems can be retained with minor modifications at the level of program design, service delivery or personnel, or through fundamental change and the creation of “parallel structures in criminal justice as well as in health and education” by each community, “in effect giving practical expression to the principle of aboriginal self-government.” Consistent with Cornell (1988), indigenous peoples have differing views on this issue: some view the current federal policies as an indicator of self-determination, while others argue for the creation of policies based on native cultural traditions and the elimination of European influence (Armitage, 1995). Armitage (1995, p. 215) argues that three main tasks are necessary in order for indigenous peoples to recover from the effects of centuries of colonial child welfare policy: “(1) rebuilding roots and identity, (2) modifying mainstream child welfare policies, and (3) establishing alternative aboriginal policies.”

Limited Self-Government Era

prelim 2 table 2 g

prelim 2 table 2 h

Eurocentric paradigms have continued to guide the child welfare policies over which indigenous people have been able to establish some measure of administrative control (Armitage, 1995). That these views have continued to dominate points to the unquestioned nature of paradigms and disciplines. Individual missionaries, teachers, child welfare workers, and legislators, most of whom are of European descent, have continued to make decisions about aboriginal individuals or groups based on their own set of time-specific culture-bound beliefs. While each individual decision may have been well-meaning and intended to be in the “best interest” of native peoples, cultural hegemony has been established and continues to persist as a result (Armitage, 1995). As Cornell (1988, p. 196) points out:

“In all societies, albeit in widely varying degrees, social control rests to some extent on the belief among members that the existing institutions of that society are fundamentally appropriate and just and that the ideas and values they represent are essentially good and, indeed, normal.”

Eurocentric paradigms have been accepted, to varying degrees, by many native peoples. Yet, a body of cross-cultural child welfare literature suggests that there are many alternative paradigms, and underscores the importance of respecting the fit between cultural practices and environments.


Photo: Maori Family ( Source )

Cross-Cultural Child Welfare.

Jill Korbin (1981, p. 2) notes that “the cross-cultural literature on child rearing presents a remarkable range of variation. This is all the more notable considering the commonality of tasks that must be accomplished in socializing the next generation.” Despite the absence of a universal definition of child abuse and neglect across nations and cultures, there are, according to Korbin (1981, pp. 4-5) three levels at which cross-cultural issues are critical in defining child maltreatment: (1) “practices [which are] viewed as acceptable by one culture but as abusive or neglectful by another”; (2) criteria within each culture “for identifying behaviors that are outside the realm of acceptable child training”; and (3) harmful or abusive societal factors, “such as poverty, inadequate housing, poor health care, inadequate nutrition, and unemployment” which either contribute directly to the incidence of abuse, “or are so damaging to children as the outweigh the proportion of child abuse and neglect which occurs because of parental psychopathology.”

Based on ethnographic research conducted prior to 1978 across a diverse sample of cultures, from Turkey to Africa, South America to China, New Guinea to Japan, several important generalizations emerge (Korbin, 1981). First, the type of physical battery of children which has emerged as a concern in the United States appeared to be relatively rare in other parts of the world prior to 1978. Second, some children in each culture appeared to be more vulnerable to mistreatment than others: “illegitimate children, adopted children, deformed or retarded children, high birth order children, and female children.

Vulnerability depends to a large degree on the cultural context” (Korbin, 1981, p. 6). Third, certain characteristics of cultures affected the incidence of child maltreatment, most notably the availability of family and community support, and the stability of the social and cultural context. Urbanization, with a disruptive impact on informal support networks, as well as contexts of cultural change, appear to increase family stressors and the incidence of child abuse and neglect (LeVine & LeVine, 1981; Johnson, 1981; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1981; and Hauswald, 1987). In addition to the degree of “embeddedness” of families within kin and community networks, and the increased vulnerability of some categories of children, Korbin (1981, pp. 207-208, emphasis in original) points to other factors within a cultural context which either increase or decrease the likelihood of abuse: (1) the “cultural value of children”; and (2) “beliefs about age capabilities and developmental stages of children.” Children are likely to be better treated within those cultures in which they are valued for many reasons (tradition bearers, lineage continuation, economic contributors), and harsh treatment of young children who misbehave is likely to viewed as pointless in cultures which define “the age of reason” as age seven or eight.

A number of accepted practices within other cultural contexts may operate to reduce the likelihood of harsh physical abuse: infanticide, “underinvestment” or benign neglect of selected children, abandonment, harsh physical discipline after “the age of reason” has been attained, and rites of passage that are sometimes painful or dangerous (Johnson, 1981; Poffenberger, 1981; Wagatsuma, 1981). From the view of outsiders, an “etic” perspective (Korbin, 1987, p. 26, italics in original), such treatment may appear to be abusive. Yet, many scholars stress the importance of understanding cultural practices from an “emic” (or insider) perspective, as well as from a transactional framework of cultural practices developed within specific social and physical environments (e.g., Korbin, 1981, 1987; Wu; 1981; Scheper-Hughes, 1992).

Practices which limit population size to manageable levels, ensure that those children who remain are wanted, and ritually celebrate the transition of each child into adult status, result in better treatment of children overall (Korbin, 1981). As Scheper-Hughes argues (1987, p. 13, emphasis in original):

“Once understood in their specific ecological and cultural context we can distinguish normative forms of child maltreatment from the more deviant and idiosyncratic practices of child battering and sexual abuse… The vast difference between allowing certain neonates to die for economic and ecological reasons in an infanticide-tolerant society, and the hostile battering of a rejected and disvalued child in an abortion- and abuse-tolerant society needs to be recognized and clarified. What first appears as a baffling paradox may be seen as the unfortunate outcome of the demographic transition of advanced industrial societies.”

Scheper-Hughes (1992) demonstrates the impact of significant socio-demographic transitions in her discussion of motherhood and child death within northeastern Brazil. Her powerful, sensitive account demonstrates the ways in which parents and communities accommodate to overwhelmingly toxic and violent external pressures. In beginning her account, Scheper-Hughes (1992, p. 8) notes:

“Often I groped blindly to understand and act within a context of radical, sometimes opaque, cultural differences as well as within a context of economic misery and political repression in which my own country [USA] played a contributing and supporting role.”


Photo: Northeastern Brazil Plantation ( Source )

The lives of the displaced rural peoples among whom Scheper-Hughes (1992) lived were severely constrained by poverty, hunger, and thirst: the outcome of national and international forces which have led to continued over-cultivation of the land with sugar cane for exportation and pollution of the major source of water. Added to the weight of hunger is the repressive role of the “state institutions of violence” which target the poor: beatings, incarceration, and killings are not uncommon. Scheper-Hughes (1992, p. 532) likens the experience of the poor of northeastern Brazil to that of inmates of “total institutions.” The very existence of the poor in northeastern Brazil rests within the hands of those in power: physicians, politicians, and owners of the large sugarcane plantations (the casa grande). Like inmates in a total institution, the most valuable currency the poor can exchange includes “dependency, silence, and passivity … and … loyalty to the doctor-jailer or the patron-boss.” In this environment of violence and hunger, “[c]hild protection … often takes the form of child theft,” taking children from their poor mothers and sending them to adoptive mothers in other parts of Brazil or to the United States.

Within a context of extreme scarcity and repression, hunger, childhood malnutrition, and thirst have been defined as a disease by the poor, nervoso, and medicalized by professionals and by those in power. Unwilling to recognize the failure of the state symbolized by the starvation of the poor, the medical profession and power structure treat peoples’ hunger with “tranquilizers, vitamins, sleeping pills, and elixirs” (Scheper-Hunges, 1992, p. 169). A crucial question emerges from the acceptance of the medical definition and treatment of starvation by the poor themselves: “… how does it happen that chronically hungry people “eat” medicines while going without food?” (Scheper-Hughes, 1992, p. 177). The answer, according to Scheper-Hughes (1992, p. 199), is suggested by Antonio Gramsci. The poor people of northeastern Brazil are not coerced to look to physicians for cures, but rather, have gradually come to share the views of the medical intellectuals.

The appeal of medical solutions to hunger and child morbidity and mortality is understandable given: (1) the fit with a “popular cultural with a long tradition of ‘magical medicines’”; and (2) the need to do something to survive in a way that does not invoke reprisal from the oppressive power structure (Scheper-Hughes, 1987, p. 200). Continuing survival in a repressive political environment, despite poverty, hunger, and high rates of child mortality and morbidity, speaks to the tremendous resilience of the poor people of Brazil (Scheper-Hughes, 1992).

Scheper-Hughes (1992) asserts that the survival of the poor in northeastern Brazil cannot be characterized as resistance, although according to Cornell’s (1988) analysis, the emergence of particular survival strategies has been, at times, the only form of resistance open to Native American peoples. He points out that:

“Pacifism on the part to the oppressed, often interpreted as inherent passivity or contentment, more often reflects severely restricted opportunities for action, and a decision to spend energy in the more productive and likely enterprise of community maintenance and revitalization. Beneath the veneer of passivity, in other words, often lies an extraordinary effort to reorganize and reconceptualize personal and social life experience, so that apparently unalterable conditions can be made tolerable…. To some extent this reaction represents decreasing self-confidence and increasing fear, but is also represents a conscious effort to develop an alternative strategy for survival” (Cornell, 1988, p. 65).

 Navajo Mother

Photo: Navajo Mother and Children (Raynor Memorial Libraries, Marquette University )

Survival within the context of domination results in continuing long-term challenges. Hauswald’s (1987) study of child welfare among the Navajo provides evidence of a number of salient and important consequences of colonialism among Navajo families and communities. First, consistent with Cornell’s (1988) observations, the Navajo people have become factionalized by a “traditional” versus “partially assimilated” split. As Hauswald (1987, p. 145) points out:

“The recent history of the Navajos is one in which language, religion, and childrearing practices have all been disrupted to a greater or lesser degree. The Navajo Reservation continues to be assaulted with economic, educational, and social alternatives, many of them in direct conflict with traditional lifestyles and values. The maintenance of stable childrearing patterns in this rapidly changing and stressful social context is often impossible.”

Boarding schools and other assimilation policies have resulted in parents who have internalized negative self-images and whose childhood has deprived them of their language, religion, and kinship ties and eliminated opportunities for them to experience Navajo family life and childrearing. While Navajo parents who were raised in boarding schools may attempt to return to traditional lifestyles, Hauswald (1987, p. 151) points out that

“… they do not teach the traditions to their children. Feeling the Navajo Way is disadvantageous in the ‘modern’ world, they do not teach or discipline their children; so, although they now have the alternative of using public day schools, they frequently send their own children to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding schools or Mormon Placement foster homes, a common pattern in neglectful and abusive families.”

Hauswald’s (1987) second important finding is the acceptance of dominant institutions and practice paradigms by Navajo health and child welfare professionals. Like their professional Anglo colleagues, the professionally-degreed Navajos who work for Indian Health Service (IHS) tend to hold a negative assessment of tribal judges and the un-degreed social workers who work for the tribe. Likewise, tribal social workers are hesitant to work with Anglo or “modern” Navajo staff in the BIA and IHS, since they are viewed as ignorant of or insensitive to cultural issues. The needs of families are often poorly served within the context of interagency distrust and conflict.

Third, Houswald (1987, p. 162) asserts that, consistent with Margaret Mead’s observations in 1978, “child abuse and neglect cases reflect the fact that under new social conditions, parents are often confused about how to care for their children, while the traditional back-up system for poor parenting has broken down, leaving many children at risk.” The loss of cultural values, norms, strong family networks, and positive self-images are threatened during times of rapid social change. Hauswald (1987, p. 162) points to the difficulties parents experience in times of rapid social change when external supports and culturally “defined values and beliefs about personal roles and social meanings” are disrupted, whether those families are “traditional, bicultural, or acculturated.”

Hauswald’s (1987) final point leads back to the beginning of this paper, to the theory of causality for child maltreatment forwarded by the thoughtful Ojibwa youth. Hauswald (1987, p. 152) argues that:

“Alcohol is often blamed as the root cause of child abuse and neglect, but breakdown in cultural traditions associated with rapid change in family interaction and childrearing actually precede the use of alcohol in many neglectful families. In the cycle of external pressure and change internal to families, alcohol becomes a substitute for cohesive and satisfying relationships that have been lost.”

Alcohol and substance abuse are identified as key causal factors of child neglect and abuse both by professionals and by families within indigenous cultures (Cross, 1987). As Hauswald (1987, p. 162) points out,

“The strong inclination to blame alcohol rather than to see a deviant pattern in interaction between family members is largely due to a belief that the individuals are not to blame if alcohol ‘made them do it.’ If viewed in social/historical context, families can be perceived as troubled and as being in need of help, while individuals can still be freed from direct blame and guilt.”

This is not to say that problems associated with alcohol and substance abuse should be minimized or ignored, since addictions add to the many challenges Native American individuals and families face. However, eliminating substance abuse does not eliminate family violence, nor does it change the larger socio-historical/econo-political legacy which continues to present additional challenges and pressures for Native American families.

End Notes

1. Fleras and Elliott (1992) compare the general colonial policies imposed on indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Armitage (1995) compares both the general policies and the child welfare policies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

2. Table 2 is adapted from Armitage, 1995; Cornell, 1988; Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Bremner, 1970; O’Brien, 1989; Snipp, 1989, Adams, 1995; Dippie, 1982; Adair, 1985; Bercuson, 1985; Jeans & Miller, 1985; Lewthwaite, 1985; Waite, 1985; and U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Period names and dates for Australia, Canada, and New Zealand primarily reflect those used by Armitage (1995, pp. 200-201, 206-207), although modifications have been made to incorporate the perspectives of the other scholars.

3. Table 2 was so challenging to reproduce in WordPress. The table was retyped as a PowerPoint slide show, and slides were turned into photos of diminished clarity/readability. Please email me if you would like a copy of the slide show. Following are overviews of the four nations discussed that were part of the original table.

prelim 2 table 2 overview A

prelim 2 table 2 Canada

prelim 2 table 2 nz

prelim 2 table 2 us

Works Cited:

Adair, E.R. (1985). Red River Rebellion. In The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 16), pp. 177-178. Chicago: World Book, Inc.

Adams, D.W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Armitage, A. (1995). Comparing the policy of aboriginal assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Bercuson, D.J. (1985). History of Canada. In The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 3), pp. 114-123. Chicago: World Book, Inc.

Berkhofer, R.E., Jr. (1979). The White man’s Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the present. New York: Vintage Books.

Bremner, R.H. (Ed.). (1970). Children and youth in America: A documentary history (Vol. I: 1600-1865). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cornell, S. (1988). The return of the Native: American Indian political resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cross, T.L. (1987). Cross-cultural skills in Indian child welfare: A guide for the Non-Indian. Portland, OR: Norwest Indian Child Welfare Institute (now the National Indian Child Welfare Association).

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Dippie, B.W. (1982). The vanishing American: White attitudes and U.S. Indian policy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Fleras, A. & Elliot, J. (1992). The ‘nations within’: aboriginal-state relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.

Hand, C. (1999). Indian child welfare within the context of United States child welfare policies, practices, and paradigms: Rescuing children of homogenizing America? Preliminary Exam Paper 1 – General Problem or Substantive Area: General Child Welfare. Submitted to Doctoral Committee members at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on February 4, 1999.

Hauswald, L. (1987). External pressure/internal change: Child neglect on the Navajo reservation. In N. Scheper-Hughes (Ed.), Child survival: Anthropological perspectives on the treatment and maltreatment of children, pp. 145-164. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, PL 95-608, 25 U.S.C. Secs. 1901-63.

Jeans, D.N & Miller, J.D.B. (1985). Australia. In The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 1), pp. 866-898. Chicago: World Book, Inc.

Johnson, O.R. (1981). The socioeconomic context of child abuse and neglect in native South America. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 56-70. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Korbin, J.E. (1981)(Ed.). Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Korbin, J.E. (1987). Child abuse and neglect: The cultural context. In R.E. Hefler & R.S. Kempe (Eds.), The Battered Child, 4th edition, pp. 23-41. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LeVine (S. & LeVine, R. (1981). Child abuse and neglect in Sub-Saharan Africa. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 35-55. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lewthwaite, G.R. (1985). New Zealand. In The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 14), pp. 278-284. Chicago: World Book, Inc.

Lindsey, D. (1994). The Welfare of children. New York: Oxford University Press.

Meriam, L. (1928). The Problem of Indian Administration: Report of a survey made at the request of Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior by the Institute for Government Research (the Brookings Institute). Baltimore, Md: The John Hopkins Press.

O’Brien, Sharon (1989). American Indian Tribal governments. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Plantz, M.C., Hubbell, R., Barrett, B.J., & Dobrec, A. (1989). Indian child welfare: A status report. Children Today, 18 (1), 24-29.

Poffenberger, T. (1981). Child rearing and social structure in rural India: Toward a cross-cultural definition of child abuse and neglect. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 71-95. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ritchie, J. & Ritchie, J. (1981). Child rearing and child abuse: the Polynesian context. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 186-204. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: the violence of everyday life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Scheper-Hughes, N. (1987)(Ed.). Child survival: Anthropological perspectives in the treatment and maltreatment of children. Dordrecth, Holland: C. Reidel Publishing Company.

Snipp, C.M. (1989). American Indians: The first of this land. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

U.S. Census Bureau (1990). Selected demographic information on race, family structure, and income. Available: http;//www.ccensus.gov.

Unger, S. (Ed.)(1978). The destruction of American Indian families. New York: Association on American Indian Affairs.

Wagatsuma, H. (1981). Child abandonment and infanticide: A Japanese case. In J.E. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 120-138. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waite, P.B. (1985). Riel, Louis. In The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 16), p. 313. Chicago: World Book, Inc.

Wares, D.M., Dobrec, A., Rosenthal, J.A., & Wedel, K.R. (1992). Job satisfaction, practice skills, and supervisory skills of administrators of Indian child welfare programs. Child Welfare, 71 (5), 405-418.


Copyright Notice: © Carol A. Hand and carolahand, 2013-2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Carol A. Hand and carolahand with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.


About Carol A. Hand

What matters are not the titles I’ve held or university degrees I earned or the size of a house or bank account. It’s really what I’ve learned from ordinary people like me whom I’ve met along the way. They taught me to live with gratitude and give thanks for each new day.
This entry was posted in Social Justice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Differential Power and Indian Child Welfare: Part Four

  1. This is an excellent and informative in-depth series, especially part four. Congratulations.

    Another fellow blogger – Tanya – and I recently discussed the religious consequences for indigenous peoples during the colonial period. She related the near-uniform conversion of tribal religious beliefs to Christianity in Africa, while I juxtaposed that experience with what happened in North America where traditional spirituality managed to survive – at least to some extent. We examined the potential differences, and surmised that the inherent philosophical strengths of each respective belief system was determinative in its continuance. In other words, people who believed strongly were more able to sustain it while less committed dogmas were abandoned. Our discussion did not take into account the effects of genocide, transmitted epidemics, forced migrations, the slave trade, and other large-scale impacts to a population.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I appreciate your feedback, Robert, as well as your crucial insights about colonial experiences and consequences in Africa. From what I have read, the colonizing empires were far more brutal in Africa (and that’s saying something) and used divide and conquer strategies in ways that continue to have troubling inter-tribal consequences. And yes, the epidemics and forced migrations were as disastrous there as elsewhere.

      It’s interesting to consider the consequence of boarding schools, urban relocation, and service in the military (an indication of effective colonial conversion) – the “Indianization” of diverse tribes into a shared sense of indigenous identity that became a foundation for collective resistance and activism. Because Africa is such a large, diverse continent with many Indigenous tribes, and European nations competing as colonizers, the infrastructure of continent-wide collective resistance is far more difficult to create.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Pingback: Differential Power and Indian Child Welfare: Pa...

  3. Debra says:

    These older cultures got so much right compared to this global-Capitalism thing. Apparently, the Amazon forest was pretty much created by people and the soil hundreds of years later continues to be fertile even when untended. Compare that system to industrialized agriculture where the soil is not only eroding but becoming depleted. I have heard predictions that the soil system will pretty much collapse in the US in less than 25 years if these practices of irrigation and chemical management of pests and weeds continues. It is horrfying to think that those older cultures that got it right continue to be dismissed as somehow inferior. Just as people knew how to care for the environment they also knew how to cherish children. I am from Canada and know about some of the atrocities that happened at residential schools. If abuse and hatred is a superior way to raise children then count me out. And as you say: the consequences continue to haunt families today. Derrick Jensen writes that it is a mistake to talk about ‘The’ Holocaust. There have been many … right here in North America that people conveniently like to overlook. And it isn’t ancient history. Genocidal policies continue. Not only here but abroad. Environmentalists in South America continue to die (get murdered) when they try to protect what is left of the forests.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Your observations and insights are so crucial, Debra. As you point out so eloquently, genocide is not merely a tragedy of the past – it is still occurring today across the globe.

      There is much we can learn from cultures that knew (know) how to live in balance with the earth and teach their children to do likewise. In fact, your discussion reminded me of another work by John McKnight – John Deere and the Bereavement Counselor: http://www.centerforneweconomics.org/publications/authors/McKight/John. McKnight argues that just like the steel plow that could cut through the thick, interwoven roots of prairie grasses, formalized expert services cut through social connections that hold communities together. Both technologies can ultimately create deserts where life once flourished. Your comments also remind me of your beautiful and profound post about snails and the important role they play in an ecosystem that is in balance.

      I also wish to thank you again for a thoughtful and engaging dialogue. Chi miigwetch.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Makes one wonder when the day will come where painful and disturbing papers like this will only become produced by historians; when man’s inhumanity to man is a thing of the distant past.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Interesting the view presented on Maori status in New Zealand. During the 1970s, there was a militant, at times violent protests by Maori about a persistent pattern of illegal land confiscation by the Crown. To damp down the violence the government formed the Waitangi Tribunal, which allowed Maori iwi and hapu to bring grievances about historic land confiscations.

    NZ and Maori just had one treat, the Treaty of Waitangi, even though all the iwi didn’t sign it, nearly all Maori accept it as a legal document. The Treaty promises Maori protection, partnership and participation in governance as well rangatiratanga (autonomy and self determination over Maori affairs.)

    As in other British colonies the Treaty was repeatedly violated, and the Waitangi Tribunal has returned land or a financial settlement to many iwi.

    The Maori uprisings in the 1970s also inspired the government to put major funding behind preserving the Maori language and 2 Maori TV stations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I was so hoping you would share your insights and expertise, Stuart. Thank you! I appreciate learning more about the history of oppression in New Zealand, and the effective consequences of Maori resistance.


  6. themofman says:

    A fascinating piece. With Table 2, being that I am Canadian, I would add that Europeans also used warfare as a means of gaining confidence and subjugating the First Nations people.

    Many of the Native tribes in the Great Lakes region, were bitter enemies before the Europeans came. As most know, the Europeans and Americans all fought each other for control of the Canadas while gaining allegiance with tribes that would trade with them. The British, French and somewhat the Dutch established impromptu reserve armies of natives through trade agreements that continued to pit tribes against each other; therefore, helping the dissenting European factions to out compete each other in mercenary manpower.

    This was a strategy that helped the British take the land, its resources and dominate the natives once the French, other Europeans and Americans capitulated one by one.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I appreciate hearing your perspective, Allan, and learning more about history from someone who is knowledgeable. When I was working on this paper, I realized how little I knew about Canada and Canadian history.

      You also bring up a crucial issue about inter-tribal warfare. I have sometimes wondered how things might have been different if tribes had been able to resist the allure of copper pots and rifles and rather, joined together in collective resistance. Divide and conquer still works today, not just for tribes, but for all those who believe it’s wise to compete with others who are also oppressed by the elite.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Carol, I really like the comparative charts. I wonder if such a comparison has ever been done for the Indigenous peoples in South America. And unfortunately, large numbers of Native Americans have converted to Christianity. It is very strong here among Native Alaskans. When I worked as a nurse at a Hopi elementary school I saw first hand the direct effects this history you presented has had on a people. The parents and school administrators refused to provide sexual education but sex was all around from the traditional dances to the reality of the small homes most lived in. So, you have kids having kids and all of those problems along with the results of a history of oppression and stolen culture. I found the commentary about Brazil interesting, especially after hearing a feature on NPR in which they talked about the racism in Brazil. Despite the influence of Africa on the culture, dark skinned people are looked down upon and are poorer. This has been a very enlightening series of articles. Thanks for sharing your work.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Skywalker. What an important question about South America! I honestly don’t know if there are similar comparisons for indigenous people there. I have read and heard that the color gradient in Brazil and other South and Central American cultures is associated with social status – the darker the shade, the lower the status – but as we see from recent police actions in the US, it’s powerful here as well.

      I love to hear about your experiences working in tribal communities. Your observations and insights about conversions to christianity and the consequences for communities are important – for many cultures. Because these “newer” belief systems are often at odds with traditional wisdom, they continue to be divisive factor in communities.

      Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments and kind words 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Differential Power and Indian Child Welfare: Part Five | Voices from the Margins

  9. desilef says:

    So much to think about in this installment! Thank you, Carol. I had to wonder about Australia’s treatment of the Aboriginal peoples being the most brutal. We frequently hear that though Australia was settled by criminals and convicts, the crime rate and rate of violence was remarkably low. Was all the potential then for outlaw violence directed against the people who already lived on the continent? NE Brazil, seems like the oppression there never changes. And it was like a wake-up splash of cold water when you noted the physical and sexual abuse of children in the boarding schools. But of course. I think we tend to pay attention to the cultural abuse, the loss of Indian culture, the stigmatizing of everything connected to the traditional way of life. But we surely know by now that every institution that has housed children–especially children considered of lesser value and with few ways of asking for and getting help–has been a site of horrific abuse by staff and by children to each other. When this has affected a whole community, what it means to families down through the generations is painful to even think about.

    I do want to point out that Africa was not just Christianized. Islam was important even in pre-colonial times and has more believers now than before. In Senegal — maybe other Islamic countries too — traditional indigenous spiritual practices co-exist with Islam. And from what I know from Africans living in LA, pre-monotheistic beliefs and practices also continue in African Christian communities — though I’d guess in Catholic and Anglican churches rather than in the more extreme evangelical sects that are growing. Both radical Islam and radical Christianity want to “purify” worship of the deep roots of traditional belief.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for sharing such thoughtful, diverse insights, Diane. I’m not sure how to reply 🙂

      The history about religious diversity in Africa is fascinating. Although I remember taking classes in the history and cultures of Africa, I still feel as though I know so little, and I appreciate the chance to learn a little more.

      You might find a play by Vera Manual, The Strength of Indian Women, as relevant to the work you do with theater of the oppressed. In the voices of Indigenous peoples, it recounts experiences in residential school and the life-long consequences it had for individuals and communities. (I don’t want to say more – here’s a link if you want to explore this resource – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Manuel).

      Rabbit Proof Fence is one of my favorite movies, and so similar to the experiences Indigenous children in boarding and residential schools. I suspect that the brutality of early settlers in every context is similar to what we see today in the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. From my perspective, genocide is equally appalling and inexcusable no matter where or when it occurs.

      Liked by 1 person

      • desilef says:

        Thank you – I will look for Vera Manuel’s play.
        You probably noticed Jeff’s link today to the article about the horrific abuses in Canada’s residential schools for First Nations children. Oh, but we like to call evil “unimaginable” but in fact it seems to lack imagination. It repeats the same–as you say, equally appalling–brutality wherever it occurs, again and again

        Liked by 1 person

        • I remember seeing the play performed in Edmonton at a global conference for Indigenous People – there was not a dry eye in the theater. The lives of everyone there had been touched profoundly by the legacy of boarding/residential schools, child removal and abuse.

          In my work as a teacher and presenter, I was always surprised at how many Native people didn’t know this history – and then were able to understand some of the family and community dynamics that they had found troubling and incomprehensible. I wasn’t surprised that few non-Natives knew this history or the current challenges Native people endure today, but I was heartened by the majority who responded in such thoughtful ways.


        • desilef says:

          The Autry Museum here produces an annual program of readings, workshops, and fully produced plays by Native playwrights. Their mission is to develop new contemporary work but I wish they’d produce this play too. I think I will suggest they consider doing so as I would love to see it.

          Liked by 1 person

        • What a wonderful resource! The play is truly powerful, although it’s hard for me to get a sense of that just reading the text.

          Actually, one of the last projects I wanted to do before I left academia was to develop a play in partnership with a tribal community about experiences with education. The idea was to conduct interviews and aggregate information to protect identities and develop a performance (by community members) that showed both the challenges they faced in education and the ways they dealt with those. It’s not something people talk about otherwise because of the shame they feel over “failure” that they attribute to their own inadequacies rather than systematic oppression. My hope was this could be a foundation for taking steps to advocate for and develop approaches that the community felt would improve the educational experience and outcomes for future generations. And, perhaps the play could have been shown as is or adapted to share with the surrounding white border communities where rez students are bussed for high school. Discrimination is a serious problem and has a significant impact on non-completion rates for Native students. (I didn’t have time to overcome the obstacles that were placed in my path despite a small grant to support the project.)


        • desilef says:

          I’m so sorry — how disappointing! — you couldn’t complete the project. It sounds like it would have been wonderfully effective on many levels.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Maybe someday 🙂


  10. desilef says:

    Carol, I got this message from the Native Voices program at the Autry. I hope this leads to something!

    Hi Diane,

    Thanks for this email. I had not previously heard of Vera Manuel, but her work sounds fantastic. We’re always interested in knowing what else is happening in the Native theatre world. I will look for Vera’s plays and forward your recommendation to Jean and Randy.


    Jessica Ordon
    Literary Manager

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s