Indian Placement Program, Indian Child Welfare Act and Foster Girl Removed From Ca. Family.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The bad news is, if we had a Common Sense Act, there wouldn't be any government entity capable of enforcing it.

I have to agree with you there..this is probably very true!

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if the system entirely can in said situations because one's already working with a compromised family system and a messy history. I've heard of varying cases, both fostering, adopting, and otherwise. I've heard of amazing foster parents who knew that they may be holding onto a child "temporarily" and worked to do right by both the child and the biological family involved. I've heard of ones who were terrible foster families that cemented emotionally compromised children. I've heard of adoptive parents who also didn't realize what they were getting into. I've heard of successful good re-placements back into the biological family. I've heard of terrible re-placements. I know one case that both the fostering and re-placement were bad and the best option probably would have been the grandparents. Each is so varied that I'd have a hard time stating a ground rule because that ground rule may then later come to bite another family in a different circumstance in the tush. That's why the Indian Welfare Act was (and is) there in the first place. To desist with a continued human rights violation. It's had some obvious flaws currently in actual implementation. But I don't feel confident enough to say one way or another about this case because I'm only hearing one side of a story. I don't know the biological family's story. There's just so little to go off of.

Even the 1/64 thing....I remember a story of a person who ID'd as African american, believed he was, and found out he had no sub-saharan african ancestry in his DNA (according to a test)....meaning what  DNA he did was marginal at best.  Because tribes are also ethnic groups, it may be that that family line just maintained their ties to the Native community better than most. But again, there's really little to go on. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Exactly.

All these "rules" fail because where they make sense in one case they make no sense in a different case. 

And the "affirmative action" way that the ICWA is implemented causes more problems than it solves. 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Wrong book, got confused with my older LDS social science text I have sitting next to it on my shelf.

Do a "look inside" search on "indian placement" on the link above and one of the first couple of hits takes you to the chapter and it appears you can read all of it.

Thanks Calm!

The book looks like it is worth reading. I tried reading the chapter on the Indian Placement program using the "Look Inside" feature and a lot of it was available, but not all, so I ordered for about $4.00. Gotta love Amazon!

The post participant study was very interesting but the statistics I was able to read through gave more of a mixed bag result IMO, with employment and education being  higher, income was about the same, but the percentages of arrests in the participant group was double the control group, and the divorce rate was higher in the participant group . The  were several parts blocked out on the study results that I am looking forward to reading when I get the book.

This part I found very interesting and may be significant in why tribes fought to have an Indian Child Welfare Act in the first place as I think it illustrate some loss of Indian cultural identity for participants in the Indian Placement Program. See page 303

Quote

...the longer participants had been on placement, the less they felt like an Indian and the less the felt they fit in with most Indians.

 

[Calm]

Book is definitely worth it..well, according to my memory which isn't fully functional right now, lol.

I liked my Latter-day Saint Social Life book as well and you can read that for free online through byu.  My other book I like to recommend for social aspects is Mormonism in Transition by Alexander; he is a historian but covers a number of cultural aspects.

[Calm]

http://rationalfaiths.com/mormonism-transition/

He doesn't cover the IPP, just mentioning the books that have stuck most in my mind for giving a greater social context.

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/22/2016 at 8:46 AM, CA Steve said:

My wife told me about a six year old foster child in Southern California who was being removed from her foster family because she was part Indian.This family had cared for her for years and considered her their daughter. I think she is only 1/64th Indian but I am still investigating this story as well as other background information. Here are some links.

Family could lose child over Indian Child Welfare Act Cnn Story

Indian Child Welfare Act - Wiki Article

Indian Placement Program - Wiki Article

I found it interesting that the LDS Church and our Indian Placement Program played a factor in the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act. From the Wiki article:

While it is hard not to sympathize with the California family who feel like their child is being taken away, I can also see the point being made by the Indian tribes that their future cultural identity was in danger.

This story raises a lot of interesting questions.

Does anyone have more information on why the Indian Placement Program was discontinued?

I did find references to a paper(?) by James Allen called  "The Rise and Decline of the LDS Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-1996

but I cannot find the paper itself. Here is a paragraph from that paper in which Allen describes his conclusions.

Today, do we still think it was/is a good idea to remove these youth from their homes? If so why are we not still doing it, if not why?

 

 

I would hardly consider someone who is 1/64 Indian to be an Indian.  I guess the best thing is for foster parents to reject caring for such kids as long as such laws exist.  There are plenty of other kids out there they can take care of without having to deal with this stuff.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The post participant study was very interesting but the statistics I was able to read through gave more of a mixed bag result IMO, with employment and education being  higher, income was about the same, but the percentages of arrests in the participant group was double the control group, and the divorce rate was higher in the participant group . The  were several parts blocked out on the study results that I am looking forward to reading when I get the book.

This part I found very interesting and may be significant in why tribes fought to have an Indian Child Welfare Act in the first place as I think it illustrate some loss of Indian cultural identity for participants in the Indian Placement Program. See page 303

 

The mixed results is why I said "somewhat positive".  And the history helped along with other stuff I have read over the years (and seen the effect of in the US and Canada) understand while there was and often still is a strong push to keep Native American/First Nations children and families connected to their heritage even when at times this means a lesser economic potential.  Also hada few First Nations friends that were successful in business, were very at home in the greater culture and worked hard to help the local bands so could see great benefit there.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.

All these "rules" fail because where they make sense in one case they make no sense in a different case. 

And the "affirmative action" way that the ICWA is implemented causes more problems than it solves. 

I don't know if I agree with the last sentence. I don't know enough about the act and its implementation to say so. What little I did find in a google search on its effectiveness is that in certain ways it is helpful, addressing very real concerns/needs... and in others it's fallen short. One of these problems is that it's often inconsistently implemented period (read as not implemented) and there are still other problems with biases, ignorance, and prejudices with social workers deciding placement. But I am hesitant to say something so strongly because what we get, media wise, aren't really stats or figures or any real complex look at anything. It's anecdotal cases where something is already going wrong or is a problem. To me that makes about as much sense as assessing foster care families based on media depictions. Or the mormon experience based on ex-mormons. It's not that these stories don't have some weight and may point to concerns that need to be addressed, but its not a complete picture and not enough to decide what should be done or if a system is a failure.

 

With luv,

BD   

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

... The system doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time.

Yeah.  Ostensibly, U.S. family law is supposed to be about the best interests of the child, and, ideally, in practice, it is ... unless those interests conflict with some supposed "right" of an adult (such as a one-night-stand sperm donor).  It's amazing how easily irresponsible [biological] parents acquire "rights" that have the potential to completely screw up the lives of their children.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Storm Rider]

I detest the use of terms such as "cultural genocide" in today's society.  1/64 makes you an Indian or makes it such that you lose all rights and must be administered by Indians?  Hmm, when did being Indian as interpreted by Indians mean that no one else had any rights?

Best interests of the child?  According to whom?  Why?  This is a farce.  If we are going to care for children and no one else steps forward to care for the child why are we now thinking that some other group actually understands what is best for the child?  Why do their views matter?  

[Tacenda]

 

This isn't good.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/24/lds-church-named-in-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-abuse-of-navajo-children-in-foster-program/

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

This isn't good.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/24/lds-church-named-in-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-abuse-of-navajo-children-in-foster-program/

This kind of stuff is what Canada has been dealing with for, seemingly, ever, Catholic Priest abuse on Residential schools. There was a huge settlement with survivors but it is still ongoing.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

This isn't good.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/24/lds-church-named-in-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-abuse-of-navajo-children-in-foster-program/

A very sad story, if true.

Here's an article in the SLTribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3703333-155/lawsuit-accuses-mormon-church-of-failing

Quote

 

The lawsuit seeks written apologies, unspecified damages, changes in church policy to ensure that sexual abuse is reported first to authorities and the creation of a task force to address any cultural or social harm to Navajos in the Indian Student Placement Program. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Navajo Nation court.

Attorney Billy Keeler said at least two program leaders were told of the abuse but nothing was done to protect his clients, who were 10 and 11 when they were baptized into the Mormon church and moved from Sawmill, Arizona, on the reservation to live with foster families for the school year.

 

.

Edited March 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Yes indeed.  My friend had a Native American boy placed in their home when I was younger.  He didn't seem too happy at all.  I think that would be extremely difficult to leave your family behind, especially if they weren't negligent.  But to have also been sexually abused over and over is beyond sad.  The program the church set up has always bothered me, but I'm sure there were some positives, I'll just have to find them.  ETA:  I thought this history of the church's program would be interesting to read here.   http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=etd 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

This isn't good.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/24/lds-church-named-in-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-abuse-of-navajo-children-in-foster-program/

I read about this in the Herald Journal this morning..kind of icky..sad..and probably more prevelant than we think.  (I hope not though).

[Jeanne]

My foster sister and her sister couldn't wait to leave New Mexico.  The oldest thought that she would always be in touch with those "cute missionaries"...  the adjustment depends on where they came from and how close the families are.  In some ways, they are leaving abusive homes in hope of better things.  I am glad that the placement program is no longer around but wouldn't trade my sister for the world.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My foster sister and her sister couldn't wait to leave New Mexico.  The oldest thought that she would always be in touch with those "cute missionaries"...  the adjustment depends on where they came from and how close the families are.  In some ways, they are leaving abusive homes in hope of better things.  I am glad that the placement program is no longer around but wouldn't trade my sister for the world.

Well there's my positive, glad you shared that.  Sometimes I get tunnel visioned.  How fun to have a foster sister!!

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well there's my positive, glad you shared that.  Sometimes I get tunnel visioned.  How fun to have a foster sister!!

It was a positive for her...and my family.  That being said..there were a lot of difficult situations in my high school with friends in the placement program that were having a difficult time.  They didn't know really what they had signed up for and missing home was great for a lot of them.  Those from New Mexico did okay..the Navajo's though had a difficult time..I will always wonder if that was because different tribes (reservations) had more negative influence on the children leaving.    I am glad though that there is no placement program today..way too many worries.

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

A very sad story, if true.

Here's an article in the SLTribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3703333-155/lawsuit-accuses-mormon-church-of-failing

.

The lawsuit seeks written apologies, unspecified damages, changes in church policy to ensure that sexual abuse is reported first to authorities and the creation of a task force to address any cultural or social harm to Navajos in the Indian Student Placement Program. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Navajo Nation court.

Attorney Billy Keeler said at least two program leaders were told of the abuse but nothing was done to protect his clients, who were 10 and 11 when they were baptized into the Mormon church and moved from Sawmill, Arizona, on the reservation to live with foster families for the school year.

From personal experience I'm not surprised. I tried to point out how we should be just a little bit humble about sexual abuse happening in other churches because it may come to rest in our own. This doesn't rise to the level of what we've seen elsewhere but it is alarming nonetheless.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

From personal experience I'm not surprised. I tried to point out how we should be just a little bit humble about sexual abuse happening in other churches because it may come to rest in our own. This doesn't rise to the level of what we've seen elsewhere but it is alarming nonetheless.

I more than agree.  It is a scary world.

[Danzo]

On 3/23/2016 at 6:31 AM, BlueDreams said:

Here's a statement from the national Indian child welfare association about it for the other side of the storyHere. Personally I'd found it odd in the original story, not because the kid was part native, but because they were fostering. It's well known that foster homes are, by nature, temporary about trying to reunify families if possible. Usually they're shorter stays, but not always. My sense is there's definitely more to this story. 

 

As as for the IPP...I've known people/families that were effected by it. The last guy I dated, his mother was apart of it. From what I see it's mentioned as a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand several of these areas at time were financially crippled and families struggled with basic things like supplying food. Natives got the shaft from the surrounding government/people which means their vulnerable population would feel more of the brunt of any economical downturn. So one of the reason many would agree to it was because it promised their children the basics like food and education. On the other hand cultural genocide and actual genocide were both long term and real threats to natives. Cultural genocide still is and is an on-going battle to maintain at least some of their costums. Though IPP wasn't as outright as previous programs to squash native costum/language...it still did at times...and that's part of the problem. It could be then disruptive when returning said children to their homes. But I don't have any solid info...that's just the general sense I've picked up from how people talk about it.

 

with luv, 

bd

 

I think that one should be quite careful when equating cultural genocide with actual genocide.  (I don't even think they should use the same word, genocide is a quite loaded term).

Cultures are constantly changing and always have been, even before Europeans arrived.  This is often a good thing.  

I had numerous friends in school that lived on the reservation.  I was talking to one of then a few years ago and he mentioned to me that he could not get ahead in life until he got of the reservation.  He mentioned to me that staying off the reservation was necessary and that he had a hard time even visiting it.

My wife comes from a native american community and although she says she regrets not fully learning the language (they used to hit them in school if they were caught talking the language), she would not go back to the culture.  Abuse of women and violence were a big part of "the traditions of her fathers" as she calls it.

We should all be willing to change our cultures and commit "Cultural Genocide" by throwing out the bad customs while keeping the good ones. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

I've lived near reservations and I had worked in one on occasion- they are very sad places in general. Not that there aren't wonderful people there or good things too. It's just that the poverty and crime levels are hard to even fathom for most people. And the alcohol and drug use make it so most kids don't have much of a chance from the beginning.  It's a vicious cycle  

I don't know that placement programs were the answer but i can't imagine growing up in such hopeless circumstances. 

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

 

I think that one should be quite careful when equating cultural genocide with actual genocide.  (I don't even think they should use the same word, genocide is a quite loaded term).

Cultures are constantly changing and always have been, even before Europeans arrived.  This is often a good thing.  

I had numerous friends in school that lived on the reservation.  I was talking to one of then a few years ago and he mentioned to me that he could not get ahead in life until he got of the reservation.  He mentioned to me that staying off the reservation was necessary and that he had a hard time even visiting it.

My wife comes from a native american community and although she says she regrets not fully learning the language (they used to hit them in school if they were caught talking the language), she would not go back to the culture.  Abuse of women and violence were a big part of "the traditions of her fathers" as she calls it.

We should all be willing to change our cultures and commit "Cultural Genocide" by throwing out the bad customs while keeping the good ones. 

I knew that phrase would probably not be seen well here, but I have no regrets using it. I have several friends who are Native, including a brother....and it's what I've heard many use. Culture change happens naturally, yes. The creation of computers and social media has drastically changed my siblings experiences growing up compared to mine....some of the cultural concepts now would have felt completely foreign to my grandmother when she was growing up. But there is a difference between a natural ebb and flow and what Occurred historically to most Indigenous tribes in the u.s. At best it can be described as semi-forced assimilation (more in the 1900's). At worse it was most definitely efforts of cultural genocide which was an off-shoot and gentler form of the literal genocide that was occurring. An early phrase and philosophy of the late 1800's was "kill the Indian, Save the man" (see here) which was considered a more gentler/humane solution than the mass killings of indians (ie. genocide) that had also occurred around the same time.   

A number of things found on reservations is less about the original culture of the peoples but the historical legacy of generations of oppression and being forced to land/areas with limited resources or opportunities, and continued problems with surrounding communities. That most definitely has an effect on the people (largely high unemployment, high alcocholism, high depression, chronic familial structural disruptions, etc). Natives themselves want that to change but much of the systemic issues make it difficult to do so without leaving the reservation. The structures make it near impossible to live in said communities and succeed (ergo semi-forced assimilation).

It reminds me of my step-father's "choice" to assimilate. He is Mexican-american. His family, who had lived several generations in the U.S.; were actively discriminated against and the social stratification meant there was little to no mobility while maintaining mexican cultural traditions/language/etc. It was economic success or culture...he couldn't have both. So he "chose" success. What was overtly left by my generation is a love of tamales, homemade tortillas, and very hot salsa. Out of his children, I am the one who knows the most spanish (and I'm not blood). 

My bio-dad/step-mom had more voluntary assimilation. He chose to leave his country for greener pastures. The differences as to how their home runs, the friends they keep, etc. are very obvious. Their voluntary choice gave more space to maintain cultural distinctions.

Though it's a nice idea that one can let go of bad culture and keep the good....from my experience and what I've seen that's not exactly what happens. Most cultural distinctions are neither good or bad, they just are. And those are likely to be eroded by the pressures of a dominate society (whether de jour or overt in pressure). Willingness to change culture entails a social power/capacity for a range of choice that many minorities in the u.s historically didn't have. The results entail communities and enclaves that are eroded as their cultural changes have been tainted from societal neglect, isolation, disenfranchisement, oppression, and hatred/bigotry. That's where several of these problems are rooted in. And that sort of change isn't necessarily healed solely by fitting into the mainstream culture. 

 

I'm running long because this is an area of personal effect for me. I have found myself in search of my heritages and working to re-integrate them into my person-hood and legacy. Obviously that is a choice, but its one that feels necessary because finding these lost pieces feels like finding parts of one's story and self. Assimilation - whether voluntary, forced, or part of genocide - isn't with a simple choice to maintain the good parts. It means a lot of it, period, just gets erased. I don't know how to explain the pertinence I've felt to reclaim...but it feels partially necessary...like giving words you never had to describe how your world has always been.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 26, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Yirgacheffe]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've lived near reservations and I had worked in one on occasion- they are very sad places in general. Not that there aren't wonderful people there or good things too. It's just that the poverty and crime levels are hard to even fathom for most people. And the alcohol and drug use make it so most kids don't have much of a chance from the beginning.  It's a vicious cycle  

I don't know that placement programs were the answer but i can't imagine growing up in such hopeless circumstances. 

A lot like large parts of major US cities.

[CA Steve]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I knew that phrase would probably not be seen well here, but I have no regrets using it. I have several friends who are Native, including a brother....and it's what I've heard many use. Culture change happens naturally, yes. The creation of computers and social media has drastically changed my siblings experiences growing up compared to mine....some of the cultural concepts now would have felt completely foreign to my grandmother when she was growing up. But there is a difference between a natural ebb and flow and what Occurred historically to most Indigenous tribes in the u.s. At best it can be described as semi-forced assimilation (more in the 1900's). At worse it was most definitely efforts of cultural genocide which was an off-shoot and gentler form of the literal genocide that was occurring. An early phrase and philosophy of the late 1800's was "kill the Indian, Save the man" (see here) which was considered a more gentler/humane solution than the mass killings of indians (ie. genocide) that had also occurred around the same time.   

A number of things found on reservations is less about the original culture of the peoples but the historical legacy of generations of oppression and being forced to land/areas with limited resources or opportunities, and continued problems with surrounding communities. That most definitely has an effect on the people (largely high unemployment, high alcocholism, high depression, chronic familial structural disruptions, etc). Natives themselves want that to change but much of the systemic issues make it difficult to do so without leaving the reservation. The structures make it near impossible to live in said communities and succeed (ergo semi-forced assimilation).

It reminds me of my step-father's "choice" to assimilate. He is Mexican-american. His family, who had lived several generations in the U.S.; were actively discriminated against and the social stratification meant there was little to no mobility while maintaining mexican cultural traditions/language/etc. It was economic success or culture...he couldn't have both. So he "chose" success. What was overtly left by my generation is a love of tamales, homemade tortillas, and very hot salsa. Out of his children, I am the one who knows the most spanish (and I'm not blood). 

My bio-dad/step-mom had more voluntary assimilation. He chose to leave his country for greener pastures. The differences as to how their home runs, the friends they keep, etc. are very obvious. Their voluntary choice gave more space to maintain cultural distinctions.

Though it's a nice idea that one can let go of bad culture and keep the good....from my experience and what I've seen that's not exactly what happens. Most cultural distinctions are neither good or bad, they just are. And those are likely to be eroded by the pressures of a dominate society (whether de jour or overt in pressure). Willingness to change culture entails a social power/capacity for a range of choice that many minorities in the u.s historically didn't have. The results entail communities and enclaves that are eroded as their cultural changes have been tainted from societal neglect, isolation, disenfranchisement, oppression, and hatred/bigotry. That's where several of these problems are rooted in. And that sort of change isn't necessarily healed solely by fitting into the mainstream culture. 

 

I'm running long because this is an area of personal effect for me. I have found myself in search of my heritages and working to re-integrate them into my person-hood and legacy. Obviously that is a choice, but its one that feels necessary because finding these lost pieces feels like finding parts of one's story and self. Assimilation - whether voluntary, forced, or part of genocide - isn't with a simple choice to maintain the good parts. It means a lot of it, period, just gets erased. I don't know how to explain the pertinence I've felt to reclaim...but it feels partially necessary...like giving words you never had to describe how your world has always been.

 

With luv,

BD

Some great thoughts BD!.

As I get more into this issue, I realize that as a white LDS male, born in the covenant, I have a lot of self reflection to do regarding this particular event, regarding the Indian placement program and treatment of Native Americans in general. I was educated in a public school system that extolled the accomplishments of the New World pilgrims. An education that praised the virtues and events of  Columbus, Cortes, the Mayflower voyage, the 1st Thanksgiving, Custer, Buffalo Bill, and so on. I was raised in a church that praised the heroic emigration of my persecuted ancestors to an isolated desert in the west where they staked claim to mostly uninhabited land and through their own hard work made this desert bloom. I was raised in a church that talked about "The Lamanate Generation". God had preserved America as a land of manifest destiny and Utah was Zion a place where Mormonism could flourish without conflict with people who already lived there. Native Americans, when they were mentioned, usually were portrayed as the bad guys scalping innocent people, or as dark and loathsome in need of redemption, or as the allies of the British and or French in wars against the colonist. There was the occasional mention about broken treaties, mass slaughter of vital Native American resources like the buffalo and forcing tribe after tribe to relocate to the next reservation. I even read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, in high school, which was an eye opener back then. But in the end, the feeling was this was stuff that happened a long time ago and there really wasn't much we could do about it now. We were here, they were on reservations and they should make the best of it.

So fast forward a few decades to now where my views have changed a bit. I can look back and see how value laden the terms used were in my early education to describe what was really an invasion of the Americas and one sided my education was regarding our treatment of Native Americans, both as a nation and as a church. Perhaps this was a "New World" to us, but current Native American population estimates of the American continents in the 1600s  range from 50 to 100 million inhabitants. We didn't settle the American continent so much as we invaded it, See here.

The same thing can be said for the land into which our 1847 ancestor settled. Utah had an indigenous population when Brigham Young arrived, and while initial efforts were to get along with and convert them, in the end there simply was not enough resources to sustain for both the agrarian Mormons and the hunter gatherer Indians. Estimates put the Native American population in what is now Utah at about 20,000. Conflict soon arose when the Indians found their access to fisheries and wild life was being taken away by fences and irrigation.  This did not improve in the early 20th century. Jared Farmer in On Zion's Mount describe this time period this way

Quote

After Utah's territorial period, the Church stopped emphasizing the divine role of the Lamanites as a covenant people. In state politics, anti-Indian sentiment prevailed in the first half of the twentieth century. Utah was one of several western states that continued to disenfranchise Indian into the 1950s. Senator Arthur Watkins, the architect of the federal government's 1953 policy to "terminate" tribes, was a Mormon from Utah Valley.

As another author recently put it:

Quote

Regardless of how one views the equities of Indian-Mormon relations in those times, the end result was that the land and cultural birthright Indians once possessed in the Great Basin were largely taken from them. It is important to acknowledge and appreciate the monumental loss this represents on the part of Utah’s Indians—that loss and its 160-year aftermath are the rest of the story.

So here we are 4-5 centuries after the start of the white man's invasion, many tribes no longer exist, those that do are located on reservations where success by any measure is difficult, and we as a church have this idea that removing Laminate children from their home environment to live in white homes, will improve their lot in life by giving them a good example of how life should be, how they should act, what kind of education they should have and even how & which God they should worship. An idea, by the way, which had been tried over and over again for centuries in parochial schools, in government boarding schools, public schools, or by purchasing and or adopting Indian children in Utah, with little success, if success is measured by how well the participants assimilated into white society and it's religion. Some of these programs were run based on the idea that Blue Dream links above, that they could "kill the Indian in [the participant] and save the man". It does seem as if one of the effects on the participants in these schools or programs was: the longer they were in these programs the less comfortable they were in their own native culture when and if they returned. Is that supposed to be a good thing? In part, the Indian Child Welfare Act, was a response to all of these attempts, including the Indian Placement program, to assimilate native Americans into the white culture.

One of my ancestors died heroically in en route with the Willie handcart company. I am 1/32 of his blood, I suppose. But I do not look at him as playing a small role in who I am and even if he were my only Mormon ancestor, I would still consider myself of Mormon pioneer stock and I consider that my children, who are only 1/64th his blood are also Mormon pioneer descendants, a fact I consider important and worth preserving.

Okay so back to the story that brought all this up, that of the 6 year old in CA being removed from her foster home here to be placed with a family in Utah. It turns out that efforts had been underway for some time to reunite the child with her father and that was one of the reasons she was placed with the CA family.,During her time in CA the child was receiving visits and communications from the Utah family to which she has now been send and with which is one of her biological sisters, a family that both her biological father and the ICWA people had selected. We are not looking a a child being ripped from a loving family and thoughtlessly placed in unfamiliar surroundings, rather we have a child whose future had been in limbo for some time and whose current destination was decided by people who were her biological family. Clearly the foster family in CA wanted to keep her and loved her, but they have been aware for some time (years) that this process of trying to reunify her with her father was underway and if it failed there was the possibility of placing her with her sister, and that those decisions were going to be made by the ICWA.

 

So before we criticize the ICWA for trying to maintain their cultural identity by seeking to place a child with only 1/64th Indian blood, it might be well to remember why it was created in the first place, after centuries of efforts by others, outside the Indian culture, to assimilate Indian children into white society through removal and education, and to think about how much we value our own culture and identity which can be linked to our own ancestors that far back. There is a sad irony in the thinking that we are helping these Indians by removing their children from reservations described as full of crime, violence, abuse, and alcoholism to live with white families when we forced the Indians to live on those reservations.  Can you really blame them for asking to be able to make decisions for their own people after than kind of "help"?