Danzo Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: 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 As another author recently put it: 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"? One of the problems with the past is that it is done and over with. We cannot change it, we can only do what we can with what we have. Just because our ancestors created the mess of that Indian Reservations often are, doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate the damage that was already done. There is a consensus among the friends that I grew up with that leaving the reservation was not just helpful, but necessary for them to have any success in life (I realize that this is my experience with the reservation that was about 5 miles from where I grew up, others may have a different experience). Wanting to remove someone from a bad situation (whoever's fault it is) is not a bad idea (as long as it isn't to a worse situation). I don't know about the situation directly about the situation in California because I don't have all the facts and I hope that those that do have the facts make the right decision. I do find it disturbing that somehow, a group of people who might share an ancestor with my children somehow think they might some legal right to exert control over my children, so they can make them some sort of living cultural artifact. My children are 1/2 native american, much bigger than the 1/64th that the this controversy is about. I would find it extremely disturbing to find out that r a group of people who are that distantly related to my children now have a say in my children's upbringing, especially since my wife left her home town because she did not like significant aspects of that culture, and she felt that culture was, in fact harmful. Edited March 26, 2016 by Danzo
Stargazer Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) On 3/22/2016 at 9:12 AM, Jim Stiles said: Most tribes have a name for someone who is 1/64 American Indian. That name is "white" (or black or East Asian or whatever). This story (no video) says 1.56 percent (1/64 = 1.5625%). In other words, white. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-girl-removed-foster-family-over-her-native-041458771.html As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the law does not discriminate based on how little Indian blood an individual has. On the other hand, I do understand the sentiment of 1/64th being considered "white". As a mongrel myself, I find the situation moronic. I am 1/16th Konkow (see http://www.maidu.org/). My extended family is fairly prominent in our tribe's history. And there are so few Konkow left after all this time that the tribal organization is happy to count anyone with a drop of Konkow blood in them. So, I'm on the rolls, and so are my children (who are 1/32nd!). I guess the Indian Welfare Act might apply to all of us, although Konkow does not have federal recognition at this time, so maybe not. I don't look at all Indian (check my personal website, in my sig). My father did look somewhat Indian. But it got all washed out in my generation because my mother was of pure German descent. And due to my mission in Germany, I can speak German. I cannot speak Konkow beyond a few words, recently learned. Edited March 26, 2016 by Stargazer
Danzo Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 17 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 I know that the term "cultural genocide" is used by people now days, but I think it is mostly by people who don't know what the real thing is. On my mission, I ended up dealing with refugees from the Bosnian conflict, and talking with people who had experienced it first hand. I remember on three year old with a scar on his head from a sniper's bullet and people without husband's and other family members. Letting people live with another family for a few years is just not the same thing. Although we try and teach our children about my wife's culture, language, etc, I wouldn't want people to accuse me of any type of "genocide" for not sending them back to be raised by the people my wife was raised with.
CA Steve Posted March 26, 2016 Author Posted March 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, Danzo said: One of the problems with the past is that it is done and over with. We cannot change it, we can only do what we can with what we have. Just because our ancestors created the mess of that Indian Reservations often are, doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate the damage that was already done. There is a consensus among the friends that I grew up with that leaving the reservation was not just helpful, but necessary for them to have any success in life (I realize that this is my experience with the reservation that was about 5 miles from where I grew up, others may have a different experience). Wanting to remove someone from a bad situation (whoever's fault it is) is not a bad idea (as long as it isn't to a worse situation). I don't know about the situation directly about the situation in California because I don't have all the facts and I hope that those that do have the facts make the right decision. I do find it disturbing that somehow, a group of people who might share an ancestor with my children somehow think they might some legal right to exert control over my children, so they can make them some sort of living cultural artifact. My children are 1/2 native american, much bigger than the 1/64th that the this controversy is about. I would find it extremely disturbing to find out that r a group of people who are that distantly related to my children now have a say in my children's upbringing, especially since my wife left her home town because she did not like significant aspects of that culture, and she felt that culture was, in fact harmful. Why do the ICWA "now have a say" in your children's upbringing?
Danzo Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Why do the ICWA "now have a say" in your children's upbringing? Perhaps, I misunderstand, but if something were to happen to me and my wife, who gets my children could be determined by a group of people who think they might be related my children. I hope this isn't the case. Edited March 26, 2016 by Danzo
BlueDreams Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Danzo said: I know that the term "cultural genocide" is used by people now days, but I think it is mostly by people who don't know what the real thing is. On my mission, I ended up dealing with refugees from the Bosnian conflict, and talking with people who had experienced it first hand. I remember on three year old with a scar on his head from a sniper's bullet and people without husband's and other family members. Letting people live with another family for a few years is just not the same thing. Although we try and teach our children about my wife's culture, language, etc, I wouldn't want people to accuse me of any type of "genocide" for not sending them back to be raised by the people my wife was raised with. Cultural genocide was used by natives who were the decedents of those who experienced it. I was not calling the IPP cultural genocide, but labeled it as semi-forced (maybe pressured would have been a better word) assimilation....ie. the constructs of their homes and communities (that was a legacy of an era of cultural and earlier literal genocide) were of the sort that the best option for the children was to be fostered during the school year. With luv, BD 1
CA Steve Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 18 hours ago, Danzo said: Perhaps, I misunderstand, but if something were to happen to me and my wife, who gets my children could be determined by a group of people who think they might be related my children. I hope this isn't the case. It does not appear to be the case even in the extreme unlikelihood that both you and your wife were to die. The courts have ruled that Quote the ICWA was not to dictate that an illegitimate infant who has never been a member of an Indian home or culture, and probably never would be, should be removed from its primary cultural heritage and placed in an Indian environment over the express objections of its non-Indian mother."[ Under the facts of the case, the court stated that the ICWA did not apply unless the child was part of an "existing Indian family unit. And while there is still some ambiguity in how this is being applied, the set of circumstances necessary in your case for your children to be subject to the ICWA are so remote that I am not even sure why it is a concern to you. If it really were a possibility and not just a remote chance, certainly a will defining guardianship of your children in the event of you and your spouse's death would eliminate even that small worry.
CA Steve Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 18 hours ago, Danzo said: One of the problems with the past is that it is done and over with. We cannot change it, we can only do what we can with what we have. Just because our ancestors created the mess of that Indian Reservations often are, doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate the damage that was already done. There is a consensus among the friends that I grew up with that leaving the reservation was not just helpful, but necessary for them to have any success in life (I realize that this is my experience with the reservation that was about 5 miles from where I grew up, others may have a different experience). Wanting to remove someone from a bad situation (whoever's fault it is) is not a bad idea (as long as it isn't to a worse situation). I assume you can see, that even given your experience with reservations, how others might have quite a different view, especially those in that culture that place a high value on their own culture, and how those others might want to take steps to protect their life style going forward, especially given a consistent attack by others to destroy that culture. I am sure we would agree that it isn't up to you and I to decide what is good for them. The past is that on which we base or current and future decisions. This isn't a question about "wanting to remove someone from a bad situation" so much as it is about who gets to decide when and how that happens. Those decisions should be made by individuals within the group and the group as a whole, not some outsiders who have preconceived notions of what is good for them.
Recommended Posts