Lakota Peoples Law Project: Why is this happening to these children?

lakotapeopleslawproject:

Please reblog this and spread the message of inequality for Lakota children in the foster care system.

South Dakota’s Department of Social Services is transferring Lakota foster children to the Department of Corrections and Mental Health Facilities at a staggering rate. The 10-year period between 1999 and 2009 depicts a nearly five-fold increase for children being moved to “non-foster care institutions,” growing from 6.9% in 1999 to 32.8% in 2009.

Why is this happening to these children? Why are they being taken from their families, from their communities, and being institutionalized? This “institutionalization” is not solving issues that these children may have. Please appeal to South Dakota to end its racist tactics.

LINK: Last Real Indians

Native American Adoption, Captivity, and Slavery in Changing Contexts

Studies of the Americas Edited By Max Carocci and Stephanie Pratt Palgrave Macmillan, January 2012 ISBN: 978-0-230-11505-7, ISBN10: 0-230-11505-5,  278 pages, Hardcover, $90

History
Native American Adoption, Captivity, and Slavery in Changing Contexts radically rethinks the theoretical parameters through which we interpret both current and past ideas of adoption, captivity, and slavery among Native American societies in an interdisciplinary perspective. The book covers a period of over 800 years of North American history, from Native American archaeological cultures to the late nineteenth century. Individual case studies reframe concepts related to adoption, captivity, and slavery through art, literature, archaeology, and anthropology. In doing so, they highlight the importance of the interaction between perceptions, representations, and lived experience associated with the facts of slavery.

About the Author(s)

By Stephanie Pratt and Max Carocci

Max Carocci lectures on Indigenous Arts of the Americas for the program World Arts and Artefacts, which he directs in joint collaboration with Birkbeck College's department of History of Art and Screen Media (University of London) and the British Museum. He has recently curated Warriors of the Plains, an exhibition on Plains Indian arts, for the British Museum. His forthcoming monograph, The Arts of Plains Indian Warfare (2012), expands his long-standing focus on Native American arts from an anthropological perspective, which he has developed over more than twenty years of research and publications about Native American expressive cultures. He is also curator of the forthcoming exhibition on Native American photographic collections from the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland due to open at their London headquarters in 2012.

Stephanie Pratt is an associate professor(reader) of Art History at the University of Plymouth. She has published a number of essays concerning the visual representation of Native Americans in European art from the period c. 1600 to the end of the nineteenth century. Her monograph, American Indians in British Art, 1700–1840, was published in 2005. Recently, she has focused on how Native American cultures and arts have been represented in Western museums and galleries and is developing a book-length study of early North American collections of Native American ethnographica. She is principal curator for the upcoming exhibition George Catlin's Indian Gallery: Displaying Indigenous America in Nineteenth Century Europe, to be held at the National Portrait Gallery, London, in 2013.

Table of Contents

Ripe for Colonial Exploitation: Ancient Traditions of Violence and Enmity as Preludes to the Indian Slave Trade - Marvin D. Jeter * The Emergence of the Colonial South: Colonial Indian Slaving and the Fall of the Pre-Contact Mississippian World and the Emergence of a New Social Geography in the American South, 1540-1730 - Robbie Ethridge * Southeastern Indian Polities of the Seventeenth Century: Suggestions toward an Analytical Vocabulary - Eric E. Bowne * From Captives to Kin: Indian Slavery and Changing Social Identities on the Louisiana Colonial Frontier - Dayna Bowker Lee * Capturing Captivity: Visual Imaginings of the English and Powhatan Encounter Accompanying the Virginia Narratives of John Smith and Ralph Hamor, 1612 - 1634 - Stephanie Pratt * Strategies of (Un)belonging: The Captivities of John Smith, Olaudah Equiano, and John Marrant - Susan Castillo * Captive or Captivated: Rethinking Encounters in Early Colonial America - Patrick Minges * A Christian Disposition: Religious Identity in the Meeker Captivity Narrative - Brandi Denison * Visual Representation as a Method of Discourse on Captivity, Focussed on Cynthia Ann Parker - Lin Holdridge * Reflections and Refractions from the Southwest Borderlands - James F. Brooks

[ history we very much need to learn about...so if I can obtain a copy soon, I will post a review.... Trace]

Navajo Nation Makes Historic Agreement With DHHS to Handle its Tribal Foster Care

Courtesy Navajo Nation ...On June 27, Navajo Nation Presient Ben Shelly signs the Title IV-E funding agreement with the DHHS.

Suzette Brewer

6/30/14

Window Rock, Arizona—On Friday, June 27, the Navajo Nation made an historic pact with the U.S. Department of of Health and Human Services to execute a direct funding agreement through the Title IV-E program under the Social Security Act that will reimburse the tribe and its child welfare agencies for federally eligible foster care, adoptions and guardianships.
The reimbursements cover maintenance, including room and board; administration, including determination of Title IV-E eligibility, placement of the child, development of a case plan, and other administrative duties under the act; and short- and long-term training for the tribe, including child welfare agencies and court personnel. Title IV-E reimbursements are open-ended and are not a grant, according to the DHHS.
The Navajo Nation tribal jurisdiction covers three states: New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, but if a child was placed into state care, each of those states made the eligibility determination and placed the child. Meanwhile, the tribe’s social workers had to plead with each of the three states to return the child to the Navajo jurisdiction to be placed with one of its licensed foster homes. Additionally, the tribe only received funding from the state of New Mexico. Arizona and Utah did not provide Title IV-E reimbursements to the tribe.
Through this agreement with the U.S. Administration for Children and Families, however, the Navajo Nation will now make its own eligibility determinations and home placements within its jurisdictional borders in all three states and receive federal funding to assist the foster families to help in taking care of its own children. In qualifying for this direct funding agreement, the Navajo Nation is setting a national precedent for other tribes to follow.
RELATED: 5 Sioux Tribes Applied to Fund Their Own Foster Care Programs
“The Title IV-E is a model program for other Indian tribes throughout the United States,” said Sharon Begay-McCabe, director of the Navajo Nation Division of Social Services. “Because tribes have an input on how their program will be administered and [how to] incorporate their tribal culture into the plan.  Native Americans, including Navajo, believe that children should be raised within their immediate family or within their Indian tribe. The family bond Navajo is their matrilineal clan system and families can exercise these traditional customs by keeping the children in kinship and permanent placement.  Our children are the future leaders of our tribes and we must continue to hold them sacredly and keep them safe.”
Begay-McCabe, said that the tribe had been working since 2011 to qualify for the federal funding with a $300,000 planning grant. According to tribal officials, Title IV-E is an annual appropriation with specific eligibility requirements and fixed allowable costs for uses of funds. In fiscal year 2010, the direct funding provision was made available to Indian nations, tribal organizations and tribal consortia with approved plans to operate the program. The Navajo Nation is the first tribe to qualify for the funding.
“The Navajo Division of Social Services requested a one year extension and used its own resources to complete the Title IV-E plan, including the assistance from the Casey Family Foundation,” said Begay-McCabe. “Once the Title IV-E plan was submitted for approval, it took additional time to finally obtain the approval from DHS.”
In addition to the Casey Family Foundation, the tribe also partnered with the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch, Division of Public Safety, Office of the Chief Prosecutor, Office of the Chief Public Defender, Department of Dine’ Education, Division of Health and the Office of the President and Vice President in getting the direct funding agreement approval.
“The Navajo Division of Social Services is the first tribal program in the country to administer the Title IV-E program,” said Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly. “I commend Sharon McCabe and her staff for making this possible. Our kids are important and we must do everything we can to protect them.”
Tribal officials said the program is set to go into effect on October 1, 2014. Until that time, the tribe’s Department of Family Services will begin trainings, which will include the Navajo Nation Courts and other tribal programs that will cover eligibility requirements for the children and families receiving Title IV-E and the requirements of language in the courts’ rulings.
Currently, the tribe only receives funding for six children, but the new program could impact up to 200 Navajo children currently in foster care, said Begay-McCabe.
“Title IV-E enhances tribal sovereignty, [because] the Navajo Nation will receive direct funding from the federal government,” said Begay-McCabe “Before, the Division had to work with the three states - Arizona, New Mexico and Utah - individually to receive Title IV-E. The Division had to follow the process of eligibility, which differs in each state and was not culturally sensitive. Now, the Division will administer the whole Title IV-E program for the tribe, [which] will keep our children safe, provide permanency, and incorporates Navajo culture that will enhance our tribal sovereignty.”

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/30/navajo-nation-makes-historic-agreement-dhhs-handle-its-tribal-foster-care-155568

 

Sorry I missed this back in June but this is GOOD NEWS and worth sharing! ...Trace

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's opening itself.
They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up and hope it doesn't happen again."
Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar, and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide," but actual genocide.
The term's creator, Raphael Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.
We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal peoples using the schools.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their languages, cultures and spirituality.
Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in the IRS system.
The issue, however, is larger than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.
When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society." Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law, honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural, economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."
The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth, we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers, or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably enriched the fabric of our society.
We come to the third point: Recognition allows provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.
We need to recognize all genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time, especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges, with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in historical introspection.
I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.

David MacDonald is a professor of political science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called
Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian
Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's
opening itself.


They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation
and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people
in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that
genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up
and hope it doesn't happen again."


Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal
children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar,
and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide
Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one
group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide,"
but actual genocide.


The term's creator, Raphael
Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is
little difference between direct killings and such techniques which,
like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just
about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.


We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors
had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and
sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the
system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on
the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal
peoples using the schools.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this
in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to
kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings
of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use
the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their
languages, cultures and spirituality.


Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair
and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in
the IRS system.


The issue, however, is larger
than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the
museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory
and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when
it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when
it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.


When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide
Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance
and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the
Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness
of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society."
Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of
genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of
Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law,
honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the
multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how
Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural,
economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor
was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate
number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to
fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."


The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has
been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth,
we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers,
or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the
truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and
their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably
enriched the fabric of our society.


We come to the third point: Recognition allows
provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where
my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial
legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that
the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that
aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's
governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization
of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.


We need to recognize all
genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time,
especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges,
with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in
historical introspection.


I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a
teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has
more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am
trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.





David MacDonald is a professor of political
science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity
Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's opening itself.
They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up and hope it doesn't happen again."
Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar, and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide," but actual genocide.
The term's creator, Raphael Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.
We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal peoples using the schools.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their languages, cultures and spirituality.
Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in the IRS system.
The issue, however, is larger than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.
When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society." Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law, honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural, economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."
The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth, we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers, or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably enriched the fabric of our society.
We come to the third point: Recognition allows provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.
We need to recognize all genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time, especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges, with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in historical introspection.
I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.

David MacDonald is a professor of political science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's opening itself.
They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up and hope it doesn't happen again."
Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar, and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide," but actual genocide.
The term's creator, Raphael Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.
We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal peoples using the schools.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their languages, cultures and spirituality.
Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in the IRS system.
The issue, however, is larger than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.
When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society." Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law, honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural, economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."
The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth, we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers, or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably enriched the fabric of our society.
We come to the third point: Recognition allows provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.
We need to recognize all genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time, especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges, with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in historical introspection.
I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.

David MacDonald is a professor of political science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's opening itself.
They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up and hope it doesn't happen again."
Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar, and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide," but actual genocide.
The term's creator, Raphael Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.
We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal peoples using the schools.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their languages, cultures and spirituality.
Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in the IRS system.
The issue, however, is larger than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.
When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society." Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law, honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural, economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."
The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth, we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers, or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably enriched the fabric of our society.
We come to the third point: Recognition allows provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.
We need to recognize all genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time, especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges, with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in historical introspection.
I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.

David MacDonald is a professor of political science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Genocide is as genocide does

David MacDonald | 09/25/2014| Winnipeg Free Press

A Tribe Called Red's principled refusal to perform at the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights drew more attention on CBC than the museum's opening itself.
They objected to the "museum's misrepresentation and downplay of the genocide that was experienced by indigenous people in Canada by refusing to name it genocide."

Buffy Sainte-Marie, prior to her concert, opined that genocide took place in the Indian residential schools: "Let's fess up and hope it doesn't happen again."
Did we commit genocide in forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools? For me, as a genocide scholar, and for many IRS survivors, the answer is yes. The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 calls the forcible transfer of children from one group to another genocide -- not cultural genocide, nor "indigenocide," but actual genocide.
The term's creator, Raphael Lemkin, was clear forcible transfer was biological genocide: "There is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time bomb, destroy by delayed action." Genocide was never just about killing -- groups could be destroyed in many ways.
We know that tens of thousands of IRS survivors had their lives shattered by seven generations of verbal, physical and sexual abuse. We know at least 4,100 kids died as a consequence of the system, probably many more. We know forced transfer was intentional on the part of successive governments -- they wanted to destroy aboriginal peoples using the schools.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged this in 2008 when he said that "some sought, as it was infamously said, 'to kill the Indian in the child.' " We can see in the speeches and writings of John A. Macdonald, Hector Langevin and many others a desire to use the schools to forcibly cut kids off from their home communities, their languages, cultures and spirituality.
Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, Murray Sinclair and some two decades worth of academics have said genocide occurred in the IRS system.
The issue, however, is larger than simply refusing to recognize aboriginal genocide. Not only has the museum not recognized genocide in the IRS system, it has promoted memory and commemoration of five other genocides. We recognize genocide when it happens on other continents, but we assiduously avoid genocide when it happens in our own backyard. And that's a shame.
When Quebec created an Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, it observed, "Quebecers have always rejected intolerance and ethnic exclusion." When the federal government recognized the Ukrainian famine, or Holodomor, in 2008 it reflected on the worthiness of Ukrainians, and their "positive contribution to Canadian society." Holodomor recognition in Alberta was not just being about the truth of genocide, but also about the goodness of that province: "The people of Alberta value democratic freedoms, human rights and the rule of law, honour the values of compassion and honesty and cherish the multicultural vibrancy of the province." Saskatchewan stressed how Ukrainians "have contributed greatly to Saskatchewan's cultural, economic, political and educational life." In Manitoba, the Holodomor was recognized in part because "during World War II, a disproportionate number of Ukrainian Canadians registered in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight for the rights and liberties of Canadians."
The pattern? First, genocide occurred and has been denied in other contexts, and for this reason -- to uphold truth, we must commemorate and recognize. Some people -- Ernst Zundel admirers, or dupes of the Turkish denialist movement -- have a problem with the truth; most Canadians don't. Second, the worthiness of the victims and their descendents is important. The descendents have demonstrably enriched the fabric of our society.
We come to the third point: Recognition allows provinces or Canada to prove their goodness and tolerance. Here's where my problem lies -- by failing to recognize genocide, provincial legislatures, Ottawa and the CMHR are tacitly denying three things: that the IRS system's crimes and the intent behind them are genocide; that aboriginal people have made noteworthy contributions; and that Canada's governments have perpetrated a history of genocide in the colonization of the country, which holds serious ongoing legacies.
We need to recognize all genocides, but especially those close to home. This will take time, especially for a museum constrained by legal and financial challenges, with a lot of funding from governments that have little interest in historical introspection.
I hope A Tribe Called Red's refusal will be a teachable moment for the museum and Canadians. The CMHR purportedly has more fluid, changeable exhibits than set-piece museums of the past. I am trying to be cautiously optimistic about what the future will hold.

David MacDonald is a professor of political science at the University of Guelph. He is the author of Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide.

Standing Rock awarded grant for foster care, adoption programs #ICWA

FORT YATES, North Dakota — The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota has been awarded a $300,000 federal grant to develop a foster care and adoption assistance program, The Associated Press announced today.
U.S. Sen. John Hoeven (R- ND) announced the grant on Thursday from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Republican senator says the program will help ensure that better systems and safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable children in the tribal court's care. He says the grant will support efforts to help children find "permanent, safe and loving homes" on the reservation, which straddles North Dakota and South Dakota.
The money can be used to develop data collection systems and agency and tribal court procedures. The tribe has two years to submit programs to HHS for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two More South Dakota Lakota Tribes Advance Toward Their Own Foster Care Systems, Intending to Replace the State DSS System

by Native News Online Staff / 22 Aug 2014

“This is an important step for our tribe as we attempt to regain control of our children’s future and make sure they grow up with pride in their own culture and heritage...”- Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Chairman Michael Jandreau

RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA — The Lakota people have taken another positive step toward preserving their cultural sovereignty and solving the persistent foster care crisis in the state as two more tribes have joined the movement to apply for available federal funding to plan their own tribal-run foster care system.
“The addition of Flandreau and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes to the growing list of South Dakota-based Lakota tribes applying for federal funding demonstrates that the goal of establishing independent foster care systems is within reach,” said Chase Iron Eyes, attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project and a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “The Lakota tribal governments have done their part, it is time for the United States government to meet its obligation to Indian Country. No more broken promises, no more unfulfilled agreements.”
The Lower Brule and Flandreau Sioux Tribes became the two latest tribal governments to complete their Title IV-E Federal Planning Grant Applications to fund the planning of their own foster care programs. The two tribes, joining a coalition of South Dakota tribes attempting to wrest control from scandal-wracked South Dakota, brings the total number of tribes to seven, with another tribe, Rosebud, already having received their planning grant.

“We want to make sure this historic solution is realized,” Chase Iron Eyes continued. “The people best situated to care for our children are our own families and extended family network, which we call Tiospaye.”

Native-American advocacy group specializing in federal grants pertaining to tribes, A Positive Tomorrow, has worked tirelessly alongside members of tribal governments to assist in the submission of the applications.
“This is an important step for our tribe as we attempt to regain control of our children’s future and make sure they grow up with pride in their own culture and heritage,” said Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Chairman Michael Jandreau. “We are pleased to be part of this sovereignty movement in South Dakota.”
The federal government has expressed a willingness to help South Dakota tribes assert their rights as set forth in federal legislation.
“The Indian Child Welfare Act is a very important statute and it was enacted for a very important reason,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn during the May 2013 ICWA Summit held in Rapid City, at which officials from South Dakota conspicuously did not attend. “It was designed to address a very real problem, and in South Dakota at least, the problem still seems to exist.”
The tribes have been prompted to run their own foster care institutions after a 2011 report by National Public Radio asserted that the South Dakota Department of Social Services repeatedly and persistently violates the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
ICWA is federal legislation passed in 1978 and intended to give Native American tribes a strong voice in child custody issues with the ultimate aim of ensuring tribes rights to maintain and preserve their language and culture. ICWA mandates that Indian foster children be placed with relatives, extended relatives, or other tribal members in the country.
The NPR report asserted that 9 in ten native children were being placed into non-native homes in South Dakota by the DSS. This prompted tribal officials to identify ways to divert federal funding away from South Dakota’s social service agencies and transfer it into native foster care systems.
“We are losing our children to the system in South Dakota and sometimes in other states,” said Chairman Tony Reider from the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe. “We may not ever see them again, and they will not know who they are. Our children are sacred, and we have many relatives capable of raising them, but the DSS almost always says ‘no’ to our people. In an historic effort, we are determined to qualify for federal funding and run our own Child and Family Services Programs.”
Furthermore, the report states that due to the designation of all Native children as “special needs” by the federal government, South Dakota financially benefits from the placement of Indian children in state-run foster care facilities. Almost all such facilities in South Dakota have become psychiatric institutions collecting approximately three times as much federal money per day as the foster care facilities.
The planning grant applications are being submitted for funding under the terms of the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, commonly referred to as the Baucus Act. The law introduced major changes to the Social Security Act, primarily in Section IV-E, regarding foster care and adoptions assistance payments to the states. This is one of the major changes that made it possible for federally recognized tribes to receive direct IV-E payments to support their own child and welfare programs without state intervention. Previously Section IV-E monies could only be given to state agencies.
The planning grant program under the Baucus Act can award individual planning grants up to $300,000 and has a total annual budget of $3 million. According to the Tribal Directory of the Bureau of Indian Affairs there are 566 federally recognized tribes. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe received a Baucus planning grant in 2013.

Along with Flandreau and Lower Brule, five more Sioux tribes are submitting applications under the Baucus Act this year: Cheyenne River, Crow Creek, Standing Rock, Yankton and Pine Ridge. In total, eight out of the nine Lakota tribes in South Dakota have already received or have applied for the grants.

Tremendous progress is underway to protect future generations...Like prisoners of war, Rez Poverty is a crime that colonizers still use to take our children, poverty conditions they created and perpetuate... as Buffy Sainte-Marie said, this ongoing genocide is HORROR HISTORY... Trace

Child-buying masquerading as adoption in Oklahoma, panel told #Adoption #HumanTrafficking

At one time adoption was about finding parents for orphans. Not anymore. Stranger Adoption is about finding children or babies for people who wish to buy one, conducted and advanced by social workers, judges, lawyers and adoption agencies whose livelihood and income depend on it. Remember this is a billion dollar industry! When money is exchanged, babies are product, with a dollar value. Yet rarely is adoption called human trafficking. We can recall Baby Veronica to understand trafficking is still happening in 2013/2014. We know the older infertile Capobiancos paid money for Veronica Brown...It's a disgrace on humanity. Trace

By BARBARA HOBEROCK TULSA World Capitol Bureau 

OKLAHOMA CITY — The selling of children is masquerading as adoption in Oklahoma, a House panel was told Wednesday.

Many of the children are placed out of state, making them difficult to track, said Holly Towers, president of the Oklahoma Adoption Coalition and executive director of Lilyfield Christian Adoption and Foster Care in Edmond.

She was one of the presenters during an interim study on human trafficking by the House Public Safety Committee.

“We get calls from women who say they placed a child for adoption with an attorney,” Towers said. “The adoptive parents have paid rent, refurnished the apartment and given her a car. Now the payments have stopped.”

The women are facing eviction and want to know what they can do, Towers said.

“The answer is nothing,” she said. “These women have been set up to be homeless.”

Some fees are allowed, such as those for living and medical expenses, she said.

But in some cases, women expecting are offered outright cash for their children, which is illegal, Towers said.

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics Director Darrell Weaver said that several years ago, his agency began monitoring human trafficking.

A significant portion of those involved in human trafficking have been involved in drug trafficking, Weaver said.

His agency has seen an increase in the number of heroin addicts who become trafficking victims, Weaver said.

The problem is not isolated to Oklahoma City or the metropolitan areas, Weaver said.

“Drug traffickers are shifting from drugs to human trafficking,” he said. “The profit margins are so much higher.”

If the state can save one person from trafficking, it will be worth it, Weaver said.

“The one may just be somebody you love,” he said.

Sen. Sean Roberts, R-Hominy, requested the study and said some good ideas came out of the information gathered.

Barbara Hoberock 405-528-2465
barbara.hoberock@tulsaworld.com

60s Scoop adoptees find 'some kind of belonging' at national gathering

Taken from their families as children, aboriginal adoptees find hard road to reconnect with culture

By Waubgeshig Rice, CBC News 

Leslie Parlane (left) and Colleen Cardinal are part of a group of aboriginal adoptees who are organizing a national gathering this weekend. (Waubgeshig Rice/CBC)

Aboriginal adoptees support network 2:25

When Colleen Cardinal and Lesley Parlane met in Ottawa a year ago, they bonded right away as adoptees reconnecting with their aboriginal roots. It’s been a long, often difficult journey for both women.
“I didn’t even know that I was indigenous until I was a teenager,” says Cardinal, now 41. Originally from Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Alberta, she was adopted by a non-indigenous family when she was two, and raised in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
“I didn't even know what it meant to be indigenous because of the stereotypes and stigma towards indigenous people, that I would say my adoptive family perpetuated,” she said, “that we were drunks and bums and stuff like that. So I grew up with this really negative image of what Indians were.”

• Compensation, counselling sought for '60s Scoop victims
• Visit CBC Aboriginal for more top stories

From the 1960s up until the 1980s, Canadian child welfare authorities apprehended an estimated 20,000 aboriginal children and placed them in non-aboriginal homes. Many consider the '60s Scoop an extension of residential schools, which aimed to "take the Indian out of the child."
Cardinal didn’t reconnect with her birth parents and older sisters until she was 16. It’s a breach that Parlane is painfully familiar with. She’s originally from Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation in Saskatchewan. She was adopted when she was four, and after a stint in Alberta, spent most of her childhood in Toronto.
“It's one thing to be adopted,” says Parlane, 36. “But it's another thing to not know your language and your culture. And that has had the biggest impact on my life.”

Finding 'some kind of belonging'

Cardinal and Parlane are part of a group of indigenous adoptees who meet regularly in Ottawa. Last year, they decided to organize a national gathering for other adoptees like them.
This weekend, nearly 100 people from across the country and as far away as New Zealand will be in Ottawa for the Bigiwen Indigenous Adoptee Gathering. They’ll participate in workshops, network and, most importantly, make new friends.
“Adoptees are looking for some kind of belonging, some kind of place to talk about their stories and share their stories with others,” says Cardinal.

'It may seem like it's easy to just integrate back into your biological family … but if you go back to it without your songs, your ceremonies, and your language, it's really hard to reintegrate.'— Colleen Cardinal

For many adoptees, returning to their roots after being raised away from their communities is hard.
“It may seem like it's easy to just integrate back into your biological family," she says. “But if you've been raised a certain way, and you go back to it without your songs, your ceremonies, and your language, it's really hard to reintegrate.”
But with a growing support network, both Cardinal and Parlane believe it’s becoming easier to share experiences and return to birthplaces. Parlane spent the summer with some of her birth family back in Saskatchewan.
“I made a connection with my mom's side of the family, and I recently went powwow dancing for the very first time this past summer,” she says. “It was amazing, because for me that was … all these years of not having a connection to my culture, the doorway just suddenly opened through my aunt.”
By sharing their own stories, they hope to open the door for other adoptees.

Related Stories

• Compensation, counselling sought for 60s Scoop victims
• P.E.I. aboriginal families still affected by '60s Scoop

External Links

• Bigiwen indigenous Adoptee Gathering

Op-Ed: Buffy Sainte-Marie on Canadian Museum of Human Rights, Genocide

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/cover.html

OP-ED: Buffy Sainte-Marie · @BuffySteMarie

21st Sep 2014 from TwitLonger

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights opens next week but I went in for a preview look yesterday. My expectations were low but my hopes were high. The museum is not nearly complete and that's disappointing, so it's totally premature for any real comment but at least what I did see was better than I'd feared. By the way, they do use the word genocide several times in exhibits about the treatment of indigenous Canadians. And there is a piece on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. However, there's still a lot omitted from our story; as just one instance, so far I see no mention of the official medical reports by Dr. Peter Bryce in 1907-1909 that Indian children were being "deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other communicable diseases, and then left to die unattended by church and residential school staff". Please see this website    http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org

This was even more egregious than the policy of trading smallpox blankets to Indians in the US (and possibly Canada).

As an educator creating curriculum that must include our horror history, I continually strive to be grade-appropriate, which is tricky. I can see that CHRM deals with the same challenge. The video testimonies from residential school survivors chosen to appear in the museum is tame and appropriate for children as well as adults. The serious obvious problem is loss of content for adults who ought to know.

To this end, yesterday I suggested, and will continue to suggest, an additional gallery for educators and other adults that would include the more horrendous documents, proofs and testimonies, which would not be viewed by unaccompanied children. However, I feel this material should be mandatory for grade school teachers and politicians who so influence tone and policy in Canada. Our horror history has always been soft-pedaled - because it IS so horrific - so Canadians don't really know much beyond the inferred sexy bits. We have to have the courage to face the whole picture both privately and publicly including the worst parts. It's a big dirty secret, the details of which involve medical crimes, collusion, complicity and coverups at every level. 

I intend to visit at least once more before I leave town, and on subsequent trips to Winnipeg. I will both suggest and squawk when appropriate.

Meanwhile, rather than criticize the cake before it comes out of the oven, or CHRM for what they have not yet done, my own time is going towards working with our own indigenous experts - from street people to Ph.Ds - on contemporary issues. Regardless of outside efforts, our own people can also make a huge difference. Educating and supporting each other is already underway but always needs to beef up and stay healthy. I heard that at least one Reserve plans to make their own museum, direct and uncensored. Of course I wish we had CHRM's tremendous financial resources.

Regarding doing the song My Country tis of Thy People You're Dying, I really don't want to shorten it for TV so probably won't sing it at tonight's show.

My Country has it's own historical value and was written 50 years ago when I was the only person talking about it. Now, I'm glad to say, we have teams of Aboriginal educators, and testimony from survivors who leave no doubt about the issues I covered in My Country, including using the word genocide accurately. Feeling like doing No No Keshagesh (no no greedy guts) which is about environmental greed in Indian country and might inspire more people to do something effective right now. - BSM

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/mort_rate_index.html

Buffy Sainte-Marie is an adoptee. A short biography is in the book TWO WORLDS...Trace

Disproportionate number of aboriginal children in care in Canada

Joanne Bernard says issue needs to be addressed in collaboration with federal government

CBC News 

Joanne Bernard says, according to departmental numbers,
about 22.5 per cent of children in care are aboriginal, but only 2.7 per
cent of the population in Nova Scotia is of aboriginal ancestry. (CBC)

Nova Scotia's minister of community services says she's
concerned about the disproportionate number of aboriginal children in
community care.

For the first time in eight years, Department of Community
Services ministers met to discuss social issues, the most worrisome
perhaps being the high numbers of aboriginal children in care.

Joanne
Bernard, Nova Scotia's minister of community services, worries the
federal government is not doing more to help provinces with this
problem.

​Joanne Bernard says,
according to departmental numbers, about 22.5 per cent of children in
care are aboriginal, but only 2.7 per cent of the population in Nova
Scotia is of aboriginal ancestry.

"It’s clearly an issue in this province," Joanne Bernard told CBC’s Information Morning.

"There are all kinds of issues of why aboriginal children are
taken into care, just like there are of all children taken into care. In
my personal experience, and the work that I used to do, you can't look
at the issues surrounding children in care, unless you look at the
vulnerabilities of families, especially the mothers. We all know of the
ongoing vulnerabilities and complexities that aboriginal women in Canada
[face] today, including in our own province."

In Manitoba the numbers are even higher. Seventy-eight per cent
of children in care in that province in care are of aboriginal descent.
According to 2013 figures from Statistics Canada's first National Household Survey showed that 16.7 per cent of the province's population identified as aboriginal.

Bernard is back in Nova Scotia after sitting down with
ministers in charge of social services from across the country in
Calgary late last week.

She worries the federal government is not doing more to help provinces with this problem.

"That collaboration starts with coming to the meeting of, quite
frankly, the social policy leaders of the country. So when you have
everyone of us at the table and you don’t have your federal counterpart,
clearly a piece of the puzzle in moving forward and addressing all the
intersectional issues that surround aboriginal children in care — in
addition to aboriginal women, it’s just so pivotal that that partnership
not only be maintained but strengthened," she said.

The provincial community services ministers last met in 2006.

Related Stories

• Poor kids hit hard by school strike
  


• Shawn Atleo agreed to 'substantive amendments' to First Nations education bill
  


• National aboriginal child welfare strategy needed says former B.C. judge
  


• Child welfare discussed at Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs forum
  


• First Nations should control own child welfare, inquiry told
  

Not just in Canada...Trace/Lara

Disproportionate number of aboriginal children in care in Canada

Joanne Bernard says issue needs to be addressed in collaboration with federal government

CBC News 

Joanne Bernard says, according to departmental numbers, about 22.5 per cent of children in care are aboriginal, but only 2.7 per cent of the population in Nova Scotia is of aboriginal ancestry. (CBC)

Nova Scotia's minister of community services says she's concerned about the disproportionate number of aboriginal children in community care.
For the first time in eight years, Department of Community Services ministers met to discuss social issues, the most worrisome perhaps being the high numbers of aboriginal children in care.

Joanne Bernard, Nova Scotia's minister of community services, worries the federal government is not doing more to help provinces with this problem.

​Joanne Bernard says, according to departmental numbers, about 22.5 per cent of children in care are aboriginal, but only 2.7 per cent of the population in Nova Scotia is of aboriginal ancestry. "It’s clearly an issue in this province," Joanne Bernard told CBC’s Information Morning.
"There are all kinds of issues of why aboriginal children are taken into care, just like there are of all children taken into care. In my personal experience, and the work that I used to do, you can't look at the issues surrounding children in care, unless you look at the vulnerabilities of families, especially the mothers. We all know of the ongoing vulnerabilities and complexities that aboriginal women in Canada [face] today, including in our own province."
In Manitoba the numbers are even higher. Seventy-eight per cent of children in care in that province in care are of aboriginal descent. According to 2013 figures from Statistics Canada's first National Household Survey showed that 16.7 per cent of the province's population identified as aboriginal.
Bernard is back in Nova Scotia after sitting down with ministers in charge of social services from across the country in Calgary late last week.
She worries the federal government is not doing more to help provinces with this problem.
"That collaboration starts with coming to the meeting of, quite frankly, the social policy leaders of the country. So when you have everyone of us at the table and you don’t have your federal counterpart, clearly a piece of the puzzle in moving forward and addressing all the intersectional issues that surround aboriginal children in care — in addition to aboriginal women, it’s just so pivotal that that partnership not only be maintained but strengthened," she said.
The provincial community services ministers last met in 2006.

Related Stories

• Poor kids hit hard by school strike
• Shawn Atleo agreed to 'substantive amendments' to First Nations education bill
• National aboriginal child welfare strategy needed says former B.C. judge
• Child welfare discussed at Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs forum
• First Nations should control own child welfare, inquiry told

Not just in Canada...Trace/Lara