BACK UP BLOG

This blog is a backup for American Indian Adoptees blog
There might be some duplicate posts prior to 2020. I am trying to delete them when I find them. Sorry!

SURVEY FOR ALL FIRST NATIONS ADOPTEES

SURVEY FOR ALL FIRST NATIONS ADOPTEES
ADOPTEES - we are doing a COUNT

If you need support

Support Info: If you are a Survivor and need emotional support, a national crisis line is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week: Residential School Survivor Support Line: 1-866-925-4419. Additional Health Support Information: Emotional, cultural, and professional support services are also available to Survivors and their families through the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Health Support Program. Services can be accessed on an individual, family, or group basis.” These & regional support phone numbers are found at https://nctr.ca/contact/survivors/ . MY EMAIL: tracelara@pm.me

Friday, January 30, 2015

John Pilger Interview: White Australians Would Like Aboriginal People to Disappear

By Mark Karlin, Truthout 

John Pilger (right) working on the documentary "Utopia." (Photo: Bullfrog Films)John Pilger (right) working on the documentary Utopia. (Photo: Bullfrog Films)

Noted journalist John Pilger directed and is the lead investigator in an extraordinary documentary, Utopia: An Epic Story of Struggle and Resistance.

Pilger incisively and tenaciously reveals the brutal conquest and continued racist treatment of the Aboriginal people in Australia. Against this appalling historical documentation of conquest, discriminating and neglect, Pilger also highlights the continued resistance of the original inhabitants of the land stolen by British settlers.

You can obtain the 2-disc DVD set now with a contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
The following is a Truthout interview with John Pilger about Utopia.

Mark Karlin: Needless to say, one understands the irony of titling the film Utopia from very near the beginning of the documentary. Can you provide some details about the town and area and what you show of its abject neglect in the film?

John Pilger: The irony of Utopia isn't mine. It's the name given a vast, forbidding expanse of Australia's north by the British. What did they imagine? Perhaps, demented by the ferocity of the heat and dust, they intended to turn it into an English garden. More realistically, they understood that great wealth lay beneath the land. Certainly, their disregard for the people who had lived there for thousands of years - arguably the longest continuous human community - was typical of the attitudes that came with the colonial invasion of Australia. The indigenous people were at one with the harshness of the land; they knew where to find water and food; this was their physical and cultural home.
For more than two centuries, white Australians have tried to expel them - they've driven them into fringe camps, corralled them in reserves, stolen their children, imposed cruel and petty rules. Denied basic services most Australians take for granted, the people of Utopia suffer the kind of deprivation and disease associated with Africa; for example, Aboriginal children go blind from trachoma, a preventable disease eradicated in many third world countries. White Australia would like them to disappear; the First Australians not only refuse to disappear, they resist, often heroically.

There were so many horrifying details of daily life in Utopia, but I couldn't help but become physically queasy when a person charged with trying to improve life at the settlement talked about commonly finding cockroaches in the ears of aborginal people. How did you react to this revelation?
Yes, that's not uncommon. Many of the children in these communities suffer from otitis media, an ear infection that leads to deafness. It's a disease of extreme poverty. You ask about my reaction. As one born and brought up in Australia, my reaction is always a mixture of anger and shame.

Can you provide us with some historical context to the conquest of the Aboriginal people in what is now known as Australia Day and how to this day the nation of Australia has not acknowledged the native ownership of the continent by First Nations' peoples?
On January 26, 1788, a British naval fleet of ships, known as the First Fleet, dropped anchor in what is now Sydney Harbor. Australia was to be a penal colony following Britain's loss of its American colonies. The poor, the petty criminal, the rebellious of England and Ireland would be sent to the end of the earth - my great-great grandparents were among them, convicted of 'uttering unlawful oaths.'
The victims soon included the native people, whose land was appropriated. Indigenous people all over the world share a common suffering as a result of colonialism and immigration. This is not to deny there have been hard-won advances. For example, the High Court of Australia has acknowledged "Native Title" - prior ownership - but it's a paper recognition over which the great mining companies operate an effective veto.

You offer excellent interviews with Australian government officials who claim that it is - more or less - "a new day" for Aboriginal people in the nation, but your film directly disproves those assertions. Were you surprised at their brazen assertions?
No, I am never surprised by the lies and cynicism of those who watch over the designs of colonialism - in Australia, anywhere.

Can you briefly describe the so-called "emergency " government intervention that occurred in the "Northern Territory National Emergency Response" under the government of Prime Minister John Howard in 2007? It was so racist and such a cover for government control of Aboriginal land that might have minerals that it represented much of Canberra's mistreatment of the people that they conquered.
This was presented by John Howard as a vote-gaining crusade to "save" indigenous children from pedophiles in their communities, which were said to be operating in "unthinkable" numbers. It was a political con on such a scale that I suspect it could have happened only in Australia. The principal allegations were found to be baseless by the Northern Territory Police, the National Crime Commission, the Central Australian medical specialists' association, even by the author of a report whose recommendations the government claimed it was acting upon. The media played a central, shameful role, as the film reveals.

You spend a good deal of time on the theft of Aboriginal children in a government attempt to integrate them into European-centric culture. This is called the "stolen generation," but you contend the seizure of Aboriginal babies is still occurring, even in hospitals just after they are born, is that right?
Official statistics show that more Aboriginal children are being taken from their families and communities than at any time in Australian history. In the state of New South Wales, 10 percent of indigenous children have been taken, many of them placed with white families and unlikely to see their mothers and communities again. This is assimilation and little different in principle from the crude paternalism of the 19th and 20th century, which, in the infamous words of one official, sought to "breed out the color" of Australia's First People.

Similar to most colonial conquests, the Aboriginal people were considered subhuman, often killed and imprisoned. The lucky ones were just ignored to live, if they could survive, in the arid and beastly hot interior of the nation.
There is another, insidious element. A very small but significant section of Indigenous Australia has been co-opted by white authority - rewarded with education and bureaucratic largesse. This has produced a "transmission" colonial class of the kind that Franz Fanon wrote about and which oversees a divide-and-rule policy that ensures the majority remain at or near the bottom.

In 1901, the first prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, led the passage of what became known as "the White Australia Policy." The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was based on what an Australian MP at the time said: "William McMillan spoke about the desire 'to prevent any alien or servile races from so occupying large territories in Australia, as to mix and interfuse, not merely among themselves, but with our own people. " (That's a quotation from the Australian Parliament website.) Where does Australia legally stand today, and where does it stand in fact?
The White Australia Policy is long gone; officially, there is no race discrimination in Australia. Certainly, in my lifetime the composition of the immigrant society has changed from that of predominately Anglo-Irish to one of the most multicultural in the world. Yet, racism runs like a current through much of Australia. Ask any indigenous person. They will often describe what amounts to a human contempt for them, for the truth of their past and their culture. At the very least, many Australians display an invincible ignorance of the one human feature of their country that is unique: the original people.

You have a segment in the film where you interview white Australians celebrating the nation's birthday. The range of responses to you asking the party-goers about the conquered indigenous population ranges from befuddlement to outrage at your question. From that random sample, the plight of the Aboriginal people appears to be a topic that spoils the fun, doesn't it?
That's a concise way of putting it.

You've done other documentaries on the plight of the aborigines, the racist superciliousness and indifference of the Euro-centric descendants, and the utter blighted existences of most aborigines. Has anything changed over the years that you have been covering this racial discrimination in your native Australia?
Australia remains a vivid expression of the way colonial power - from the 18th century to the present-day - regards and treats those whose land it steals. I made a film about the Native Americans, and the similarities are striking. My own belief is that until we, the colonizers and the immigrants, give back the nationhood of those whose lives our forebears so disrupted and destroyed, we can never claim our own.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

John Pilger Interview: White Australians Would Like Aboriginal People to Disappear

By Mark Karlin, Truthout 

John Pilger (right) working on the documentary "Utopia." (Photo: Bullfrog Films)John Pilger (right) working on the documentary Utopia. (Photo: Bullfrog Films)

Noted journalist John Pilger directed and is the lead investigator in an extraordinary documentary, Utopia: An Epic Story of Struggle and Resistance.

Pilger incisively and tenaciously reveals the brutal conquest and continued racist treatment of the Aboriginal people in Australia. Against this appalling historical documentation of conquest, discriminating and neglect, Pilger also highlights the continued resistance of the original inhabitants of the land stolen by British settlers.

You can obtain the 2-disc DVD set now with a contribution to Truthout by clicking here.
The following is a Truthout interview with John Pilger about Utopia.

Mark Karlin: Needless to say, one understands the irony of titling the film Utopia from very near the beginning of the documentary. Can you provide some details about the town and area and what you show of its abject neglect in the film?

John Pilger: The irony of Utopia isn't mine. It's the name given a vast, forbidding expanse of Australia's north by the British. What did they imagine? Perhaps, demented by the ferocity of the heat and dust, they intended to turn it into an English garden. More realistically, they understood that great wealth lay beneath the land. Certainly, their disregard for the people who had lived there for thousands of years - arguably the longest continuous human community - was typical of the attitudes that came with the colonial invasion of Australia. The indigenous people were at one with the harshness of the land; they knew where to find water and food; this was their physical and cultural home.
For more than two centuries, white Australians have tried to expel them - they've driven them into fringe camps, corralled them in reserves, stolen their children, imposed cruel and petty rules. Denied basic services most Australians take for granted, the people of Utopia suffer the kind of deprivation and disease associated with Africa; for example, Aboriginal children go blind from trachoma, a preventable disease eradicated in many third world countries. White Australia would like them to disappear; the First Australians not only refuse to disappear, they resist, often heroically.

There were so many horrifying details of daily life in Utopia, but I couldn't help but become physically queasy when a person charged with trying to improve life at the settlement talked about commonly finding cockroaches in the ears of aborginal people. How did you react to this revelation?
Yes, that's not uncommon. Many of the children in these communities suffer from otitis media, an ear infection that leads to deafness. It's a disease of extreme poverty. You ask about my reaction. As one born and brought up in Australia, my reaction is always a mixture of anger and shame.

Can you provide us with some historical context to the conquest of the Aboriginal people in what is now known as Australia Day and how to this day the nation of Australia has not acknowledged the native ownership of the continent by First Nations' peoples?
On January 26, 1788, a British naval fleet of ships, known as the First Fleet, dropped anchor in what is now Sydney Harbor. Australia was to be a penal colony following Britain's loss of its American colonies. The poor, the petty criminal, the rebellious of England and Ireland would be sent to the end of the earth - my great-great grandparents were among them, convicted of 'uttering unlawful oaths.'
The victims soon included the native people, whose land was appropriated. Indigenous people all over the world share a common suffering as a result of colonialism and immigration. This is not to deny there have been hard-won advances. For example, the High Court of Australia has acknowledged "Native Title" - prior ownership - but it's a paper recognition over which the great mining companies operate an effective veto.

You offer excellent interviews with Australian government officials who claim that it is - more or less - "a new day" for Aboriginal people in the nation, but your film directly disproves those assertions. Were you surprised at their brazen assertions?
No, I am never surprised by the lies and cynicism of those who watch over the designs of colonialism - in Australia, anywhere.

Can you briefly describe the so-called "emergency " government intervention that occurred in the "Northern Territory National Emergency Response" under the government of Prime Minister John Howard in 2007? It was so racist and such a cover for government control of Aboriginal land that might have minerals that it represented much of Canberra's mistreatment of the people that they conquered.
This was presented by John Howard as a vote-gaining crusade to "save" indigenous children from pedophiles in their communities, which were said to be operating in "unthinkable" numbers. It was a political con on such a scale that I suspect it could have happened only in Australia. The principal allegations were found to be baseless by the Northern Territory Police, the National Crime Commission, the Central Australian medical specialists' association, even by the author of a report whose recommendations the government claimed it was acting upon. The media played a central, shameful role, as the film reveals.

You spend a good deal of time on the theft of Aboriginal children in a government attempt to integrate them into European-centric culture. This is called the "stolen generation," but you contend the seizure of Aboriginal babies is still occurring, even in hospitals just after they are born, is that right?
Official statistics show that more Aboriginal children are being taken from their families and communities than at any time in Australian history. In the state of New South Wales, 10 percent of indigenous children have been taken, many of them placed with white families and unlikely to see their mothers and communities again. This is assimilation and little different in principle from the crude paternalism of the 19th and 20th century, which, in the infamous words of one official, sought to "breed out the color" of Australia's First People.

Similar to most colonial conquests, the Aboriginal people were considered subhuman, often killed and imprisoned. The lucky ones were just ignored to live, if they could survive, in the arid and beastly hot interior of the nation.
There is another, insidious element. A very small but significant section of Indigenous Australia has been co-opted by white authority - rewarded with education and bureaucratic largesse. This has produced a "transmission" colonial class of the kind that Franz Fanon wrote about and which oversees a divide-and-rule policy that ensures the majority remain at or near the bottom.

In 1901, the first prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, led the passage of what became known as "the White Australia Policy." The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was based on what an Australian MP at the time said: "William McMillan spoke about the desire 'to prevent any alien or servile races from so occupying large territories in Australia, as to mix and interfuse, not merely among themselves, but with our own people. " (That's a quotation from the Australian Parliament website.) Where does Australia legally stand today, and where does it stand in fact?
The White Australia Policy is long gone; officially, there is no race discrimination in Australia. Certainly, in my lifetime the composition of the immigrant society has changed from that of predominately Anglo-Irish to one of the most multicultural in the world. Yet, racism runs like a current through much of Australia. Ask any indigenous person. They will often describe what amounts to a human contempt for them, for the truth of their past and their culture. At the very least, many Australians display an invincible ignorance of the one human feature of their country that is unique: the original people.

You have a segment in the film where you interview white Australians celebrating the nation's birthday. The range of responses to you asking the party-goers about the conquered indigenous population ranges from befuddlement to outrage at your question. From that random sample, the plight of the Aboriginal people appears to be a topic that spoils the fun, doesn't it?
That's a concise way of putting it.

You've done other documentaries on the plight of the aborigines, the racist superciliousness and indifference of the Euro-centric descendants, and the utter blighted existences of most aborigines. Has anything changed over the years that you have been covering this racial discrimination in your native Australia?
Australia remains a vivid expression of the way colonial power - from the 18th century to the present-day - regards and treats those whose land it steals. I made a film about the Native Americans, and the similarities are striking. My own belief is that until we, the colonizers and the immigrants, give back the nationhood of those whose lives our forebears so disrupted and destroyed, we can never claim our own.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Where is Michael Swartz?

By Trace Hentz

Back in 2011, I posted a story on this blog about the book SUDDEN FURY and the grizzly murder of Maryland adoptive parents Kay and Larry Swartz who had adopted three children, Larry, Michael and Annie. (This old post is still getting comments and questions.)

In the book (right) it stated that Michael Swartz was a Native American adoptee who was removed from his family at age 4 and adopted by the Swartz couple in Maryland.

Three days after their parents' funeral, adopted son Larry Swartz confessed that he was the killer.

What Happened to Michael Swartz?

Michael continued to get into trouble and at age 25, he was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, for participating in robbing and murdering a man. Today Michael would be 48 years old.

Here is a profile of the case from 2004:

Profile of Larry Swartz

I have contacted Leslie Walker, the author of Sudden Fury, to ask her if she followed up on this case and if she might be able to help me locate Michael.

If you know where he is, what prison, please email me: larahentz@yahoo.com


Where is Michael Swartz?

By Trace Hentz

Back in 2011, I posted a story on this blog about the book SUDDEN FURY and the grizzly murder of Maryland adoptive parents Kay and Larry Swartz who had adopted three children, Larry, Michael and Annie. (This old post is still getting comments and questions.)

In the book (right) it stated that Michael Swartz was a Native American adoptee who was removed from his family at age 4 and adopted by the Swartz couple in Maryland.

Three days after their parents' funeral, adopted son Larry Swartz confessed that he was the killer.

What Happened to Michael Swartz?

Michael continued to get into trouble and at age 25, he was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, for participating in robbing and murdering a man. Today Michael would be 48 years old.

Here is a profile of the case from 2004:

Profile of Larry Swartz

I have contacted Leslie Walker, the author of Sudden Fury, to ask her if she followed up on this case and if she might be able to help me locate Michael.

If you know where he is, what prison, please email me: larahentz@yahoo.com


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Brewing Controversy: Genetic Testing and Tribal Identity

Why many Native Americans have concerns about DNA kits like 23andme

Havasupai man in front of sweat lodge, 1924 ( NPS/Flickr )
The genetic sequencing company 23andMe recently tapped into its vast bank of data to release a study on genetic origins, producing the biggest genetic profile of the United States ever conducted—big, but nowhere near complete.

Out of more than 160,000 genomes, only 3 percent of 23andMe customers who authorized their data for the study were black, compared with the approximately 14 percent of the United States population who identifies as such. And while the paper traced what percent of white, black, and Latino customers’ ancestry led back to Native Americans, there were no users, as far as the paper reported, who self-identified as native people.

There are a lot of reasons for this. The service isn’t free, and not everyone wants—or can afford—to shell out $99 to learn about their ancestry. But when it comes to Native Americans, the question of genetic testing, and particularly genetic testing to determine ancestral origins, is controversial.
In the past decade, questions of how a person's genetic material gets used have become more and more common. Researchers and ethicists are still figuring how how to balance scientific goals with the need to respect individual and cultural privacy. And for Native Americans, the question of how to do that, like nearly everything, is bound up in a long history of racism and colonialism.

* * *
In many ways, the concerns that Native Americans have with genetic testing are the ones most people have: Who will be using this data, and for what?
 
Today, DNA can tell us a little about a lot of things, from disease risks to ancestral history. But ultimately it’s pretty limited. In fact, 23andMe was recently chastised by the FDA, which claimed the company was overselling the predictive power of their test for medical use. But in the future, that same little sample of DNA could be used for purposes that haven't even been dreamed up yet. People might be okay with their DNA being used to research cures for cancer, or to explore their own genetic history, but balk at it being used to develop biological weapons or justify genocide.

These are questions that anyone who gives their genetic material to scientists has to think about. And for Native Americans, who have witnessed their artifacts, remains, and land taken away, shared, and discussed among academics for centuries, concerns about genetic appropriation carry ominous reminders about the past. “I might trust this guy, but 100 years from now who is going to get the information? What are people going to do with that information? How can they twist it? Because that’s one thing that seems to happen a lot,” says Nick Tipon, the vice-chairman of the Sacred Sites Committee of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, an organization that represents people of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo descent.

Another reason many tribes struggle with a scientist asking for a DNA sample involves the DNA collection process. Namely, that it requires removal of some piece of the body. In the living, this may seem simple: a swab of the cheek or a quick blood sample. But for scientists who want to study historical DNA, they have to remove a piece of the dead body. It’s a small piece, but DNA analysis is almost always destructive. This, again, isn’t a specifically tribal issue, as Tipon points out. “How would current people feel if their great-great-grandfathers were dug up and their bones were destroyed during testing to prove a theory?” he asked. “Rest in peace means forever, not to be disturbed, not to be studied, unless they consented to that.”

Some of the questions geneticists seek to answer are also provocative among Native Americans. The first is the issue of migration: Where did different people come from? Who colonized the United States first? Where did they go once they arrived? These are questions that archaeologists and geneticists are really interested in because they help paint a picture of how migrations patterns occurred in the United States before white settlers arrived, and how European settlement changed things.
But figuring out where your ancestors came from becomes complicated when it entails a legacy of exclusion of displacement. Tribes each have important cultural histories, that include their origin stories. Many of their histories say that the tribe came from the land, that they arose there and have always lived there. And many of them have more modern histories that include white settlers challenging their right to live where they did. 

So to many tribal people, having a scientist come in from the outside looking to tell them where they’re “really” from is not only uninteresting, but threatening. “We know who we are as a people, as an indigenous people, why would we be so interested in where scientists think our genetic ancestors came from?” asks Kim Tallbear, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, the author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, and a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe.

Tallbear says that from her perspective, researchers offering to tell tribes where they’re from doesn’t look any different than the Christians who came in to tell them what their religion should be. “Those look like very similarly invasive projects to us,” she said. Tribes haven’t forgotten the history of scientists who gathered native skulls to prove that native people were less intelligent, and thus less entitled to the land they lived on than the white settlers. To them, these genetic questions of origin look pretty similar.
KEEP READING

Monday, January 26, 2015

Broken: Trauma Bonding? #flipthescript #validvoices





trau·ma   
A serious injury or shock to the body, as from violence or an accident. An emotional wound or shock that creates substantial, lasting damage to the psychological development of a person, often leading to neurosis. An event or situation that causes great distress and disruption. 

 

By Trace Hentz (adoption survivor)

After many years, in many quiet moments, I recognize that adoption has affected me very deeply.   
In my case, the day my mother left me, how she never came back, my world changed.  All I knew as this newborn baby was my own mother was not holding me, nursing me, talking to me. I was devastated by that. Broken. Part of my brain shut down. That pain was too much.

That very early experience needed to be processed as stress and trauma much later as an adult.  No one explained this to me, not even a doctor. As an adult I understand that a church/adoption agency places an infant with new parents and society says this is good and permanent. Good? Good for who?

Years pass and I accept this happened to me and my early trauma scars me.  

This monumental loss of my mother cracks me open and I am left to survive it, or not.  No one explains that I need to grieve this. I figure it out.  After years pass, I finally understand.  This experience affected me in complex ways.  This pain has layers and layers and layers.

But for others to tell me adoption was good for me? What? Or how I need to accept this is "adoption." Accept it? Are they kidding?  My scars are invisible but they are there. I know they are there.

How Catholic Charities took possession of me, handled me, first placing me in an orphanage then foster home, with no regard for my physical health, or my trauma-ridden emotional body, this speaks to the inhumanity of child trafficking and the traumatic consequences of adoption for the infant.  This speaks to the inhumanity of the deadly colonization of Indigenous people whose children were taken from them, calling us stolen generations. This speaks to a society that only sees what it wants to see.
Once adopted, you’re erased, an outsider, a stranger to your own nation, lands and people. I prefer to think of my younger self as brainwashed.

The bonding I had made with those mystery foster parents was also broken. How Catholic Charities and other churches and adoption agencies did this to millions of babies has consequences. This leaves millions of adoptees in the state of trauma, a stranger being raised by strangers, and a stranger to your first family.

Adoption is a cruel and inhumane way to treat an infant. A very sick society would do this.  And removing me from my own mother affected me in ways that are now measured and defined as post-traumatic stress disorder, or reactive attachment disorder, or severe narcissistic injury...and this explains how I was unable to bond with my adoptive parents.

What’s Trauma Bonding? What is Complex PTSD? (traumaanddissociation.wordpress.com) 

 

"When a mother is forced to choose between the child and the culture, there is something abhorrently cruel and unconsidered about that culture. A culture that requires harm to one's soul in order to follow the cultures prescriptions is a very sick culture indeed. This 'culture' can be the one a woman lives in, but more damning yet, it can be the one she carries around and complies with within her own mind....." -- Women Who Run With The Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes 


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The bizarre ESP experiments conducted on aboriginal children without parental consent

January 16 Washington Post

Canada’s residential schools for aboriginal children were places of hunger, isolation and misery. Children as young as 3 were separated from their families and became wards of the state.

In the 1940s, the children were also, as more and more evidence is revealing, the unwitting subjects of bizarre, cruel and unethical experimentation.

A recently uncovered experiment reveals the depths of the access given to so-called researchers seeking to find evidence that aboriginal children, by dint of their race, had extrasensory perception, also known as ESP, or a “sixth sense.”

Fifty children at the Indian Residential School in Brandon, Manitoba, became the subjects of a series of tests that sought to establish a new measure for identifying ESP and also to find evidence of supernatural abilities of “primitive” people.

As was typical for the time, there was no parental consent. But the children, ranging from ages 6 to 20, likely participated “willingly,” as the study claims, eager for candy that might stave off their persistent hunger.

The study was conducted for researchers at what was then known as the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory; the findings were published in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1943.

“The bare fact that American Indians have shown ESP ability is not surprising enough to deserve great emphasis,” the study’s author wrote.

The study was recently uncovered by Maeengan Linklater, an aboriginal community worker, who forwarded it to  Ian Mosby, a researcher at McMaster University.

KEEP READING

The bizarre ESP experiments conducted on aboriginal children without parental consent

January 16 Washington Post

Canada’s residential schools for aboriginal children were places of hunger, isolation and misery. Children as young as 3 were separated from their families and became wards of the state.

In the 1940s, the children were also, as more and more evidence is revealing, the unwitting subjects of bizarre, cruel and unethical experimentation.

A recently uncovered experiment reveals the depths of the access given to so-called researchers seeking to find evidence that aboriginal children, by dint of their race, had extrasensory perception, also known as ESP, or a “sixth sense.”

Fifty children at the Indian Residential School in Brandon, Manitoba, became the subjects of a series of tests that sought to establish a new measure for identifying ESP and also to find evidence of supernatural abilities of “primitive” people.

As was typical for the time, there was no parental consent. But the children, ranging from ages 6 to 20, likely participated “willingly,” as the study claims, eager for candy that might stave off their persistent hunger.

The study was conducted for researchers at what was then known as the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory; the findings were published in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1943.

“The bare fact that American Indians have shown ESP ability is not surprising enough to deserve great emphasis,” the study’s author wrote.

The study was recently uncovered by Maeengan Linklater, an aboriginal community worker, who forwarded it to  Ian Mosby, a researcher at McMaster University.

KEEP READING

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Trauma Change Resilience



Trauma can be incurred in many different ways. This is only now becoming understood. Our culture has trauma and abuse that is often not recognized. There is, of course, too the sort that is obviously heinous and ugly. It can all impact the general well-being of those subjected to it.
As a social worker working with “the seriously mentally ill” for many years, I never came upon someone who didn’t have fairly severe traumas in their histories. Yes, I can say those who I encountered who were in that particular labeled segment had a solid 100% rate of trauma in their histories. Mental illness in large part is a reaction to trauma. It’s quite simple really. When we start listening to people’s stories of pain rather than numbing them out and effectively silencing them with neurotoxic drugs we will start healing them. Until then people will remain broken. One of the most basic needs for a wounded human being to heal is to be seen. Recognized. Validated. Yes.

There is a drive to not only survive but to thrive.
 
A very beautiful and profound talk and message.


Without appropriate care and integration trauma changes both our bodies and minds for many years and sometimes for our entire lives. Right now the mental health system knows virtually nothing about how to care for people who have been traumatized and in fact often traumatizes them further. It’s downright dangerous to subject a traumatized person to most social services. This is a tragedy that has to end.
The woman in the above video is not alone in knowing how to approach those traumatized. We need this sort of empathic and loving care system wide.

See also: Mental illness, addiction & most chronic physical illness is the result of childhood loss & trauma

More posts on trauma, PTSD and recovery.

Recovery stories too, right here — people get better all the time

Friday, January 16, 2015

Indiana OBC rights to access underway

READ HERE
Indiana records for adoptions between 1941 and 1993 are sealed.
State law requires written consent from a birth parent and adoptee to release identifying information, but all adoptions from Jan.1,1994 and on are open, unless a birth parent files a "non-release" form with the state.
If lawmakers approve this idea, it would make Indiana the 14th state to make its sealed adoption records open to adult adoptees.
The idea now heads to the full senate for consideration.

National Council for Adoption ICWA 101 Webinar: January 22


Here.

ICWA 101: Understanding and Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act

An exciting new webinar for Adoption Professionals on Understanding and Implementing ICWA.

National Council For Adoption presents the National Indian Child Welfare Association's Addie Smith in a discussion highlighting key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This presentation will focus specifically on ICWA’s requirements related to private and public adoptions. Tips on effective implementation of the law and best practices when working to protect Native children and families will be covered.
ICWA 101 will be the second edition of NCFA’s Foundations of Adoption, a series designed to provide up-to-date best practice training on the essentials of adoption.
Join us Thursday, January 22nd at 2pm EST for a two hour presentation with time for questions and answers with our esteemed presenter. Registration cost is $35 for NCFA Members and $40 for the Public. $15 for CEU.

About the Presenter

Adrian (Addie) Smith is trained in both law and social work. She has worked in numerous capacities on the front lines with children and families in the mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. As a government affairs associate at the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), Addie works closely with tribes, tribal organizations, and mainstream child advocacy organizations to develop and promote policy that supports the well-being of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families and strengthens tribal child welfare and children’s mental health systems. In this role she also works closely with tribes, states, and the federal government to promote improved Indian Child Welfare Act compliance and implementation. She monitors court decisions that affect American Indian and Alaska Native children and families, provides consultation to attorneys, and, when appropriate, works with partner organizations on litigation strategy and amicus briefs.


Webinar Archive

Webinars in this archive may have been recorded. For more information on a webinar session, contact Erin Bayles at ebayles@adoptioncouncil.org or 703-299-6633.

National Council for Adoption ICWA 101 Webinar: January 22


Here.

ICWA 101: Understanding and Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act

An exciting new webinar for Adoption Professionals on Understanding and Implementing ICWA.

National Council For Adoption presents the National Indian Child Welfare Association's Addie Smith in a discussion highlighting key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This presentation will focus specifically on ICWA’s requirements related to private and public adoptions. Tips on effective implementation of the law and best practices when working to protect Native children and families will be covered.
ICWA 101 will be the second edition of NCFA’s Foundations of Adoption, a series designed to provide up-to-date best practice training on the essentials of adoption.
Join us Thursday, January 22nd at 2pm EST for a two hour presentation with time for questions and answers with our esteemed presenter. Registration cost is $35 for NCFA Members and $40 for the Public. $15 for CEU.

About the Presenter

Adrian (Addie) Smith is trained in both law and social work. She has worked in numerous capacities on the front lines with children and families in the mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. As a government affairs associate at the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA), Addie works closely with tribes, tribal organizations, and mainstream child advocacy organizations to develop and promote policy that supports the well-being of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families and strengthens tribal child welfare and children’s mental health systems. In this role she also works closely with tribes, states, and the federal government to promote improved Indian Child Welfare Act compliance and implementation. She monitors court decisions that affect American Indian and Alaska Native children and families, provides consultation to attorneys, and, when appropriate, works with partner organizations on litigation strategy and amicus briefs.


Webinar Archive

Webinars in this archive may have been recorded. For more information on a webinar session, contact Erin Bayles at ebayles@adoptioncouncil.org or 703-299-6633.

CLICK OLDER POSTS (above) to see more news

CLICK OLDER POSTS  (above) to see more news

BOOKSHOP

Please use BOOKSHOP to buy our titles. We will not be posting links to Amazon.

Featured Post

Does adopting make people high? #WonderDrug

reblog from 2013 By Trace A. DeMeyer  Hentz I’ve been reading blogs by Christian folks who saved an orphan and plan to do it again.   Appar...

Popular Posts

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

OUR HISTORY

OUR HISTORY
BOOK 5: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects