Sport's role in “cultural genocide”

 As Lacrosse Ascends, a Reckoning With Its Past

In Canada, horrid discoveries have forced a humbling conversation about the sport's role in “cultural genocide” against Indigenous peoples.

 Ben Pickman

On June 12, in the second week of the Premier Lacrosse League season, one of the greatest players of the game’s modern era darted around Fifth Third Bank Stadium in Atlanta, just as he has done so often across his seven-year career. Cannons attackman Lyle Thompson fired home four goals, all from a variety of angles, on a PLL-season-high 14 shots—and while, yes, the Whipsnakes threw everything they had at him on defense, Thompson found himself weighed down less that afternoon by the body checks and poke checks than he was by the orange ribbon weaved through the bottom of his long, black braid. And by all that it represented.

Thompson, a member of the Onondaga Nation, took the field in Atlanta grieving 200-plus Indigenous children whose unmarked graves had been discovered a month earlier at the site of what was once the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia. By wearing the ribbon he aimed to channel his sporting spirit toward those who’d gone without a proper burial, and who’d never been acknowledged. And that energy, he says, “played a toll on my body. It played a toll on my mind.”

Kevin D. Liles/Sports Illustrated

Canada’s so-called residential schools first opened in the late 19th century, and as recently as the late 1990s they remained a place where Indigenous youths—more than 150,000 of them, some as young as 3—were taken to be culturally indoctrinated. So far, 139 such institutions have been identified, the majority of them run by the Catholic Church, and there Indigenous children were systematically stripped of their Native culture, language and spirit.

In 2015, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Committee produced a report alleging that children in those schools faced sexual, physical and emotional abuse and violence. They lived in unsanitary, cramped quarters and were often underfed. At least 4,100 students died, the committee estimated—but that number is likely higher given the spotty record keeping of the time. This summer alone, Indigenous nations released reports of some 1,300 unmarked graves found across the country, at Kamloops and at three other sites—and these recent findings have sparked an intense response, as an increased awareness of Canada’s often-exploitive past has forced a reckoning. (The United States is not innocent of such mass mistreatment, having opened 350-plus similar boarding schools, operated with a similar purpose.)

For Thompson, and other allies across the PLL, that reckoning is focused largely on the ways in which their sport was leveraged in what the committee called “cultural genocide.” 

Lacrosse, a game invented some 1,000 years ago by Native peoples, became an assimilative tool used at residential schools—“which is extraordinary,” says Allan Downey, an associate professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and the author of The Creator’s Game, which explores Indigenous identify formation as it relates to the sport. “They [used] an Indigenous element—an Indigenous game that has deep connections to the epistemologies of Indigenous peoples—and they [used] it to assimilate Indigenous youth.”

Throughout the PLL season, to draw awareness to the subject and inspire education, Thompson and other players wore—and the league sold—orange helmet chinstraps, with proceeds going to the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition. Indigenous players emphasize that acknowledging lacrosse’s origins is key to the future of a game that today is widely perceived as white and upper-middle-class. “Our ancestors, they deserve the recognition,” says Zed Williams, who grew up on the Cattaraugus Reservation, just south of Buffalo, and who will lead the Whipsnakes into the PLL championship game against the Chaos this Sunday. “They deserve the voice they never had.”

“Right now,” says Thompson, “our ghosts—our ancestors—aren’t even being learned.”

What’s standing in the way of teaching about residential schools?

St. John’s Indian Residential School in Chapleau, Ont., June 1941. Library and Archives Canada

Ontario’s curriculum now includes the history of residential schools, but the status quo still prevails in Indigenous education.

---

by Paul W. Bennett September 17, 2021

Unearthing the unmarked children’s graves on or near former Canadian Indigenous residential schools could well be the tipping point. Since the June 2021 revelations at Kamloops Indian Residential School, the broader public has finally been engaged and it has injected a sense of urgency into the movement to integrate that shameful legacy into social studies K-12 curricula from province-to-province across Canada.

Newly awakened citizens are now realizing that their education never included curriculum or discussion about residential schools and their horrible legacy. That was definitely true 25 years ago, but less common today because of gradual, incremental changes in provincial social studies curricula. The massive Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) report in 2015 made teaching this history one of its highest-priority calls to action – a move that inspired a wave of First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) curriculum initiatives. Gauging the actual reach and effect of such projects is worthy of much closer scrutiny.

Mandating curriculum change does not necessarily lead to effective, consistent or discernable modifications in teaching practice. Implementation challenges can thwart policy guidelines and directives (as Michael Fullan’s book illustrates) and it’s critical to assess the gaps between the official curricula, the recently commissioned teaching resources, compulsory course offerings and the actual received curricula. The Ontario experience in integrating First Nation, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) perspectives and content into the curriculum is a case in point.

Since the TRC report, provincial and territorial governments have been entrusted with a very specific mandate – to make the history of residential schools, treaties, and historical and contemporary contributions of First Nations, Métis and Inuit a mandatory educational requirement for all kindergarten to Grade 12 students. While it emanated from the TRC, the whole idea of teaching independent, elective FNMI-focused courses and cross-curricular perspectives was hardly new to most people familiar with social studies curricula.

The Ontario Ministry of Education has invested considerable time, energy and resources into the creation and implementation of a native studies high school curriculum from the early 1970s onward. Its initial iteration, the 1975 People of Native Ancestry (PONA) curriculum guide and documents, was largely part of the Indigenous cultural revival that swept Canada after the first wave of closures of the residential schools. That curriculum was also created after the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in collaboration with Indigenous advisers and educators.

The fundamental shortcoming of Ontario’s PONA initiative was that it was entirely focused on creating and implementing a self-standing set of optional social studies courses. It was never a required component of the curricula and it was never mandatory and never integrated with other parts of Canadian history. By the fall of 1999, the provincial curricula had expanded to a suite of 10 individual native studies courses spanning grades 9 to 12. While the initial native studies courses were innovative at the time, they were offered in only 39 Ontario high schools and in significant numbers of actual courses in only four of those schools between 1999 and 2006. Furthermore, proposals to offer several of the courses, in part, in the Indigenous language were essentially shot down by federal authorities in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), which was more committed to advancing English literacy and raising graduation rates.

Faced with growing public demand in Ontario for improved Indigenous education, the Ministry of Education responded in 2006 with a new, broader strategy known as the Ontario First Nation, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) Policy Framework intended to expand native studies content in schools across the province. It proposed the implementation of “quality Native Studies education,” to Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, with the aspirational goal of raising the awareness of all Ontarians of Indigenous perspectives, histories and cultures.

Indigenous residential schools began to pop up in Ontario classroom resources. From 2000 onward, Ontario’s core history textbooks such as The Canadian Challenge started to include short references to the Indigenous residential schools, and that expanded following then-prime minister Stephen Harper’s 2008 formal apology for the abuses that students suffered in Canada’s residential schools.

One of the most widely used textbooks, Creating Canada: A History of Canada – 1914 to the Present, identified the abuses, referenced the 2006 financial compensation package, featured Harper’s apology and gave expression to rising demands for further initiatives addressing unresolved problems affecting Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

How Bill 96 could harm English-speaking Indigenous people

Opinion: It may further embolden those who, regardless of official policies, already won't provide health or police services to Indigenous people in English.

Nakuset  •  Special to Montreal Gazette | Sep 17, 2021 

Nakuset, executive director of the Native Women’s Shelter of Montreal, says that regardless of what the official policies may be, English-speaking Indigenous people are already getting services refused because they can’t speak French, and she says she fears Bill 96 will make things worse. Photo by Pierre Obendrauf /Montreal Gazette

An Indigenous woman is raped.

She summons the courage to report her assault to Montreal police, but they won’t let her recount it in English. Adding to this humiliating experience, she doesn’t understand that the police have to process the crime scene at her apartment.

So when the police show up at her door unannounced, she has to pack up her things and spend the night at a friend’s house, unsure exactly what’s going on. The experience left her shattered.

This happened to someone I know and it’s one example of how access to English services is crucial for Indigenous people living in Quebec. So when I testified about Bill 96 Tuesday at the Quebec Community Groups Network hearings, I expressed my fears that the new language law will have dire consequences for Indigenous people in life-or-death situations.

Apparently, this drew the ire of La Presse columnist Patrick Lagacé.

To Lagacé, who claims I’m fear-mongering, I would simply say this:

As a Cree woman, whose mother is a residential school survivor, and who was subsequently stolen from her family and community during the ’60s scoop, much of my life has been defined by a loss of culture and language.

Subjected to aggressive assimilationist policies, I have seen much damage and suffering to Indigenous people who have moved to urban areas and tried to make a better life. I watch how they fall through the cracks. It was this awareness that led me to seek an education and dedicate my life to improving the situation.

In the early days of residential schools, children had to learn English and were told that their language was evil, the devil’s language. The language was beaten out of them. Upon returning from residential schools, they had difficulty communicating with their parents, as they lost their Indigenous language, further alienating them from their family, community and culture.

While many of the laws that were created to explicitly deny rights to Indigenous people have since been repealed, we still live in a society whose foundation was built on our oppression. The result is that we live with systemic racism and racial profiling. Here in Quebec, few of the 142 Viens Commission recommendations have been implemented and Indigenous youth in care are still denied the right to use their traditional languages.

And so, Indigenous people are struggling. Most were sent to English residential schools and have had difficulty accessing services in the only language they speak. Regardless of what the official policies may be, they are already getting services refused because they can’t speak French. I know this because I run a women’s shelter where Indigenous women routinely report these kinds of incidents to me.

Now imagine what it would be like if you’re homeless, have been assaulted, raped or are otherwise in crisis and Bill 96 further emboldens those who already think they don’t need to bother to speak English to Indigenous people. How will you explain your predicament if you can’t express it in French?

Indigenous people, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, are still afraid of entering hospitals since the death of Joyce Echaquan. As systemic racism is still rampant in institutions, we now have to worry about the way we communicate our emergencies and whether they will be understood. In her documentary Indecently Exposed, diversity educator Jane Elliott says “If you make the situation uncomfortable enough, people will refuse to tolerate it, and they will leave.”

Indigenous people will continue to experience emergency situations, but if the climate of the institutions is oppressive, they will not subject themselves to this treatment. It is far too painful.

In 2008, Brian Sinclair arrived at the Health Sciences Centre ER in Winnipeg. When he passed out in a wheelchair, staff assumed he was drunk, when in fact he had died. I was outspoken when the government announced the COVID-19 curfew and had stated at a protest that someone could die because of the failure to acknowledge the realities of homeless people.

Unfortunately, Raphaël André was collateral damage, and therefore, I spearheaded the establishment of the Raphaël André Memorial tent, in the hope of keeping others safe.

My testimony at the hearings was meant to demonstrate our reality and no, we are not fearful, we are terrified.

Nakuset is executive director of the Native Women’s Shelter of Montreal and the director of development and philanthropy for the day shelter Resilience Montreal.

'Pain, loss and courage': New art exhibit tells the stories of '60s Scoop survivors

David Prisciak CTV News Regina
September 16, 2021 

The Bi-Giwen exhibit is advertised as the “first of its kind” by The Legacy of Hope Foundation. (David Prisciak/CTV News)

REGINA -- A new travelling art exhibit focuses on the stories of 12 ‘60s Scoop survivors and their individual experiences during a dark chapter of Canadian history.

“Bi-Giwen: Coming Home, Truth Telling from the Sixties Scoop” was on display at the Regina Public Library on Wednesday and features artwork created by some of the survivors that reflects their experiences.

“Their pain, loss, and courage are apparent on each canvas,” said Sandra Relling, the Vice President of the Sixties Scoop Indigenous Society of Alberta, whose organization is partnered with The Legacy of Hope Foundation for this project.

The exhibit was created by The Legacy of Hope Foundation, a national, Indigenous charitable organization with a mandate to educate and create awareness on Indigenous issues.

Adam North Peigan is the president of the foundation, and believes that exhibits like this one are fundamental in the effort to combat systemic racism.

“The importance is really creating that awareness,” he said. “We all know that racism, systemic racism is alive and well in Canada. And I think if mainstream Canadians can take a step back and take the opportunity to learn a little bit more about the history of our people that it will impact those unhealthy attitudes that fuel racism towards our people.”

Peigan, a sixties scoop survivor himself, explained the deep meaning behind unveiling the exhibit in a public library.

“Where I went and where a lot of Sixties Scoop survivors went to find some sanctuary and some peace was to the public libraries, he said. “That’s the only place we felt safe.”

Relling explained that the exhibit gives insight to the trauma inflicted on the survivors.

“It gives us a better understanding of the impacts of child removal policies within the child welfare system and the ongoing effects as well as the long term effects that it has on people who have gone through those systems,” she said.

After moving on from Regina after its one day showing at the Regina Public Library the exhibit will continue its tour across Saskatchewan. Visiting North Battleford, Swift Current, Prince Albert, and Saskatoon beginning in October.

You can see testimonies from the 12 survivors featured in the exhibit by visiting The Legacy of Hope’s website at: https://legacyofhope.ca/bigiwen/

Canada knowingly underfunding services for 165,000 First Nations kids and their families for decades

 

Where They Stand: The Parties on Indigenous Child Welfare

It’s been five years since a tribunal ruled that Canada discriminates against First Nations kids. Advocates still await change.

Katie Hyslop 16 Sep 2021 | TheTyee.ca

 

Cindy Blackstock, centre, has fought for equitable funding for First Nations children since 2008. She weighs in on the parties’ plans on child welfare. Photo by Sean Kilpatrick, the Canadian Press.

Cindy Blackstock doesn’t know why Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau lied about taking First Nations kids to court during the leaders’ debate last week. But Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, is “really sad” he did.

Especially when there is over 14 years of evidence — including court transcripts, news articles and 20 non-compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal — to the contrary.

“They have every legal right to litigate against our kids. I think it’s morally wrong — and it’s bad for the country — but they’ve chosen to do it,” said Blackstock of the government’s Federal Court case arguing against a tribunal ruling that First Nations children and families impacted by the child welfare system should be compensated.

“What they don’t have a right to do is then lie about it to protect themselves from accountability for their own behaviour.”

Blackstock would know: along with the Assembly of First Nations, her organization took the federal government to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2008 over its systemic underfunding of child welfre on reserves.

In 2016, the tribunal issued its ruling: the federal government had been knowingly underfunding services for 165,000 First Nations kids and their families for decades. The tribunal ordered the government to stop its discriminatory practices.

More than 50 per cent of children in government care in this country are Indigenous, despite representing fewer than 10 per cent of all children. The majority are First Nations children taken into care for “neglect,” which child welfare researchers say is another word for poverty.

In 2019, the tribunal declared the government must pay $40,000 — the maximum the tribunal can award — to every First Nations child removed from their family since 2006. Their guardians before the children were taken into care are entitled to $20,000.

The tribunal also awarded $40,000 to every First Nations child denied federal medical coverage between 2007 and 2017, citing Jordan’s Principle, a 2007 policy that governments should pay the medical bills of any First Nations child, on or off-reserve.

But two weeks before the 2019 election, government lawyers requested a judicial review of the compensation orders.

Hearings were held in Federal Court in June, less than a month after the Tk’emlúps te Secwe̓pemc Nation announced the rediscovery of 215 bodies on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.

The Federal Court’s ruling is expected at any time.

The government also took issue with the tribunal’s 2020 declaration that all children with Indian Act status; eligibility for status; or parents or guardians who have status, live on-reserve and whose First Nation acknowledges their membership — are covered by Jordan’s Principle.

The federal government argued before the court that only children with status under the Indian Act — a racist Canadian law that determines First Nations’ band membership — should be covered.

The Liberals have tried to respond to Canada’s child welfare crisis. In 2018 they released a six-point plan to reform child welfare, including implementing the tribunal’s ruling and working with Indigenous leaders to re-establish jurisdiction over child welfare.

In January 2020, the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families became law, starting the process to return jurisdiction to Indigenous communities. But it did not come with funding, and a year and a half later the federal government has yet to release a funding plan.

In B.C., a working group on child welfare and family services was established by the provincial and federal governments, the BC Assembly of First Nations, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit.

Assembly Regional Chief Terry Teegee said that three of the 198 First Nations in the province are close to reclaiming their inherent jurisdiction over child welfare, though a federal funding commitment is needed.

“It’s always a work in progress, and I certainly know that a lot of these changes weren’t going to happen overnight,” Teegee said, adding the assembly is also waiting on provincial child-welfare jurisdiction legislation.

“We can’t let up. We need to continue on to allow our First Nations to take their rightful place in asserting their jurisdiction and their ability to express their sovereignty and self-determination in terms of children.”

The Splatsin of the Secwe̓pemc Nation is one of the three nations. It was close to signing a child welfare co-ordination agreement with the federal government before it was scrapped due to the election.

But despite how close they were, Splatsin Kukpi7 (Chief) Wayne Christian said the process has been frustrating, in part because the federal government has approached transferring child welfare jurisdiction like it is creating a new federal program.

“It’s beyond belief that you have a whole number of bureaucrats staffing up to offer this program,” he said.

No matter which party forms government, Christian said, the main stumbling block to re-establishing jurisdiction are the bureaucrats who have worked in the departments dedicated to Indigenous affairs for decades.

“They have a certain culture of how to operate with ‘the Indian problem’ and they’re still acting like Indian agents, except there’s a multitude of them now,” he said.

“It’s the bureaucracy that makes things happen, and they’re very slow to react to what we actually need to happen. They deny, delay and distract, that’s what they do.”

READ MORE

Morongo, 3 other tribes ask U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Indian Child Welfare Act

updated podcast: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/

 NEWS

'There’s a lot at stake here, and it’s important that the general public understands that (ICWA) stands as a beacon in child welfare practices'

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and four other tribes from across the nation have joined the federal government in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a law that gives adoption preference for American Indian children in state foster care to American Indian families.

In a petition filed Sept. 3, the tribes are essentially requesting that the high court leave intact the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law enacted in 1978 amid a trend that saw an “alarmingly high percentage” of American Indian children separated from their families by nontribal public and private agencies.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, who is of American Indian descent, also has petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the law, while the state of Texas, on behalf of Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, have petitioned the high court to repeal the law, claiming it is unconstitutional.

On April 21, the Fifth Circuit released its more than 300-page opinion — a mixed bag that largely upheld the law, but in which some judges agreed that certain provisions of ICWA were unconstitutional and others were constitutional, leaving the outcome less than clear.

Now, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have petitioned the nation’s highest court to review the case.

A Supreme Court response to the tribes’ petition and the petition filed by the plaintiffs is due on Oct. 8, according to the docket.

Ken Ramirez, chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in San Bernardino, said in a statement Friday that, for more than 40 years, the Indian Child Welfare Act has helped reverse the tide of one of the most enduring historical attacks on Native American people: the forcible removal of American Indian children from their homes, tribal cultures, and tribal communities.

“We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will review this case and affirm the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act,” Ramirez said. “Those who seek to remove Native children from their homes and tribal communities should not be emboldened to return to the harmful and tragic practices of the past.”

 KEEP READING

Goldwater and other rich interests have their guns pointed at us... we will fight them with laws and ceremony... Blog Editor TL Hentz

 

Wawa to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation #OrangeShirtDay

from unlearn.com

Wawa, Ontario | September 30th – Orange Shirt Day has been recognized by the Federal Government as the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, a new statutory holiday. The Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action #80 states that the federal government will work with Indigenous people to establish a statutory day to “honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process”. There are 94 Calls to Action.

In Wawa, the Town Hall and all municipal facilities will be closed and staff is encouraged to continue to expand their education as part of their individual reconciliation efforts.

Municipal Council notes that anyone who is interested in developing a better understanding can visit the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s website, or use the Libby App to access digital books by Indigenous authors, such as “21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act” by Robert P.C. Joseph.

Other books that residents may find educating are:

• Clearing the Plains – James Daschuk
• The Inconvenient Indian – Thomas King
• Seven Fallen Feathers: Racism, Death, and Hard Truths in a Northern City – Tanya Talaga

Residents may wish to visit these two websites:

• Orange Shirt Day (www.orangeshirtday.org). Orange Shirt Day originates from the story of Phyllis Webstad from the Stswecem’c Xgat’tem First Nation. In 1973, on her first day at St. Joseph’s Residential School in Williams Lake, BC, Phyllis’s shiny new orange shirt was stripped from her, never to be seen again. 40 years later, on September 30th, 2013, Phyllis spoke publicly for the first time about her experience, and thus began the Orange Shirt Day movement.
  
• National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (https://nctr.ca). From September 27th to October 1st the NCTR will provide historical workshops, exclusive video content, and activities for students — all supported by artistic and cultural performances by First Nations, Métis, and Inuit artists.

A new broadcast special, National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, in partnership with APTN, CBC/Radio-Canada, Insight Productions and Canadian Heritage. In recognition of the new federal statutory holiday, also known as Orange Shirt Day, this unique one-hour, commercial-free primetime special honours the stories and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples affected by the tragedies of the residential school system in Canada, with musical tributes and ceremonies in Indigenous communities across the land. National Day for Truth and Reconciliation will broadcast and stream live Thursday, September 30 at 8 p.m. ET on APTN, CBC, CBC Gem, ICI TÉLÉ and ICI TOU.TV.

Additionally, the Wawa Goose Monument will be illuminated in orange on September 30th, to honour survivors of residential schools, along with their families and communities.

“Council has prioritized relationship building with our Indigenous neighbours,” said Mayor Rody. “We will continue to work with local Indigenous leaders to best determine how we can support their efforts and find opportunities to learn and highlight the First Nation roots of the community. Thank you to municipal staff for having the orange lights illuminating the Wawa Goose in honour and recognition of the residential school survivors and their families on September 30th. This is only a small part of recognition, and we have much more work to do.”

In June, the federal government passed legislation recognizing Sept. 30 as a federal holiday, a paid day off for federal workers and employees in federally regulated workplaces. On Sept. 9, the Ontario government confirmed that the day will not be a holiday for the province.

SOURCE

Bay Mills president's Indian Affairs appointment will transform relationships #ProtectICWA

 | Opinion by Kirsten Matoy Carlson

It was a historic ceremony: U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, the first tribal citizen to hold the position, swearing in Bryan Newland, a citizen of the Bay Mills Indian Community, as Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.

For the first time in American history, tribal citizens lead the U.S. in its government-to-government relationship with American Indian and Alaska Native Nations. 

As assistant secretary, Newland becomes the highest-ranking official in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. One of the oldest federal agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs exists to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and carry out the federal responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, tribal governments and Alaska Natives. 

Newland’s experiences as an attorney for tribal governments, a policy advisor in the Obama Administration, the Chief Judge of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and the President of the Bay Mills Indian Community make him especially qualified to lead the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bay Mills Indian Community is located near the Upper Peninsula's Whitefish Bay, on the shores of Lake Superior. 

Newland is uniquely positioned to advance the Biden Administration’s priorities of upholding the United States’ trust responsibility to tribal nations, strengthening the nation-to-nation relationship between the United States and Indian tribes, and working to empower tribal nations to govern their own communities and make their own decisions.

In leading the BIA, Newland will draw on many of his own experiences as a tribal leader to improve the relationship between tribal governments and the United States. 

Having just finished serving his community as tribal president, Newland knows firsthand the struggles faced by tribal governments in developing sustainable economies, protecting their territories, and serving their communities. He showed tremendous leadership during the pandemic, urging the BIA to provide adequate testing in Indian country and ensuring that tribal governments received funding allocated to them under the CARES Act. 

His advocacy for federal government accountability to Indian country demonstrates his deep understanding of the trust relationship between the United States government and Indian tribes. This understanding will serve him well as he takes on a key role in implementing the trust relationship and assisting tribal governments as they recover from a pandemic, which has disproportionately affected their communities.

Newland’s vision for helping tribal governments stems from his knowledge that tribal communities are best served when they are empowered to craft their own solutions to problems. Like President Biden and Secretary Haaland, he is dedicated to advancing the federal government’s commitment to ensuring tribal consultation on and input into federal policymaking. As a former Tribal President, he brings key insights into what works for tribal leaders in this process as he seeks to improve it.

Newland shares many of the values of other tribal leaders and will prioritize them as Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. Raised in his traditional Anishinaabek homeland along the shores of Lake Superior, he values the restoring and strengthening of tribal homelands so that every Native person has a place to call home. He understands that tribal homelands must be economically viable and has emphasized the need to restore tribal wealth to tribal communities so that they will thrive for generations yet to come. As tribal president, he sought to protect his own tribal homeland by vocally opposing Enbridge’s Line 5.

In addition to his on the ground experiences in Indian country, Newland understands the challenges facing the BIA, which has not always served Indian country well. 

He acknowledges that the agency has contributed to the state of affairs in Indian country and sees undoing colonization as intergenerational work. He has emphasized the importance of children to Native communities and acknowledged the incredible harm done to tribal families, cultures, and communities when their children are removed. 

As assistant secretary, he will support enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which prevents the unnecessary removal of Indian children from their tribal communities.

Newland’s appointment, alongside Haaland's historic appointment, will usher in a transformative new era in federal Indian affairs. As head of the BIA during an administration devoted to tribal sovereignty and racial equity, Newland can start to undo the colonization that has pervaded federal Indian law and policy from within.

Kirsten Matoy Carlson is a professor of law and adjunct associate professor of political science at the Wayne State University Law School, and is a leading authority on federal Indian law and legislation.

SOURCE

TODAY: Native America Calling

Monday, September 20, 2021 – ICWA: Federal protections for children under constant legal pressure

September 20, 2021 By Art Hughes 

Host: Rebecca Nagle

The Indian Child Welfare Act has been upheld in dozens of court decisions as a vital federal protection for Native adoptees and foster children. That string of wins ended when a Texas district court judge ruled the more than 40-year-old law unconstitutional. A subsequent federal appeals court agreed that at least parts of ICWA are unconstitutional.  Long considered by legal experts as the gold standard of adoption law, ICWA faces its most significant legal challenge. We’ll examine how we got here and who is behind the legal efforts to dismantle ICWA.

Guests:

Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians) - law professor at Michigan State University’s college of law and author of the “Turtle Talk” blog

Sandy Whitehawk (Sicangu Lakota) – Elder in Residence at the ICWA Law Center

Shana King (citizen of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation) – parent advocate at the ICWA Law Center

CLICK TO LISTEN

Break 1 music: Tapwe Oma (song) Fawn Wood (artist) Iskwewak (album)

Break 2 music: Dat One (song) The Delbert Anderson Trio (artist) MANITOU (album)

 

‘This Land’ podcast unravels complexity of child welfare in Indian Country in its second season

Sixteen judges on the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a split decision in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The lawsuit charges that the law is racially based and unconstitutional because it is biased against non-Native families seeking to adopt. The 8-8 split decision largely means that portions of the ruling would apply only to cases in the Fifth Circuit district, which includes Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, and would not directly affect ICWA cases in Alaska. (Creative Commons photo by David Schexnaydre/via Flickr)

 

By Tripp Crouse • KNBA NEWS

The award-winning podcast “This Land” returns for a second season. This one examines the legal attacks on a 40-plus-year old federal law meant to protect Native children in the U.S. 

The first season of “This Land” examined two legal cases that became incredibly important to criminal jurisdiction and recognizing Tribal land. Cherokee journalist Rebecca Nagle is the host.  LINK

Rebecca Nagle (courtesy photo)

“The podcast is about cases that are important to federal Indian law and Indigenous sovereignty that I felt like needed to be covered more.” 

Two cases pitted state jurisdiction over Tribal jurisdiction in Oklahoma, where the Creek people were forced to relocate from the Southeast during the Trails of Tears in the 1800s. They signed another treaty with the federal government in 1856.  

Oklahoma never really recognized the Mvskoke (Muscogee) Nation reservation. 

“Oklahoma's main argument was, ‘we haven't recognized these reservations in over a century. And so you can't possibly ask us to recognize them.’ Now, there was no real legal argument behind that. It was just this kind of thing of, well, eastern Oklahoma can't possibly be a reservation.”

Eventually, those cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decisions re-affirmed the Mvskoke still had a reservation in eastern Oklahoma -- and in turn, jurisdiction over its lands and Tribal sovereignty. It also reaffirmed the Tribal land of four other Tribes in the area: The Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw and the Seminoles.

But it’s still a huge legal mess. Oklahoma continues to challenge the Supreme Court decision. 

Nagle pivoted from that story to another legal battle that’s been brewing over the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA. That’s a federal law passed in 1978 intended to prevent the removal of Native children from their families and communities.

Before ICWA, the federal government was adopting Native children out of their communities to white families. 

“The federal government under the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) had this program called the Indian Adoption Project, where it was literally trying to take Native kids and put them up for adoption, for them to be adopted by white families,” Nagle said. “There was just deep racial bias within (the) child welfare system. So social workers were seeing Native kids being raised by an aunt or being raised by a grandma. But because they weren't being raised by the biological parent, that was child abandonment.” 

The Association on American Indian Affairs published a report that said between 1941 and 1967 as many as one-third of Native children were separated from their families. 

“And so it was a crisis -- about a third of Native kids were gone,” Nagle said. “You talk to Elders and people from that time and they'll talk about how there were communities, Native communities, where there just weren't kids.” 

The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978. 

“It was really created under this time where white homes were seen as being inherently better than Native homes. And it's this remedial measure to stop that racism in the system.”

ICWA requires that when child welfare workers consider the adoption of Native children -- they must first consider the family, the Tribe or Tribes, or at the very least another Native home. 

The law applies to Native children who are enrolled members of their Tribe or Tribes -- or are eligible for enrollment.

A years-long challenge to ICWA began brewing when a Texas couple, the Brackeens, fostering a Native toddler, were told they couldn’t adopt the child. 

“The child welfare department there in Texas and also the child welfare departments of Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, were looking for a permanent home for the child,” Nagle said. “Navajo Nation found a Navajo home, and because of ICWA, that's where the child was going to go. But then the Brackeens sued. And the way that they tell it is that ICWA was threatening to tear their family apart and that they were told they couldn't raise this child because he was Native and they were not. And so it was unfair to them and it was also unfair to the child, and that's unconstitutional.”

The Brackeens took their case to state court and then to federal court, until a split en banc decision in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals -- ruled that in this case ICWA was constitutional in parts, but it wasn’t in others. 

But that decision really only affects court cases in the 5th Circuit -- which covers the federal judicial district in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

“I think that the actual story of the custody cases show why there's still a deep bias in the system against our families -- against Native families and especially Native families who are struggling with poverty or homelessness or other issues,” Nagle said. “The system really doesn't view those families, at least in these cases, as favorably as white families and as families that have more money.” 

Nagle says podcast producers interviewed one grandmother, who helped raise a grandchild before she went into foster care.

The grandmother fought for three years to be considered as a placement for the grandchild -- and then she had to fight the non-Native foster family before she was finally able to adopt the grandchild.

"She had spent six years total fighting first the system and then this foster family to be able to adopt her grandchild," Nagle said. "If that bias hadn't been in the system, she wouldn't have had to go through all that, but also her grandchild wouldn't have had to go through all of that. 

Nagle said a lot of work went into producing this second season of the podcast. 

“I would say making podcasts is hard and I like to think that I'm learning and getting better at it,” Nagle said. “This season it was a story that we really had to uncover. And so we had to do a ton of legwork, one to just get our hands on the details of these custody cases and then two to really find out like what is going on behind this attack on ICWA.” 

Nagle says that the team sent 60 Freedom of Information Act requests during the reporting process.  But it has made a difference in the reporting and thoroughness -- in comparison with some mainstream media outlets like The New York Times, The Atlantic or NPR.

“I can look at those articles, especially the Atlantic article, and find factual inaccuracies and also just sort of and we also found factual inaccuracies within federal court documents and things that have been filed, a story that's been told to federal court,” Nagle said. “And so it became really, really, really important for us to get to the truth and to get to a well documented truth. And that that was a lot of legwork.”

Nagle says within the ICWA cases are broader implications -- like Tribal sovereignty and the rights of Tribes. 

“We need to think about the safety and well-being of our children. We also need to think about the legal status of Tribes that this case is attacking the heart of it,” Nagle said. “If you are worried about that, if you care about Indigenous rights in this country, this is a case to be paying attention to.”

Episodes of “This Land” season 2 drop every Monday through October 4. 

Province acknowledges Day for Truth and Reconciliation (September 30) #OrangeShirtDay

James Snell | Sep 03, 2021  • Join the conversation

Krystyne Hastings ties an orange ribbon to a post at a memorial to the 215 children killed at a residential school in Kamloops, B.C., at the Oodena Circle at the Forks in Winnipeg, on Sunday, May 30, 2021. Photo by KEVIN KING /Winnipeg Sun

The province (Manitoba) has decided to acknowledge and observe the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (NDTR) on Sept. 30.

Observance of the holiday, which will see Manitoba public schools closed and non-essential public servants off work, will advance reconciliation, and allow residents time to reflect on the residential school experiences of First Nations, Métis and Inuit, Alan Lagimodiere, Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Relations Minister announced Friday.

“We all have a role to play in reconciliation,” he said in a statement. “We can all listen, learn, and support the healing needed to address the intergenerational trauma caused by the residential school system. Reflecting on our tragic history by recognizing the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation provides an opportunity for Manitobans to learn about the ongoing legacy of residential schools.”

The NDTR was instituted as a federal statutory holiday in June by the federal government in recognition of Indigenous families and communities harmed by Canada’s residential schools, which existed up to 1996.

“Thanks to the hard work of survivors, who pushed for the recognition of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation as a provincial holiday, Manitobans can have the chance to learn, grow, and move toward reconciliation,” provincial NDP leader Wab Kinew said in a statement on Friday. “In 2017, I introduced a bill to recognize this day in Manitoba, which was one step, and our NDP team has been honoured to work alongside survivors and communities who pushed the PCs to take this latest step.”

Katherine Legrange, director of 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada, said the provincial recognition is a good first step. She said real reconciliation can only come with the truth.

“We encourage all Manitobans to take this day to learn the truth behind the terrible IRS (Indian Residential Schools), Day Schools, and Sixties Scoop policies of the federal and provincial governments that continue to affect our families today,” she said in a statement. “We encourage the minister to engage with survivors with lived experience in amending Wab Kinew’s 2017 Bill for Orange Shirt Day to acknowledge this day as a general holiday in Manitoba, and support our healing, going forward.”

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said on Friday his organization appreciates the province’s decision.

“There are some provinces that will not be observing the national holiday,” he said. “We all look forward to September 30 and paying our respect to the former IRS students and helping this government to move forward on the path to reconciliation with First Nations in Manitoba.”

Sept. 30 will also see flags on all provincial government buildings lowered to half-mast in observance of National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Nova Scotia also said Friday that it will recognize the day. British Columbia and the Northwest Territories have already indicated they will observe the day.

Utah reconciling history with Indian Residential Schools

 

A single building stands on the grounds that once contained an Indigenous boarding school, Aug. 26, 2021, in Panguitch, Utah. There are six known boarding schools within Utah, with the largest one located near Brigham City. The school in Panguitch primarily housed Utah Paiutes and Kaibab Paiutes Native Americans and this school operated from 1904 to 1909. (Chris Caldwell/The Spectrum via AP)

(excerpt)

The Indian Student Placement Program was sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was run from 1947 to 2000. This program started in 1947 but didn’t get sponsored by the church until 1954, according to the church. The program had missionaries approach Native American families and offer to have their children move in with an LDS foster family during the school year and return for the summer.

A 1976 document from the church identifies the objective of the Indian Student Placement Program as “to provide Lamanite children with educational, spiritual, social, and cultural opportunities that would contribute to their leadership development.”

Lamanite is a term from the Book of Mormon which refers to a group of people that settled in the Americas from Israel but turned their back on the Gospel and were cursed with dark skin. The church believed it had a mandate to help the Lamanites and convert them.

The president of the LDS Church at the time that document was released was Spencer W. Kimball, a staunch advocate for LDS outreach to Native Americans who described this program as an “inspiration from the Lord.”

In total, the Indian Student Placement Program placed 50,000 Native American children in homes that were in good standing within the LDS church, as reported by the Atlantic. These kids had to be baptized before entering the program with some instances of the children having wet hair from their baptism when they were introduced to their host family.

In 2018, the LDS church settled a lawsuit with members of the Navajo Nation that alleged they were sexually abused while in this program. The terms of the settlement were confidential and included no admission of wrongdoing by the church.

This was just one of many Native American assimilation efforts that were taken in the 20th century. In total there were over 489 residential schools in the U.S. and Canada, with the last residential school on the continent being shut down in 1996, according to the Union of Ontario Indians.

Assimilation programs in the 20th century didn’t just target Native American children. Another main policy was called “termination” which was a policy meant to terminate federal recognition and supervision of Native American Tribes and take more of their land.

The U.S. enacted termination policies in 1953, removing Indigenous people from their land. The land was sold and the people were relocated into urban areas and were promised good jobs. However, when Native Americans were relocated to cities the work was often less than rewarding, many felt out of place, and the housing offered was often sub-par.

Termination policy was led by Utah Sen. Arthur Watkins, who sold this policy was a way to stop Native Americans from being “wards of the government.” In a 1957 article written by Watkins, he argued that termination policies should be enacted by the government “as rapidly as possible.”

In total, termination policies enacted across the country took somewhere between 1.3 million to 2.5 million acres of land from Native Americans and more than 12,000 people lost tribal affiliation.

This termination policy worked poorly, with around 50% of relocated Native Americans deciding to return to reservations. These policies were phased out during the ’60s and during the Civil Rights Movement. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Indian Civil Rights Act which called for the end of termination and instead allows tribes to self-determine their futures.

KEEP READING

Native American Pastor Seeks White House Apology for Historic Abuses

Cecily Hilleary |  September 06, 2021 VOICE OF AMERICA

FILE - Children pose in an unidentified Indian boarding school in Minnesota, ca. 1900.

WASHINGTON - Almost every important piece of U.S. legislation contains at least one completely unrelated provision, embedded either as a favor to lawmakers or because it couldn’t pass as a standalone law. 

As it was with the 2010 defense appropriations act, H.R. 3326 (now, Public Law 111-118), which contained America’s first apology to Native Americans for historic policies of assimilation and forced removal. 

The bill, which passed in the Senate on December 19, 2009, and was signed by then-President Barack Obama the same day, recognizes the legal and political relationship between the U.S. and tribes, acknowledges “years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants,” and apologizes for violence, maltreatment and neglect.

A U.S. apology for historic wrongs against Native Americans was embedded deep within a defense spending bill passed December 19, 2009.

“The apology covered pretty much what it needed to cover,” said Dr. Negiel Bigpond, a fourth-generation Christian pastor and member of the Euchee (Yuchi) tribe, which was forced into absorption by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in the late 19th century. For years, he worked with then-Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas to get a joint resolution of apology through Congress. 

KEEP READING (with videos)

 

**

Related Stories

USA

Not Alone

Hundreds of Native American children succumbed to disease, neglect in boarding school era.

By Cecily Hilleary

USA

Indian Boarding Schools: One Woman's Tragic, Triumphant Story

"When I did have children, I didn't know how to raise them."

 

Archive

Native Americans File Lawsuit Against Boarding School Abuses - 2003-08-10

For more than a century, from the late 1870s to the early 1970s, the U.S. government forcibly took thousands of Native American children from reservations and sent them to federal or religious boarding schools. At that time, supporters of the policy said these institutions would help Indians assimilate into mainstream American society, while later critics charged that the schools tried to eradicate the Indian culture by suppressing traditional languages and customs.