The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

Unfamiliar with extended family child-rearing practices and communal values, government social service workers attempted to ‘rescue’ children from their Aboriginal families and communities, devastating children’s lives and furthering the destitution of many families. Culture and ethnicity were not taken into consideration as it was assumed that the child, being pliable, would take on the heritage and culture of the foster/adoptive parents (Armitage, 1995). The forced removal of children and youth from their Native communities has been linked with social problems such as “high suicide rate, sexual exploitation, substance use and abuse, poverty, low educational achievement and chronic unemployment” (Lavell-Harvard and Lavell, 2006, p.144). Newly designated funds from the federal to the provincial governments were “the primary catalysts for state involvement in the well-being of Aboriginal children…as Ottawa guaranteed payment for each child apprehended” (Lavell-Harvard and Lavell, 2006, p.145). Exporting Aboriginal children to the United States was common practice. Private American adoption agencies paid Canadian child welfare services $5,000 to $10,000 per child (LavellHarvard and Lavell, 2006). These agencies rarely went beyond confirming the applicant’s ability to pay, resulting in minimal screening and monitoring of foster or adoptive parents (Fournier and

The United States Federal government has a responsibility to provide services to American Indians and Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons. However, a long-standing history of underfunding of the Indian Health Service (IHS) has led to significant challenges in providing services. In contrast, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) has affected the way health services are provided. The IHCIA was reauthorized as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and several provisions in ACA has allow for potential improvements in access to services for the Native American population. However, it becomes problematic to articulate formal corporate-wide policies and procedures for Native Americans and health care. Understanding and managing

The Bureau of Indian Affairs programs serve communities that face great challenges. On Indian reservations, poverty is still commonplace; violence is higher than the national average; and rates of infant mortality, alcoholism, and substance abuse are far in excess of the rest of America. Over the last few decades, great concern has been taken to building an effective relationship between the federal government and Native communities. The federal government has also taken grave care in finding solutions to the challenges facing Indian Territory. In 2015, it was established that there would be focus placed on promoting economic development, providing greater access to healthcare opportunities, improving tribal justice systems, improving educational opportunities, and protecting Native lands and natural resources.

From its birth, America was a place of inequality and privilege. Since Columbus 's arrival and up until present day, Native American tribes have been victim of white men 's persecution and tyranny. This was first expressed in the 1800’s, when Native Americans were driven off their land and forced to embark on the Trail of Tears, and again during the Western American- Indian War where white Americans massacred millions of Native Americans in hatred. Today, much of the Indian Territory that was once a refuge for Native Americans has since been taken over by white men, and the major tribes that once called these reservations home are all but gone. These events show the discrimination and oppression the Native Americans faced. They were, and continue to be, pushed onto reservations,

The American Indian Policy Review Commission's report on the health of Native Americans said it best when they stated,"the federal responsibility to provide health services to Indians has its roots in the unique moral, historical, and treaty obligations of the federal government, no court has ever ruled on the precise nature of that legal basis nor defined the specific legal rights for Indians created by those obligations" (DeFine 1997 p.4). Thus, the Indian Health Service has always worked in strange and ambiguous ways.

By 1940, Native Americans had experienced many changes and counter-changes in their legal status in the United States. Over the course of the nineteenth century, most tribes lost part or all of their ancestral lands and were forced to live on reservations. Following the American Civil War, the federal government abrogated most of the tribes’ remaining sovereignty and required communal lands to be allotted to individuals. The twentieth century also saw great changes for Native Americans, such as the Citizenship Act and the Indian New Deal. Alison R. Bernstein examines how the Second World War affected the status and lives of Native Americans in American Indians and World War II: Toward a New Era in Indian Affairs. Bernstein argues

Our nation’s history has been deep rooted in the conflict involving Native Americans, ever since the beginning of America and it is one hard to get rid of even as the days go by. The impact of colonialism can be seen in Native American communities even today, and it can only be understood through a cultural perspective once you experience it. Aaron Huey, who is a photographer, went to Pine Ridge reservation and it led him to document the poverty and issues that the Sioux Indians go through as a result of the United States government’s long term actions and policies against them. One must question all sources regarding these topics because there is a lot of biased and misinformation about Native American struggles, and sometimes schools do not thoroughly teach the truth so students can get an insight. There are also different sociological perspectives in this conflict, along with many differing opinions on how to approach the problem and deal with it. This is where ideas clash because people believe their views are right regarding how to handle it.

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

Ever since Christopher Columbus first arrived in the Americas, Native Americans have been given no respect or equal rights. They were the first to live in the U.S., but have been forcefully and often brutally put into small reservations outside of normal civilization. Many Americans might not think of this as a big deal since this affects only a minimal part of the population. Little do many people know, in 2010 there were 5.2 million people in the United States who identified themselves as American Indian. (1) Twenty-two percent of whom, live on the government bounded reservations. While, most Native Americans that don’t live on the reservation are located very close by (1). The fact that they are subjected to such small plots of lands on its own is cruel, but now the government is digging up their sacred lands and farms to build a pipeline.

There was a court case, Baby Girl v. Adoptive Couple, in which a child who was partially Cherokee Indian, because of her father, and Hispanic, because of her mother. The adoption of Baby Girl was a difficult one due to the fact that she has an ancestry of Cherokee Indian. Therefore, under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the adoption of Baby Girl seemed impossible because Biological Father had the right to have custody of his child, Baby Girl, if he chose to. So, the court greatly sees that by giving Baby Girl back to Biological Father would be in the child’s best interest under the ICWA, because there is the assumption that if she is with her Biological Father and her culture, she will not suffer any type of emotional distress. For

Native Americans have been neglected, abused, and tormented since the 1700’s when their land was abruptly invaded by Europeans. Europeans declared this “unknown” territory to be their property from then forward and did anything and everything to make sure this would happen. This included forced assimilation, where Natives were stripped of their cultural traditions and forced to assimilate to an english speaking, westernized culture (McLeigh, 2010). This included taking children from their families and sending them to boarding school to learn a new language, new cultural traditions, and new religious practices. Starting in 1860 and lasting until 1970, children were taken from their families at a young age and often lost touch with their family

Native Americans have felt distress from societal and governmental interactions for hundreds of years. American Indian protests against these pressures date back to the colonial period. Broken treaties, removal policies, acculturation, and assimilation have scarred the indigenous societies of the United States. These policies and the continued oppression of the native communities produced an atmosphere of heightened tension. Governmental pressure for assimilation and their apparent aim to destroy cultures, communities, and identities through policies gave the native people a reason to fight. The unanticipated consequence was the subsequent creation of a pan-American Indian identity

American Indians and Alaskan Natives have a relationship with the federal government that is unique due to the “trust relationship” between the US and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) who are entitled to health care services provided by the US government by virtue of their membership in sovereign Indian nations. In order to contextualize the complex nature of Indian health programs it is necessary to become versed in the political and legal status of Indian tribes. Through numerous constitutional, legislative, judicial, executive rulings, and orders that were largely associated with the succession of land and subsequent treaty rights; the health care of AI/ANs has been one of many responsibilities guaranteed by the federal government. The foundations of which can be traced back to the year 1787. The ceded land has been interpreted in courts to mean that healthcare and services were in a sense prepaid by AI/AN tribes and 400 million acres of land. The misconception of “free healthcare” and a conservative political disdain from so called entitlement programs have also led to misconceptions regarding the federal government’s responsibility to provide health care and services to AI/ANs. Rhoades (2000) has argued that tribal sovereignty is the overarching principle guiding Indian health care on a daily basis.1 This paper will examine the history surrounding federally mandated healthcare to AI/ANs, pertinent issues of sovereignty, as well as case studies in tribal

Identity in Native America is directly associated with culture and language. As a result, some of the issues today which are important in shaping the identity of modern Native Americans include: representations of native people by the media in sports and popular culture; how indigenous languages are being revitalized and maintained; and identity reclamation. The Native American lifestyle has changed significantly during the last half of the 20th century and that is because views on the Native people have drastically changed over time. They have had many hardships that have greatly impacted their culture over the past few centuries leading up to today.

According to the Indian Act (1876), we determined someone’s status by one’s parentage of blood quantum to know how much Indian were they? A First Nations woman, who married with white man, lost her entitlements as Indian, so did her children. However, regardless of race or ethnicity, if another raced woman married a First Nations man, she gained “status” under the terms of the Indian Act. I feel that was completely unfair, and obviously discriminatory, that horrific situation continued until 1985.