Poverty on Reservations

(This information was found at the Abbe Museum website in Bar Harbor, Maine. This story happened across New England. President Obama and family recently vacationed at Bar Harbor. Hope Obama went to the Abbe.)

When Maine separated from Massachusetts and became a state in 1821, it took over Massachusetts’s treaty obligations and responsibility for the Indian communities. The state of Maine controlled the tribes’s money and resources—they held them in “trust.” “Indian agents” were assigned by the state to oversee the Native communities and to manage tribal money. The State of Maine did not allow Native people to manage their own money and resources. For instance, whenever money needed to be spent on the reservation the Indian Agent had to approve the project and give permission for their money to be spent.

Each week, the Indian agent gave each family a stipend to buy food, clothing, firewood and other necessities. This money belonged to the Native people, not to the State or to the Indian agent, but they were not allowed to have control over it! Many times the money given for a family’s necessities was far less than the necessities cost. For instance, in 1910, a cord of wood cost between $4 and $9, but only $3 was given to widows for their winter supply of wood.

Over the next 150 years, the State of Maine illegally and without permission from the tribes sold off, leased and transferred thousands of acres of Native land. The State also illegally authorized the harvesting and sale of Native timber and hay—and sold the timber and firewood back to the Native communities. In some cases, the State added money to the trust funds for the illegal sale of land and resources. In other cases, no payments were made. Interest on the deposits to these funds was supposed to be paid at six percent per year. From 1859 until 1969 no interest was ever paid to the tribes. Instead, it went to the Indian agents.

Without control over their own money and tribal resources, Native people suffered. Reservations were places of extreme poverty. Native language was outlawed through an act of the State Legislature. Sicknesses such as tuberculosis, measles and whooping cough swept through the communities. Native people were forced to learn farming and raise crops. Native children attended convent schools run by nuns and taught in English. In most cases, the only buildings recommended by the Indian agents for repair were the churches, schoolhouses and homes for nuns and priests. Indian agents remained in control of tribal resources and money until the mid-1970s.

Photo: Whalebone point at the Abbe Museum

Visit the ABBE MUSEUM, PO Box 286, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609 (where President Obama and family had a mini-vacation recently)

Racial Misclassification of American Indians & Suicide

"Race is important to identity and when your race is not recognized by others it is stressful." I found this study important since people are often judged by how one looks. That includes some long-held ideas of what American Indians should look like; then I thought about adoptees who are Native American by blood but have no connection to family and tribal culture. It's known adoptees do commit suicide at higher rates, obviously stress-related. Understanding how we fit into this world of humans, then how we can reconnect to culture has become my mission - Trace

Mistaken Racial Identification Causes Emotional Strain in American Indians

[Oct 3, 2007] Iowa City, IA — Research from the University of Iowa suggest that people who are routinely misidentified as members of a racial group to which they do not belong experience high levels of emotional distress and are more likely to contemplate or attempt suicide. "The Implications of Racial Misclassification by Observers," by sociologists Lisa Troyer and Mary Campbell, appeared in the October 2007 issue of the American Sociological Review.

     Troyer and Campbell analyzed data collected between 1994 and 2002 for the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which included both the self-reported racial identification of Native American young adults in the study and the racial identity assigned by an observer.

     They found that more than a third of the American Indian youth were mis-labeled by an observer as members of another racial group.

     Among the American Indians in the study who were misidentified, 13 percent reported thinking about suicide, compared to only 6 percent of those who were identified correctly. Three percent of the misidentified young people had attempted suicide, while 1 percent who were identified correctly had done so. The misidentified young people were also more likely to be seeing a counselor or therapist (8 percent to 5 percent). They also found that mis-classified American Indians were more likely to participate in organizations that emphasize racial and ethnic identity, perhaps creating connections that help deal with the stress.

     "Previous studies of multi-racial Americans have given us anecdotal evidence that constantly having to explain your racial background is stressful for people," Campbell said. "People say, 'I'm constantly being asked what I am, and I don't fit any of the boxes.' They talk about it as if it is stressful, but until now we didn't have data to support these observations."

     This study is the first to document empirical evidence of the stress associated with not being recognized as a member of the racial group with which one identifies.

     "According to the Centers for Disease Control, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young American Indians, age 25-34 years, and the third leading cause of death among young American Indians age 10-24 years," Troyer said. "Standard explanations of suicide do not fully explain the racial gap. Our study offers a new window to understanding this disturbing disparity.

     "Adolescence is a critical time in human development, a time when identity becomes crystallized," she continued. "Race is important to identity and when your race is not recognized by others it is stressful."

     While the current study is focused on American Indians, Campbell and Troyer note that the increasing multiracial diversity in the United States makes the study potentially applicable to other populations.

Intercountry Adoptees: Heard any Arizona Travel warnings?

"Protesters held signs at a rally at the Arizona Capitol prior to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signing a tough immigration bill – S.B. 1070 – into law on April 23, in Phoenix. The sweeping measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally, and would require local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally." (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

My adoptive family had lots of immigrants. My one grandma actually remembered when her Belgian ship entered the New York harbor; the very young Romaine didn’t speak English so the immigration officers wrote her name down as Rose. That always bothered her.


If Arizona’s new immigration bill [H.B. 1070] plans to stop people who don’t look American, we ought to post travel warnings for intercountry adoptees headed to Arizona. These adoptees will need something more than their fake birth certificate. You read that right. Adoptees are always given falsified birth certificates. Adoptees are told they are real when really, they are not. This obviously bothers me.

Why? One in 6 adopted children is a different race than their adopters. The “Rainbow Family” from anywhere, including Massachusetts, could now get nabbed at the Grand Canyon. Arizona’s “Identity Cops” could pull over any decidedly-white couple to ask: “Where did you get those brown kids in the backseat?”

It’ll be tough for Arizona cops to determine who is really American with 200,000 adoptees foreign-born in 2002. Sure enough, Americans adopted 47,555 kids from Korea; 21,053 kids from China; 19,631 kids from Russia; 18,000 kids from Mexico; and 7,793 kids from India.

These days 95% of all intercountry adoptions are done by Americans. “Intercountry” simply means adoptees are not American-born. The 2002 adoptee list also includes: Guatemala, 2,219; Vietnam, 766; Colombia, 334; Cambodia, 254; Philippines, 221; Haiti, 197; Thailand, 67; and Peru, 65. [Even more numbers were reported in National Review Online, by William L. Pierce, Oct. 24, 2002.]

Will adoptive parents have to prove their kids are legal? Yes. If intercountry adoptees are caught without “believable” legal papers, they could be sent back to their country of origin when Arizona catches them. It’s not like these 8-year-olds had any choice where they were adopted. They didn’t even know they were immigrating to America when they were babies. New federal laws gives these kids full American citizenship but they still have fake birth certificates.

Could an adult adoptee get deported because of a fake birth certificate? Yes. It’s already happened. One adult adoptee in Illinois found out her adopters forgot to apply for her to be an American citizen. This adoptee is fighting extradition right now.

Thankfully I was born in Minnesota but my birth certificate is still an obvious fake. That alone could send up red flags.

I hear there are lots of snowbirds in Arizona. My godparents Pete and Colleen are snowbirds who winter in Scottsdale but summer at their Wisconsin cabin. Retirees who bounce state to state are obviously not the targets of this new immigration law, unless they are brown snowbirds.

So who are these brilliant lawmakers in Arizona? Was Senator John McCain born in Arizona? There’s bound to be a few intercountry adoptees in Arizona. That’s right - John McCain adopted a dark-skinned daughter from some impoverished place. So when did John’s immigrant parents settle in American or Arizona? Which tribe did his forebears displace so he could become a landowner then a politician? Do the people of Arizona even know their own history?

My friend Sara is Dine (Navajo) and she lives on her reservation (rez) with her husband John, a Narragansett from Rhode Island. They often go “off rez” for dinner in Flagstaff. Could they get stopped? Sure. Indians say it happens all the time. “DWI really means Driving While Indian.”

So who really is American?

“White settlers, from the time of their arrival, removed Indians from historic territories,” Daniel C. Maguire writes in AMERICAN INDIANS AS A DISEMPOWERED GROUP. “Indians were an obstacle to Manifest Destiny, so the official policy became removal. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the President to negotiate “treaties,” and when Indians refused to negotiate, the army effected their removal.”

“Manifest Destiny could not be stopped by a river, even lands in the West were engulfed,” Maguire writes. “By 1887, the entire Indian land base west of the Mississippi shrunk to under 140 million acres. By 1934, their land shrunk to 48 million acres, and almost half was unusable.”

Maguire contends, “The Indian problem was different from that of any other group because of the strong Indian desire to keep separate from white society, to hold onto their land base, and maintain self-rule.”

So Arizona is ready to deport Arizona immigrants? This should be called the Brown-Skin Removal Act. Weren’t the settlers who invaded Arizona and forced Indians onto reservations really the immigrants?

If Arizona Identity Cops target skin color, will Indians have to show a tribal identification card? It should be the other way around – the Navajo, Pima, Apache and Hopi in Arizona should require every non-Indian to show their family tree and know exactly when their grandparents immigrated to America – then Arizona – and be able to say when they made a land claim – then prove it wasn’t stolen land.

It’s time for the Navajo, Pima, Apache, and Hopi to decide who stays AND who leaves Arizona.


[Photo source: //newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2010/05/natives-protest-arizona-immigration-law.html]

One Small Sacrifice book review by John C. Hopkins (2010)

By John Christian Hopkins
Tuba City, Arizona (NFIC) May 2010

     The Beatles sang of a long and winding road, but they never set foot on the long, treacherous path of a Native American adoptee that is strewn with potholes, deadends and disappointment.
     Award-winning Native journalist Trace A. DeMeyer (Hentz) shares the heartfelt journey of loss, loneliness and finding love in her powerful, new memoir “One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects,” an exposé on generations of American Indian children adopted by non-Indian families.
     One reader told DeMeyer it was like being “punched in the gut.”
     Pulling no punches, DeMeyer, who now lives in Greenfield, Mass., with her husband, Herb, rips away the illusion that adoption ends happily ever after as soon as the documents are signed and finalized.
     She delves into the dark world of doubts – “Why didn’t my mom want me?” – and the fear that asking too many questions would cause her adoptive parents to throw her away all over again.
     She suffered years of abuse – emotionally, sexually and physically – as pain became her constant companion and a pretend happy smile her childhood defense against the torrent of doubts in her life.
     DeMeyer has spent years meeting and talking with other “Split Feathers,” Native American children taken from their homes and placed in non-Indian families; she discovered that her experiences weren’t new or unique, that many other adoptees, just like her, had unanswered questions, mountains of sadness and, often, shattered lives.
     Conquering that tumultuous beginning felt like the easy part as DeMeyer attempted to find her birth family. Her first obstacle was that her adoption was “closed,” meaning sealed and she had no legal right to view her own file!
     A sympathetic judge in her Wisconsin hometown allowed DeMeyer to look at her file when she was 22; she found tantalizing clues about her birth family, and even more questions to haunt her as sought to come full circle and discover who she really was.
     “I read this powerful book cover to cover, Trace tells her story with such compassion and truthfulness;” Alutiiq-Cherokee adoptee and author Anecia O’Carroll wrote. “Her memories, feelings and facts are written with such unflinching truth, in my mind and heart she is a warrior and a hero.”
     Known for her exceptional print interviews with famous Native Americans, DeMeyer started research on adoptees in 2004, which led to this fact-filled, 227-page biography that includes congressional testimony, evidence of Indian Adoption Projects and how the Indian Child Welfare Act came to exist.
     Available as a download (e-book, $3.00) or in book form ($15.95) at: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/one-small-sacrifice/6242298, her jaw-dropping narrative of living as an adoptee, her search, meeting birth relatives, will surely raise eyebrows and question the validity of sealed records and the billion dollar adoption industry.
     Her journey takes her to Illinois to meet her birthfather in 1996 where she learns about her Cherokee-Shawnee ancestry.
     DeMeyer is former editor of tribal newspapers the Pequot Times and Ojibwe Akiing. She freelances for News From Indian Country, a national independent native newspaper.
     DeMeyer’s chapter on Sac and Fox Olympian Jim Thorpe won critical praise in the 2001 book Olympics at the Millennium (published by Rutgers Press). Her poetry was published in the spring 2009 edition of Yellow Medicine Review; and she has an essay in the upcoming Foothills Press book, “I Was Indian Before It Was Cool,” edited by Susan Deer Cloud.
     In the 1870s Ponca Chief Standing Bear had to take his case to court to prove he was a human being; but DeMeyer’s journey took her so much further as she tried to prove to herself that she was somebody, too.

Link: http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9191&Itemid=1

Trace at the Jackson Hole Wyoming airport in 1983 with actor twins

PTSD: Toxic Stress (read this!)

By Trace L Hentz

Adoptees are a unique and diverse group. Some say as babies they were traumatized and now are plagued with emotional and physical problems while others feel downright happy and show little interest in being an adoptee.

Some adoptees I know were adopted as small children so they spent time with the natural mother, and perhaps were breastfed.

I did not spend any time with my natural mother and went directly to an orphanage. By the time I was adopted, I was a wreck. How do I know this? My parent’s memories and home movies. My immune system struggled continuously, and I struggle now with adult allergies. You name it: weeds, grass, molds, dust, trees, and some foods. I'm sick of being sick.

I admit I was running on high speed as a kid and taxed my adrenals to the max. When you’re in a heightened state of fear, in my case, this is called the fight or flight response.

In an earlier blog I posted information about the ACE STUDY and how childhood stress becomes an adult health problem.

Now this:
"Could your flight-or-fight response be giving you cancer?"

That question is answered by Alice Wessendorf on the Healthier Talk website this week.

Alice: "When you find yourself in a difficult situation, hormones are released that up your heart rate, quicken your breathing, narrow your vision and, in general, prepare your body to clash or dash.

"This process, known as the fight-or-flight response, is supposed to save your life. But it turns out that it may also be giving you cancer.

"We already knew that this stress response could increase the risk for illnesses like heart disease. But now, new research out of the University of Texas points to stress hormones directly supporting tumor growth and spread.

"They do this by flipping the switch on the stress- activated protein known as focal adhesion kinase (FAK). FAK protects the detached cancer cells from dying. Allowing them to spread through your blood system finding places to re-attach and grow new tumors.

"And, as you may have already guessed, the higher your stress hormones are the higher your FAK levels become and the quicker tumors can grow and spread.

"So what can be done to stop the spread? Reducing the stress hormones circulating in your system is critical. You can't rid yourself of your natural fight-or-flight response. But what you can do is manage your stress levels."

BLOGGER NOTE: I suggest adoptees find treatment for stress as quick as you can!

Recent Reviews of ONE SMALL SACRIFICE (with links)

http://ungratefullittlebastard.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-will-never-ever-ever-blog-again.html

AND

http://nsbloodline.blogspot.com/2010/05/one-small-sacrifice-lost-children-of.html

AND

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9191&Itemid=1

AND Facebook comments:

Paula Benoit, Adoptee Care wrote:  I loved this book from the moment I started reading it. It's well written, painfully honest and bold. Thanks for setting the tone for future memoirs and conversations about secrecy Trace. You hit the nail straight on the head with this book. Thanks.

From Linda Orlandi-Johnson: One Small Sacrifice is a must read for all people. It is a powerfully written book by a woman who is Native American by birth and was adopted out to a white family. It is gut-wrenching at times to learn of what in the not-so-distant past occured to Native children. I laughed and I cried. I savored each and every word the author wrote. Amazing are the facts, research and deep hearted feelings she expresses. Fantastically executed this is one book that should be on everyone's "to read" list. Including Oprah Winfrey's!!

Adrian Archambeau Sr wrote:  Good Book, Insightful even to myself who has his own story, just finished reading it a week ago..If you really want to know Trace,and gain knowledge into The Adoption Project ,Genocide, etc. It's a good informative easy read...Thanks Trace, always in my heart & prayers...."A" April 16

Comments about FIND MY FAMILY TV SERIES and Reunions

I wanted to include this in my blog. I was contacted by the producers of Find My Family last year but I had already done my reunion. No word yet on this series and if it will continue.

New TV Show Highlights Adoption Search-and-Reunion Stories
by Kathie Forward
A new television program on ABC, called Find My Family, focuses on search and reunion, primarily adoption-related. It is hosted by two adult adoptees, including Tim Green, author of A Man and His Mother, the story of his search for his birth mother. By going to abc.com, and then findmyfamily, one can download a 13-page application to be considered for the show.
I am an adult adoptee who, so far, has failed to locate any of my birth family. So when I first heard of this new program, I was excited. The first show aired on Monday, November 23rd. It featured birth parents who had relinquished a baby girl when they were only 14 and 15, then later married and had more children. The hosts went through the usual questions as to why they wanted to search now and how they thought it would make a difference. Next, they explained the steps taken to locate the child. The birth mother had named her daughter Tanya, but the birth records came up blank. Finally, the Find My Family staff went to the hospital and went through all birth records until they found a match by birth date. It turned out the daughter grew up only eight miles away from the birth parents. Then the show featured the reunion, held by a tree in an undisclosed location, one of the show’s “gimmicks.”
The second show aired on November 30th and featured two stories. Story One was an adoptee looking for her full brother who had been raised by the birth parents, who ws only 16 months older than she was. Again, the breakthrough was searching all birth records for her date. When they found her records, they backtracked 16 months to find a boy. Again, the parents were married. When they actually contacted the brother, he informed Find My Family that there was a younger sister, not relinquished. In all cases, once the match is made, Find My Family obtains permission from all parties to set up the reunion.
Story Two of this episode was a daughter searching for her birth mother. Again they searched birth records. This time they had the birth mother’s name. However, this was no help. Finally, Find My Family decided to check marriage records and that was how the birth mother was located.
I realize these reunions are set up for television, but everyone seemed too agreeable and way too happy. They even showed follow-up visits (a few weeks or months later) and everything was “just wonderful.” Realistically, it doesn’t always work out that way. My concern is that it portrays reunion as the answer to everyone’s lifelong problems. However, it may motivate a lot of people to search.
I downloaded the application and found many of the questions helpful in deciding to search and in planning how I might handle a reunion. The program would also be good for starting a discussion about search and reunion between adoptive parents and children, or in families where there has been a relinquishment in the past, or even between parents who were adopted themselves and their own children. Time will tell how popular this program is and how it develops.
Excerpted from the January 2010 edition of the Operation Identity Newsletter
© 2010 Operation Identity

http://www.nmoi.org/articles/FindMyFamily.html

The Un-Adopted (another Russian orphan story)

In 2002 alone, U.S. families adopted over 20,000 children, from far-away places like China, Russia and Guatemala.

We rarely hear about adoptive parents who notice the signs of a mental disorder, despair or disease in their adopted child, then abandon the adoptee/orphan.  Abandon them? Un-Adopt them? Yes, this happens far more than we realize…

One mother in Texas blogged openly about her experience adopting a little girl from a Russian orphanage in 2005-2006. (She shall remain anonymous.)

How generous it was for her to open her heart and home to an orphan, we read. How expensive these international adoptions are, we read. When the child showed signs of distress and disrupted her home and biological children, we read her “Russian” child was “unadopted,” sent away to someone who could deal with her problems in Wisconsin.

This Texan had her illusions dashed about “saving this baby” and apparently had no idea about orphan trauma, though she read “everything” about raising children. Day after day, she blogged her difficulties - then once the girl “P” was gone, the blogging stopped. Apparently she went back to raising her biological sons.

This is an excerpt from her blog:

“I think being more informed about the probable emotional expectation possibilities for these children would have been all it took for me to know international adoption was not for us. So many professionals have NOW told me... despite any care she receives she will quite probably never be like your other children. The affects of institutional care on a baby is many times lifelong and you can never expect them to be like your other children. Why didn’t they tell me this BEFORE we adopted? I was searching for the kind of relationship I have with my boys, the kind my mom and I have. If I had known I could never even expect this child to feel close to me or identify with me, I feel I certainly would have never adopted.

"So, truth to be known- we should never have adopted any institutionalized child!

"My personal experience goes on to be complicated by a truly adored referral that we lost before we got to travel and perhaps, did not allow ourselves to grieve enough for. We traveled to meet a child who we found obviously had a major neurological problems and we had to turn down - in this country (this was traumatic and extremely hard to get through as well).

"Then the ridiculous circumstance of getting to spend one day with “P” before we made our decision and flew home to await our second trip.

"This was surely not the best way to decide on such a huge factor in your life yet we did. In order to adopt internationally YOU HAVE TO make rash decisions based on pictures and sketchy information. You have to give it to God and pray you are doing right. Didn’t you at some point too?

"Due to flight change unavailability, expenses, red tape, time factors, children waiting for us at home, orphanage visiting rules, and emotional upset, we made decisions we SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE. I DO accept responsibility for making a decision with all those factors in place but also point back to Russia’s laws on adoption and all the problematic Russian ways and secretiveness that are SO not helpful to the futures of these children or the people trying to make the best decisions for bringing them home into new families.

"As a mother I tried to base my decisions on emotional intuitiveness and gut feelings. In retrospect a more logical approach and lots of caution would have been more productive. I needed to feel right... but I mostly felt confused, afraid, lost.

"Then there was the “twinning.” Bringing home a child who was so close in age to my biological son was a HUGE folly. Again, this is mostly our fault of course. We, being bullet proof and invincible, thought we could make this work. We thought we would have it rough for a while but would pull through and live happily ever after. NOT SO. Throwing this on top of the attachment issues was just too much. We never even thought about our bio sons mental health... sure there would be some normal sibling rivalry, but what manifested was so magnified to the norm that we were shocked and scared out of our minds at the long term effects this would have on EVERYONE! Neither he, nor “P” could get the emotional support they needed because it was just too much for one Mom to be able to do. It was unfair and unhealthy for both children and “P” needed focus and diligent emotional support FULL TIME in light of her issues.

"Upon bringing “P” home, the problems continued as we found a huge deficit in the help and support we needed in our area. We found all the help we thought we had behind us turned into incompetent therapists not versed in RAD and doctors with little or no experience with post adoption issues, money-hungry therapists, and a lack of coverage for the issues “P” had from our insurance company, then perhaps the most damaging... we found RAD.

"So, obviously I have no crystal ball here but I think these bits of information, truths, and circumstantial situations and bad and hasty decisions might have created extra issues and a much different outcome for us.... They say hindsight is 20/20 but I am still putting the pieces together here. Here are some things I do believe hindered our success but perhaps there is far more I have not realized.... First, gain more perspective and educate yourselves. There is a list of disruption sites that may help many people to understand, avoid, and support this process when it is necessary. There are many common factors in an adoption that end people up in disruption. These factors should be on a neon sign at every agency!!!!”

Far From the Reservation, 1972

This longitudinal study was one of the first to systematically explore the outcomes of transracial adoptions. Beginning in 1960, Fanshel followed 97 families that had adopted children through the Indian Adoption Project, more than one-quarter of all the children placed between 1958 and 1967. Researchers interviewed parents in 15 different states at approximately one-year intervals, but made no effort to interview or assess children directly. Most of the children had been two years old or younger at the time of adoption and were not yet teenagers when the study ended. No control group of same-race adoptees or non-adopted children was used for comparison. The study provided detailed tables and statistical correlations, as all outcome studies did, and used the instrument that Helen Witmer and her colleagues had devised to measure the quality of adoptive homes in their study of independent adoptions in Florida. Far from the Reservation also offered a wealth of narrative detail that illuminated what these adoptions meant to the parents involved.

Far From the Reservation was published at a moment of racial polarization and vehement criticism of transracial adoptions. Its main author was David Fanshel, who was one of the most prominent child welfare researchers in the postwar decades. Although Fanshel was white, he had been one of the first to tackle the question of discrimination in adoption services in his 1957 report, A Study in Negro Adoption. Fifteen years later, Fanshel still believed deeply in the promise of empirical research to improve transracial adoptions, but the changed historical context in which he worked shaped his interpretation of research findings.

Fanshel found that factors often identified as strongly correlated with outcomes were not as noticeable in these adoptions. Age at placement, for example, had been considered crucial ever since Sophie van Senden Theis‘ 1924 study, How Foster Children Turn Out, showed that children placed earlier turned out much better.

In Native American adoptions, the influence of age appeared weak, outweighed by other variables, the health status of the birth mother in particular. In addition, many professionals and researchers assumed that white couples committed to racial equality were the most likely to adopt non-white children and succeed as parents. Far From the Reservation suggested that this was not the case. Parents’ social attitudes—about civil rights, politics, and religion—did not matter except negatively. Families that were more socially concerned and active had more problems with their adopted children. Why would this be the case? Fanshel had no idea.

The study’s summary measure of outcomes, The Child Progress Scale, showed that 78 percent of all the adoptees were adequately or excellently adjusted. Only one in ten children had problems that raised serious doubts about their future well-being. This was very good news. It indicated that transracial adoptions could be arranged on a solid foundation of objective knowledge that they would turn out well rather than a subjective hope that they might. The study reassured its audience that transracial placements posed little risk to the physical or emotional well-being of individual children and Fanshel agreed that these adoptions had “saved many of these children from lives of utter ruination.”

Yet he did not equate evidence of good outcomes with endorsement of transracial adoptions. It was a mistake to consider the lives of Native American children one at a time, apart from the future of their tribes, Fanshel wrote. “It seems clear that the fate of most Indian children is tied to the struggle of Indian people in the United States for survival and social justice. Their ultimate salvation rests upon the success of that struggle. It is my belief that only the Indian people have the right to determine whether their children can be placed in white homes. Even with the benign outcomes reported here, it may be that Indian leaders would rather see their children share the fate of their fellow Indians than lose them in the white world. It is for the Indian people to decide.”

Studies that documented very good outcomes empirically were still not answers to some of the most basic questions. Were transracial adoptions wise? Were they right? Who had the right to decide?

[Source: www.darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/FanshelFFTR.htm]

Kinship care missing from survey

Seneca tribal expert not surprised by foster numbers

Native American Times, June 6, 2006 - The head of a non-profit organization that works towards the benefit of Native American children and their families was not surprised to learn that more minorities are amenable to the idea of accepting foster children into their home.

An ABC News/Time national poll on foster care issues in 2006 showed 31% of minority members surveyed answered “Yes,” when asked “Would you seriously consider becoming a foster parent or adopting a foster child, or not?” compared to 19% of Caucasians.

Terry L. Cross, executive director of the Portland-based National Indian Child Welfare Association and an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation New York, said the results have their roots in cultural backgrounds.

“Cultural norms, including sustaining strong extended families, handing down of culture and traditions, and establishing a positive identity, contribute to perceptions of our foster care system and notions of your place within that system. What is missing from the survey is how many people would support ‘kinship care,’ or relative care, over foster care placements in a stranger’s home,” Cross said.

Cross said kinship care is considered by most to be a cultural norm of Indian Country, and when a crisis arises other family members step in to share the burden of taking care of the children. Given a choice of a child being removed from a home due to maltreatment and being placed in a licensed foster home with strangers in a new community, Cross said, it appears most Indians will choose informal kinship care arrangements, even if it means little financial support for the kinship caregivers.

The association that Cross heads up has been working to change laws preventing children in the custody of tribal courts from receiving the benefits and protections that the association says are currently available to all other children. Congress in 1980 enacted the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act, which provides entitlement funding for foster care and adoption assistance services for income-eligible children who are placed by state agencies or public agencies with which the state has an agreement. Children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribe and are placed by tribal courts and agencies are not included in the program. The funds are only available to tribes who have entered into agreements with their respective states, with critics charging these agreements are often limited in scope and may only allow the tribes access to one portion of the program.

Various lawmakers have spoken out against the law.

“All children deserve to have a loving, nurturing home where their basic needs are met”, Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). “Native American children placed in foster care or adopted through tribal placements should have all the resources available to children placed by state services. This bill makes that happen.”

The nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has recommended providing tribes with federal child welfare funding.

The association is also pushing to prevent the practice of completely removing children from their home, believing that doing so leads to severing any contact with parents. The Indian Child Welfare Act mandates that the child’s tribe must be notified when placing a Native American youngster in foster care.

[Source: Native American Times, June 6, 2006, www.nativetimes.com]

ADOPTION AND REPATRIATION SERVICES TO FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE OF CANADA

ADOPTION AND REPATRIATION SERVICES TO FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE OF CANADA - RESOLUTION BY ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS.


Moved by: Chief Gerald Esquash, Swan Lake First Nation; Seconded by: Chief Ted Quewezance, Keeseekoose First Nation; Carried. Certified copy of a Resolution made the 22nd day of July, 1999 in Vancouver, B.C.; Phil Fontaine, National Chief Resolution No. 10/99

SUBJECT: Adoption and repatriation services to First Nations people of Canada

WHEREAS First Nation’s people across Canada have been tragically affected by the adoption of their children, (16,810 treaty status children, DIAND Statistics, 1996) in the last thirty years; and,

WHEREAS adoption of First Nations children by the governments in Canada is a continuation from the boarding school policies of the assimilation of First Nations through First Nations Children; and,

WHEREAS the affects of these government policies of assimilation has devastated and tragically affected First Nation’s children, families and communities, culture; and,

WHEREAS the ‘sixties scoop’ was a massive failure on First Nations families and was effectively a form of genocide; and

WHEREAS the long term effects of the ‘sixties scoop’ continue to be felt in every First Nations community in Canada as parents and children deal with the children problems of lost relatives and ensuing social problems; and

WHEREAS these children, now adults, are searching for family, culture and identity and,

WHEREAS birth families, grandparents, mothers, fathers, siblings and extended family are searching for their children lost to adoption; and,

WHEREAS the demand for service to assist and facilitate searches and reunions is enormous; and,

WHEREAS the funding for repatriation services are inadequately funded or non existent in most provinces; and,

WHEREAS the Federal and Provincial Governments are responsible for this destruction of First Nations families and their communities; and,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that National Chief Phil Fontaine support and assist the First Nations communities of Canada in their efforts to secure adequate funding for repatriation programs from the Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada.

THE APOLOGY (CWLA Shay Bilchik)

THE APOLOGY

Working Together to Strengthen Supports for Indian Children and Families: A National Perspective

Keynote Speech by Shay Bilchik at the NICWA Conference, Anchorage, Alaska on April 24, 2001

I. Truth and Reconciliation

I want to begin with a story that was a favorite of Dr. Carlos Montezuma, also known as Wassaja. He was an Indian activist, a Yavapai who was born in 1875 at Fort MacDowell, Arizona, and a physician, back in the days when doctors made house calls. As he told the story, a certain doctor used to walk once a week or so down a particular street to visit a patient. On his way, he passed by the home where a friend of the patient lived. Each time he passed her door on the way back from his house call, she would be sitting outside, and she would ask how her friend was doing. “She’s improving,” the doctor always reported.

After this had gone on for many weeks, there came a day when he had a different answer: “I’m sorry, she’s dead.” The woman went inside and conveyed this news to her husband. “What did she die of,” he asked? “I don’t know,” said the woman. “I guess she died of improvement.”

When Carlos Montezuma told this story, sometimes in testifying before Congress about the condition of his people, he used it to warn his audience that American Indians and their irreplaceable cultures were in danger of dying from “improvement” if the U.S. government persisted in the policies it was following.

Now the Child Welfare League of America, the organization I represent, has never been a part of the U.S. government. But most of its members, public and private child welfare organizations, represent a profession that has always been dedicated to improvement, in its positive and sometimes negative sense. For that reason, I think that you and all the people you represent deserve an accounting of one phase of our history.

I have not met many of you before today, and we don’t yet have an established relationship. Even so, I want to talk with you on a very personal basis about a matter of great importance to all of us.

The spirit in which I stand before you today, as a representative of CWLA and as an individual, is the spirit of truth and reconciliation. In recent years, many countries have dealt with the aftermath of a period of great injustice by creating national truth commissions. This approach was based in the belief that while the past could not be undone, it could be faced squarely, and in a highly public forum- and that a full accounting of the truth was the best possible basis for moving forward to build the future. When the truth had been told as fully as possible, those who had been offended could have at least the knowledge that denial was at an end, and that the world knew what they had suffered. The perpetrators shared that knowledge. Reparations and reconciliation could proceed, on the foundation of truth.

It is with this attitude that I approach you today, and begin a discussion that I realize will need to continue - and to grow over time.

Some of you are already familiar with CWLA, but for those who are not, I’ll offer a brief history. In 1909, the first White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children recommended the formation of both a Children’s Bureau within the federal government and a non-governmental body that would unite the various public and private groups working across the U.S. for the sake of children and families. Around the same time, leaders of many child-serving organizations in the Eastern and Midwestern states were realizing for themselves that they would be stronger together than alone. They were particularly interested in developing standards to guide child welfare practice, in hopes that high quality services would become the national norm. CWLA opened its doors in New York City in 1920 with 63 member agencies.

This all happened just about the time that child welfare was beginning to take itself seriously as a profession. Individuals viewing the work from something of a business perspective were stepping up to take control away from the “church ladies” and society wives who had originally established many of our agencies, and a few colleges were beginning to offer professional degrees in social work.

Since 1920, CWLA and the child welfare profession have grown up side by side, and although we like to believe that today’s practice is the state of the art, we know that both still have a lot of growing to do. In no area of practice is this truer than in Indian Child Welfare.

Our profession is other-centered. It’s dedicated to improving conditions of life for people, like children, whose capacity to help themselves is limited by age or other circumstances. By its very nature, this exposes us to a strong temptation to think we know what’s best for other people, so we constantly have to rediscover humility and respect.

Although we strive to provide leadership for our member agencies, as a membership organization we haven’t usually been very far ahead of our members, who haven’t been very far ahead of the mainstream culture. For a long time in the early history of child welfare, many educated middle-class Americans sincerely believed that the world would run smoothly and sweetly if everybody would just make the effort to think and behave like they did. In the name of improvement, Irish and Italian children were scooped up from city tenements that looked crowded and dirty, away from “unfit” single parents and the smells of unfamiliar cooking, taken to the countryside in orphan trains, and parceled out to rural families. Most of them never saw their parents or siblings again.

These were terrible acts, no matter how noble or “professional” the intentions of their perpetrators. Next to the death penalty, the most absolute thing a government can do to an individual is to take a child away. But these were acts against individual immigrant families, and no European national group was singled out for these removals to the point of being imperiled.

One ethnic group, however - American Indians and Alaskan Natives - a people of many cultures and governments, and the original citizens of this land - was singled out for treatment that ranged over the decades from outright massacre to arrogant and paternalistic “improvement.” CWLA played a role in that attempt. We must face this truth.

No matter how well intentioned and how squarely in the mainstream this was at the time, it was wrong; it was hurtful; and it reflected a kind of bias that surfaces feelings of shame, as we look back with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

I am not here today to deny or minimize that role, but to put it on the table and to acknowledge it as truth. And then, in time, and to the extent that each of us is able, to move forward in a new relationship in which your governments are honored and respected, our actions are based upon your needs and values, and we show proper deference to you in everything that concerns Native children and families.

These are the facts. Between 1958 and 1967, CWLA cooperated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under a federal contract, to facilitate an experiment in which 395 Indian children were removed from their tribes and cultures for adoption by non-Indian families. This experiment began primarily in the New England states. CWLA channeled federal funds to its oldest and most established private agencies first, to arrange the adoptions, though public child welfare agencies were also involved toward the end of this period. Exactly 395 adoptions of Indian children were done and studied during this 10-year period, with the numbers peaking in 1967.

ARENA, the Adoption Resource Exchange of North America, began in early 1968 as the successor to the BIA/CWLA Indian Adoption Project. Counting the period before 1958 and some years after it, CWLA was partly responsible for approximately 650 children being taken from their tribes and placed in non-Indian homes. For some of you, this story is a part of your personal history.

Through this project, BIA and CWLA actively encouraged states to continue and to expand the practice of “rescuing” Native children from their own culture, from their very families. Because of this legitimizing effect, the indirect results of this initiative cannot be measured by the numbers I have cited. Paternalism under the guise of child welfare is still alive in many locations today, as you well know.

Far From the Reservation, David Fanshel’s 1972 CWLA study of these adoptions (which only covered five years in the children’s lives), concluded that while the children were doing well and the adoptive parents were delighted in almost every case, only Indians themselves could ultimately decide whether this adoption program should continue. “It is my belief,” Fanshel wrote, “that only the Indian people have the right to determine whether their children can be placed in white homes.”

Indian people knew from the beginning that this policy was very wrong. In Fanshel’s own words, they saw this “as the ultimate indignity that has been inflicted upon them.”

Fanshel came to this realization, as he concluded his research, because of the vigorous Indian activism that was underway in the early 1970s. Your legislative answer, after another 5 or 6 years of education and advocacy, was the Indian Child Welfare Act, passed into law in 1978. In the words of ICWA, Congress endorsed the unassailable fact that “no resource is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.” As you have clearly articulated, children are the future.

While adoption was not as wholesale as the infamous Indian schools, in terms of lost heritage, it was even more absolute. I deeply regret the fact that CWLA’s active participation gave credibility to such a hurtful, biased, and disgraceful course of action. I also acknowledge that a CWLA representative testified against ICWA at least once, although fortunately, that testimony did not achieve its end.

As we look at these events with today’s perspective, we see them as both catastrophic and unforgivable. Speaking for CWLA, I offer our sincere and deep regret for what preceded us.

The people who make up CWLA today did not commit these wrongs, but we acknowledge that our organization did. They are a matter of record. We acknowledge this inheritance, this legacy of racism and arrogance. And we acknowledge that this legacy makes your work more difficult, every day. As we accept this legacy, we also accept the moral responsibility to move forward in an aggressive, proactive, and positive manner, as we pledge ourselves to see that nothing like what has happened ever happens again. And we can ask- I do ask and hope- for a chance to earn your respect and to work with you as partners, on the basis of truth, on the ground of our common commitment to the well-being of children and young people and the integrity of families and cultures.

We will begin by demonstrating our respect for you and your work, recognizing the authority of your governments, and taking seriously our position of influence with public and private child welfare agencies and the governments supporting them, to fully comply with the spirit and the letter of the Act.

In recent decades our relationship has been characterized by a fluctuating level of effort and many sins of omission. There has been silence from the League on many occasions when we should have spoken out, on ICWA in particular. And we haven’t yet demonstrated sufficient leadership for our members, or the field, in this area.

But more encouraging things have been happening recently, and the trend is definitely looking up. The credit for that goes largely to Terry Cross, of NICWA and the Seneca Nation, and to Faith Smith, founder and president of Native American Educational Services College, who has served on our board since 1992. Faith Smith is an Ojibwe from the Lac Courte Oreilles in Wisconsin. Both of them have been insistent and persistent- in the friendliest possible way. A newer CWLA Board member, Faith Roessel, who is a Navajo from Round Rock, Arizona, has also guided our new course. And a number of our staff members have urged and guided us in this direction, beginning with Burt Annin in the 1980s and including Deputy Director Shirley Marcus Allen, and staff members Linda Spears, Lynda Arnold, John George, Tom Hay, and others. We established an internal Task Force on Indian Child Welfare in early 1999, and some of the recommendations it has developed are already being implemented.

[EXCERPT: Source: http://www.cwla.org/execdir/edremarks010424.htm]

November is Adoption BEWARE-ness Month (and $1.44 billion in profits)

As an editor-author, I collected numerous articles concering adoption and plan to share some of the most shocking ones in my files... like this:

Adoption BEWARE-ness Month

[Source: PRLEAP.COM]

November became National Adoption Awareness Month in 1990.  Although “the particular focus of this month is the adoption of children currently in foster care,” November is generally a media-hyped month of various activities, celebrations, and heartwarming stories about all adoptions.

Americans will be subjected to a wide variety of propaganda, both local and nationwide, promoting the wonders of adoption. This has the cumulative effect of convincing the public that adoption is a great win-win, “loving option.” Billboards and television ads, designed to convince a young woman to have her baby and “help build a family,” will feed the supply of babies by enticing vulnerable women to find their way to any one of the thousands of unregulated agencies in this country.

Truth in advertising does not carry over to adoption. What will not be advertised and promoted are the risks and long-term ramifications for both the surrendering mother and her child who is targeted for adoption. The real facts of adoption surrender often result in a decreased supply of babies as mothers learn that it is not a “win win” solution as publicized. Agencies and “professionals” who benefit monetarily do not want the dark sides of adoption to be known. They fight hard to keep those sad facts under lock and key.

Evidence, both anecdotal and scientifically researched, has show that adoption is not nearly as perfect as it is promoted.

The list of facts not told includes:

“Relinquishers perceive adoption as a lifelong process, and their lives are profoundly changed by the loss of the child (Davis, 1994; Lauderdale & Boyle, 1994).

“A variety of long-term responses to the process of relinquishment have been found to result from the prolongation of the grief reaction. These long-term responses include psychological, physical, and relational problems (Davis, 1994; Tennyson, 1988).”

“The relinquishment experience also influences the woman’s overall health. If the intense grief reaction becomes prolonged, it may manifest itself in psychosomatic complaints as well as secondary illness (Blanton & Deschner, 1990; Condon, 1986).

These physical responses include recurrent gynecologic infections, frequent or severe headaches, somatic symptoms, and sexual difficulties” (Blanton & Deschner, 1990; Burnell & Norfleet, 1979; Millen & Roll, 1985; Rynearson, 1982

“Secondary infertility also may be a problem.” (Deykin et al., 1984; Lancette & McClure, 1992

Also ignored by the agencies is the reality of “open adoption.” Only 22 of fifty states in America recognize open adoption agreements, but failure of the adoptive parents to comply with the agreement is not legally enforceable by the surrendering mother.

David Kirschner, Ph.D., in his book, Adoption: Uncharted Waters, states that “adoptees are 15 times more likely to commit parricide than non-adoptees.” [Parricide is defined as "the act of murdering one's parent or close relative."]

In addition, agency websites do not mention The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier (1993) which discusses of the feelings of loss experienced by many adoptees.

A study by the American Academy of Pediatrics state that “attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents.”

As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.”

The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.

We say to these mothers, “Please don’t believe the hype. They only want your baby. BEWARE!!”

Editor Note: I recently ordered the book Adoption: Unchartered Waters and will provide a review of his material eventually on this blog.

"Orphan Trauma"

or•phan (ôr f n)  Deprived of parents. Intended for orphans: an orphan home. Lacking support, supervision, or care.  ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Late Latin orphanus, from Greek orphanos, orphaned

trau•ma (trô m , trou -)  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. ETYMOLOGY: Greek

By Trace L Hentz (blog editor)

For days I could only think about adoption, not write about it. Processing was slow. I eventually coined the word “Orphan Trauma.” When a baby or child is taken from its mother, regardless of race, reason or country, it is traumatic, thus wounding the orphan.


I’ve met several adoptees who are more “OK” than others. Not all react the same about being adopted. A few adoptees said their adoptive parents helped in their search for their tribe and family. Not every adoptee had a bad childhood. Not all are hurt or confused. Not all believe they suffered trauma being taken away. Some handled it better than others while others are addicted to drugs or alcohol or self-abuse.

Regardless, when an adoptees’ uncertainty becomes insecurity that is not good for anyone, including those who live with or love an adoptee, like a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.

Of course, adoptees aren’t the only ones who get numb, split, depressed, suicidal or stressed out. Ask any child of divorce or foster care or missing parents or early loss/abuse/tragedy.

Later, what was even more traumatic for me was to learn prisons and psychiatric wards in hospitals are full of adoptees. Yes. Some of the worst and most violent offenders are adoptees, yet no one mentions this? News and magazine stories fail to write how removing a child from their culture, family, history and identity hurts an orphan and some won’t survive this disconnect emotionally. Some commit suicide. Some are apparently sick enough to become a serial killer.

Americans cling to the idea that we are better here, because we are more advanced or superior, even more militarily-advanced.

Better remains to be seen on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge reservation, still the poorest county in the entire U.S.A. No, not all on American soil are treated equal.

Americans also fail to realize not everyone wants to live like us or be like us. Struggling people want opportunities America offers. Many want to earn a decent wage. If they can’t successfully immigrate to America like in earlier centuries, parents and mothers will relinquish their child just to give them a chance to avoid poverty, like those Mayan mothers in Guatemala who allow Americans to adopt their babies.

Adoption has its own economy, generating jobs and casework for social work agencies and psychologists, with its own special laws and special lawyers. “Quiet” and “behind the scenes” works best for the billion dollar adoption industry. Adoption advocates don’t advertise trauma. Governments can’t shut down the adoption industry now. Adoption is a machine they can’t shut down. It makes some people, some governments, a lot of money. People who advocate and promote adoption use the loudest voice, “we save these poor children.”

I certainly wasn’t aware of trauma. I was living it and not even aware.

After five years of research, my view of adoption changed radically; my shock – finally – wore off. I’d have figured it out if I were talking with prison inmates or mental patients. No one claims adoption is abuse. Yet with so many types of adoptees and orphans, trauma is truly serious! It’s crisis. Think of a serial killer like Charles Manson. Then remember his years in foster care. Manson is a classic split.

Consider what makes some people crazy? When does it start? What creates troubled teens, school shooters, violent youth offenders who become adult career criminals, child molesters or con artists? Children who experience trauma. Children who were molested. Ask any prison population. The vast majority in prison are minorities from poor families, or no families.

Mental health is not addressed when discussing poverty and adoption. This is a tragedy. America’s mind-full citizens are unable to connect all these dots.

When I talk about trauma, I mean splitting sickness, soul sickness. It’s so obvious but rarely put into words, rarely understood. The root of this mental or emotional disease takes its hold in children.

I was one of those children.

Think Tank on Celebrity Adoption

By Trace Hentz  (3-9-2010)

Read the news. More and more celebrities are adopting. It's a trend. Obviously adopting will not fix the dire poverty in the village, country or continent where an orphan/adoptee was born. That doesn't matter. America becomes their new home and culture - but I wonder, what is American culture?

When celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie made international adoption headlines, we heard nothing about their adopted children (of different skin color and ancestry) who lose their language, identity, family connections and traditional diet.  It’s taken for granted their adopted children will survive emotionally. Tabloids may cover these families intensely but it’s doubtful Madonna or Angelina will ever leak news about their children’s bonding issues, reactive attachment disorders or any signs of emotional trauma.

Madonna adopted an indigenous boy, David, from the Malawi tribe in Africa in 2007. Oiling the adoption machine, Madonna gets more publicity, this time as savior. Oprah’s audience listened as an unapologetic Madonna described taking (and saving) David from his poor tribe.

Oprah neglected to ask Madonna, “Will his tribe make any money from the movie you and your husband shot while adopting David in Malawi, or from your appearance on my show today?” Madonna made the rounds on numerous talk shows for several weeks touting her plan to adopt and save David, describing horrible poverty and diseases in Africa. Apparently David was near death and Madonna got him immediate medical attention.

Oprah and Today show’s Meredith Viera also forgot to ask, “Will your biological kids equally share their inheritance with David since he’s your adopted son? How will they treat him, as an equal or inferior or an outsider?”  The rich in America use very different rules when it comes to adopted children, even step-children, who will inherit and share wealth. Take Warren Buffet who didn't want his adopted granddaughter to inherit any of his billions.

More is always better when it comes to Madonna. Even though she has enough money to end the poverty in Malawi, it would require a much greater sacrifice than adopting just one or two of its children. In 2007 she announced her plan to adopt another orphan, this time a girl from Malawi named Mercy (right). By June 2009, Madonna had done it and Mercy was secretly flown to London to join Madonna. In another headine, Madonna said she will adopt again, this time in India, a British tabloid said.

Even if David and Mercy get a nanny with a skin color like theirs, these precious children will feel isolated. They will have been colonized. Malawi culture will be removed for a cleaner “whiter” existence with Madonna and her two biological children.

Right after this happened to David, I consulted my “think tank,” friends who are Native American adoptees. The consensus was: when you are taken away from what is familiar, tribe or family, taken by strangers, it’s traumatic and very confusing. “Where am I? Who are these people?” That’s what David or any young adoptee/orphan is really feeling.  It’s not happiness but fear, unspeakable fear.
Will a grown David be able to discuss his alienation from his tribe? Not likely. Will his tribal brothers and sisters be jealous or resentful of him? Not likely, since he’s not there anymore. David may become a legend among his people. Will David run back to Africa? Maybe, once he’s an adult but he may not feel a part of his culture anymore and may feel too uncomfortable (and different) to rejoin them.

Several of my adoptee friends remember wanting to run away as very young children. It’s more common than Americans (or our adopters) realize. One adoptee friend who is Lakota ran away at age 13, surviving horrific abuse by his adoptive parents in New Jersey. He barely survived on the Manhattan streets for several years.

Sadly, there is yet another reality Mercy and David from Malawi will grow up with - guilt. They and other adoptees feel they owe their new family, especially when they “save” you from ugly poverty. Anything less than gratitude (and praise) fills you with guilt. Boys especially do not want to disappoint or hurt their adoptive parents, my “think tank” decided.

Many adoptees wait until their adoptive parents die before they search for answers. It’s big this guilt.

PHOTO INFORMATION: Mercy Chifundo James, the 3-year-old toddler adopted by Madonna, was secretly flown from her home country of Malawi to London early Saturday morning (reported June 21, 2009).  "A private jet flew in from South Africa and collected her at five minutes to six last evening," an airport source tells PEOPLE. "She connected to London from Johannesburg at 10:30 p.m."  Mercy, who will be joining big sister, Lourdes, brothers Rocco and David Banda, – also a 3-year-old from Malawi – was accompanied by a nanny, a child nurse and another aide. Madonna has homes in England and in the United States.

 
This was one early headline: Madonna adopts baby from Malawi

[October 5, 2006 ] Madonna, whose talent has gained her reputation as one of the world‘s wealthiest women, has officially adopted Africa as a cause - and has sealed the endorsement by adopting an African baby boy.  Government officials in Malawi said the 48-year-old singer had chosen the one-year-old orphan from among 12 children specially picked prior to her arrival. The landlocked southern African country, rated the 10th poorest in the world, has legions of children orphaned by Aids.
Government spokeswoman Adrina Michiela told reporters that "She asked us to identify boys only, which we have done after visiting four orphanages in Lilongwe," Ms Michiela said Madonna actually wanted to adopt a girl but changes her mind in the last two weeks.
The popular £248m artist, arrived at the capital of Lilongwe by private plane yesterday and today she will have to spend time traveling another 30 miles to the village of Mphandula, where she financially support the Raising Malawi centre to feed and educate HIV orphans.
Orphans at this centre are taught a curriculum based on Spirituality for Kids, linked to the Kabbalah school of mysticism, of which Madonna is a follower.
Mphandula is a village of mud huts with thatched roofs, no mains electricity and only a handful of radios, where few have heard Madonna‘s music. Madonna visit to this village is highly speculated. Many of Mphandula‘s households are headed by children whose parents lost their lives to Aids and raise their children alone. Malawi‘s has population of about 13 million, one million of the children have only one parent.
As local tribes rehearsed on the songs to welcome her, the Head of Village said: "We will show her how we in Malawi welcome such visitors who are ready to help."
Madonna plans to spend at least $3m (£1.6m) on programmes to erase out poverty in Malawi and another $1m to support on the documentation of plight of children in the country. She has plan the project with former US president Bill Clinton to see whether they could try to work at bringing low-cost medicines to the region.
Madonna got together with the economist Jeffrey Sachs to assist his "millennium village" programme, in which he is looking into changing the fortunes of individual villages.
Social Welfare Department told reporters that Madonna was expected to file the adoption papers today.
This would be Madonna first visit to Africa. She has long shown interest in assisting the continent to a "better perspective" on life derived from Kabbalah believes that “we‘re put on this earth to help people," Madonna told Time magazine when she revealed her plans in August.
Malawi is a country needing a lot of attention. It has few resources apart from land, and agriculture employs 85% of the working population. HIV/Aids has made a cut down of the adult population.
It was uncertain as to whether Madonna would leave the country with her adopted child or block by the Malawi non-resident adoptions rules might have to be reunited later.

Malawi People:  Malawi is often called the "warm heart of Africa." because of the warms and friendliness of the people. Malawians typically live with their extended families in huts that are grouped together in villages. A spirit of cooperation prevails as family members share both work and resources.  Malawi has a population of about 10,000,416 (July 1999 est.), with 90% of the population living in the rural areas, and population growth rate of 1.57% (1999 est.).  The Malawi people are of Bantu origin with the ethnic groups including Chewa, Nyanja, Yao, Tumbuka, Lomwe, Sena, Tonga, Ngoni, Ngonde, Asian and European. The Chichewa (Chewa) people forming the largest part of population group and are largely in the central and southern parts of the country.  The Yao people are predominately found around the southern area of Lake Malawi. Tumbuka are found mainly in the north of the country. There are very small populations of Asian and European people living mainly in the cities. Source: http://www.pattayadailynews.com/shownews.php?IDNEWS=0000001553

The Culture of Adoption

In March 2007, I gave two workshops on the Culture of Adoption here in western Massachusetts. I used a subtitle, “We can’t fix adoption until we fix poverty.” I know that I’m different. I am a writer who successfully opened her adoption, which is rare.  I do understand the stigma for women who give up their baby and I knew the pain of infertility for my adoptive mom.

In my workshops, I gave un-apologetic, uncensored testimony of what I’d lived as an adoptee and some (shocking) facts I’d learned as a journalist.

My topic drew women who work in social service agencies in our area, in important programs that serve the poor. I structured the information using my adoption insights, using current statistics. I gave them handouts that focused on the adoptee, adoptee organizations, an up-to-date booklist, and opinions from a feminist who writes on adoption choices (with views contrary to public opinion of "good outcomes in adoption.")

My morning workshop, a trial run of sorts, was a disappointment - I felt I shared too much personal information, perhaps too quickly. A few women reacted as if they were shocked or they were just plain horrified. It was hard for them to accept what I was saying, even with my proof. I know the majority of people prefer to believe adoption is a good thing, a saving thing. That is adoption propaganda. Some even reacted to the words bastard and orphan when I said them.

The laws and secrecy about adoption were made for women but not necessarily controlled, managed or scrutinized by women. Saving children is a tiny fraction of a much bigger equation. I wanted them to see this, and see a bigger picture through my own experience.

It was a good learning experience for me. My perspective has been ignored and not widely broadcast, compared to a louder, more focused adoption industry. My reality affects everyone in a unique way, depending on their own involvement in adoption.

Fortunately, two adoptees and one adoptive parent were there to share their experience in my first workshop, and politely disagreed with some of what I presented, even challenging the statistics.

Little attention was given to the climate of oppression for the birthmother and the trauma of separation for the baby, I told them.

I asked both groups if they knew the definitions of many buzz words related to adoption – they didn’t. They were not even aware that hospitals and clinics are now serving a growing population of international adoptees. Many were unaware of a growing “bogus” ancestry in America because of sealed adoption records. Many couldn’t fathom that adoptees are so damaged they get committed to psych wards. Many had not heard that some adoptees are adopted for body parts, destined to become future transplant donors. Many had not heard of birth psychology, the bond between mother and child, even before birth. Many were surprised at what I’d experienced. They were shaking their heads when I said I might accidentally meet and date my own brother, or that I had no medical history… Most people don’t think about this.

Yes, this is the Culture of Adoption – a lot of missing information - even for those who work in social services, in agencies that serve the poor.

In hindsight, I would lay it out differently and not give so much information in a one and one-half hour presentation. It was too much! A book on Adoption Culture, which I plan to do eventually, can be administered in small doses, to process slowly.

Some people will always prefer the myths: Cuddly babies aren’t damaged but older children are…All babies need is love…Babies are given up by underage, over-sexed careless girls…

Since the 1990s, more adoptees come from poor families in foreign lands, since single Americans are not so quick to give up their baby. Some of the stigma of an unplanned pregnancy shifted. It's common now to find un-wed moms keeping the baby.

Many families who adopt don't realize such poor living conditions exist until they travel to foreign lands to adopt a child. It appeared some New Englanders at my workshop lived a rather sheltered existence. (They’re not the only ones.)

Truly this blog is about ideas. Not everyone will agree or accept my research. I accept that.

Some of my information can sure raise eyebrows.

Sterlization of Indian Women

The United States did attempt to destroy future generations of American Indians using their own agency Indian Health Services, who successfully sterilized 35% of Indian women without their knowledge and consent.

In his report "A History of Governmentally Coerced Sterilization: The Plight of the Native American Woman," published on May 1, 1997 by Michael Sullivan DeFine, University of Maine School of Law, writes:

The United States General Accounting Office Investigation of the Indian Health Service (HIS) Procedures and the Meaning behind Statistics of Population Growth: Complaints of these unethical sterilization practices continued, but little was done until the matter was brought to the attention of Senator James Abourezk (D-SD). Finally, affirmative steps were taken - specifically the commissioning of the General Accounting Office - to investigate the affair and to determine if the complaints of Indian women were true - that they were undergoing sterilization as a means of birth control, without consent. The problem with the investigation was that it was initially limited to only four area Indian Health Service hospitals (later twelve); therefore, the total number of Indian women sterilized remains unknown.

The General Accounting Office came up with a figure of 3,400 women who had been sterilized; but others speculate that at least that many had been sterilized each year from 1972 through 1976.

The General Accounting Office confined its investigation to Indian Health Service records and failed to probe case histories, to observe patient-doctor relationships, or to interview women who had been sterilized. This deplorable lack of thorough investigation only served as an attempt to placate the concerns of Indian people.

The General Accounting Office investigators concluded that Indian Health Service consent procedures lacked the basic elements of informed consent, particularly in informing a patient orally of the advantages and disadvantages of sterilization. Furthermore, the consent form had only a summary of the oral presentation, and the form lacked the information usually located at the top of the page notifying the patient that no federal benefits would be taken away if she did not accept sterilization. The General Accounting Office notified the Indian Health Service that it should implement better consent procedures. Some Indian Health Service Area Directors were pressured by local Indians and by Indian physicians and staff to suspend certain nurses and to move the hospital administrators to another post. Other than that, however, there was little else done by government officials.

Outraged by the level of governmental inaction, Indian people accused the Indian Health Service of making genocide a part of its policy. For the Indian Health Service, this was a serious accusation, as the purpose of this agency was to somehow alleviate the terrible health conditions in Indian communities. The Indian Health Service defended itself by relying on the inaccurate sterilization figures provided by the General Accounting Office. In reality, however, the accusation of genocide was not far off base.

As Thomas Littlewood stated in his book on the politics of population control, “non-white Americans are not unaware of how the American Indian came to be called the vanishing American . . . [t]his country’s starkest example of genocide in practice.”

From a statistical point of view, the reality of the devastation of Native American women victimized by sterilization can be observed through the comments of Senator Abourezk himself:  “...given the small American Indian population, the 3,400 Indian sterilization figure [out of 55,000 Indian women of childbearing age] would be compared to sterilizing 452,000 non-Indian women.”

Conclusion:  Science has provided a means of categorizing and victimizing those in society deemed unworthy of continued existence. Its influence in academic and political circles has created a pervasive social bigotry that rewards extermination over reform. The failure to embrace the racial and cultural diversity of this country has left a wake of destruction and oppression in minority populations. It is time for the pundits of social change to rearrange their thinking and give back to the people the power to choose what is right for themselves. [Footnotes removed]