BLOGGER changed, not allowing us to UPDATE this back-up blog

(UPDATED 726/2025) issues with blogger are preventing this

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Indian Paper Genocide: Racial Supremacist Walter Plecker

Walter Plecker: Master of Documentary Genocide

Documentary Genocide: Families Surnames on Racial Hit List


By Peter Hardin, Times-Dispatch Washington Correspondent | March 5, 2000

Long before the Indian woman gave birth to a baby boy, Virginia branded him with a race other than his own.

The young Monacan Indian mother delivered her son at Lynchburg General Hospital in 1971. Proud of her Indian heritage, the woman was dismayed when hospital officials designated him as black on his birth certificate. They threatened to bar his discharge unless she acquiesced. The original orders came from Richmond generations ago.

Virginia’s former longtime registrar of the Bureau of Vital Statistics, Dr. Walter Ashby Plecker, believed there were no real native-born Indians in Virginia and anybody claiming to be Indian had a mix of black blood.

In aggressively policing the color line, he classified “pseudo-Indians” as black and even issued in 1943 a hit list of surnames belonging to “mongrel” or mixed-blood families suspected of having Negro ancestry who must not be allowed to pass as Indian or white.

With hateful language, he denounced their tactics.

  ". . . Like rats when you are not watching, [they] have been 'sneaking’ in their birth certificates through their own midwives, giving either Indian or white racial classification,” Plecker wrote.

Twenty-eight years later, the Monacan mother’s surname still was on Plecker’s list. She argued forcefully with hospital officials. She lost.

Today, the woman’s eyes reveal her lingering pain. She consulted with civil rights lawyers and eventually won a correction on her son’s birth certificate.

“I don’t think the prejudice will ever stop,” said the woman, who agreed to talk to a reporter only on condition of anonymity.

She waged a personal battle in modern times against the bitter legacy of Plecker, who ran the bureau from 1912 to 1946. A racial supremacist, Plecker and his influential allies helped shape one of the darkest chapters of Virginia’s history. It was an epoch of Virginia-sponsored racism.

A physician born just before the Civil War, Plecker embraced the now-discredited eugenics movement as a scientific rationale for preserving Caucasian racial purity. He saw only two races, Caucasian and non-Caucasian, and staunchly opposed their “amalgamation.”

After helping win passage in 1924 of a strict race classification and anti-miscegenation law called the Racial Integrity Act, Plecker engaged in a zealous campaign to prevent what he considered “destruction of the white or higher civilization.”

When he perceived Indians as threats to enforcing the color line, he used the tools of his office to endeavor to crush them and deny their existence.

Many Western tribes experienced government neglect during the 20th century, but the Virginia story was different: The Indians were consciously targeted for mistreatment.

Plecker changed racial labels on vital records to classify Indians as “colored,” investigated the pedigrees of racially “suspect” citizens, and provided information to block or annul interracial marriages with whites. He testified against Indians who challenged the law.

Virginia’s Indians refused to die out, although untold numbers moved away or assumed a low profile. Now, eight surviving tribes recognized by Virginia in the 1980s are preparing to seek sovereign status from the U.S. government through an act of Congress. About 3,000 of the 15,000 Indians counted in Virginia in the 1990 census were indigenous to the state, experts say.

As they bid for federal recognition, more Indian leaders are talking openly about the injustice of Plecker’s era. They gave a copy of his 1943 “hit list” to Virginia members of Congress along with other data in support of their bid.

Modern scholars have studied Plecker and the racial integrity era. Their findings contributed to this article. Yet he’s not widely known today.

“It’s an untold story,” said Oliver Perry, chief emeritus of the Nansemond Tribe.

“It’s not that we’re trying to dig him up and re-inter him again,” said Gene Adkins, assistant chief of the Eastern Chickahominy Tribe.

“We want people to know that he did damage the Indian population here in the state. And it’s taken us years, even up to now, to try to get out from under what he did. It’s a sad situation, really sad.”
Said Chief William P. Miles of the Pamunkey Tribe: “He came very close to committing statistical genocide on Native Americans in Virginia.”

Chief G. Anne Richardson of the Rappahannock Tribe spoke bluntly: “Devastation. Holocaust. Genocide."

“Those are the words I would use to describe what he did to us,” she said. “It was obvious his goal was the demise of all Native Americans in Virginia. . . . We were not allowed to be who we are in our own country, by officials in the government.”

For people of Indian heritage, Plecker’s name “brings to mind a feeling that a Jew would have for the name of Hitler,” said Russell E. Booker Jr., Virginia registrar from 1982 to 1995. That view “certainly is justified.”

Indeed, one of Plecker’s most chilling letters mentioned Adolf Hitler - and not unfavorably.
“Our own indexed birth and marriage records showing race reach back to 1853,” Plecker wrote U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier in 1943. “Such a study has probably never been made before.

“Your staff member is probably correct in his surmise that Hitler’s genealogical study of the Jews is not more complete.”

Plecker also used haunting rhetoric in publishing a brochure on “Virginia’s Vanished Race” a month before his death in 1947. He asked, “Is the integrity of the master race, with our Indians as a demonstration, also to pass by the mongrelizations route?”

Confronting an Era

On wooded Bear Mountain, miles up a country road outside Amherst, a visitor finds more evidence of the new willingness to confront Plecker’s era head-on.

It’s the historical center of the Monacan Indian Nation. A one-room log schoolhouse dating to the 1870s is standing. Also there are a simple white church and a small ancestral museum with a new sign proclaiming “History Preserved is Knowledge Gained.”

Tribal activist and researcher Diane Shields digs into her files and pulls out for a visitor a dozen manila folders with photocopies of Plecker’s letters covering two decades.

The Monacans acknowledge the stigma and pain, the second-class status, the lack of economic opportunity and the inferior education inflicted upon them and other Virginia tribes.

Indian children were relegated to substandard “colored” schools. Their parents, wanting to keep an Indian identity, often declined to send them there. Some tribal children studied in lower grades at reservation schools or church-sponsored schools like the one at Bear Mountain.

Even in this history of oppression, some Monacans have found a value: a common identity.
“It’s a horrible thing, what he did to the Indian people,” Shields said of Plecker. “But you know what? It gives me a sense of belonging - because I’m grouped with my own people.

“It kind of backfired with Plecker. He pushed the Indian people closer and gave us an identity.”
Her brother, Johnny Johns, is a tribal leader and electrical technician. He’s 51. Enrolled at Lynchburg College at midlife, he’s been learning about the eugenics movement. Johns, whose surname was on Plecker’s “hit list,” regards him in two ways.

First, there’s “the horror, the terror.” Yet he believes Plecker “did us a favor, because the list of [Indian] names is there. We know who we are. It’s a two-edged sword, a duality.”

Monacan Chief Kenneth Branham, 47, remembers shunning by whites when Indian children were first allowed into public elementary school in the 1960s. School bus drivers sometimes refused to transport them.

Plecker was cruel, Branham believes. But “he kind of drew us together. We were a tightknit group, because there was nobody else we could associate with.”

His tribe, which has grown dramatically in recent years to about 1,100 enrolled members, is using federal grant money to document its history. The Monacans are making their comeback with people like Shields and Johns, who were drawn back from beyond Virginia to their family and tribal roots, the place they now call home.

Among them is Indian activist Mary B. Wade, who learned only in the late 1980s about her Monacan heritage from an uncle in Maryland. Now she’s secretary of the Virginia Council on Indians, a state government advisory panel.

The Monacan tribe owns more than 100 acres on and near Bear Mountain and dreams of buying hundreds more, developing a retirement home and a day-care center.

These Amherst Indians won recognition from the General Assembly in 1989, five years after Lynchburg pediatrician Peter Houck laid out a Monacan genealogy for what was once called a lost tribe. Houck detailed his findings in a book, and the recognition has contributed to a spirit of resurgence among the Monacans.

Indian people of Amherst and adjoining Rockbridge counties were a special target of Plecker.
He wrote in a 1925 letter, “The Amherst-Rockbridge group of about 800 similar people are giving us the most trouble, through actual numbers and persistent claims of being Indians. Some well-meaning church workers have established an `Indian Mission’ around which they rally.”

Across the state in eastern Virginia, home for tribes that once made up the Powhatan Confederation, Plecker evokes diverse reactions from Indian leaders.
 
“He was just determined to get rid of us,” said Chief A. Leonard Adkins, 73, of the Chickahominy Tribe. “It was hard to believe that a man could do what he did and get away with it.”

A Chickahominy midwife was threatened by with imprisonment by Plecker if she didn’t stop putting `Indian’ on birth records, Adkins said. She decided to stop her midwifery rather than buckle under to him or risk a prison term.

During Plecker’s era, a number of Indians didn’t admit to their cultural heritage or pass down traditions to their children. It was easier for many to adapt to white society, said Chief Barry Bass of the Nansemond Tribe.

“There’s probably a lot who have gone to their grave who still didn’t admit they were Indian. That’s where it hurt,” said Bass, the acting chairman of the Virginia Council on Indians.

Plecker wrote in a 1924 state-published pamphlet, “Eugenics in Relation to the New Family,” that there were no true Indians in Virginia who didn’t have some black blood. He later refined this to apply to “native-born people in Virginia calling themselves Indians.”

His 1943 letter alluding to “rats . . . `sneaking’ in their birth certificates” claimed that mixed-blood groups were intent above all on “escaping negro status and securing recognition as white, with the resulting privilege of attending white schools and ultimately attaining the climax of their ambitions, marrying into the white race.”

Plecker misunderstood the Indians’ culture, said Dr. Helen C. Rountree, an anthropologist and Virginia Indian expert recently retired from Old Dominion University. Those whom she studied in eastern Virginia believed that if they married a white, the children would be Indians, Rountree wrote in her book, “Pocahontas’s People.”

These Indians did not want to be “white,” she wrote, although they wanted access to the better facilities available to whites and the freedom to marry whites to avoid inbreeding.

In drawing his conclusions, Plecker relied heavily on old birth and death records that indicated only whether an individual was white or nonwhite, said former registrar Booker.

“There was no place to register `Indian.’ Nonwhite was later taken to mean black, by Plecker and by the Racial Integrity Act,” Booker said.

To Booker, the racial integrity era amounted to what today would be called “ethnic cleansing.” Or “documentary genocide.”

“He was convinced he was one of the chosen,” Booker said of Plecker. “He was the original martinet.”

The Plecker Letters


Plecker left a major paper trail.

He gave carbon copies of hundreds of his official letters, neatly typed on “Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health” stationery, to John Powell, a Richmond-born concert pianist and an outspoken advocate for race-purity measures in Virginia.

Today, the letters offer a rare record of a bureaucrat intruding in individual lives, harassing and intimidating citizens, bullying local officials and stamping out civil rights.

The correspondence is housed in a collection of Powell documents at the University of Virginia’s Alderman Library. Powell graduated Phi Beta Kappa from U.Va. at age 18. He became an internationally known pianist and lectured in U.Va.’s music department.

In one letter, Plecker wrote a Lynchburg woman in 1924 to correct a supposedly false birth report for her child, which had been signed by a midwife.

“This is to give you warning that this is a mulatto child and you cannot pass it off as white,” he wrote.

Plecker apprised her of the new “one-drop” rule, which defined a white person as having “no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian.”

“You will have to do something about this matter and see that this child is not allowed to mix with white children,” Plecker admonished. “It cannot go to white schools and can never marry a white person in Virginia. It is an awful thing.”

To a woman he knew to be from a “respectable” white family in Hampton, Plecker voiced surprise that she would ask about a license to marry a man of mixed African descent.

“I trust . . . that you will immediately break off entirely with this young mulatto man,” he wrote.

Plecker threatened a Fishersville woman with prosecution in 1944 for a birth record he contended hid her Negro lineage.

“After the war it is possible that some of these cases will come into court. We might try this one. It would make a good one if you continue to try to be what you are not,” Plecker warned.

His writing supports the view of leading scholars that Indians were a secondary, not primary, target of the eugenics movement in Virginia.

“The attack on persons of African descent laid the foundation for the attack against the American Indian community in Virginia as a mixed-race population,” wrote an anthropologist, Dr. Danielle Moretti-Langholtz of the College of William and Mary, in a dissertation on the political resurgence of Virginia’s Indians.

Plecker was vehement about preserving the color line.

“Two races as materially divergent as the white and the negro, in morals, mental powers, and cultural fitness, cannot live in close contact without injury to the higher,” he told an American Public Health Association session in 1924. “The lower never has been and never can be raised to the level of the higher.”

Plecker went on, “We are now engaged in a struggle more titanic, and of far greater importance than that with the Central Powers from which we have recently emerged,” he added. “Many scarcely know that the struggle which means the life or death of our civilization is now in progress, and are giving it He concluded, “Let us turn a deaf ear to those who would interpret Christian brotherhood to mean racial equality.”

Rise to Power

He had risen to become Virginia’s first registrar at a time when segregationist Jim Crow laws and attitudes already were securely in place in the South.

In the eugenics movement, Plecker and allies found a basis in “science” for their extremist thinking, according to scholars who have studied him.

Plecker was born April 2, 1861, in Augusta County. He died at age 86 in August 1947 when he failed to look before crossing the street on Chamberlayne Avenue in Richmond and was hit by a car.

Schooled at Hoover Military Academy in Staunton, he attended the University of Virginia and graduated with a degree in medicine from the University of Maryland in 1885. For about 25 years, he practiced as a country doctor. After joining the health department of Elizabeth City County, now the city of Hampton, he set up a system for keeping health records and vital statistics, earning that county a national reputation.

In 1912, he came to Richmond to help state officials organize the Bureau of Vital Statistics, and he was tapped as its first registrar. Births, deaths and marriages would have to be reported to the bureau.

“He was a pioneer in the health of the newborn,” said former registrar Booker, who as a youngster delivered the newspaper to Plecker’s Richmond home. “He wrote what I thought was an outstanding book for midwives.”

Plecker was drawn to the eugenics movement, which held that society and mankind’s future could be improved by promoting better breeding.

He was among eugenics adherents who believed in the supremacy of white genetic stock, the inferiority of other races and the threat that mixing with the white race would lead to decline or destruction.

To push for law to preserve “racial integrity,” Plecker teamed with Powell and Tennessee-born Earnest S. Cox, author of a book titled “White America.”

Powell was a leading founder of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, an all-male, native-born group started in Richmond in September 1922 and a year later claiming to have 25 posts statewide. Plecker was a member.

Its goals were preservation of Anglo-Saxon ideals and “the supremacy of the white race in the United States of America without racial prejudice or hatred,” according to its constitution.

“This was the Klan of the aristocracy - the real gentleman’s Klan,” said J. David Smith of Longwood College, a eugenics expert.

Newspaper accounts at the time detailed a link with former Richmond KKK members. The Richmond Lodge of the KKK seceded in 1922 from the national organization, according to news accounts. A lawyer for some of the former Klansmen said the national group was judged to be a “rampant anti-Catholic organization instead of an organization to maintain white supremacy.”

“The Ku-Klux Klan in Richmond organized the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, and the local organization is known as Richmond Post, No. 1,” the lawyer went on to say in The Times-Dispatch.

Powell wrote in correspondence later that the Anglo-Saxon Clubs had “no connection whatever” with the KKK and were “in no sense unfriendly to the Negro.”

In 1924 the General Assembly adopted race-purity legislation championed by the Anglo-Saxon Clubs and promoted by Plecker, Cox and Powell. It would stand until a landmark 1967 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Racial Integrity Act was one of the nation’s strictest. It defined white person for the first time, using the “one-drop rule,” and went beyond earlier state law against inter-marriage by making it illegal for whites to marry any nonwhites, including Asians.

However, the law permitted persons with one-sixteenth American Indian blood and “no other non-Caucasic blood” to be classified as white. That was a nod to descendants of Pocahontas, some of whom counted themselves among “first families” of Virginia.

Some leading state newspapers, including The Times-Dispatch and The Richmond News Leader, endorsed the race-purity goals.

The Times-Dispatch editorialized in 1924 that race intermingling would “sound the death knell of the white man. Once a drop of inferior blood gets in his veins, he descends lower and lower in the mongrel scale.”

This newspaper also gave Powell a platform, publishing two years later a 13-part series of his articles titled “The Last Stand” and describing what he called Virginia’s declining racial purity.

Plecker, meanwhile, lent support for black separatist Marcus Garvey’s back-to-Africa movement.

Plecker kept trying to narrow loopholes in the Virginia law. The legislature agreed in 1930 to define “colored” people as those “in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood.”

Framers of the Racial Integrity Act found “a convenient facade” for their race prejudices in the “pseudo-science of eugenics,” said Paul A. Lombardo, a eugenics expert who teaches at the University of Virginia law school.

Lombardo wrote, “The true motive behind the [act] was the maintenance of white supremacy and black economic and social inferiority - racism, pure and simple.”

Enforcing the Act 

In his more than 30 years as registrar, Plecker stood up to those who disagreed with him, urged him to back off, or got in his way.

They included courageous Indians, a Virginia governor and federal officials.

Some people were imprisoned for violating the Racial Integrity Act, but a number of juries wouldn’t convict. There were legal challenges to the act and Plecker’s enforcement, but it took the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 to void Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law.

Two of the earliest challenges came in Rockbridge County in 1924.

A circuit judge upheld in the first case the denial of a marriage license for an Indian woman to marry a white man. But in the second case, he set the eugenics backers reeling.

Judge Henry W. Holt heard expert testimony from Plecker before ruling in favor of an Indian woman who had challenged the denial of a license for her to wed a white man.

Holt found no evidence that the woman, Atha Sorrells, was of mixed lineage under a reasonable interpretation of the new law. He questioned its constitutionality and the legal meaning of the term Caucasian.

“Half the men who fought at Hastings were my grandfathers. Some of them were probably hanged and some knighted, who can tell? Certainly in some instances there was an alien strain. Beyond peradventure, I cannot prove that there was not,” he wrote in his opinion.

Drawing on “Alice in Wonderland,” he added, “Alice herself never got into a deeper tangle.”

John Powell shot back with a pamphlet, published by the Anglo-Saxon Clubs, titled “The Breach in the Dike: an Analysis of the Sorrels Case Showing the Danger to Racial Integrity from Intermarriage of Whites with So-Called Indians.”

Holt’s ruling was not appealed, however. An assistant state attorney general warned that the act might be declared unconstitutional.

Absalom Willis Robertson, the Rockbridge commonwealth’s attorney, represented the state. A former state senator, Robertson would rise to fame as a congressman and U.S. senator for 34 years. A conservative Democrat, he was known as an expert on federal finances.

On civil rights, Sen. Robertson opposed the progressive stands of the national Democratic Party and was involved in the filibuster over civil rights legislation in 1963. His son, Republican Pat Robertson, is the conservative television evangelist who founded the Christian Coalition and, in 1988, ran for president.

In an October 1924 letter, Plecker personally had asked A.W. Robertson to represent Virginia “if your charge is not too great, and the Governor will pay the bill.”

Gov. E. Lee Trinkle, too, had written Robertson. “Willis, this law is a new one and I regard it of vital importance. There are a great many of our real substantial white people who fought hard for the Bill and are doing all they can to help out in this situation over the State.”

Asking what Robertson would charge if he were to represent the state, Trinkle added, “I know that you will be more than reasonable because you, like the rest of us, are interested in this movement.”
When Plecker sought to have the race-purity law toughened the following year, the governor advised moderation.

Trinkle wrote Plecker, urging him to “be conservative and reasonable and not create any ill feeling if it can be avoided between the Indians and the State government.

“From reports that come to me,” Trinkle added, “I am afraid sentiment is moulding itself along the line that you are too hard on these people and pushing matters too fast.”

Plecker didn’t yield. The registrar tried to tell U.S. Census officials how to list Indians and urged Selective Service officials not to induct them as whites.

A number of Virginia Indians, struggling to retain their identity, battled to be inducted with whites in World War II, a position Plecker opposed. Through various petitions and channels, the Indians met inconsistent results.

Three Rappahannock men who refused induction with blacks were prosecuted and sentenced to prison, but they later were allowed to pass the war years by laboring in hospitals as conscientious objectors. Yet in a federal court in western Virginia, a judge sided with seven Amherst County Indians who resisted induction as Negroes.

Finally the government, after years of wrangling, generally deferred to registrants to choose their race, an Indian victory that some scholars believe helped pave the way for the civil rights movement.
In the same period, Plecker wrote a letter to Powell that reflected a defeat - and Plecker’s own authoritative gamesmanship.

Plecker had begun putting “corrections” on the backs of birth certificates issued by his bureau before 1924 to remove the designation “Indian.” A prominent Richmond attorney, John Randolph Tucker, representing two Amherst County Indians challenged Plecker’s standing to “constitute himself judge and jury” by making such a change and threatened court action.

Plecker yielded temporarily. “This is the worst backset which we have received since Judge Holt’s decision,” he confided to Powell on Oct. 13, 1942. “In reality I have been doing a good deal of bluffing, knowing all the while that it could not be legally sustained. This is the first time my hand has absolutely been called.”

The “backset” didn’t last long. The General Assembly voted in 1944 to allow the registrar to put on the backs of birth, death or marriage certificates data that would correct erroneous racial labels on the front.

Plecker died in 1947. But his legacy survived. Not until 13 years after the Warren Court’s landmark 1954 desegregation decision in Brown vs. Board of Education was the intermarriage ban in Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act overturned.

Saying Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law was based on racial distinctions, the Supreme Court concluded, “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.

“The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification as measures designed to maintain white supremacy.”

In 1975, Virginia repealed its racial definition and segregation laws.

Lasting Damage 

Virginia tribes preparing to seek federal recognition as sovereign nations have told officials in Washington about the lasting damage sustained in the Plecker era, three centuries after Virginia’s “first people” encountered the European settlers.

A bill being drafted by Rep. James P. Moran, D-8th, would ask Congress to grant federal recognition.
Gene Adkins of the Eastern Chickahominy said it may take beyond the current generation of Virginia Indians to correct the wrongs of Plecker’s era.

“We’re getting [more] advantages, but we still don’t have the same advantages today of the white population,” Adkins said.

Telling the story of Plecker’s mistreatment of the Indians could open more doors, Adkins said.
“It boils down to this: More people will be sympathetic to what we’re trying to do.”


Note From Trace: When doing genealogy, this example is hitting the brick walls in ancestry for many Eastern Tribal Nations...  SOURCE

Friday, January 30, 2015

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

By Mark Karlin, Truthout 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Where is Michael Swartz?

By Trace Hentz

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

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

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

What Happened to Michael Swartz?

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

Here is a profile of the case from 2004:

Profile of Larry Swartz

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

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


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Brewing Controversy: Genetic Testing and Tribal Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, January 26, 2015

Broken: Trauma Bonding? #flipthescript #validvoices





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

 

By Trace Hentz (adoption survivor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The bizarre ESP experiments conducted on aboriginal children without parental consent

January 16 Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEEP READING

click

Contact Trace

Name

Email *

Message *

NO MORE UPDATES

GO TO:  https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/  for updates and news. THIS BLOG cannot be updated...