Wenona Singel: “Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real”

From MSU Today, here is “Faculty voice: Intergenerational trauma to indigenous families is real.”

Winona Singel

Wenona Singel

Professor of Law and Director of Indigenous Law and Policy Center Wenona Singel is currently researching and writing a book on her family’s multi-generational experience with forcible removal of Indian children in U.S. history. Below is an excerpt.

Five generations of my family experienced and responded to U.S. policies of forced displacement and assimilation. In 1840, my third-great-grandfather lost his Native family around the time of the U.S. military’s forcible mass detention and removal of Native people in southern Michigan.

He was raised by a Native family that moved from southern Michigan to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. My ancestors lived in northern Michigan settled in a Native village at Burt Lake, where they purchased multiple lots of land. Later, they transferred title to that land to the Governor of Michigan to be held in trust for their benefit.

On October 15, 1900, Sheriff Fred Ming of Cheboygan County and a lumber speculator named John McGinn poured kerosene on the entire Native village at Burt Lake, destroying everything but the church and one small shack. Following that event, which is now referred to as the Burt Lake Burnout by Michigan Native communities, children of Burt Lake village, including my great-grandfather’s generation, were sent to the federally operated Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School.

Indian boarding schools throughout the U.S. were well-documented sites of forcible assimilation, abuse, and neglect. Native children, who were frequently removed from their homes against their parents’ wishes, arrived at the schools, where they were stripped of their traditional clothing. Their hair was cut short, they were forbidden from speaking their Indigenous languages, they were taught menial skills, and they suffered from numerous forms of physical and sexual abuse as well as malnutrition, rampant spread of disease, and other forms of neglect.

Many Native children died during their institutionalization at Indian boarding schools, and the U.S. has only identified a portion of the grave sites of these children. Those who survived Indian boarding schools speak of persistent feelings of unworthiness and shame for being Indian.

My grandfather was among the children born to the generation that attended the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial School. He attended Holy Childhood School of Jesus, an Indian boarding school operated by the Catholic Church in Harbor Springs, Michigan.

At Holy Childhood, my grandfather met my grandmother, who also lived at the school. They later married and had five children, all of whom were taken from them by social services.

One of the lasting legacies of Indian boarding schools is that children who attended these schools grew up without exposure to their own families’ parenting skills. Instead, survivors grew up learning cooking and cleaning over academics and were subjected to institutional abuse.

These experiences deeply traumatized many survivors of the schools and left them unprepared for gainful employment and economic prosperity in adulthood. Furthermore, social services agencies in the twentieth century treated Native families as incapable of raising their own children.

By 1978, 25% to 35% of all Native children in the U.S. were removed from their homes and placed in foster care, adoptive homes, or institutions. In nearly all cases, Native children were placed with families who were not Native, leading to the widespread loss of children’s cultural identity and connection with their tribal communities.

Like so many of the Native children born in the 1950s, my mother was removed from her family as an infant and lived in multiple foster care homes until she was adopted by a white Catholic family with one of her biological sisters at the age of five.

My mother and aunt experienced loss of their Anishinaabe cultural identity. They also confronted cruel negative stereotypes about Native Americans in their schools, church, and family.

As an 18-year-old girl, my mother became pregnant with me and left her adoptive family. For three years, my mother and I “couch-surfed” in temporary housing until my sister was born and we found an income-pooling commune founded by a church in Detroit. The following year, when I was four, my baby sister was taken from us and adopted by a white family.

Today, I am a parent to two children. I am committed to documenting the impact of federal and state Indian law and policy on Native families and the intergenerational trauma it produces. I want my own children to be the first generation in my family since at least 1840 not to experience separation from their parents. (However, my sister lost custody of her son following life in the adoptive home that she fled during adolescence.)

I became extremely self-reliant as a child to compensate for the challenges my family had as a result of abuse and neglect. However, many negative impacts of the toxic stress of my early years continue to affect me today, such as constant hyper-vigilance and the sensation of being in survival mode, even though I’ve long established the security I lacked in my youth.

My story is not exceptional; rather, it’s representative of and part of a pattern common to Native families throughout the country. Themes of substance abuse, thoughts of suicide, domestic violence, lack of secure housing, and financial issues plagued the adults in my family, contributing to toxic stress.

On the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale, which measures children’s exposure to various forms of abuse, neglect, dysfunction, and chaos, I score an 8 out of 10. Scores of 8 through 10 are shared by an estimated 1% to 3% of the U.S. population.

I know many Native community members who score a 10 out of 10. Studies have shown that people with an ACE score of 4 or more have a greater likelihood of developing chronic health conditions, they are four times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders than the general population, and they have a lower life expectancy.

They are also 12 times more likely to attempt suicide.

My work is intended to help other Native families understand how federal and state Indian policies have contributed to multiple generations of profound harm that continue to cause reverberating impacts in the present.

I am exploring how evidence-based strategies for surviving and thriving despite high ACE scores can be scaled and tailored to address historic trauma using culture, traditional teachings, and education.

I am also examining how our justice and political system might respond and provide remedies for the intergenerational harm.

I am an advocate of a multi-pronged approach that includes components such as an acknowledgement of the full effect of the harms experienced by Native families; formal and meaningful apologies; accountability for individuals, organizations, and governments; restitution; rehabilitation; and healing as defined and prescribed by Indigenous communities.

Try as they did, the federal and state governments did not succeed at whitewashing our people. It came close. And now they must take action on each of these prongs to help Indigenous people heal.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Effort to Relitigate San Juan Basin Water Rights

Here is the unpublished opinion in Clark v. Haaland.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Federal Brief

Navajo Brief

New Mexico Brief 

Reply

Cherokee Nation Sues Arkansas over Choctaw-Supported Gaming Referendum

Here is the amended complaint in Cherokee Nation Businesses LLC v. State of Arkansas (E.D. Ark.):

New Student Scholarship on Oklahoma Choctaw Constitutional Interpretation

Crispin South has posted “Transplanted Rights in the Choctaw Nation: Threats to Sovereignty and Potential Solutions,” forthcoming in the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The constitutions of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes are varied, but nearly all contain a bill of rights. The Choctaw Nation’s Constitution, like that of several other Tribes, rather than specifically enumerating rights, instead contains a single catch-all provision, protecting the same rights available to citizens of the State of Oklahoma. Recently, the Choctaw Nation’s Constitutional Court adopted a broad interpretation of this provision, potentially allowing non-Tribal sovereigns, like the State of Oklahoma, to indirectly control the laws and public policy of the Tribe. This is a serious threat to the Tribe’s sovereignty, touching on issues of transplanted law raised by Indian Law scholars Elmer Rusco and Wenona Singel. To address this threat, the Choctaw Nation, and other Tribal Nations with similar constitutional provisions, ought to adopt a practice of selectively incorporating rights. Under this approach, only those rights fundamental to the Tribal structure of liberty and democracy would be incorporated, thus preserving the Tribe’s right to be different from the State, and the United States. Little has been written regarding these “transplanted rights” provisions in Tribal constitutions, and nearly nothing has been published proposing judicial and legislative solutions to the problems raised by these provisions. This note fills this gap in the literature by proposing judicially focused solutions, legislative solutions, and solutions involving constitutional reform.

ALI-CLE on Developments in American Indian Law — Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024 @ Noon eastern

Here:

Why You Should Attend

From the early 19th century to today, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have significantly shaped the lives and rights of American Indian communities. These rulings impact critical areas like governance, jurisdiction, natural resource management, and religious freedoms. By attending this course, you will gain valuable insights into the legal struggles and triumphs that have defined American Indian history. The program highlights key issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights, treaty obligations, and cultural preservation, showing how the Supreme Court has influenced the legal landscape of American Indian rights.

What You Will Learn

Attendees will dive into the evolving field of American Indian law with a special focus on U.S. Supreme Court decisions that directly affect tribal sovereignty, land rights, and treaty obligations. With these legal issues becoming increasingly relevant in today’s practice—impacting areas like environmental law and civil rights—understanding the foundational cases and legal challenges faced by Native communities is critical. This course will arm you with the knowledge to address these complex legal questions with confidence and precision.

Questions will be submitted live to the faculty and all registrants will receive downloadable course materials to accompany the program.

Who Should Attend

This course is ideal for attorneys who are interested in or currently practicing in areas that intersect with Native American law. It is particularly valuable for those working in fields related to civil rights, land use, environmental law, and government relations, as well as those involved in representing tribal governments or advocating for Native communities.

Additionally, public officials, policymakers, and educators seeking to broaden their understanding of tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and the historical context of U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting Native American law will benefit greatly from the insights provided in this program. Whether you are seeking to enhance your legal practice or simply deepen your knowledge of the complexities of Native American legal issues, this course offers essential learning for anyone committed to justice and equity in this vital area of law.

Register two or more and SAVE! Register as a group for this program and save up to 35%. Click here for more details. (Offer valid on new registrations in the same delivery format only; discounts may not be combined.)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law, Co-director, Program in Race, Law, and History, Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI

Matthew L.M. Fletcher is the Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at Michigan Law. He teaches and writes in the areas of federal Indian law, American Indian tribal law, Anishinaabe legal and political philosophy, constitutional law, federal courts, and legal ethics. He also sits as the chief justice of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Fletcher is the Reporter for The American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law, The Law of American Indians.

Minnesota SCT Justice Anne McKeig to Visit MLaw This Friday

Justice McKeig will address the MLaw Native American Law Students Association and the Michigan Tribal-State-Federal Judicial Forum.

Forthcoming Soon: “Stick Houses,” a Short Story Collection from MSU Press [January 2025]

Preorder here.

Blurbs:

“Fletcher’s lyrical and lucid collection draws the reader into the heart and depth of each story in a multifaceted portrait of an Anishinaabe community and its people, an immersion into landscapes and lives that is a compelling and satisfying literary experience.” —Linda Grover, professor emeritus of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a member of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa 

”Come, journey into the life, the stark truths, the unbelievable circumstances that Native Americans contend with on a daily basis. Fletcher has opened up our universe to allow you, the reader, a chance to share the usually unspoken.” –Louis V. Clark III (Two Shoes), author of How to Be an Indian in the 21st Century and Rebel

Taylor Mills on Self-Indigenization and the Indian Child Welfare Act

Dr. Taylor Elyse Mills has published “Protecting the Next Seven Generations: Self-Indigenization and the Indian Child Welfare Act” in Genealology.

Here is the abstract:

In 1978, the United States enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) “to protect the best interest of Indian Children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children and placement of such children in homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture.” The ICWA was codified to address centuries of genocidal government policies, boarding schools, and coercive adoptions that ruptured many Native families. Now one of the strongest pieces of legislation to protect Native communities, the ICWA was designed to ensure that Native foster children are placed with Native families. Implementing the ICWA has not been smooth, however, as many non-Native foster parents and state governments have challenged the ICWA. While the ICWA has survived these legal challenges, including the recent 2023 Haaland v. Brackeen Supreme Court case, the rise of non-Natives claiming Native heritage, also known as self-indigenizers or “pretendians,” represents a new threat to the ICWA. This Article presents a legal history and analysis of the ICWA to unpack the policy implications of pretendians in the U.S. legal context. This Article demonstrates how the rise of pretendians threatens to undermine the very purpose of the ICWA and thereby threaten the sovereignty of Native peoples. By legally sanctioning the adoption of Native children into non-Native pretendian homes, the ICWA can facilitate a new era of settlers raising Native children, rather than preventing this phenomenon as intended. In response, this Article offers concrete policy recommendations to bolster the ICWA against this threat.