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.

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.

D.C. Federal Court Will Not Hold Feds in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Burt Lake Federal Recognition Matter, Despite “Petulant” Tone of Government’s Response

Here is the minute order in Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. Haaland (D.D.C.): 

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Enforce Judgment. In March of 2020, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. See Dkt. 39. It struck down the Department of Interior’s 2015 ban on tribes’ re-petitioning for federal recognition as arbitrary and capricious, and it remanded the challenged rule to the agency for further consideration. See Dkt. 40. The matter is still under consideration today. In July of 2023, when a new rule had yet to be enacted, plaintiff moved to reopen the case and asked the Court to order DOI to adopt a final rule based on what was the most recent draft at the time. See Dkt. 71. The Court denied that motion for lack of jurisdiction, but on August 21, 2023, it did order DOI to submit its finalized draft to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget – a separate agency that had to be consulted – by August 31, 2023. Min. Order (Aug. 21, 2023). DOI moved for reconsideration, and in August of 2023, the Court modified its order to require the Department of the Interior to submit either a new proposed rule or a final rule to OIRA by October 31, 2023 and to update the Court on the status of its efforts by November 1, 2023. On November 1, the government reported that OIRA deemed the proposed rule to be “a significant regulatory action” warranting 90 more days of interagency review, after which OIRA would send comments back to the Department of Interior, the Department would respond, OIRA would reconsider, and, eventually, senior leadership at the agency would finalize the rule. Dkt. 77. Almost a year later, on August 2, 2024, plaintiffs moved the Court to hold defendants in contempt and to order defendants to finalize the rule at issue in this case by November 1, 2024. Dkt. 80. According to plaintiff, “DOI is no closer to publishing a final rule than this time last year and has evaded publishing a new rule for over four years. The Court can set this deadline by either enforcing its judgment or finding DOI in contempt for its failure to comply.” Id. at 1. In its opposition to the motion, defendants informed the Court that it submitted a second proposed rule to OIRA on October 31, 2023 in compliance with this Court’s August 21, 2023 minute order, see Decl. of Oliver Whaley p. 7, Ex. 1 to Def.’s Opp. [82-1] at 2, and that the second proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2024, with public comments due by September 13, 2024. Id. p. 18. Nevertheless, defendants’ declarant avers that there is still more work to be done, including further OIRA review and approval from Department of Interior leadership. Id. p. 2122. While the petulant tone of the defendants’ submission is misplaced given the inexcusably long period of time it has taken it to get to this point, it is true that DOI is not in violation of the Court’s Order of August 21, 2023, and its recent actions are consistent with the Court’s judgment, so holding defendants in contempt would be inappropriate in light of these recent developments. Nevertheless, four years have elapsed since the Court’s judgment, and a rule has yet to be promulgated. It is therefore ORDERED that defendants must file a status report by October 11, 2024 informing the Court of further developments since their opposition was filed at the end of August. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/4/2024. (lcabj2). (Entered: 10/07/2024) [emphasis added]

Prior post here.

This Saturday — American Indian Boarding Schools — the Michigan Anishinaabe Experience @ UM STAMPS Gallery

Here:

American Indian boarding schools hit the Great Lakes Anishinaabeg very hard. This panel brings together survivors willing to share their experiences, helping us to never forget.

Facilitated by Matthew Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan; and Wenona Singel, Director of the Indigenous Law & Policy Center, Michigan State University.

When

Saturday, October 5, 2024
2:00 – 4:00 pm

Where

In-person Event

Stamps Gallery
201 South Division Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Map/Directions
Hours/Access

Details

Lecture / Discussion
Open to the public
Free of charge

Registration Recommended

2024 Michigan Supreme Court Candidates and ICWA

Michigan judicial campaigns are down-ballot and nonpartisan but sometimes candidates reveal their ideological biases.

One Michigan Supreme Court candidate is a Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives who recently made a speech in opposition to an amendment to the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act. This candidate believes the Indian Child Welfare Act is unconstitutional because two members of the United States Supreme Court dissented in Haaland v. Brackeen. Dissents are not the law. He also made material misrepresentations about tribal membership rules and how the state law best interests of the child standard works in ICWA cases.

The other Michigan Supreme Court candidate has expressed her commitment to the rule of law. We like her lots.

Incidentally, the MIFPA amendment passed and is now law.

James Earl Jones American Masters Interview

Here.

An excerpt:

James Earl Jones: Well, the whole thing about black actors in leading roles began to, you know, occurred to me. And before that, I don’t think any. Hollywood sure didn’t worry about it. You know, where was the box office there they’d say, you know. And blacks weren’t in into complaining a lot about the images. I myself would watch John Wayne movies. I woke up to handle feeling like John Wayne. Didn’t matter to me. I didn’t need a black face to identify with, you know. But there was there was something that was missing in the American spectrum when I saw Jeff Turner playing all the Indians and not a real Indian. And I knew I was raised among Chippewa Indians and I knew what they looked like and what they were different culturally. And I kept wondering, well, why can’t I see them playing Cochise and so on and. And Sidney being Sidney and also Harry, both being from the Caribbean, that was somehow much more feasible in a way because they were they weren’t American black men. They were in touch with a different reality than guys like me from Mississippi, you know.

JEJ spent time in his childhood in Manistee, MI where he went to school with Michigan Anishinaabek from Little River.

He was also a Wolverine.

Fletcher on TraverseCityist Podcast on Michigan History

Here.

What do you remember learning in United States or Michigan History classes?  Matthew Fletcher explains the timeline of events that occurred after the signing of the Declaration of Independence up to the present time. Fletcher is the Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. 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 Porch Band of Creek Indians and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Matthew is also the author of The Eagle Returns, The Legal History of the Grand Travers Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This interview was recorded on July 17, 2024.

Episode 16 is sponsored by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Tribal Council.

Michigan Federal Court Asks Parties to Focus on Merits Rather than Discovery Squabbles in Tribes Suit against Insurance Company over Medicare-Like Rates

Here are new materials in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (E.D. Mich.):

295 SCIT Third Motion for Default Judgment

297 BCBS Response to 295

298 SCIT Reply ISO 295

299 BCBS Motion for Sanctions

302 SCIT Response to 299

303 BCBS Reply ISO 299

304 DCT Order

Most recent post here.