During the summers, White, a Dakota Indian, took those lessons with her when she returned to her home in Minneapolis, where she quietly witnessed her mother being battered. And later, submission was again a guiding rule as she endured eleven years of physical abuse in her own marriage.
November 07, 2006
How oppression repeats itself
Rising Violence Against Native Women Has ‘Colonial Roots’As a child, Lorraine White learned how to keep silent. At her missionary boarding school, where American Indian children were taken to be educated, she was taught how to conform and listen to authority.
During the summers, White, a Dakota Indian, took those lessons with her when she returned to her home in Minneapolis, where she quietly witnessed her mother being battered. And later, submission was again a guiding rule as she endured eleven years of physical abuse in her own marriage.
During the summers, White, a Dakota Indian, took those lessons with her when she returned to her home in Minneapolis, where she quietly witnessed her mother being battered. And later, submission was again a guiding rule as she endured eleven years of physical abuse in her own marriage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
My response as a person who was a co-founder of the first woman's shelter in Northern Colorado and who to this day works raising funds for domestic violence programs...
Bullhockey. The author and her sources are either woefully misinformed or disingenuous. Unfortunately, domestic abuse crosses ALL cultures from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, White America, Black America, and yes, Native America. The idea that any one ethnic group holds primary responsibility for the marginalization of women doesn't know their history or the facts.
The scourge of violence against women will NOT diminish by pinning the blame on past, or even present sins of others. Each and every community must look squarely in the eye on this issue.
And the statistics the author cites claiming Native women are abused more frequently by non-Native men? I can't respond to that specifically, but based on her other nonsensical statements she loses credibility with me.
Colonization certainly has created a sense of hopelessness in Indigenous peoples--that can't be argued. But beating women is as old as time itself, and sadly, not unique to the colonizers.
As I said, I have studied the stats on where abuse occurs and within what communities it is most prevalent, and if there is any predictive measurement, it's this: domestic abuse occurs in dysfunctional home environments. By dysfunctional, that could mean substance abuse, mental illness, and poverty. When those factors are present, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator and the victim are White, African-American, Native, or Asian.
Yes, Russ, it sounds like you were lucky to have parents who "never had let anyone oppress them." Instead, you could've had parents who were forced into boarding schools against the wishes of their parents.
Native women experience more domestic violence than any other minority. Why? Perhaps because they come from dysfunctional homes and communities. Why are they dysfunctional? Perhaps because they experienced unprecedented levels of oppression, relocation, and disruption.
Here are some facts on "Native American Women and Violence":
http://www.now.org/nnt/spring-2001/nativeamerican.html
Native American women experience the highest rate of violence of any group in the United States. A report released by the Department of Justice, American Indians and Crime, found that Native American women suffer violent crime at a rate three and a half times greater than the national average. National researchers estimate that this number is actually much higher than has been captured by statistics; according to the Department of Justice over 70% of sexual assaults are never reported.
It's a fact that Native women experience much more domestic violence. Carole, you attribute this to their dysfunctional home environments. Now take the next step and tell us what you attribute their dysfunctional home environments to.
Are Native parents and spouses simply making bad choices because they're incompetent or inferior as people? If so, how did they become this way? Were they born this way, or what? Give us your explanation for why domestic violence occurs more often in Native households than elsewhere.
Interesting stat, Rob. But not one supported by the most recent estimates published by the Feds and national domestic violence alliance. From these reports, actually, domestic violence occurs most frequently in Middle Eastern households first, followed by African-American homes; poor Whites likewise report much higher rates of abuse than do middle or upper class homes. I have NEVER seen statistics saying that Native women suffer the highest rates (although, like most poor populations, their rates are dreadfully high.)
If you read the NOW article, in the first paragraph they are referencing ALL kinds of violence toward women. Secondly, read the article carefully. Very carefully. In the fifth paragraph, look who conducted the study; a small Native-based organization that clearly has some self interest in inflating the results.
Let me put it this way. If I cited such a source to bolster my argument when applying for a grant, our proposal would be summarily dismissed.
Scientifically valid research follows a defined population over time compared with control groups in similar circumstances. Otherwise, the results can be interpreted as spurious, anecdotal and, even if well-meaning, too limited in its focus to be valid.
So, in conclusion, does that mean that I'm dismissing the claim that Native women suffer obscene rates of violence at the hands of their partners? Am I saying that family dysfunction isn't exacerbated by racism and outside societal factors?
No...and No. All I'm saying that making a claim that "violence against native women is a result of colonization" is a cop-out.
Men beat women--and they have for a long, long time. THAT'S the truth. The only difference is today it is coming out of the closet.
Lets focus on the bigger issue here--which is that Native women are being victimized at rates that are clearly unacceptable. The reasons, which I mentioned previously, are rooted in a host of problems not unique to Native men. Feelings of powerlessness, inability to support their families, rampant substance abuse, and in some circumstances, a culture of male dominance.
The legacy of colonization, while worthy to learn and understand, should never, ever be used to explain away any negative behavior. Personal responsibility begins and ends with...the person. Here, now and always. That's the only way to halt the violence prevalent in so many homes today-- Native, Black, White, and Asian.
As the author of the article, I'm happy to see that it has generated such lively debate. Though I don't purport to represent the people interviewed for the article, I will venture that there may be more points in the article that reflect Carole's analysis rather than contradict it.
Looking at historical and institutional factors was the aim of the article; analyzing those factors as a "cop-out" or an excuse for abusive behavior was not. The assertions posed in the article seem to fold into a holistic effort to cope with violence in these communities, on an institutional and individual basis. It seems that the comment made here acknowledges the significance of these same systemic forces.
Here are some references to statistics I found on the Web. I haven't found any that supported Carole's claim that Native women are third or lower on the list of abuse victims. If anyone has such statistics, feel free to provide them.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/10/02/jodirave/rave68.txt
The report, when it was released in 1999, could have been a call to action:
Native women are raped, abused, stalked and murdered more than any other group in the country.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34762.html
[E]xperts say it is hard to put a number on the domestic-violence problem in Indian Country because organizations and programs can’t provide complete data. Every tribal government has its own definition of domestic violence, and each collects its data in different ways.
“That is the problem we face in trying to collect or even corroborate data,” said Elena Giacci, director for the Coalition to Stop Violence Against Native Women, based in Albuquerque . “ ... And you have to honor that because they are sovereign nations, and that’s a big thing — honoring sovereignty while trying to measure violence-against-women statistics and finding that balance on the way.”
Absolute figures on the number of American Indians experiencing domestic violence may be hard to come by. But U.S. Department of Justice figures show that Native Americans have been victims of violent crimes twice as often as members of the U.S. population in general. And the victimization of Native American females was more than twice that of all women in the United States. “About 1 in 5 violent victimizations among American Indians involved an offender who was an intimate or a family member of the victim,” reports the Department of Justice study, American Indians and Crime. The study tracked violence in American Indian communities from 1992-2002 .
Put simply: Statistics show domestic violence is more common in Indian Country than in any other culture.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875303.html
The survey found that Asian/Pacific Islander women and men tend to report lower rates of intimate partner violence than do women and men from other minority backgrounds, and African-American and American Indian/Alaska Native women and men report higher rates.
Actual statistics from the American Indian Women’s Chemical Health Project sound better to me than the vague "estimates published by the Feds and national domestic violence alliance." Without a more specific reference, you wouldn't get any further with a grant application than I would.
African American victims of abuse come from a culture of slavery and secondhand citizenship. Middle Eastern victims of abuse come from a culture of internecine warfare and conflict. If you're trying to convince me that historical trauma has no correlation with the worst concentrations of domestic violence, you haven't done it yet.
Is personal responsibility (i.e., "just say no") your sole solution for domestic violence? So you'd offer the same program to rich abuse victims in Beverly Hills and poor abuse victims on a rez? Have you actually tried this one-size-fits-all approach, or are you just guessing it would work?
Most of the articles I've read on domestic violence among Natives stress the victims' special circumstances. Special circumstances require special handling, not some cookie-cutter approach. For instance, how would a "personal responsibility" program address the following?
http://www.now.org/nnt/spring-2001/nativeamerican.html
“There are cultural barriers and a lack of understanding of culture in general,” said sexual offense worker Bonnie Clairmont, of the current systems meant to support survivors of sex crimes.
The Report on Violence Against Alaska Native Women in Anchorage, conducted by community agencies in Anchorage, Alaska, found a widespread fear and distrust for law enforcement.
Police and courts tend to ignore cases of violence involving Native American women due to alleged confusion between federal and tribal jurisdiction.
The problem of violence against Native American women is exacerbated by federal apathy in law enforcement and the courts, and minimal funding for shelters, counseling, and education in Native American communities.
Finally...Michelle, welcome to the debate. If you can shed any more light on these issues, please do.
I'll just add one point. As with any negative behavior from terrorism to not eating one's vegetables, understanding it has nothing to do with excusing it. Understanding why something bad happens is the first step in preventing it from happening again.
Oh, and Russ, I've known several women who were just as smart as I am. If you haven't known such women, you may need to get out more. ;-)
Hi, Rob. I have not parsed those articles that you cite in your comments, but I imagine that they draw from the sources that I used in my reporting, many of which are available in the "Online Sources" column beside the article itself. I think the best estimates (and imperfect ones at that), are found in the Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis, based on national crime surveys, and the results of the National Violence Against Women survey, which looks at violence against women in general and intimate violence in particular.
In any case, I'm not even sure debating the statistical evidence is the most relevant part of this discussion. The article doesn't assert that native women suffer intimate partner violence at the highest rates (though existing evidence backs that assertion). It states that they suffer it far more than white women do, and that there are distinct, socially and historically based factors underlying that phenomenon. (An aside: I have not seen federal crime reports that specifically examine "Middle Eastern households" as a racial or ethnic category, but maybe this data exists.)
As a reporter, I'm mainly here to help clear up what I think is a misunderstanding about my story, not to advocate for a particular "side." But I do want to say that Carole's comments indicate that she is aware of the factors that the article presents. Indeed, among advocates and service providers, there's growing awareness of these racial and ethnic disparities. Part of the challenge of addressing the problem is providing culturally competent resources for survivors. And the acknowledgement of colonialism's legacy is, according to the advocates and survivors I spoke with, integral to meeting that challenge.
Michelle, I'm a little perplexed at your evenhanded response. Therefore, let's review:
I quoted the first two paragraphs of your article. Carole's response was, "Bullhockey. The author and her sources are either woefully misinformed or disingenuous." So when you say your article agrees somewhat with Carole's response, are you agreeing that you were woefully misinformed or disingenuous? Or what, exactly?
You go on to say that Lorraine White is "a program manager with the social-service organization Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center" and "she sees the cycle of violence continuing for other native women." So White is an expert like Carole, but White sees the problem in terms of cycles of violence. And not in terms of personal responsibility, as far as we know.
I believe this is a common conception of the problem: that violence repeats itself from generation to generation until someone breaks the chain. That argues for something as the source of the problem in the first generation. Have Indian families always been dysfunctional? Or did historical traumas such as oppression, relocation, and disruption make them dysfunctional?
Finally, White attributes much of the domestic violence against Native women to "institutional racism." You talk about "systemic forces" that are part of "colonialism's legacy" and say acknowledging them is "integral" to success.
In contrast, Carole says, "Personal responsibility begins and ends with...the person. Here, now and always. That's the only way to halt the violence prevalent in so many homes today." Pardon me if I'm missing something, but Carole seems to have acknowledged colonialism's legacy only to dismiss it as irrelevant. Sounds to me like you and Carole are at opposite ends of the continuum of solutions.
I agree that debating statistics isn't essential to the problem. Most articles say the data on Native women is fragmentary because of the difficulty of gathering it. All we probably know for sure is that violence against Native women is bad--much worse than violence against white women and similar to violence against black women. That again argues for understanding why violence afflicts minorities of color more than it does the white majority.
Russ, I think I've known a few women who were smarter than me, too. That's not surprising since I went through two master's degree programs at the University of Chicago.
Also, you've lived only about 33% longer than me, which isn't that much. And considering your sexuality, perhaps you haven't known women as intimately as I have. ;-)
Thanks for your thoughts, Rob. I'm actually trying to maintain my professionalism in the face of "bullhockey," so forgive me if my tone sounds overly restrained.
As revealed through our disparate interpretations of her comments, Carole seems to be inadvertently validating the arguments in the article while trying to undermine them.
About "personal responsibility": I'm not sure what this responds to, as no one in the article makes a case for relieving anyone of responsibility. (Unless of course she is implying that the victim is responsible, which I'm assuming/hoping this is not the case.) To equate the recognition of historical forces in family violence with "explaining it away" is, I would say, counter to the viewpoints of advocates in native communities. I saw no evidence that they were striving to do anything other than hold abusers accountable.
But they are doing so within a framework that contemplates the damage from centuries of oppression under a white-male-dominated hierarchy. Is violence against women a product of European white culture only? No, but there's hard-to-ignore historical and sociological evidence that domestic violence (and the degradation of women) on the scale seen today did not exist in pre-contact tribal societies that have been researched.
When I say that Carole has acknowledged these institutional factors, I'm looking at her argument that "clearly unacceptable" rates of violence against native women are due to "Feelings of powerlessness, inability to support their families, rampant substance abuse, and in some circumstances, a culture of male dominance"--aspects broached in the article. No, these issues are not "unique to native men," but both sides of this discussion acknowledge that systemic, virulent racism has contributed to the prevalence of these problems in the native population. To ignore that would be truly nonsensical.
I think you successfully bridged the gap between our viewpoints, Michelle. I never said that we shouldn't deal with people individually and insist they take responsibility for their situations. But when this subject came up before, I said we could deal with the issue on a societal level also. It isn't either/or; we can address personal relationship dynamics and systemic cultural forces at the same time.
I'd say it's axiomatic that physical intimacy enhances emotional intimacy. And that heterosexual men have more physical intimacy with women than homosexual men do. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
You think I stated a conclusion? If so, what is that conclusion? Quote it for us so we can see what you think I concluded. Good luck.
I stated two "axioms." Neither one claimed any special knowledge of homosexuality. If you disagree with either axiom, say which one and explain why you think it's wrong. Spare us the attempts to summarize that don't address what I wrote.
Post a Comment