Transcript Sixties Scoop - East Northumberland Secondary School

Policy of Assimilation
 “A deliberate policy to separate and forcibly assimilate
Aboriginal First Nations children into the mainstream has
pervaded every era of Aboriginal history in Canada. Each
era saw a new reason to take Aboriginal children away
from their homes, placing them in residential schools,
foster care, or non-Aboriginal adoptive families.” –
Suzanne Fournier
New Methods, Same
Means
 The 60s Scoop refers to the adoption of First Nation children in
Canada between the years of 1960 and the mid 1980’s.
 In many instances, children were literally scooped from their
homes and communities without the knowledge or consent of
families and bands.
 Many First Nations stated that in many cases, where consent
was not given, that government authorities and social workers
acted under the colonialistic assumption that Indigenous
people were culturally inferior and unable to adequately
provide for the needs of the children.
“Best Interest of the Child”
 Gradually, as education ceased to function as the institutional
agent of colonization, the child welfare system took its place. It
could continue to remove Indigenous children from their
parents, devalue Indigenous custom and traditions in the
process, but still act “in the best interests of the child.” Those
who hold to this view argue that the Sixties Scoop was not
coincidental; it was a consequence of fewer Indigenous
children being sent to residential school and of the child
welfare system emerging as the new method of colonization.
Changing Ideas of
Assimilation
 In the early 1960’s, social service agencies and
government departments began shifting their focus on
the assimilation process of Aboriginal children.
 The federal and provincial governments’ decided that it
would make more ‘financial sense’ to remove children
from their communities and place them in individual
homes across Canada and the United States instead of
Residential Schools.
Basis for Removal
 Agencies deemed Aboriginal parents as ‘neglectful’ and
this was the main basis for removal.
 ‘Neglect’ covered a wide spectrum within the Child
Welfare system, alcoholism, drug abuse, being a single
parent and living in poverty were all grounds for removal.
 ‘Neglectful’ home circumstances were often economic,
the product not of some flaw in the character of
Aboriginal parents but if the marginalization of Aboriginal
communities.
The Numbers
 Statistics from the Department of Indian Affairs reveal a total of
11,132 status Indian children adopted between the years of 1960
and 1990. It is believed, however, that the actual numbers are much
higher than that. While Indian Affairs recorded adoptions of ‘status’
native children, many native children were not recorded as ‘status’ in
adoption or foster care records.
 Of these children who were adopted, 70% were adopted into nonnative homes.
 More recently, it has been estimated that over 20,000 aboriginal
children were taken from their families and fostered or adopted out
to primary white middle-class families.
Today
 Aboriginal peoples in Canada currently have the
fasting growing population.
 Aboriginal peoples in Canada also have the youngest
median age, averaging around 24.
 Currently, there are more Aboriginal children in the
Child Welfare system than at the height of the
Residential School era or during the Sixties Scoop.
Perspectives on Child
Welfare: APTN
 http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/16/perspectiveson-child-welfare-60s-scoop/
The Current on CBC: The
Sixties Scoop
 http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/06/24/t
he-sixties-scoop/
First Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canada
 http://www.youtube.com/embed/jZE7YASM6ts
Discussion
 What are some of the parallels between the Residential
School experience and the Sixties Scoop?
 Do you believe that it was the Canadian government's
agenda to continue the assimilation process of
Indigenous children, or did they genuinely have the
best interest of the children at heart?
 In what ways can this situation and past injustices be
reconciled?