START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Supreme Court Ruling Perpetuates The Oppression Of Native Americans


Society & Culture  (tags: assimilation, Baby Veronica, boarding schools, Indian Child Welfare Act, Indian rights, Native Americans, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court )

Judy
- 417 days ago - mintpressnews.com
In a recent child custody case, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to side with a 3-year-old child's adoptive parents over the legal claim of her biological father. One justice called it "heartbreaking."



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Anette S. (24)
Thursday July 4, 2013, 9:06 pm
noted

"Now is the time for the American legal system to take appropriate steps to granting Native Americans autonomy and true equality and to assist them in connecting to their cultures."
 

Laura T. (109)
Thursday July 4, 2013, 10:12 pm
I followed this case&got into a huge debate w/a"friend" over this who could not understand why it was an issue. it was hard not to think less of her for not understanding what it means to have children stolen from the tribe
 

Judy C. (106)
Friday July 5, 2013, 1:37 am
Thanks ladies. I don't see how the Capobiancos could be so selfish, or at best deluded, about the rights and well-being of this child, and of her father. The Supreme Court decision demonstrates no awareness or respect for the importance of culture. It is paternalistic, and an insult to the Tribe. Sadly, it doesn't surprise me.
 

Roger Skinner (14)
Friday July 5, 2013, 10:51 am
On the other hand, the mother isn't Native American and the father initially had no interest in the child and didn't provide any support to the mother. He signed over his rights to the mother. There was no expectation that the mother would raise the child with the father's involvement and no expectation that the child would be taught her Cherokee heritage. For that matter, we don't know that the father would be doing that either. We don't know how seriously the father takes his Cherokee heritage; it doesn't take much to be a registered Cherokee, just show you have an ancestor listed on the Dawes Roll from 100 years ago, meaning you could have less than 4% Cherokee "blood" in order to be registered as a tribal member. Seems to me this has nothing to do with "taking Native American children from their homes and placing them in foster care, thus loosening their connection to their families and culture," which was the purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Native Americans have some genuine grievances, but this case isn't one of them.
 

Birgitta S. (229)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 8:40 am
Thank you for this, Judy ~~
noted.
 

Russell R. (87)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 4:42 pm
To think that stuff like this was past History - the Native Americans have a right to their ways and customs. We stole this land from them. Everything taken from this land they should have a percentage of. Our government has given them nothing and owe them plenty. I am not sure about this case, but, the father did abandon the child and mother. He has no right to the child, but, the child in later years should and than, again, maybe not, just like my cousin Christine. She new she was adopted my aunt and uncle were her parents and she is my cousin, blood, or,no blood. I am sure that I would have heard about it if she wonder about who her birth parents were because her and I were close. I was a big brother to her
 

Mitchell D. (130)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 5:12 pm
Despite the recent rulings on same-sex marriage, which virtually wrote themselves, SCOTUS seems to still be caught up in myopia.
 

Sandra Patterson (60)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 7:51 pm
so noted,ty
 

Jody B. (6)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 9:58 pm
Wow. Its a difficult issue no mmatter which way u look at it.
 

Cynthia C. (0)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 10:32 pm
Was the father offered gifts for taking a stance to get this child back? I doubt he would have put forth the effort if he didn't have something to gain. You don't not give a damn one moment then pretend to care the next. Indian or not, you either had your heart in it or you didn't. At 4%, I don't consider the child Indian. It appears to me, the Cherokee tribe is just over-inflating their numbers. What really annoys me is when someone tells you they have some Indian in them and when you ask, "what tribe?", they say, "I don't know". Why bring it up in the first place? And that was my sons father. Yeah, he sucks as a parent also
 

Robert O. (12)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 10:34 pm
Thank you Judy.
 

Shirley S. (174)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 10:44 pm
noted with interest
 

Michael M. (58)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 10:50 pm
I see much rhetorical confusion above. Notice that Supreme Court Justices these days (I'm using innuendo oin a subtle way here) use complex rhetorical modes to obfuscate issues and explain their decisions in ways that seem to satisfy the letter of the law as they interpret it.

Perhaps adoption should be first agreed upon by all parties, but those who remember the Dawes Act might understand that culture itself may have greater meaning to Native americans than to others involved.

That law was itself an attempt to circumvent existing treaties, in order to acquire land promised to Indian Nations. The Euroamerican concept of property is also implicitly involved. The story of Solomon offering to cut a child and divide it between the disputants is apropos: I would submit that the child's father and other relatives have the more personal organic care. What is called lex patriae in law is insufficiently considered in this case.

The denial of cultural validity is very likely an implicit factor in the decisions of SCOTUS to honor original treaty, and affects their present decision in this matter. They once again supported a taking by a materialistic culture. I deeply understand possible religious-like rationale for the adoptive parents coveting the child, and that itself is a subtly cruel sword of which the wielders and their culture have used, just as they have used US law.

The quick-draw comments above fail to take into account the slow traditional decisionmaking process occurring in indigenous cultures: I believe that those who have some experience realise that the father consulted with and even perhaps was advised by relatives who assisted him in making a mature, loving decision in this. Perhaps only Native north americans might understand what I mean here.

Most in the dominant culture cannot comprehend how distressing is their own cultures normative pressure - so strong is that, that it has had a depressing effect on every individual of less material or technological cultures.

Your way is not superior to theirs, and you need to awaken to that fact.
 

Michael M. (58)
Saturday July 6, 2013, 10:53 pm
Drop that "of" in the "denial" paragraph.
 

jo M. (3)
Tuesday July 16, 2013, 10:29 pm
The Supreme Court got it right. This child never should have been taken from her adoptive parents and given to a father who showed no interest in heer. And shouldn't both the father and the child have enough Native heritage to actually be considered Native American and not just a few drops? This child's tiny little bit of Native heritage is not more important than the rest of her heritage.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.