Up Comming Idle No More Actions:
(current list as of Dec. 25, 2012 10pm CST)
- December 26, 2012 - Edmonton, Alberta Canada - West Edmonton Mall @ 12p
- December 26, 2012- Ottawa, Ontario Canada - Rideau Center @ 12p
- December 26, 2012- Vancouver, British Columbia Canada- 674 W. Georgia St. at Granville @ 12p
- December 26, 2012 - Regina, Saskatchewan - (Where it began!) Scarth Street @ 12 (Flash Roundance)
- December 27, 2012- “Detroit”/Dearborn, Michigan United States - Fairlane Town Center @ 6:30p
- December 28, 2012- Sacramento, California United States- California State Capital @ 12p (sharp!)
- December 28, 2012- Brismarck, North Dakota United States- North Kirkwood Mall @ 6p
- December 29, 2012 - Cincinnati, Ohio United States- Go to Link for more details @ 1p
- December 29, 2012- Seattle, Washington United States- Westlake Center @1p
- December 29, 2012- Denver, Colorado United States- Cherry Creek Mall @ 1:30p
- December 29, 2012- Oklahoma City, Oklahoma United States- Penn Square Mall @ 2p
- December 29, 2012- Olympia, Washington United States- Westfield Capital Mall @ 3pm
- December 29, 2012- Tulalip, Washington United States- Seattle/Tulalip Premium Outlet Mall 10600 Quil Ceda Blvd. Tulalip, WA @ 5p
- December 30, 2012- Oklahoma - All Over Oklahoma @2p-3p
- January 5, 2013- Chicago, Illinois United States - Look at Link for details @ 1p
Update from Idle No More News:
Idle No More - SARNIA – Ontario
Monday, Dec 24th, 2012 11:30 am until 3:00 pm – Sarnia, Ont:
Christmas Eve Celebration for Chief Theresa Spence - Victoria Island
Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:00pm in EST - Victoria Island, Ont:
IDLE NO MORE Flash Mob - Lambton Mall
Wednesday, Dec 26th, 2012 12:00 pm EST - Sarnia, Ont:
Boxing Day Flash Mob Round Dance - Ottawa
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:00pm in EST
DIRECT ACTION EVENTS- IDLE NO MORE SUDBURY, ONTARIO
Wednesday, Dec 26th, 2012 – Sudbury, Ont:
BOXING DAY FLASH MOBS @ THE NEW SUDBURY CENTER
Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:00am in EST - Sudbury, Ont:
#idleNOMore Powwow - Sioux Lookout
December 31 at 3:00pm until January 1 at 1:00am in UTC-06 - Sioux Lookout, Ontario:
NEW YEAR DAY MARCH/RALLY - IDLE NO MORE
Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:00pm in EST - Sudbury Ont:
Idle No More: Niagara Falls Border Crossing Blockade
Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:00am until 2:00pm in EST
Niagara Falls Border Crossing:
FLASHMOB ROUND DANCE IN HONOR OF CHIEF THERESA SPENCE - REGINA
Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 12:00pm in EST - Scarth Street Mall, Regina, SK
FOUR DAY FAST (FEAST TO FOLLOW) IN HONOR OF CHIEF TERESA SPENCE - IDLE NO MORE
Thursday, December 27 at 12:00am until December 31 at 12:00pm in CST – Regina, Sask:
***FLASH MOB ROUND DANCE*** Saskatoon
Thursday, Jan 3rd, 2013 – Saskatoon, Sask:
***FLASH MOB ROUND DANCE*** Saskatoon
Thursday, Jan 3rd, 2013 – Saskatoon, Sask:
IDLE NO MORE ~ NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN
January 5, 2013 at 11:00am in CST
BUFFALO NARROWS SASKATCHEWAN
Treaty 7 Area Flash Mob-Round Dance - Calgary Int. Airport
Monday, Dec 24, 2012 @ 2:00 pm CALGARY, ALBERTA:
Idle No More: W.E.M FLASH MOB! 16 Drums on the 16th Day
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:00pm Edmonton, Ab:
IDLE NO MORE FLASH MOB PEACEFUL ROUND DANCE!!
Wednesday, Dec 26th, 2012 2:00 pm – Fort McMurray, Alberta:
Fort Edmonton Burial Ground Memorial
Friday December 28 at 7:00pm in UTC-07 - Edmonton, AB:
Idle No More – Edmonton Alberta - ONE Heartbeat
Monday, January 28, 2013 - 10:30am until 2:00pm in UTC-07:
Horse Nation will idle no more!!! (Horse ride from Hobbema to Wetaskiwin)
Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:00am in UTC-07 - Hobbema, Alberta:
Boxing Day-FLASHMOB-Idle No More!!!!!
Wednesday, Dec 26th, 2012 1:00 pm - Winnipeg, MB, St Vital Centre:
Blockade-Idle No More - Long Plain highway 305 bridge
Friday, December 28, 2012 9:00am until 1:00pm in UTC-06 Long Plain, MB 305 highway bridge:
Idle No More Rally in Portage La Prairie, MB
Friday, December 28, 2012 2:00pm until 4:00pm in UTC-06 - Portage La Prairie, MB:
#Idle No More!! Old Malaspina College
Wednesday, Dec 26 2012 11:00 am - Duncan, BC:
#idle No More Vancouver Island - Flash mob round dance
Sunday, Dec 30, 2012 11:00 am - VICTORIA, BC:
” Idle No More ” NCN Community Gathering on January 3rd, 2013
Thursday, January 3rd, 2013 12:00pm until 2:00 pm – Port Alberni, BC:
Flash Round Dance ~ End Bill C-45
Saturday, Jan 5th, 2013 1:00 pm until 1:30 pm - Kelowna, BC:
#IdleNoMore VICTORIA: March and Rally
Saturday, Jan 26th, 2012 10:00 am until 2:00 pm – Victoria BC:
Flash mob Round Dance at Angignon Mall
Monday, Dec 24 2012 2:00 pm - MONTREAL:
Idle No More - Write to Your local MP & PM Campaign (in French too - Traduction française ci-dessous)
Sunday, December 30, 2012 – Anywhere:
Idle No More: Turtle Island Movement - Border Blockade
Saturday, Jan 5th, 2013 – All of Canada:
IDLE NO MORE — Lac du Flambeau!! Flash Mob Round Dance
Monday, Dec 24th, 2012 12:00 pm - MINOCQUA, WISCONSIN:
#IDLENOMORE BELLINGHAM!!!! DECEMBER 24 2012 @1PM…FLASH MOB COASTAL JAM @ BELLIS FAIR MALL
Monday, Dec 24, 2012 1:00pm - Bellis Fair in Bellingham, Washington
FlashMob in Abq New Mexico, at the Uptown Q shopping centers. Meet On the east side parking 3:30
Monday, Dec 24th 2012 4 pm - Albuquerque, New Mexico
(No link provided)
Cincinnati Idle No More
December 29, 2012, 1:00pm, Freedom Way, Cincinnati, OH, USA
“Idle No More” Flash Mob RoundDance-Animas Valley Mall, Farmington New Mexico
Wednesday, Dec 26th, 2012 6:00 pm MST – Farmington, New Mexico:
IDLE NO MORE Flash Mob - Lambton Mall
ROUND DANCE IN DETROIT
Thursday, Dec 27th 2012, 6:30 pm EST - Detroit:
Idle No More - Santa Rosa (Northern California)
Thursday, Dec 27th 2012, Santa Rosa, Northern California
Idle No More- Phoenix, AZ 12/29/12
Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:00pm in MST - Phoenix, AZ:
Next Seattle #IdleNoMore Action:
Spinning Wind Next one- Idle No More Seattle
December 29 at 1:00pm
Westlake Center in Seattle, Washington
(No link provided)
Idle No More Denver Flash Mob
Saturday Dec 29, 2012 1:30 p.m Cherry Creek Mall – Denver, CO:
Oklahoma Natives Flash Mob Southern Style
Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:00pm in CST - Oklahoma
IDLE NO MORE!! Sacramento Native’s Flash Mob
Saturday, Dec 29, 2012 2:00pm until 5:00pm - SACRAMENTO:
IDLE NO MORE - Flash Round Dance imaa GAKAABIKAANG
Sunday, Dec 30th, 2012 5:00pm CST – Minneapolis:
Arizona Natives New Year’s Eve Flash Mob
Sunday, December 31, 2012 9pm MST in MST - Tempe, AZ:
Idle No More Solidarity Protest International Falls, Mn Border Crossing.
Saturday, Jan 5th, 2013 – International Falls, MN Border Crossing:
Idle No More, London UK Solidarity Action
Monday, January 28, 2013 8:30am until 9:00am in UTC - LONDON, UK:
Today’s Self-Definition: “Decolonize”
As year rolls to an end, I feel the need to ask all of you, indigenous and non-indigenous a like: What is your personal definition of decolonization? Don’t look it up, just write out what you personally think it is. No right or wrong answer.
I’ve heard people, native and non-native alike, in real life in native studies classes toss around the term and it seems that everyone has their own variation on it. So I’m curious how people’s perception of the term varies and what similarities people have in their self-definition of the term.
Reblog and answer.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Does ICWA Resolve All Issues Regarding Indian Child Custody Proceedings?
No. As discussed later, ICWA expressly exempts from coverage several types of custody proceedings such as divorce proceedings in which custody of the child will remain with one of the parents, and proceedings in which the child is not a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. IN addition, ICWA contains courts to adopt various interpretations of them, creating some uncertainties (and leading to some inconsistencies).
To help state courts resolve these uncertainties, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a set of guidelines in 1979 entitled “Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings” (“BIA Guidelines”). The guidelines are not binding on the states as is ICWA, but state courts have given them great weight and rarely depart from them. However, as discussed below, courts have reached conflicting decisions in some areas even with the help of the Guidelines.
Indian Child Welfare Act: What Does ICWA Require?
ICWA establishes procedures that must be followed and rights that must be afforded by state courts when determining temporary (foster care) or permanent (adoption) placement of Indian children. The following is a brief summary of these procedures and rights, all of which are discussed later in this chapter.
- If the Indian child is domiciled on an Indian reservation or has been made a ward of the tribal court, the tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the child in all custody matters. State courts may not adjudicate these cases.
- If the child is domiciled off the reservation, the state and the tribal court has concurrent (shared) jurisdiction. Should a custody proceeding be initiated in state court, the court must notify the child’s parents and tribe, and they each have a right to intervene in the proceedings. If either the tribe or a parent requests it, the state court must transfer the case to tribal court unless a parent objects or good cause exists to deny the request.
- If the case remains in state court, the court may not terminate parental rights without proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” or (place the child in foster care without “clear and convincing evidence”) that continued custody by the child’s family “is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
- If the child’s parents are indigent, they have a right to a court-appointed attorney, and separate counsel must be appointed for the child when the best interests of the child require it.
- Before a state court may place an Indian child in a non-Indian adopted home, the court must give sequential placement preference to, first, the child’s extended family, second, to other members of the child’s tribe, and third, to other Indian families, unless good cause exists to ignore this placement hierarchy. A similar hierarchy is imposed in foster care placements.
- If a state court’s placement of an Indian child violates ICWA, that placement is subject to invalidation upon petition of a parent or custodian of the child or by the child’s tribe.
- Tribal court custody decisions are entitled to the same “full faith and credit” as state court custody decisions, meaning that they normally must be respected and enforced by other courts.
- The state must keep accurate records of all Indian children placements to which ICWA applies and make those records available to the federal government and the tribe. In addition, when the adopted Indian child becomes 18 years old, the state must provide the child upon his or her request with the names and tribal affiliation(s) of the child’s biological parents.
As these procedures and rights reflect, ICWA creates a dual jurisdictional system that favors the tribe. When the child lives on the reservation, state courts have no jurisdiction to determine the child’s custody. When the child lives off the reservation, tribes and states have concurrent jurisdiction, but jurisdiction presumptively lies in the tribe because the state court must transfer the case to tribal court upon request of the tribe or one of the child’s parents, except in limited circumstances. ICWA, in other words, “establishes a preference for tribal court jurisdiction.” Moreover, even when a case remains in state court (as it can in some situations), ICWA allows tribes to intervene in the proceeding, reflecting Congress’s conclusion that state courts are more likely to make proper placement decisions if tribes have an opportunity to inform the court as to the tribe’s social and cultural values.
Thus, state courts are placed on notice by ICWA, as the Montana Supreme Court stated in 1998, “that they are, in fact, a significant part of the problem regarding the high number of improper Indian placements, and that “tribal courts are uniquely and inherently more qualified than state courts to determine custody in the best interests of an Indian child.” ICWA was enacted, the South Dakota Supreme Court observed in 2005, to assist “with our responsibility to promote and protect the unique Indian cultures of our state for future generations.”
reblog if you’re an urban native*
*and please write that you are and state where tribal affiliation and location you’re living (if you feel comfortable).
Often, I feel that the urban native experience is overlooked and underrepresented even by native people. I’d like to interview/talk with other urban natives.
I’d like to get a feeling for what you all see are the issues within urban native communities and well as the experience of growing up in an urban environment as a native person. I’m also interested in the various ways we as urban natives express ourselves as natives in environments that are predominately non-native (and also the ways we express ourselves in predominately urban native settings…. like the American Indian Center in Chicago and the Friendship houses in Canada).
I as a native person who has been adopted out and removed from native communities growing up, I am interested in seeing if their are any correlations between natives growing up in urban environments and people who’ve been adopted out.
reblog and also message me to let me know if you’d be interested in being interviewed.
for those of you who reblogged and/or answered, i’ll be coming up with questions soon to interview ya’ll with. I may be contacting you directly prior to the interview to see if there are more direct ways to contact you than through tumblr (email maybe?).
sorry I’ve not contacted you yet. the quarter is winding to a close which means things are getting busier and busier for me. soon I’ll have some free time during winter break.
thanks for responding!
Children of the Dragonfly: Introduction - Indian Child Welfare
“Gradually, as education ceased to function as the institutional agent of colonization,” Patrick Johnston wrote in 1983, “The child welfare system took its place” (24). Johnston’s study Native Children and the Child Welfare System documented the disproportionate removal of Indian children by the child welfare system in Canada following 1951 revisions to the Indian Act. Indian child welfare services were poorly funded and unevenly administered, leading H.B. Hawthorn and colleagues to conclude, in an early influential study in 1966, that “the situation caries from unsatisfactory to appalling” (327). From 1955 to 1964, the number of Native children in British Columbia’s system rose from 29 to 1,446, or from less than 1% to 34.2% of all children in care. That phenomenon, repeated across Canada, has become known as the “Sixties Scoop,” wherein social workers would “quite literally scoop children from reserves on the slightest pretext” – poverty, sanitation, housing standards, nutrition –without regard for the effects on the child, family, or reserve. Some reserves, according to Johnston, “lost almost a generation” (23).
The US counterpart to Canada’s Sixties Scoop was, in Bertram Hirsch’s phrase, the “gray market” for Indian children, which developed under the pressure on local welfare agencies to provide Indian children for adoption (United States, Indian Child Welfare Act Program, 70). Such pressure grew from the demand for adoptive children in the prosperous post-World War II era, and from the agenda of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In 1958, even as renewed tribal self-determination brought education under greater Indian control, the BIA began its Indian Adoption Project with the Child Welfare League of America, to promote the adoption of Indian children by non-Indian families. In 1961 the BIA funded care for 2,300 children during the process of removal, foster placement, and eventual adoption (Prucha 1153).
As state welfare agencies joined the activity, the rate of separation of Indian children from their families grew rapidly. Since removals were routinely carried out without consultation with tribal authorities or Indian communities, many groups felt powerless to resist them. The Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of North Dakota in 1968 asked for the assistance of the Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA), whose 1969 widespread removal of Indian children. The Oglala Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, and the affiliated tribes of the Fort Berthold reservation passed resolutions demanding that removals and trans-racial placements end (Unger, cited in Mannes). The AAIA surveyed the situation in 1969 and reported the results of is monitoring in the Indian Family Defense newsletter.
Native protest and AAIA activity led to a 1974 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, where many Native mothers, children, and officials testified that removal of children from birth families had become epidemic. “For decades Indian parents and their children have been at the mercy of arbitrary or abusive action of local, State, Federal, and private agency officials,” said Sen. James Abourezk in his opening remarks, adding that “Unwarranted removal of children from their homes is common in Indian communities” (United States, Indian Child Welfare Program 1). In data presented at that hearing, up to thirty-five percent of all Indian children were living in non-Indian settings. Indian parents could expect their children to be removed from heir homes at rates up to twenty-five times higher than for all children. In foster homes at a rate twenty-two times higher than for all children. In South Dakota, Indian children comprised seven percent of the population, but were involved in forty percent of adoptions made by the Department of Public Welfare from 1968 to 1974. In Wisconsin, the risk of Indian children being separated from their parents was nearly sixteen hundred times greater than for non-Indian children (United States, Indian Child Welfare Program 4).
In 1976, the AAIA conducted a study for the American Indian Policy Review Committee on the increasingly disproportionate rate of foster care increasing rate of placement in non-Indian homes. After the 1977 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on proposed legislation, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was passed into law. Major provisions of the ICWA established procedures for placements and adoptions, assure tribal jurisdiction in custody proceedings, and assure tribal and parental authority in state court proceedings. The ICWA protects the rights of adoptive children to tribal enrollment. It also authorizes the interior secretary to fund tribal efforts to establish programs and services to prevent the breakup of Indian families (Prucha 1153-56). Moreover, the law provides an “effective underpinning” to tribes solving their own societal and familial problems according to B.J. Johns, who writes that the ICWA “gives Indian tribes and families some breathing space while they go about the process of cultural rebirth.”
The ICWA has been both abhorred and envied in Canada. Bradford Morse noted in 1984 that the reduced flow of American Indian children to non-Indian families “has led to an increasing demand for Canadian children of Indian ancestry to be adopted south of the border” (275). Yet the ICWA has been envied because of impediments to creating similar national legislation. With far less sovereignty than US tribes have, Canadian bands have no tribal court system, and the responsibility for Indian child welfare is a federal-provincial “jurisdictional nightmare” (Morse 274). While provinces administer child care and welfare services, the federal government has authority over Indians and their reserve lands, which lets “both levels of government absolve themselves and argue that the responsibility rests with the other” (Johnston 4). Further, under the complex system of registration created by the Indian Act (1876), federal and provincial authorities each hold the other responsible for off-reservation Indian and Métis populations (Johnston 4-7).
But because of these difficulties, Canada has taken longer, more conceptual approach to analyzing child education and welfare in the whole pattern of relations between aboriginal people and the government. Canada has also studied the effects on children, families and communities more extensively than has the United States, which having made a law, has preferred to study the law, its language, and its operation, rather than the situation that made the law necessary.
In 1984, Bradford Morse listed five results of colonialism as probable causes of the Sixties Scoop: the destruction of traditional economies, the disregard of traditional values by the social service system, the resulting surrender of their values by Indian people, the conflict between federal and provincial jurisdictions, and finally the “continuing manifestations of colonialism” in the apparent “connection between the decline of residential schools […] and the rise of Indian child apprehensions” (259, 265-70). The results he calls “devastating”: parents despair and give up their children, “lost between two cultures […] endure foster and group homes until they end up in jail or as victims of suicide” (270).
Several parliamentary, provincial, and First Nations interests groups studied the problem. Justice Edwin C. Kimelman’s 1985 inquiry found hat the Manitoba system of adoption and placement had “gone awry,” creating estrangement and violence in child care (qtd. in Canada, Report 3.2.1). Separate reports by the House of Commons Special Committee on Child Care (1987); the National Indian Brotherhood, Assembly of First Nations (1989); and the Native Council of Canada (1990) directed attention to the need for programs and standards that would provide holistic care, encourage strong identities in children, and preserve families, all in accord with Native cultural values and practices. In 1991, Helen McKenzie prepared a background paper for Parliament on daycare as an aspect of broader child welfare practices. She concurred with the needs identified in earlier studies for Native designed and implemented policies and programs, adding that early childhood support is essential for remedying the economic situation and ensuring the cultural survival of the First Nations (25-26).
In 1996 and 1998, Canada took major steps in redirecting its relations with aboriginal peoples, first with the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), and then by responding to the report by instituting Gathering Strength –Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan –and by issuing a Statement of Reconciliation. Based on extensive hearings and studies, the RCAP report is an encyclopedic five-volume study of past injustices and the current situation. It makes recommendations intended to lead to the reparation, healing, and renewal of aboriginal people and communities. The report studies education and child welfare separately, but both are placed in the context of the whole history of federal, provincial, and aboriginal relations, with particular attention to intergenerational effects, community healing, and cultural differences in family structure, childhood concepts, and values (3.2.5). Gathering Strength, in response, “is a sustainable, long-term plan that is leading to stronger and more self-sufficient Aboriginal communities,” and that is designed to benefit particularly Aboriginal youth and children” (Canada, Backgroudner). The RCAP report and the government’s 1998 language and actions on behalf of reconciliation have no counterpart in the United States.
As heartening as these documents are, and as ultimately successful as they may be, subsequent cases reveal the persistence of jurisdictional conflict, ingrained colonial attitudes in child welfare practice, and the narrow limits of self-governance. Yet Canada has, and the United States has not, recognized that education and child welfare were instruments of colonial policy that contributed to the breakdown in social, family, and individual identity.