6 ms·

I don't actually disagree that it's likely that child welfare actions are more likely to be justifiably taken against indigenous households but the sixties scoo

by munk-a 5y ago

I don't actually disagree that it's likely that child welfare actions are more likely to be justifiably taken against indigenous households but the sixties scoop was pretty clearly not based on household stability alone. But, at the heart of the matter, if this minority is much more likely to live in poverty[1] then that itself is a problem we need to solve. But, the sixties scoop wasn't so long ago and, honestly, I think an in depth investigation of child services today would reveal that biases are still quite present. 1. Which is definitely true in Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-revenu-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-... (sorry it looks like this report was discontinued after 2015 so no more current data is available)

cperciva 5y ago
Right, I'm not defending the sixties scoop at all. Just pointing out that comparing statistics on youth taken into care in the 21st century based on ethnicity without adjusting for confounders is highly misleading and potentially lethal for the children involved. Yes, indigenous poverty is absolutely something which should be addressed -- but it's not a simple matter. One obvious "solution" would be to say "pack your bags and move to a big city" -- rural communities across Canada are poorer than urban communities -- but of course that would mean leaving traditional territories behind.
- ayngg 5y ago
  It is in vogue to make judgements on the past based on current moral standards without much more context or understanding. These issues are far more complex than the popular narrative of Canada needing to atone for the genocide of native Americans, that sort of hyperbole just makes it even more difficult to create meaningful solutions. These issues are specifically pervasive because they are extremely difficult to reconcile.
- pempem 5y ago
  It should also based on the above, apply to nearly any family dealing with poverty in these areas. The fact is that social services does not visit and escalate issues the same levels controlling for poverty. The correlation of poverty and being indigenous is a reflection of systemic racism and purposeful limitations on societal participation, and so they co-occur. Kids in abusive homes ofc need to be supported. Kids in poor homes need policies that allow their lives to become more stable.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  Something to keep in mind when talking about confounding variables is that all preindustrial cultures, including European cultures, had a GDP of less than $1000 per capita per year, measured in 1990 USD. The default state of humanity is deep poverty. Industrialization brought gradual growth of economic output per capita to the tune of 10-100x compared to the preindustrial era, and the extravagant riches by historical standards the average Canadian enjoys today. The huge question: how to lift populations / cultures from their natural state of deep poverty. This effort by necessity involves radical changes in culture, which may take decades if not longer. One can't live a traditional lifestyle of fishing, hunting or subsistence farming and afford a modern heated house with indoor plumbing, driving a modern automobile to the supermarket for fresh produce in the middle of the winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I think there's also a legitimate question of whether we should lift cultures from their natural state of deep poverty - I don't think that even that point can be decisively settled. Removing that traditional lifestyle and encouraging office work is better for the individual but will erode and destroy those cultural traditions over time without a lot of careful stewardship.
    - marvin 5y ago
      I love this philosophical point. There is a sense of imperialism in forcing cultural and lifestyle changes over «your way of doing things is objectively wrong because of reasons so and so (child mortality, income, age expectancy etc)». And that’s even if there are only honest intentions behind forcing a minority (indiginous, in this case) culture to change, with no side effects that work towards the self-interest of the stronger culture. Iain Banks makes this point about human nature many times in his books. Many people will voluntarily choose a more painful lifestyle even when more comfortable options are available. I’d largely go as far as saying it’s a fundamental human right to decide what lifestyle to follow, as long as it’s consentual and doesn’t step on the huma rights of others.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think my reply above failed to really clearly express this so I thought I'd try again briefly. There still is a large racial bias in child welfare services above what is explainable by income alone. I think that income is the larger factor now so I'd agree it's the more important point to focus on - but we have not reached a level of egalitarianism where income alone can explain the disparity. I also agree it's an extremely complex matter since there are two strongly opposed factors - urban migration (with educational support and the like) could greatly improve the lives of indigenous individuals but that would erode native culture continuance and communities - and that's one of the worst parts of residential schooling. A number of the people involved thought that white washing natives to improve their economic futures and let them more easily integrate with common Canadian society was a good thing - and it's not entirely a bad idea from an egalitarian perspective. So there is, I think, a continued push and pull of cultural preservation vs. individual prosperity. I don't think they're polar opposites, I mentioned elsewhere that the Haida Cultural Center on Haida Gwaii provides a lot of jobs to reservation residents and youths - but this approach can't just be blindly replicated to extremely remote reservations. So yea - I've got no quick and easy solution to offer.
nativeit-net 5y ago
There are several comments in this thread that are well-intentioned and more or less on the right track. There are also a few that are quite problematic. I felt compelled to come make the point that--maybe this is obvious to some, but not to others--poverty is not a valid reason for child protective services to seek to remove a child from their parents. Here in the US, there are thousands of children who are homeless with their parents, and it isn't because they are skirting under the radar of social services. As long as the child is not being abused or neglected, and the parents are doing what is necessary to see they are clothed and fed, it is widely accepted that is always in the child's best interests to remain with their parent(s). Outside of imminent danger, even the most abject crushing levels of poverty are not an excuse to take someone's child from them. --Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.

by munk-a 5y ago

cperciva 5y ago

Right, I'm not defending the sixties scoop at all. Just pointing out that comparing statistics on youth taken into care in the 21st century based on ethnicity without adjusting for confounders is highly misleading and potentially lethal for the children involved. Yes, indigenous poverty is absolutely something which should be addressed -- but it's not a simple matter. One obvious "solution" would be to say "pack your bags and move to a big city" -- rural communities across Canada are poorer than urban communities -- but of course that would mean leaving traditional territories behind.

ayngg 5y ago
It is in vogue to make judgements on the past based on current moral standards without much more context or understanding. These issues are far more complex than the popular narrative of Canada needing to atone for the genocide of native Americans, that sort of hyperbole just makes it even more difficult to create meaningful solutions. These issues are specifically pervasive because they are extremely difficult to reconcile.
pempem 5y ago
It should also based on the above, apply to nearly any family dealing with poverty in these areas. The fact is that social services does not visit and escalate issues the same levels controlling for poverty. The correlation of poverty and being indigenous is a reflection of systemic racism and purposeful limitations on societal participation, and so they co-occur. Kids in abusive homes ofc need to be supported. Kids in poor homes need policies that allow their lives to become more stable.
bookofsand 5y ago
Something to keep in mind when talking about confounding variables is that all preindustrial cultures, including European cultures, had a GDP of less than $1000 per capita per year, measured in 1990 USD. The default state of humanity is deep poverty. Industrialization brought gradual growth of economic output per capita to the tune of 10-100x compared to the preindustrial era, and the extravagant riches by historical standards the average Canadian enjoys today. The huge question: how to lift populations / cultures from their natural state of deep poverty. This effort by necessity involves radical changes in culture, which may take decades if not longer. One can't live a traditional lifestyle of fishing, hunting or subsistence farming and afford a modern heated house with indoor plumbing, driving a modern automobile to the supermarket for fresh produce in the middle of the winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think there's also a legitimate question of whether we should lift cultures from their natural state of deep poverty - I don't think that even that point can be decisively settled. Removing that traditional lifestyle and encouraging office work is better for the individual but will erode and destroy those cultural traditions over time without a lot of careful stewardship.
  - marvin 5y ago
    I love this philosophical point. There is a sense of imperialism in forcing cultural and lifestyle changes over «your way of doing things is objectively wrong because of reasons so and so (child mortality, income, age expectancy etc)». And that’s even if there are only honest intentions behind forcing a minority (indiginous, in this case) culture to change, with no side effects that work towards the self-interest of the stronger culture. Iain Banks makes this point about human nature many times in his books. Many people will voluntarily choose a more painful lifestyle even when more comfortable options are available. I’d largely go as far as saying it’s a fundamental human right to decide what lifestyle to follow, as long as it’s consentual and doesn’t step on the huma rights of others.
munk-a 5y ago
I think my reply above failed to really clearly express this so I thought I'd try again briefly. There still is a large racial bias in child welfare services above what is explainable by income alone. I think that income is the larger factor now so I'd agree it's the more important point to focus on - but we have not reached a level of egalitarianism where income alone can explain the disparity. I also agree it's an extremely complex matter since there are two strongly opposed factors - urban migration (with educational support and the like) could greatly improve the lives of indigenous individuals but that would erode native culture continuance and communities - and that's one of the worst parts of residential schooling. A number of the people involved thought that white washing natives to improve their economic futures and let them more easily integrate with common Canadian society was a good thing - and it's not entirely a bad idea from an egalitarian perspective. So there is, I think, a continued push and pull of cultural preservation vs. individual prosperity. I don't think they're polar opposites, I mentioned elsewhere that the Haida Cultural Center on Haida Gwaii provides a lot of jobs to reservation residents and youths - but this approach can't just be blindly replicated to extremely remote reservations. So yea - I've got no quick and easy solution to offer.

nativeit-net 5y ago

There are several comments in this thread that are well-intentioned and more or less on the right track. There are also a few that are quite problematic. I felt compelled to come make the point that--maybe this is obvious to some, but not to others--poverty is not a valid reason for child protective services to seek to remove a child from their parents. Here in the US, there are thousands of children who are homeless with their parents, and it isn't because they are skirting under the radar of social services. As long as the child is not being abused or neglected, and the parents are doing what is necessary to see they are clothed and fed, it is widely accepted that is always in the child's best interests to remain with their parent(s). Outside of imminent danger, even the most abject crushing levels of poverty are not an excuse to take someone's child from them. --Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.