Intimate Integration: A History of the Sixties Scoop and the Colonization of Indigenous Kinship by Allyson Stevenson
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Intimate Integration: A History of the Sixties Scoop and the Colonization of Indigenous Kinship by Allyson Stevenson Dian Million (Tanana) Intimate Integration: A History of the Sixties Scoop and the Colonization of Indigenous Kinship .By Allyson Stevenson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2020. 314 pp. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $35.95 paper. Allyson Stevenson brings a deeply personal yet thorough historical examination of the ongoing settler-colonial onslaught on First Nations, Métis, and Indigenous families through the destruction of their kinship ties. Stevenson builds her history first through a specific case of adoption, her own. As a Métis adoptee from Saskatchewan and an academically trained historian, Stevenson understands her own role in bringing personal knowledge back to her own lineages, a witnessing that is invaluable to her families, both biological and adoptive, and restorative to her generations, her own and her children’s. Saskatchewan, a Plains bastion of Canadian national imaginary, saw a challenge in the assimilation of Indian and “subnormal” Métis families into its body politic after 1951. The solution was closely aligned with the same reasoning that established residential schooling, that Indigenous children were better off being raised by White Canadians. Soon the province had “the dubious distinction of the highest percentage of [Indigenous] children in the care of social services and the Department of Northern Development,” ranging from 62.8 percent in 1976 to 63.8 percent in 1981. Saskatchewan achieved transracial adoptions with equal veracity. In 1977, 91 percent of Indian children adopted were by non-Indian families (203). This pattern closely followed one that the United States equally perpetrated for years. The evisceration of Aboriginal, Métis, and Indigenous families closely mirrored the same attack going on in the United States [End Page 363] against American Indian, Alaska Native, and Indigenous children. Importantly, the author also details the immense effort of Indigenous activists and supporters to intervene and to return child welfare to Indigenous communities. Stevenson notes the inability of Canada to produce a nationwide policy such as the Indian Child Welfare Act that was achieved in the US. The current ruling against Canada for human rights abuse in the unequal funding of child welfare identifies an ongoing and crucial concern and this history as important context. Stevenson remarks: Indigenous suffering from almost a century of colonial dispossession, residential schooling, poverty, trauma, and dislocation from loss of land was recast as a child welfare matter, leading to interventions and the crisis of over-representation in child welfare systems across Canada. (227) In particular, the author’s focus on little-known Métis resettlement policies is an important chapter in portraying Saskatchewan’s specific role in this Canadian national history. This is a beautifully written and felt history that informs a core context of a continuing struggle. Allyson Stevenson states, “The right to Aboriginal motherhood and to define Aboriginal motherhood and kinship are a very key area where decolonization is taking place” (232). More than key to decolonization, the question of Indigenous children who know their identities and their citizenships are key to any Indigenous future. Dian Million (Tanana) Department of American Indian Studies University of Washington Copyright © 2023 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».