would ask the individual if they would like to take care of the baby. This is how my
grandmother was presented to my great-grandmother aka “little grandma.” My little
grandma didn’t adopt my grandmother, but she did take her in as a baby and raise her
(letter to author, May 23, 2014).
It is important to know that Clementine’s grandmother was not an isolated case of extra tribal
care, the recognition of just how common it was implies that children being removed from their
communities by outside organization was a normal occurrence. It is a chronic problem Native
American communities have faced, and for Clementine the results continue to affect her family.
Clementine explains that although her grandmother was adopted by a Mexican woman who her
family calls their “little grandma,” who cared for her grandmother, “to this day the idea that her
own parents gave her up has haunted my grandmother and has led her to develop a dependence
on drinking and being an angry person” (letter to author, May 23, 2014). Clementine’s family,
her aunts and uncles, had to accept the consistent pain Clementine’s grandmother was in as a part
of their lives. Decisions made before any of them could exercise their agency would act on their
daily lives. Still, Clementine’s family are not alone in their suffering.
Tense
The use of tense as a tool for exerting political control over Native American
communities has made them struggle to stabilize their livelihoods after government decisions
that would ensure communities would struggle with poverty and the toll to people’s health. After
self determination movements gained enough sway with the U.S. governments to allow for some
self governing for tribes, acts that were implemented in an effort to encourage self determination
included the Indian Child Welfare Act, passed in 1978, which works with the understanding that
Native children should be placed with Native families in the “best interest of the child” and the
best interest of the native communities trying make the children a part of their social body. The
ICWA also presents concerns over sovereignty. Despite tribes being recognized as sovereign
since 1871, U.S. citizenship status “awarded” to Native Americans after WWI complicated the
extent to which the US government could interfere tribal matters; by interfering with the rights of
Native Americans to govern themselves, the government actively used tense to undermine the
political power of Native American communities.
According to Pauline Strong, up to a third of all Native children separated from their
families prior to 1978, most of these placements of Native children were with non-Native
families, and most children were taken through coercions, with birth parents threatened with loss
of welfare benefits, not advised of their rights, or unable to understand the documents that led to
the termination of parental rights. Tense was manifested in the policies intended to manage
populations, rather than help them thrive, this resulted in the potential for abandonment to occur.
Strong explains it was during the legislative hearings for the passing of the ICWA that the
justifications for the removal of Native children from their families “might consist of simple
living on a poverty stricken reservation; being under the care of grandparents, siblings, or other
members of an extended family; or being raised under less restrictive conditions than were
tolerated in the dominant society” (Strong, 2001:481).
These rationales justified placing Native children in the hegemonic US government view
as a fit, stable home, in the “best interest of the child.” This was supposedly the guiding principle
in all American adoptions (Strong, 2001:480). If paired with the understanding that it was, in
fact, the actions of the US government that resulted in the entrenched poverty--with even
recently the Census Bureau listing poverty rates among Native Americans at 29.1% (almost
39