[shivayoga] Native Americans Need for Cultural Understanding

Tafoya, N. & Del Vecchio, A. (2005). Back to the future: An
Examination of the Native

American Holocaust Experience. In Mcgoldrick, M., Giordano, J., &
Pearce, J. (Eds.), Ethnicity and Family Therapy (3rd Ed., pp. 55-63).

Native American Holocaust Experience

The Native American Holocaust was just that, a holocaust. While I was
growing up, I do not believe any of the history books recognized it
as such. I remember a series of dinner discussions as a child that
emerged from a question my older sister asked her social studies
teacher. She poignantly asked why the term holocaust was used for the
Jewish holocaust and not used when referring to what occurred to the
Native Americans. My family is Native American. The authors of this
article made no discussion of whether or not the term was most
appropriate; in fact, they began their article with this as their
premise. The authors aptly explain some of the motives behind why the
government chose to implement a re-education of Native children
through "boarding schools." The Native children were seized and
removed from their homes under the auspice of missionary programs for
educational purposes. The Native American parents of these children
were not given any choice as to whether the children were to attend,
and the "assimilation and annihilation"(p59) process began. It is
precisely the assimilation process and annihilation of the Native
American culture, which motivated the government to begin the
missionary programs. The authors discuss the impact of the trauma
response and unresolved grief of Native Americans due to oppression
and racism, assimilation and the annihilation of native languages and
tribal cultures. In particular, it is mentioned that Natives on
reservations and in urban locations were particularly prone to
experience the trauma responses and experience unresolved grief.
Moreover, it is suggested that as a foundation for the client-
professional relationship, the professional ought to be aware of the
traumas that may affect a person of Native American ethnicity in
order to "speed the healing process" (p61). However, I myself am not
sure if I totally agree with this sentiment based on the authors'
motivations behind the sentiment. Though, I believe it of utmost
important to recognize the reality behind the Native American
Holocaust, I do not believe it should be done in order to "speed" any
healing processes. Perhaps, the intention behind the statement is
good, but I am not sure if "speed" is a safe-term that will invoke a
proper motivation. Sometimes a McDonaldsization is not in order. If
rapidness is for the sake of convenience, it usually does not impart
a quality product. Perhaps to state it in a way that gives less room
for the de-valuing of the experience might be to promote healing, to
cultivate healing, to provide a safe-place for healing, to nurture
healing, to guide during the healing process. Though I doubt this to
be the authors' intention, sometimes less room for error is a
positive thing. In my opinion, the connotation of speed in processing
bears a remarkable resemblance to the modern day American ideologies
of quantity over quality, of numbers as opposed to people. I feel
that it is borderline dangerous to begin treatment with a client
based on a sentiment such as this, and it was precisely the authors'
opinion that the awareness of the Native American Holocaust
that "must be used as a foundation to speed the healing [process] "
(p61). Though, it is a cornerstone of understanding in regards to
cultural sensitivity and the multiplicity of possible influences that
culture has on an individual, its' recognition should be based on the
reality of its' existence alone, not on the expedition of a process
we wish to invoke. Though we need to have a means-end as
professionals in order to facilitate reasonable care within a timely
period, we cannot be guilty of making the end the means by which we
guide our professional relationships. The second possible problem I
see as a result from holding to the authors' foundation premise is
allowing for the danger of suggestion in a therapeutic relationship.
Suggesting what an individuals' problem might be and conferring power
to their personal experiences, as opposed to allowance for that
individual to explore their own experience, could be dangerous. The
danger lies within the difference between suggestibility and the
neutrality of self-exploration.

by: dani cranmer