As descendants of the indigenous peoples of the United States, American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) have experienced a resurgence in population and prospects since the beginning of the twentieth century. Today, tribally affiliated individuals number over two million, distributed across 565 federally recognized tribal communities and countless metropolitan and nonreservation rural areas. Although relatively little evidence is available, the existing data suggest that AI/AN adults and youth suffer a disproportionate burden of mental health problems compared with other Americans. Specifically, clear disparities have emerged for AI/AN substance abuse, posttraumatic stress, violence, and suicide. The rapid expansion of mental health services to AI/AN communities has, however, frequently preceded careful consideration of a variety of questions about critical components of such care, such as the service delivery structure itself, clinical treatment processes, and preventive and rehabilitative program evaluation. As a consequence, the mental health needs of these communities have easily outpaced and overwhelmed the federally funded agency designed to serve these populations, with the Indian Health Service remaining chronically understaffed and underfunded such that elimination of AI/AN mental health disparities is only a distant dream. Although research published during the past decade has substantially improved knowledge about AI/AN mental health problems, far fewer investigations have explored treatment efficacy and outcomes among these culturally diverse peoples. In addition to routine calls for greater clinical and research resources, however, AI/AN community members themselves are increasingly advocating for culturally alternative approaches and opportunities to address their mental health needs on their own terms.

Recent years have seen the rise of historical trauma as a construct to describe the impact of colonization, cultural suppression, and historical oppression of Indigenous peoples in North America (e.g., Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal peoples in Canada). The discourses of psychiatry and psychology contribute to the conflation of disparate forms of violence by emphasizing presumptively universal aspects of trauma response. Many proponents of this construct have made explicit analogies to the Holocaust as a way to understand the transgenerational effects of genocide. However, the social, cultural, and psychological contexts of the Holocaust and of post-colonial Indigenous "survivance" differ in many striking ways. Indeed, the comparison suggests that the persistent suffering of Indigenous peoples in the Americas reflects not so much past trauma as ongoing structural violence. The comparative study of genocide and other forms of massive, organized violence can do much to illuminate both common mechanisms and distinctive features, and trace the looping effects from political processes to individual experience and back again. The ethics and pragmatics of individual and collective healing, restitution, resilience, and recovery can be understood in terms of the self-vindicating loops between politics, structural violence, public discourse, and embodied experience.

Indigenous "First Nations" communities have consistently associated their disproportionate rates of psychiatric distress with historical experiences of European colonization. This emphasis on the socio-psychological legacy of colonization within tribal communities has occasioned increasingly widespread consideration of what has been termed historical trauma within First Nations contexts. In contrast to personal experiences of a traumatic nature, the concept of historical trauma calls attention to the complex, collective, cumulative, and intergenerational psychosocial impacts that resulted from the depredations of past colonial subjugation. One oft-cited exemplar of this subjugation--particularly in Canada--is the Indian residential school. Such schools were overtly designed to "kill the Indian and save the man." This was institutionally achieved by sequestering First Nations children from family and community while forbidding participation in Native cultural practices in order to assimilate them into the lower strata of mainstream society. The case of a residential school "survivor" from an indigenous community treatment program on a Manitoba First Nations reserve is presented to illustrate the significance of participation in traditional cultural practices for therapeutic recovery from historical trauma. An indigenous rationale for the postulated efficacy of "culture as treatment" is explored with attention to plausible therapeutic mechanisms that might account for such recovery. To the degree that a return to indigenous tradition might benefit distressed First Nations clients, redressing the socio-psychological ravages of colonization in this manner seems a promising approach worthy of further research investigation.

Nineteen staff and clients in a Native American healing lodge were interviewed regarding the therapeutic approach used to address the legacy of Native American historical trauma. On the basis of thematic content analysis of interviews, 4 components of healing discourse emerged. First, clients were understood by their counselors to carry pain, leading to adult dysfunction, including substance abuse. Second, counselors believed that such pain must be confessed in order to purge its deleterious influence. Third, the cathartic expression of such pain was said by counselors to inaugurate lifelong habits of introspection and self-improvement. Finally, this healing journey entailed a reclamation of indigenous heritage, identity, and spirituality that program staff thought would neutralize the pathogenic effects of colonization. Consideration of this healing discourse suggests that one important way for psychologists to bridge evidence-based and culturally sensitive treatment paradigms is to partner with indigenous programs in the exploration of locally determined therapeutic outcomes for existing culturally sensitive interventions that are maximally responsive to community needs and interests.

Because ethnoracial minorities are a growing part of the U.S. population yet are underrepresented in the psychopathology literature, we reviewed the evidence for differences in prevalence and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, and American Indians. With respect to prevalence, Latinos were most consistently found to have higher PTSD rates than their European American counterparts. Other groups also showed differences that were mostly explained by differences in trauma exposure. Many prevalence rates were varied by subgroup within the larger ethnoracial group, thereby limiting broad generalizations about group differences. Regarding service utilization, some studies of veterans found lower utilization among some minority groups, but community-based epidemiological studies following a traumatic event found no differences. Finally, in terms of treatment, the literature contained many recommendations for culturally sensitive interventions but little empirical evidence supporting or refuting such treatments. Taken together, the literature hints at many important sources of ethnoracial variation but raises more questions than it has answered. The article ends with recommendations to advance work in this important area.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, the construct of historical trauma was introduced into the clinical and health science literatures to contextualize, describe, and explain disproportionately high rates of psychological distress and health disparities among Indigenous populations. As a conceptual precursor to racial trauma, Indigenous historical trauma (IHT) is distinguished by its emphasis on ancestral adversity that is intergenerationally transmitted in ways that compromise descendent well-being. In this systematic review of the health impacts of IHT, 32 empirical articles were identified that statistically analyzed the relationship between a measure of IHT and a health outcome for Indigenous samples from the United States and Canada. These articles were categorized based on their specific method for operationalizing IHT, yielding 19 articles that were grouped as historical loss studies, 11 articles that were grouped as residential school ancestry studies, and three articles that were grouped as "other" studies. Articles in all three categories included diverse respondents, disparate designs, varied statistical techniques, and a range of health outcomes. Most reported statistically significant associations between higher indicators of IHT and adverse health outcomes. Analyses were so complex, and findings were so specific, that this groundbreaking literature has yet to cohere into a body of knowledge with clear implications for health policy or professional practice. At the conceptual level, it remains unclear whether IHT is best appreciated for its metaphorical or literal functions. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm surrounding IHT as an explanation for contemporary Indigenous health problems renders it imperative to refine the construct to enable more valid research.

In the context of increasing attention to disparities in health status between U.S. ethnoracial groups, this article examines the dilemma of divergent cultural practices for redressing disparities in mental health status in American Indian communities. Drawing upon an ethnographic interview with a tribal elder from a northern Plains Indian reservation, a prototypical discourse of distress is presented and analyzed as one exemplar of the divergence between the culture of the clinic and the culture of the community. Situated in the context of continuing power asymmetries between tribal nations and the U.S. federal government, the implications of this cultural divergence for the efforts of mental health professionals, practitioners, and policymakers are identified as a predicament that only the conventions and commitments of a robust community psychology have the potential to resolve.

As the population of American Indians and Alaska Natives continues to expand in the 21st century United States, an increasing number of professional psychologists will be called upon to provide culturally appropriate mental health services for Native American people and their communities. This article provides a general overview of contemporary tribal America before describing the legal, political, and institutional contexts for mental health service delivery administered through the federally sponsored Indian Health Service. Recommendations for mental health professionals who desire to avoid a subtle but profound Western cultural proselytization in their therapeutic service to Native clients and their communities are presented. JOSEPH P. GONE received his PhD in clinical and community psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology (Clinical Area) and the Program in American Culture (Native American Studies) at the University of Michigan. His research interests include cultural psychology and American Indian mental health.