The Occasional Evil of Angels: Learning from the Experiences of Aboriginal Peoples and Social Work

Abstract

This paper explores how the propensity of social workers to make a direct and unmitigated connection between good intentions, rationale thought and good outcomes forms a white noise barrier that substantially interferes with our ability to see negative outcomes resulting directly or indirectly from our works. The paper begins with outlining the harm experienced by Aboriginal children before moving to explore how two fundamental philosophies that pervade social service practice impact Aboriginal children: 1) an assumption of pious motivation and effect and 2) a desire to improve others. Finally, the paper explores why binding reconciliation and child welfare is a necessary first step toward developing social work services that better support Aboriginal children and families.

Becoming an ally: Intersections of indigenous worldviews and clinical social work practices within Carrier Sekani Family Services.

“…Baskin and Sinclair (2015) state that for decades, despite countless reports and complaints detailing horrific accounts of abuse within the residential schools, child welfare and other human rights groups did not take action on a large scale. Blackstock (2009) also confirms that there is evidence that social workers were well aware of residential schools but did not take action to address the issues.…”

Child As Metaphor: Colonialism, Psy-Governance, and Epistemicide

“…Here another powerful use of metaphor is evident in the construction of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as an inevitably "dying race", incapable of self-governance, enabling residential schools to be justified as 'saving' Indigenous children' from "the death of their race" (Chapman, Carey, and Ben-Moshe 2014, 7;Kelm 2005). This logic has many similarities to the child apprehension policies within racist/colonialist child protection systems that led to the 'sixties scoop' (Chrisjohn and Young 1997;Blackstock 2009;LeFrançois 2013) and, in what is now Australia and Torres Strait, constituted the 'stolen generation' (Read 1981). Continuing since the 'sixties scoop', Indigenous children remain vastly over-represented within the Canadian child protection system (Chrisjohn and Young 1997;LeFrançois 2013).…”

These Are Indigenous Lands

“…This complicity is manifested in myriad ways, including social work's surveillance and pathologization of Indigenous peoples (Weaver, 2000), and its imposition of Eurocentric helping frameworks and practices that displace Indigenous traditional helping systems (Carlson, 2016a;Hart, 2003;Weaver, 2010;Yellow Bird & Gray, 2010). Many scholars also highlight social work's implication in promoting agendas of assimilation: through administering 'Indian welfare' (Shewell, 2001(Shewell, , 2004; by participating in the forcible removal and transfer of Indigenous children to residential schools (Blackstock, 2009;Sinclair, 2004Sinclair, , 2007; and by orchestrating the separation of Indigenous children from their families and communities, through the 60s scoop (Sinclair, 2004) as well as on-going practices of child welfare and Indigenous child removal (Baskin, 2011;Blackstock, 2007Blackstock, , 2009Sinclair, 2007Sinclair, , 2016Waterfall, 2006).…”

“…Further, beyond simply expanding the environmental social work agenda to make more room for the perspectives and struggles of Indigenous peoples, centring Indigenous sovereignty calls for the centering of Indigenous cosmologies and their related concepts of land and land relationships in environmental practice (Tuck et al, 2014). It also demands a thorough soul-searching regarding social work's implication in colonial practices (Baskin, 2011;Blackstock, 2009;Carlson, 2016a;Hart, 2003;Sinclair, 2007;Weaver, 2010;Yellow Bird & Gray, 2010), with special attention to rooting out social work discourses and practices that "justify settler occupation of stolen land, or encourage the replacement of Indigenous peoples and relations to land with settlers and relations of property" (Tuck et al, 2014, p. 8; see also Weaver, 2000, p. 8). Further, centring Indigenous sovereignty requires challenging colonial assumptions about who is in charge, who sets the terms and agenda, and who defines the discourse, narratives, and meanings around environmental work (Davis & Shpuniarsky, 2010;Kitossa, 2000;La Paperson, 2014;Simpson, 2004;Smith & Sterritt, 2010;Weaver, 2000), and recognizing that settler and Indigenous aspirations and solidarities in land defence must always "be approached as incommensurable but not incompatible" (Snelgrove, Kaur Dhamoon, & Corntassel, 2014, p. 30).…”