CPS treatment of first nations children.

Despite vastly different treatment by the English and French settlers of the peoples they found here in North America when they arrived, the "Child Protective" 'Services" systems that the French and English descendant nations (Canada and the united States) created, centuries later, are remarkably similar in their treatment of first nations' citizens and their children.

The earliest settlers in what is now Canada made contact first in Maine and Acadia, and then later up the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, starting in 1604. The English first attempted a colony which failed in 1585, and then later set up shop permanently in Virginia (1607) and Massachusetts (1620). In both cases, European settlers made early and frequent contact with locals, and while the relationships varied over time and location, in a general sense, the French made better relations (and treated the locals far better) over the course of the intervening centuries, than did the English.

(Des Coureur de bois..."runners of the woods" who explored and settled Canada by chasing pelts across the land.)

These united States and the dominion of Canada later made similar attempts to either subsume local cultures within their own, or to separate from the native Americans who typically backed off into the places the settlers considered to be "tribal lands." Whenever native people refused to back off even further was when tensions built to (often) the breaking point and skirmishes and small-scale wars became common. As the English also reached the ascendancy in what would later become Canada with their victory in the war of 1755-1763, the treatment of local peoples became more similar between the settlers of the north and the breakaway English colonies along the Atlantic seaboard.

But still, from 1867 on, Canada, to this day, has largely been more noticeably respectful to native cultures, granting them far more autonomy in their own lands, and generally treating native peoples with greater deference. Treaties made between Canadian authorities and native bands and tribes were far more often kept and respected by both sides, than in the States, where American authorities were becoming infamous for not being trustworthy and for not keeping their word to native peoples.

(Modern "first nations" leaders meeting in B.C. in 2014 to unite in their grievances against Ottawa.)

Despite these stark differences in treatment, within the past fifty years, as both nations mysteriously began to set up remarkably similar government agencies for "child protection" activities, the way that those agencies have interacted with native families has also been remarkably similar. In both nations, the first nations elements have struggled to a greater degree than the majority cultures with alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, and unsettled family environments. That may explain part of it, but both nations have been removing native children from their homes at many times the rates of removals from other, non-native families.

In the earliest period of the modern "child removal" movement, there were charges that this was because there still lingered (especially in the USA) an unspoken government desire to subsume native cultures as far as practicable, and that taking the children and "Americanizing" them may have been a driving factor in the process of removal. However, that was never known to really be an emphasis in Canada, and yet their rates of child removals were also remarkably high when it came to native families.

In Canada, at least, native peoples are beginning to fight back to some degree against "the process" regardless of their motivations. Consider this article:

https://aptnnews.ca/2018/06/01/consent-how-one-mother-beat-the-child-welfare-system-and-got-her-kid-back/

In Canada, so-called "private agreements" are often entered into between CPS agencies and families without the involvement of courts. Oftentimes, native parents who are impoverished and/or simply incapable of providing care have, for decades, been signing over children to the state, willingly. Or, so it would seem..and so it has been claimed by Canadian authorities. This article makes it clear that native peoples have not been getting anything like the required understanding and information needed to make informed decisions about their own families, and that many times, these agreements were not fair or properly understood. Here is an excerpt:

"'It seems to be common practice with many children aids societies across the province that these agreements are being entered into with huge power imbalances, no interpreters, when needed obviously, so they don’t necessarily have capacity at the time of signing,' he said. He said parents often don’t have legal representation when signing. 'Far too many and that is one of the hidden secrets from those seeking veritable child welfare reform, not just in Ontario but across Canada,” he said. “I receive calls time and time again from parents who have signed agreements without legal advice'."

While the argument can (and has) been made that the native peoples are now involved in a form of "buyer's/seller's remorse" and that the current movement is being pushed by tribal leaders, there can be little doubt that Canada has lacked in their purpose and in following the law--i.e. by not following policies that prioritize the return of children to families--with anywhere near the frequency (or apparent enthusiasm) with which they have done so with regard to majority-culture families. Anyone can make an argument as to the reasons for this reality, but the situation is IDENTICAL to that which exists in the United States.

AND...when examining that removal rates are also higher in other parts of the western world when it comes to removal of minority children by CPS within majority cultures, it certainly would seem that while the language surrounding it has changed, that the old policy of removal as a pathway to full acculturation of minority peoples (i.e. a form of "cultural genocide") may still be playing a role.

The frequent strong similarities across national borders in the ways and means that operate within various CPS systems is the truly remarkable point in all of this. I suppose, "none dare call it conspiracy."

...Except for me, and a few other intrepid researchers.