Research Study Findings:
Violence Against Native American Women
Barbara General, M.S.W., Ph.D. Student
School of Social Work
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Faculty Mentors
Kate Kost, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Hilary Weaver, D.S.W.,Associate Professor
School of Social Work
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Funding for this research project provided by
NYS Office of Children and Family Services
through a contract with
College Relations Group
Center for Development of Human Services
Research Foundation of SUNY BuffaloState College
Contract Year 2004: Project 1037105/Award: 31176
Contract Year 2005: Project 1044831/Award 34930
Abstract
The prevalence rate of violence against Native American women is higher than that of any other racial group in the United States.However, there is currently very little empirical data explaining this social phenomenonin tribal and urban communities, with the available literature about violence against womenpredominately based on Caucasian women’s experiences of domestic violence. This review considers a conceptual framework focusing on the colonization of Native American peoples and turns to feminist and social learning theories to help explain violence against women in general before going on to further discuss the limitations of these theories in explaining the existence of violence against Native American women.
Note: The original version of this manuscript was edited and reformatted by CDHS Publications Services to optimize its usefulness as a research document primarily intended for CDHS trainers.
Introduction
The phenomenon of violence against women is complex in nature,expanding across all socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines.Affecting one in six women,male-to-female assaults are at least six times more likely to cause injuries to females than assaults caused by other females (Lawson, 2003).Violent behaviorperpetrated against womenis a public health concern that has long-lasting negative physical and mental health consequences for both women and their children (Wuest, Merrit-Gray, & Ford-Gilboe, 2004).The Center for Disease Control contendsthat the cost of rape, physical assaults, and stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year, with nearly$4.1 billion for medical and mental health care services (NationalCenter for Injury Prevention and Control, 2003).
Research on violence against women has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, yet there are still many gaps in society’s understanding of this social phenomenon. In particular, reliable information on minority women's experiences and domestic violence is still lacking in the literature (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).Indigenouswomen in the United States and Canadareport more violentvictimization than do women and men of other racial backgrounds, yet there is little empirical research that examines this phenomenon in indigenouscommunities (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) across all disciplines.
Dobash & Dobash (1979) contend that in order to truly understand the nature of violence between intimates,research must go beyond the interacting couple and the isolated and abstracted social relationship. Instead, the violent behavior must be considered in perspective of its propersettings, both historical and contemporary, andthe context that must be examined in relation to violence against indigenous women is the colonization ofNorth Americaand its devastating impact on indigenous cultures and beliefs.It appears that the available literature on violence against Native American women uses mostly conceptual models, with little empirical data to support assertions.Thus, central to this review is a conceptual model that is based on a historical perspective that encompasses the colonization of Native Americans lands and culture. Empirical studies framed within feminist and learning theorieswill aid in understanding violence against women from a general Euro-Caucasian context.
Scope and Research Sources
This paper definesthe concept of violence, identifies the target group and the more recent epidemiology studies, provides a brief historical perspective and analysis, includesempirical support from feminist and social learning theories, and concludes with remarks about the with limitations and discussion of the current research and an overall summary.
The following are academic search engines used to locate conceptual and empirical studies on violence against Native American women: Anthrosource, Ebscohost, Masterfile Select,Eric, Genderwatch,Infotrac, Onefile,Jstor, Psycinfo (Ovid), Psycarticles.The keywords typed in the search engines were: “violence against Native American women,”“violence against women studies,”“violence against aboriginal women,”“battered women’s studies,”“violence against indigenous women,”“structural violence and Native American women,” “Native American women and family violence studies,”“Native American victims,”“sexual assault and Native American women,” and “battered women and trauma.”These searches led to studies predominantly focused on the experiences of Caucasian women, leading to the understanding that the subject of violence against Native American women and interventions are inadequately represented in social science research.Additionally, and most importantly for this review,the representation of Native American women in the literature is next to nonexistent and is most likely reflective of the more generalized marginalization experience of Native peoples, and/or their somewhat remote relationship with the academic world.
Defining Violence Against Women
The terms of “violence” and “abuse” have often been used interchangeably by those who study domestic violence.However, according to Gelles (1985) violence and abuse are not conceptually equivalent.For example, the umbrella term “battered child syndrome”eventually gave way to multiple terms such as “child abuse,”“child neglect,” and “child maltreatment”in recognition of the fact that child abuse was not necessarily only physical, but also included malnutrition, failure to thrive, sexual abuse, education neglect, medical neglect, and mental abuse.Korbin (1981) points out that there are no universally accepted standards for child rearing and that thus there are no universally held terms for child abuse and neglect.Those seeking a culturally applicable term will face a predicament of choosing between a culturally relevant standard (in which behavior may be considered abusive or non-abusive, depending on the cultural framework) or an individual standard whereby violent acts are considered to be those behaviors that differ from the typical cultural standards of child rearing (Korbin, 1981).
In much the same way as the previously described child abuse example, the definition of domestic violence or violence against women varies and therefore a universal definition is nonexistent.Gelles and Straus (1979) define violence as “an act carried out with the intention or perceived intention of physically hurting another person.”Spanking and shoving are included in this definition, as well as injury or death.Gelles asserts that when violence against women became acknowledged as a social problem,researchers moved toward a broaderdefinition to include sexual abuse, rape, and even pornography (Gelles, 1985).For the purposes of this review, the terms “violence against women”and“domestic violence” will be used interchangeably, encompassing a more recent definition by the United Nations General Assembly and including any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private (United Nations, 1993).
Epidemiology
The 1999 Department of Justice American Indians and Crime Report stated that American Indians experience per capita rates of violence that are more than twice those of the U.S.resident population.The report also described the rate of violent crime against American Indian women as nearly 50% higher than that reported by black males (United States Department of Justice, 1999), with black males demonstrating violent behaviors seemingly receiving much more media attention and stigmatization than that of the perpetrators of the silent and seemingly invisible violence done against indigenous women.Physical assaults against American Indian females were 98 per 1,000 compared to 56 per 1,000 among black females or 40 per 1,000 among white females.Interestingly, 75% or more of the violence experienced by Native American women is committed by persons not of the same race(United States Department of Justice, 1999).This data suggests that non-Native perpetrators play a significant role in violence against Native American women.The 1995 National Violence against Women Survey results showed that American Indian women were more likely to report rape and physical assault victimization than women of other racial backgrounds.Some 61% of American Indian women reported physical assault; among African American women the statistic was 52.1%, and among white women it was 51.3% (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
A study prepared by the Ontario Native Women’s Association (2004) in Canada found that eight out of ten aboriginal women have been abused.From a national perspective, approximately 500 aboriginal women have gone missing from their communities across Canada in the last 20 years,yet the government, the media, and Canadian society continue to remain silent.In interviews that Amnesty International Canada conducted with victims' families, it seems that police appear to have repeatedly failed to protect aboriginal women and have also failed to investigate crimes againstthemthoroughly or promptly(Amnesty International, 2004).The implication of the investigations is thatindigenous women are not receiving the social supports needed to transcend violent and tragic situations.Walker (1989) argued that cultural factors, including social institutions, provide ineffective responses with regard to protecting women and children or else they promote traditional socio-cultural norms that devalue women and that maintain such violence.
Most of the epidemiological studies (such as the Department of Justice reports and Violence Against Women surveys)indicate a high prevalence rate of violence against Native American women. These statistics were collected with the use of surveys or self-reports to obtain the data.Surveys represent an essential facet in the methodology of researching violence against women for the reason that they provide data about the regularity, incidence, and patterning of violence against women.However, gathering data from the survey method has weaknesses because surveys do not describe the violence and its impact; moreover, it is not tribal specific.Native American tribes are so diverse in social, economic, and political backgrounds that the quality of the data obtained can be considered mainly anecdotal, yet the current data prompts interest in further investigation that takes the culture and context of Indian lifeinto account (Hamby, 2000).
Definition of “Native American Women”
The idea that “Indians” and now “Native Americans” are a single discrete people was an invention of Columbus and his European contemporaries,and this reference was perpetuated without a foundation in historical, cultural, or ethnographic reality (Salisbury, 1996).Many individuals in the dominant culture commonly refer to Native Americans as a single cultural entity and believe that come from and represent one cultural group (Hamby, 2000).The fact is that Native Americans constitute over 550 federally recognized tribal units and over 36 state-recognized tribal units, numerous nations, and some 252 languages (Herring, 1992).Thus the label “Native American” has been erroneously used to categorize and generalize information on nations that are distinct in culture, beliefs, and economic and social structures.
According to the Bureau of Census, a Native American is a Native American. This means that individuals can report they are Native American on the census survey.The census data indicates there are approximately 2,475,956 NativeAmericans and that in total they make up less than one percent of the U. S. population.However, that number reflects individuals who reported being Native American only.The figure increases to 4,119,301 (or 1.5% of the population) when individuals report that they are Native American and another race (United States Census, 2000).Conversely, tribal governments are much more discriminate and assert their rights to determine tribal members.Some tribal nations (such as the Senecas) consideran individual to be a member of the tribe if their mother is or was a member, with tribal membership passed down through the mothers’ bloodline (Weaver, 2005).Other nations are patrilineal and consider an individual to be a members based on his or her father’s membership.
For the purposes of this review, Native American femalesare all those who are considered a member of a tribal nation, whether it is through a traditional (hereditary) or an elective system supported by the federal government.In addition, the term Native American female is inclusive of women who self-identify as Native American based on their biological connection to a tribal nation but who have no membership due to not meeting tribal nation criteria, whether it is lack of blood quantum or not meeting the matrilineal or patrilineal standard.Note that the terms “Native American,”“indigenous,” and “aboriginal” will be used interchangeably to make references to the female descendents of the first peoples in North America.
Historical and Conceptual Framework
Intimate violence in Native American communities in the United States should be viewed not only from a statistical context, but also within the history of Euro-colonial relations with Native American nations (McGillavray & Comaskey, 1999, p. 22).It is debated whether violence against women is a new problem or whether it existed before colonization. Some have asserted it dates after the introduction of western influences (Hamby, 2000).Nevertheless, based on the sparse ethnographic research on Native American women, culture, and philosophies, gender relationships have changed (Klein and Ackerman, 1995).The impact of colonization and (for the most part) forced assimilationhas changed the roles of native women,who have gone from having a valued position in there communities to leading lives marked by illness, domestic violence, and early death (Napoli, 2002).
Colonialism is not an abstract notion. Itinvolves a real set of people and relationships and structures (Alfred, 1999).Colonization refers to a situation in which a dominant group embarks on a process to alter or eliminate the laws, customs, and belief systems of a community.It is characterized by an invasive structural and psychological relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, a relationship that is ultimately reflected in the dominant institutions, policies, histories, and literatures of the occupying powers (McGillvray & Comaskey, 1999).It must be noted that North America has not yet entered a postcolonial era, and what was originally Native Americanremains occupied by invaders from overseas. These settlers have appropriated Indian land and resources for their own advantage, while indigenous peoples who conducted themselves as independent nations since time immemorial continue to be forcibly subordinated (Churchill, 2003).
There has always been a “problem” of what to do with the indigenous peoples, beginning from the onset of Europeans settling in North America, and this problem was the cause of much effort and discussion for centuries(Parker, 1916).Early practices of extermination/racial genocide, seizure of lands, and assimilation seemed to the white colonials of the time to be the simplest way to deal with the Indian problem, since from their perspective the Indian tribes stood in the way of free reign over the land and all the natural resources that went with it (Garrett & Pichette, 2000).Starting in 1609, it is documented that the Virginia Company gave authorization for the kidnapping of indigenous children for the purpose of “civilizing” local indigenous populations through imposition of Christianity (Buckley, 2002).George Washington and his administration included provisions for clergymen to live with each tribe in order to teach the English language and Christian religion and to encourage peaceful relations with the U.S.government.Thomas Jefferson encouraged a Presbyterian school among the Cherokees and personally approved federal funding to build a Catholic church and maintain a priest for the Kaskaskia tribe.His successors followed suit. Such arrangements were mutually beneficial to both church and state (Buckley, 2002).The 1819 Civilization Fund Act, a federal law passed by Congress, provided grants to private agencies(primarily churches) to establish programs to “civilize” the Indian (Cross, Earle, & Simmons, 2000).
The supposed move from assimilation to removal marked a shift in U.S. policy toward citizens of tribal nations.Native Americans were no longer to be civilized in place or reduced to small reservations on a portion of their traditional lands. Instead, entire tribes were relocated west of the Mississippi River (American Journey Online, 1999).The Mississippibecame the new permanent demarcation of white colonial settlement.In 1868, the Indian Peace Commission was formed to review the causes of Indian hostilities.Short on resolution, the Commission againrecommended bringing Native Americans into white civilizationsas a solution to their differences (Cross, et al, 2000).
What is clearly dismissed in early policy practices against Native Americans by the United States government is the failure to think of Native American tribes as human communities that change and develop over the years.The long history of social coercion of tribal nations, forcing themto give up their homeland territories, cultural beliefs, and tribal and religious practices left an indelible mark on the psychology of native peoples, with many of the social pathologies facing Native Americans today stemming from this oppressionon the part of non-natives.
Cultural Violence
Poverty, inequality, social marginality, and domination of resources all produced unneeded suffering and death for indigenous peoples in North America.These conditions are not acts of nature but rather are the direct products of social arrangements created by Euro-colonizers in ways not easily noticedor clearly understood in today’s society (Pilisuk Tennant, 1997).Galtung (1990) suggested that social arrangements are induced and are maintained by cultural violence.Cultural violence is seen as the symbolic sphere of Western civilization’s existence—exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science, and formal science (e.g., logic, mathematics) that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence.Structural violence is embedded in the social system and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances (Galtung, 1969).Over years, cultural violence has the tendency to make structural violence look, and even feel, right (or at least not wrong).