Since my matriculation into the collegiate education system,
I have been made aware of one particular safety concern for students more than
any other: the prevalence of sexual violence, especially against women. Mostly
notably, one statistic has been repeated above all others; one in four women
are likely to experience sexual violence at some point in their life. While
this statistic in itself frightens me as young woman, I have recently been made
aware of another statistic that is even more terrifying. As Barbara Gurr (2015)
reveals in her book, Reproductive
Justice: The Politics of Health Care for Native American Women, “Native
American women are over two and a half times more likely than other US women to
be sexually assaulted” (p. 105). While a quarter of US women will likely
experience sexual violence, over half of Native American women will experience
the same fate.
Information Provided by http://www.strongheartedwomen.org/home/statistics
Clearly, an inequality exists for Native Americans to result
in such drastic differences in this statistic. As Gurr (2015) argues throughout
her book, this is largely the responsibility of the non-indigenous members of
the United States over the centuries since Europeans first decided to settle
North America. While laws, such as the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, exist
to address the disparities created by the country’s development, the gap for Native
American women and other US women regarding sexual assault is not narrowing
(Gurr, 2015, p. 115). In order to change the huge disparities in sexual assault
on Native American women, the greater body of the United States must take
responsibility for its role in disparity while broadening anti-sexual violence
campaigns to be more inclusive.
The problem of sexual assault against Native women cannot be
addressed without first addressing the systems and history that has created the
inequality of indigenous people. As Gurr (2015) argues colonialism is largely
to blame. Early settlers of the country engaged in violence as a way to remove
indigenous people in the efforts to claim new land. Native people quickly
became part of a category of “others”, believed to be inferior to the Europeans
(p. 108). By allowing violence and declaring superiority by isolating the power
and habituation of Native people, colonial powers introduced a new role for Native
Americans. Gurr (2015) specifically identifies the ideology behind indigenous
people being inherently “rapeable” (p. 108). Native communities, especially its
female populations, have become a symbol of non-Native dominance. By creating
an ideal of controllability of Native people, violence continues to be high
against Native Americans, as is visible in sexual assault statistics.
In further support of the responsibility of the greater
United States in inequality of women, Matamonasa-Bennett (2015) conducted
research about violence in Native communities, prior to US involvement, the text
of which can be found here. The study, which looks of the views of Native
American men of various ages on intimate partner violence, a cultural shift
occurring in Native communities during colonialism. As many men note, their
culture was originally based on ideas of peace and nonviolence, with a strong
focus on family, community, and tribal ethics. Though the arrival of alcohol
from Europeans is largely blame amongst the men in the study, a general
consensus is reached that high rates of intimate partner violence in Native
Americans, which includes sexual assault, are a result of colonization
(Matamonasa-Bennett, 2015).
Clearly, the United States, starting with its early
colonization, is largely responsible for shifts in culture within indigenous
communities, but also for the greater attitude towards these “othered” people.
The United States has a moral responsibility towards Native Americans because
of its role in the construction of prevalent sexual violence towards women. If
any hope of change is to be made, all citizens need to be made aware of this
history of violence and the conditions it has created.
Moreover, the United States has neglected the needs of Native
communities and of the victimized women of these communities by creating a
jurisdictional system that fails to hold perpetrators accountable for their
crimes. Gurr (2015) addresses the legal system of Native Sovereignty and Tribal
jurisdiction, made ineffective by laws such as Public Law 280 which gives
tribes little to no power to prosecute criminal acts (p. 113). This is
especially concerning because of the rates of violence against Native American
women. Women are unable to obtain justice without going through the long,
arduous state system because non-Native men cannot be prosecuted by the Tribes,
which can only give limited sentences anyways.
Amnesty International addressed this failure of policing in
2007 through a detailed look at Tribal jurisdiction. The document, which can be
found here, focuses largely on the justice system of tribes. Specifically, the
story of one Native woman is portrayed:
“The mother of a survivor of sexual
violence from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation told Amnesty International
how she returned home in September 2005 to find her 16-year-old daughter lying
half-naked and unconscious on the floor... She described how the suspected perpetrator
fled to Rapid City, South Dakota, which is outside the jurisdiction of the
Standing Rock Police Department (SRPD). He returned to the Reservation in early
2006... They found out that the suspect was to go before a tribal court, but...
She told Amnesty International that she hoped that the case would be referred
to the federal authorities because this would mean a lengthier sentence for the
perpetrator” (Amnesty International, 2007, p. 41-43).
The kinship narrative provided by the mother of a young Native
American women embodies the lack of power of Tribal leadership, requiring
lengthy state court proceedings.
Largely, the poorly created system of justice for Native
Americans can be blamed for a continued high rate of sexual violence against Native
women. A lack of accountability allows this violence to continue because the
chance of severe repercussions is lower than it is on a national basis. If
anti-sexual assault efforts are to be effective in any way, campaigns need to
realize an address the failure of the courts to protect Native women.
Any effort that does exist to lower rates of sexual assault
of indigenous women is further impeded by the misguided focus of misinformation
and a lack of comprehensive research on the subject. Gurr (2015) specifically
addresses this problem by noting that campaigns focus largely on violence
against Native women by Native men. In reality, 67 percent of sexual assaults
and rapes are committed by non-Native men. Furthermore, when women attempt to
obtain justice, they must turn to other non-Native men for protection in the
legal system, increasing the disparity (p. 116). Yet, preventative measures are
still being aimed at Native men. This misinformation is causing more harm than
good by creating greater stereotypes about indigenous people. The situation is
worsened by the fact that research on sexual violence against Native women is
limited. A look through any database will reveal the lack of academic findings,
especially that focus on non-Native men as perpetrators. Our information needs
to be expanded into all perpetrators and situations of sexual assault to
successfully identify focal points of a campaign against it.
While a deficiency in addressing this problem seems to be
clear, arguments exist against the failures of the Unites State to indigenous
people. We do give land and resources specifically to this group of people when
other groups are not provided with such funding. However, as Gurr (2015) shows
in her work, these resources have been and continue to be inadequate to meet
the needs of Native Americans, who live in higher rates of poverty than the
rest of the country, with serious problems like sexual assault. Commonly, such
violence is blamed on the high levels of alcohol abuse by Native Americans.
Yet, Matamonasa-Bennet (2015) identifies the role of colonization in providing
alcohol to a group that previously practiced in abstinence and peace. Another
common argument is that women do not report very often, making it hard to have
accurate numbers regarding sexual violence. But structural injustices are
largely to blame for the lack of trust of Native women to the Unites States
government. Natives are considered to be inferior and are treated as so,
earning them a lack of resources to provide for personal and legal needs.
Ultimately, even though some action is being taking against
sexual assault rates for Native Americans, it is far from being effective.
Large disparities have structurally been implemented since the arrival of
Europeans in North American. If any change is to be made, the country as a
whole needs to realize its responsibility for the conditions than Native Americans
currently face. Furthermore, steps need to be taken legally to make sure that
victims of sexual assault are receiving justice for the crimes against them,
while encouraging them to report the crimes in the knowledge that they will be protected
against any perpetrator, regardless of race or ethnic origin. Lastly, we need
to expand our understanding of the situation by conducting more research that
focuses on non-Native responsibility as well. Only then can we hope to make a
change in the rates of sexual assault against Native women.
References:
Amnesty International USA. (2007). Maze of injustice: The
failure to protect indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA. Retrieved
from http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/mazeofinjustice.pdf
Gurr, B. (2015). Reproductive
Justice: The Politics of Health Care for Native American Women. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Matamonasa-Bennett, A. (2015). “A Disease of the Outside
People”: Native American Men’s Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(1); 20-36.
Photo Retrieved From http://www.batchwilliams.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/Depositphotos_11048072_M.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment