Historical Trauma, Substance Use, and Indigenous Peoples: Seven Generations of Harm From a “Big Event”

Abstract

Indigenous peoples the world over have and continue to experience the devastating effects of colonialism including loss of life, land, language, culture, and identity. Indigenous peoples suffer disproportionately across many health risk factors including an increased risk of substance use. We use the term “Big Event” to describe the historical trauma attributed to colonial policies as a potential pathway to explain the disparity in rates of substance use among many Indigenous populations. We present “Big Solutions” that have the potential to buffer the negative effects of the Big Event, including: (1) decolonizing strategies, (2) identity development, and (3) culturally adapted interventions. Study limitations are noted and future needed research is suggested.

Keywords :

• Indigenous peoples
• North America
• historical trauma
• colonialism
• decolonization
• health disparities
• identity
• substance use
• culturally adapted interventions
• community based

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Authors’ note: Jennifer Nutton is funded by a Graduate Excellence Fellowship to pursue doctoral studies at the McGill University School of Social Work. Elizabeth Fast is a postdoctoral fellow funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Grant and by a gift from the Royal Bank of Canada foundation to support the McGill Centre for Research on Children and Families’ Children's Services Research and Training Program.

THE AUTHORS

Jennifer Nutton, MSW is a doctoral student at McGill University in the School of Social Work and a research assistant at the McGill Centre for Research on Children and Families (CRCF). Jennifer was project manager of a university-led collaboration with First Nations and mainstream youth centers in Québec from 2012-2014. She is currently working on projects at the CRCF to build research capacity within First Nations community-based social service organizations and local government child welfare agencies. Her areas of research interest include Indigenous child welfare and issues of culture in child welfare practice and policy. She is particularly interested in understanding the models of child welfare practice designed to meet the needs of Indigenous children and families in North America.

Elizabeth Fast, MSW, PhD is of Métis ancestry, originally from St. François Xavier, Manitoba. She received a PhD in social work in April 2014 from McGill University that focused on cultural identity among Indigenous youth in Montreal. Elizabeth is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the National School of Public Administration in Montreal under the direction of the “Canada Research Chair in the evaluating public actions relating to young people and vulnerable populations,” and in collaboration with the “Building Research Capacity in First Nations and mainstream child welfare agencies.”

GLOSSARY

• Historical trauma: A collective complex trauma resulting from traumatic experiences occurring over generations and inflicted on a group of people who share a specific group identity or affiliation—ethnicity, nationality, and religious affiliation (Evans-Campbell, 2008).

• Liberation psychology: A framework for working with individuals and peoples to enhance their awareness of oppressive structures and ideologies, which is achieved by critically analyzing the social context of the structures and actions of the dominant culture or majority population (Varas-Díaz & Serrano-García, 2003).

Notes

¹ The reader is asked to consider that with the advent of artificial science and its theoretical underpinnings (chaos, complexity and uncertainty theories) it is now posited that much of human behavior is complex, dynamic, multi-dimensional, level/phase structured, non-linear, law-driven and bounded (culture, time, place, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.). Both “big events”, and substance use(r)s, however these are defined and delineated would be such a events, processes and outcomes. This is not a semantic issue. There are two important issues to consider and which are derived from this: (1) Using linear models/tools to study non-linear processes/phenomena can and does result in misleading conclusions and can therefore also result in inappropriate intervention, which includes the misuse of limited human and non-human resources; (2) the concepts prediction and control have different meanings and dimensions than they do in the more traditional linear ‘cause and effect’ paradigms. (Buscema, M. (1998), Artificial Neural Networks, Substance Use & Misuse, 33(1-3). Editor's note.

² As one considers explanations of any type it is useful to refer to Hills's criteria for causation which were developed in order to help assist researchers and clinicians determine if risk factors were causes of a particular disease or outcomes or merely associated. (Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: associations or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295-300.). Editor's note.

³ The reader is reminded that the concepts of “risk factors”, as well as “protective factors”, are often noted in the literature, without adequately noting their dimensions (linear, non-linear; rates of development and decay; anchoring or integration, cessation, etc.)), their “demands”, the critical necessary conditions (endogenously as well as exogenously; from a micro to a meso to a macro level) which are necessary for either of them to operate (begin, continue, become anchored and integrate, change as de facto realities change, cease, etc.) or not to, and whether their underpinnings are theory-driven, empirically-based, individual and/or systemic stake holder- bound, based upon “principles of faith doctrinaire positions, “personal truths,” historical observation, precedents and traditions that accumulate over time, conventional wisdom, perceptual and judgmental constraints, “transient public opinion.” Among other considerations. This is necessary to consider and to clarify if these term are not to remain as yet additional shibboleth in a field of many stereotypes, tradition-driven activities, “principles of faith,” passionate beliefs and stakeholder objectives and agendas. Editor's note.

⁴ There are 617 federally recognized First Nations in Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1303134042666/1303134337338). There are 566 federally-recognized Tribes in the United States (Bureau of Indian Affairs, http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/ OIS/TribalGovernmentServices/TribalDirectory/).

⁵ In Canada, there were 1,836,035 people (5.6% of total population) who reported having Aboriginal ancestry according to the 2011 National Household Survey (http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1303134042666/1303134337338). In the United States, 5.2 million people (1.7% of total population) identified as American Indian or Alaska Native according to the 2010 Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf).