ABSTRACT
Between 1950 and 1985, a period now referred to as the “Sixties Scoop”, over 24,000 Indigenous and Inuit children were removed from their families and placed into primarily non-Indigenous foster and adoptive homes across Canada. Whereas the Residential school system was explicitly racist and genocidal in its orientation, the Sixties Scoop racism was cloaked in accusations of neglect and child-saving rhetoric. Drawing on Hacking’s concept of looping effects, we examine how social workers classify their work and the Indigenous children they removed from their homes. We analyse sixteen interviews with social workers working in child welfare during the Sixties Scoop who were involved with the removal of Indigenous children. This article links broader systems that are fraught with racism, to the rank-and-file individuals tasked with carrying out child protection policies, and it probes the interpretations and classifications used both then and now to understand Indigenous child removal.
Ethics statement
This research project was assessed and cleared by the University of Regina Research Ethics Board (REB# 2016-176). Its guidelines for obtaining informed consent and for protecting participants’ privacy were followed, and the names we use for participants are pseudonyms.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the assistance of Taryn Hepburn, Priscila Tayna, and Hanah Molloy with this study, particularly with the transcription of interviews and analysis of the qualitative data. This study was part of the Pekiwewin Project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The approximation is based upon the actuarial analysis of Sinclair (Citation2007a; see also, Kimelman Citation1985).
2 Unlike adoptees who were variegated in their experiences of adoption, there was considerable homogeneity of experiences of working in the social work field during the period of mass removal. Data saturation was reached after eight interviews and meaning saturation was reached after twelve interviews (see Hennink, Kaiser, and Marconi Citation2017).
3 Pseudonyms have been assigned to all participants.
4 A phrase repeated in the mostly redacted child welfare file of the second author.