Historic Trauma and Aboriginal Healing
by Cynthia C. Wesley-Esquimaux, Ph.D. and Magdalena Smolewski, Ph.D.
by Cynthia C. Wesley-Esquimaux, Ph.D. and Magdalena Smolewski, Ph.D.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Chapter 2<br />
attain this level. According to Moos (1976), 35 per cent died in prison camps in Japan <strong>and</strong> 38 per cent<br />
died in Korea (Moos, 1976). Those who survived seemed to have lowered resistance to new dem<strong>and</strong>s in<br />
the post-war environment, as if their adaptive capacity had diminished during the years of confinement,<br />
malnutrition <strong>and</strong> emotional suffering.<br />
Alcohol was another product that colonizers introduced to the New World <strong>and</strong> traded for fur. Along<br />
with the alcohol came the maladaptive drinking patterns. As Levy <strong>and</strong> Kunitz (1974) showed in their<br />
study of Navaho drinking, the idea of consuming alcohol fit into traditional <strong>Aboriginal</strong> social relations:<br />
drinking together allows people to share <strong>and</strong> reciprocate, to develop group identity <strong>and</strong> to participate in<br />
ritual closeness; thus, allowing for an alternative pattern of behaviour. However, since the <strong>Aboriginal</strong><br />
people’s social immune system, both as individuals <strong>and</strong> as a group, was already compromised, drinking<br />
became an escape route to oblivion for many that led them directly into addiction. <strong>Aboriginal</strong> people<br />
picked up drinking not to share <strong>and</strong> reciprocate, but to hide from an oppressive situation <strong>and</strong> to become<br />
invisible to their own tormented selves. <strong>Aboriginal</strong> people began to drink because they were emotionally<br />
numb from what happened to them <strong>and</strong> wanted to feel something other than pain <strong>and</strong> despair. Their<br />
gr<strong>and</strong>children <strong>and</strong> great gr<strong>and</strong>children now drink for exactly the same reasons: to mentally disassociate<br />
themselves from cumulative painful memories; to feel something else <strong>and</strong> not just mental anguish; <strong>and</strong><br />
to belong to a group with clearly defined boundaries that shares one’s meanings, one’s underst<strong>and</strong>ing,<br />
one’s world (even if it is a group of alcoholics or drug addicts); <strong>and</strong> it is a plea for living on one’s own<br />
terms. Paradoxically, excessive drinking (<strong>and</strong> now drug abuse) as a backdrop of erosion for social<br />
control <strong>and</strong> social power in <strong>Aboriginal</strong> societies, became the last, desperate attempt to regain selfcontrol:<br />
I can do what I want to my own body, to my mind, to my memory, to myself – I am making a choice.<br />
This veiled resistance was (<strong>and</strong> is) an attempt to define limits <strong>and</strong> set boundaries of the social self; a final<br />
frontier worth pursuing when “the other” takes all other frontiers.<br />
Indigenous methods of supporting their population was based on a concept of reciprocity between<br />
humans <strong>and</strong> their environment <strong>and</strong> the ability to regenerate resources for future generations. <strong>Aboriginal</strong><br />
people’s spiritual <strong>and</strong> religious beliefs reinforced their view of the world <strong>and</strong> helped them adapt to their<br />
specific ecological niche. Regarding contact with settlers <strong>and</strong> missionaries, <strong>Aboriginal</strong> cultural, social<br />
<strong>and</strong> spiritual domains were subject to pointed destruction <strong>and</strong> their social mobility was restricted. The<br />
changes that missionaries brought about can be regarded as instances of ethnocide or a destruction of a<br />
culture without physically killing its people (Chalk <strong>and</strong> Jonassohn, 1986), intended to cause religious<br />
transformation <strong>and</strong> cultural destruction through prohibitions imposed on <strong>Aboriginal</strong> culture <strong>and</strong> belief<br />
systems. Without access to economic resources, with a destroyed social structure stripped of their<br />
cultural mores that prohibited them from practicing their religions, <strong>Aboriginal</strong> people quickly became<br />
a marginalized group whose social self became largely diminished <strong>and</strong> deeply impoverished. Any<br />
perception of control they had over their lives became reduced <strong>and</strong> badly undermined, ultimately placing<br />
perceptions regarding locus of control onto the colonizers. What followed was the enforced loss of<br />
languages <strong>and</strong> ritual practices; re-education of <strong>Aboriginal</strong> people in government-supported <strong>and</strong> Christian<br />
mission schools; degradation of the status of women; devaluation of traditional spiritual leaders; <strong>and</strong> an<br />
almost complete loss of the power of self-determination.<br />
Some may say that the fur trade was just an economic exchange. True, but with exchange being a<br />
transfer of something (material or immaterial) between people always carries cultural meanings <strong>and</strong> has<br />
a social life of its own (Appadurai, 1988). In the beginning, this exchange was seemingly balanced.<br />
36