How do we reconcile adoption as a western ideal, with custom adoptions of the Inuit?

In Inuit culture and tradition (before colonization), the Inuit practiced what is known as custom adoption.

In custom adoption, it was natural for an Inuit family to give one of their children away to another family, one who may have lost a child, one who may be barren, or if they could not look after the child. (the third point was rare) It was considered a spiritual gift to give your child to one in need.

It really falls in the "takes a village to raise a child" and there are no known issues that were associated with it.

Now in our western world, this would be considered archaic and that the barren are vultures waiting for someone else's child.

Custom adoption is still practiced in Inuit culture; however, at times it is now used to "deal" with unplanned pregnancies etc. and other issues that have come out of the oppression of the Inuit through residential schools and other assimilation efforts.

But in its truest form, I wonder what people's thoughts are, and if we can get past Western Ideals, can we say that for this culture, the practice of adoption was in fact beautfiul.

Sorry I know many will hate this question, but in truth I think the Inuit culture is one of the most beautiful I know, and I try to look at things as they were, not how westerners think they should be.

I look forward to answers and some insight on this.

Thanks!!
Additional Details
ETA: Sunny, I think the beauty I see in it, is that the communities strived to live in harmony and life was balanced.

If a community, without western beliefs, believed that children are gifts from God and not owned by their natural parents, then does that make a difference?

Serenity71

The aboriginal culture is very community orientated. And spiritual, often they not only look after their own children but other family members as well. But they did live in small communities to start with. There are still some practices that I find out of place- like leaving a baby on the side of the road in outback because the mother decided she couldn't raise any more kids.) Still happens occasionally. If the baby is found it is often relocated within another aboriginal community. That is beautiful isn't it. That they are willing to look after and raise not only their own biological children but also other kids within their culture. (I'm no expert on aboriginal culture, just things I have learned along the way.)

I often ask myself why does the western world think its so much better than anyone else or our culture somehow superior. did you know the New Zea land Maoris thought the English way of justice was barbaric! (After all they shot convicts without a trial for trying to escape, ones that had made it from Australia to NZ soil.))

It took too long for our English based culture to understand that and change our approach to adoption when it came to the aborigines. We did the wrong thing by forcing them to assimilate and become 'western' Read the book "The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith' author Thomas Keneally, its an eye opener to what can happen when a person becomes confused and stuck between two cultures and is told to forget about their origins.

Opedial- Oppss I typed up my answer then I saw you addition, I didn't know you're aboriginal, correct me if any of the things I stated are wrong.

Randy B

One of the courses I took a few weekends ago was about First Nations traditions and such and since our youngest is First Nations we made sure we attended.

The whole tradition of custom adoptions was discussed as well as "gifting" which is the same thing only practiced by some of the non-Inuit First Nations Bands. The lady who ran the course was white but she had been gifted a baby legally through a Band in Ontario a few years ago. It's pretty much the only way that status First Nations babies can be adopted by non-First Nations couples/families.

Interesting practices, both of them, and I think they really do keep the needs of the child and the needs of the community members first and foremost

monkeykitty83

I think it comes down to mindset. The Inuit custom adoption would, in its ideal form, be free of pressure, guilt, shame, or coercion. It would be a truly voluntary act, not something forced or demanded. The power would rest with the parent who placed the child, not with the family receiving the child.

There would presumably also be different expectations among children, since being raised with your biological family wouldn't be so totally normative in the culture. How the family is viewed-- and what family even is-- is a social construct as well as a biological fact, and as the social construct varies between societies, so do expectations.

I think that domestic infant adoption in the US and the Canadian majority culture has a different power dynamic. Relinquishment is often an act of desperation, and is frequently heavily pressured. Also, since there is no equivalent cultural factor to custom adoption, being raised by your biological family is considered totally the norm in a way it wouldn't be in Inuit culture, so being adopted has different cultural meaning, and acts as more of a separating force.

While on the surface it may appear the same thing is happening, I think that without the pressure and shame, and with a less biology-based expectation of the definition of "family," it's a very different thing culturally and psychologically.

MamaKate

You fail to mention whether these children are aware of their adoptions, whether they are "open" adoptions or whether or not these children are "gifted" to family members and close friends or if they are "gifted" to total strangers. (I doubt that is the case.)

Familial "adoptions" are ancient but the details of these arrangements are a far cry from modern US adoption practices.

saffrondoula

I see no problem with this form of adoption. After all, Euro-American families might do similar things between generations when a grandchild cannot raise a child on her own, that child might stay with its grandparents. This is more like being a foster family, yes, but it can happen. This is a typical feature of village life in a variety of cultures. My grandmother talks about how she had a brother who was "adopted" when his biological family could not raise him for whatever reason. This was normal and natural. They were a hispanic family in southern Texas.

You do mention that it was rare for Inuit families to not be able to support a child, but I recommend you look into archaeology and anthropological accounts of infantacide. I plainly recall learning about Inuit infantacide in my anthropology studies at my university. It stuck out because it was the main culture discussed in the class. Infantacide is/was not an uncommon practice for peoples living in rough climates or rough times. Women would go to birth their children and sometimes the baby did not make it.. not because of a stillbirth, but because of infantacide. If the woman had another woman attending her birth to whom the child might be able to go, then the child might live.

However, the line between giving up your child because you're doing something in a giving and spiritual place is not so far from giving because you cannot take the responsibility. After all, a modern Euro-American woman who gives up her child for adoption might also tell an interviewer that she was happy to see the child be given to such a deserving family, that is an honor to give such a powerful gift, that she believes God gave her this child to give to this family.

The Inuit woman might give up her baby because not doing so would mean death to that infant, and she might give it to a woman who is there and is wealthy enough or desiring enough to ask for it.

My basic point is not to romanticize this custom of the Noble Savage too greatly. After all, a Euro-American family could say the same things as your Inuit family. It doesn't mean they're any different in their feelings about the necessity of putting up their children for adoption or any more romantic in their application of adoption practices.

Corn is not dog food! No wheat!

You say, "There was no known issues with it".

No KNOWN issues.

When was the last time someone polled ancient Inuit women and the adopted children?

My point is, you can't know what those people thought and felt.

Also, Inuit societies were more closely knit than they are in western cultures. If a mother did give her child to another woman, she'd see it again in just a few hours. She'd always be near the child to watch it grow, interact with it, and help raise it.

BIG DIFFERENCE in modern adoptions that slam records shut and everyone is left twisting in the wind.

Or worse...
The promise of "open adoptions". People give their kid to another family thinking that the least they can do is send pictures, only to have them move away and not even take their calls.

Felicita1

I would call that most "custom fostering" or "custom long-term legal guardianship" rather than "custom adoption". Adoption is a legal construct that involves a total legal erasure of original filiation with a new filiation based on "as if born to" and complete with a new birth record indicating that the adoptive parents gave birth to the child. With the 'custom adoption' of Native societies, it is playing with the term "adoption" rather loosely as no laws legally change the natural parents into being total legal strangers to their own children. Sure, they are raised by others, but it is not the same legal construct of child adoption that was invented in Massachusetts in 1852 and then spread to the rest of the Western world.

Also, unless you interview a mother whose child was forced from her arms, or who was made to surrender that child against her will, you will never know if that "for this culture, the practice of adoption was in fact beautfiul." We cannot idealize Native cultures, as many have the same problems as White, Asian, or African cultures do. Often women are disempowered and at the mercy of abuse, violation, and exploitation from others.

sunny

"there are no known issues that were associated with it."

Well, then, it must be "beautiful".

I think you find beauty in it because you imagine being a recipient of a child as opposed to giving one away, or being a child given away.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: