The term sixties scoop refers to the mass removal of aboriginal children from their families to the child welfare system in the 1960s, usually without any warning or consent from the families. When social workers saw that some aboriginal homes did not have commodities such as fridges and cupboards (which typical homes in Euro-Canadian fashion have), they assumed that the aboriginal parents are not providing for their children. The social workers were not informed enough about the aboriginal lifestyle and diet and underestimated what the aboriginal parents were providing their childnre…  As a result, the children were taken away from the families and put into local middle class families to care of them.

The sixties scoop is seen as a form of cultural genocide that followed the residential school system for these reasons: When the children were forcibly taken away from their children, they suffered from both emotional and psychological problems. In addition, growing up in a condition without their family members and where their true identity is suppressed caused them serious psychological problems. Also, violence and sexual abuse was not uncommon…

Some say that the sixties scoop has evolved into a millennium scoop because it has been continuing since the 60s into the current era without any significant changes. Although there has been efforts by the government, the United Nations and many first nations organizations to improve the child welfare system, some of the same problems continue for the aboriginal children living in new homes away from their real families.

I was surprised to find out that the child welfare system is continuing to this day. I understand that the main reason why the system continues is because the aboriginal families suffer from serious poverty that affects how they provide their children. However, I think there could be better solutions for the families than taking their children away into new homes where the children will suffer from many emotional and psychological problems. Why can’t efforts be made to help the aboriginal families from poverty so that they can raise their own children? If the aboriginal parents are given jobs and adequate conditions to make their homes better, I am sure that they would much rather prefer to have their children by their side. With the negative impacts of the sixties scoop so clear, why did it not stop? I am guessing that there must have been good reasons why the system could not discontinue that I am not aware of, but I hope that better solutions for the aboriginal solutions will be suggested sooner or later so that aboriginal children can have the equal experience of growing up with their own family just like other aboriginal children have.

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood is a dystopian novel set in the Republic of Gilead in the near future. The novel was written and published in the early to mid-1980s during the Cold War, industrialization, many terrorist attacks and severe economic recessions around the world and when ideas and movements such as post-feminism, civil rights movements rose. Atwood uses “language as power” as one of the main elements in the novel. Language is one the things that stand out as a tool that controls people’s behaviors and actions in Gilead.

First of all, Gilead takes away the names of women to strip them away from their individuality and unique identity and instead names them accordingly to their commanders. The handmaids immediately become propertied by their commanders as their name becomes “Of-someone” (eg. Offred and Ofglen).  The new naming system for handmaids in Gilead serve as a tool to emphasize the sense of property and discouraging individuality.

Secondly, in Gilead, both men and women are defined by their jobs – men by their military rank and women by roles such as wives, handmaids or marthas. However, feminists and deformed babies are considered as neither of these gender role titles and instead are called “unwomen” or “unbabies”. Also, African-americans and jewish people are called “children of ham” and “sons of jacob” which make them different from the rest of the society. By defining them differently from the white group of people, persecution of those people are made easier in Giliead. These neologisms and new titles that describe people are used as a tool of power in categorizing people for the advantage of Gilead’s management of people.

Lastly, the use of biblical language in Gilead also serves as a great tool of power for controlling how people behave. The bible is not only accessible to certain people but also manipulated by Gilead for the goal of its society. For instance, it would often say things from the bible that glorifies and praises childbirth or marriage and leave other things out that come together in context. In addition, even when the bible is misquoted, there is no way of checking it as the bible is not accessible to all. Therefore it can be said that the bible is used as a tool of power to make people act as Gilead wants them to.