[[You obviously didn’t read the original question very closely, which asked…]]
I wrote the original question. The last line may have looked like that was the gist of the question, but it wasn’t. I am sorry I wasn’t clear. My question was whether such numbers of forced or coerced sterilizations of Native Americans occurred. It appears to me that, according to Cecil, they didn’t. Peepthis, can you provide any evidence that they did?
I don’t think we will ever answer this question. I’ll throw my 2 1/2 cents in again. The shoddy record-keeping of the BIA (of which the IHS is a part) will not give an accurate count of who, when and how many women were sterilized over a given period. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, just the result of a hundred plus years of apathy and a lack of accountablility. Things are looking up, but finding enough hard data from the 70’s or before is going to be tough. 
[[The shoddy record-keeping of the BIA (of which the IHS is a part)]]
Just wanted to add that this is a generalization that is not always true. Many IHS facilities appear to keep very good medical records.
Nonsense. This is conjecture on your part. The Native American birth rate has been higher than that of the general population for many years. According to Health, United States, 2001 by the National Center for Health Statistics, the crude birth rate for American Indian or Alaska Native mothers in 1980 was 20.7 (that is, 20.7 live births per 1,000 population), vs. 15.9 for the U.S. population as a whole. 1980 was the endpoint of the decade in which the alleged program of forced sterilization occurred. The disparity diminished somewhat in succeeding years but as of 1999 Native American fertility was still higher than the general population, 16.8 vs. 14.5. (See: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/tables/2001/01hus003.pdf )
It’s true that the 2000 census permitted respondents to report multiple ethnic origins, resulting in a substantial increase in the NA population (4.1 million). However, the census still provides a separate line item for individuals reporting only NA ancestry; this number is much lower (2.5 million, vs. 1.96 million in 1990 and 1.42 million in 1980). (See: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-15.pdf ) The steady rise in the NA population over the years coupled with the higher birth rate supports the idea that it is due to natural increase, not changes in reporting behavior. You are entitled to disagree, but please provide a cite, not just your opinion.
Cecil, my apologies on my lamentable lack of citations. I did my undergraduate studies in Native American anthropology, so admittedly I was going off of memory from what I’ve read over the years. However, for those looking for a concise elaboration of my points, I’ve found the following article from the Kansas City Star (with cites!).
To wit:
This tells us that populations of full-blooded Native Americans (or, to coin a word, the hemo-density) is on a precipitous decline. This makes self-identification all the more of a slippery subject, since in the coming years we will witness an increase in those self-identifying as Indians, but with an increasingly diluted claim to such a heritage. At what point can someone no longer claim to be Indian: at 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, etc.?
This brings us to the concern that many people are latching on to the Native American label for other reasons, if not because of their blood-level. As I asserted in the OP, this could result from a number of reasons: the decreased stigma attached to being Native American, the “added spiritual bonus” of being Indian (New Agers et al), or personal gain (e.g., access to casino profits, jobs, scholarships, other affirmative action benefits).
This attraction of non-Indians to claim it as their heritage is also due to efforts by many tribes, whose government funding is based on their populations. “Becoming” Indian has been made easier for people to do by tribes easing their standards for membership. I earlier mentioned the Mashantucket Pequots (of Foxwoods fame) as but one example; another is the Cherokees (the largest tribe in the US):
As this article quotes:
So, there are lots more people claiming to be Indian than are actually registered as such.
As for your offering of Census stats demonstrating higher than average birth rates for Native American mothers, I think you are being more than slightly disingenuous. Minorities in the States traditionally have higher birth rates than Whites (for a variety of reasons irrelevant to the discussion at hand). Native Americans, however, have lower birth rates (16.8) than either Black (17.4) or especially Hispanic (24.4) mothers. And considering the disproportionate poverty found among many Indian communities, it is actually surprising to me that their birth rates are not higher (alas, it might be a result of the poor health care available to many Indians).
So, to sum it up: there are numerous reasons why folks might want to identify as Native Americans, and there are even reasons tribes want people to do just that. It doesn’t make much difference re: the point of your column, since one can’t prove (and I would find it daft for someone to argue) that sterilizations did occur and we have the new-age Granola movement to point to as the cover-up. What I’m saying then is that there isn’t a new native fecundity in recent decades. Sorry Cece, but after waiting three months for your reply, your Godot-like non-answer hasn’t helped.
peepthis said to Jillgat
Thanks for the laugh! (As noted, J. Gatwood is Jillgat.)
Cecil wrote:
“According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 41 percent of U.S. women of childbearing age (or their partners) had been surgically sterilized as of 1995–a surprisingly high number, I’m sure you’ll agree.”
No, according to the NCHS, 41% of MARRIED women (or their partners) aged 15-44 had been sterilized. See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/series/sr23/pre-1/sr23_20.htm