This act was enacted to address the widespread issue of American Indian children being taken from their families by child welfare agencies and placed in non-native homes at a significantly higher rate, compared to being put in native homes (Bracken v. Haaland). Thus the primary aim of this act is to set fundamental rules and regulations that are aimed at keeping Native American and Alaskan Native children safe from continued governmental forced removal from their families, cultures, and tribes (Brackeen v. Haaland). The ICWA also establishes these regulations to ensure the preservation of separating Native families, by mandating state courts to actively strive to keep families together (Brackeen v. Haaland). Furthermore, the ICWA’s laws and regulations also prioritize the placement of abandoned indigenous children, to be placed with extended families or tribal communities that the child is from (Bracken v. Haaland). Throughout history, both federal and state governments have attempted to persecute indigenous tribes through the forced separation of children. However, as a result of this act, this persecution was finally …show more content…
One of the most important and dramatic cultural protests for the Native American Civil Rights movement was the Occupation of Alcatraz. The occupation of Alcatraz lasted from November 1969-June 1971, an 18 month period in which would be remembered for years to come (Newman). It was regarded as “the biggest political sideshow of 1971” (Kotlowski 2008). The conflict initially arose in 1962 when Sioux Indians briefly took control of Alcatraz Island and asserted their claim to the former federal prison, based on the Fort Laramie Treaty, which was a treaty to help ease ties between tribes and the white settlers, giving tribes federal lands that were no longer used (Kotlowski 208). Tensions then reigned in 1969 following a fire that destroyed an Indian center in San Francisco. When Secretary of Interior, Wally Hickel, proposed converting Alcatraz into a national park, Native Americans responded with action (Kotlowski 208). Native Americans argued that this infringed on the Fort Laramie Treaty, since the land was not in use till the government wanted to use