historical oppression essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Historical Oppression Scale: Preliminary conceptualization and measurement of historical oppression among Indigenous peoples of the United States

Catherine e mckinley.

1 Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Shamra Boel-Studt

2 Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Lynette M Renner

3 University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

Charles R Figley

Shanondora billiot.

4 School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana, Urbana, IL, USA

Katherine P Theall

Associated data.

Indigenous peoples of the United States are distinct from other ethnic minorities because they have experienced colonization as the original inhabitants. Social and health disparities are connected to a context of historical oppression—the chronic, pervasive, and intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized into the daily lives of many Indigenous peoples (including individuals, families, and communities). As part of the critical Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT), in this article, we introduce the Historical Oppression Scale (HOS), a scale assessing internalized and externalized oppression. Our study reports on survey data ( N = 127) from a larger convergent mixed-methodology study with scale items derived from thematic analysis of qualitative data ( N = 436), which informed the resultant 10-item scale. After six cases were removed from the 127 participants who participated in the quantitative component to the study due to missing data across two tribes, the sample size for analysis was 121. Confirmatory factor analysis testing of the hypothesized unidimensional construct indicated acceptable model fit ( X 2 = 58.10, X 2 / df = 1.94, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .088, 90% CI = .05, .12). Reliability of the 10-item scale was excellent (α=.97) and convergent and discriminant validity were established. The HOS explicates complex associations between historical oppression and health and social disparities and may be an important clinical and research tool in an understudied area.

Since social, physical, and mental health disparities have been formally tracked, Indigenous peoples of the United States (U.S.) have reportedly experienced some of the most severe and persistent disparities in comparison with other ethnic minorities. This is despite the treaty agreements between the U.S. government and the 574 federally recognized tribes 1 to provide for the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples ( American Psychological Association, 2010 ; Breiding, Smith, et al., 2014 ; Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2020 ; Espey et al., 2014 ; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2004 ). Although the focus of this article is historical oppression, Indigenous peoples continually recover, demonstrate resilience and survivance (i.e., Indigenous peoples resisting, and maintaining presence and sovereignty; Vizenor, 2008 ), and have transcended oppression ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ) despite continual efforts at cultural erasure and genocide. Indigenous peoples of the U.S. are distinct from other ethnic minorities because they have experienced colonization as the original inhabitants of what is now the U.S. Reported disparities are linked to a context of historical oppression—the chronic, pervasive, and intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized into the daily lives of many Indigenous peoples (including individuals, families, and communities) ( Burnette, 2015a , 2015b ). However, there are scant clinical and empirical tools to connect historical oppression to distress and disparities.

In comparison with the general U.S. population, Indigenous peoples tend to experience lower life expectancy ( Indian Health Service, 2018 ). Behavioral and psychological health disparities tend to include post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and depression, along with suicide ( Burnette, Sanders, Butcher, & Rand, 2014 ; Burnette & Figley, 2017 ; Masten & Monn, 2015 ; Sarche & Spicer, 2008 ; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006 ). Social disparities are also glaring, with Indigenous women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) at 1.7 times the rate of non-Indigenous women ( Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014 ) and Indigenous children experiencing child maltreatment at 1.5 times the rate of non-Indigenous children ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013 ).

With such substantial inequities among Indigenous peoples in the U.S., greater understanding of the mechanisms that may drive and perpetuate disparities (e.g., historical oppression) is needed. Historical trauma, which we conceptualize as a form of historical oppression ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ), refers to the cumulative and massive trauma imposed on a group across generations and within the life course ( Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998 ). We conceptualize historical oppression as part of a critical discourse that is inclusive of historical trauma, but is distinct in that it is localized in specific contexts and includes ongoing structural violence ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). Structural violence in the present has been emphasized as a key factor driving disparities and perpetuating oppression ( Kirmayer, Gone, & Moses, 2014 ). Forms of structural violence may include discrimination, microaggressions, economic inequality, and marginalization ( Burnette, 2015b ; Kirmayer et al., 2014 ).

For years, scholars have proposed a link between the oppression imposed through colonization and negative physical, social, and mental health outcomes ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ; Gone et al., 2019 ; Duran, Duran, Woodis, & Woodis, 1998 ; Weaver & Brave Heart, 1999 ; Whitbeck, Chen, Hoyt, & Adams, 2004 ). If this connection exists as a working construct, it is important for practitioners and researchers to measure it and address the many facets of the systemic oppression that may drive disparities. However, an absence of empirical research connects colonial and structural violence to health disparities among Indigenous peoples. This poses a challenge to redressing health disparities and addressing their underlying causes. Researchers and practitioners are left to ignore the pervasive context of historical oppression—which likely contributes to health inequalities—or to assert a connection for which the empirical-base is limited.

The purpose of this article is to address this gap by introducing the Historical Oppression Scale (HOS), which was developed through a decade of in-depth, community-based ethnographic research with members of two Indigenous tribes. Through the HOS, we attempt to elucidate how social problems may continue after a context of historical oppression has been imposed, linking structural causes to social and health disparities. The HOS assesses the extent to which community members perceive symptoms of historical oppression, which include internalized and externalized oppression. Existing measures focus on whether ancestors have attended boarding schools ( Gone et al., 2019 ) or experiences of historical losses (e.g., the Historical Loss Scale (HLS) by Whitbeck, Adams, Hoyt, & Chen, 2004 ), which are important components of historical oppression. However, these scales do not explicate how oppression tends to be perpetuated over time (e.g., through the continuous imposition of oppression, trauma, and marginalization, and through internalized oppression, and/or horizontal violence), which is a distinct goal of the HOS.

In this article, we briefly trace the development of the concept of historical trauma, along with measures of such trauma and associated losses to the correct time. After we highlight the gaps in extant empirical measures for this trauma, we summarize the concept of historical oppression, which is part of the broader Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT; Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). It is important to situate any discussion of challenges or problems with underrepresented minorities in the context of the clear strength, resilience, and transcendence of these populations for a balanced and precise perspective. As part of this mixed-methodology, data for this article focuses on the quantitative portion of the study, which included a survey with 127 people. Prior to the quantitative component of the study, the HOS was developed and informed by the qualitative ethnographic research with over 400 participants across two tribes. In the next section, we describe the development of the HOS and provide the results of preliminary analyses of the measurement characteristics, specifically examining the dimensionality of the scale and the reliability and validity of scale scores. Finally, in an effort to explicitly and empirically connect historical oppression with the health disparities experienced by Indigenous peoples, we offer its implications and uses.

Historical trauma

Since its introduction, the concept of historical trauma has been used in a broad way to describe the negative influences of colonization on Indigenous Americans ( Gone, 2013a ; Gone et al., 2019 ; Hartmann, Wendt, Burrage, Pomerville, & Gone, 2019 ). Historical trauma theory has been applied to Indigenous peoples of the U.S. ( Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998 ; Brave Heart, Chase, Elkins, & Altschul, 2011 ; Duran et al., 1998 ; Weaver & Brave Heart, 1999 ) and has been described as a seminal contribution to the research linking colonization to the impaired social welfare of Indigenous peoples ( Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ). Hartmann and Gone (2014) described historical trauma to involve the following “4 Cs”: collective experiences of trauma, colonial injury from trauma, cumulative effects from trauma, and cross-generational effects and behavioral outcomes. Although the extensive forms of oppression and trauma are beyond the scope of this article, examples of the massive traumas and atrocities experienced by Indigenous peoples in the U.S. are reflective in insidious inequalities in power and privilege ( Kirmayer et al., 2014 ). Atrocities such as land dispossession, cultural erasure and genocide, forced removal and relocation programs, assimilative boarding school experiences, prohibiting religious practices, and extensive environmental injustices are documented injustices ( Evans-Campbell, 2008 ; Harper & Entrekin, 2006 ). Relocation—to what were essentially penal colonies where Indigenous peoples experienced starvation, disease, and restrictions on the expression of their religious practices—represents only one example of the ongoing and legally sanctioned oppression that persists into the present ( Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ). Thus, the continued contemporary trauma beyond historical trauma cannot be ignored ( Brave Heart et al., 2011 ; Gone et al., 2019 ; Hartmann et al., 2019 ; Kirmayer et al., 2014 ).

Empirical measurement of historical trauma and health disparities

Scholars have noted that the conceptualization and measurement of historical trauma has been difficult, which has led to theoretical confusion ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). Hartmann et al. (2019) have summarized key issues, and describe how conceptualizations have clustered around historical trauma as a “clinical condition, life stressor, and critical discourse” (p. 6). These approaches inform concomitant assumptions about healing historical trauma, which include the psychological sequelae, promoting resilience, and practicing survivance ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). According to Hartmann et al. (2019) , the “first wave” of related research characterized historical trauma as a clinical condition, focusing on the psychological symptoms of such trauma, which paralleled post-traumatic stress disorder. The “second wave” depicted trauma as a life stressor, focusing on how such trauma has given rise to health disparities, along with the importance of culture in buffering its effects ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). The “third wave” is that of historical trauma as a critical discourse, resisting reductionistic, pathologizing, or medicalizing terms, which limits the wake of trauma to psychological effects ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). This discourse is grounded in an anticolonial recognition of the implications of historical trauma across collective, family, and individual levels, and seeks ways to promote greater wellness at the individual and collective levels ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ).

The initial academic development of the concept of historical trauma was largely due to Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart and colleagues, such as Edward Duran and Bonnie Duran ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). Brave Heart’s connection of historical trauma to symptoms and disparities has been largely theoretical, limiting its clinical and research utility ( Brave Heart et al., 2011 ; Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ). Recently, however, some authors have made important contributions connecting historical traumas to intergenerational and behavioral outcomes.

The authors of a recent systematic review of empirical research linking historical trauma to health outcomes identified 32 studies that investigated whether having an ancestor involved in a residential school was related to worse outcomes in contemporary times and the HLS and associated symptoms ( Gone et al., 2019 ). The majority of these studies identified a significant link between various disparities and measures of historical trauma. In 11 studies the researchers found persistent links between having an ancestor attend boarding school and adverse health outcomes, such as suicidality, depression, and sexual abuse ( Gone et al., 2019 ). Although this research establishes an important connection between ancestors’ boarding school attendance and adverse health outcomes, methodologically, this research is not able to rule out alternative explanations; some scholars pose that a minority of Indigenous peoples attended such schools and some did not report experiencing abuse ( Gone et al., 2019 ).

In addition to direct connections between involvement in boarding schools and relocation programs and behavioral outcomes, historical trauma has been measured with respect to associated historical losses and associated symptoms. The absence of empirical measures related to historical trauma created an impetus for Whitbeck, Adams, et al. (2004) to develop the HLS and the Historical Loss Associated Symptoms Scale. Since its introduction, nearly all of the 19 empirical studies that were part of the recent systematic review identified a significant connection with adverse health outcomes ( Gone et al., 2019 ). Whitbeck, Adams, et al. (2004) argue that the process of documenting the connection of historical trauma to social, physical, and mental health disparities is two-pronged: it involves (a) documenting that historical losses continue to be salient for Indigenous peoples and (b) that negative symptoms are associated with such losses. Whitbeck, Adams, et al.’s (2004) HLS focuses on the loss of land, traditional and spiritual ways, self-respect, language, family ties, trust, culture, people (e.g., early death), and increased alcoholism. Among those sampled, losses were significantly associated with symptoms including sadness and depression, anger, intrusive thoughts, discomfort, shame, and fear and distrust of White people ( Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ). Since its creation, the HLS has been included in empirical studies and has been an important contribution to the scholarly effort to connect historical trauma with contemporary social and behavioral health inequalities. However, the HLS has been used, adapted, and scored in a multitude of ways, making patterns of associations and linkages difficult to synthesize ( Gone et al., 2019 ).

Despite the importance of documenting the continued presence of historical losses, losses continue into the present in the forms of poverty, discrimination, and continual infringement of Indigenous rights. Therefore, losses and oppression are not only “historical” in nature but have persisted into present times ( Brave Heart et al., 2011 ; Burnette & Figley, 2017 ; Duran et al., 1998 ; Gone, 2013b ; Gone et al., 2019 ; Weaver & Brave Heart, 1999 ; Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ). The efforts to marginalize, remove, suppress, and ultimately eradicate Indigenous peoples persist, creating the need to account for both historical and contemporary forms of oppression ( Brave Heart et al., 2011 ).

Gaps in extant frameworks and measures

Despite the important contributions of historical trauma theory, some scholars emphasize the need for greater delineation and explication for the construct to be useful for describing and explaining social problems among Indigenous peoples ( Gone, 2013a ; Gone et al., 2019 ; Hartmann et al., 2019 ; Walters et al., 2011 ). Our approach frames the construct of historical oppression as a critical discourse that can help with understanding and addressing pervasive inequities (see Hartmann et al., 2019 ), expanding beyond trauma and its psychological consequences to include sociopolitical implications. We propose that historical trauma is an important underlying cause of social and health disparities; yet, the mechanisms by which historical trauma is transmitted into social problems remain opaque. While we agree that trauma is a key dimension of ongoing issues faced by Indigenous peoples, our work seeks to expand an understanding of the consequences of colonization beyond its psychological sequelae.

Moreover, the ways in which oppression may inadvertently be perpetuated within groups after it has been imposed from external sources is not well-understood. For example, why are social problems perpetuated within groups that have been oppressed, even when external forces have dissipated or have become less overt? Likewise, the concept of historical trauma encompasses massive traumatic events but does little to explicate the pervasive and chronic oppression that Indigenous peoples continue to experience, such as disrupted cultural patterns, economic inequality, and disjunction between traditional and mainstream ways of life ( Kirmayer et al., 2014 ). These factors (e.g., discrimination, poverty, and cultural disruption) continue to oppress Indigenous peoples, yet lack clear explication within the historical trauma framework ( Kirmayer et al., 2014 ).

Although the HLS is an important contribution, scholars note the limited empirical measurement of historical trauma ( Walters et al., 2011 ), which understandably may arise from the methodological challenge of empirically connecting historical events to contemporary problems ( Burnette, 2015b ; Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). Because colonization affected distinct tribal communities in different time periods and under distinct conditions (though in varied forms and degrees of severity) experiences of colonization (e.g., boarding school experiences, forms of historical traumas and oppression) are by no means uniform ( Brave Heart et al., 2011 ; Burnette, 2016 ; Gone & Trimble, 2012 ). The HOS is derived from the FHORT, which accounts for contemporary trauma, heterogeneity across tribes, and its psychological consequences ( Burnette 2015a , 2015b ; Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). In the remainder of this article, the conceptual aspects of this framework that are most germane to the development of the HOS are described to outline its development, while focusing primarily on the concept of historical oppression.

Historical oppression

The FHORT is congruent with some Indigenous perspectives of how historical oppression, including trauma, has undermined whole communities, families, and peoples ( Coyhis & Simonelli, 2005 ; Moore & Coyhis, 2010 ). The FHORT has its theoretical roots in the critical framework of Paulo Freire and was developed from over 10 years of research with the focal tribes, resulting in a multitude of empirical support (see Burnette & Figley, 2017 , for a summary of the FHORT and preliminary supporting research). Historical oppression has undermined whole communities through the impositions of historical traumas (e.g., boarding schools that stripped families’ ability to socialize and transmit culture and language to their children), impairing the healthy transmission of pro-social values and beliefs and replacing such beliefs with antagonistic and oppressive social norms ( Burnette, 2015c ). Over time, these social ills may become internalized and normative, giving rise to health problems, suicide, and other disparities. Despite oppression being externally imposed, it may inadvertently become intergenerationally transmitted.

Within the FHORT, wellness is predicted by the interaction, accumulation, interconnections, and balance of risk (i.e., factors that exacerbate problems), protective (i.e., factors that buffer negative outcomes or promote positive outcomes), and promotive factors (i.e., assets and resources, regardless of the level of risk; Masten, 2018 ) across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family/relational, community/cultural, societal) ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). Studying these interactions seeks to explain whether a person experiences wellness (balance among the mind, body, soul, and spirit) after experiencing adversity. This perspective is congruent with Indigenous peoples’ holistic and relational view of the interconnections between physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health ( Cross, 1998 ; West et al., 2012 ). Regarding resilience, all systems—individuals, families, communities, and societies—have protective and promotive qualities, making resilience applicable across multiple levels ( Masten, 2018 ). Promotive factors are strengths in all conditions, whereas protective factors tend to buffer and be especially crucial, particularly in conditions of adversity ( Masten, 2018 ). People may not only respond to adversity but they may transcend it, as evidenced through greater life satisfaction, quality of life, and posttraumatic growth.

Freire’s (2000) critical framework provides an understanding of how historical oppression is imposed and becomes embodied (i.e., internalized oppression) and self-perpetuating ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). The theoretical framing will focus on these conceptual aspects, noting the multiple empirical support of the FHORT with the focal tribes ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ). According to Freire (2000) , people have a desire for humanization or freedom but also experience the opposite end of that continuum through dehumanization due to oppression ( Freire, 2000 ). At the core of dehumanization is a limitation on freedom that occurs through exploitation, injustice, and mistreatment. Oppression is introduced and perpetuated by numerous mechanisms by which those in power limit the freedom of those whom they oppress ( Burnette, 2015c ). Moreover, efforts to dominate and exploit others through violence and oppression tend to be transmitted across generations ( Burnette & Figley, 2016 ; Freire, 2000 ). After years or centuries of systematic oppression, people may not speak up when experiencing oppression and may distrust others because of their oppression, which may lead to a seemingly passive stance. This apparent silence and mistrust may serve as an important survival and coping skill in response to repeated experiences of oppression ( Burnette, 2015b ).

When the understandable mistrust resulting from oppression is displaced to family and community members, it may heighten family conflict and facilitate secrecy, which may preclude the opportunity to rectify violence in relationships. In other words, coping mechanisms that arise in response to historical oppression may have unintended, negative effects and, over time, may inadvertently perpetuate the very problems introduced by historical oppression.

Internalized oppression.

Over time, experiencing oppression may lead those who have been oppressed to internalize the oppressor by adopting the oppressor’s dehumanizing beliefs and behaviors ( Freire, 2000 ). Moreover, those who have been oppressed are said to simultaneously desire the oppressor’s wealth and status and feel repulsed by the oppressor’s dehumanizing tactics, which gives rise to an internal duality ( Freire, 2000 ). For example, hegemonic masculinity promotes the patriarchal belief in a male’s right to dominate and exploit females, which, given its pervasiveness in Western society, may have disrupted and reversed the female-centered social organization that was protective for Indigenous women in some societies ( Burnette, 2015b ). Alternatively, people may internalize negative myths imposed upon an oppressed group, which can lead to depression or avoidance coping behaviors such as substance abuse ( Burnette, 2015b ).

Externalized oppression: Sub-oppression and horizontal violence (lateral oppression).

Internalization may lead to sub-oppression or the tendency of those who have been oppressed to oppress others if they experience a rise in power ( Freire, 2000 ). According to Freire (2000) , when people experience severely restrictive or oppressive situations, they may strike out at family members through horizontal violence. Horizontal violence is more likely to occur in a context where striking out at an oppressor is too risky. This may lead to jealousy of others’ successes or treating fellow community members unfairly. Another outcome could be people having lower expectations for fellow group members due to their having internalized negative myths or becoming continually exposed to inadequate resources and services; such has been the case in the underfunding of health services by Indian Health Service ( Gone, 2004 ). Historical oppression can contribute to leaders becoming sub-oppressors, with oppression inadvertently being perpetuated with minimal external manipulation. The framework explains why hurt people may hurt people, with oppression leading to sub-oppression that perpetuates social and health inequalities among Indigenous peoples.

Research design and setting

The HOS was developed as part of a larger convergent mixed-methods design, which merges findings from both quantitative and qualitative data ( Creswell, 2015 ). An in-depth, critical ethnographic approach was used to uncover the essential risk and protective factors related to violence and health disparities. A host of qualitative data ( N = 436) were gathered prior to collecting the separate quantitative survey data ( N = 127), which are the focus of this article. These data (see Table 1 ) included field notes ( N = 58), interviews ( N = 254), focus groups ( N = 217 participants in 27 groups), and whole family interviews ( N = 163 participants in 64 interviews). Existing data in the forms of a needs assessment ( N = 293) and intake forms from behavioral health services ( N = 202) were also utilized. A critical ethnographic inquiry incorporates critical theory in its investigation by attending to power relationships among dominant and marginalized groups ( Carspecken, 1996 ). For this study, we focused on specific power differentials as they relate to colonization, gender, class, education, and political power. We investigated power dynamics both with tribal communities and the broader general population, as well as internal within-group dynamics that may be manifestations of historical oppression. We examined how the imposition of power from colonization has dramatically changed and rearranged relations between genders, families, communities, and with oneself, and also assess how people have resisted, demonstrated resilience, and transcended such oppression to the extent that is possible.

Participants by type of ethnographic data.

Note. Tribe A is a Southeastern inland/woodlands tribe that is federally recognized, whereas Tribe B is a Southeastern coastal tribe that is state recognized. Individual and focus groups were stratified across youth, adults, elders, and professionals (the vast majority who are also Indigenous) who work with behavioral and social health. The secondary data were analyzed as part of the primary record and took the form of a community needs assessment for Tribe A and behavioral health intake forms for Tribe B.

To enable the emergence of commonalities and differences across Indigenous populations, we included two tribes in this research process. We gained IRB approval from Tulane University prior to data collection, along with approval from each tribe to conduct research with their respective communities. For the protection of community identities, the names of these tribes are kept confidential. Both tribes are located in the Southeastern United States and have enrolled tribal populations of over 10,000 members. Tribe A is federally recognized and located further inland from the Gulf of Mexico. It has experienced significant economic development, with its own schools, health care and medical services, police, fire, land management, and health and human services facilities. Tribe B is state recognized and located in proximity to water and the Gulf Coast. Tribe B has fewer economic resources and the absence of federal recognition has undermined its ability to provide tribal infrastructure for its members. Tribe B offers employment, educational, and other individual programs for tribal members.

Qualitative data collection

This ethnography includes 436 participants across two Southeastern tribes in the form of focus groups, family interviews, and individually-focused interviews (228 participants were from Tribe A and 208 participants were from Tribe B). Participants included professionals who worked with Indigenous peoples, elders, adults, and youth. In total, the participants included 70 professionals (the majority of whom were tribal practitioners working in the fields of tribal justice, behavioral health, health, family services, vocational rehabilitation, family violence, social services, and youth services), 105 elders 2 (aged 55 and above), 147 adults (ages 24–54), and 114 youth (ages 11–23). Table 1 displays the samples by type of interview and tribe. Recruitment efforts included posting information on Facebook, tribal websites, and newsletters, and posting fliers in tribal agencies. Word-of-mouth was also a primary method of recruitment. Participants received $20 gift cards to a local department store for their participation in individual interviews and focus groups. Families received a $60 gift card for each family interview.

Focus groups and interviews followed a semi-structured guide and life history interviews were conducted in individually-focused interviews. The first author, who has been working with the two communities for 10 years and has deep relationships with community members, conducted the interviews with input from tribal liaisons. All participants had the option to have a tribal community member conduct the interviews but no participant elected this option. The first author has conducted studies on ethical and culturally sensitive research methods and has developed a toolkit for data collection ( Burnette et al., 2014 ), which includes using appropriate methodology, such as life history/oral history interviews that were vetted through tribal community members and multiple partners prior to data collection. All of these culturally sensitive protocols were followed ( Burnette et al., 2014 ). Interview questions included items such as, “What do you think leads to challenges, such as alcohol use, family violence, trauma, and depression?” Participants were then probed on their perception of community/societal-level risk factors, as well as family- and individual-level risk factors. Protective factors were also examined but are outside the scope of this inquiry. Professionals had the opportunity to choose whether they wanted to participate in the life history portion of the interviews. A copy of the life history interview was offered to participants to keep for themselves and/or their families. To accommodate a variety of age ranges, the interview protocol was crafted to reflect a fifth-grade comprehension level.

As depicted in Table 1 , a total of 254 participants completed individually-focused interviews, 217 participated in 27 focus groups, and 163 participants completed 64 family interviews. Some participants completed more than one type of interview, which added to the study’s rigor ( Carspecken, 1996 ). On average, individual interviews lasted 64 minutes, family interviews lasted approximately 70 minutes, and focus groups lasted approximately 57 minutes. Some participants were involved in more than one type of data collection and the average length of a single person’s interview time was 89 minutes.

Qualitative data analysis

Items for the HOS were derived from holistic team-based qualitative analysis, which is interpretive. Final items tended to overlap with themes most frequently coded, but because inductive qualitative analysis was used, the most salient themes cannot be reduced to frequency alone. Because this was a broader study, hierarchical themes were inductively created by identifying emergent risk, protective, and promotive factors across individual, family/relational, community, cultural, and societal levels. The data analysis methods included pragmatic horizon analysis, which is a form of thematic analysis that involves reading and listening to interviews holistically, line-by-line coding, sorting codes into themes, and clustering sub-themes into overarching themes ( Carspecken, 1996 ). This analysis explicates the implicit and explicit meaning of data, identifying more salient versus more removed meanings of data. Historical oppression was a societal risk factor and the overarching sub-themes within this overarching theme were what informed the items. Although the frequency of codes was a factor, given the FHORT had already been developed and supported with empirical research and this was already a frame for this research, data were analyzed with this framework in mind. Scale items were derived from salient sub-themes under the “Historical Oppression” theme and followed the aforementioned conceptual components of the framework, including internalized oppression, externalized oppression (conceptualized inductively from data), horizontal violence, etc. Although it was a theme, historical losses were not included in this scale, given a sufficient scale already exists measuring this concept (see Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ).

To reach the themes that informed the HOS items, we analyzed qualitative data using collaborative methods ( Guest & MacQueen, 2008 ). Following data collection of qualitative field notes, observations, and interviews, professionally transcribed interviews were uploaded onto two separate NVivo files ( 2015, Version 11 )—one for each tribe. The collaborative analysis team was composed of the first author and a total of four PhD students, including two Indigenous members from the focal communities. Members of the analysis team were all trained in NVivo and pragmatic horizon analysis by the first author. They received feedback and instruction through regular team meetings and were given example transcripts to code that were then compared with each other’s coding for consistency. Several team members coded a subset of the same interviews to ensure interrater reliability.

Initial coding schemes were developed by the first author in collaboration with the team members who reviewed schemes for appropriateness both conceptually and culturally. Structured meetings were held several times per month to engage in critical discourse and discussions about emergent themes and results. Interrater reliability using Cohen’s Kappa ( McHugh, 2012 ) ranged between .80 and .90, which is very high.

Data were compared across related sites to uncover similar and unique themes to enhance the interpretations and understandings of risk and protective factors related to key outcomes. Qualitative comparison of themes was conducted for each tribe, identifying shared and community-specific themes. An examination comparing the hierarchical coding schemes evaluated the number of participants who endorsed themes and the number of times each of the themes was reported within and across tribes. Though this frequency varied, the overarching themes were consistent across tribes. Because there was no known available scale for historical oppression, the items for this scale were created based on the qualitative analysis method that interpreted the conceptually relevant and salient themes, which tended to overlap with those themes most frequently noted across tribes (see Supplementary Material 1 for the HOS). Supplementary Material 2 displays survey items with supportive qualitative themes from the raw data.

Information provided to the participants included a descriptive summary of the results (i.e., overarching themes and explanation/description of each theme), interview transcripts for individual interviews, information about the survey, and the invitation to have a discussion, amend, add to, or make any changes to the interview transcript or results. Group interview transcripts (i.e., focus group and family interviews) were not provided to participants in order to protect the confidentiality of all group members. Although some participants elaborated on the findings, no participants disagreed with any interpretations of the data. The results were also reported to tribal members in the forms of tribal council meetings with professionals and relevant agencies, community dialogue groups, cultural insiders, and training sessions across tribal communities on over 10 occasions. On these occasions, as well as the piloting of the scale, tribal members were invited to provide feedback and input on the results and scale development. The four research team members who participated in follow-up engaged in peer debriefing weekly. The first author completed consistency checks throughout the interviews as she encouraged participants’ explanations of their thoughts and perceptions. Finally, a substantial proportion of participants were interviewed several times. In total, 72 members of Tribe A were interviewed 2–3 times (31.6%) and 50 members of Tribe B were interviewed 2–3 times (24%).

Quantitative data collection

Along with general community sampling, those who participated in the qualitative portion of the study were eligible and invited to participate in an online Qualtrics survey ( Qualtrics, 2014 ) to explore relationships between emergent risk, protective and promotive factors, and key behavioral health and health outcomes. The survey included the HOS along with other standardized measures and study-specific items. Over half of the participants entered into a drawing received the $50 gift cards compensation ( n = 70, 55%). Participants had the option to complete the anonymous survey online themselves, have someone assist them, complete the survey in hard copy (i.e., having it mailed and returning it in a self-addressed envelope), or have the survey read to them over the phone and have a research team member enter their answers. The participants employed the survey completion methods of their choosing, which included completing it online, having it read to them by a research team member, or completing a mailed copy, which was entered onto the online survey by a research team member. The majority of participants completed the online survey, with a few having it read to them and entered for them.

A total of 127 participants from both tribes completed the quantitative online survey. Participant names were only supplied for the purpose of participant compensation and were kept separately from data. This survey was open to any Tribe A or Tribe B member over the age of 18. A total of 161 participants began the survey and 79% of them completed the survey ( n = 127). The sample of 127 included a total of 80 Tribe A and 47 Tribe B members. See Table 2 for participant demographics related to the online survey.

Survey demographics.

Note . The rows for age and number of children depict the average ( M ). SD = Standard Deviation. The per cent listed in each column for tribes indicates the per cent of the whole for that row. The final row indicates those participants indicating it was somewhat difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult to pay bills on annual income. A total of 113 participants reported education.

Analysis of the psychometric characteristics of the HOS

Using data from the surveys, we performed a preliminary examination of the psychometric characteristics of the HOS. Specifically, we used a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation to examine scale dimensionality and calculated Cronbach’s alphas to measure internal consistency reliability. Two aspects of construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, were analyzed using a series of bivariate correlations. All analyses were performed in SPSS version 23 and Mplus version 7 ( Mplus, 2012 ). Prior to performing the analyses, the data were screened for missingness and outliers and to ensure that the assumptions underlying the statistical analyses were met. Six cases with missing data on key study variables were excluded, leaving the sample size for analysis at 121. The results indicated no issues requiring data corrections were present. Table 3 displays the mean and standard deviation of each item of the HOS by tribe.

Historical oppression item descriptive statistics by tribe.

Note. Table displays means and standards deviations for each tribe on the 10 items of the Historical Oppression Scale. Tribe A is a Southeastern inland/woodlands tribe that is federally recognized, whereas Tribe B is a Southeastern coastal tribe that is state recognized.

Dimensionality and reliability

To test scale dimensionality, exploratory factor analysis is used when there is insufficient theoretical or empirical information to inform an underlying factor structure; and, when there is sufficient empirical or theoretical support, confirmatory factor analysis is the appropriate method ( Abell, Springer, & Kamata, 2009 ; Dimitrov, 2014 ). In designing the HOS, we hypothesized historical oppression as a unidimensional construct that could be measured using a single scale consisting of the 10 items informed by the qualitative study. Because scale development was grounded in empirical research supporting a single underlying factor, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypothesized structure of the HOS. Consistent with the conceptual design, a single factor structure was imposed on the data, resulting in acceptable model fit by most indices, X 2 (30) = 58.10, X 2 / df = 1.94, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .088, 90% CI = .05, .12. 3 Standardized factor loadings for items were .79 and above, exceeding suggested guidelines for retaining an item in a scale ( Abell et al., 2009 ; Costello & Osborne, 2005 ). Item communalities also exceeded minimum proposed criteria of .60 ( MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999 ). Although the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was slightly higher than the recommended cut-off of .08 ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ), the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI for the RMSEA captured the criteria for acceptable model fit. Examining the resulting factor loadings and commonalities, we found that no items were clearly singled out for removal. Based on the overall results, the preliminary nature of the analyses, and views on the substantive contributions of the items, all 10 items were retained in the scale and reliability was excellent (α = .97). The results of the final model are displayed in Table 4 .

Results of confirmatory factor analysis ( N = 121).

Note. The sample for confirmatory factor analysis was 121 due to 6 cases with missing variables being dropped.

Convergent and discriminant validity

To examine convergent validity, we calculated bivariate correlations between the total scores of the HOS and two theoretically related measures. The HLS ( Whitbeck, Adams, et al., 2004 ) is a 15-item scale used to measure how frequently Indigenous individuals think about historical losses (items include “Loss of land,” “Loss of family ties,” and “Loss of traditional spiritual ways”). The Oppression Questionnaire (OQ; Kaholokula, Grandinetti, Keller, Nacapoy, & Mau, 2012 ; Kaholokula, Iwane, & Nacapoy, 2010 ; Victoroff, 2005 ) is a 16-item scale designed to measure perceived oppression (items include “Have been looked down upon,” “Have been treated as inferior,” and “Have not been cared about”). To examine discriminant validity, we examined correlations between scores of the HOS and two theoretically unrelated measures: the CD-RISC and the SWL. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003 ) is a 25-item resiliency measure (items include “Under pressure, I stay focused and think clearly,” “I am not easily discouraged by failure,” and “I think of myself as a strong person when dealing with life challenges and difficulties”). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWL; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985 ) is a 5-item measure of perceived life satisfaction (items include “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal,” “The conditions of my life are excellent,” and “I am satisfied with my life”).

The results focused on validity are presented in Table 5 . Consistent with our expectations, the scores of the HOS were highly correlated with the HLS and OQ and statistically significant ( p < .001 for both scales). Correlations between the HOS and the CD-RISC ( p = .26) and SWLS ( p = .32) were weak and non-significant, supporting no statistical relation between the scales. The results provide initial support for construct validity.

HOS construct validity coefficients ( N = 121).

Note. Mean = mean validity coefficient.

The continued resilience of Indigenous peoples’ survivance, transcendence, and coping are remarkable, representing distinct forms of connectedness, meaning and spiritualty, and holistic conceptualizations of wellness and harmony with the environment that provide lessons for non-Indigenous people ( Burnette & Figley, 2017 ; Vizenor, 2008 ). Reported health and social disparities are staggering among Indigenous peoples. These disparities have conceptually been rooted in historical oppression, despite an absence of empirical evidence connecting historical oppression to health disparities. The HOS was derived through interview data that captured the lived experiences of Indigenous tribal members. The 10 items in the HOS assess internally-focused oppression (e.g., “been sad or depressed”) and externally-focused oppression (e.g., “treated each other unfairly”), which are both conceptually relevant to the construct of historical oppression. The HOS shows promise as a measure of historical oppression, as preliminary findings support the psychometric validity of this novel measure. The HOS can play an important role in continuing to examine the complex associations between historical oppression and health and social disparities. It will also be an important clinical and research tool to further knowledge development and clinical practice.

The HOS complements existing measures of oppression (e.g., HLS) and holds promise for helping to bridge the gap in researchers’ ability to measure historical oppression experienced among Indigenous peoples of the U.S. Specifically, the HOS may facilitate a greater understanding of how oppression is perpetuated over time, after a context of historical oppression has been established, and how this is connected to various contemporary social problems. Additionally, the HOS may contribute an added layer of complexity to explicating the pathways between historical oppression and health disparities among Indigenous populations.

Limitations and future research

We should note some limitations within the current study. First, these findings should be viewed as preliminary. Despite the acceptable psychometric characteristics of the scale, it only reflects perspectives of the members of two tribes. Although some items connect historical oppression to community members’ being sad or using substances, it should be noted that the intention of these items was not to be used as measures of these outcomes themselves. Furthermore, the HOS indicates that participants are to rate items in terms of their “community,” which can vary (e.g., tribe, neighborhood). For this research, participants were asked to respond to items with their community being “members of your tribe.” Thus, it is important for researchers to designate or define the community in each use of the HOS. Notes on administering the survey and specifying the community of inquiry for a given study are located on the survey itself (found in the supplementary materials ).

The HOS is designed to measure how and whether people see historical oppression relating to behavioral and social outcomes, or its effects. Though the focus of this article is the HOS, independent measures of key behavioral and social outcomes were also measured as part of the larger study (e.g., depressive symptoms, substance abuse, violence). Thus, the HOS is not meant to be a direct measure of key behavioral and social outcomes. It is recommended that focal outcomes of interest for researchers and communities be assessed directly. This scale focuses on whether participants perceive historical oppression as being related to the social milieu of their tribal communities today. Although directly measuring the effects of colonization and historical oppression is difficult, if not impossible, it is important as to whether participants perceive structural and historical forms of oppression being salient to challenges experienced by community members. It is possible that the current scale structure may be different for members of different tribes. Indeed, levels of some items were different across the tribes in this study, affirming the heterogeneity across tribal nations. The scale should be used with larger samples of Indigenous peoples from additional tribes in order to further examine its reliability and validity. In the future, researchers can extend use of this scale with other Indigenous groups and potentially other ethnic minority and historically marginalized groups, examining the commonalities and differences across groups. Moreover, the convenience sample in this study may not be representative of the two communities as a whole. Because the survey was online, people with limited access to technology may not be equally represented in the results.

Although the extensive qualitative research that informed the scale purposefully focused on community members and professionals across the life course, people living in poverty and without access to telephone or email may have experienced additional barriers to study participation. Tribal members residing outside of the tribal communities and/or who did not receive news or information about the study may not be sufficiently represented. Additionally, although the qualitative and quantitative parts of the study were conducted in distinct phases, with separate consent, recruitment, and participation, it is possible that some participants participated in both the qualitative and the quantitative studies, which could affect results. Thus, replication in other contexts is warranted.

The HOS was designed to measure perceptions of internalized and externalized oppression and whether participants perceive social and behavioral symptoms to be related to historical oppression. The HOS is not inclusive of all impacts, which may vary by population. Moreover, psychological and social symptoms have complex causes beyond historical oppression. Still, capturing how people understand and make meaning of key outcomes within the community is important to foster interventions and prevention programs that are meaningful and culturally relevant to participants. Much discrimination and macroaggressions can be felt for other reasons, including skin tone and color, level of traditional knowledge, ability to speak tribal languages, and others. Future research that examines these other forms of oppression is needed and recommended. Finally, and most importantly, this scale was intended to connect symptoms of historical oppression, internalized and externalized oppression, with structural causes and should always be framed as such—preferably within a broader strengths-based framework such as the FHORT. However, any time there is a focus on challenges affecting communities that have historically been marginalized, there is a risk that it could be misused and add to the deficit perspective imposed on such populations. Indeed, we view the reinforcement of deficit-based perspectives on Indigenous populations as another form of historical oppression; and, it would be antithetical to our goals of allyship to advance such stigmatizing perspectives. Using the HOS without this structural framework and without a balanced, strengths-based perspective would entail a misuse of the scale beyond the goal for which it was developed.

Implications

Despite its limitations, the HOS provides a valuable measure for documenting some perceptions of the current psychosocial and emotional consequences of both historical trauma and historical oppression. We believe it is an important approach, connecting and expanding the life stressor and critical discourse conceptualizations of historical trauma, both of which are needed to promote the wellness of Indigenous peoples and the understanding of the structural inequities that contribute to the disparities in the first place ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ). The scale seeks to explicate mechanisms of historical trauma and oppression in a more nuanced and measurable way that can be used to understand, track, and address social and behavioral health disparities. The HOS complements measures documenting the historical and contemporary stressors of trauma and oppression. As Whitbeck, Adams, et al. (2004) state, “We need to understand specific mechanisms through which thoughts about historical losses affect behaviors and how these thoughts interact with more proximal causes of stress such as economic disadvantage, discrimination, and social problems” (p. 128). The HOS can inform the proximal causes of stress, including structural violence, in addition to historical trauma and loss ( Figley, 1999 ; Kirmayer et al., 2014 ).

The HOS is a tool that links historical oppression to health disparities and important behavioral outcomes, including positive outcomes, such as family resilience, life satisfaction, and posttraumatic growth. It can be used in combination with the HLS and other tools that measure components of historical oppression, such as discrimination, microaggressions, and poverty. By connecting the HOS to various outcomes, we can begin to address underlying causes of disparities, such as historical oppression, while identifying pathways to transcendence and resilience (e.g., cultural, community, and family resilience) in policy and community development. Clinicians can use the HOS to better understand how structural causes may relate to behavioral and social concerns. Both clinicians and researchers need to understand the context of historical oppression to provide culturally sensitive and ethical services, so as not to misinterpret social problems without a contextual understanding ( Burnette, 2015b ). Understanding how historical oppression may relate to contemporary problems may open up possibilities for interventions to include components designed to address historical oppression, which likely drives extant health disparities.

Supplementary Material

The historical oppression scale, scale items with supportive quotes, acknowledgements.

The authors thank the dedicated work and participation of the tribes who contributed to this work.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by the Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation Faculty Grant Program [grant number #552745]; The Silberman Fund Faculty Grant Program [grant #552781]; Newcomb College Institute Faculty Grant at Tulane University; the Global South Research Grant through the New Orleans Center for the Gulf South at Tulane University; The Center for Public Service at Tulane University; and the Carol Lavin Bernick Research Grant at Tulane University. This work was supported, in part, by Award K12HD043451 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (Krousel-Wood-PI; Catherine Burnette-Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Scholar). Supported in part by U54 GM104940 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, which funds the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Catherine E McKinley (formerly Catherine E. Burnette), PhD, LMSW, is an associate professor of Social Work at Tulane University. She began working with Indigenous Peoples of the Southeast over 10 years ago, related to violence against women and children, mental health, substance abuse, and health. She has worked in collaboration with tribes to develop the ecological “Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence,” which identifies and organizes culturally relevant risk and protective factors across community, family, and individual levels. Since coming to Tulane in 2013, she has published over 50 peer-reviewed journal articles and has been involved in federally-funded research to address violence and health disparities using culturally relevant intervention approaches.

Shamra Boel-Studt , PhD, MSW, is an associate professor in the College of Social Work at Florida State University. Dr. Boel-Studt’s research focuses on high risk children in foster care with severe emotional and behavioral health needs and their families. She is the Principal Investigator of Quality Standards Initiative for Group Homes funded by the Florida Department of Children and Families and the Florida Institute for Child Welfare. Her publications focus on measurement development and validation and establishing evidence-supported micro and macro interventions for child welfare-involved children and families.

Lynette M Renner , PhD, MSW, is an associate professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, with particular attention to risk and resilience factors; behavioral, mental health and parenting outcomes; help-seeking strategies; and the development and evaluation of legal, health care, and therapeutic interventions. She teaches graduate courses on practice evaluation, family and group work, and theory and model-building.

Charles R Figley , PhD, is the Henry Kurzweg, MD Chair and Distinguished Professor and Director of the Traumatology Institute at Tulane University. Dr. Figley researches mental health services gaps among Native Americans and other Indigenous peoples compared to the majority and builds models to account for these differences. His published works focus on mental health services research, conceptual, and methodological issues with minority populations, risk and protective factors as well as disparities in service delivery and the resulting social disparities.

Shanondora Billiot , PhD, is an assistant professor at University of Illinois School of Social work who focuses on health disparities and environmental justice among Indigenous peoples using community-engaged mixed methods approaches. Building on these experiences, her current research explores gaps in knowledge of how chronic health issues, non-communicable diseases, and mental illness disproportionately burden Indigenous peoples. Experiences of historical trauma, discrimination, poverty, violence, repeated disasters, and chronic environmental changes have been shown to exacerbate the onset and severity of health conditions, and she examines Indigenous health disparities through three levels of influence factors: physical environment, sociocultural, and historical.

Katherine P Theall , the Cecile Usdin Professor and Director of the Mary Amelia Douglas-Whited Community Women’s Health Education Center is faculty in the Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences at Tulane University. As a social epidemiologist, Theall’s research focuses on policy and community influences on health disparities, with a particular emphasis on neighborhood conditions. Her research and teaching interests and area span both practical and theoretical social epidemiology, including women and children’s health; community and social network influences on health outcomes; race and gender inequities; substance use and mental health; social epidemiologic theory and methods. She is actively involved in interventions and policies aimed at altering environments for better health in vulnerable populations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1. For the purpose of this article, American Indian and Alaska Natives or Native Americans are identified as Indigenous peoples (indicating the many sovereign nations within this overarching category) of the United States. Native Hawaiians are another Indigenous group of the U.S. but operate under distinct rights in relation to the U.S. government. Because distinct forms of oppression occur across contexts, our background focuses on Indigenous North Americans. Although the scope of this research was with American Indians, we believe that the scale is relevant to Indigenous populations globally and potentially other international ethnic minorities.

2. We use the term elders to be culturally congruent with the terminology used by tribal members.

3. We also ran a confirmatory factor analysis testing a two-factor model. Although the two-factor solution demonstrated good fit, X 2 (16) = 16.34, X 2 /df= 1.02, RMSEA = .04, CFI, .99, TLI = .99, the two factors were found to be highly correlated (r = .94), indicating issues with factor separation that were further supported by several cross-loaded items. Due to the limited number of items, a three-factor model was not tested.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

• Abell N, Springer DW, & Kamata A (2009). Developing and validating rapid assessment instruments . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association. (2010). APA fact sheet, mental health disparities: American Indian and Alaska Natives . Retrieved from https://www.integration.samhsa.gov/workforce/mental_health_disparities_american_indian_and_alaskan_natives.pdf
• Brave Heart MYH, Chase J, Elkins J, & Altschul DB (2011). Historical trauma among Indigenous peoples of the Americas: Concepts, research, and clinical considerations . Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , 43 ( 4 ): 282–290. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brave Heart MYH, & DeBruyn LM (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief . American Indian & Alaska Native Research , 8 ( 2 ): 60–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breiding MJ, Chen J, & Black MC (2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—2010 . Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ Google Scholar ]
• Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, Walters ML, Chen J, & Merrick MT (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization: National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries , 63 ( Suppl. 8 ): 1–18. doi:ss6308a1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2020). About us . Retrieved from https://www.bia.gov/about-us
• Burnette CE (2015a). Disentangling Indigenous women’s experiences with intimate partner violence in the United States . Critical Social Work , 16 ( 1 ): 1–20. Retrieved from https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/csw/article/view/5913/4926 [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE (2015b). Historical oppression and intimate partner violence experienced by Indigenous women in the U.S.: Understanding connections . Social Services Review , 89 ( 3 ): 531–563. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/683336 [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE (2015c). Indigenous women’s resilience and resistance to historical oppression: A case example from the United States . Affilia , 30 ( 2 ): 235–243. doi:0886109914555215 [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE (2016). Historical oppression and Indigenous families: Uncovering potential risk factors for Indigenous families touched by violence . Family Relations , 65 ( 2 ): 354–368. doi: 10.1111/fare.12191 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE, & Figley CR (2016). Risk and protective factors related to the wellness of American Indian and Alaska Native youth: A systematic review . International Public Health Journal , 8 ( 2 ): 137–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE, & Figley CR (2017). Historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence: Can a holistic framework help explain violence experienced by Indigenous peoples ? Social Work , 62 ( 1 ): 37–44. doi: 10.1093/sw/sww065 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnette CE, Sanders S, Butcher HK, & Rand JT (2014). A toolkit for ethical and culturally sensitive research: An application with Indigenous communities . Ethics and Social Welfare , 8 ( 4 ): 364–382. doi: 10.1080/17496535.2014.885987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carspecken P (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide . New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costello AB, & Osborne JW (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis . Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 10 ( 7 ): 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyhis D, & Simonelli R (2005). Rebuilding Native American communities . Child Welfare , 84 ( 2 ): 323–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor KM, & Davidson JR (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) . Depression & Anxiety , 18 ( 2 ): 76–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross TL (1998). Understanding family resiliency from a relational world view . Resiliency in Native American and immigrant families , 2 , 143–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, & Griffin S (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale . Journal of Personality Assessment , 49 , 71–75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dimitrov DM (2014). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields . John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran E, Duran B, Woodis W, & Woodis P (1998). A postcolonial perspective on domestic violence in Indian country In: Carrillo R, & Tello J (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 95–113). New York, NY: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Espey DK, Jim MA, Cobb N, Bartholomew M, Becker T, Haverkamp D, & Plescia M (2014). Leading causes of death and all-cause mortality in American Indians and Alaska Natives . American Journal of Public Health , 104 ( S3 ): S303–S311. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans-Campbell T (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 23 ( 3 ): 316–338. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Figley C (1999). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorders in those who treat the traumatized . London, UK: Brunner. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freire P (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gone JP (2004). Mental health services for Native Americans in the 21st century United States . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 35 ( 1 ): 10–18. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.35.1.10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gone JP (2013a). Reconsidering American Indian historical trauma: Lessons from an early Gros Ventre war narrative . Transcultural Psychiatry , 51 ( 3 ): 387–406. doi: 10.1177/1363461513489722 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gone JP (2013b). Redressing First Nations historical trauma: Theorizing mechanisms for indigenous culture as mental health treatment . Transcultural Psychiatry , 50 ( 5 ): 683–706. doi: 10.1177/1363461513487669 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gone JP, Hartmann WE, Pomerville A, Wendt DC, Klem SH, & Burrage RL (2019). The impact of historical trauma on health outcomes for Indigenous populations in the USA and Canada: A systematic review . American Psychologist , 74 ( 1 ): 20–35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gone JP, & Trimble JE (2012). American Indian and Alaska Native mental health: Diverse perspectives on enduring disparities . Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 8 , 131–160. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest G, & MacQueen KM (Eds.). (2008). Handbook for team-based qualitative research . New York, NY: Altamira Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartmann WE, & Gone JP (2014). American Indian historical trauma: Community perspectives from two Great Plains medicine men . American Journal of Community Psychology , 54 ( 3–4 ): 274–288. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartmann WE, Wendt DC, Burrage RL, Pomerville A, & Gone JP (2019). American Indian historical trauma: Anticolonial prescriptions for healing, resilience, and survivance . American Psychologist , 74 ( 1 ): 6–19. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harper SS, & Entrekin CM (2006). Violence against Native women: A guide for practitioner action . Washington, DC: Office on Violence Against Women and the National Center on Full Faith and Credit. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 6 ( 1 ): 1–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Indian Health Service. (2018). Health promotion . Retrieved from https://www.ihs.gov/communityhealth/hpdp/
• Kaholokula JKA, Grandinetti A, Keller S, Nacapoy AH, & Mau MK (2012). Association between perceived racism and physiological stress indices in Native Hawaiians . Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 35 ( 1 ): 27–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaholokula JKA, Iwane MK, & Nacapoy AH (2010). Effects of perceived racism and acculturation on hypertension in Native Hawaiians . Hawaii Medical Journal , 69 ( 5 Suppl. 2 ): 11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirmayer LJ, Gone JP, & Moses J (2014). Rethinking historical trauma . Transcultural Psychiatry , 51 ( 3 ): 299–319. doi: 10.1177/1363461514536358 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, & Hong S (1999). Sample size in factor analysis . Psychological Methods , 4 ( 1 ): 84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Masten AS, & Monn AR (2015). Child and family resilience: A call for integrated science, practice, and professional training . Family Relations , 64 ( 1 ): 5–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masten AS (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise . Journal of Family Theory & Review , 10 ( 1 ): 12–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• McHugh ML (2012). Interrater reliability: The Kappa statistic . Biochemia Medica , 22 ( 3 ): 276–282. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore D, & Coyhis D (2010). The multicultural Wellbriety peer recovery support program: Two decades of community-based recovery . Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly , 28 ( 3 ): 273–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mplus (Version 7). (2012). [ Computer software ]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. [ Google Scholar ]
• NVivo (Version 11). (2015). [ Computer software ]. Melbourne, Australis: QSR International Pty Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qualtrics (2014). [ XM software ]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarche M, & Spicer P (2008). Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1136 ( 1 ): 126–136. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D, & Henry D (2006). Family violence . Annual Review of Psychology , 57 , 557–583. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2004). Broken promises: Evaluating the Native American health care system . Washington, DC: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Child maltreatment 2012 . Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment
• Victoroff J (2005, February). The Oppression Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript . Retrieved from http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/VictoroffOppressionQuestionnaire.pdf
• Vizenor G (Ed.). (2008). Survivance: Narratives of Native presence . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walters KL, Mohammed SA, Evans-Campbell T, Beltrán RE, Chae DH, & Duran B (2011). Bodies don’t just tell stories, they tell histories . Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race , 8 ( 01 ): 179–189. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weaver HN, & Brave Heart MYH (1999). Examining two facets of American Indian identity: Exposure to other cultures and the influence of historical trauma . Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 2 ( 1–2 ): 19–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• West AE, Williams E, Suzukovich E, Strangeman K, & Novins D (2012). A mental health needs assessment of urban American Indian youth and families . American Journal of Community Psychology , 49 ( 3–4 ): 441–453. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitbeck LB, Adams GW, Hoyt DR, & Chen X (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people . American Journal of Community Psychology , 33 ( 3–4 ): 119–130. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitbeck LB, Chen X, Hoyt DR, & Adams GW (2004). Discrimination, historical loss and enculturation: Culturally specific risk and resiliency factors for alcohol abuse among American Indians . Journal of Studies on Alcohol , 65 ( 4 ): 409–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence: Can a Holistic Framework Help Explain Violence Experienced by Indigenous People

Although all minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peoples in the United States tend to experience the most severe violent victimization. Until now, an organizing framework to explain or address the disproportionate rates of violent victimization was absent. Thus, the purpose of this conceptual article is to (a) introduce the concept of historical oppression, expanding the concept of historical trauma to make it inclusive of contemporary oppression; (b) describe the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and tran-scendence, which draws from distinct but related theoretical frameworks (that is, critical theory and resilience theory); and (c) apply the framework of historical oppression, resilience , and transcendence to the problem of violence against indigenous women. The proposed framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence prioritizes social justice and strengths; it provides a culturally relevant framework, which can be used to explain, predict, and prevent violence. The article concludes with recommendations for future research, implications for practice, and recommended applications to other problems and populations.

Related Papers

Charles R Figley

In comparison with the general population, research indicates a need for greater health equity among American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). AI/ANs have demonstrated remarkable resilience in response to centuries of historical oppression, yet growing evidence documents mental health disparities. Consequently, some AI/AN youth, defined as 18 years or younger, experience elevated rates of suicide, substance use disorders, conduct and oppositional defiant disorders, attention deficit- hyperactivity disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorders. In this article we systematically review the growing body of research examining the culturally specific risk and protective factors related to AI/AN youth wellness. This review includes published, peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative research on AI/AN youth between the years 1988 to 2013. Organizing risk and protective factors within a ecosystemic resilience framework, the following broad risk and protective factors are critically reviewed: societal factors (historical oppression and discrimination), cultural factors (ethnic identity, spirituality, and connectedness), community factors (community environment, school environment, peer influence, and social support), family factors (family support, family income, parental mental health, family trauma and stressful life events), and individual factors. The review includes a discussion of the risk and protective factors accounting for AI/AN youth mental health disparities, implications for correcting disparities, and importance of incorporating familial and community level interventions for AI/AN youth. This paper's first author is Catherine Burnette - [email protected]

Youth & Society

Barry Solomon

Abstract There is limited understanding of risk and protective factors associated with depression among African American adolescents living in impoverished, urban settings. A cross-sectional study was conducted to identify a range of risk and protective factors ...

Historically, the study of family resilience was largely disconnected with the study and treatment of trauma. Moreover, most examinations have not adequately accounted for the structural and ethnic diversity that is increasingly important in the United States. This is a severe gap in knowledge, given ethnic minorities tend to experience trauma at disproportionately high rates. For example, American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) experience disproportionately high rates of violence and associated mental health disparities; thus these populations are among the most vulnerable to trauma. This discussion begins with an overview of the history and components of family trauma-resilience by defining and clarifying the concepts. Focusing on the effective treatment of traumatized families, we define and trace the roots of systemic trauma and family resilience research as it applies to AI/AN families and other diverse communities. The authors discuss methodological considerations (e.g., gathering family level data) and identify core components of trauma treatments and highlight empirically supported and trauma-informed approaches that are effective with AI/AN families, highlighting fruitful areas for helping traumatized families across diverse contexts. The authors call on clinical researchers to collaborate with practitioners to establish evidence-based, trauma-informed practices that promote family resilience in a culturally relevant way.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology

Gonzalo Bacigalupe , Devin G Atallah

Aims: This article aims to reframe resilience for use in community research and action in conditions of adversity marked by increasing natural disasters and by social inequities rooted in the coloniality of power, such as in Chile. Method: We review international resilience literature that explores responses to complex adversities, evaluating three “waves” of resilience research, including (1) “bouncing back,” which frames resilience as protecting functioning; (2) “bouncing forward,” understanding resilience as adaptation; and (3) what we are calling, the “centering at the margins” wave, which explicitly incorporates liberation psychology and decolonial, critical race theories to the study and promotion of resilience. Results: Building off “third wave” thinking, this article attempts to improve the social justice ethics within which research on resilience is completed by introducing a critical community resilience praxis. Conclusions: Critical community resilience praxis can aid the study of resilience by illuminating ways to avoid the reinforcement of social hierarchies and interlocking systems of oppression relevant to the work of disaster risk reduction investigators, psychologists, and differently positioned stakeholders engaged in resilience research and practice in complex settings internationally marked by histories of colonialism, consequences of climate change, and continual social inequities.

Bonnie Duran

Lana M Wells

This study describes the level of government commitment in preventing domestic violence (DV) towards Indigenous women in countries of the Global North. Seventy-two government-endorsed DV prevention plans across 11 countries were analyzed. While over half of the plans acknowledged Indigenous peoples, the main discourse reinforced a western DV paradigm, reproduced negative stereotypes, and ignored systemic factors. Little consideration for intersectionality, the impact of colonization, or Indigenous worldviews was evident. Targeted prevention strategies were found but were disjointed and culturally inappropriate. Taken together, these findings suggest minimal government commitment and absence of cultural understanding regarding DV in Indigenous communities.

European journal of psychotraumatology

Clare E Cannon

Violence against indigenous women and girls is endemic, yet the absence of research on the consequences of this violence from the perspectives of women presents a profound barrier to the development of knowledge, along with violence prevention and mitigation. Although family is central to many indigenous communities, existing research typically examines the consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) on women or children in isolation, rather than examining its consequences holistically. The purpose of this article is to identify US indigenous women&#39;s perspectives about the impact of IPV on women, children, and families. Data were collected with 29 indigenous women affected by violence from a Southeastern tribe in the United States. As part of a larger critical ethnography, pragmatic horizon analysis of life history interviews revealed the consequences of IPV across multiple levels. Women reported profound psychological consequences resulting from IPV. The majority of women h...

stephanie wahab

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

The seven steps for healing historical trauma

RELATED PAPERS

Violence Against Women

Federica Cavazzoni

pimatisiwin.com

Understanding Domestic Violence: Theories, Challenges, and Remedies

Carolyn West

Deidre de Villiers

Venkat Pulla , Dr Abraham Francis , Bal Balgopal , Ulanda Ealdama , James Mugisha

Luke R Allen

Terry Mitchell , Darren Thomas

Margaret Kress

Stéphane Dandeneau

Social Change

Shahnaaz Suffla

Genealogy -

Lisa Colón , Annie Zean Dunbar

Laurence J Kirmayer

American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research

John Oetzel

Lorraine Halinka Malcoe

Pimatisiwin

Amy Nahwegahbow

National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health

Cindy Holmes

Lana M Wells , Tonya D Callaghan , carmen logie

Scholar Works: Montana State University

Lisa Zeilinger

eliana suarez

Gabrielle Lindstrom

Gabrielle E Lindstrom (Weasel Head) , Peter Choate

Alison Downie

pilar hernandez-wolfe

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Taryn Lindhorst , Emiko Tajima

M. Brinton Lykes

Phoenicia Lewis , Ty Leisey

William Hartmann , Dennis Wendt

Vanessa Pizzingrilli

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Thema Bryant-Davis , Halley Woodward

Margaret Robinson

Mia Sosa-Provencio , Annmarie Sheahan , Shiv Desai

Faruk Arslan

William Hartmann

American Journal of Community Psychology

Carla D Hunter

Sarah Malotane Henkeman

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024