Content uploaded by Catherine E. McKinley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine E. McKinley on Sep 28, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Historical Oppression, Resilience, and
Transcendence: Can a Holistic Framework Help
Explain Violence Experienced by Indigenous
People?
Catherine Elizabeth Burnette and Charles R. Figley
Although all minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peoples in the United States
tend to experience the most severe violent victimization. Until now, an organizing frame-
work 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 contempo-
rary 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, resil-
ience, and transcendence to the problem of violence against indigenous women. The pro-
posed 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.
KEY WORDS: American Indians; historical oppression; historical trauma; Native Americans;
resilience
To provide a culturally relevant framework
to explain, predict, and prevent violence
experienced by indigenous peoples, this
article will (a) introduce the concept of historical
oppression, expanding the concept of historical
trauma to make it inclusive of contemporary oppres-
sion; (b) describe the framework of historical oppres-
sion, resilience, and transcendence, which draws
from distinct but related theoretical frameworks (that
is, critical theory and resilience theory); and (c) apply
the framework of historical oppzression, resilience,
and transcendence to the problem of violence against
indigenous women by synthesizing extant research,
which works from this framework. Although all
minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peo-
ples of the United States, to whom the scope of this
article is limited, tend to experience the most severe
violent victimization (Black et al., 2011).
Indigenous peoples is a term used to describe the
diverse groups thought to be earliest inhabitants of a
country and who share the history of being affected
by colonization. The United States is home to 567
federally recognized tribes (Bureau of Indian Affairs
[BIA], 2016), 66 state-recognized tribes (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2015), and around
400 tribes that exist outside either jurisdiction (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 2012). Thus,
diverse membership and distinct trust relationships,
based on treaty agreements with politically sover-
eign federally recognized tribes, warrants examining
indigenous disparities separately from other ethnic
minorities (BIA, 2016).
AN OVERVIEW OF VIOLENCE EXPERIENCED BY
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The issue of disproportionate rates of violence
experienced by indigenous peoples has drawn na-
tional attention (Black et al., 2011;Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013).
Results of the National Intimate Partner and Sex-
ual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011) indicated
that 46 percent of indigenous (for the purpose of
doi: 10.1093/sw/sww065 © 2016 National Association of Social Workers 1
Social Work Advance Access published November 5, 2016
this study, that is, American Indian and Alaska
Native) women have experienced intimate partner
violence (IPV) (that is, rape, physical violence, or
stalking by an intimate partner), compared with
43.7 percent of non-Hispanic black women, 34.6
percent of non-Hispanic white women, 37.1 per-
cent of Hispanic women, and 53.8 percent of wo-
men identifying as multiracial non-Hispanic.
Similarly, indigenous men experience the highest
rates of IPV (45.3 percent), in comparison with
black men (38.6 percent), non-Hispanic men (39.3
percent), Hispanic men (26.6 percent), and non-
Hispanic white men (28.2 percent) (Black et al.,
2011). Although IPV rates for both men and
women are high, women tend to disproportion-
ately suffer negative impacts from IPV, indicating
the intersectionality and cumulative disadvantage of
being female and minority (Black et al., 2011). For
example, approximately 60 percent of women ver-
sus 17 percent of men who report IPV report feel-
ing unsafe from the violence and approximately 81
percent of women versus approximately 35 percent
of men report a negative impact from IPV experi-
ences (Black et al., 2011).
Despite over five centuries of inequities against
indigenous peoples since European American colo-
nization began, there has been no organizing frame-
work to explain or address such disparities (Jones,
2006). This absence severely limits the ability to
accurately explain, predict, and prevent these dispari-
ties. Likewise, the disproportionate rates of violence
and health disparities experienced by indigenous
people can overshadow the remarkable resilience
and transcendence of oppression that have been
demonstrated; moreover, there are concerns about
the scarcity of research on protective factors relating
to violence and health disparities (Barney, 2001;
Brownridge, 2008). This problem focus can margin-
alize already oppressed groups (Waller, 2001)and
overlook the deep strengths of indigenous commu-
nities, families, and individuals, which have sustained
them for centuries.
In this article, we propose a framework of histor-
ical oppression, resilience, and transcendence. The
contributions of this framework are (a) expansion
of a framework used with indigenous peoples (that
is, historical trauma); (b) application of frameworks
that are relevant but not yet adapted for indigenous
people in the United States who have exper-
ienced violence (that is, the work of Paulo Freire);
(c) delineation of a holistic theoretical framework,
synthesizing relevant frameworks that have not
been integrated (that is, critical theory and resil-
ience theory); and (d) application of the explicated
framework to the problem of violence against in-
digenous women. The resulting framework foc-
uses on strengths and situates social problems
experienced by indigenous peoples in their struc-
tural and historical causes (Burnette, 2015c).
HISTORICAL OPPRESSION AND HISTORICAL
TRAUMA
The concept of historical oppression expands on
historical trauma, a concept that includes the cumula-
tive, massive, and chronic trauma imposed on a
group across generations and within the life course
(Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998;Duran, Duran,
Brave Heart, & Yellow Horse-Davis, 1998). Unlike
historical trauma, historical oppression includes both
historical and contemporary forms of oppression. His-
torical oppression describes the chronic, pervasive, and
intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over
time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized
into the daily lives of many indigenous people (in-
cluding individuals, families, and communities)
(Burnette, 2015a,2015c). Although historical oppes-
sion is inclusive of historical traumas, it is distinct in
that it is localized to specific contexts and is inclusive
of the proximal factors that continue to perpetuate
oppression, including discrimination, microaggres-
sions (that is, everyday injustices and demeaning mes-
sages that marginalized populations experience)
(Walters & Simoni, 2009), poverty, and marginaliza-
tion (Burnette, 2015c).
Examples of historical traumas inflicted on indige-
nous peoples include land dispossession, death of
the majority of the populations through warfare and
disease, forced removal and relocation, assimilative
boarding school experiences, and prohibiting reli-
gious practices, among others (Evans-Campbell,
2008;Harper & Entrekin, 2006). As a result of his-
torical traumas, indigenous peoples have experienced
historical losses, which included the loss of land, tra-
ditional and spiritual ways, self-respect from poor
treatment from government officials, language, fam-
ily ties, trust from broken treaties, culture, and peo-
ple (through early death); there are also losses that
can be attributed to increased alcoholism (Whitbeck,
A
dams,Hoyt,&Chen,2004
). These losses have
been associated with sadness and depression, anger,
intrusive thoughts, discomfort, shame, fear, and dis-
trust around white people (Whitbeck et al., 2004).
2Social Work
Experiencing massive traumas and losses is thought
to lead to cumulative and unresolved grief, which
can result in the historical trauma response, which
includes suicidal thoughts and acts, IPV, depressi-
on, alcoholism, self-destructive behavior, low self-
esteem, anxiety, anger, and lowered emotional
expression and recognition (Brave Heart & DeB-
ruyn, 1998;Duran et al., 1998). These symptoms
run parallel to the extant health disparities that are
documented among indigenous peoples.
Walters et al. (2011) and others (Gone, 2013)
have emphasized the need for greater delineation
and explication of historical trauma for it to predict
and explain social problems among indigenous
Americans. Historical trauma, encompassing mas-
sive traumatic events, does not fully explicate the
pervasive and chronic oppression that indigenous
populations continue to experience, such as dis-
rupted cultural patterns, economic inequality, and
disjunction between traditional and mainstream life
ways (Kirmayer, Gone, & Moses, 2014). Others
have noted the challenges related to documenting
empirical support for the concept of historical
trauma (Walters et al., 2011), including the method-
ological problems in connecting historically distant
events to contemporary problems, despite their
undoubted effects (Burnette, 2015c). Finally, the
historical trauma response is proposed as the psycho-
logical result of experiencing historical traumas, but
the consequences of historical trauma undoubtedly
transcend psychological ramifications to affect entire
ethnic groups, communities, and families. Thus, it is
importanttoexploretheserippleeffects. The focus
now shifts to the proposed framework of historical
oppression, resilience, and transcendence, which
expands on the concept of historical trauma by inc-
orporating contemporary and chronic forms of opp-
ression and integrating an ecosystemic theory of
resilience and transcendence.
A FRAMEWORK OF HISTORICAL OPPRESSION,
RESILIENCE, AND TRANSCENDENCE
Cross (1998) recommended characterizing indige-
nous resilience from a relational worldview, empha-
sizing the interrelatedness and harmony of the
mind, body, context, and spiritual aspects of all
things. Thus, the framework of historical oppres-
sion, resilience, and transcendence uses an ecosyste-
mic perspective, which enables the examination of
the interactions and interconnections among risk
and protective factors, which are on a continuum
rather than being static categories and occur across
individual, couple, familial, community, cultural,
and societal levels (Masten & Monn, 2015;Waller,
2001). This perspective views resilience as a multi-
determined and constantly changing result of peo-
ple’s interactions with the environment (Masten &
Monn, 2015;Waller, 2001).
According to a framework of historical oppression,
resilience, and transcendence, the interaction, ac-
cumulation, interconnections, and balance of risk and
protective factors across multiple levels (that is, in-
dividual, family and relational, community and cultu-
ral, and societal) predict whether a person experiences
wellness (balance among the mind, body, soul, and
spirit) after experiencing the adversity of IPV, such as
the mental distress associated with IPV (see Figure 1).
This perspective is culturally congruent with in-
digenous people’s holistic view of interconnections
between physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual
health (Cross, 1998;West, Williams, Suzukovich,
Strangeman, & Novins, 2012) and has been proposed
as a framework for ethnic minorities (Marsiglia & Ku-
lis, 2015).
Figure 1: Risk and Protective Factors in
an Ecosystemic Framework of Historical
Oppression, Resilience, and
Transcendence
Note: The four dimensions of historical oppression and resilience and resistance from
an ecosystemic framework, which enables the examination of the interactions and
interconnections among risk and protective factors across individual, couple, familial,
cultural, community, and societal levels. Historical oppression can be thought of as a
societal-level risk factor that manifests itself across multiple levels. Resilience and tran-
scendence are viewed as a multidetermined and constantly changing result of people’s
interactions with the environment.
3Burnette and Figley / Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence
Consistent with Cross’s (1998) relational world-
view, the framework of historical oppression, re-
silience, and transcendence adopts an ecosystemic
perspective on indigenous-related resilience, which
emphasizes the interrelatedness and harmony of the
mind, body, context, and spiritual aspects of all
things. According to this framework, the interaction,
accumulation, interconnections, and balance of risk
and protective factors across multiple levels predict
whether a person experiences wellness after experie-
ncing IPV (see Figure 1). This perspective is culturally
congruent with indigenous peoples’holistic view of
interconnections between physical, mental, emo-
tional and spiritual health (Cross, 1998;West et al.,
2012).
Historical Oppression
The conceptualization of historical oppression is
derived from critical theory, which examines the
power dynamics that tend to impose and perpetuate
inequality and oppression (Guba & Lincoln, 2004;
Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005;Morrow & Brown,
1994). Although the work of Paulo Freire (2000)
originally focused on his experiences in Brazil, he
developed a useful perspective that can be applied to
today’sindigenouspeoples,becauseitfocuseson
how colonial and historical oppression becomes em-
bodied (that is, through internalized oppression) and
self-perpetuating (that is, through horizontal violence
and sub-oppression) (Burnette, 2015a,2015c).
Freire’s(2000) main assumption was that people
desire for humanization, or freedom, yet often ex-
perience violence, oppression, and dehumanization,
which is considered a limitation on freedom through
exploitation and injustice. Freire (2000) suggested
that mechanisms of dehumanization include (a) the
oppressor imposing choices and values through pre-
scription, the limiting the freedom of those with less
power; (b) efforts to dominate and exploit others,
which are intergenerationally transmitted; and (c) a
possessive consciousness, “possessive of the world
and of men and women”(p. 58).
Freire (2000) suggested that social problems
emerge after centuries of experiencing chronic op-
pression, when people may feel resigned and helpless
to effect change; this may lead people to be silenced,
mistrustful, and understandably insecure. Similarly,
when people are chronically and insidiously margin-
alized and feel that they lack the power to change
the restrictive situation, there is a tendency to strike
out at those of equal or less power (for example,
women and children) through horizontal violence
or to escape through substance use (Freire, 2000).
This can explain how and why recipients of oppres-
sion may oppress fellow group members. Freire
(2000)normalized sub-oppression as a common
component of the initial stage of liberation from
oppression, for there can be a certain adherence to
the oppressor due to the desire for their wealth and
status. Experiencing chronic oppression can also lead
to the internalization of the oppressor, with the reci-
pients of oppression inadvertently adopting the op-
pressor’s dehumanizing beliefs and behaviors.
Thus, those with less power may emulate the
oppressor in hopes of attaining power or preventing
backlash. For example, if men in indigenous com-
munities internalize the patriarchal, hegemonic, and
sexist gender norms introduced through coloniza-
tion, IPV will increase; indeed, as studies of men
across ethnicities demonstrate, such beliefs increase
risk for IPV (McDermott & Lopez, 2013;Tager,
Good, & Brammer, 2010). It follows that leaders
may become sub-oppressors, and oppressions may
be perpetuated across generations with minimal
external manipulation.
Resilience and Resistance
Nevertheless, humanization and transcendence are
not only possible, but are a historic reality (Freire,
2000). Dehumanization eventually leads to transcen-
dence in those who experience oppression but seek
liberation (Freire, 2000). To overcome oppression,
people must identify its causes and create a situation
with fuller humanity, without resorting to oppressive
tactics (Freire, 2000). This activity involves praxis,
reflection and critical dialogue about causes of dehu-
manization coupled with social action to change
these structural inequalities (Freire, 2000). Although
those with more power may join them in solidarity
in their fight for liberation, it is the job of those who
experience oppression to seek emancipation (Freire,
2000). Although Freire described liberation as a chal-
lenging process, he predicted decolonization through
expelling the oppressor’s mentality by replacing it
with responsibility, autonomy, and the strengths pre-
sent prior to colonization (Freire, 2000;Walters &
Simoni, 2009).
As Freire (2000) predicted, indigenous peoples
have not been merely passive recipients of his-
torical traumas, but rather have been resisting op-
pression and demonstrating “survivance”(a term
coined by Vizenor, 2008) and resilience throughout
4Social Work
history. Survivance includes the ingenuity indige-
nous peoples have continuously demonstrated des-
pite the adversity imposed by colonization, such as a
commitment to their homeland, strength of spirit,
and humor (Vizenor, 2008).
Centuries of historical oppression have seriously
constrained indigenous peoples, but the constraint
has also provided the opportunity to develop inge-
nious skills to resist and transcend oppression (Rob-
bins, Robbins, & Stennerson, 2013), sharpening
resilience (Cross, 1998). Resilience includes the ability
to positively adapt despite experiencing adversity
(Greene, 2009). Risk factors increase or worsen nega-
tive outcomes, whereas protective factors buffer against
problems (for example, IPV and health disparities)
and strengthen positive outcomes (Masten & Monn,
2015;Waller, 2001). Resilience can be assessed at
individual, familial, community, and cultural levels.
Resistance acknowledges the continuous efforts
made by indigenous peoples to respond to and
transcend historical oppression.
THE FRAMEWORK OF HISTORICAL OPPRESSION
AND RESILIENCE AND RESISTANCE AS APPLIED
TO VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS WOMEN
This section synthesizes research from a critical eth-
nography with 29 indigenous women who have
experienced violence and 20 professionals who
work with those who experience violence. Because
the scope of this article is explicating how results
apply to the framework of historical oppression,
resilience, and transcendence, the details of this
critical ethnography may be located within each
respective reference.
An ecosystemic framework of historical oppres-
sion, resilience, and transcendence examines the
risk and protective factors across societal, cultural,
community, partner, and individual levels. The
focus now turns to emergent risk and protective
factors, which are thought to give rise to IPV and
impair recovery from such violence.
Societal-Level Factors
When applied to violence against indigenous wo-
men, risk factors at the societal level have included
historical oppression, namely colonial tactics of dehu-
manization (Burnette, 2015d). Such tactics include
(a) cultural invasion (decades of warfare and cultural
disruption brought on through colonization); (b)
fragmenting indigenous communities against each
other and introducing adversarial gender roles to
replace indigenous complementary and egalitarian
gender roles; (c) replacing indigenous belief systems
about women with patriarchal and dehumanizing
beliefs; and (d) manipulation (that is, selecting leaders
to engage in sub-oppression by offering them greater
resources) (Burnette, 2015d). A clear history of his-
torical oppression impaired the respect and status of
indigenous women, giving rise to greater rates of IPV
(Burnette, 2015d). These tactics undermined but did
not eradicate the societal protective factors of spiritu-
ality, cooperation, unity, organization, and cultural
synthesis (that is, the capacity of culture for decoloni-
zation and liberation) still present in indigenous com-
munities at present (Burnette, 2015d).
Community and Cultural Factors
Historical oppression did not stop with initial colo-
nial efforts, but rather has persisted into contemporary
times. Forms of historical oppression are localized and
context specific. Contemporary experiences of op-
pression reported by this southeastern indigenous
sample included, for example, sharecropping, attend-
ing assimilative boarding schools, and insidious ex-
periences of discrimination, which led to losses in
the forms of cultural traditions and lives, through
early death (Burnette, 2015c). In fact, 60 percent of
indigenous women who experienced IPV had lost a
parent by the age of 18 (Burnette, 2015c). More-
over, cultural disruption continues to occur through
widespread exposure to mainstream media influ-
ences and the imposition of prescriptive (Freire,
2000) policies, prioritizing Western service structures
(Burnette, 2015c). In many ways, these service struc-
tures have clashed and competed with indigenous
worldviews, which are thought to be protective for
indigenous women (Burnette, 2015c).
Just as Freire (2000) proposed, experiences of
discrimination and historical oppression have led
community members to feel mistrustful of the gen-
eral population and its services, causing them to
remain silent about problems such as IPV (Bur-
nette, 2015c). This silence and mistrust may have
been an important survival and coping response to
dangerous experiences of violence, injustice, and
historical oppression over time (Burnette, 2015c).
However, when silence is generalized to families,
it may inadvertently enable family violence and
pose as a barrier to help seeking and recovery from
violence (Burnette, 2015c). Thus, coping mechan-
isms developed in response to historical oppres-
sion may have unintentional negative effects when
5Burnette and Figley / Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence
generalized to individuals, families, and communi-
ties, perpetuating the problems introduced by his-
torical oppression (for example, violence).
Weaver (2009) explained how dehumanizing be-
liefs about women have been internalized into in-
digenous communities, and, indeed, community
members have described how IPV has been normal-
ized (Burnette, 2015c;Burnette & Hefflinger,2016;
Freire, 2000;Weaver, 2009). These dehumanizing
values and beliefs about women, introduced by col-
onization and perpetuated in a patriarchal context,
made it difficult for women to leave violent re-
lationships (Burnette, 2015c). Community members
could blame women for being or remaining in
violence situations, and IPV relationships tended to
conform to the possessive ideology proposed by
Freire (2000) (also see Burnette, 2015c). Moreover,
during European settlement, colonial missionaries
imposed exclusive Christian patriarchal beliefs, which
have been found to be a disincentive for women to
leave violent relationships (Burnette & Hefflinger, in
press;Knickmeyer, Levitt, & Horne, 2010;Sharp,
2009); thus, the indigenous spiritual beliefs that held
women sacred were disrupted and impaired, as was
thesocialfabricthatkeptthemsafe.
Moreover, just as Freire (2000) exposed the colonial
tactic of dividing the unity of communities, indigenous
community members have commented on divisions
within the community along age, income, and educa-
tional lines (Burnette & Hefflinger,2016). Related to
sub-oppression, many communities perceive inequal-
ity, which has disrupted the social and community
support needed to overcoming IPV (Burnette & Hef-
flinger,2016). Other barriers to effective community
services for IPV include complexities related to dual
relationships, challenges related to confidentiality in
tight-knit communities, a lack of accountability, im-
punity for perpetrators, delayed responses, and incon-
sistent service responses (Burnette, 2015b).
Despite these cultural and community risk factors
related to historical oppression, ample protective
factors were also evident in the forms of encultura-
tion (that is, learning about and identifying with
indigenous culture) related to spirituality, language,
traditions, cultural practices, and celebrations, which
could connect indigenous women with protective
indigenous values (Burnette, 2016a). Likewise the
presence of tribally run services for IPV were prom-
ising community protective factors that many indig-
enous communities do not enjoy.
Family-Level Factors
The protective factor of enculturation was primarily
transmitted through one of the most promising pro-
tective factors related to violence against indigenous
women: families (Burnette, 2016a). Given afore-
mentioned challenges with formal services, indige-
nous women tend to rely on informal support
systems, which is primarily comprised of family and
extended family, which tend to be tight-knit, sup-
portive, and affirming and provide the wisdom of
elders and role models (Burnette, 2016a). These fac-
tors tend to protect women against the effects of
IPV and enable them to leave violent relationships
earlier. On the other end of this continuum, families
with poor communication, parental substance abuse,
mental health challenges, impaired parent–child
bonds, absent parents, and families exhibiting in-
tergenerational patterns of these impairments could
pose risk factors for women who experienced IPV
(Burnette, 2016b). Indeed, just as division was a
prominent colonial tactic appearing at societal and
community levels, family division also charac-
terizes such families (Burnette, 2016b).
Relational and Individual Factors
At the couple or relational level, having a supportive
partner post-abuse was protective (Burnette & Hef-
flinger, in press), whereas emotionally and physically
violent partners who demonstrated dehumanizing tac-
tics, such as dominating, manipulating, using threats,
using children, being controlling, following rigid patri-
archal gender roles, using substances, and demons-
trating jealousy and insecurity were relational risk
factors (Burnette, 2015a). The latter factors paralleled
Freire’s(2000) assumptions of insecurity being a result
of historical oppression along with the dehumanizing
tactics present in colonization, such as domination,
manipulation, conquest, and division (Burnette,
2015a).
Finally, at the individual level, experiencing
child maltreatment, adverse childhood experiences,
and teenage pregnancy were emergent risk factors
(Burnette & Renner, 2016), whereas women dem-
onstrated strongly protective traits to cope with and
overcome violence, such as (a) being educationally
oriented; (b) demonstrating affirming talents, abili-
ties, self-sufficiency, and inner strength; (c) coping
by helping others and expressing emotions; and (d)
having faith, optimism, and resilience perspectives,
such as learning and seeing growth from adversity
6Social Work
(Burnette & Hefflinger, in press). Interestingly, colo-
nial dehumanizing tactics not only had emerged at
the societal levels, but as Weaver (2009) predicted,
had been internalized at the community, family, and
couple levels as well.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS, APPLICATIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK
As indicated, emergent risk and protective factors,
which occur along a continuum, have been identi-
fied related to violence against indigenous women,
and themes related to historical oppression, resilience,
and transcendence were apparent across societal,
community, cultural, familial,partner,andindividual
levels. Although not all indigenous populations expe-
rienced the same forms of historical oppression, the
majority have experienced oppression and related
losses, giving rise to greater social problems. How-
ever, resilience and liberating efforts can easily be
located and built on. Educators, researchers, and pra-
ctitioners can use such a framework—in whole or in
part—to situate social problems in a historical context
and locate culturally specificriskandprotectivefac-
tors at the societal, community, family, partner, and
individual levels to build on strengths and develop
culturally relevant interventions. This framework can
serve as a tool to take a holistic account of problems
within their historical context and address risk factors
across multiple levels.
Although this framework was applied to vio-
lence against indigenous women, a promising area
for future research would be to apply this frame-
work to other social problems, such as health dis-
parities experienced by indigenous populations
and populations experiencing historical oppression
based on other dimensions of diversity. Because
the framework includes an examination and incor-
poration of strengths and resilience, pathways to
liberation and recovery are integrated. Finally,
other theoretical frameworks, such as historical
trauma, social learning theory, and life course the-
ory, among others, can easily supplement and be
used in conjunction with this framework. The
framework suggests that building resilience in the
face of historical oppression and making incremen-
tal improvements leads to wellness. The byproduct
of increasing resilience in response to historical
oppression is realizing humankind’s historical
“vocation”of becoming more fully human (Freire,
2000).
SW
REFERENCES
Barney, D. D. (2001). Risk and protective factors for
depression and health outcomes in American Indian
and Alaska Native adolescents. Wicazo Sa Review,
16(1), 135–150.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G.,
Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Cen-
ter for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Brave Heart, M.Y.H., & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). The
American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unre-
solved grief. American Indian & Alaska Native Research,
8(2), 60–82.
Brownridge, D. A. (2008). Understanding the elevated risk
of partner violence against Aboriginal women: A com-
parison of two nationally representative surveys of
Canada. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 353–367.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2016). What we do. Retrieved
from http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm
Burnette, C. E. (2015a). Disentangling indigenous women’s
experiences with intimate partner violence in the
United States. Critical Social Work, 16(1), 1–20.
Retrieved from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsoc
ialwork/DisentanglingIndigenousWomenExperiences
Burnette, C. E. (2015b). From the ground up: Indigenous
women’s after violence experiences with the formal ser-
vice system in the United States. British Journal of Social
Work, 45,1526–1545. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu013
Burnette, C. E. (2015c). Historical oppression and intimate
partner violence experienced by indigenous women
in the U.S.: Understanding connections. Social Services
Review, 89, 531–563. doi:10.1086/683336
Burnette, C. E. (2015d). Indigenous women’s resilience and
resistance to historical oppression: A case example
from the United States. Affilia, 30, 235–243.
doi:0886109914555215
Burnette, C. E. (2016a). Family and cultural protective factors as
the bedrock of resilience for indigenous women who have expe-
rienced violence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Burnette, C. E. (2016b). Historical oppression and indige-
nous families: Uncovering potential risk factors for
Indigenous families touched by violence. Family Rela-
tions, 65, 354–368. doi:10.1111/fare.12191
Burnette, C. E., & Hefflinger, T. (in press). Voices of resil-
ience: Protective factors among Indigenous women
who experience violence. Journal of Baccalaureate Social
Work.
Burnette, C. E., & Hefflinger, T. S. (2016). Identifying histor-
ical and community risk factors for violence against indigenous
women using a framework of historical oppression. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Burnette, C. E., & Renner, L. (2016). A pattern of cumula-
tive disadvantage: Risk factors for violence across
indigenous women’s lives. British Journal of Social Work.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/bjsw/
bcw075
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC
health disparities and inequalities report—United
States, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 62
(Suppl. 3), 1–187.
Cross, T. L. (1998). Understanding family resiliency from a
relational worldview. In H. McCubbin, E. A.
Thompson,A.I.Thompson,&J.E.Fromer(Eds.),
Resiliency in Native American and immigrant families
(pp. 143–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Duran, E., Duran, B., Brave Heart, M.Y.H., & Yellow
Horse-Davis, S. (1998). Healing the American Indian
soul wound. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook
7Burnette and Figley / Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence
of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341–354).
New York: Plenum Press.
Evans-Campbell, T. (2008). Historical trauma in American
Indian/Native Alaska communities. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 23, 316–338.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary
ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gone, J. P. (2013). Reconsidering American Indian histori-
cal trauma: Lessons from an early Gros Ventre war nar-
rative. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51, 387–406.
doi:1363461513489722
Greene, R. R. (2009). Risk and resilience theory: A social
work perspective. In R. R. Greene (Ed.), Human be-
havior theory & social work practice (3rd ed., pp. 315–434).
Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms
in qualitative research, theories and issues. In S. N.
Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative
research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 17–38).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Harper, S. S., & Entrekin, C. M. (2006). Violence against
Native women: A guide for practitioner action (Grant No.
96-VF-GX-K005). Washington, DC: Office on Vio-
lence Against Women and the National Center on
Full Faith and Credit.
Jones, D. S. (2006). The persistence of American Indian
health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 96,
2122–2134. doi:AJPH.2004.054262
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (2005). Rethinking critical
theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research
(3rd ed., pp. 303–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kirmayer, L. J., Gone, J. P., & Moses, J. (2014). Rethinking
historical trauma. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51, 299–319.
doi:10.1177/1363461514536358
Knickmeyer,N.,Levitt,H.,&Horne,S.G.(2010).Puttingon
Sunday best: The silencing of battered women within
Christian faith communities. Feminism & Psychology,
20(1), 94–113. doi:10.1177/0959353509347470
Marsiglia, F. F., & Kulis, S. S. (2015). Diversity, oppression,
and change: Culturally grounded social work (2nd ed.).
Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Masten, A. S., & Monn, A. R. (2015). Child and family
resilience: A call for integrated science, practice, and
professional training. Family Relations, 64(1), 5–21.
McDermott, R. C., & Lopez, F. G. (2013). College men’s
intimate partner violence attitudes: Contributions of
adult attachment and gender role stress. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 127–136.
Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and
methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). Federal
and state recognized tribes. Retrieved from http://www.
ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-
and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx
Robbins, R., Robbins, S., & Stennerson, B. (2013). Native
American family resilience. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.),
Handbook of family resilience (pp. 197–227). New York:
Springer.
Sharp, S. (2009). Escaping symbolic entrapment, maintain-
ing social identities. Social Problems, 56, 267–284.
doi:10.1525/sp.2009.56.2.267
Tager, D., Good, G. E., & Brammer, S. (2010). “Walking
over ’em”: An exploration of relations between emo-
tion dysregulation, masculine norms, and intimate
partner abuse in a clinical sample of men. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 11, 233–239.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Indian is-
sues, federal funding for non-federally recognized tribes
(Report to Honorable Dan Boren, House of
Representatives No. GAO-12-348). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Vizenor, G. (2008). Survivance: Narratives of native presence.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Waller, M. A. (2001). Resilience in ecosystemic context:
Evolution of the concept. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 71,290–297. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.290
Walters, K. L., Mohammed, S. A., Evans-Campbell, T.,
Beltrán, R. E., Chae, D. H., & Duran, B. (2011). Bod-
ies don’t just tell stories, they tell histories. Du Bois
Review: Social Science Research on Race, 8(1), 179–189.
Walters, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (2009). Decolonizing stra-
tegies for mentoring American Indians and Alaska
Natives in HIV and mental health research. American
Journal of Public Health, 99(1), S71.
Weaver, H. N. (2009). The colonial context of violence:
Reflections on violence in the lives of Native Ameri-
can women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24,
1552–1563.
West, A., 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, 441–453. doi:10
.1007/s10464-011-9474-6
Whitbeck, L. B., Adams, G. W., Hoyt, D. R., & Chen, X.
(2004). Conceptualizing and measuring historical
trauma among American Indian people. American Jour-
nal of Community Psychology, 33(3–4), 119–130.
Catherine Elizabeth Burnette, PhD, LMSW, is assistant
professor, School of Social Work and Charles R. Figley,PhD,
is associate dean for research, professor, and director, Tulane Trau-
matology Institute; Tulane University, New Orleans. Address
correspondence to Catherine Elizabeth Burnette, School of Social
Work, Tulane University, 127 Elk Place #8906, New Orleans,
LA 70112-2699; e-mail: cburnet3@tulane.edu.
Original manuscript received October 21, 2015
Final revision received February 5, 2016
Editorial decision February 22, 2016
Accepted March 11, 2016
8Social Work
