On Solidarity...
I first started thinking deeply about solidarity in the early discussions that led to the formation of the upEND Movement. In those early brainstorming sessions, we knew that the movement to abolish the child welfare system must focus on the tremendous harm that this system has caused Black children and families. Since the earliest origins of this system, Black children and families have been disproportionately surveilled, punished, and separated to the point where today, more than half of all Black children in the United States will be subjected to a “child protection” investigation by the time they turn 18 and nearly one out of every 10 Black children will be forcibly separated from their parents at some point in their lives. However, throughout its history, the system has also disproportionately harmed other historically oppressed groups, specifically Indigenous and Latinx children and families, and we did not want to ignore this. Yet we knew that the harm caused to Black children and families must be at the center of this work because of the magnitude of harm that has been inflicted for decades.
Shortly after the upEND Movement launched in June 2020, we were invited to write a paper about the abolition movement for the Journal of Public Child Welfare. After giving this much thought, we wrote the following to explain why our focus throughout the paper would be on the harms the system has caused to Black children and families:
Racial disproportionality has also been observed among Native American and Latinx children, although to a lesser degree and with variations by state. Native American children are overrepresented at the national level, representing approximately 2% of children in foster care although they represent only 1% of the general child population. Latinx children are underrepresented at the national level, although overrepresentation exists in certain states. The body of research on disproportionality, as well as debates concerning the appropriate response, has focused primarily on Black children. As a result, this article addresses racial disproportionality and disparities impacting Black children and families. However, efforts to abolish the child welfare system with Black children and families at the center of this work also involves ending the oppression that harms Native American and Latinx children & families.
It was this last sentence, written by Maya Pendleton, one of the co-founders of upEND, that crystallized for me what solidarity meant. Our work would be led with Black children and families at the center of this work as they have been most significantly harmed by this system, but by working toward the liberation of Black children and families, we would also inherently be working for the liberation of all those who are oppressed by this system. Efforts to bring about a just society, although they may focus on a specific population because of the specific harm that has been caused, will always work toward bringing about a just society for all.
This issue was raised again after publishing my book, Confronting the Racist Legacy of the American Child Welfare System: The Case for Abolition. In this book, I present the case for abolition by tracing the history of family separations in the United States to the era of chattel slavery and then documenting how the practice of family separations has evolved over time but ultimately are carried out by the state for the same purpose today - to maintain the subjugation and oppression of Black Americans. Since the book was published, I’ve been asked many times why I chose to focus on Black Americans, particularly since I am not Black myself. Because of the early conversations that went into the development of upEND, I have always known the answer. Although I don’t know that I’ve always used the concept of solidarity to describe this, I’ve always stated that my book and the focus of all the work I do will always center Black Americans because they are the population that has been most harmed by this system, both historically and in the present. I’ve explained that as a gay, Mexican-American man, I could choose to write a book about the harms the system causes to LGBTQ+ children and families, or Latinx children and families, and then also claim a personal identity connection to these groups, but I would never do this because that would de-center those who have been most harmed. While I would not fault someone for writing those books, in my own work, I will always maintain a focus on those who have been most impacted by this system.
For me, this is what solidarity is about. There does not need to be a personal identity connection with a population who is being oppressed to understand that their oppression is wrong. We do not need to share a race, a gender, or any other identity with people who are being harmed to understand that ending this harm must take priority, particularly when the harm being inflicted on one population vastly outweighs the harm being inflicted on those with whom we might share an identity. In these situations, our personal identities are not relevant to the work that must be done.
This idea has rung true for me throughout the last several weeks as we’ve been reading Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World Changing Idea. I hope you’re enjoying reading along with us. I hope you’ll also be able to join us via zoom for our monthly discussion. This month, we’ll meet on the last Wednesday, July 31st at 6:00 PM ET and we’ll be together until 7:00 PM ET. You can register to join us here:
Until then, in solidarity always,
Alan & connease