Father's Day...

Father’s Day is often a muted celebration in African American communities because of the intersectionality of public policy, law and economics with race in the black community. The ideological family is often rendered dysfunctional because of the prevailing hegemonic definition of family that often does not include the overarching theme of racism that colors black families. Black families are punished for their existence outside of the ideological boundaries instituted by whites in a variety of ways such as, economic sanction that often punishes alliances outside of the perceived norm, legal sanctions that create the absence of one or more parents, and government inquiry that question parents ability to provide stability, rather than addressing social constructs that create disparities in families. As a result Father’s Day is often painful for black fathers who have been historically unable to overcome institutionalized slavery and live up to the expectations of whites ignorant to their own privilege, and for their children often left behind internalizing their father’s absence as their fault.
Of course President Obama’s constant attacks on black men grappling with fatherhood and racism don’t help the situation. Rather than confront the reasons some black men are unable to engage in their children’s lives he seeks to follow the hegemonic ideology illustrated by Patricia Hill “It’s All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race and Nation”, She writes, “For example, racial ideologies that portray people of color as intellectually underdeveloped, uncivilized children require parallel ideas that construct Whites as intellectually mature, civilized adults.” (Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p. 353) Obama seems to believe that black men lack the maturity and intelligence to realize they need to be part of their children’s lives, and refuses to address many factors which drive fathers away from home who often long to be a part of their children’s lives. Many of his comments resemble a natural law language that would lend to the idea that black men need to be told how to do something that is normal for civilized people.
It is difficult to understand his inability to address these issues even though his perfectly organized family unit was attacked simply because of his mother-in-law’s invitation to join the family in the White House. The socially normal family unit described by Collins, consists of a husband, wife, and children who all subscribe to assigned gender roles and whose economic survival is solely determined by the man. (Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p 352) The introduction of a mother-in-law in Obama’s case was met with marked criticism including a reference of the mother-in-law and the family pet in equal positions. While Obama readily defended his mother-in-law he has not been so ready to defend black men.
The earliest social welfare structures of the 60’s based on the family structure of privilege whites was superimposed on families of color in a way to explain their inability to care for themselves without state sponsored aid. Families were sanctioned when a man lived in the home as men are supposed to “support and defend” the home (Rosenblum & Tate, 2008, p. 355) These models didn’t take into account the affect of racism on wages and the ability for men to take care of their families. Additionally, some of the welfare policies are similar to Alfred Stone Holt’s Plantation Experiment, in that men who did not work according to Holt’s internalized beliefs were barred from the plantation and their families. In order to get the benefits offered by states in aiding the poor the men of the family were often hidden and volumes written about their absence detail including describing their absence apparent lack of as defect particular to them. It becomes evident that black men have internalized that they are of little value to their families if they are unable to provide economic support. Negative eugenic efforts are developed to keep targeted populations from increasing as explained by Collins, reinforces the promotion of the stereotypical ideal family by imposing the idea that babies born outside of wedlock, to poor people are less valuable to society. When people don’t successfully navigate white ideals they are punished for having children through policy. Black children then become punishment rather than family.
Social welfare programs also played other important roles in the institutionalization of racism. Another notable way is the passing of laws to compel absent parents to provide support rely on the belief that not providing support is a characteristic of the uncivilized and applied across the board and rarely examine the prevalence of racism, disability or other factors in relation to child support. They provide a standard formula of assessing support and a man who is unable to meet the assigned allotment is imprisoned (further putting him in arrears) and decreasing opportunities for gainful employment by adding to his criminal record. The Universal Child Support system does not take into account the fact that black men are often the last hired, the first fired, and the least paid. In addition men separated from the mother of their children often don’t make enough money on low wage paying jobs to take care of their own basic needs, this reality is incorrectly attributed as a man not working hard enough even though lower wages are noted for the most strenuous labor. Men who would make more effort to be in their children’s lives are often forced to interact minimally, because of the fear of damaging current relationships and imprisonment. Once again public policy and laws that hold the white family structure as “right” have served to disenfranchise black men and are a cause from black male absence from the family not his inability or desire to do so.
Collins also states that the family unit is legitimized by marriage, which is simply a state sanctioned family structure rather than a biological core. (Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p.352) The only way to be considered married is by signing a contract by legal witnesses. Previously marriage was simply a ritual to alert the community of a change in relationship. White privilege even asserts the bible as defense of the white model of family even though the bible has several illustrations that oppose the U.S. view of marriage. Social Darwinism, the belief that modern people are an evolution or improvement of ancient societies(Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p. 343) maintains the rituals of ancient societies are primitive expressions and the family is not legitimated until the contemporary is position is adopted. Black families created outside the bonds of marriage are automatically considered a result of defective moral fortitude. In an effort to escape the perception of abnormality blacks inclined to remain life partners often damage family bonds by demanding legitimization. In one corner we have sisters demanding to be legitimized because marriage creates normalcy. In the opposite corner, brothers are in opposition instilled with a belief that legitimization should only occur with a woman who fits the stereotypical role often defined by white male privilege. In the middle, women who don’t fit the gender role associated with women which include, avoiding dangerous places like public streets, remain in the home and not pursue outside interests and activities is often disadvantaged. (Rosenblum & Tate, 2008, p. 355) And men who have internalized that their families are better off without them because of their inability to meet the demands of white privilege. As a result the difference that difference makes is few fathers in the home.
Laws in relation to the support of children are but a tip of the iceberg in navigating the intimation of the meaning of difference in the black experience. A plethora of laws designed to keep blacks and other minorities in check after slavery ended was unleashed on the people of the United States. In an essay explaining white privilege entitled, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, author Peggy McIntosh describes white privilege as, “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.”(Rosenblum & Tate,2008, 368). Whites don’t regard laws as being enacted to institutionalize racism and they feel that if they need help with legal matters their race won’t work against them. (Rosenblum & Tate, 2008, p. 370) From this standpoint it is difficult to see law as anymore than a way to keep the peace but historically and currently the law has served as a way to control how and where blacks exist and to what degree whites interact with them.
Several measures of the Supreme Court served to preserve the premise of social Darwinism among the races. The 13th amendment provides that the only way someone can be compelled to work without being paid is if he is being punished. (Rosenblum & Tate, 2008, p. 385) The constitution did not address the natural language used to state that blacks were predestined to maintain occupations of servitude it simply said you have to give them something for their labor. This established a need to develop ways to punish people in order maintain unpaid labor. The Dred Scott decision in particular shows how codes can be used to support racist policies. Dred Scott was denied U.S. citizenship because of his race this fact is undeniable, however clever judges disguised their racial bias by making the argument of states’ rights in the opinion. It concluded that just because he was a resident/citizen of a particular state “does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States “(Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p. 384), the codebook of law seems to be a prevailing theme in which racism can be exercised under the guise of colorblind justice even though this most racist institution is another cause for black men being absent. The war on drugs is also disguised in this code when it is simply another way to punish.
Jim Crow laws were enacted “to ensure that all blacks were restricted to a subordinate status, southern states systematically enacted “Jim Crow” laws, rigidly segregating society into black and white communities.”(Rosenblum & Travis, 2008, p 388) Vagrancy laws among others kept blacks from demanding fair compensation for their labor. Simply standing while black was punishable with jail time until a boss would come and hire you at a wage he determined. So it is not hard to correlate the earliest drug laws were clearly defined by race and subsequent ones formed through the use of racist propaganda. The first drug law, a ban of the use of opiates in public was instituted that was based in the belief that white women were too weak to keep from being beguiled by Chinese men. Subsequently, the Harrison Act which made cocaine illegal to obtain without a Dr. appears to be more of a way to keep uninsured poor people, often black from getting or selling cocaine rather than concern for public health and safety. The premise emerges that women and minorities are absent the maturity to regulate drug use and those decisions are better made by white men/doctors. Here we can see how a racial ideology forms laws and public policy. In fact, in order to keep slaves working harder and longer they were given cocaine to increase productivity, there are no reports of increased violence either. The fear of cocaine use among blacks only occurred after blacks were in control of their own labor/lives.
Drug dealing, becomes a form of Black Nationalist response to racism in employment. The war on drugs is a coded way to obtain labor from punished inmates. Drug dealing ensnared some of the original Black Panthers who tried to subsidize the black power movement through drug proceeds. The C.I.A similarly subsidized the Iranian civil war by selling cocaine to street dealers and starting the crack epidemic. It is nationally accepted that drug dealers (code for black men) are the dregs of society and deserve to be imprisoned. They are viewed as uncivilized and lazy lacking the moral fortitude to go out and get a job like everybody else. In contrast, little punishment is conferred on pharmaceutical companies that kill thousands of people by selling poorly tested substances sold through misleading advertisements. Many black men turn to drug dealing in order to take care of families and achieve social status. Most notably would be rappers like T.I. and Young Jeezy who sold drugs in order to make enough money to get studio time and launch lucrative entertainment careers. Drug dealers, especially crack dealers were accused of poisoning their own people with drugs although 52% of crack users are white.
While drug dealing is not a particularly black enterprise, the allure of quick money in large quantities is definitely of interest to men running out of options. As a result crack dealers who are 87% black receive 100:1 mandatory minimum sentences which are provided for by the U.S. code. Their counterparts who simply sell the cocaine and fly it in from other countries are not likely to be detected and not as harshly dealt with. If a man can’t get a job at a living wage, and can’t see his children or stay out of jail unless he has money what do you expect for him to do? So another reason black father’s are sometimes missing is because black men are spending life sentences for dealing around 25lbs of cocaine in order to make up for the lack of government response in racist employment and social welfare practices. Rarely do crimes against women and children trigger sentences of over 10 to fifteen years however, being caught dealing the equivalent of 25lbs of sugar in the form of crack cocaine triggers a life sentence. The white co-conspirator who imports and sells the cocaine wholesale and the illegal substance in crack would have to be convicted of selling 2500 lbs in order to get a life sentence.
Collins prescribes at the end of her essay, “Instead of engaging in endless criticism, reclaiming the language of family for democratic ends and transforming the very conception of family itself might provide a more useful approach. (Rosenblum & Tate, 2008, 359) Rather than celebrating Father’s in the traditional sense as so many institutions will this Sunday perhaps celebrating the achievements of black men regardless of their biological ties would be more appropriate, including redefining their absence as institutionally regulated rather than an absence of love and caring for their children. These celebrations should include allowing people to grieve for the father that never had a chance under these circumstances, and releasing the heartache associated through ceremony and ritual. The conclusion of these celebrations should include steps to become active advocates through contacting legislators, sharing their stories, and correcting the misconception of black male family involvement anywhere it is heard. Even if Obama says it!