作为美国孩子的分离

The United States tears families apart—during slavery, in the wars against indigenous people and the war on drugs, and, today, at the border.

一世N 2018年6月,我在波士顿的金色马萨诸塞州州屋前参加了抗议活动。它是特朗普政府的儿童分离政策的毛脚的高度,言语如此平坦的声音,他们甚至无法接近发生的事情。betway体育提现自2018年4月以来,政府雇用了“零容忍”政策,强行将孩子们从父母中脱离,以防美国墨西哥边境的迁移。大多数家庭都是中美洲 - 来自洪都拉斯,危地马拉或萨尔瓦多。他们在家里逃离了这样的混乱,痛苦,没有什么能阻止他们。但这并没有阻止美国政府带孩子。

尽管对边境的安装恐怖有数量的沉闷反应,但儿童抢夺了一个神经。在美国普遍抗议,经常用迹象表达,或演讲,对“这不是美国”的影响,或者,“这是邪恶的。”希拉里克林顿推文,“除了撕裂家庭,没有任何美国人。”

At the Boston protest, a Black woman, with a commanding air, stepped to the microphone with a different view. “This is not a new story,” she said. “We have a long legacy of children of color being ripped from their parents. At the auction block, at Native American reservations, because of the war on drugs, and now because of what’s happening at our borders.”

我刚搬回波士顿。我问了另一个抗议者,“她是谁?”这是Ayanna Pressley,然后是大型城市议员,现在在美国代表的大家议长。

Pressley gave as succinct as possible a summary, two years in advance, of the argument of Laura Briggs’s new book,带孩子:美国恐怖的历史。要打电话给书“及时”是轻描淡写的。Briggs追溯了一个非常美国人练习的历史,将孩子分开了他们的父母 - 大多数贫穷和父母的颜色。Briggs增加了美国外交政策,以支持拉丁美洲的军事制度的支持形式,强行分开和“消失”的儿童。但是,否则,Pressley的名单击中了严峻的亮点。

With Trump out of office, will people’s attention turn away from the border again? If so, how will separating children from their parents continue, under what legal guise?

一世s “taking children” too broad a category for understanding such different phenomena as Native American children kidnapped and sent to boarding school and Black children separated from their enslaved parents? Briggs does risk flattening out her argument, by gathering many kinds of historical patterns under the category “child taking.” But the synthetic view has its merit. As评论家芬坦•奥图尔最近写道在不同的背景下:“看到历史 - 至少人们的战争历史就是看到它不是作为线性过程,而是作为一系列可怕的重复:人类肉体在有组织暴力的剧集中会发生什么而且到处都是一样的。“对于“战争”,在“种族主义暴力”或“种族灭绝”中交换。一旦你在看着人民,你不仅看到了屠宰和强奸,而是在一个可怕的循环中拍摄的孩子们一遍又一遍地。随着Briggs的注意事项,自1948年关于预防和惩罚种族灭绝犯罪的公约,带孩子被认为是犯罪的一组成部分。1948年种族灭绝定义的最着名的部分是“杀害本集团成员”。但是,五点定义的最后一个鲜为人知的一部分是“强行将小组的子女转移到另一个群体”。“

Briggs describes the US, along with other democracies in Europe, as toggling between a racial nationalist set of politics and an uneasy liberalism. It is this back and forth, push and pull, that creates different varieties and patterns of child taking—some meant to be hidden, secret, others intended as a sickening, punitive, public spectacle. All child taking is not the same, but it is part of a recognizable historical pattern.

那个副标题,“美国恐怖的历史”?当然,这不是一个独特的美国人的恐怖形式,即使Briggs使用这个术语也不只是意味着不仅仅是美国而是拉丁美洲。一个强大的一章,在她早期的工作中绘制有人的孩子:跨世界和跨国收养的政治,shows how the US government turned a blind eye to, if not actively encouraged, the theft of Latin American children by military dictatorships during dirty wars in the Southern Cone and Central America, from the 1970s through the 1990s. These children resurfaced in the tens of thousands, stripped of their histories—and, in the case of Guatemala, in many cases of their Indigenous identities—as adoptees either in-country or abroad. Briggs’s point is not that taking children is unique to America but that it is not un-American in any way.

Browse

永无止境的边境?

通过卡尔雅各布

大型儿童抢夺早期开始了美国的故事。除了其他形式的奴隶制(在古希腊或罗马,奴役的战俘)或未自由劳动(契约奴役,亚洲工人标记为“Coolies”)之外的争夺奴隶制的是什么?它是遗传性的。根据定义,如果您作为财产,您的孩子也是财产。他们可以从你那里拿走并随时随地卖掉任何地方。

Taking children, like sexual violence, could be a form of both terror and profit. It was a threat as well as an actual practice. The threat was meant to deter rebellion, or other “bad behavior.”

当然,被奴役的家庭,特别是母亲,为他们的孩子而战,因为边境的中美洲家庭现在所做的。Sojourner真相,在她自由之后,在一个女权国会讲道:“我已经拥有13个孩子,看到大多数人都被卖给了奴隶,而当我和母亲的悲伤一起哭泣,耶稣听到了。”真理们在努力让她的孩子们回来,是纽约的第一个成功起诉前所有者的黑人女性。根据Briggs的说法,她迫使他尊重一个让她的孩子的承诺,即使在他被卖给阿拉巴马州之后也是如此。

布里格斯了on studies of the family lives of enslaved people, slave autobiographies, and abolitionist literature to remind us that families mourning stolen children suffered one of slavery’s foundational traumas. As Briggs points out, an important recent book on slavery—in which the author seeks to retrace “the process by which lives were destroyed and slaves were born”—is titledLose Your Mother。[六达哈特曼,失去母亲:沿着大西洋奴隶路程的旅程(Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2007),p。6.]]]


Briggs的章节“夺取黑人儿童”和“针对颜色家庭定罪”,通过现在一路走来。对美国历史迅速之旅的一个重要暂停使我们能够占据美国福利计划的股票,即英国人写道,“自1909年母亲养老金开始以来一直是一个政治足球。”

这种福利计划是我们获得“适合”母亲的语言的地方:那些被国家所认为的人应得的孩子,并给予顽皮的支持。直到20世纪60年代,有透明的种族主义努力让黑人母亲福利劳动 - 他们的孩子据说是非法的;福利会抑制工作。在60年代之后,种族主义以不同的方式编码:假设的福利王位,现在被揭穿的道德恐慌在“破解婴儿”中作为对药物的战争加热的战争。这项被批准的种族主义将黑人流量升级为寄养。孩子们经常“被删除”在黑母亲的剧烈反对中,并由社会工作者毫无疑问地采取贫困。

The logic is circular. The government wouldn’t (and won’t) help alleviate poverty through meaningful welfare. In consequence, mothers—especially, nonwhite mothers—were “unfit,” their children taken. And let’s not forget the largest separation scheme in contemporary US life: mass incarceration. Briggs writes that in the 1980s, “80 percent of Black women who were incarcerated … had children living with them at the time of their arrest.”

Taking children is a crime of long standing in America. It is not a recent mutation, a freak accident on which we can easily turn the page.

The US government began systematically separating Native American children from their families in the 1870s. Native children were sent to boarding schools where the mission was to “kill the Indian to save the man,” as the founder of one school infamously put it in 1892. School administrators cut the long hair of children, forbidding them to speak their languages, or visit their parents, which might impede assimilation.

到20世纪20年代,超过80%的学龄儿童寄宿学校。1930年,在纳瓦霍(Diné)预订中的一个见证人写道,“孩子们被抓住,经常像牛一样绳索,从父母带走,很多次永远不会回归。”

学者和活动家仍然揭示了这些寄宿学校猖獗的暴力,包括性虐待,这只是在20世纪70年代看到大规模停机。到那时,未经同意,原住民的孩子经常被从家庭中获取。再次,这是“适合母亲”论证,由非本土“当局”制作,他们不承认涉及大家庭的儿童保育实践。

美洲原住民如此常常在福斯特或采用系统中最终成为当地活动家成功地大厅,以防止他们的社区的孩子被带走。1978年通过的印度儿童福利法案(ICWA)限制了从他们的社区中删除了美国美洲土着儿童,以促进培​​养和采用,并为儿童监管程序提供了一个强大的声音。

The ICWA—and, by extension, tribal sovereignty—is still frequently challenged in US courts. Meanwhile, the “plenary power doctrine” used to defend boarding schools—as Briggs explains, quoting法律学者Maggie Blackhawk- 将他们的直接法律前体带到当今拘留营地,目前举行移民和难民母亲和儿童。


就像她之前的书一样,所有政治如何成为生殖政治:从福利改革到赎回特朗普,Briggs有时似乎突然造成了她所承担的历史综合。你怎么能看到它?一世n the introduction toTaking Children她写道,她即将叙述的事件“并不完全模糊”。只有美国卓越主义的叙述使得一些人难以联系起来,以anyanna压力在波士顿抗议所做的那样,将这些模式命名为坦率。

这本书不是一个不懈挖掘过去的and present misery. Briggs takes care to highlight organizing strategies and social movements that have been partially or fully successful in slapping back the various tentacles of child taking. These include organizing, from abolitionist movements before the Civil War to mid-century Native American activism to keep and raise their children in the way they saw fit, to the sanctuary movement protecting asylum-seeking families in churches in the 1980s. She ends with a sobering caution. Changing presidents won’t be enough to ensure a discontinuation of the practice that is so deeply engrained in American politics and life. The Trump policy of “child separation” for the sake of zero tolerance is officially discontinued, but it continues in another guise. Now, children are separated from their asylum-seeking parents for “neglect,” which, according to immigrants’-rights activists, can be as minor as failing to change a diaper promptly.

有些人认为,与孩子迁移的行为 - 与之带来的所有危险 - 意味着寻求庇护者不“适合”父母。他们不会停止思考或阅读,关于必须在父母的脚跟被迫做出这种选择的东西。世界各地的父母都是一样的:虐待悲惨的例外,他们不会故意危及孩子。

特朗普喜欢撒谎是谁开始在边境的儿童分离。去年,在NBC的采访中Meet the Press,特朗普说,他“继承了奥巴马总统的分离”,他,特朗普,“是那个结束的人。”在采访和竞选集会期间,他发挥了这种谎言的变化。但它不是相同的政策。

Browse

移民危机档案

ByCésarCuauhtémocGarcíaHernández

The Obama administration separated children from parents due to “neglect” at the border, sometimes under dubious circumstances. But there was no systematic policy of taking children to deter migration. Without excusing either policy, or forgetting Obama’s earned moniker as “Deporter-in-Chief,” it is important to remember the distinction between what happened under Obama and outright separation as policy, which only began under Trump. But Briggs’s book makes me wonder: With Trump out of office, will people’s attention turn away from the border again? If so, how will separating children from their parents continue, under what legal guise?

“我们闹鬼,”Briggs写道,“我们的集体无法想到那些失去儿童的人抚养孩子,以抚养给他们的孩子们认为应该得到认真对待的孩子。”在阅读书之后,我会添加,我们通过我们的集体无能,在儿童分离后困扰,以某种方式避免重新安排案件的事实。重新排列,即更舒服地反映我们希望拥有美国的观点:我们不这样做。所以,它必须以某种方式成为母亲的错。

一世f you belong to one of the communities most harmed by taking children, in the past or in the present, you already knew. If you didn’t know, once you see the pattern, read the stories, follow the footnotes, you can’t unsee it. Taking children is a crime of long standing in America. It is not a recent mutation, a freak accident on which we can easily turn the page.图标

Featured-image photograph by Sergio Capuzzimati / Unsplash