Back to books
[florycanto.net]
Do Not Copy without permission. Knowledge belongs to
everyone, but not in the form of plagiarism. Do your own work fool.
Agustín Palacios
ES 200
Prof. Kim
12.01.03
Dorothy Robert’s Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty illustrates the complex connections between gender, race, class and how they come into play in black women’s reproduction rights. She argues that population control programs that target women of color cannot be analyze without the context of colonization and slavery. Roberts identifies three central themes to her book: “[t]he first is that regulating Black women’s reproductive decisions has been a central aspect of racial oppression in America,” “[s]econd, the control of Black women’s reproduction has shaped the meaning of reproductive liberty,” “[f]inally, in light of the first two themes, we need to reconsider the meaning of reproductive liberty to take into account its relationship to racial oppression.” (Roberts 6)
This country was founded on the theories of scientific racism. “Only a theory rooted in nature could systematically account for the anomaly of slavery existing in a republic founded on a radical commitment to liberty, equality, and natural rights.” (Roberts 9) The law has historically work to benefit and protect the injustices perpetrated by white men against black women. Roberts points out how slave auctions were “often a government-sponsored event, taking place on the courthouse steps.” (Roberts 35) The United States government (and all its white male politicians) made it legal to rape a slave and then to own ‘the product,’ which meant stripping black mothers of any rights to their children. (How a “father” can see his child as property is beyond me.) An example of this was the legal endorsement of rape from the time of slavery all the way through Jim Crow.
Those in power simultaneously constructed two separate notions of what it meant to be a white mother, child or man against the black mother, child, or man. While white mothers and white children were attributed angelic attributes (from Victorian times), black mothers were caricaturize as terrible mothers and black children as future criminals. Moreover, while black men where exoticize as hypersexual animals, and where brutally lynched for merely talking to a white women, white men were free to rape black women without fearing prosecution.
Roberts forcefully examines how state sanctioned reproduction control has systematically oppressed black women’s reproductive rights. “Birth control became a means of controlling a population rather than a means of increasing women’s reproductive autonomy.” (Roberts 80) The double helix of birth control and the eugenics movement has sought to encourage the reproduction of the most-fit/superior (read: white middle and upper class) while curbing the growth of the unfit/inferior (read: black). Roberts asserts that if radical change is to occur in this country, poor Black women must not be seen as the source of the problem.
Poverty, racism, and sexism all work against black women’s decisions to have or not to have a child. Roberts critiques the white-lead pro-choice movement for its limited scope and its lack of empathy for all the reproductive rights of black women, including the right to procreate. She claims that middle class white women have narrow the movement on abortion, neglecting the needs of poor women of color. Health workers and welfare agencies, under the eugenics premise that more black people means more problems/crime, have coerce black women into having abortions, undergo hysterectomies, or take possibly unsafe birth control (i.e. Norplant and Depo-Provera) Coercive sterilization and contraceptive programs are a form of violence that disproportionately affects poor women of color, and which middle class white women have not raised an outcry about.
Roberts delivers a powerful critique of liberal philosophy[1] and its call for government neutrality. Liberals uphold the individuals right to make choices but do not see that black women’s “choices are limited not only by direct government interference in their decisions, but also by government’s failure to facilitate them.” (Roberts 300). Liberals should recognize that the government has the responsibility of ensuring the well being of those living in this country.[2] Roberts asserts that is not about individual’s reasons/desires, but about the societal conditions that those reasons/desires in which they form. Even the desire to bear children may be influenced by the very definition of what it means to be a woman.
We need not question individuals’ reasons in order to question the societal impact of a practice. My purpose is not to judge individuals’ motivations, but to scrutinize the legal and political context which helps to both create and give meaning to individuals’ motivations. (Roberts 287)
“Liberty guards against government intrusion; it does not guarantee social justice.” (Roberts 294) Liberals and conservatives share the view that black people are themselves the source of their problems. Under liberal policy (Plan Parenthood is a good example) the state has pushed expensive birth control methods on women of color with the hope of decreasing the number of welfare babies and allowing poor women to finally work. This government ‘solution’ disregards the fact that there are not enough jobs in these communities for people to work, and that those with full times jobs do not earn enough to support their families (a single mother with two children earning minimum wage at McDonalds just doesn’t make enough). “Many women who work full time still live in poverty.” (Roberts 222) Furthermore, this ‘solution’ does not include the creation of vocational schools and subsidize day care (I know for a fact that day care waiting lists can take up to two years). Roberts calls for an affirmative view of liberty, one that is “grounded in the understanding that protecting the human dignity of all citizens requires affirmative steps to destroy unjust institutions and practices. This objective also requires limiting private citizens’ ability to exploit others.” (Roberts 310)
Societal typifications that dehumanize black women, such as “welfare queen,” authoritative matriarch and immoral Jezebel, contribute to racial and class tensions. These degrading myths have real material consequences, i.e. in the form of policy regarding welfare and criminal law. The media and the government have worked hand in hand to create the image of the lazy welfare mother who has children in order to get more money. There is a conservative uproar against welfare, claiming that it breeds dependency and discourages black people[3] from working: ‘Yet conservatives assert no similar condemnation of long-term dependency on inherited wealth, life insurance proceeds, government agricultural subsidies, and Social Security benefits. Indeed, we do not view this type of reliance on financial assistance as dependency at all.” (Roberts 220) This view has shifted Welfare’s original purpose of helping people to modifying poor people’s behavior.
Eugenics[4] blame black mothers for black people’s poverty. They are guilty of transmitting defective genes (ones that cause immoral and criminal behavior on black men) and lifestyles that bankrupt the future generations. The Bell Curve revived racist sciences sought to prove racial hierarchies (white superiority over black people), and race as the main cause/explanation of social disparities. “The message readers learned from both The Passing of the Great Race and The Bell Curve is that egalitarian social programs are incapable of improving society.” (Roberts 64) But as Roberts points, out: “Proposals to solve social problems by curbing Black reproduction make racial inequality appear to be the product of nature rather than power.” (Roberts 102)
In regards to pregnant women who are drug addicts, Roberts alleges that “[u]ntil treatment is available, it is unfair to punish pregnant addicts who cannot kick their habits in time.” (Roberts 190) I agree. People who do not have an addiction are quick to judge those who do, and do not take into account the precarious reality of such mothers. These women are demonized under media eyes. Their “crack-babies” are regarded as brain damage victims who inevitably will become tomorrow’s criminals.
The new biodeterminism presents drugs, poverty, and race as interchangeable marks that inevitable consign Black children to a worthless future. The stories about crack babies always depict Black children and they often assume they are on welfare. (Roberts 20)
The media fails to report that poverty, racism and sexism are also responsible, and that taking drastic steps to end them is a better solution than locking away drug addicts. (The health of Black babies has never really been the issue for people in power, proof of this is their lack of concern for poverty, precarious working conditions, and the fact that clinics were inserting Norplant on breastfeeding mothers.) Why aren’t the owners of refineries and other pollutants arrested, castrated/sterilized, and forced to pay the government and society the cost of health care of children whose health has been affected by them. It has never truly been about the health of low and no income babies. Roberts reminds us that “[p]overty – not maternal drug use – is the major threat to the health of Black children in America.”
Roberts proposition still limited by the constitution when she calls for equality for all citizens. “We need a way of rethinking the meaning of liberty so that it protects all citizens equally.” (Roberts 294) How about those that are classified as non-citizens, such as undocumented immigrants? They too have been under the microscope/scalpel of eugenecists, such trying to pass a law that would strip newborns to undocumented mothers of the right to citizenship
Roberts takes on the issue of cross-racial adoptions. Although I agree with her point that is better for the child to be adopted then to remains under state custody, regardless of what the ethnicity of the adopting parents is, I believe that it is better for the child to be adopted by someone of her/his own ethnicity. As Robert quotes in her book, Black parents will be better able to transmit certain survival and coping skills to a black child than white parents. Furthermore, the transmition of culture is an important factor to take into account. In the case of Native Americans, who for a long time where adopted outside of their tribal nations, fought vigorously to keep their children inside the tribal nation. This might seem as an exceptional case, but if one takes into account United States aggressive assimilationist policies, a child might not be able to learn her/his culture if raised with in a different ethnic group.
I agree with one of Roberts main tenets, that if poor Black women are treaded with the dignity that all human beings deserve, it can only benefit society as a whole. I think that if the Other’s Other gains full human being status and social justice, this will reverberate in society as a whole. The fight for self-determination must be inclusive, not selective. This may mean that not only specific ethnic groups must advocate for the rights of all their members (women, gays and lesbians, handicap, etc.) but must seek to make coalitions with other ethnic groups fighting for autonomy.
I disagree with Roberts’ labeling of sexually active teens as a “problem.” (Robers 116) Teenagers are owners of their bodies, “legal age” (18 years old) is nothing more than a social construction that does not take into account the specific realities of young people. This legal construction parallels the legal drinking age (21 years old) and how a young adult can be a mother and have a job, but not be able to have a drink. But I agree with Roberts’ claim that: “True, teenagers who have babies are more than twice as likely to be poor, but blaming teen pregnancy for poverty reverses cause and effect.” (Roberts 119) A much better answer would be to implement better sex education and provide free condoms at the high schools. I remember that in my health education class (in Salinas CA), the majority of the time was focused on firs aid and on STDs. There was only one class we devoted to sex ed., and this was reduced to the handing out a couple of papers (no illustrations) for the students to read “the facts.” Since we had to keep passing the papers so that others could see them, I didn’t really get to read the whole thing. In reality, it did not clarify any of the misconceptions I had about sex, which I had mostly learned from TV and from sexist adult comments that talked about women as if they were objects.
After getting married my wife and I moved to Richmond, California, so that I could finish my undergraduate studies at Berkeley. We were a young couple eagerly waiting for our first child. The neighborhood was working class, and it would it all been good if it wasn’t for the bitter old man living next to us (who frequently insult us for the most minor reasons) and the oil refinery that often let off its whistle so that we could seal ourselves inside our home. Fortunately, we were not considerable close to the refinery.
Since we were not financially stable at the time we became parents, we also learned first hand the burdens/complications/anxiety of poverty and dealing with Medi-Cal (and the limited healthcare facilities that take it) and WIC application process and personnel. It was a real pain to obtain good health care, first in Richmond then in Salinas. We initially sought prenatal care in San Pablo, as we heard that there were better pre-natal care there than in Richmond. In her second visit, my wife expressed her concern about the crams she was having and her fear of losing the baby. The MD, who was a female, straight out told my wife that: “If you are going to have a miscarriage, you are going to have a miscarriage, and there’s nothing we can do about it.” Alejandra and I knew that if it were a private doctor, we would not have gotten that cold response. In addition, the doctor never advise her about taking folic acid and multi-vitamins. Good thing Alejandra got books on pre-natal care and was able to find out answers to many of her questions.
Being on WIC is, at least, very inconvenient. For example, you can only shop at one store in the whole United States. My wife and I usually avoided going out for groceries when a lot of people were shopping, since it was obvious that people in line and store employees got annoyed at having to service us. We would sometimes get the wrong brand, and will have to go back for the right kind. If they ran out of a product, such as baby formula, too bad for you.
[1] Roberts identifies liberal philosophy as one that
advocates for government neutrality and limited involvement in the lives of
individuals. It also calls on a “color-blind stance in regard to
reproductive policies.” Liberal philosophy does not recognize that the
government is already a great part of poor peoples lives.
[2] Roberts specifically names “citizens,” I
will like to include non-citizens.
[3] For most of this paper I refer mostly to black people, not because they are the only ethnic group that suffers from oppression/poverty, but because Roberts is specifically talking about black people.
[4] Eugenics is the belief that intelligence and other personality traits are genetically determined. Eugenecists have advocated for forced sterilization of the inferior/unfit, while simultaneously calling for programs that encourage the “breeding” of whites for the good of the nation.