Tweet
Have you heard about this case in Ohio?
Social workers took the child directly from his classroom and carted him off to foster care.The mother can only see him 2 hours per week or something like that.
Something into something though because when I read the various articles on this case, the mother says she is trying, but it's so hard, other kids and siblings giving the 8 year-old food, etc., etc.
I found an interesting commentary on the issue (excerpt below):
<span style="color: #000099">Beyond the clear bigotry in this policy, the obvious concern is that it will be used to target children of colour. Because we live in a White supremacist state, people of colour are impoverished. A simple glance at the unemployment rate by race reveals the truth about poverty in North America. In the U.S. African Americans have absolutely been disproportionately effected by the current recession depression. As much as weight is about genetics, today it is often a sign of poverty.
When you are poor and have a family to feed, suddenly foods that are high in carbohydrates and fat become a legitimate food option. To fill my fruit bowl this time of year costs me approximately 25 -30 dollars a week. Fruit is simply a luxury that many families cannot afford. Though frozen vegetables are often cheaper than fresh, when it comes right down to it, for the price of 1 bag of frozen broccoli, a family can purchase two boxes of kraft dinner, which will be far more filling than broccoli florets. In many cases, it does not come down to not knowing about healthy choices but an inability to afford them. There are many communities that are food deserts, which means that people simply have no access to fruit and vegetables.
The other issue that does not get discussed is time constraints. North Americans are now working more hours than their parents, and yet we were told that technology would make our lives easier. In many cases, it is necessary to work sometimes two or three jobs to keep a roof over ones head, and clothes one back. Food is something that is often consumed on the way to something else. Having the time to cook and the tools to cook is a luxury. If the choice comes down to opening a box, or going through a drive thru, or going hungry, obviously fast food or the boxed meal is the choice that most would make. This, combined with the fact that fast food is often cheaper to purchase, though a trip through the McDonald's drive thru contains all of the fat, calories and sodium that one needs in one day means that the reasonable and affordable choice is not the healthy choice. If parents are feeding their kids unhealthy food, it's because of an inability to afford fresh fruits and vegetables, or an inability to find the time to cook due to to the pressure to earn a living.
The government is absolutely complicit in the impoverishment of poor and working class people and so to remove their children for manifesting the consequences of said poverty is hypocritical at best. Budget cutting has resulted in the reduction or outright removal of gym classes. In many states, food stamps cannot be used at farmers markets. There is also the ongoing government subsidies to companies that produce unhealthy food. How can a government that cannot even ensure that healthy food is readily and cheaply available, punish a family for having a fat child?
One thing is certain, if this policy becomes normalized, more children of colour will be in foster care. When we consider that both Canadian and American governments have a long history of destroying our families and stealing our children, how can people of colour not be concerned by this alarming decision? Unless a parent is being abusive or neglecting their child, the best interest of the child is to remain with their birth family and this is especially true when we look at children of colour.
Rather than removing this child from his home, the state should be readily offering whatever aid the family needs to make healthy choices and increase time spent exercising. For too long, many have felt that it is better to remove children from their families than to give families the tools that they need to have a decent level of subsistence. You can see this argument manifest in stories about inter national adoption where the White parent is celebrated for saving a child from growing up in abject poverty with their family of colour. The removal of child in this instance is not about saving him but about disciplining and fat hatred. </span>
More...
Social workers took the child directly from his classroom and carted him off to foster care.The mother can only see him 2 hours per week or something like that.
Something into something though because when I read the various articles on this case, the mother says she is trying, but it's so hard, other kids and siblings giving the 8 year-old food, etc., etc.
I found an interesting commentary on the issue (excerpt below):
<span style="color: #000099">Beyond the clear bigotry in this policy, the obvious concern is that it will be used to target children of colour. Because we live in a White supremacist state, people of colour are impoverished. A simple glance at the unemployment rate by race reveals the truth about poverty in North America. In the U.S. African Americans have absolutely been disproportionately effected by the current recession depression. As much as weight is about genetics, today it is often a sign of poverty.
When you are poor and have a family to feed, suddenly foods that are high in carbohydrates and fat become a legitimate food option. To fill my fruit bowl this time of year costs me approximately 25 -30 dollars a week. Fruit is simply a luxury that many families cannot afford. Though frozen vegetables are often cheaper than fresh, when it comes right down to it, for the price of 1 bag of frozen broccoli, a family can purchase two boxes of kraft dinner, which will be far more filling than broccoli florets. In many cases, it does not come down to not knowing about healthy choices but an inability to afford them. There are many communities that are food deserts, which means that people simply have no access to fruit and vegetables.
The other issue that does not get discussed is time constraints. North Americans are now working more hours than their parents, and yet we were told that technology would make our lives easier. In many cases, it is necessary to work sometimes two or three jobs to keep a roof over ones head, and clothes one back. Food is something that is often consumed on the way to something else. Having the time to cook and the tools to cook is a luxury. If the choice comes down to opening a box, or going through a drive thru, or going hungry, obviously fast food or the boxed meal is the choice that most would make. This, combined with the fact that fast food is often cheaper to purchase, though a trip through the McDonald's drive thru contains all of the fat, calories and sodium that one needs in one day means that the reasonable and affordable choice is not the healthy choice. If parents are feeding their kids unhealthy food, it's because of an inability to afford fresh fruits and vegetables, or an inability to find the time to cook due to to the pressure to earn a living.
The government is absolutely complicit in the impoverishment of poor and working class people and so to remove their children for manifesting the consequences of said poverty is hypocritical at best. Budget cutting has resulted in the reduction or outright removal of gym classes. In many states, food stamps cannot be used at farmers markets. There is also the ongoing government subsidies to companies that produce unhealthy food. How can a government that cannot even ensure that healthy food is readily and cheaply available, punish a family for having a fat child?
One thing is certain, if this policy becomes normalized, more children of colour will be in foster care. When we consider that both Canadian and American governments have a long history of destroying our families and stealing our children, how can people of colour not be concerned by this alarming decision? Unless a parent is being abusive or neglecting their child, the best interest of the child is to remain with their birth family and this is especially true when we look at children of colour.
Rather than removing this child from his home, the state should be readily offering whatever aid the family needs to make healthy choices and increase time spent exercising. For too long, many have felt that it is better to remove children from their families than to give families the tools that they need to have a decent level of subsistence. You can see this argument manifest in stories about inter national adoption where the White parent is celebrated for saving a child from growing up in abject poverty with their family of colour. The removal of child in this instance is not about saving him but about disciplining and fat hatred. </span>
More...