One thing about being a twentieth century historian is that I'm never have a deficit of sources that speak to the current moment. Parents' rights were and still are used to justify all sorts of social-harming behavior that facilitates the hording of resources by/for white folks. 
https://twitter.com/AdamLaats/status/1455182833207685125
Meanwhile, as you see highlighted in the blue, when black folks have dared to develop strategies that might demonstrate the dependency white luxury has on anti-black depravity while freeing themselves from white dependency, their behavior gets criminalized.
What's fascinating about the assumption of parental rights is how often black parents have had to fight for (and how often they have been refused) the same quality of rights that white parents enjoy as a matter of course.
That black parents have to be "granted" (though often refused) the rights to ensure the best quality education for their children indicates the persistence of the logic in Dred Scott v Sanford, which made plain that black people in the U.S. had no guaranteed rights.
So, yeah, "parents' rights" is not so much a dog whistle as it is a tacit legal doctrine within a legal system that functions to preserve and legitimate the general interest of white power. If it were a dog whistle it would be difficult to perceive; it's actually quite plain.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
