Imagine the events in the novel as if they were being viewed by someone who's job it was to ensure the rights of the child. What rights are not being protected of Esch and her siblings? Looking at it from a non-governmental perspective, does the neglect of the father amount to abuse?
Claude, the widowed father of Esch and her siblings is an alcoholic, abusive, and absent father. On the surface you may view Claude as ‘not that bad’ and that he is just struggling to cope with the loss of his wife, however, he is neglectful, and scenes of physical and verbal child abuse are present.
Claude allows his internal struggle to affect the necessities of his children. On page 469, we see Claude sick with a hangover; beer cans covering the bedside tables of his room. It becomes the children’s duty, specifically Randall, to care for their father in this condition while tending to the rest of the family’s needs. This contradicts the responsibilities of the parent to care for the children and Randall at seventeen years old holds a position of parental guidance to his younger siblings.
The home often has very little access to nutritious food, they often just eat canned meats, ramen, and Vienna sausages. The children fear that they will not have enough food to last them through the storm and not enough money to buy more and Skeetah states if they run out, they can eat dog food (pg 507-511). Although it is better to have these foods than it is to have nothing at all, Claude puts his want to get drunk over the need for food for his children. Lack of adequate nutrition can result in malnutrition, sickness, and underdevelopment and is especially important for children in the same age group as Junior. Claude buying enough beer to make him sick, as well as his frequent use of alcohol, demonstrates how he neglects the needs of his children to satisfy his own wants. There should never be a time where children should have to debate on eating dog food but yet the parent can still afford alcohol.
Physical and verbal abuse is demonstrated as Claude fights Skeetah in a drunken rage.
“He reaches to grab Skeetah’s arm, to pull him to standing and then shove him, probably. This is what he does when he wants to manhandle, humiliate; he pulls one of us towards him, shakes and then shoves us hard backward so that we fall in the dirt. So that we sprawl like toddlers learning to walk; dirt on our faces and our hands, faces wet with crying or mucus, ashamed.” (pg. 283)
This type of treatment is physical and mental abuse and is unacceptable by all means. From Esch’s narration and her statement of "this is what he does" (283), we can assume that physical and mental abuse is an often occurrence in their home. The neglectfulness of Claude towards his children is abusive in nature by exposing the children to greater risks of their safety and health and requires them to take on duties in which are the responsibility of the adult, not the children. It is due to unacceptable neglectful behavior that Esch and her siblings worry about food while their father’s room is filled with beer cans from the night before. The fight between Claude and Skeetah demonstrates that the abuse is greater than Claude being negligent.
Claude allows his internal struggle to affect the necessities of his children. On page 469, we see Claude sick with a hangover; beer cans covering the bedside tables of his room. It becomes the children’s duty, specifically Randall, to care for their father in this condition while tending to the rest of the family’s needs. This contradicts the responsibilities of the parent to care for the children and Randall at seventeen years old holds a position of parental guidance to his younger siblings.
The home often has very little access to nutritious food, they often just eat canned meats, ramen, and Vienna sausages. The children fear that they will not have enough food to last them through the storm and not enough money to buy more and Skeetah states if they run out, they can eat dog food (pg 507-511). Although it is better to have these foods than it is to have nothing at all, Claude puts his want to get drunk over the need for food for his children. Lack of adequate nutrition can result in malnutrition, sickness, and underdevelopment and is especially important for children in the same age group as Junior. Claude buying enough beer to make him sick, as well as his frequent use of alcohol, demonstrates how he neglects the needs of his children to satisfy his own wants. There should never be a time where children should have to debate on eating dog food but yet the parent can still afford alcohol.
Physical and verbal abuse is demonstrated as Claude fights Skeetah in a drunken rage.
“He reaches to grab Skeetah’s arm, to pull him to standing and then shove him, probably. This is what he does when he wants to manhandle, humiliate; he pulls one of us towards him, shakes and then shoves us hard backward so that we fall in the dirt. So that we sprawl like toddlers learning to walk; dirt on our faces and our hands, faces wet with crying or mucus, ashamed.” (pg. 283)
This type of treatment is physical and mental abuse and is unacceptable by all means. From Esch’s narration and her statement of "this is what he does" (283), we can assume that physical and mental abuse is an often occurrence in their home. The neglectfulness of Claude towards his children is abusive in nature by exposing the children to greater risks of their safety and health and requires them to take on duties in which are the responsibility of the adult, not the children. It is due to unacceptable neglectful behavior that Esch and her siblings worry about food while their father’s room is filled with beer cans from the night before. The fight between Claude and Skeetah demonstrates that the abuse is greater than Claude being negligent.
I agree with you that the father's neglect and actions amount to abuse.
Esch and her siblings have a right to healthy food, healthcare, and safe living conditions that are not being upheld (especially by the end of the book). Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the State is responsible for ensuring that children have both healthcare and nutritious food. (It is important to keep in mind, though, that the United States has not ratified the CRC; is it so they cannot be held accountable when they don't provide children with these basic needs?)
Disregarding the father's physical abuse and neglect, we can argue that his failings are actually those of the State-- had Junior been born in a hospital, and the father was provided rehabilitation services (which I argue fall under healthcare), they could have had a much better family life where their rights were upheld. The State should also be responsible for providing food if their father isn't able to.
Esch and her siblings have a right to healthy food, healthcare, and safe living conditions that are not being upheld (especially by the end of the book). Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the State is responsible for ensuring that children have both healthcare and nutritious food. (It is important to keep in mind, though, that the United States has not ratified the CRC; is it so they cannot be held accountable when they don't provide children with these basic needs?)
Disregarding the father's physical abuse and neglect, we can argue that his failings are actually those of the State-- had Junior been born in a hospital, and the father was provided rehabilitation services (which I argue fall under healthcare), they could have had a much better family life where their rights were upheld. The State should also be responsible for providing food if their father isn't able to.
I think you make a really valid point that the State must be responsible for providing the basic necessities if the parents aren't able to do so and that rehabilitation services should be counted as basic healthcare. I would just also state that the State must be made aware that these abuses are taking place because it can only intervene when it is knowledgeable of the fact that children are being abused not just physically but also mentally. Those that live around them and interact with them regularly must be held somewhat accountable that they didn't do their basic human duty to report child neglect and abuse.
Thank you for this comment! I think you make a great point that I had left out of my response. I agree it is definitely the fault of the state. Had they provided things like rehabilitation perhaps Claude would not have turned to alcohol and would have been less of an absent father. Something I found interesting is that Esch never talks about receiving any food stamps /food programs because I had noticed that the topic came up a lot in The Hate U Give, and given the size and socioeconomic status of the family I found it strange they didnt reference the state providing support with food.
((I also just wanted to add as I forgot to in my original response that I am aware that alcoholism is a disease and a way to cope for many who suffered trauma like Claude had, but I just thought that part in the novel represented neglecting the needs of the children well))
((I also just wanted to add as I forgot to in my original response that I am aware that alcoholism is a disease and a way to cope for many who suffered trauma like Claude had, but I just thought that part in the novel represented neglecting the needs of the children well))
Hi Katherine!
I agree with you on the rights being violated in the CRC. I think like you said, the fact that the United States has not ratified the CRC makes is difficult to hold them accountable under the Convention. I think it is this very fact that causes human rights to be violated even more because there is no structure to hold accountable, and then the cycle of such violations continues. I would even go as far as to say that Claude also went through these human rights violations when he was young, the violations that his children now face.
The United States is the only country that has not ratified the Convention, even when it helped with the drafting of it. Somalia and South Sudan had also not ratified the Convention at one point, so they were the elite trio but now it is just the United States as Somalia and South Sudan Ratified it in 2015. The United States made various arguments as to why it would not ratify the convention, one being that the existing United States laws are in accordance with the Convention anyway. However, it is the same laws that violate children's rights in so many ways - evident in the novel.
I agree with you on the rights being violated in the CRC. I think like you said, the fact that the United States has not ratified the CRC makes is difficult to hold them accountable under the Convention. I think it is this very fact that causes human rights to be violated even more because there is no structure to hold accountable, and then the cycle of such violations continues. I would even go as far as to say that Claude also went through these human rights violations when he was young, the violations that his children now face.
The United States is the only country that has not ratified the Convention, even when it helped with the drafting of it. Somalia and South Sudan had also not ratified the Convention at one point, so they were the elite trio but now it is just the United States as Somalia and South Sudan Ratified it in 2015. The United States made various arguments as to why it would not ratify the convention, one being that the existing United States laws are in accordance with the Convention anyway. However, it is the same laws that violate children's rights in so many ways - evident in the novel.
I think the fact that the US has not ratified this is ridiculous. They paint themselves as one of the world leaders and yet they have yet to ratify a doctrine that provides basic rights and protections of their children. How can a country pride themselves on being so "democratic" and free and still ignore this?
Great point Hilary!
The idea that a first world country is so far behind on human rights and the rights of the child is disturbing. The US seems to have its priorities set on military power and not providing for its people, whereas in Canada, although not perfect, we focus on being a "soft power" and use our standing to bring peace. I personally find a difference in between the two countries due to the face we invest more in our communities and social services than to our military since that isn't as big of a priority. Canada is not perfect of course and the US's focus on its military is no excuse not to properly implement human rights or the rights of the child, especially when they are one of the 5 large powers of the United Nations.
The idea that a first world country is so far behind on human rights and the rights of the child is disturbing. The US seems to have its priorities set on military power and not providing for its people, whereas in Canada, although not perfect, we focus on being a "soft power" and use our standing to bring peace. I personally find a difference in between the two countries due to the face we invest more in our communities and social services than to our military since that isn't as big of a priority. Canada is not perfect of course and the US's focus on its military is no excuse not to properly implement human rights or the rights of the child, especially when they are one of the 5 large powers of the United Nations.
I think you and Emily are making great points! I totally agree that the situation that Esch and her brothers are living is abuse from the father and that the State should have intervened. I also believe that the problem may have been going on for longer than we think, maybe it was camouflaged before his wife died. It makes me think, because in one of the chapters, Esch is saying that her dad was drinking beer while her mother wasn't when they were hanging out with friends. The fact that she remembers that from such a young age makes me think whether or not Claude already had a problem with alcohol at the time, but the mother was dealing with it instead of being the children's responsibility. To give context, when you ask someone who's parents are not alcoholics and you ask them about scenarios when they were hanging with friends, their first thought is probably not going to be 'Dad was drinking, and Mom wasn't' it would probably be more, 'I remember dancing and having fun'. I'm not saying this is all scenarios, it's just a side observation from my end.
That's a great point, Annabelle! I must have missed that part but now that I'm reflecting on it it makes a lot of sense and defiently could have been going on a lot longer. Thank you for adding this to the discussion!
What a great discussion! You provide such an important observation. The Western (and UN largely) view of human rights is that rights are individualist and it is the role of the state to provide them. So yes, the abuse is 100% a problem, but yet the state has also 100% failed this entire family -- from food security to heath care and rehabilitation services -- absolutely! This is something that is essential to understand when we read these novels. Human Rights are to be protected by the state. When the state fails what do people do? People can take to the streets to protest and sometimes that is effective. But sometimes that is not an option for when people are struggling and need to work several jobs to survive (or whatever else may be the case). We can take the government to court, but often don't have the resources to do that. So people do nothing. And they suffer. And then this suffering is passed along from generation to the next. People often blame the people, but it is a failing of the state because they have not secured the rights that are guaranteed to us through various UN treaties and even government Constitutions.
Of course the case of the US gets more complicated when someone points out ok, but there is no guarantee to health care and food security etc. in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the USA did not ratify the treaties that would guarantee such rights at the UN level (International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights was signed but not ratified by USA as well as CRC as pointed out). So is it still a failing of the state? Many of us would say yes because we believe these rights extend to everyone no matter what laws and treaties apply. But that is only a position taken by those of us who say we are universalists (rights apply equally everywhere). The universalist view is in contrast to those who are relativists (individuals who believe rights change from culture to culture and are only guaranteed by the laws that apply to each government).
So... which is right? Universal human rights or Relative Culturalism? Can there be something in the middle?
Of course the case of the US gets more complicated when someone points out ok, but there is no guarantee to health care and food security etc. in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the USA did not ratify the treaties that would guarantee such rights at the UN level (International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights was signed but not ratified by USA as well as CRC as pointed out). So is it still a failing of the state? Many of us would say yes because we believe these rights extend to everyone no matter what laws and treaties apply. But that is only a position taken by those of us who say we are universalists (rights apply equally everywhere). The universalist view is in contrast to those who are relativists (individuals who believe rights change from culture to culture and are only guaranteed by the laws that apply to each government).
So... which is right? Universal human rights or Relative Culturalism? Can there be something in the middle?
Thank you Dr. Dipaolo, I like how you highlight how 'people often blame the people'. It's so true, I often hear people say others are 'profiting off the State' which to me is just not the case. People are quick to judge when it come to others. Maybe the reason why they aren't working is because they have kids to take care of at home and it would cost too much to put them in daycare, maybe they tried getting a job and the opportunities are not great for them. We also often see companies biased while hiring people, they'll choose someone who has a more common name (in other words a white person name) over someone whose name is not as common, or they prefer younger people (ageism is also a big thing for hiring companies), intersectionality can make it harder for someone being hired. My point is that not everyone is given the same opportunities, and that it's unfair to blame the individual for something they cannot control like the bias of others.
To answer your question at the end, I do believe there is a need for a middle ground. Human Rights are great, it gives us the freedom of person and all, but there are also some rights that may hinder in some ways someones culture. There are for sure some rights that are essential, like the right to be free from torture and genocide (crimes against humanity), but I believe that some other rights, not that they are not essential, they are, but they may need to be open for interpretation in some cases. Like we spoke about last year in Philosophy of Human Rights, we have to think about whether or not our beliefs surrounding human rights have been westernized or not, this question still haunts me everyday, but it's something important noting.
To answer your question at the end, I do believe there is a need for a middle ground. Human Rights are great, it gives us the freedom of person and all, but there are also some rights that may hinder in some ways someones culture. There are for sure some rights that are essential, like the right to be free from torture and genocide (crimes against humanity), but I believe that some other rights, not that they are not essential, they are, but they may need to be open for interpretation in some cases. Like we spoke about last year in Philosophy of Human Rights, we have to think about whether or not our beliefs surrounding human rights have been westernized or not, this question still haunts me everyday, but it's something important noting.
I really like this discussion prompt. Universalism is a Western ideology, and for many other countries and cultures, the same ideology is not supported. What constitutes something as a "right" is both subjective and objective in a way. The right of a child is objective under the application of law based on whether it is protected under law. However, domestic laws in themselves are subjective because they are created differently relative to cultures. Although international bodies such as the CRC are considered to be universally applicable, because countries have the right to not ratify such treaties, it then becomes relative to each country. When a country does not ratify a treaty, it is consequently not legally binding to that country. I believe that both can universal human rights and cultural relativism can be achieved. However, I also believe that there needs to be significant improvements in the universal system. For example, UNDRIP was created to protect indigenous people, however the treaty is riddled with language imposes Western ideology. Although a universal system is important to prevent human rights violations across the world, in many cases, it can become a tool for Western societies to impose their views on others. The way to connect both would be to include more diversity in the implementation process for treaty bodies in the UN, and to collectively come up with ways to improve systems in place to keep countries accountable for gross human rights violations. Arguably, universalism is a Western system that imposes ideologies onto cultures that may harm them. However, Western countries such as the U.S. will equally violate certain UN treaty bodies.
I'm interested to hear more on this conversation between the two.
I'm interested to hear more on this conversation between the two.
Going off what Dr. Dipaolo said about doing something to combat the failure of the state or simply suffering, I do not think that the Batiste children saw an alternative to their suffering. Building on this, I think that they thought this was their reality, not something that was entirely open to change. In this way, I wonder the extent to which these children would rely on the state in any capacity or demand better support from them. Furthermore, it is not clear that they expect much of anything from their government. Prior to the hurricane, the family noted that the Red Cross would come to provide aid once the storm had passed through. Accordingly, it was not expected that the state would lend support, but this NGO. In this way, I cannot help but wonder when the state assumes an obligation for the people of this community. If they are not intervening to provide the children with adequate standards of living nor to give aid following the hurricane, to what extent is this family also being neglected by the state?
Furthermore, while the US did not sign onto the CRC or ICESCR, they did ratify the ICCPR. The preamble of this document recognizes the inherent dignity of people as "members of the human family" and that they are the "foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." There is no human right to dignity; however, this notion does underlie all human rights in this document and others. That said, by leaving the children in a poor, neglectful, and abusive home, it appears to me that the state is undermining their worthiness and dignity. Accordingly, I would suggest that they are undercutting the values of the documents that they have ratified, which may not be a rights violation, but it does, in essence, bring the US's adherence to and respect for international law into question.
Furthermore, while the US did not sign onto the CRC or ICESCR, they did ratify the ICCPR. The preamble of this document recognizes the inherent dignity of people as "members of the human family" and that they are the "foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." There is no human right to dignity; however, this notion does underlie all human rights in this document and others. That said, by leaving the children in a poor, neglectful, and abusive home, it appears to me that the state is undermining their worthiness and dignity. Accordingly, I would suggest that they are undercutting the values of the documents that they have ratified, which may not be a rights violation, but it does, in essence, bring the US's adherence to and respect for international law into question.
I agree.
Article 24 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children should not be deprived of their right to access healthcare services. This means the state failed Esch as she did not have access to these services which could have prevented her from prematurely entering motherhood. It is so important that you mentioned that United States is has not been ratified under the convention. More needs to done to influence states from backing away from becoming ratified under convention protecting vulnerable group. It is far too easy for states to neglect their responsibility of protecting vulnerable groups.
Article 24 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children should not be deprived of their right to access healthcare services. This means the state failed Esch as she did not have access to these services which could have prevented her from prematurely entering motherhood. It is so important that you mentioned that United States is has not been ratified under the convention. More needs to done to influence states from backing away from becoming ratified under convention protecting vulnerable group. It is far too easy for states to neglect their responsibility of protecting vulnerable groups.
You make a great point with the father buying beer over more necessary things for his children. Due to this, Skeetah and Esch have learned to take care of their needs on their own. In many cases, Skeetah takes things into his own hands to provide for the family, and for China. Alcohol is known to be more expensive than cheap food as well.
Although in these responses are for non-governmental review, Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child states that "States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." This relates to your argument above referring to the maltreatment of Esch's father to her and her brother.
Although in these responses are for non-governmental review, Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child states that "States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." This relates to your argument above referring to the maltreatment of Esch's father to her and her brother.
You can clearly see throughout the novel that after Esch and her siblings' mother passed, their life became increasingly harder and worse. Much of this does come from the neglect of their father. You can see a violation within Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which speaks on family guidance needing to be present as children develop. The father more so ignores the children unless he needs them to do work or when he is drunk and violent. The kids are fending for themselves throughout the book with the Dad having no interest in what they are up to, you can even see the youngest sibling Junior being more cared for by Esch and Randall than his own father. They also don't have the adequate access to food and clothing that they should, food is scarce at the home and does not seem to have any health benefits, Esch also talks about how she wears boys clothes as they all share clothing. You can also see that they don't have access to healthcare, in one part of the book Esch talks about if her brother Skeetah needed to go to the hospital due to his cuts, his father wouldn't take him.
The neglect of the father is clearly the cause of the children's hard lives. I would say it amounts to abuse. The father does not have a stable job to provide and he also has a very clear alcohol problem, he drives drunk which puts him in danger and if were to have the children in the car while driving it put them in danger as well. The only time he seems to give the children attention is when he needs them or when he is angry when drunk or hungover, you can see that the children are scared of him by how they've learned to avoid him, you can also see physical abuse when he pushes Skeetah down. Every right that is not being protected is due to the father not being present and I think that is a clear sign of abuse.
The neglect of the father is clearly the cause of the children's hard lives. I would say it amounts to abuse. The father does not have a stable job to provide and he also has a very clear alcohol problem, he drives drunk which puts him in danger and if were to have the children in the car while driving it put them in danger as well. The only time he seems to give the children attention is when he needs them or when he is angry when drunk or hungover, you can see that the children are scared of him by how they've learned to avoid him, you can also see physical abuse when he pushes Skeetah down. Every right that is not being protected is due to the father not being present and I think that is a clear sign of abuse.
Hi there,
I agree with your post and definitely agree the father' inaction amounts to abuse. Another striking aspect of this novel is Esch having sex at the age of 12. The novel does not go much into the topic of consent, but I gather that most of her encounters were not consensual as she was underage and unable to consent. It is the father's responsibility to take care of and look after his children, and I think he failed miserably at this. It is so devastating to see Esch consider the ways in which she could abort the fetus and this is not something that a girl her age should ever have to consider.
I agree with your post and definitely agree the father' inaction amounts to abuse. Another striking aspect of this novel is Esch having sex at the age of 12. The novel does not go much into the topic of consent, but I gather that most of her encounters were not consensual as she was underage and unable to consent. It is the father's responsibility to take care of and look after his children, and I think he failed miserably at this. It is so devastating to see Esch consider the ways in which she could abort the fetus and this is not something that a girl her age should ever have to consider.
While the hurricane evidently left the family in shambles, I think it is a more glaring indication of the fragility of their situation. Throughout the novel the children seem to be scraping together anything they need. Supplies are often repurposed rather than bought new. This evidently leads to feeble provisions and it is no wonder the house quickly succumbed to the hurricane.
Though the rights of the child are without question violated on numerous occasions throughout the novel, I think the most glaring and all-encompassing challenge is that of poverty. They are living in such low conditions that certain unfortunate circumstances appear to be almost inevitable.
Though the rights of the child are without question violated on numerous occasions throughout the novel, I think the most glaring and all-encompassing challenge is that of poverty. They are living in such low conditions that certain unfortunate circumstances appear to be almost inevitable.
Hey Mary, I completely agree. Poverty has such a strong influence on the family and their decisions that we can infer the likelihood of there being child rights violations would drastically decrease if poverty was not a factor.
Its clear that Esch and her sibling’s rights to health and protection are violated, their father is clearly struggling with his own health issues and is struggling to protect and care for his children. He is an alcoholic and has a bully like attitude towards his children, with that said he is put in a situation were the state is failing to provide basic needs. Although Esch as a pregnant woman is not living in favorable conditions and her brothers as well its important to note that the father is providing what he can with the scarcest resources that he has. There is no social assistance that being offered to the family meaning that although it may seem that the father is neglecting his children its important to note that the state has failed to provided them with proper health and safety provisions.