ANTIVIOLENCE ACTIVISM AND THE STATE Which Black Lives Matter? Gender, State- Sanctioned Violence, and “My Brother’s Keeper” Xhercis Méndez The death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his murderer sparked a series of responses across the United States, including an explosion of social media, mass protests, the birth of grassroots movements such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), and state- sponsored initiatives such as My Brother’s Keeper (MBK). For many invested in the long struggle for black liberation, the acquittal symbolized the extent to which the American legal system was built on structural injustice and inequal- ity, more often than not providing state support to vigilantes as long as those in the crosshairs were people of color. Martin was seen as yet another casualty in the war on black life and a reminder of the extent to which black lives were deemed dispos- able, killable, and structurally less worthy within the context of the United States. Indeed, his death, the trial, and acquittal served as yet another reminder of the structural inequalities that introduce violence into communities of color and the urgent need for a radical transformation in a system of legal and state governance that thrives on the demise of black life. In response to Martin’s death and the outrage that followed the acquittal, the nascent BLM movement, spearheaded by three black queer women, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, proposed a grassroots movement that would broaden the scope of black liberation and address the wide array of struc- Radical History Review Issue 126 (October 2016) doi 10.1215/01636545-3594445 © 2016 by MARHO: The Radical Historians’ Organization, Inc. 96 Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/radical-history-review/article-pdf/2016/126/96/468695/RHR126_07Mendez_FF.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 97 tural inequalities that produce violence within black communities. For instance, structural inequalities can best be understood as the sets of conditions (persistent poverty, lack of access to health care, school- to- prison pipeline) and institutions (the legal system, heteropatriarchy) that ensure some communities or group members are systematically denied access to their full rights as citizens and relegated to a lesser humanity. It refers to the conditions that produce some communities or group members as disposable and therefore more available for exploitation. The statement and approach put forth by BLM is noteworthy in that they have foregrounded the concerns of women of color, queer and gender- nonconforming folks of color, trans- folks, and differently abled bodies of color and ultimately centered the voices of those that have been historically marginalized even within the context of liberatory struggle. As a result, BLM seeks to address the diversity of structural inequalities impacting communities of color writ large. These are not limited to the issue of police brutality — they also include prisons, food security, anti- immigrant policy, transphobia, the assault on disabled community members, unequal access to health care and education, wage disparities, and reproductive justice for women of color. In contrast, President Barack Obama responded to the collective outrage and protest by launching MBK, an initiative whose purpose was to primarily address the challenges facing young men and boys of color. In many ways, overlooking the broader community concerns being put forth by the women of BLM, the initia- tive was and continues to be an effort to address the individual barriers to social mobility for racialized males. These efforts have included providing mentorship and employment opportunities to create a path toward the middle class and creating policies that would work to minimize the disparities for youth of color.1 Toward these ends, the initiative established a task force and issued a national call to busi- nesses, individuals, nonprofits, and local agencies to come together, bring any and all available resources, and make concrete commitments to change the lives of young men and boys of color throughout the United States. The response to MBK was and continues to be overwhelming. After only one year, the Obama administration reported raising over $300 million to advance the vision and objectives of MBK. In response to the call, “more than 60 superinten- dents of the largest urban school districts have pledged to develop aligned strategies. And nearly 200 mayors, county executives, and tribal leaders have accepted [the] challenge to develop locally driven, comprehensive cradle- to- college- and- career strategies aimed at improving the life outcomes [for young men of color].”2 As the attention to structural inequality continues to grow, grassroots move- ments such as BLM and state- sponsored initiatives such as MBK have proposed not only different framings of the problem but also necessarily different approaches to the solution. While throughout this article I reference the BLM movement, I focus primarily on MBK for two reasons. First, many who are wary of grassroots protest have hinged their hopes on MBK as a state- sponsored initiative that seems to be a Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/radical-history-review/article-pdf/2016/126/96/468695/RHR126_07Mendez_FF.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 98 Radical History Review “step in the right direction.” Second, and more important, as a federally sanctioned response MBK has the resources and potential to create necessary change, making it all the more pressing to hold its aims accountable. For these reasons, this article seeks to consider to what extent MBK misses a real opportunity to improve the lives of youth of color by recycling much of the problematic logic, reasoning, and assumptions of its 1965 predecessor, the Moyni- han Report, the controversial government document that aimed to reduce poverty in black communities through an initiative to “reintegrate” the black family.3 As a matter of accountability for a program with such potential impact, certain key ques- tions must be raised, such as how rehashing central aspects of the Moynihan Report works to derail us from examining the intersectional forms of institutionalized and state- sanctioned racialized gender violence prevalent in the contemporary moment, the very issues that the BLM movement is calling attention to. In other words, to what extent does MBK keep us from examining and altering the structural forms of violence that consistently wreak havoc in the lives of both young women and men of color, regardless of gender identity? To what extent does MBK fall prey to assump- tions that reinforce structural inequalities, regardless of intention, thus laying the ground for an oppositional sexual politics by creating yet another set of conditions whereby men and women of color are pitted against each other in a competition for access to resources? And in what ways does MBK serve as strategy to contain and restrict protest and ultimately transformation? Altogether, these concerns carry new significance in the context of continued protests against state- sanctioned violence targeting black lives and black life. My Brother’s Keeper: Moynihan All Over Again? In an effort to address the “persistent opportunity gaps” that prevent boys and men of color from achieving their full potential, MBK unfortunately recycles key assump- tions of the Moynihan Report. In both reports, women of color are presumed to be faring better in terms of education and jobs than their male counterparts.4 For this reason, women of color have been excluded from the projected program to address racial inequality and structural disparities. Moynihan argued that the United States needed to focus on improving opportunities for African American men because “ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs. A subculture, such as that of the Negro American, in which this is not the pattern, is placed at a distinct disadvantage.”5 For Moynihan, the relative success of black women not only hindered the progress of black men but also served as a measure of the pathology of black families. MBK, it seems, is built upon some of the same assumptions. The claim that women of color are faring better and that they therefore do not need resources directed at improving their lives simply isn’t true. The statistics proclaiming the relative success of women of color compared with men of color Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/radical-history-review/article-pdf/2016/126/96/468695/RHR126_07Mendez_FF.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 Méndez | Which Black Lives Matter? 99 come at a time when black girls are being suspended from school at six times the rate of white girls and women of color have become the fastest rising prison popula- tion.6 According to a Prison Policy Initiative report, the women’s prison population has nearly tripled since the 1990s, the majority of whom are women of color.7 To assert the relative success of women of color in the contemporary moment is to overlook the series of physical and nonphysical forms of violence that women of color face, including but not limited to being funneled into the prison system at alarm- ing rates, persistent poverty, racialized gender wage gaps, and being marginalized within state institutions such as public schools and health care systems. Indeed, these are the structural inequalities that BLM has identified as hindering the prog- ress of youth and communities of color. One of the reasons that this misperception persists, as eloquently highlighted by the African American Policy Forum brief “Say Her Name: Resisting Police Bru- tality against Black Women,” is that there are presently no accurate databases col- lecting accounts of how state institutions also target women of color.8 The brief’s authors contend that the tendency to focus on young men of color leaves us with an incomplete picture of state- sanctioned violence. For example, similar to the cases of young black men who have been murdered with impunity, black women have also been assaulted for “driving while black,” being poor, and having mental health issues.