I think the person being quoted is mis-representing events. He "presumes" DH was terrified. Why does he presume this? Did he talk to DH? Does he know DH? There are a lot of reasons why DH was crying at that moment. This was a hugely emotionally charged moment in Portland and in the country. He is a young black male, in a society that views him as violent and dangerous as a rule. He could have been sad, overwhelmed, scared, angry.... This family went into seclusion after this event because DH's photo was spread around the world, without his permission. As a juvenile, any media sharing his photo would have had to have his family's permission, which they did not give. They were harassed, and received death threats (lesbian couple, six black kids, lots of reasons for simple-minded, racist, homophobic folks to get upset...)
The simpler story is likely the truth. Family deeply involved in social justice, kid goes to many events carrying his free hugs sign, at this event the kid is overwhelmed by the situation and Ferguson, being a black boy. He may have real fear of cops at that point, which would be understandable....
I always thought Devonte's tearful face was a bit odd in the context of the photo. Why did the other photographer presume Devonte was 'terrified'? Maybe because he had access to seeing the run-up to the photo and saw terror and upset in the boy's face prior to the hug and that was his impression?
As one of the moms is going around (see the youtube link) claiming these incidents of 'free hugs' in front of crowds of people that get on camera and end up on YouTube, maybe it was the death threats and insults that helped to solidify the need for seclusion rather than the photo being spread around the world?
But why were these children taken to these events, all with their own sign, and maybe being thrust forward to be a focus of attention?
This is a child with a mixed race family. Why do I feel like they are promoting the concept of racial discomfort and fear in their children almost as if their children are accessories to their causes and not just 'their children'? If you stand back outside of the political spectrum and think about it, for me I don't really like when parents seem to promote paranoia in their children, and I'm a bit concerned that these mothers were trying to instill paranoia rather than bring up kids to know what's out there in the world, good and bad, and to figure out ways to surround themselves with the good things? I wonder if the Ferguson protests were playing into a narrative these women were creating for the kids "hey kids, you're black, you're not truly safe with anyone but us your parents who love you" (despite the occasional beating which, of course, is all your fault!)
Bringing kids up to be aware of the world is one thing, but should there be limits as to how far you thrust them into those issues before their minds are mature enough to handle them better? What if...these kids were being used the way the West---something church uses their children at protests? What if they're both wrong to insinuate the children into the adult's causes in this way and not just the people with the cause that we find repulsive?
What if the officer in that photo was responding as a human being to a crying child? What if the 'free hugs' sign gave him the confidence to say (in a charged situation) "let me give you a hug, because you look like you need it" (not because the child was carrying a sign, not because of black and white, not because of riots, but because there's a child who looks upset and the response is to give him a hug? And why does Devonte look like he's in a flood of tears clinging on for dear life to that officer?
There's no reason for Devonte not to be upset and fearful with the level of emotions around him, but the response by his mother is apparently to take him aside and push him forward into the spotlight, not say "is this too much for you, let me give you a hug and we'll go home".
Sometimes we see what we want to see. I think I'm starting to see signs of of things I definitely don't want to see. Without the abuse allegations and the stories from the neighbors I probably would think it was that simple, but now I'm wondering if it's not that simple and the simple, nice, side of it is more of a facade. I have a fear those kids weren't being protected from their fears of the bad things in the world, but that maybe they were being taught how to think, how to feel, instead of gentle age-appropriate discussions in the safety of their own home, and if when they're 18 and at college they want to go out on a protest themselves, then that's their decision.
I think there's a conundrum in how to bring up a child in a world where certain things happen, and how to find a balance between awareness for the growing child, but also ensure they grow up feeling safe and loved and being able to see the good in the world and the good people in the world and to not let the fears take control. I think one of the moms used the same kind of words about this is a black teen who's going to soon be a young black man that society views in a certain (negative) way. But was he also being reminded of the huge section of society that views him like his mothers do, as the person inside? And then I look at the allegations being made by the kids about the way their mothers treat them...restricting them to bed, withholding food, cold baths, beatings...
Maybe it is too simple to see this as some idealized family of white lesbian parents with black and mixed race kids all living in harmony and striving for a better world and better tomorrow for their children?
Why do I get the feeling that the six kids being marched to the neighbors' house to apologize is more similar to "teaching a lesson" to children who've been naughty than anything else? If the child in question has problems, surely you leave the children at home and explain as carefully as you can? Marching all the children over seems to me like when a child does something like shoplifting and you march them to the shop to apologize to the store owner and the lesson gets ingrained and the child doesn't do that again! Taking all the children feels like it's intended to be a lesson to every one of the children, and at the same time present a happy families image to the neighbor, so the neighbor reports feeling a disturbing dichotomy of what appears to be a loving family but what just happened last night? How to make sense of these two conflicting views of this family?
The child in the abuse report had bruises on her front and back from being beaten while being bent over the side of a bath. Even aside from the report that the child claimed to have been forced into cold baths and head held under water, those bruises show that it wasn't just a single spank on the behind with an open hand, and the child said that the woman's hand was in a fist, the evidence says it was an actual beating?
