Racism, bias, and social inequality in the US have impacted most of the marginalized groups, and the most affected being the blacks. The US society has been conditioned in a manner that white supremacy is always in play. Most of the marginalized groups have felt the effect in their daily ways of life. The laws of the US are designed in a manner that should always achieve equality at all levels. However, society has itself designed its laws and regulations that hinder all proponents of equality. Some of the inequalities passed to the minority groups are quite usual, that they are less considered or seen as too normal for consideration. This paper aims to analyze a practice under child welfare through the lenses of critical race theory and white supremacy from basis of the social construction of race. The practice is foster care for native children in South Dakota. Most of the native children in South Dakota are prone to foster care, a practice that has stripped them of their culture and can be best understood through the light of critical race theory component of social construction of race.

Despite the negative impacts of white supremacists in US history through the massacre of the Nazis, some of the citizens still preach white supremacists’ perspectives. According to Gillborn (2005), the term white supremacists is set aside for individuals, organizations, and philosophies that display the character of “overtly self-consciousness racism in the crudest manner.” The concept is set aside for those who showcase racism through extreme means that one can call off in society. Gillborn (2005) claims that such does not mean that racism does not occur in the US. Racism is the order of the day, as the blacks and minority groups are subjected to harsh treatments by the whites and side-lined in most areas of life, economic and social aspects. The aspect of race is from a human-invented classification system, that defines the differences of individuals in the society on basis of race. Critical race theory is manifested by the individuals who practice white supremacists to ensure whites are always on the winning side. Most of the minority groups in the US are subjected to the concept of critical race theory through various aspects of their daily lives on the injustices orchestrated by the whites. From the view of social construction of race, the aspect of race is used in the US to enhance oppression and violence to the minority race, a major aspect of the social construction of race.

In child welfare, the state should always be engaged to assist all children and their families. The state should always offer the children needed support to ensure that they meet conditions that fulfill well-being in life. In light of the social construction of race, the state does not equally accord help to all the children in need. Instead, there is preferential treatment of those from the ‘stronger’ race. The inequalities have been made a norm in the society, as children grow under the oppressions brought about by the social construct of race. Unfortunately, the state can stoop such low to impact children’s lives due to proponents of racism negatively. However, white supremacists’ concept dictates that the individuals who made the laws and those implementing them alienate themselves to their particular race. There is less consideration of the people from an outside race. The aim is always to ensure that the whites get better outcomes in life than the minor races. Through the critical race theory, the state does not achieve its aims and objectives on meeting the demands of child welfare. The children might be subjected to even harsh treatments than their current lives, which negatively impacts them.

The article by Hopkins (2018) is proof of how the foster care system in the US negatively impacts the lives of the natives. The critical review of the foster care system and the natives stems from the thought that the system is doing more harm than good to the natives. Most of the native children find themselves in the foster care system even without need. Hopkins (2018) confirms that the natives in South Dakota are “11 times likely to be placed at a foster care system as compared to the whites.” Despite the advantages of the foster care system for the children who lack a suitable place to call home, South Dakota’s native children are an exception. Even with a suitable home, and family members or relatives who are ready to take care of the children, there is still a high probability that they will be placed under foster care homes. The governments lack trust in the ability of the natives to take care of their children. Such treatment is negative to the children as it denies them a chance to live under their culture. Most native children lose their culture in the process, as the foster homes do not take them through them.

The issue of taking native children to foster homes is not a recent case, as it stems from the past. According to Hopkins (2018), most natives have always lived under foster care for a long time in history. From the 1800s, as the Indian wars were approaching, the children were taking away, and the establishment of prison-of-wars camps was rampant. The establishment later turned to reservations, where the assimilation era began (Hopkins, 2018). Assimilation was a major aspect of the critical race theory, as the natives were stripped of their culture and forcefully transformed to the whites’ culture. Hopkins (2018) also outlines the words of Capt. Richard Henry Pratt, “kill the Indian, save the man,” uttered in 1892, and common in the era of assimilation. During the period, the white supremacist believed only in their culture, and being an Indian was a backward way of thinking. All the children were forced to forget their Indian selves and even given new Christian names to identify themselves with the Americans.

Critical race theory is an interesting aspect, as it has no boundaries even in religion. Despite the whites being Christians and forcing the Indians to transform, they do not showcase the characters of Christ. Their practices and decisions are guided by their white supremacists’ selves, not Christianity’s proponents. The whites believe that their culture is the only right one, and everyone else should bend towards the same. Such thought is negative to the minority race, as most of the natives in US history went through pain during the conversion period. Hopkins (2018) outlines a case of those who were mistreated during the same time by forcefully transforming them from their culture. Such kinds of transformation are not right and should not be tolerated. However, since the laws are always on the whites’ side, no effort was made for those mistreated. Instead, the same efforts are transformed into the present world. The mistreatment of the natives through the forceful foster care homes are depictions of the critical race theory in light of the white supremacists’ thoughts.

The native children from the US’s history have always been taken from their families and society and places with the non-natives. Hopkins (2018) outlines the case of Lost Bird, who Gen. Leonard Colby adopted. Despite her foster parents’ indifferences, who treated her nicely, though they wanted to raise her as a white girl, the society still maintained her being a native. The child faced challenges while growing up and still had the desire to learn her native roots. Critical race theory is identified in the first instance, where non-native parents are allowed to adopt the child. Despite the parents’ love and care, the child is not given a chance to grow through her roots and learn about her culture effectively. She also does not grow in a society that appreciates her well-being. Instead, she is faced with various structural racism from the non-natives and everyone else close to her. The life that the child lives away from people of her same origin is more unfair to her well-being. The aspect of forceful foster care of the native children is more harmful to them, enhancing the deletion of their culture and forceful transformation to being whites.

Most of the children placed in foster care did not need the services and had an opportunity of growing well with their families and native communities. Hopkins (2018) outlines the research in the 1970s of the natives and foster care that shaped the laws and regulations in the area. During the same time, 25% to 35% of the native children were taken to foster homes, institutions, and adoptive homes. Of all those taken into foster care, 85% were placed outside their communities and families (Hopkins, 2018). In most cases, the families were even willing to take care of the children. The denial of such ready families to take care of their children creates questions about the whole process’s legitimacy. Individuals must uphold the cultural values and well-being of everyone in the community. However, from the case of forceful foster care of the native children, it is clear that such is not the process’s aim. The decisions can be defined in light of critical race theory, where the whites forcefully fight for their culture to remain prominent. The process was a way of eliminating the natives’ culture by denying them to pass the same to their children. Such ideologies can only be carried out by white supremacists, who consider their culture supreme to others.

The government’s processes to take more native children to the foster homes were considered a cultural genocide, where the aim was to kill the native’s culture. As brought out by Hopkins (2018), the step taken to combat the genocide was passing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978 by Congress. The aim was to reduce the cases of taking the native children to foster care and focusing on their inclusion with non-natives. The cultural genocide from the case was evident by the number of children taken to foster care and how they are integrated into the whites to a large extent. Through the ICWA act, taking the naïve children to foster homes required integrating with other natives. The focus should not rely on doing away with the native part of an individual but offering the required care. The emergence of the act is a true representation of white supremacists’ presence through the critical race theory. It took the intervention of the government to control the menace.

Despite the government’s input to have the ICWA in place, there are fewer chances that the act is being fully implemented. In her report, Hopkins (2018) confirms that most of the natives in South Dakota are taken into foster care than the whites. Unfortunately, some of the natives still taken to foster care have relatives with the ability to take care of them. The government has not fully implemented the ICWA act’s proponents, and the natives are still losing their culture in South Dakota through foster care. The growth in prominence of white supremacists in the US has played a major role in guiding the practice, making it quite hard to end. The natives are considered a minor race, and the whites aim at eliminating the race in totality, as depicted from their engagement and forceful foster care cases. The cases help support the critical race theory through white supremacists of integrating the whites and the natives.

The natives are denied a chance to enjoy their culture and easily pass it through to future generations. Instead, most of their children find their ways to foster homes, where they integrate with the non-natives. The concept of child welfare is to take care of a child’s needs and ensure that they have effective life outcomes. On the contrary, the help accorded for the native children in the US through foster care does not meet the proponents of child welfare. Instead, it is guided by the critical race theory component of social construction of race in the life of white supremacists’ concept. The native children are denied a chance to grow under their culture and forcefully transformed to the whites’ culture through foster care.