Good gawd, help us all, as we witness the beginning of the end of the middle of the downfall of humanity. It’s really happened!
Pop star Madonna has filed official adoption papers confirming claims she has adopted a one-year-old boy in Malawi, according to reports.
Kingston Kilembe, the Malawian government’s director of child welfare services, told the AP news agency the singer had filed papers on Thursday.
The star and husband, film-maker Guy Ritchie, completed the procedure before a high court judge in Lilongwe.
I feel sad.
I surprised myself by making it all the way through to the end of this article, where I read this:
In an open letter to Madonna released Tuesday, the private Malawian child advocacy group Eye of the Child welcomed her concern for Malawian children, but questioned whether foreign adoptions were in the best interests of children.
Jackie Schoeman, executive director Cotlands, a South African organization that cares for children affected by HIV, said the first choice for orphans should be a place in a local family. In Africa, orphans usually are take in by their extended families, but AIDS has affected many of the people who might have traditionally provided support.
“If the only other option is for them to be in a long-term institutional then we would consider international adoption,” Schoeman said.
(And can the hopeless geek in me just say that CNN and the Associated Press need to flog their copy editors?)
I appreciated that this statement made the cut in an otherwise typical article about celebrity antics, celebrity publicists, celebrity cover-ups, celebrity praise, celebrity privilege. Of course the fact that it got shoved down to the tip of the journalistic “inverted pyramid” says a lot about how much weight statements like this are given in transracial, intercountry adoption media coverage.
Instead, in this article, quotes from various family members and Malawians singing the praises of Madonna’s kindness overshadow any concerns about whether foreign adoption is in the best interest of African children. After all, a Madonna-sized pocketbook love is all it takes, right?
The boy has a father and a grandmother, people! Which makes him as much of an orphan as I am. (And my very-much-alive Korean mother and three sisters would have something to say about that.) So while the media goes around photographing Madonna with the kid strapped onto her back à la Zahara to Angelina but not yet admitting that she’s claimed him as her own, I have to wonder what it is about white (celebrity) privilege that makes adopting these kids, removing them from their home cultures and existing families, an act that merits modern sainthood.
Because if this really is all about the kids, then why not support the father and the grandmother in keeping their child? Take that worldly concern and kindne$$ that funds your adoptions and your Kabbalah orphanages, Hollywood, and help preserve families and empower local communities — instead of taking away a colorful souvenir.
P.S. It seems that the U.S. media can’t get their act together, but here’s one article from a U.K. news source that shows a modicum of regard for Africa’s children.
Let’s never forget the importance of deconstructing the notion that intercountry adoption of “third world” children to Westernized nations is “better than.” Such assumptions are dangerous and reductive ways of thinking about children’s welfare. It’s unfortunate, to say the least, that the amount of despair in poverty- and HIV-stricken nations leads to these kinds of statements, as such statements serve to: (1) reinforce the misconception that wealth and white privilege can save children from their birth cultures, and (2) mark the birth cultures as inferior. And (3) piss me the hell off.
Yes, I can’t help thinking how much more good Madonna could do by providing the money for the child’s biological family members to care for him. But that wouldn’t make for good photo ops, would it?
Ugh.
Very sad. I can’t believe that they showed the father on TV, and didn’t have any explanation except to say his son was going to a “better place”. I sat there scratching my head — “okay, so the boy obviously has his father…why is he being adopted exactly?” Malawi doesn’t even allow international adoptions to boot, but that’s all been waived. Presumably because of that large checkbook.
Yes, this makes me sad too. There’s no doubt that white celebrity transnational transracial adoptions generally seem motivated by patronizing, self-serving and, ultimately, ridiculous desires on the part of the celebrities (and their PR machines). And news coverage generally trivializes the complexities and seriousness of the problems involved. But there’s another point here, too — though minor in comparison to those other ones — celebrity adoptions indict the rest of us (non-celebrity) U.S. adoptive parents. After all, aren’t we part of the same rotten and patronizing system, based on essentially the sale & purchase of children (in some cases nominally designated as “orphans”), whose biological families, immediate or extended, are thought to be too poor, too distant, or too oppressed by societal norms to “come back”? This is sad, but it’s hard, after thinking about this, to conclude otherwise. Indeed (and as apparently confirmed by a lot of the postings here), it’s hard seeing any cases where transnational, transracial adoptions are justified. Sorry to be so negative, but that’s how I feel right now….
Nicely said, Ji in. Btw, if you haven’t already, check out Andrea Peyser’s column in today’s New York Post. Here’s a bit from Gawker on it: http://tinyurl.com/t2cc9
I am less than thrilled…Obviously there are many conflicting opinions on international adoption but I think pretty much everyone involved wishes that there was a complete moratorium on ‘celebrity international adoption’
All it seems to do is highlight the problems with international adoption as you’ve noted and at the same time attract more people interested in ’saving them poor little orphan children’. and then there will be all the crap about how an adopted foreign kid is this years must have accessory (like they are some kind of shoe or handbag) and boom – it’s 3 steps backward for everyone…
Thank god somebody with a credible audience has publicly denounced this shady trend much in the way I mutter angry one-liners of protest in my all-white neighborhood dentist office. And so well, too. (Your last paragraph was enough to elicit the raising of my fist into the air. There is nobody else around.) I keep wondering what Maddox is going to turn into.
Btw, nice photo over at Anti-Racist Parent. Pics of you on this page are so rare these days.
Great post.
Found this:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061010-105217-9638r
“Guy Ritchie allegedly fears that his wife wants the child as a symbol of celebrity status and that she has not considered the problems that may come along with the adoption, Britain’s The Sun reported Monday.
Ritchie, 38, has experience in the problems that can arise from adoption. His mother, Amber Leighton, had to give up a baby boy for adoption when she was 17-years-old and hid the secret for years, The Sun said.
Also, his stepmother, Shireen Ritchie, fought a battle to find the truth behind her own mother’s adoption, the newspaper account reported.”
I just read a report on a list about one family trying to “unadopt” a child because he has too many psychological problems. What is Madonna gonna do if this child becomes unmanageable Or becomes bad PR?
What gets me the most about this: Madge is there to spotlight children orphaned by AIDS then adopts one with a family!
Hah. Thanks for the link, Carmen. GREAT article!
Also, more commentary out of the UK: Why is Madonna treating Africa like a little orphan that needs adopting?
It’s depressing to me to read the reactions of the press and the general public who continue to simplify adoption and especially transracial international adoption as a matter of “love” and giving the “orphan” a “better” home. It’s enough to make me want to throw somebody off a bridge.
And it’s not just adopters and the general public who do this. Alot of adoptees seem to need to simplify adoption as well, which makes me so sad. When I hear other adoptees talking about how they are grateful to be saved/loved/wanted, I just want to shake them. You know these celeb adoptees are NOT going to grow up really learning about their heritage or understanding that it’s NOT a matter of better or worse off, or being saved versus left to rot. They are going to grow up being told and retold the story of how their rich and famous humanitarian moms and dads swooped in and airlifted them out of a dirty ,starving village. And how someday with their inheritance they can swoop in and do the same thing, and then get back out and change into some clean freshly laundered clothes.
The other thing that burns my britches is how lots of non-celebrity AP’s are denouncing Madonna and Brangelina’s adoptions, but MANY non-celeb AP’s adopt with the same demoralizing preconceived notions about “Third World” countries and other “ethnic” chidlren in mind.
Alot of orphans are NOT orphans, myself included, and I hate the way people seem unable to grasp this concept. The savior complex and the level of entitlement some people have…is overwhelming!
I have to say I was just shocked when I read that she had actually adopted the boy, especially because the first article I read quoted the child’s father, who is apparently still well aware of his child’s whereabouts. I am rather irritated at the journalists who report this who haven’t even tried to explain how a child with a father and grandmother is considered eligible for international adoption.
Intercountry and intercultural adoption issues are complicated even when the children are orphans with no known relatives to care for them. But, I too completely fail to understand how you can leave a country with a child knowing that he has known family who care about him. Did she even try to find out whether his family could raise him if they had some financial assistance or help?
The articles said the little boy was already living in an orphanage, but the question of why he is there hasn’t been clarified.
Especially, if Malawi does not ordinarily even permit international adoption this is something that should be looked into. How is this any different from baby selling?
I had the same thoughts. The money could have been better spent assisting the family.
Although I haven’t read all of the articles I have not seen anything in what I have read that indicates if THIS particular child has HIV? I have only read that Madonna wishes to bring attention to the problem.
Obviously affording proper medical care for their children is part of the problem. As you said her money could have been put to better use. Giving it to the boy’s father to help him raise his OWN son would have been helping to fix the problem on a far greater scale.
Has Madonna been back to Detroit lately? There’s some issues going on there that she could definately throw some money at.
And I’m pretty sure that, after her big mission to bring attention to AIDS in Africa, Madonna made damned sure that this kid wasn’t HIV positive.
As someone who has spent years dealing with infertility and navigating the adoption process, this whole thing really stings. If she can be a great mother, great. What really hurts is that I can be a great mother, too, but because I don’t have millions of dollars, I still have to jumps through all the hoops to “prove” it to a social services organization. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be homestudies; I just want to know what makes Madonna better than me.
Here’s a CNN article that actually talks about the controversial nature of the adoption. Evidently, the adoption is being challenged by a child’s rights group in Malawi. I still think the article’s slant is on the pro-adoption side, but at least it discusses why the group is challenging the decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/13/madonna.challange.reut/index.html
The boy’s FATHER said what???????????????
What is she doing adopting a child who has a family? Why doesn’t she just sponsor the family?
Not good, not good at all. NOT GOOD.
Oh my gosh, I am just so impressed, I just strumbled upon this site, and you guys are all so thoughtful and aware about this issue! It really impresses me alot!!
I keep hoping that she really has no intention of taking the baby, but is just trying to draw attention to the sad circumstances which force many non-orphans to enter orphanages – ?? If only she would turn around now and reunite him with his family, with sponsorship. It’s common sense, not rocket science. Or am I being overly optimistic…
Reading some of the comments and reflecting on what I wrote, I thought I should add that I wasn’t exactly thinking along the lines of Madonna cutting Mr. Banda and the grandma a check and then going on her merry way. I was thinking more that with the $3M she is sinking into her “Raising Malawi” (WTF is up with that name, anyway?) KABBALAH orphan center, that $$$$ could go a long way toward helping to build programs that would help empower the children, *and* the families of the children, *and* the community with accessible health and social welfare resources.
I am aware that lots of people out there are still insisting on sticking to the simplistic “adoption trumps dirty orphanage” line, but I’m sticking to my POV that we need to look at the myriad factors that influence the thriving adoption industry, and not just accept that adoption is the only solution to socioeconomic distress and keep feeding coins into the same archaic machine. So Madonna builds a $3M Kabbalah center for orphans. What is she promoting? Real child and family welfare, or religious pseudo-salvation?
Amen to that. $3 million apparently can buy you a pass to skirt a poor country’s ‘no intercountry adoption’ rules, and the ability to pick your own parting gift from a specially created line-up of a dozen candidates, while you and your entourage stay in your own private upscale hotel. And then you can leave in your private jet as the new patron saint of said poor country.
I wonder how she chose Malawi as the target of her latest Kabbala publicity spree. Dartboard? Spun an arrow? Picked the name out of a safari hat?
ji-in, here’s something i thought was interesting; http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S29%20-%20Holt%20Agency.htm
the quote he has at the bottom is familiar (i’ve read it in their ’seeds from the east’ book) i’ve always felt it was ethnocentric in a way and here this writer states what i was thinking.
Let me guess, the oh so humanitarian Madonna, who speaks of the plethora of AIDS orphans in Africa, adopted one of the African orphans WITHOUT AIDS. (Sorry for the caps, I couldn’t help myself). What irks me about this whole thing is the need for celebs to look so worldly, so spiritually above their massive wealth, that brown children become a fabulous commodity for them. But of course, only cute, healthy cherubic orphans. Would love to see a celeb with their great big hearts adopt a child with special needs. They certainly have the resources to take care of a child with special needs (not everyone does), and special needs children are much more difficult to place. But of course that is not as GLAMOROUS! I’m feeling ill.
The whole thing is disgusting, I hope the adoption does not go through, it’s being challenged now. I don’t think that bitch even had a homestudy let alone a discussion with a social worker. But never mind that, I really am beginning to think / agree with you that international adoption by well off white folks is just more imperialism and exploitation. It’s something I’ve decided I cannot do – this case just made that clearer to me.
mommy… my stomach hurts.
Great discussion.
For anyone interested in reading a great book that addresses the issue of AIDS in Africa (specifically Ethiopia), and the resulting numbers of “orphans,” Melissa Faye Green’s book “There’s No Me Without You,” is an excellent read. It’s long, but I finished it in 3 days. It looks at the myriad issues from many different points of view and manages to cover all of it intelligently, realistically, and respectfully.
I’m sure Madonna hasn’t had a chance to read it. Too busy, I guess…?
e
This just about takes the cake:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/people_nm/madonna_dc_2
SAVING a child, helping him ESCAPE. How about helping him escape the forced parentage of an elitist white celebrity who purchased him??
“We have gone about the adoption procedure according to the law like anyone else who adopts a child.” Uh, “like anyone else,” my ass!
As an adoptive mother, I want ask … how many of these commenters have even given a thought to adding a child to their family through adoption? If you have adopted a child, then you’ve got a right to have an opinion about the nature of adoption in this country and the world. If not, then maybe you should think about it and stop criticizing Madonna. You think it’s all cut-and-dry? Think again.
I think it’s safe to say that no one adopts a child to have a fashion accessory.
PunditMom,
“If you have adopted a child, then you’ve got a right to have an opinion about the nature of adoption in this country and the world. If not, then maybe you should think about it and stop criticizing Madonna.”
Wow. I knew some people felt this way, but am surprised that someone who does would take the time to come onto an ADOPTEE’s blog to say it. If you’re only interested in adoptive parent commentary, perhaps you should visit a different blog.
To say the least, I strongly disagree. Every citizen of the world has a right to her or his own opinion about adoption. Intercountry adoption is a social, economic, political, racial/ethnic and human rights issue. I believe that means that the dialogue needs to extend beyond adoptive parent groups.
Adoption does not happen in a vacuum. Adoptive parents are only one part of the equation who have monopolized the stage for far too long, and to be a part of a generation that is helping to shift the tide is a source of great pride, strength and solidarity for me. Like it or not, adoptees and birth parents are involved in adoption. Perhaps some adoptive parents would be more comfortable if we did not speak up for ourselves.
I say too bad.
As an adult adoptee, I give up my right to my own opinion regarding adoption to no one.
To say that only adoptive parents have a right to voice their opinions about adoption is not only especially disrespectful to adoptees and birth mothers — without whom adoptive parents like yourself would just fall in that “other” category as well, with no right to an opinion. It is a patronizing attitude, analagous to arguing that only white people have a right to discuss race relations/racism, or the surgeon may have an opinion about medical treatment but the patient may not.
I am confident that no one who has expressed opinions thus far in this thread believes that adoption is all cut-and-dry. Quite the contrary. Is it safe to say that adoption is not a fashion trend? I am not nearly that certain.
The attitude that “Punditmom” expresses truly disgusts and angers me. Adoption is most certainly everyone’s business, and any/everybody who CARES about children most certainly has a right to an opinion about it! To say otherwise is downright offensive not only to adoptees& birthmoms, but to those of us adoptive parents who believe that our children and grown children _have brains of their own_ and have important things to say! In fact, I’m willing to say that adoptees should have the floor in this kind of discussion, and we a-parent need to zip it already, unless we are ready to listen & support them. We’ve had our say for years. It’s time to put a cork in it and let the _experts_ (the adoptees!) take the floor.
Would we say that slave owners are the only people who should be allowed to have opinions about slavery and human trafficking? I think not.
Almost all of the commenters in this thread are either adoptees, birthmoms, AP’s, PAP’s, or have some investment in adoption. Which of us are allowed to have an opinion?
Sorry, Ji-in, I’m taking my own advice now and zipping it. Keep voicing your opinion! It’s important and needs to be heard!
I would not have posted but I was equally outraged by the comments made by others criticizing ANYONE who wants to adopt.
I must say, if it is true, that most of the people commenting here are touched by adoption, I am truly surprised and amazed.
I am truly sorry for those of you who think any adoption is motivated by self-serving reasons.
Punditmum, most adoptees (not all, MOST) feel pretty strongly about the decisions we had made ABOUT us when we were babies. We might not have been able to express our opinion then, but guess what? we aren’t children any more and you can be damn sure that we will express any opinion that we want too and will continue to ensure that people are made to think about the repercussions of removing children from their families. rock on, Twice the Rice !!!
PunditMom, I do not see the comments where people are “criticizing ANYONE who wants to adopt.”
For me, the bottom line is that the issues being highlighted in Madonna’s case certainly are relevant to intercountry and transracial adoption as a whole, celebrity or not. Personally, I *do* believe that adoption is, in part, a selfish act, just as the motive behind choosing to bear a child biolgoically is, in part, self-serving.
Because you seem like a new visitor to my blog, you might not realize that most (though not all) of the people who visit here are either adoptees, adoptive parents, or (birth) mothers — as Jo mentions above. Many of those who are none of the above are close to the topic of adoption in some other way. And many who engage in the discussion here are approaching the topic of transracial adoption as people of color who are here as allies to those of us who recognize that race and ethnic heritage are irrefutably central to transracial/intercountry adoption and TRAs’ identity process.
I most certainly honor the opinions of the adoptees and (birth) mothers who are involved in the discussion. To discount our voices because we are not adoptive parents is nothing short of an insult.