Many people who are wary of celebrities sticking their fingers into the transracial, intercountry adoption pie are still congratulatory of Angedonna, I mean Madonnelina, I mean of Madonna and Angelina for “raising awareness.” Why am I having such a hard time affording them this sweeping compliment?
When I think of “raising awareness” in relation to intercountry adoption, I think of issues such as exposing child trafficking and misallocation of funds; sexual rights; improved welfare for young mothers, single parents and struggling families; adoptees’ open access to our own records; the reprioritization of intercountry, transracial adoption as a last resort rather than a first-line measure.
As celebrities go, I wish that the badge of “raising awareness” would be reserved for those who use their celebrity privilege to raise real awareness about the factors that contribute to intercountry and transracial adoption as flawed institutions (and how to address those factors), rather than simply applying more Band-Aids, one on top of another.
As it is, what happens when the Madonnas, the Angelinas and Meg Ryans of the world decide to pick out a child of color to raise “colorblind” among the “human race,” is that they hop in their private jet and go on Oprah, where Oprah — the only black woman we need to listen to on American television — congratulates them for their progressive attitudes, egged on by Morgan Freeman’s We-need-to-stop-talking-about-racism, and-racism-will-go-away thing.
It’s a pretty slick system. Celebrity pats itself on the back, and emblazons itself across the popular media, while the rest of us — who don’t have our own talk shows and private jets and publicists — gnash our teeth and smack ourselves on the foreheads because once again, their bastardized form of “awareness” is what permeates and dominates and garners congratulatory praise, and drowns out whatever noise we are trying to make.
Score 1 for Hollywood! Humanity is now one step closer to world peace.
I’ve heard some people say things like, “Well, just wait until Maddox and Zahara are old enough to speak for themselves.”
But let’s keep it real, folks. Growing up as a transracial adoptee ensconced in celebrity privilege, nannies and designer duds, M and Z, Daisy/Charlotte, and Davey Ritchie are, shall we say, slightly different from Lisa Marie, from Sume, from Mudeng, from Jae Ran, and from all the TRAs who write so powerfully in Outsiders Within. (Although hey, it’s still early. I’d love to see the Ritchies and Jolie-Pitts at Pact Camp.)
Raising awareness needs to move beyond reinforcing stereotypes, such as Africa or Asia as homogenous and barbaric nations — rather than the diversely populated, economically and socially varied continents that they are. We need to recognize the danger and ethnocentrism in referring to the receiving adoptive cultures as “better” and the sending cultures as “worse.”
We need role models being recognized for “raising awareness” other than the ones we are currently shown. Angelina, who once cited Maddox as her reason for having multiple “lovers” instead of committing to one, seems less representative of “raising awareness,” and more closely representative of the far end of the adoptive parent spectrum that is interested in fetishizing children’s racial and ethnic cultural heritage. (Visit Racialicious and Made in Korea for some incisive commentary.)
Representing the “I justify my love as colorblind; it’s everyone else who is racist” end of the spectrum, Madonna — who has enjoyed dressing up in geisha face and appropriating various other world cultures and their respective religious and cultural “costumes” as if every day is Madonnoween — would have us believe that she is sacrificing herself as Malawi’s savior, rescuing David Banda from the clutches of darkness with the power of Kabbalah, and “giving him a life.“
While Madonna and Tom Cruise say that David’s and Connor’s race doesn’t matter, and the righteous white people of the world nod along in agreement with them, I can stand among hundreds, thousands of transracial adoptees and people of color who know otherwise.
We can’t keep confusing good intentions with the nonexistence of race. With nonexistence of classism. With some utopian ideal of political, economic, racial, national, sex & gender homogeneity, where we are all the same — no power imbalances, no oppression, no ethnic genocide, no colonialism, no religious contention.
Intercountry adoption is a cause and a consequence of all of those very real imbalances. Rather than treating it as a solution to these problems, it should be regarded as akin to those problems. The cultures and nations that are losing children to intercountry adoption need support in keeping and raising their own children. Transracial, intercountry adoption should not be a vehicle to fulfill a foreign white parent’s utopian vision. The mere act of adopting a child of color does not serve as proof that one is unaffected by racism.
So no, I’m not feeling this celebrity brand of “raising awareness” — which seems less like awareness about what needs to change to reduce the number of “adoptable children” in the first place, and more like reinforcing the rescue mentality: that “third world orphans” must be airlifted out of their native cultures into wealthy white homes for their own good and for the good of their people.
Sadly, I don’t think people are hearing those of us who are wary of current adoption practices. It’s easy to write off what we say as “bitterness” or “anger” in order to undermine our credibility as thinking, intelligent adults. And it’s easy to tune out everything else we say about the importance of birth culture and heritage and race, and instead get hung up on the “orphanage” argument. The adoption community and society at large tend not to want to hear us unless we are congratulating them for doing the right thing by saving us from prostitution and death.
I think it’s safe to say that none of us is arguing orphanage good, adoptive families bad.
“Those people aren’t taking care of their own children” isn’t by itself a good argument for continued reliance upon, and the increase of, intercountry and transracial adoption.
We need to ask, “Why not?” Where is the welfare and support for single parents and struggling families? Where is the support for extended family adoption and kinship care? Where is the support for domestic adoption? Where are the measures to stop human trafficking? Where are the checks and balances and watchdogs to ensure that funds are better allocated within the governments and welfare agencies?
The fact is that the United States isn’t even taking care of its own children. Raising awareness can’t stop at the orphanage in Malawi or on Oprah’s couch.
—
Note: Although I strayed from the specific focus of the assignment, I wanted to direct everyone to the latest assignment at Race Changers, which urges us to think more critically about intercountry adoption, beyond the oversimplified “love vs. orphanage” question that typically dominates the discussion.
This is a powerful post, Ji In, thank you.
Nicely said. I knew there was something bugging me about the way people excuse these celebs’ acts as possibly kooky but still progressive, “raising awareness.” Although as I was listening to these women talking on the subway the other day about Madonna adopting from “MAWALI,” I did think of one thing that she has raised awareness about. It’s probably safe to say that most Americans didn’t even know that Malawi existed.
Still I’m not willing to give her a handshake and a pat on the back for doing Malawi any big favors. She still talks about David Banda’s father as “a simple man” who doesn’t know what the heck he’s saying. Nice.
Well said.
Nice post! Did you read the post over at Racialicious on “Sofia Coppola feminism”? a.k.a. privileged white feminism. I think this is the main problem I have with how the discourse around adoption is dominated….through a white feminist lens (e.g. Madonnangelina). I’m hearing that Hillary Clinton is starting to talk about adoption more….I want to check out what she’s saying but am fearful to find out.
Isn’t it strange how Oprah challenged Tom Cruise about race in raising his children, while the Madonna interview was a fluff piece?
amen to that ji-in unni! =)
i get so sick and tired of celebs thinking they can clear their name and “set the record straight” through creating awareness of issues from the comfort of oprah’s couch. sorry, it takes a lot more than adopting a kid and then defending your actions on national TV~
i don’t watch oprah, but i wish i had seen the episode that madonna was on.
excellent post, ji-in. as you pointed out, this “adoption awareness” is just that, the focus is primarily on the adoption, nothing about ways to help the countries in need, or to better protect the children and families, or the ugly underbelly of the whole adoption process.
Yeah, I didn’t watch Madonna and Oprah’s love fest on TV either — had to catch video clips on the Web afterwards. But I did see when Tom jumped the couch on Oprah and when she asked him if/how they talked about race in their family. She really didn’t quiz him on it. She basically pointed out that he had a biracial son, asked him that one question, and when ol’ Looney Toons said, deadpan, that they don’t talk about it because race is not an issue and doesn’t matter, she congratulated him and then practically led the audience in a cheer. *sigh*
BTW, I don’t know if anybody clicked through the links I put in this post, but everyone should read a little bit of that CNN.com transcript (the Morgan Freeman link). Scroll down a little bit past the Morgan Freeman quotes, and read what Rev. Al Sharpton says. It’s great.
Sarah – I’m afraid to find out about what Hillary’s been saying, too. But I have a sinking feeling it’s probably the typical politician line (à la Norm Coleman’s “response” to JJT’s petition).
If raising awareness equals setting trends and making something look cool, then the internationally adoptive celebs are right out there doing that. However there is a kind of awareness that was not raised by Oprah, nor is it raised elsewhere in the mass media–that Madonna could look a father in the eye and walk off with his baby.
Knowing what she knew by the time to court gave her custody, she could have set up an income for the child’s family, a trust fund for the child and 100 more children in need of a safe place during family crisis, and still–she just takes the baby.
Furthermore, in the O interview, Madonna perpetuated the lie told to her by the orphanage that the father was uninvolved. She said it was something she had been told and those who want to believe that to be true refuse to believe it’s not. When in fact! she had to know by the time she took the baby that his father had been visiting twice a week, bringing food on a bicycle a 25 mile round trip. HELLO! How can this be seen as about anything other than what Madonna’s money can buy?? Especially in a country that normally requires, but waived in her case, an 18 month stay of AP’s?
What is so troubling is that regardless of all the justifcations about giving the child “a life”, I can’t see where the father had anything vaguely resembling due process. The above linked article indicates that he was given a few days notice of something that had been in the works for months. They say he agreed to it–I kind of doubt he had any other options presented to him. The article goes on to say that “it seems” everyone in Malawi thinks it was a grand solution and wishes it was offered more often. (Choking back the vomit.) Could they back that up with one quote?
Hm, I wonder if there would have been any questions about due process if she had done the same in the US? Oh wait in the US parents have to repeatedly prove themselves unfit to lose their parental rights.
The outrageous issues of purchasing babies out of poverty in order to “save” them remain vastly unquestioned and make me want to rip my head off and set it on fire. And I normally try to ignore celebrity news.
For most of us AP’s we (almost) have an excuse for believing the propaganda and misinformation, for filling in the empty gaps with mythology, for our denial which serves us so well in justifying. And yet, when it is so brazenly out there with a celebrity adoption that gets full press, and STILL the prevailing attitude is that everyone is better off after all–well stab me with a fork. I don’t know what to do or say to that.
Except what I just said.
Excellent post.
Sue, if I were a good Christian child, I’d give that comment a rousing “Amen!”
I love how M has said that she’s going through the adoption process just like any other parent. My ass!
Fork me, too! Fork us all. Fork Madonna.
Excellent post. When I hear of people adopting to “raise awareness” or thinking that race simply doesn’t matter, I want to puke (or scream!) I adopted because I wanted to be a mom. Period. True, it was a very selfish reason and I *know* that incredible loss has occured because of my decision. However, I did try to have the most ethical adoption possible, but is that enough? Too many conflictions, I fear.
While we are on the subject of ethical adoptions: http://tinyurl.com/yz4l22
Great post, Ji-in!
It’s Hollywood. People want the happy ending, ya know. In the big picture, there isn’t one.
Underlying it all, there is the idea that someone is made “better off” due to the “good will” of another. For some people, it ends there. Meanwhile, the greater issues of global poverty, racism, adoption ethics and so on get pushed behind a red velvet curtain. Some don’t even bother to look at who the players are or the parts they play. Madonna is now some kind of a hero?
What exactly is Madonna raising awareness of?
Thank you for putting your finger on what has been bothering me about the ‘raising awareness’ argument. (The best I could come up with previously was that Madonna only raised my awareness that the government of Malawi was willing to break its own laws regarding the residence requirement.)
I am saddened that the initial volunteer work that Angelina Jolie did to literally raise awareness for people living in boxes who had “no idea” there were dire situations has now turned into this circus of “Which ethnic child can I adopt next?” Obviously, Madonna got the latter part of the message – and suddenly, transracial adoptees have become celebrity accessories. I was disturbed when I had watched something that mentioned how Angelina still keeps in touch with Maddox’ mother – i.e. his mother is well and living… broke my heart at the thought of a mother who was told that handing her child over to a Hollywood star was the ‘best’ option for him. “Oh, you’re struggling to make ends meet… here, let me take away your baby.”
I think these celebrities are doing disservice to any raising of awareness they’ve done… if they truly cared for the child, and not their own fetish/emotional need (Brangelina) or “my career needs a boost, I’ll adopt a Malawi boy”, why couldn’t they establish sponsorships to keep the children with their own families?
Kahlan, that link to the Guatemala story is shocking, but enlightening. I find it astounding that it seems so few people are concerned with the idea of turning poor countries into baby factories for wealthier countries. The whole thing seems like a scene out of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only on a larger scale. Yet is happening.
And, at its very core is racism itself. For all the people who talk about ‘the best interests of the child’ only in terms of monetary wealth (i.e. rich Western parents are obviously better for children born poor in other countries). Would those same people be in favor of letting wealthy Americans wander through U.S. maternity wards and pressure middle- and lower-income Americans to give up their children? After all, by the same criteria, wouldn’t their kids, though well-to-do by global standards, be yet still ‘better off’ with even richer parents? Where do you draw the line? Is it just that it’s OK to take the children of “simple” people like David Banda’s father?
Don’t get me wrong. I am in favor of adoption in the instances in which a birth mother truly does not want to or feels unable to parent her child. I believe there will always be some situations in which this is the case and that loving homes can and should be found for these children.
But pressuring and exploiting poor people, guilting them into giving their children “better” lives is repugnant.
Maybe Madonna would do better by adopting needy children in her own country, but I don’t know about that either. I know nothing about the reality of international adoption, but from what I read here and some other sources, it seems that the act of adoption itself is barely the surface of the issue. It really galls me how people are always trying to invalidate the experiences and opinions of other people and I’ve seen that a lot in this discussion, particularly against Ji In. That is something so foolish and potentially harmful that it needs to stop, period. Great post and you have my admiration for being so passionate and sincere about this issue.
I agree, well-said. Why can’t you go on Oprah?
e
Thank you for your personal insight. I want our new daughter. Different race, yes she will be. Alot to learn, yes. Thank you again.
Alyson
This is an excellent post/blog article! I appreciate someone speaking pointedly about this issue. As a native amerian woman, I am aware of the many native children who were stolen away in an attempt to commit cultural genocide against native populations all across the Americas and Canada — complete with the same self-serving pats on the backs of the inevitable white, christian families who adopted these children, never admitting their complicity with the further disinegration of a viable, if poverty striken, culture.
I think adoption is great. I wish all who adopt the best but there needs to be a recognition and deliberate attempt at keeping cultural ties alive — if a child MUST be placed in a home outside the child’s cultural background. There needs to be a realization that cultural knowledge is precious and important to the health of these children.
I have met so many “lost birds” (the well-known name given to native children who were “adopted out” of native families) who are fundamentally at a loss because they were never exposed to their own culture’s ideas, religion, and traditional stories. I can only assume this trauma is the same for the children from other third world nations who have been taken away from their own cultures.
Tasha