Yet another article making the rounds is attempting the grasping stretch between the Zoe’s Ark fiasco and adoption, and hitting all the right notes with some who sing that tune and have little inclination to expand their repertoire.
Written by Lebanese-born adoptee and gay activist and writer Daniel Drennan, it takes a criminal act and dresses it up as international adoption, then quotes UNICEF’s lead tout spouting off indignantly, saying:
“This is not something that should be tolerated by the international community. It is unacceptable to see children taken out of their home countries without compliance with national and international laws.”
Well, duh.
Following her quote with this from him …
Her outrage unfortunately reflects a one-sided worldview concerning adoption today.
… rather makes the point, doesn’t it?
One more time here, folks: Zoe’s Ark is NOT about international adoption, no matter how often the attempt is made to smear the two together.
As an adoptee, Mr. Drennan has opinions on the value of adoption and he is more than welcome to them, and to share them, but his status grants neither a clarity others don’t possess nor the authority to speak for an experience wider than his own.
With the employment of faulty logic and emotive presentation, Drennan does manage to convey his meaning clearly in the article, but fails to do so in a way that has much to do with the real world.
… adoption on the international level creates a “demand” for orphans that is answered by Third-World countries and the agencies that serve them with a “supply” of children; it is problematic to bring a foreign-born child into a non-multi-cultural environment; individualistic, nuclear family-based cultures undo other more community-based cultures.
This ridiculous idea that adoptive families “create” orphans is one that continues to be regurgitated regularly with little regard for the facts that 200 million children face daily, and like others who suggest that “there are things that could be done to greatly alleviate if not eliminate poverty in the world today if the collective will to do so, which would require change in the standard of living of the First World, existed”, such simply refuses to acknowledge that these are living, breathing people that suffer as the collective will of the world has its attention focused elsewhere.
Pie in the sky is not on the menu. Never has been. Never will be.
Sticking with the simplistic in Drennan’s postulations, his insistence that adoption is all about First World versus Third World suggests that he is foolish enough to think there is nobility in poverty and corruption and that Third World countries need only a shift in First World standards of living to bring the Third World to a point of providing everything a people needs to live comfortably and raise families.
I live in an African country, and like most who experience the world outside of the tidy package presented to Americans I can tell you all that just ain’t so … not in this universe, anyway. Find the parallel plane where good triumphs over evil and the righteous always prevail and I’ll be happy to take a report, but here, now, that doesn’t happen and isn’t likely to — ever.
But, when in doubt, break out the emotive language and hope no one pays any attention to the lack of sense?
Do we simply deny that baby theft and brokering exist? Is it not paradoxical that underclass children in First-World societies go unadopted, often for racist and ageist reasons? What aberrant First-Worldist rationale allows for the adoption of Third-World children, while forbidding adults from these same Third-World countries to emigrate, or while deporting those already present back to their home countries?
Wow. All that at the end of just one paragraph!
1) No we don’t deny that baby theft and brokering exists, and those occasionally, albeit rarely, even have something to do with adoption. But in the huge majority of cases theft and brokering have to do with slavery and the sex trade, both thriving, especially in countries where international adopiton is not an option. And don’t forget infanticide! That’s a biggee, too, and also has nothing to do with adoption, although an increase in possibilities could very well be helpful.
2) ‘Underclass children in First-World societies’ going unadopted has more to do with faulty systems than because of “racists and ageist reasons”. Get kids out of bio families BEFORE they are irreparably damaged and stop making it impossible to adopt transracially and far fewer ‘underclass children’ will languish. (And although it’s handy to ignore when going all self-righteous, but many adoptive families are made up of older children and sibling groups, and of different races. Okay, they are Third-World ferriners, so apparently don’t count.)
3) And what aberrant First-World rationale views international adoption as a racial issue and puts it in the same category as deportations?
I am very happy that Drennan has found some peace in returning to Lebanon as an adult adoptee after being adopted as a tiny infant and raised in the US in an adoptive family. I am sorry that he has not been successful in his search for birth family. I am in agreement on much of what he has to say about Western involvement in other countries.
It is time to speak about the hypocrisy that ignores the ever-growing gap between the First and Third Worlds and the terrible abuse of the current power imbalance between them — a continuation of a sordid history in which the poor, the nether, the “uncivilized” portions of the planet serve as source material to be plundered, exported, and sold.
Actually, it is far beyond time to speak about these issues. The world is a cruel and horrid place for more individuals than those who find it cozy and kind, and that this should not be is a no-brainer for everyone not steeped in mulitnational business interests. That said, I have to wonder why someone like Drennan feels compelled to agree so emphatically with UNICEF’s Veneman when she states:
“It is unacceptable to see children taken out of their home countries.”
Does that not sound like a very bad case of discrimination … possibly even First World elitist discrimination … against the most innocent inhabitants of the world’s most dangerous and difficult places? Does Mr. Drennan’s international adoptee status provide some sort of absolution that allows him to wish on others a fate he escaped without painting him discriminatory? Is he allowed to speak for all? For any?
When voice is given to all concerned, when the discussion is finally and honestly balanced, only then will adoption no longer be tainted with the lingering remnants of an unjustly divided world.
On this, Daniel Drennan and I agree. I await an honestly balanced discussion.
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
First of all, could they please please please not use the phrases supply and demand when it comes to children? It really gets under my skin.
I feel as if people who write these articles don’t understand the REALITY of it all.
It’s mostly the US = priveledge and other countries are the victims of losing their kids. I don’t think it’s that simple when you consider how many couples and singles would have to scrape together money just to afford the home study fees, let alone the whole thing.
I don’t know why there isn’t more of a call to reform the foster care system in the US to really take care of these children the way they should be taken care of. It seems quite a few people are drawn to adopt from other countries because the process might be a bit less unpredictable than foster to adopt.
They act as if not one single person here in this country adopts sibling groups or school age children or so-called minorities, when there’s quite a few people who do when they can get past the red tape and rules that are NOT about the children but more about parents who are giving chance after chance to abuse again.
Where is the outrage for things like that?
I’m not saying trafficking doesn’t happen, especially when there are couples who may want a little girl as young as possible and don’t know how to tell ethical agencies from those who are trying to make a quick buck, but I don’t think these folks really understand how bad the alternative is for these children. Orphanages, alleys. At least in the US there is a foster care system, it needs to be fixed, but kids that age out often get scholarships and healthcare. What do kids in Romania or Russia get more often than not?
No, I think more of these folks just want to grind axes and not face the actual realties of what kids go through in this world. It might be a refreshing change if people thought more about the kids regardless of where they come from.
Also, I don’t think these folks realize how things are totally not that simple! Not everyone is ready to raise an older child that has experienced abuse and neglect, let alone a 6 month old with attachment issues. People are practically stoning children and it drives me insane completely.
I find it interesting that the tone of this article seems to imply that international adoption is robbing the children back home of the chance to be adopted. Since we adopted older siblings of another race from the US foster system, this is one area I feel a little bit qualified to have an opinion on.
In the beginning, you are treated like the savior of the world, for being willing to do what many are not. But let me tell you, this is a kind of parenting that most people can’t even imagine. It requires so much more of you in ways you never even dreamed of back when you had stars in your eyes.
And when adoptive families are forced into hideous corners, they are then crucified both in public and privately. We have successfully parented biological children, and did not go into this thing with a huge agenda of our own. But childless couples do. They have a need to parent, and love a child…and I can’t imagine taking an unseasoned, childless couple and expecting them to not be eaten alive.
I guess what I am saying is that it is like comparing apples and oranges. Although adoption issues can be much the same across the board, they can be very different too. Just because a family is willing to do the hard work to adopt internationally, does not mean they are willing or suited to do foster adoption in the US. I am inclined to think they would just be languishing on waiting lists for healthy infants.
As for the poverty issues, again, I am commenting from the comfort of the first world, but it seems to me that poverty is simply a fact…like location, or climate. It neither makes you noble or base. There are endless opportunities to be either, no matter where you find yourself in the social strata.
Here in the US, our situation finds me raising another woman’s children. Some people find that shameful on her part, others find it shameful on mine. No matter. The truth remains, that I am a woman who began giving birth to my children at a similar age, have little more education, and have probably never lived with much more financial means than this woman. Yet many would cry that it was poverty and lack of opportunity that drove her to the place of losing her children. And some would cry that I snatched that opportunity to steal them.
Quite honestly I don’t know what to do with that. Sometimes this world seems so ludicrous and cruel, that I am without words. And as those who know me will testify, THAT is something.
Scraps,
The words you do have on this make one heck of a lot of sense.
I agree with Sandra. They make a lot of sense.
Something that I’ve been struggling with started on another board…. entitlement. We have no interest in adopting domestically, unless it is through foster care (I do not care to put together a profile, be chosen, etc…)… but I’ve seen people say that those that do want to adopt domestically should adopt through foster care instead. Blah blah blah….entitlement, etc… We’ve all heard the argument. When it is pointed out that an inexperienced adult taking on the role of parent to, say, a 11 year old that has been bounced around from foster home to bio home and back several times, could be facing a myriad of problems, it is said that it is privelege and luxury that allows us to make that choice. That people feel entitled to adopt domestic infants. That people feel entitled to “buy” the children of poverty stricken women in third world countries. It is so disheartening to hear that I think I am entitled because, although I hope to adopt several older children through foster care someday, I do not feel ready yet.
If this reply is completely off topic, please don’t post it, Sandra. I don’t want to get everyone off track.
Kristen
Kristen,
“Entitlement” is nothing more than another slap at adoptive parents meant to intimidate and cause those considering adoption to question motives and back away. Although serious consideration is vital, once a family has completed their evaluation the cudgel should no longer be wielded, especially not by those with an agenda having nothing to do with children joining families.
I don’t even know what entitlement and priviledge has to do with adoption in the first place. It seems to equal unnessasary guilt and distract from REAL problems that should be faced and dealt with.
I just wanted to point out that UNICEF/Veneman’s actual quote includes this important distinction:
“…without compliance with national and international laws.”
which was quoted in full in the beginning of the post, but not at the end (second-to-last quote).
It is Drennan’s point, not UNICEF/Veneman’s, that this last qualification is unnecessary. (i.e., Drennan believes that they should NEVER be taken from their countries, even with laws in place such as the Hague Convention, while UNICEF’s original statement would allow this under certain conditions.)
The AFP says explicitly that the Zoe’s Ark people had ‘adoption in mind’… so, who is it exactly that is ‘smearing’ these two things… a criminal act and adoption… together?
mark,
The AFP is now clairvoyant? And since when is a news agency an arbiter of truth? Since at the time of the arrests AFP and others were quite clear in quoting those involved as having no intention of adopting, it seems some smearing has been happening.
The mass media is as culpable as Mr. Drennan in dressing Zoe’s Ark in wooly rhetoric meant to mimic international adoption. Such attempts, however, do not validate the postulation.
I see entitlement and privilege occasionally in paps. especially ones who have held off having children for years to pursue their education and then become infertile because they waited too long to have children, and act as if having a child for them is an entitlement because they’re “successful.”
its clear as day for some, definitely not all, but definitely some.
I agree with alot of what the author has to say in the article. I have seen poverty outside the US, awful places, and I’m not advocating for children to be left dying in gutters in any way, but i think there are better ways to lift up children out of poverty than just pick and choose one and take them to the”rich” land.
Not sure how welcome I am to post here though, so I guess I’ll leave it at that. Go ahead….slam away. lol.
Gershom,
You are most welcome to post comments here, and slamming only happens when a door has been rudely opened in invitation to do exactly that.
I’ve been reading your cogitations on trafficking on your “Anti-adoption” blog (That’s the title, by the way, for those who might not know, not my branding.), and appreciate the efforts you’ve taken to try to understand the realities. The thread you choose to spin from the information seems manufactured, emotive and stretched, however, to accomodate an inflexible personal agenda.
I agree that there are “better ways to lift up children out of poverty than just pick and choose one”, and encourage everyone to support organizations that strive to do just that. It is also necessary to engage enough to exert pressure politically and demand needed changes. I am, however, unwilling to ignore those living now in this world and force all to suffer their fate without hope. Adoption can be a hope.
As for entitlement and priviledge, name a segment of society that doesn’t include individuals that exhibit these unattractive traits in spades. To labor this point, I most certainly come across it often in adult adoptees and birth parents.
“Since at the time of the arrests AFP and others were quite clear in quoting those involved as having no intention of adopting, it seems some smearing has been happening.”
Since the time of the arrests, that’s hardly suprising.
However, it seems that earlier last year Zoe’s Ark had said that it hoped to bring orphans from Darfur to France for adoption and at that point the French Foreign Ministry warned the group that any such attempt would be in contravention of international law.
Shortly after the group was arrested a French diplomat revealed that around 300 families in France and Belgium had paid 2,800 to 6,000 euros ($4,000-8,600) per child to take them into their homes, but that, since the warning, the Zoe’s Ark people had stopped saying it aimed to have the children adopted.
Then, shortly after the arrests, Sarkozy’s spokesman said that the Paris prosecutor’s office had opened an inquiry into “illegal exercise of intermediary activities with the aim of adoption”.
So far I haven’t been able to learn anything much about the French families involved – other that what they paid, that is. Since it’s a matter of international concern, I assume they’re pretty much gagged until after the trial. It will be really interesting to hear what they were expecting for their money.
“It will be really interesting to hear what they were expecting for their money.”
Yes, it will. Especially with attribution.
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL26523529._CH_.2400
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/briefing/us261007.asp
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files_156/chad_190/france-and-chad_5738/zoe-ark-operation-in-chad-october-30-2007_10185.html?var_recherche=zoe%27s+ark
“Last news (October 30, 2007): Ms. Yade received the NGOs yesterday. Today, the head of the Department of French Nationals Abroad will receive associations in charge of adoption, and Ms. Yade said she would be ready to meet in the coming days with the families of our compatriots who are being held in Chad.”
There does seem to be at least *some* implication that adoption was under consideration. I think it’s too early to assume that this fiasco was unconnected to adoption or not.
As soon as I figure out how to do that quote thing in the comments, i’ll feel really cool…..
From SandraB:
“I am, however, unwilling to ignore those living now in this world and force all to suffer their fate without hope. Adoption can be a hope.”
I would never advocate to leave any child to be left to suffer a fate without hope. There are other ways to helping orphans and children without having to adopt them. And, if all other avenues are exhausted, then let them be adopted, adoption over death is far more favorable imo.
Can families not be adopted? Can mothers and children not be adopted? I believe they can be, but rarely are? And I don’t understand that. I don’t understand why mothers get left behind when clearly they’re surrendering in situations like these out of complete desperation. How can anyone just, take the child, pain and all and leave the rest behind. I don’t have the answers Sandra, but, there has to be a better way. I’m willing to throw some ideas out there to see what others say and think and maybe one of these ideas with the help of everyone can evolve down the road and grow into a system that really does support the child in all of the right ways. A system that doesn’t leave icky feelings behind because some of it, alot of it, just isn’t right.
Yes, I do co-post at a blog called anti-adoption. I do not believe in adoption as we know it today, these are my views, it doesn’t mean i am a child hater, or even an adoptive parent hater, i love my adoptive parents very much, but I don’t love the industry we are ALL a part of and I plan on exposing that industry there(at the blog). I’m still capable of respecting those opinions that differ with mine, and listening to others opinions as well. I actually have been sucked into this blog and a couple more with mostly AP’s, i’ve been a busy little bee, reading and reading lmao.
And after re-reading that last post of mine I can hear the adoptive parent conscious of mine saying “its not our responsibility to be the cure all save all saviours, and no, the responsibility doesn’t fall onto the adoptive parents hands soley, it falls into the hands of humanity, all of us. I just want to clarify for anyone who was about to say that I thought it was JUST the AP’s fault or responsibility, no i don’t think that.
now…since I was DYING to come and see if you read my post this morning i didn’t even eat breakfast so….. to breakfast I go.
According to Lisa Pham for New Matilda
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2591
“Their solution was to give Sudanese orphans a better life by finding them shelter in France, where they would have access to education and opportunities away from war, poverty and genocide. The children could seek asylum to stay in the country and after a few years, their host families would be able to formally adopt the children once they became French citizens.”
Kippa,
Also from the Matilda article:
The Zoe’s Ark mess was a poorly conceived, criminal act. Are you arguing that? Or are you, like Drennan, insisting that this poorly conceived criminal act is the same as international adoption?
Gershom,
I am upside-down time-wise from anyone writing from the US, so your breakfast time can be when I’m going to bed.
Now that I’m awake …
Happy New Year. We’re already almost 10 hours into 2008, but I just heard the ball drop in Times Square as I sat down to check my mail.
In composing my reply I’ve gone a bit wordy … no surprise there, I’m afraid … so I’ve made a post of of it all.
First, “thank you” to the reader who pointed out what I was trying to say in re-iterating the quote in shortened form at the end of my article. I sense there might be trouble on your part (as you point out in your sarcastic remarks) following multiple points in a paragraph, or a thread that covers 2000+ words, so thanks to those who might help you along.
I am curious for you to answer a question of mine, though: Why did you see fit to describe me as a “gay activist”? This is not a term I use to describe myself; in fact I have let go of all of the identities that Anglo-American society labeled me with upon my return to Lebanon. Furthermore, were you to have read the article that you link to, you would see that I don’t use the word “gay” to describe myself either. This was not used in the bio of the article, nor does it reflect anything I would ever say about myself, nor is it really relevant to the issue at hand….so why do you choose to bring it up?
Secondly, I would only say that your statement that you “live in an African country” is like someone in Martha’s Vineyard claiming street cred in South Boston, or someone claiming they live in “Washington, D.C.” when they live in the White House. So I’ll thank you not to lecture me about sheltered Americans, or “tidy packages”. I do not live an expatriate existence in Lebanon, nor in some post-colonial “paradise” off of the African coast, and am willing to compare and contrast with you who has a better sense of on-the-street reality.
Third, I am not sure how you managed to confuse “rude awakening” and the paragraph that follows with “having found peace”. I’d ask you to come to Lebanon, if you can put your foot and your wine glass down for a second, and see what “peace” I’ve found: in the orphanage and its records that are heartrending beyond belief, among the 80+ fellow adoptees I am in contact with, among the population here and everything they have lived through, which I have only experienced for these past three years, but which has been enough for three lifetimes. Please come see, and witness. Then we can discuss.
Finally, I honestly don’t understand your need to criticize the article thus, unless you are making a bigger political statement concerning acceptance of the status quo, or are otherwise proving my basic premise correct, that you believe that we as adoptees and the communities we come from don’t have a right to speak. I mean, you so much as imply this. Is this what you are saying? Why, if you agree that there should be discussion, are you basically telling me I don’t have the right to speak?
Are you making a political statement? In this case, your tactics are known to me. To us. They are as old as slavery, as old as colonialism, as old as oppression itself. You don’t get to paint me with a brush that you don’t apply to yourself. You don’t get to lecture, or reprimand, or hold up to ridicule. We do not have to kowtow or be beholden to you. I do not have to listen to you try and smear me, implying that I am content to watch people suffer. I mean, that is borderline Orwellian, what you are doing. Again, please spend one day with me in Lebanon. Please.
And we don’t need your permission, or your agreement, or your approval before going ahead with the changes that we are working in the world. Because “pie in the sky” is on the menu, I hate to have to be the one to inform you. If you happen to read any language other than English this would be apparent to you; in South America, in the “Middle East”, in Africa, in Asia. In my activism here in Lebanon I am witness to this; and the resilience of the people here gives me hope.
Please explain where your position comes from, this acceptance of the horrors of this world which have a cause, and can be remedied. If you are not willing to look at the cause, that is your prerogative, along with the others that you claim for yourself. If you are not willing to look at history, that too is up to you. But there is a world that is tired of living the repeated history of yours simply because it is convenient to those who have more than they need, and are pulling up the ladders and closing the doors behind them. I’m sorry I’m not the quiet infant you would wish me to remain my whole life. I’ve given up everything of my former life in the States in order to try and make one small dent in a horrifying world. You’ve made us, now you have to deal with us. And you can decide to help us, or else, please, move out the way.
LINK: Korean adoptee speaks out
LINK: More adoptees speak out
I see you are no stranger to sarcasm, Mr. Drennan, and wield a sharp sword yourself, but I will put that aside in an attempt to get to the meat of your matter.
When I Googled your name, links came up. I linked to them so people who might choose to learn more about you could. I used the descriptions provided. It didn’t occur to me that you would take issue with any part of “Lebanese-born adoptee and gay activist and writer”.
As tempting as it must be to assume that I write just for you, I was not “lecturing you”, nor do I have any compulsion to “compare and contrast” with you over anything. You are welcome to whatever version of street cred you’d like to claim, and your opinions on adoption.
The point of my post was to illustrate the blatant use of headline-spinning criminal activity to cultivate and encourage negative perceptions of international adoption, a tricky little gimmick that’s been quite popular lately, but not valid.
To say that taking steps to address misinformation is an example of “basically telling me I don’t have the right to speak” is employing one of those tactics you speak of, ones designed to slam the door on conversation that disagrees with your take and notes faulty logic when seen … much like a stamp of the foot and storming off in a huff.
See, I too am allowed to participate in the conversation. I understand that being at odds with your self-righteous thinking and refusing to sit idly by as adoption takes yet another unwarranted jab puts me in a position to be insulted and demeaned … after all, I am an adoptive parent, therefore a representative of the “wrong side” of the adoptive triad to some minds … an easy target.
Like it or not, however, your status as an adult adoptee does not bestow on you any great wisdom or appoint you an arbiter of truth and right; nor does it have anything to do with me, so hissy fits like the one at the end of your comment don’t serve to impress or convince.
Really, Mr. Drennan, if it’s your mommy your mad at, take it somewhere else.
RFI which broadcasts here daily, and the majority of the French press that I consulted connect Arche de Zoé with adoption, in one way or another, directly or editorially. Whether this is valid or not, or “headline spinning” as you say, is not the point–that it is part of a bigger picture is, as I state in my piece.
Being an adult adoptee who has gone back to his country of origin does give me insight, as hard as it has been to face, and as hard as that might be for you to understand. And it does give me wisdom, in terms of challenging the myths of adoption which have been one-sided for too long. It does allow me to speak out about injustice, especially that committed in the name of altruism. It has nothing to do with self-righteousness, because I’ve removed myself from the equation as I see it. Again, I invite you to come to Lebanon so that you can see what I’ve seen and witness what I’ve witnessed.
Question: Do you put yourself in your child’s shoes, and wonder about what they are going to question later on in life? If this were your child saying this to you, would you tell him/her to “take it somewhere else?”
Insight, I’m sure, and you need no one’s permission to speak out on injustice or anything else, as you know. I, too, have had dramatic experiences that influence my thinking and flesh out my judgements … not in Lebanon, so you have the floor there … but in Africa and Asia.
As for your question …
Since I am mother to my children, I am where they “take it”. A couple of them are pushing 40, so “later in life” is something I’m familiar with.
One of my biggest concerns on that front, however, regards a foster son we no longer have and the questions he will present, if he’s lucky enough to live long enough, as to why his life had to be so hard.
Injustice in the name of altruism is still injustice, as is injustice in the name of greed and selfishness and cruelty. You fight your battles; I’ll fight mine.
“Are you insisting that this poorly conceived criminal act is the same as international adoption?”
I’m not insisting anything of the sort.
I’m arguing that, contrary to what you insist (that the Zoe’s Ark fiasco was not ‘about’ international adoption) it has a great deal to do with it. So much, in fact, that to claim that it’s not ‘about’, in any sense of the word, is stretching the boundaries of meaning (and logic) beyond breaking point.
The French foreign office recognised the connection.
And (you asked for attribution) so did some of the prospective foster/adopters, as the following radio transcript http://www.toucanradio.org/zoetranscript.html clearly ilustrates.
Certainly it seems that Rachel Sanchez from the Matilda article wasn’t one of those who was looking to adopt in the long term, but there’s no doubt the carrot was extended, and that others, like Manuella and Emmanuel, bit.
“Manuella and Emmanuel live in a stylish loft-space in Paris. She is 41, he’s 40. They found out they couldn’t have children themselves, so they decided to adopt. But it’s been hard, because they are over 35 years old.
Emmanuel: It seem that we arrived a little bit late [laugh] for the adoption
They were intrigued by the Arche de Zoe’s project
Emmanuel: It seems to us as a possibility to uh welcome a baby very quickly and to bypass the normal uh- adoption process that is very long and uh very desperating”
It’s clear that the organization deliberately created emotional expectations with respect to adoption. When the organizers first started looking for families, they went to those who already had approval from the French Government to adopt. They posted on adoption message boards.
“Lelouch: We went to Internet and we started to discuss with people who was waiting for a child for a long time, just because we think they are much more ready.”
I’m not suggesting that criminality of this sort typifies international adoption, but the fact that it was a criminal act doesn’t make it any the less about adoption.
Kippa,
So, you’re not insisting “anything of the sort” that Zoe’s Ark is the same as international adoption, and I don’t suggest that trafficking, baby theft and such don’t exist and occasionally involve adoption in some way, and we both acknowledge the events in Chad, and whatever was happening in France in coordination, was a violation of laws, rights, sense and more.
So, the conflict would be … ?
Uh, forgive me for being clueless here, but what exactly does it prove even if Zoe’s Ark was ALL about international adoption and nothing else? Why is it so important to prove that Zoe’s Ark is about international adoption?
Again, sorry, but I just don’t get why it’s so important to attach Zoe’s Ark to international adoption?
Clue me in?……
“Question: Do you put yourself in your child’s shoes, and wonder about what they are going to question later on in life? If this were your child saying this to you, would you tell him/her to “take it somewhere else?””
Hey Mr. Drennan:
Just a quick question…..I don’t know if it’s the current “adoptive parents all bad, very bad” climate or the desire to wound rather than educate that swirls around adoption topics these days, but questions like the one above seem, to me, designed to manipulate rather than seriously pose a question in hopes of learning something new.
I feel like questions like this are designed to make the recipient smack their foreheads and say “of course! I never considered how adoption would affect my child. I never considered that there is another human being suffering and longing for this child. I never realized that my child would have any desire to know his counterpart family in (name of place where child was born). I never realized adoption could be used by immoral people as a business and that adoption reform is desperately needed. Wow! I suck!”. I mean, come on. How, where and when has Sandra told you that is how she approaches adoption…..for herself and her children or as a whole? If you don’t like her post, or you don’t like her style of writing or if you find her acerbic, then say so. She’s a big girl, she can take it.
As for adoption-related issues, wouldn’t we be more effective if we found common ground and not opposite ground?
“So, the conflict would be … ?”
Duh. Like the title of your piece.
I’m simply disputing your claim that the Zoe’s Ark affair isn’t ‘about’ adoption.
You’re denying that it has anything to do with it. Which it clearly does. It’s a significant part of what it’s ‘about’.
Let me reiterate.
While I’m not suggesting that this kind of criminality is necessarily typical, it does share many characteristics with a particular kind of neo-colonial, do-gooding, self-righteous, bull-headed zealotry that all too frequently goes along with international adoption.
That said, I certainly don’t believe every person who adopts from ‘abroad’ thinks in such a way, but too many do, even among those who stay within the limits of the law.
Although you say “I don’t suggest that trafficking, baby theft and such don’t exist and occasionally involve adoption in some way” you seem to be unable (or perhaps unwilling) to grasp that this particular criminal act was, to an important extent, about … adoption!
Trisha said, “Again, sorry, but I just don’t get why it’s so important to attach Zoe’s Ark to international adoption?”
I suggest you try asking yourself why it’s so important for Sandra to try to detach Zoe’s Ark from international adoption.
When it is so clearly and directly connected.
How about if people thought of what was best for the child?
In some cases it’s better for a child to be adopted. In others, it’s best for them to stay with their biological parents. Some children have loving extended family members, some don’t. Some are surrounded with abuse from all sides.
Someone have no one in the world at all to care for them.
Every situation is different. It’s the same thing, adoption, but it divides into different branches, motivations and a whole heap of stories.
Just because this amount of people have had a bad experience, doesn’t mean this next person will. That is the point of educating oneself rather than just shutting down all arguments with vitriolic statements that makes the other person’s arguments too unappealing because you are talking about people’s complicated lives.
Also, I can’t take anyone’s arguments serious when they throw around slavery and colonilism in the same paragraph as adoption.
It annoys me as a black woman.
It’s not even close to the same thing!
Kippa:
I suspect it’s important to Sandra to detach Zoe’s Ark from international adoption because, as someone who supports adoption, she sees way too many people who live to twist the truth about adoption into some kind of lack of morality and compassion on the part of AP’s. As someone who is clearly at odds with Sandra and her philosophy I’m sure you feel that she lives to make adoption more appealing than you clearly feel it is. And so the bitching goes round and round.
How about this? How about we make a post, just one, with absoloutely no negativity or personal insult to the recipient, outlining an area of commonality. I’ll start…..
S/I/S:
I love the way you keep drawing the conversation back to the child….and keeping the discussion focused on what really is at the center of adoption.
Kippa:
I appreciate the way you recognize and proclaim the areas of international adoption where corruption occurs. Like many things, too many things, intended to be about “the good of _________”, it can easily fall prey to those with less scrupulous motives. We should be aware of the good along with the bad.
Gershom:
Your straight-forward and direct approach to international adoption (and, I suspect, to many of life’s “things”) is both refreshing and enlightening. It sheds light, for me anyway, on how sometimes things that are already complicated, get even more so as we all put our own spin (human nature) on things and leads to the “point/counter-point” attitude that permeates so many discussions.
Sandra:
Your passionate defense of the world’s unwanted, shoved aside, marginalized, fallen-through-the-cracks children is awesome. You are tireless in your fight for them and to make sure they do not fall victim to good intentions resulting in poor social planning. I am more glad than I can say that the children of the world have you in their corner 🙂
Mr. Drennan:
Although I don’t know you well, living as you do in the “midst” of a situation that is cheek-to-jowl with the causes of international adoption must give you a remarkable birds-eye view of so much that is tragic about adoption. It is indeed a noble thing to use one’s life to meet the needs of others.
Okay, I think I hit the major players here. Kristen and Scraps, your words were very valuable, also and your experience adds valuable ingredients to the mixture we have here.
So, why is this so hard…..and some of it WAS hard for me, I admit….so hard to say, “yes, you have a point’. It’s hard because it’s human nature to defend your position against any and all attacks even if (especiallY?) if they come from the “same side”…..but give it a try. Write something agreeable to one of the people you disagree with. Take it back to a point of agreement and work forward from there.
Because endless bitching and correcting the proverbial “t”
s and “i”s isn’t changing squat…..even when change is about the only thing we can agree on.
“I can’t take anyone’s arguments serious when they throw around slavery and colonilism in the same paragraph as adoption.
It annoys me as a black woman.”
The people of Chad, who’ve lived under French colonialism and have a long standing relationship with France, would seem to be annoyed too.
You can call me just “Daniel” if you like. And I’m not looking for pats on the back, but thank you.
I think our battles are probably very similar, were we to sit and discuss it, but maybe the approach and the notion of the bigger picture are different.
I wasn’t writing to jump onto a trend, but maybe there is a reason it seems that way. Perhaps because many of us who were adopted in the middle and later part of last century are coming of age, or are experiencing that moment of finally questioning it all, or else have finally decided to face things square on. I really couldn’t say. I’m actually rather surprised to see the response to my article, because frankly I had no idea that there was such a discussion taking place, or that sides were so divided. I was coming from the big picture down to adoption, not the other way around. I was aware of the Lebanese situation, but had never attempted to find common cause with other adoptees. So it has been a shock and a surprise to find that much is going on along these lines; in a way it is a bit of a relief.
My appeal to a more personal expression is that it is easy to go after me as another “rabid anti-adoption wingnut”. But I don’t recall ever saying that “adoptive parents are bad” (or in the more sarcastic, simplistic way phrased here). I also don’t recall saying that I think children should be abandoned to their suffering.
I also think that online communication media allow for a non-personal remove that allows for kneecapping instead of discussion (so I thank you too for allowing this discussion to take place in full). But I see in this a reflection of a) a general lack of civility in terms of debate in the media and in society and b) something that I allude to in my article, namely, the abstraction that takes place between a large picture in the abstract and a local or individual manifestation that personalizes things.
Such that you might hear “homelessness is a big problem” but you will also hear “don’t give the panhandler money, he’ll just buy drugs/he should get a job/there are places for him to go”. There is no connection made between the life one leads as perhaps contributing to the conditions of others. In the case of adoption, this discrepancy is reflected in the fact that you cannot ask for the salvation of children in the Third World when the systems that find economic, social, and political incentive are supported by this practice and which simply export the problem.
So there is something disturbing about talking about the salvation of children in the aggregate and abstract, but when they show up and voice their opinion–perhaps 20, 30, (or in my case) 40+ years later, but these are the same people you are advocating for–they are ridiculed, or badgered, or shouted down. I think it is important to realize that there is emotion on both sides of this issue, and that there should be respect for that emotion, no matter how it expresses itself.
I am the first to say that I respect the decisions of my birth parents, as well as my adoptive parents. I am also the first one to try to explain to adoptees who contact me about Lebanon that the picture is infinitely more complicated (and often infinitely more sad) than they can imagine, and that it is energy lost to despair of one’s condition, especially when one comes back to this place and sees how things are here, and especially when the world can’t wait for us to salve our wounds.
And of course colonialism, capitalism, and the institution of adoption are linked. Of course they are! Adoption law has its roots in economic motives, not social advocacy. And the social advocacy has always been questioned and critiqued, which has to be the case. Adoption is an evolving institution that reflects the world–globally and locally–in very specific ways at any particular time. As the world changes, the practice has to adapt and change as well.
If anyone finds they can’t take me seriously on the subject, then maybe they would find Malcolm X’s writing about the destruction of his family by lynching and then later by social services to be more to the point, and better stated than what I could do in one small article. Franz Fanon comes to mind as well (among many, many others). The point being that the debate should be not directed at an opposite side, but at ameliorating the condition of all, worldwide, without qualification, without intellectual remove, from our hearts and our minds. To this I commit myself 100 (if not more) percent.
Salaamu aleikum.
Daniel,
Aleikum selam.
I was just thinking about you as I composed today’s post, about where and how olive branches become whipping switches and vice versa, so your comment is well timed.
I will admit there’s a history between the Zoe’s Ark mess and its use in attempts to tar all of international adoption with the contaminated brush of criminality that sparked a flare when I read your article, so although you weren’t writing to “jump into a trend”, at least as far as my blog goes that’s what happened.
(And, as an aside, “Wingnut” is not a term I’ve used up until now, but I rather like the sound of it. There’s a rabid rapid-development-destroy-the-planet-now guy I think it fits nicely, so thanks for that. From now on he is dubbed the “Planet-plunder Wingnut”.)
As for talking in the “aggregate and abstract”, that’s not what I’m doing. I am specifically addressing the issues of real children in the real world right now.
Although you can certainly claim it as yours, I have not had the experience of witnessing adoptees “ridiculed, or badgered, or shouted down”. I have, however, been the target of adoptees’ ridicule, badgering and shouting down on a number of occasions as have no few other adoptive parents that have attempted to participate in conversations or responded in discussions. It would seem to be the case that this happens on many fronts, and I agree that it has a great deal to do with the platform we use for discussion and a general lack of civility.
I disagree, however, with your statement that “In the case of adoption, this discrepancy is reflected in the fact that you cannot ask for the salvation of children in the Third World when the systems that find economic, social, and political incentive are supported by this practice and which simply export the problem.”
In my view, one of the few things we can ask for is the “salvation” (although that is not a term I would choose, and I’m a bit suspicious that you have chosen it for its manipulative possibilities) of some of these children, given that the economic, social and political systems aren’t going to change any time soon and time is short. I don’t understand how you see adoption as “providing an incentive for or supporting” the death of millions of AIDS victims or war or famine or genocide. These things happen without any prodding from adoption, and their residue is partly what adoption can attempt to alleviate.
I don’t mean to suggest that adoption can solve the world’s problems, but that it can go a long way to solve some problems for some, and that it is nowhere near the roots of any part of what makes the world an impossible place for so many.
Although the institution of adoption and adoption law are rooted in things other than love and caring and need (and, yes, there are times when need is covered, but without the love and caring, and that’s a crying shame), adoption itself is not. Adoption in what I know as its pure form … expanding whatever definition of ‘family’ to include as fully accepted members those born to others … has been going on for as long as children have lost parents and isn’t restricted to humans, nor to occurring between only one species. History provides a basis for adoption as a viable alternative for human orphans, cases of inter-species adoption are well documented, and in the animal world it often happens that a mother will take on the care of a young one left to fend for itself.
All of this has me contend that adoption, especially within our species, is most certainly a product of a social mandate, if not advocacy, historically.
The brittle bits of adoption … the parts that jar and scrape … the processes, trends, attitudes — those can smack of colonialism and capitalism, and the places that happens should get attention. The world does change, and as it does every rigid girder supporting every institution must be tested for strength and value, adoption included.
In your final point, I agree again; we should not be casting aspersions across a divide often of our own making, but building bridges where we can in order to facilitate a cooperative effort to make the world a better place. If this is to be a better place, it’s going to take a lot of us to pull it off.
Thank you for continuing the conversation, and I look forward to more opportunities for exchange. I know very little from first-hand accounts of life in Lebanon and am interested to learn more on that and more.
I do have a friend living in Beirut now, so it’s not impossible that I will someday visit. I would give a lot for a big plate of kapsa right now!
I think that, as evidenced by dialogue with Gershom, we often are not as far apart in our beliefs as seems at first. Often one person who writes “adoption” is thinking ‘coercion of expectant young mothers” while the one reading it is thinking ‘giving love, life and a home to orphaned children’. The use of a general word to cover a personal experience or agenda is confusing. Add insult, barrage tactics and gang behavior and communication deteriorates quickly. When this layer can be peeled away, often what lies beneath are two people who are committed to children and who are able, and obligated, to make change. Making change together, in my experience, is usually preferable to making change alone.
Sarcastic? Yep, I can be sarcastic. It is, IMHO, a normal reaction to the absolute insanity some people spew in their anger and manipulation tactics, but this certainly does not apply to all people who dialogue about adoption. In fact, to be fair, it only applies to a few individuals I’ve encountered in the past five years.
“You can call me just “Daniel” if you like. And I’m not looking for pats on the back, but thank you. ”
Thanks, Daniel. The pats on the back were not obligatory. It wasn’t hard for me to come up with something I admired and agreed with you on so much as it was hard to turn away from the knee jerk reaction to argue on opposite sides. The compliment was sincere.
“Adoption law has its roots in economic motives, not social advocacy. ”
I agree that adoption is used by different people, different groups if you will, for different reasons. There are people who manipulate the institution (for lack of a better word) of adoption for politcal or monetary gain. Equally…and in all honesty, more often….I see adoption embraced for the love of children in general and also I see adoption embraced for the love of certain children specifically. I also have a hard time with the above quote as it relates to orphans. With the huge numbers of orphans in the world (200,000,000 was a number I saw floating around recently), I can’t see finding them a loving, stable, permanent home to be a political or personal agenda, but rather the love of one set of human beings (the adopters) for another group (the adoptees). I also consider children abandoned by both parents as orphaned.
Sandra,
Do you mind if I post the link to this entry to another blog that has just discovered Drennan’s article? I think your opinions would be a valuable resource.
I looked for your email to ask you, but couldn’t find it!
As the sister of an adoptive parent, I had a little exchange with Mr. Drennan in which he told me very patronizingly that First World countries were not “Shangri-Las.” I finally told him that in Canada, the US, Europe, teenage girls usually aren’t murdered by their family members because they talk to the wrong boys. For which I was called a racist.
Sigh …
Oh, by teenage girls being killed for talking to the wrong boy, no, it doesn’t happen in all adoption source countries. It sure happens in the Middle East that Drennan claims as his home.
If I recall … and this post was a long time ago … Drennan lives in Lebanon. The discussion between us went hot for a while.
Apologies Sandra that this found its way onto your site.
Just for the record, our full exchange in email can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/adoption-canada-response
I’ll leave it up to readers to determine who is “patronizing” and, indeed, “racist”.