by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Before I get started with this post, a few clarifications. First, I don’t think that Madonna is the evil, attention-hungry, Angelina-copycat that others are making her out to be. I’m sure she was guided by the best of intentions when it came to this adoption. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t buy into essentialist notions about blacks, whether she realizes it or not.
Second, we have no way of knowing exactly what transpired during this process. Was she really led to believe that David’s father’s whereabouts were unknown? Is it true that his father never visited David at the orphanage? Was David’s father misled into believing this was not a permanent adoption? We’ll just never know, and it’s best not to make assumptions about any of the facts.
Third, I do not oppose international adoption and no, I wouldn’t prefer to leave the orphans to die. But are those ever really the only two options?
Okay, with that out of the way…
I was struck by how many times Madonna used the phrases “I will give him a life” or “he didn’t have a life” when referring to her adopted Malawian child, David, during her interview with Oprah on Wednesday.
And I think this gets at one of the main problems I have with the way international adoption is discussed in this country. There’s always this unspoken, underlying assumption that:
- keeping the child in the home country = no life or a bad life
- bringing the child to “the West” = a good life
The situation in Malawi is dire, yes. But discussions about international adoption always make it seem as if every single child who doesn’t get adopted by an American family — no matter what country the child is in — is going to die. Like, right now. But that’s just not always the case.
Also, we really need to question the assumption that the benefits of international adoption will always outweigh the negative repercussions. I encourage you to read this post of Ji In’s at Twice the Rice, in which she writes that “there is irreparable pain and there are primal wounds inherent in adoption that no privileged upbringing can erase.”
Can a better standard of living, healthcare, education and loving adoptive parents ever make up for what is lost when a child is removed from his or her country and culture? Shouldn’t every effort be made to try and keep families together? Shouldn’t adoption be a final resort? I don’t pretend to have the answers to those questions, but I’m disappointed that the questions are rarely, if ever, even asked.
If a country is experiencing such extreme poverty that it cannot adequately care for its children or orphans, is international adoption the best solution? Or the only solution? If, like Madonna was, you are so moved by a country’s troubles that you feel compelled to do something to help, are there other things you can do? Things that could actually help solve some of the underlying, fundamental problems that have led to this dire situation in the first place? Those questions are never asked either.
I was surprised that Madonna so willingly and unquestioningly accepted the orphanage’s claim that no family member — not even the father — had ever visited David since his arrival at 2 weeks old. Not only did she fully believe it, but she immediately assumed that it meant that “no one was looking after David’s welfare.”And during the entire interview, she didn’t once acknowledge the fact that David’s father might have kept custody of his son, had he had the resources. Her focus was on his apparent gratitude to her: “Thank you for giving my son a life.”
This lack of acknowledgement of a father’s loss reminded me of the old slavery-era essentialist notions about blacks that were created to justify oppression. Black people were characterized as subhuman and bestial. That meant that the notions of democracy and freedom this country was founded on didn’t really apply to them. Black men were said to not love their wives and children the way white men did, therefore it was perfectly okay to split up families and sell them off to different plantations.
Could a similar essentialist/white supremacist notion be at play here? Does Madonna believe that David’s father couldn’t possibly love David the way she can? That the affection and parental relationship she can offer is inherently superior to his?
I also wonder whether there are essentialist ideas at play in the way the Madonna, Oprah, and really everyone else in the media constantly talks about “Africa” as if it were one big country, with people who all share a culture, language and political system. Africa is an enormous continent, with countries that are vastly different from one another. And yet all we’re told about it is that there are children dying, there are wars, there are a lot of people with AIDS, and everyone is really poor. And anytime a movie is made about Africa, the focus is on the white people in the story, so we learn nothing there either.
We never really hear about how or why things got to this point in the specific country. What historical events led up to this situation? What responsibility should former colonizers bear? What geopolitical interests want to keep the status quo? What roles have large corporations played in contributing to this mess?
When those questions are never addressed, we’re left with the general sense that it’s the Africans’ own fault. That they suffer from some kind of fundamental, self-destructive pathology, and that they need white people to step in and save them from themselves. Basically, it’s a white man’s burden thing. No wonder people don’t think it’s racist to suggest that African-Americans were better off because of slavery — at least they didn’t have to stay in Africa!
I sincerely hope that all the criticism surrounding Madonna’s adoption will cause people to rethink the simplistic ways in which international adoption is framed. For more on this topic, check out the adoption roundtable discussion I hosted with Jae Ran and Ji In on episode 41 of Addicted to Race.
This is an absolutely great entry — thank you. I’ve also been bothered where this has been painted as either a pro-adoption or anti-adoption issue. There are many many levels of debate in any adoption and certainly that’s true of international adoption but at the heart of this is a woman who ignored the laws to take a child. Madonna is not a typical adopter. She could use her influence to open up a dialogue about adoption and whether or not adoption should be an option to improve the lives of the children of Malawi in orphanges but instead she stepped in, took a child and left. When she said that any of us would see the situation and want to help similarly I say, sure. We might WANT to but that’s not necessarily the best option for those children. (And then again, it might be but that’s up to the people of Malawi to decide.)
Exporting children should NOT be a wealthy country’s first response to another country’s crisis.
I also think that there being “no adoption laws” in Malawi is an indication that adoption means something different to David’s father than it means to Madonna. I only hope that if she continues to parent him, that she will pursue an open adoption and seek ways to benefit David’s entire family, not just for their sake but for David who should not be burdened with the survivor’s guilt that will go with such a public adoption with a known family who is left suffering.
>keeping the child in the home country = no >life or a bad life
>bringing the child to “the West” = a good life
According to the father, all of the other children he has fathered are dead. According to the interview, David has already had tuberculosis, and when Madonna discovered him, he was seriously ill (with pneumonia, if memory serves).
>The situation in Malawi is dire, yes. But >discussions about international adoption >always make it seem as if every single child >who doesn’t get adopted by an American >family — no matter what country the child is >in — is going to die. Like, right now. But >that’s just not always the case.
I agree that this is untrue when it is stated or implied, generally. In this individual case, by the father’s own admission, it is the case.
Madonna hasn’t just cut and run. She first ended up in Malawi to assist with an orphanage there called “Raising Malawi.” And, she said in the interview that she will continue to assist with 1-2 visits to Malawi per year (not including the money she has contributed).
I applaud her for her efforts.
First, to address what Dawn said: Malawi does have adotpion laws. It just doesn’t have laws or a program that addresses international adoption. There is no guarantee if one even wanted to adopt from Malawi that each adoption would be treated in the same manner as the next.
Second, this entry is great to bring up the issues as it lists here… and it’s too bad someone isn’t trying to bend Oprah’s ear (and thereby bring this issue up for discussion as it should be) to air these concerns on national TV. More should be done to get the message out that IA isn’t a simple answer to the ills of any country if there are better options for the children within their birth country.
And lastly, I think more needs to be done to educate the public at large about the issues surrounding IA. At best, most people who are adopting internationally are ignorant beyond the very superficial, immediate concerns of IA when they adopt a child from another culture or race. Posts like these and the ones form Jae Ran or Ji In are quite informative and brings to mind the need for more education, more discussion, and brainstorming for how to resolve these issues. (How does one determine that all other options have been exhausted for a child before the child is to be considered for IA? Who is to make that determination?)
I was quoting Madonna on Oprah with “Malawi has no adoption laws” as an excuse for working this the way she worked it.
Of course adoption at its heart (and I say this as an adoptive parent) a selfish decision for the parent. I don’t fault Madonna for wanting another child or for wanting THIS child — I fault her for not appreciating the subtleties of the situation. This is a woman used to ferreting out undertones to our culture; she’s not an idiot. And let’s say she DOES appreciate the subtleties. Then I shame on her for not using this as a public platform to bring them to light.
But I am pleased that there IS a public discussion going on and I hope it will lead to thoughtful reform or at the very least to more informed adoptive parents as we look towards building our families.
I think a lot of this stems from the consumer culture of the Western world. If David was raised in a village with comparitively few “material” belongings that is somehow bad, and because Madonna could offer him more in the way of material belongings, that is equivalent to offering him a “life.” I think that reflects poorly on Western society in general- that more “things” are more important than emotional rewards.
I know that some of the happiest people are the ones who have the least material wealth and the most loving famillies. So I do believe that if David had been able to have been raised by his father, extended family (we have no way of knowing what kind of people they are, but let’s assume that they would have raised him in a loving home) he could have had an equally happy life. The only essential advantage Madonna could offer would maybe be medical care, which she could have provided for him without adopting him.
That said, David was in an orphanage- there is no way to know whether he would have spent his whole life there if Madonna had not adopted him, but, let’s say for argument’s sake that he would have- would it have been better for him to have been raised in his home country, but without a family unit? I’m not sure what the answer to that is.
My personal experiences growing up let me know that it is possible to make a difference so that children can grow up in their first families or within their original communities. Here are a few highlights from my family background. As a child living in Tanzania, my parents cared for an infant. They respected his traditional food and cultural needs. After several months he returned to his family stronger. The respite care that my family provided helped their family stay together. As an adult, my parents reconnected with my Tanzanian foster brother. Encouragement and a little financial assistance have enabled him to become self-sufficient by buying a few tools so he could complete a training course.
In the US, while I was growing up, my parents informally supported a teen mother and child escape from a violent boyfriend and reconcile with extended family members. Mother and child moved to a safe, supportive area near kin and they both avoided the interventions of the child welfare system. I have several other personal examples, including the story of a teen who lived with us for a while and an old lady who became self-sufficient after being
institutionalized for most of her live.
My life experiences lead me to believe that individuals can make a difference. International adoption and the US child welfare system are huge institutions/businesses with lots of layers and players. Just because a task seems hugely insurmountable doesn’t mean it isn’t worth an effort to create change.
I think it is important to question the circumstances make so many children available for adoption in the US and around the world. I try to keep the historical and current contexts of poverty & race in mind in discussions about adoption. I hope that adoptive parents will unite in efforts to improve the quality of live and services available in the communities where our children originated. I find it repugnant that some adoptive parents push for ease of access to children in one breath and indicate little or no insight into the needs of children who will grow up with vastly different experiences if they are adopted into white families, homes and communities. My choice of adoption path has instilled in me a desire to make changes within US child welfare system.
great write, Madonna should read it, there is so much arrogance in her views and sayings.
You used this poem very well, and a few days ago we coincidentally learned about it in class
Modern History Sourcebook:
Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden, 1899
——————————————————————————–
This famous poem, written by Britain’s imperial poet, was a response to the American take over of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War.
——————————————————————————–
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
——————————————————————————–
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.