by Carmen Van Kerckhove
If you haven’t already, do check out this somewhat controversial article in the latest issue of Mother Jones magazine about international adoption: Did I Steal My Daughter? The Tribulations of Global Adoption (hat tip to Jae Ran).
I was particularly struck by this quote:
“I think [adoption] is almost an antithesis to oppression,” Kevin Kreutner, a moderator at the support group Guatadopt.com who is in contact with his children’s Guatemalan family, told me. “For people who are given no access to family planning, have an unplanned pregnancy, and can’t raise that child, there is a liberating sense where they can realize that this child will not suffer that same oppression.”
Of course there are no easy answers here, but ARPs, what do you think? Is international adoption the antithesis to oppression? Or does it actually contribute to the status quo? Is it a little bit of both?
I think there are different forms of oppression. Our son came out of a homogeneous environment where he may have been oppressed because of his economic status. He now resides in an environment where he may be oppressed because of the color of his skin.
Being born in a country where children struggle to make it to age 5, he now has an opportunity to come of age, and hopefully (as his parents), we are able to give him the tools to overcome the obstacles he may encounter as he does so.
I have asked several of his countrymen in the diaspora if they think he would have been better off in his birth country and they believe he would not have given the economic situation there. Nevertheless, I believe that we must do what we can to maintain those links just in case someday our son decides that is where he would rather be.
I really think that comment is putting too close a link – adoption the ANTIthesis of oppression? Really? I think in some cases it can mitigate oppression for an individual. But adoption, and oppression, are way too complex to make a blanket (and somewhat self-congratulatory) statement like that. For the record, I am the adoptive parent to two children who could have felt oppression is they were to come of age in their birth countries. But because they will not, we will never know for sure. Like the previous poster, I try to maintain ties in the event one or both choose to live there as adults.
Is having to give your child up for adoption liberating? I think not. I can’t imagine birthmothers in oppressive environments feeling anything but helplessness, desparation, and sadness when they are forced to relinquish their child. I agree with KLM that this is a very self-congratulatory way of viewing adoption.
I think the statement is overly simplistic. There are to many issues surrounding IA, and adoption in general, both positive and negative. In Kazakhstan, and probably most of the Eastern European countries, kids who “graduate” out of orphanages are most likely to commit suicide, become prostitutes or end up in jail. Is adoption the only solution? No, it is one.
For the kids, including mine, who are adopted, we will never know for sure what thier lives would be like if they weren’t adopted.
One of the biggest challenges in IA, is for the mostly white parents to understand the challenges of race. I will never fully understand the challanges my daughter will have. I try, but I will never fully get it.
I read one article that called IA imperialist oppression – stealing kids from thier home countries. Balance that against the statistical evidence that kids in orphanages are not likely to become contirbuting members of society, which is worse?
As an adoptive mom, I guess I can never be against adoption… but that does not mean it is totally right either. I do believe that children should be raised in a loving environment and in their birth country if possible. To that end, I also support the SOS Children’s Villages which tries to recreate families for orphans, giving them homes and education and helping them to become useful members of their society and, hopefully someday, leaders of change.
My son came from a family that probably could have looked after him in the extended family like his half siblings are, but his parents chose to put him in the O knowing he would be internationally adopted. Why? Well I hope to ask them that directly someday but I think the answer was to try to have him break out of the cycle of poverty that exists for that family.
I just hope I can be a good enough parent to instill compassion and altruism into my son so he can make a difference in the world….
In the 1980′s, leftist Latin Americans had their children kidnapped from them by right-wing groups associated with the government. These children were adopted by wealthy white foreigners. Today, in China, the industry of placing Chinese girls for adoption has boomed into such a profitable one, little girls are being stolen from families who want them. Once again, white Westerners are interfering in the affairs of other countries, this time to take their children to “better” circumstances. This is after we took their resources first, leaving these countries economically devastated. This new industry has made it more profitable for countries to allow their children to be adopted out than to fix the problems that caused the need in the first place. We have plenty of children in the US who need adopting. I adopted 2 of them and I did not have to leave my own state or even do it privately; I went through a certified agency. Some of the people who adopt internationally have good intentions, however misplaced; but others just want to adopt a baby, sometimes a non-black baby. I think it’s wrong.
Wow, Nicole. The parts of you comment referring to China and international adoption is factually inaccurate. The vast majority of babies who are kidnapped and trafficked in China are trafficked (“adopted”) domestically. To my knowledge, there has never been a single case of child trafficking linked to international adoption there. If someone can site that fact, I would be very interested in reading it.
I am not one who would claim that adoption from China is free from ethical issues, particularly that of adopting children whose parents are forbidden by law to have them in the first place. But the vast majority of the funds that enter China from international adoption go directly to the orphanage of the adopted child to benefit the children left behind.
I also think it is odd to try to frame adoption in an international vs. domestic competition. There is plenty of coersion and unethical practices going on in both. It isn’t like a domestic adoption gives you a free pass on unethical practices.
All adoption happens in the context of oppression, domestic and international alike. The vast majority of birth mothers do not wish to place their children and their “choice” comes in large part from sexism, racism, classism, international relations, etc. making it very difficult for them to have a good life and give that to this child and their other children. So we need major changes to make sure that wherever possible families can remain together.
Given the injustice of the system, many individual children are placed in situations where they will be loved and well off in many ways, escaping some of the oppression they would have suffered in their original environment (as well as possibly being exposed to some new forms)….I think the key is not to demonize adoption, especially IA and TRA, but to acknowledge the whole complexity around it w/o glorifying it either and letting the system go on unchanged and the child’s needs partially unmet.
I think what this guy was trying to say was that when your life really sucks and you are suffering the terrible tragedy of feeling like you can’t raise your own child, the knowledge that someone else can raise them and provide for them is a teeny tiny eensy bit of comfort.
But the antithesis of oppression? Hogwash.
I’m starting to come to the idea that IA perpetuates oppression. And I’m an mom through IA! So that’s a tough issue to work through.
There is a story of a woman on the beach throwing starfish back into the ocean one by one. Starfish are everywhere on the sand. A man asks her what difference it will make because there are so many starfish that she will never make a dent in the number left beached. Her reply was, “It makes a difference to this one.” Adoption makes a difference to each child. In throwing the starfish back, the woman neither perpetuates nor ends the initial problem that caused the beaching. It does make a difference to the individual starfish. The same with adoption. To lay the burden of perpetuating oppression or being the antithesis to oppression on adoption is way too lofty. We can end oppression in a multitude of other ways.
Carmen, thanks, as always, for creating a welcoming space for important discussions.
Maggie Macaulay, MS Ed
http://www.WholeHeartedParenting.com
Maggie, perhaps the woman and man were sucking massive quantities of sea water out of the ocean elsewhere, thus leaving the starfish stranded.
Western wealth is inherently linked to the poverty of the global South. We cannot pretend adoption exists in a vacuum where a child is abandoned on a beach. And we cannot pretend that if children aren’t adopted, they would necessarily die. Many times, they would be raised by other relatives.
Hi Egypt4 – You are right. We cannot view adoption in a vacuum and Western policy is certainly linked to poverty elsewhere. As far as wealth goes, there is enough wealth for everyone. Please understand that I did not intend to imply that if children were not adopted they would die. I do not know of situations where international adoption is preventing family adoption in a child’s country of origin. I would like to know more about this, so feel free to give me some direction. As far as the sucking…just not sure where to go with that one!
It seems that adoption is being labelled as culpable in keeping countries impoverished when there are many other much, much more powerful influences holding people in poverty. If we eliminated international adoption, would the results be economic growth and a reduction in poverty? I don’t think that would happen. Do we address the issues of poverty? Absolutely, including in our own country.
I think the statement over simplifies the issues and is awfully self-congratulatory (as others have stated). I also do not think that IA causes oppression. The two subjects are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. As always, individual circumstance plays the biggest role. Could IA create oppression? In some circumstances, of course. In other circumstances, IA may be the single liberating event in a child’s life. My knowledge of my son’s situation tells me there was no better choice for him at the time. Do I hope there will be better choices for his contemporaries? Absolutely! Do I think because adoption was the best choice for him, he will not feel any anger, remorse, regret, or sadness over the fact? I’m not stupid. No one can sum the circumstances of all adoptions into one catchy phrase. Trying to do so is irresponsible.
The key word in this quote is “an” not “the” antithesis. Also, this quote was taken out of context. He was not being self-congratulatory, he was addresssing the idea that many forces are working to eliminate intercountry adoptions from Guatemala but doing nothing to address the root of the problem that makes so many children available for adoption.
Amazing what one finds when just surfing around on the web…
I’m the guy whose quote sparked this discussion.
First off, I love the discussion. The exploration of issues and debate are always positive.
I am not a self congratulatory adoptive parent at all. And what I would have to say is that I wasn’t really happy with where the quote was placed in the story because I feared, and have now been proven correct, that it would be taken out of context.
This quote was part of a larger discussion about how complex adoption can be form Guatemala. For a poor, indigenous woman who finds herself pregant, without adoption as an option she has NO way to ensure that child will survive. This is sad but true and I know women for whom this is the case.
Because Elizabeth Larsen, the author of the story and someone for whom I have only the deppest respect, knows about Guatemalan adoptions, our discussion was getting into intricacies. I didn’t come up with just saying those words. She asked me about whether ICA could be opressing and I said it can be the antithesis of it. I’d have to right a huge thing about Guatemala’s history, socio economics, culture, etc to be able to fully explain the quote.
To Mother Jones’ credit, they did call me to verify the quote. Those are my words. But I do not believe adoption is THE antithesis to oppression. What I was saying, as some have pointed out, is that for some women, it can be the only thing they control. And sadly, it can be their only way to ensure the child’s safety.
Peace,
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
One more thought. Well two.
One – my last post was written late last night, sorry for all the typos.
Two – Here’s a great story from Michael Parenti with some context about Guatemala and what women face.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=13247
Kevin
Guatadopt.com