There were a few tense moments this past week for American families awaiting the adoption of Russian children, as conflicting messages were coming out of Moscow regarding the possible halting of all adoptions. The decision was supposedly the Moscow's response to the American woman from Tennessee who sent her unwanted adopted child back to Russia after she became "fed up" with him.
This case brought up the issue of international relations and adoption. On the face of things, adoption is about matching unwanted children with loving families. However, the process involve governmental procedures and mechanisms, as such they are dependant on larger national, and in this case international, circumstances.
The most interesting aspect I find in this story is the degree to which trust is associated with adoption. Without trust between nations, for example, international adoptions cannot take place. Parents have to trust that they can overcome the difficulties in raising a child that comes with baggage. Children have to put trust into their new parents. The entire process is sort of an "exercise" in trust.
Another important point that this story, as opposed to others, clearly made to me was just how many children in the world are out there waiting to be adopted, and similarly how many families out their are waiting to adopt a child to call their own. In this sense adoption, and especially international adoption, resembles other examples of globalization. It is as if a global market has been opened for children.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Mike Huckabee's recent comment on same-sex adoption has been the cause of quite a bit of controversy over the last week, and I can't say that I completely agree with him, but I can't say that I completely disagree with him either.
I will explain.
I have an older friend, lets call him Doug, who's kids were playing with some of their friends at Doug's house. One of Doug's children's friends, lets call him Jimmy, decided he wanted to "conduct an experiment" with Doug's family dog. Jimmy took the dog up to the second floor, held the dog over the staircase and dropped him! Nothing happened but the dog got the wind knocked out of him and the fear of God put in him.
When Doug asked Jimmy why he hurt the dog, Jimmy answered that he wanted to see what would happen.
On the one hand, homosexuality is clearly an unnatural relationship for the simple reason that gay couples cannot naturally have children. I'm not putting a value on the issue, I am just stating that I don't think it is natural because it doesn't lead to the continuation of the species.
So from this perspective raising children in an environment that is fundamentally unnatural seems to me like an unnecessary experiment. I am not particularly curious to find out what happens.
I'm not particularly concerned with seeing what happens when you raise children in an unloving heterosexual relationship, or in homes where there is abuse, or infidelity. These are all "experiments" I would rather not be conducted in society.
This is the ideal.
On the other hand, I recognize that each situation has its own unique set of considerations that no overarching socially-defined norm could possibly "blindly" prescribe solutions for. Moreover, I don't doubt same-sex couples ability to provide loving and caring homes for their children. Furthermore, I recognize that taking a child out of an orphanage and putting him in the home of loving parents is in some cases the best thing to do for the child.
I also disagree with one person defining for another what is or is not "valid," or "acceptable."
Thus, as I said, I don't fall on any one side of the discussion, but rather try to extract the elements of truth that make each argument valid.
I will explain.
I have an older friend, lets call him Doug, who's kids were playing with some of their friends at Doug's house. One of Doug's children's friends, lets call him Jimmy, decided he wanted to "conduct an experiment" with Doug's family dog. Jimmy took the dog up to the second floor, held the dog over the staircase and dropped him! Nothing happened but the dog got the wind knocked out of him and the fear of God put in him.
When Doug asked Jimmy why he hurt the dog, Jimmy answered that he wanted to see what would happen.
On the one hand, homosexuality is clearly an unnatural relationship for the simple reason that gay couples cannot naturally have children. I'm not putting a value on the issue, I am just stating that I don't think it is natural because it doesn't lead to the continuation of the species.
So from this perspective raising children in an environment that is fundamentally unnatural seems to me like an unnecessary experiment. I am not particularly curious to find out what happens.
I'm not particularly concerned with seeing what happens when you raise children in an unloving heterosexual relationship, or in homes where there is abuse, or infidelity. These are all "experiments" I would rather not be conducted in society.
This is the ideal.
On the other hand, I recognize that each situation has its own unique set of considerations that no overarching socially-defined norm could possibly "blindly" prescribe solutions for. Moreover, I don't doubt same-sex couples ability to provide loving and caring homes for their children. Furthermore, I recognize that taking a child out of an orphanage and putting him in the home of loving parents is in some cases the best thing to do for the child.
I also disagree with one person defining for another what is or is not "valid," or "acceptable."
Thus, as I said, I don't fall on any one side of the discussion, but rather try to extract the elements of truth that make each argument valid.
A few things caught my attention reading this article.
The most striking thing about the lady in this article was that she was raising four children on her own by CHOICE!!! I don't understand why a single parent would be allowed to adopt four children. We talk about adoption and the fact that it is a family by design, but at the same time someone has to allow this design to form. Why would someone sit and go, "yeah, one parent four kids, you guys should be fine."
If a single mother can be allowed to adopt four kids why can't a same-sexual couple adopt one?
And why stop at that? Why can't a reformed/rehabilitated sexual offender adopt a child? Who are we to judge whether or not such a person has truly changed his ways.
Now to make it absolutely clear I'm not trying to compare a sexual offended to a single parent or same-sex couple. The point I am trying to make is once you no longer perceive a family as a unit consisting of two loving parents, a male and a female, that are committed to raising their children so that those children may later engage in a process of self and social refinement then it doesn't matter what people do. Free will with no overarching structure is a recipe for disaster. The subsequent discussion as to which version of a family is deemed to be socially acceptable is to me an arbitrary one, and a decision that misses the point.
When all is said and done and everyone is free to assemble any variation of a family they want, then what?
What will people do once they have that right? What is the purpose of the family? What is it to do? What are they trying to achieve? If you don't know those things how are you going to decide what form of a family is acceptable or not?
The other thing to stick out in the article was the lady's dual use of the word adoption. In one part of the article it is used to reflect a willful choice she made, the adoption of her children and the single parent life. In its second use "adoption" is tied to a circumstance thrust upon her by necessity. It is funny that the word adoption doesn't necessarily imply free will though one would think it would. I'm not even sure I understand what she means by the word adoption after reading her use it in two contrasting ways.
I know it means to make something your own, but doesn't that entail choice? And if so doesn't that entail your own free will? If so what the heck does an adoption of necessity mean? You made something your own by lack of choice?
I don't get it.
For this blog I wanted to take a moment and analyze the picture of the Jolie-Pitts I had as my profile picture.
The first thing that sticks out in the picture is that no one person looks like the other. For example, while Brad and Angelina are both white, he has bright blue eyes and blond hair, while Angelina has a darker complexion. The children, Maddox, Zhara, and Shiloh are of different races and colors as well.
Thus, straight from the get go we can see that this is not your "typical" family. It is an assemblage of peoples strategically put together to form a universal family.
The second element of the picture that sticks out is the characters' gaze. Each person in the picture is looking somewhere else. Brad, for example, seems to be looking both at nothing and the entire family at the same time. Angelina's gaze, on the other hand, is clearly directed to Shiloh, while Maddox is looking at Shiloh and perhaps Zahara and Shiloh is looking at Zahara. Zahara on the other hand is staring out into nothing somewhat breaking the inner composition of the children's gazes.
A few things come to mind when examining the character's gazes. First, it seems that while Brad is overlooking everything he is somewhat removed from the family. It is almost as if he is giving his approval to the idea of having a multiracial family, but at the same time that he is not the driving force behind its formation. Angelina, in contrast, seems like the heart and soul of the family. It is her idea and on her the family rests. See the link for a look at the Bunker Family, from the Archie Bunker Show. Archie is the one at the bottom of the picture, he is the foundation, the anchor for the family not as we see in this picture.
Second, the children seem to be connected to one another only through Angelina. There is no interaction between them, and in fact each seems to have some sort of interest in the other that they themselves are unaware of. Zahara is the exception in this case, as it is she seems to not be interested in anything in the family.
Furthermore, although Angelina seems to be glowing, I don't get a sense of happiness rising from the family, and definitely not one of a uniting sense of love. What I see is a happy woman who is pleased with what she has created, a man who supports her, and three kids who have no idea what's going on.
The first thing that sticks out in the picture is that no one person looks like the other. For example, while Brad and Angelina are both white, he has bright blue eyes and blond hair, while Angelina has a darker complexion. The children, Maddox, Zhara, and Shiloh are of different races and colors as well.
Thus, straight from the get go we can see that this is not your "typical" family. It is an assemblage of peoples strategically put together to form a universal family.
The second element of the picture that sticks out is the characters' gaze. Each person in the picture is looking somewhere else. Brad, for example, seems to be looking both at nothing and the entire family at the same time. Angelina's gaze, on the other hand, is clearly directed to Shiloh, while Maddox is looking at Shiloh and perhaps Zahara and Shiloh is looking at Zahara. Zahara on the other hand is staring out into nothing somewhat breaking the inner composition of the children's gazes.
A few things come to mind when examining the character's gazes. First, it seems that while Brad is overlooking everything he is somewhat removed from the family. It is almost as if he is giving his approval to the idea of having a multiracial family, but at the same time that he is not the driving force behind its formation. Angelina, in contrast, seems like the heart and soul of the family. It is her idea and on her the family rests. See the link for a look at the Bunker Family, from the Archie Bunker Show. Archie is the one at the bottom of the picture, he is the foundation, the anchor for the family not as we see in this picture.
Second, the children seem to be connected to one another only through Angelina. There is no interaction between them, and in fact each seems to have some sort of interest in the other that they themselves are unaware of. Zahara is the exception in this case, as it is she seems to not be interested in anything in the family.
Furthermore, although Angelina seems to be glowing, I don't get a sense of happiness rising from the family, and definitely not one of a uniting sense of love. What I see is a happy woman who is pleased with what she has created, a man who supports her, and three kids who have no idea what's going on.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
This week marks the ten year anniversary to the Elian Gonzalez case, the story that captured national and international attention for seven months between 2000 and 2001.
In case you forgot, Elian was the sole survivor of a ship carrying his mother and eleven others that sunk as its travelers fled Cuba in hopes of finding a better life in America.
The story became complicated when Elian's father, who had been separated from Elian's mother and still living in Cuba, demanded that his son be returned to him. Elian's relatives living in Miami and who were taking care of him since his rescue, however, fought to keep him in the United States.
Different legal issues arose during this case, such as the question of granting Elian asylum in the States and Elian's father's custody rights visa vi Elian's family members.
The United States government, under Bill Clinton, focused the discussion on the legalities of the issues, making the case a debate on custody rights between Elian's father and Elian's family in the United States, with Elian's father eventually winning.
After reading the article I had the following questions:
1) Do we genuinely believe in the "American Way of Life" over other belief systems specifically Communism? If so why send Elian back to grow up under a regime who's way life we condemn?
2) All things remaining the same but the father lived in America, who do you think should have custody over the child, the more stable family members or the father?
3) Had this happened in a different period in U.S history, say the 70's, or shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis would people be more prone to allowing Elian to stay, and thereby "saving him" from Communism, or would they opt to send him back out of hatred for his motherland?
What does this say about current and historic U.S. and Cuban relations?
4) From a logical standpoint, it is obvious that a part of his family was vehemently against sending him back to Cuba, and the mother was willing to risk her and her son's lives for the hope of a better future, so why return the kid to the exact same place he escaped from?
5) We know that laws reflect the values and beliefs of a time and as such are malleable. Eventually the father's right to his child outweighed all others. What does this say about the American values system? Do we believe more in the importance of family than we do in our way of life? Has the family become more important than the belief system itself?
In case you forgot, Elian was the sole survivor of a ship carrying his mother and eleven others that sunk as its travelers fled Cuba in hopes of finding a better life in America.
The story became complicated when Elian's father, who had been separated from Elian's mother and still living in Cuba, demanded that his son be returned to him. Elian's relatives living in Miami and who were taking care of him since his rescue, however, fought to keep him in the United States.
Different legal issues arose during this case, such as the question of granting Elian asylum in the States and Elian's father's custody rights visa vi Elian's family members.
The United States government, under Bill Clinton, focused the discussion on the legalities of the issues, making the case a debate on custody rights between Elian's father and Elian's family in the United States, with Elian's father eventually winning.
After reading the article I had the following questions:
1) Do we genuinely believe in the "American Way of Life" over other belief systems specifically Communism? If so why send Elian back to grow up under a regime who's way life we condemn?
2) All things remaining the same but the father lived in America, who do you think should have custody over the child, the more stable family members or the father?
3) Had this happened in a different period in U.S history, say the 70's, or shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis would people be more prone to allowing Elian to stay, and thereby "saving him" from Communism, or would they opt to send him back out of hatred for his motherland?
What does this say about current and historic U.S. and Cuban relations?
4) From a logical standpoint, it is obvious that a part of his family was vehemently against sending him back to Cuba, and the mother was willing to risk her and her son's lives for the hope of a better future, so why return the kid to the exact same place he escaped from?
5) We know that laws reflect the values and beliefs of a time and as such are malleable. Eventually the father's right to his child outweighed all others. What does this say about the American values system? Do we believe more in the importance of family than we do in our way of life? Has the family become more important than the belief system itself?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Visibly Adopted
This video reminded me of when new "exotic" animals are rescued and brought to a new zoo.
While rescue stories, and happy stories are, well, happy, the message sent by such articles are somewhat bothersome.
Adopted children, like the rescued animals, are objectified. In this case the articles purpose is to convey a sense of stability and control. Such messages, I feel, are used to counter balance the equally "dramatic" and negative stories that are continuously reported throughout the media.
As a viewer I don't get a real understanding of what happened to these children. Why I do get is the "sensationalism" of their rescue.
I feel like I'm constantly getting emotionally manipulated to feel one way or another, and that the object of manipulation is secondary. I'm not trying to argue for the importance of one over the other, but rather point to the fact that we are watching a t.v. drama rather than the news.
While rescue stories, and happy stories are, well, happy, the message sent by such articles are somewhat bothersome.
Adopted children, like the rescued animals, are objectified. In this case the articles purpose is to convey a sense of stability and control. Such messages, I feel, are used to counter balance the equally "dramatic" and negative stories that are continuously reported throughout the media.
As a viewer I don't get a real understanding of what happened to these children. Why I do get is the "sensationalism" of their rescue.
I feel like I'm constantly getting emotionally manipulated to feel one way or another, and that the object of manipulation is secondary. I'm not trying to argue for the importance of one over the other, but rather point to the fact that we are watching a t.v. drama rather than the news.
I just read that in December Angelina Jolie told a German magazine that "fidelity is overrated," and that she "doubts [its] absolutely essential for a relationship."
I'm not sure that she did in fact say this, but if so it raises some questions as to the environment her children are being raised in. If you are not completely committed to the partner whom with you are building a family does that not imply a lack of commitment to the unit as a whole?
Something to think about.
I'm not sure that she did in fact say this, but if so it raises some questions as to the environment her children are being raised in. If you are not completely committed to the partner whom with you are building a family does that not imply a lack of commitment to the unit as a whole?
Something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)