Book Review: "Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew" by Sherrie Eldridge

Eldridge, Sherrie. Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew. New York: Dell Publishing, 1999.

Sherrie Eldridge, the author of Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew, is an adoptee herself. Throughout the book, she uses several personal anecdotes to explain the point of view of the adoptee. She has also formed the organization called Jewel Among Jewels Adoption Network, Inc. which helps to educate others about the adoptee’s perspective.

This book is like a memoir in that it is a collection of stories and perspectives from the author. Eldridge occasionally brings in quotes from other books that support the ideas she is trying to convey. It is written for the audience of adoptive parents.

Rating: 3) I found this book somewhat interesting. I would only recommend it for adoptive parents who seem to be having trouble connecting with their adopted child.

Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew is not available at the CSB/SJU libraries and I would not recommend buying this book. I found it at my public library at home.

Review

            The book Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew by Sherrie Eldridge lays out various ideas of what adoptees may be thinking and what the adoptive parents can do to work towards a healthier relationship with their child. With the author being an adoptee herself, the book is fairly one-sided toward the adoptees. Eldridge does pull out some good points, but she tends to repeat herself and focus on the negatives.

            The main points that Eldridge suggests within her “twenty things” are adoption loss, false guilt, no closure, toxic shame, and fear of abandonment and rejection. Throughout her book, these are the ideas that come up again and again. Her first statement is that all adoptees experience an excruciatingly painful loss at the beginning of their life, which she refers to as “adoption loss.” She says, “Loss for the adoptee is unlike other losses we have come to expect in a lifetime, such as death and divorce. Adoption is more pervasive, less socially recognized, and more profound” (Eldridge, pg 5). It is because of this that Eldridge says that adoptive parents need to provide a very open and understanding relationship with their child to allow for discussion about this loss and how to cope with it. This is very important not only for the adoptee, but also for everyone else involved. Eldridge explains, “When adoption loss is not validated, verbalized, and grieved, every member of the family suffers” (Eldridge, pg 8). Throughout this book, she provides many different examples of how to open up this relationship and let the adoptee know that it is okay to talk about anything that is on their mind. Once this idea of adoption loss is introduced, Eldridge branches off and begins to talk about reasons why this loss can be so painful and different ways that children can act in response to this loss.

Overall, the book did provide a few good points, though I personally wouldn’t recommend it. The main thing that I didn’t like was its negative tone and how Eldridge seemed to say that these are thoughts and feelings that all adoptees have and that we should assume this unless they tell us otherwise. There was only one time where she contradicted herself. She said, “But don’t look for problems where there are none. Not all adoptees have a difficult time on their birthday. Many aren’t fazed at all” (Eldridge, pg 176). Other than this, she tells the reader that these thoughts that she lays out are at least in the back of every adoptee’s head. The main problem with this mentality is it seems like she did not have a very positive experience with adoption. That could be a result of many different things, but she never really mentions that every adoption story is different. Each child is different, every situation is different, every set of adoptive parents is different. Eldridge clumps all of these different stories into one basic adoptee perspective. I think that this is inaccurate, though I do think that some of her ideas are good for adoptive parents to be mindful of.

            Another aspect of this book that I disliked was the amount of repetition Eldridge uses from chapter to chapter. I understand that there are certain things she wanted to be heard, but after about five or six chapters in, I felt like I was reading the same things over and over again. I also disagreed with her comment at the end of the book. She said, “You have learned how to access the world of your child, become sensitive to his unspoken needs and then validate his emotional reality. Congratulations! That makes you real parents and secures your place in your child’s life” (Eldridge, pg 211). It is the end of that quote that frustrates me the most. Just reading a book won’t make you a “real parent,” at least not with my idea of what a “real parent” is. I also don’t think that it is possible to “secure your place in your child’s life,” with adoptive--or birth parents for that matter. Every family and every set of relationships is different. You can be the perfect parent and do everything right in raising your child and still end up on the outside of their life. It truly varies from person to person.

            Though I ended up not liking the book for the most part, I do believe that some of the points could be helpful for adoptive parents. I did like that this book is a collection of ideas from an adoptee’s perspective. The most important point that Eldridge makes is that it is essential to work to form a very open relationship with your child and always encourage dialogue within the family. In the beginning of the book, she lists what I like to call the yay’s and nay’s of adoption. These are just some basic ideas of what you should and shouldn’t do if you would like to “gain access” into your child’s thoughts and feelings. Eldridge also suggests throughout the book different ideas of things to say to your child within different situations. This certainly could be very helpful for adoptive parents who just don’t know how to have a dialogue with their child.

Therefore, I would only recommend this book to adoptive parents as long as they also read some books with other perspectives. Sherrie Eldridge seems to be very one-sided, though she did attempt to provide examples from other books written by adoptees, parents, and psychologists. I found that I liked the words of the other authors better than her own a majority of the time. For example, she quotes the book The Spirit of Open Adoption by James Gritter, “We must be careful not to sanitize, sentimentalize, or even glamorize the pain of adoption; it really is miserable stuff, and it is intensely personal. It is interior. The pain of adoption is not something that happens to a person; it is the person. Because the pain is so primal, it is virtually impossible to describe” (Eldridge, pg 7). It was much easier for me to understand the words of Gritter on adoption loss than those of Eldridge. I believe that with some of the key points from Eldridge in the back of their mind along with other perspectives on the topic, adoptive parents can be successful in connecting with their adopted child.

Book Review: My Father's Daughter

Hannah, P. (2005). My fathers' daughter: A story of family and belonging. New York, NY: Free Press, 277 pages

In 2004, before Pool embarked on a life changing journey, she was a beauty editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom. Pool was born in Eritrea in 1974 and was adopted from an orphanage in Asmara (the capital of Eritrea) by a white couple –the wife was American and the husband was a British academic. She resides in London and is still a journalist for the Guardian newspaper where she writes on a variety of topics.

This book is a memoir of Pool’s journey back to her birthplace to meet the family she never knew she had. This book is informative to a general educated audience with an interest in adoption and an audience that may or may have been adopted. Also, book is informative in interracial adoption from an adoptee’s point of view. Adoptees may want to beware that the author does tend to generalize experience to most adoptees. Males may want to be beware that the book is written in a feminine perspective.

Rating: 2) I recommend this book, both for an academic audience and a general educated audience with an interest in adoption, specifically with interracial adoption.

Clemens Library already owns this book.   

                Hannah Azieb Pool was about six months old she was adopted by a white couple –an American woman and her British husband. They were informed that Pool had no living family members and thus that was what Pool believed for the majority of her life. Pool spent time in Sudan with her adoptive parents, but when her adoptive mother passed away from an overdose, she was sent to Norway. By the time her adoptive father came to pick her up she had acquired a Norwegian accent and upon arrival in London she was soon known as the ‘black girl who spoke with a Norwegian accent’.  A main theme in her book was discovering her self- identity and a sense of belonging. She always responded to those who were curious as to what she was as “I’m not Eritrean, I’m just black” (Pool, 2005, p. 6). She struggles to understand the burning question every adoptee has: why was I put up for adoption?

Being that Pool was a beauty editor, her book lacked an androgyny feel to it. Her first opening line is “What do you wear to meet your father for the first time?” (Pool, 2005, p. 1) followed by phrases such as “Okay, if I treat it as a first date, then I’m on home turf. What image do I want to put across?” (Pool, 2005, p. 13) or “Classy, rather than trendy, and if my G-string doesn’t pop out, I should be able to carry the whole thing off” (Pool, 2005, p. 14). Her writing style is very feminine and straight- forward, thus it leaves no room for other interpretation. This is a weakness in the book as it becomes a question of rather she is more interested in her clothes than meeting her family members. It seems like she is wandering off from her main objective: to find who she is. Furthermore, her thoughts and opinions fill most of the pages. For instance, before she was going to meet with her cousin who lived in London, it took an entire chapter for her to go through the stages of what she should wear, rather she should actually attend the meeting or not to what she should do to calm her nerves down.

In a way, one could argue that her writing style is her strength in that it creates a sense of reality since it contributes to the understanding of what it’s like to be adopted. Readers are able to experience the different feelings that occur when an adoptee goes back to his/ her homeland and meet their birthfather and family. One of our guest speakers, M.G. explained that although her birthmother contacted her first, she was not ready to reach out to her and it took years before she finally decided to meet with her. M.G. expressed the crucial idea that the adoptee is the one who holds the power to make the choice in meeting the birthparents or not. Pool’s response to her family situation is the same; when she received a letter from her brother stating that her father and siblings were alive, it took her years to respond back. Pool made it clear that for her “it was only a matter of time before I came [to Eritrea]. Even as a child, I knew it was a question of when, rather than if” (Pool, 2005, p. 102). She goes on to explain the reasoning for why she finally decided to meet her family:

“But it’s not the rational, sensible ‘why’ that we want answered, not the ‘better chance in life’ explanation that we may have been put off with all our lives, but the emotional, heartfelt ‘why’; Why didn’t you want me? How could you do that to me? How could you leave me to fend for myself with complete strangers? Was I really so much trouble?  […] no matter how much we love our adoptive parents, no matter how much we don’t  want to hurt them or how guilty we feel for having these thoughts, we all wish we hadn’t been put up for adoption” (Pool, 2005, p. 102)

Furthermore, the idea of the adoptee holding the most power in this situation is present when Pool decides to visit the place she was born. Initially, her brothers resisted such idea because they all knew it was also the place their mother passed away. Regardless of the four hours walk , Pool was determine to go see it and it proved to be a great experience for her as she also met her mother’s sisters. In witnessing the house she was born in and the bed she was born on, she was able to understand the circumstances in which her family had lived for her birthfather to give her up and this proved to be the comfort that she needed.

Aside from being in the company of her new large family, Pool often felt belittle because of her gender. Her brothers would carry everything for her, including her purse and water bottle. At first, Pool enjoyed the idea of it, but the idea of asking them for her water bottle whenever she was thirsty became an annoyance. When she insisted she hold onto it, they thought such idea was unbearable. In addition, her trip was managed by her brothers who simply informed her of where and when they were going on that day without asking for her opinions, and she is expected to follow. This confirms the same inequality that is common when pregnant women were expected to put their babies up for adoption, with no other choices offered.  Rickie Solinger (2001) states that adoption is about “the abject choicelessness of some resourceless women” (p. 67). This exemplifies that inequality is located everywhere, even across borders and within different context, however the underlying message that these women are oppressed remain the issue for both cases.

On the contrary, when Pool wanted to visit her place of birth, it was not just her brothers who stopped her, but her sister as well.  Pool notes, “all of the others have tried to put me off going to Bekishemnok [her birth place], but no one has actively forbidden me from going, not even my father, until now. And there was I thinking that because Timnit was the only woman in the family she’d have little or not say about anything. I am of course pleased to be wrong” (Pool, 2005, p. 230). Her older sister, Timnit demanded for Pool not to go on such visit because it would be too hard of a journey for her. As much as Pool is opposed to hearing this, the opinion her sister voiced brought up a newer level of connection between the two of them because they were able to fight over the issue despite the language differences. Timnit’s attitude to protect Pool is similar to the women who founded the Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) to provide support for birthparents who have given up a child to adoption. Again, although the contexts are different, I still think it’s important to recognize that there are woman of strong leadership who would stand up to protect what they have and what they are passionate about.

                In addition, aside from adoption and gender being relevant in the book, Pool briefly mentions a statement that relates to our readings on interracial adoption. She states, “I can see how poor they are, I can see how hard their lives will be and what little opportunity they will have, yet I am jealous of their few certainties. And I hate myself for it. What kind of person feels jealous of a six-year-old living in poverty? And then I ask myself, if I had the money, would I be doing this child a favor by taking her back to England with me or would I be screwing her up forever?” (Pool, 2005, p. 220). The way she describes her experience provides the deeper understanding into the debate of interracial adoption. Pool does not answer her own question directly, but in some way she is answering it with the purpose of her journey. In order for Pool to know herself, she had to know her family and her culture and that is exactly why she came to Eritrea to seek out answers. In London, she struggled between three identities: Eritrea, British or British- Eritrea and with her experience in Eritrea she was she able to understand and accept that “the answer is both [British-Eritrea]. The two identities are not mutually exclusive; they coexist” (Pool, 2005, p. 276). Through her action, Pool has inadvertently shown that to an adoptee, culture is important. Maybe there would have been a different outcome if Pool had learn about her heritage or Tigrinya, the native language when she was younger, however what matters is that culture remains an significant aspect at the heart of interracial adoption.  

                The book provided a great insight into the cognitive thinking of adoptees. Pool’s emotions on her trip were strong and genuine; and carried out well through the book. She weaved a beautiful story to help readers understand the heartaches, excitement, and sadness that is involved within the life of an adoptee. Pool was able to put her individualistic mindset aside to witness the gender differences across cultures and with that she was able to better bridge her relationship with her sister and brothers. The purpose to finding and understanding who she is proved to not only benefit her, but to the foundation of understanding what is important in an interracial adoption.  I recommend this book because it will definitely be a great way for readers to glimpse into the life of an adoptee. 

- MAI NHIA.

References

Solinger, R. (2001). Claiming rights in the era of choice: Part 1: Awakenings. Beggars and choosers: how the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. (pp. 65-101). NY: Hill and Wang  

Book Review: BirthMarks

Patton, Sandra.  Birthmarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America.   NY: New York University Press, 2000 191 pages.

At the time she wrote this book, Patton was a Visiting Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Minnesota.  Patton relates to adoptees and adoption overall since she is a white American adoptee who was raised by white parents.    

Patton becomes an ethnographer and uses stories from interviews she conducted to explore questions around the social construction of authentic identity through race, gender, class, and the ideological stereotypes in today’s society.  Transracial adoptees would benefit the most from this book; however, the audience she tries to captivate is the general population or anyone with an interest in transracial adoption.  Readers should know that the book focuses more on racial identity than the adjustment of adoptees.   

Rating: 1) I would recommend this book for an academic audience and for anyone interested in adoption or identity and race. 

      

Sandra Patton writes her book through a series of interviews and stories told by African American and multiracial adults who were adopted and raised by white families.  She conducted 22 interviews with transracial adoptees to help define the “social construction of identity, and the connections between identity, race, gender, class, and public policy” (Patton, pg. 2) in regards to adoption.  In her book, Patton argues that the identities of transracial adoptees are constructed by public policies concerning race, family, gender, poverty, and child welfare.  In her opening chapter “Origin Narratives”, Patton sheds light on the adoption process and how people of color are prohibited from adopting children.  She looks into adoption agencies and discusses the institutional racism that existed in the 1950s, and today.  Though she highlights how public policy has changed in the adoption process, there still exists the overwhelming want for “blue ribbon babies”; white children.  Patton also argues that public policy shapes who we are and how we, as Americans, are supposed to live our lives. 

            Patton does a wonderful job at pointing out the flaws within the adoption agency and how they limit people of color from adopting.  In the 1950s, few black couples met the policy requirements for adoption eligibility.  These requirements included, economic stability, home ownership (which would need to include a separate room for a child), and a full time wife and mother.  Since people of color faced discrimination in the job market, it was hard for them to get higher paying jobs, thus their wives would need to join the workforce to help with the family income. 

Patton uses familiar texts throughout her book, citing credible sources that we have discussed in class; National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and Rickie Solinger.  She also gives a critical analysis to the movie Losing Isaiah, and speaks of the dramatization of the film.  Through these texts, she confirms and supports our understanding of adoption in regards to ethics.  She places specific attention on the ideology that the media has shaped about family and the pressures to conform to the “white” middle class status.  Through her use of texts, she describes that the ideal American family is white, middle class, and lives in “Whitesville”.  With that being said, Patton explores a new topic of illegitimacy.  She writes on the message of “what it means to be a mother” and how social culture has defined that term.    

Brandon Kasper

Book Review: Beyond Good Intentions

Register, Cheri. Beyond Good Intentions: A Mother Reflects on Raising Internationally Adopted Children. MN: Yeong & Yeong Book Company, 2005 183 pages

Cheri Register is a writer and teacher of creative non-fiction writing. She is an adoptive mother of two daughters from South Korea. She is an author of other books, including Packinghouse Daughter: A Memoir, The Chronic Illness Experience: Embracing the Imperfect Life and “Are Those Kids Yours?”: American Families with Children Adopted from Other Countries.

Beyond Good Intentions is a memoir that explains common intentions of adoptive parents that do not necessarily support the adoptees’ best interest. Register is somewhat critical of transracial and transnational adoption.

I rate this book with a two. I recommend this book to people interested in adopting internationally and adoptive parents who are currently raising transracial adoptees.

CSB/SJU libraries do not own this book. I recommend the purchase of this book.

           

I recommend Cheri Register’s memoir, Beyond Good Intentions: A Mother Reflects on Raising Internationally Adopted Children, because she does a sufficient job informing readers about the pitfalls that adoptive parents of transracial adoptees commonly make. She brings her own personal stories of raising her two adopted children  and provides good suggestions. However, a weakness is that her overall view of transracial adoptive comes across negatively.  Register’s book adds much to the understandings of adoption and ethics.

Register’s main objective of her memoir is to inform readers about the top 10 mistakes that adoptive parents of transracial adoptees slip into, which results in consequences for the children and family. The good intentions gone bad include:

o   Wiping away children’s past

o   Hovering over the “troubled” children

o   Holding the lid on sorrow and anger

o   Parenting on the defensive

o   Believing race doesn’t matter

o   Keeping the children exotic

o   Raising children in isolation

o   Judging the U.S. as superior

o   Believing adoption saves souls

o   Appropriating children’s heritage

Register states that she is not against international adoption, but she is weary of the growing population of international and transracial adoptions (pg. 6). Although Register says that she is weary of adoption, her book appears to shed a negative light on transracial adoption more than it does positively.

A strength of the book is that it identifies common good intentions of adoptive parents that actually turn out harmful to the adoptee and family. Register acknowledges these intentions and then explains how they are harmful. She provides suggestions for adoptive parents to raise transracial adoptees. For example, Register states that some adoptive parents want to wipe away their adopted child’s past because they fear that their child will search for their birth parents. She explains that it is natural for adoptees to be curious about their birth parents and that it is not disloyal and does not diminish the importance of adoptive parents. (pg. 18).  Register does a good job at not only identifying downfalls of how adoptive parents raise their children, but also gives advice to fix these downfalls. Another strength of the book is Register’s experience that she brings to the topic of transracial adoption. This book is not scholarly, but it was not intended to be so because it is a memoir. Register writes about her own personal experiences raising her two adopted daughters, which provides the reader with insight to better understand transracial adoption.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the book is that the author only views transracial adoption in a critical lens. The book focuses on the hardships and risks that adoptive parents face. She fails to address the main pro-transracial adoption argument that it is better for any child to be adopted and loved by a family than to be institutionalized. Register does not include the benefits of transracial adoption. Because of this, the book paints a negative image of adoptive parents. They appear to be selfish in the sense that they are adopting for the benefit of only themselves in order to culturally enrich their family.

Register’s book contributes much to the understanding of adoption. First off, the book challenges views, such as Adam Pertman’s, that adoption is all good and positive. Pertman states in Adoption Nation, “With few exceptions, the ones who are adopted will live better lives than they could have had, institutionalized, in their homelands” (pg. 81).  Contrary to Pertman’s belief, Register is very critical of transracial adoption throughout her book. She suggests that transracial adoption is harmful to the adoptee because the adoptee might view himself/herself as white because he/she grew up in a white family (pg. 79). Register writes, “When he is old enough to envision himself as a being separate from you, he may nevertheless imagine himself in your skin. A peek in the mirror or a glimpse of himself in a family photo can come as a shock” (pg 79). She believes that this results in identity confusion.

Register’s voice about adoption reminds me of Kim Park Nelson’s stance on transracial adoption. Both Register and Nelson state they are not anti-transnational adoption, but they do not shy away from addressing its downfalls and consequences. Their voices are not as strong as the National Council of Black Social Workers statement on transracial adoption, which states that transracial adoption is cultural genocide. However, both Register and Nelson believe a reason for adoption is to enrich adoptive parents’ lives. Nelson mentions in Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace that parents view their transracial adoptee as an exotic commodity (pg. 103). One of Register’s listed pitfalls that adoptive parents make is this same point - that adoptive parents try to keep the adoptees exotic. Register suggests that parents need to be genuinely interested in their adopted child’s culture and home country. She offers her experience of decorating her house in South Korean style to show her children that their birth culture is also important (pg. 101).

Register presents further evidence in her book about how transracial adoptees feel like they do not fit in because of their race. This raises the question we talked about in class regarding whether or not it is ethical for white adults from the U.S. to adopt transracially because of the racism the child will face. She supports her stance that transracial adoption can be unethical by listing questions that adoptees receive that make them think they aren’t who they thought they were: “Where do you come from,” “Aren’t you grateful that you came to this country,” “What race are you?” (132). She states that adoptees’ privacy is constantly intruded on when they get asked questions about their race and ethnicity (pg. 139). In her opinion, this is a consequence that adoptive parents impose on their adopted child when that transracially adopt.

Register brings a new idea and a different opinion that we have not heard in class regarding adoption language. Register does not like the word “birth parents” (pg 17). She believes that the word is too functional. She writes, “(Birth mother) suggests to me a brood mare or an egg-laying hen. Birth father, by contrast, stands for a person too seldom acknowledged” (pg. 17). She attributes her rejection of the common adoption language to the gratitude she feels toward the birth parents who gave her children birth, beauty, voices, wits, etc. Contemporary writers of adoption seem to have accepted the adoption language, even those who have ethical problems with adoption. By simply understanding her stance on adoption language, one can confer her ethical views on adoption. Register seems to have a viewpoint that birth parents should always have a claim to their children, and her view grows stronger when race is of matter. She states that white adoptive parents view their transracially adopted child as being different from them rather than vice versa (pg. 89). This ethical dilemma of transracial adoption of white people seeing themselves as dominant and superior presents a problem when raising the children within the American culture.  

Overall, I recommend Register’s book. The book has many strengths, including the perspective and experience that the author brings to the issue of transracial adoption and her suggestions she provides to prospective and current adoptive parents of transracial adoptees. She further develops the ethical issues of race and adoption by expressing her views on the consequences of keeping an adoptee “exotic” and the unethical issues associated with transracial adoption. Register challenges voices such as Pertman’s while echoing voices such as Nelson’s. She offers a new approach to the adoption language by rejecting certain words. The only downfall that I identified was that she only used a critical lens on transracial adoption and did not talk about the benefits of it. All in all, the book provided good insight into race and adoption.   

Blog Post #7 ~ Option 3

Katie C., Jill Y., Brandon K., Mia Nhia Y.

The film Losing Isaiah sent strong messages about race and adoption. The main message regarding race was that black people are less privileged than white people. A majority of the black people in the film were drug addicts or recovering addicts of a lower socioeconomic status. The white people were more privileged in the sense that they were of a higher socioeconomic class. They held professional jobs and lived in “whitesville.” The privileges that the white people possessed made it easier for them to adopt. Overall, the perception of white people was that they were superior to black people. During the court hearing, racism became evident in the way that language was used. For example, Khaila felt that the adoptive parents were trying to hide Isaiah’s race. Khaila said, “What is it you don’t want him to know, huh? That his mother is as black as he is?”

The film was not a realistic representation of adoption. The process seemed simpler than what we’ve learned about. The adoptive parents got Isaiah really fast and there was little interaction with an adoption agency. Khaila’s search for her son was very simple and fast as well. This was a horror story and a very unusual case of adoption. Adoption typically does not result in a huge, controversial court battle. The film accurately represented how white people have it easier navigating in the adoption world. This is because white people have more power, privilege and knowledge of the adoption process. White people’s position of having more resources than black people qualify them to be a better candidate for an adoptive parent. The adoptive parents were able to hire a qualified lawyer to fight the battle, while Khaila had to depend on a lawyer provided by the government. This gives white people a better advantage in the adoption case. The movie also exemplified different views of what qualifies a woman to be considered a mother. Margaret thought birthing a child does not meant that the woman is a mother. She said, “Any animal can give birth. That doesn’t make it a mother.” Khaila felt that the adoptive parents stole her baby. Overall, the film had a lot of inaccuracies, but hopefully the audience can think critically and understand that this is not an everyday case. 

Blog Post #6

Kim Park Nelson, Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace

a.       The metaphors that were illustrated in this article really stood out to me. The comparison of adoption to the supply and demand equation or as Bell Hooks mentioned the “[…] spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish of mainstream white culture” (Nelson, 2006, pg. 93). These two explanations sound unappealing, yet it does speak some truth about adoption. Adoption has gone beyond expected as there is a high demand for it, yet the supply (babies) has steadily matched with such request. This exchange is an important one and the result of this is that “typically, everyone is compensated, either monetarily, materially, or socially […]” (Nelson, 2006, pg. 93). Also, the spice term is an example used to understand the ‘commodification of Otherness’ as it is the answer to why so many parents partake in interracial adoption. Parents do seek out children of other races because it will help them become more diverse and this can be a benefit in that both the parents and the child will learn about that particular culture and become more aware. These two metaphors may be demeaning; however they both speak out the truth in adoption, specifically interracial adoption.

b.      The notion of people kidnapping and selling babies to adoption agency is completely inhuman. I understand that money was a motive for such act; however it was surprising to find out that “lawyers are the key organizers and profiteers from these illegal adoptions” (p. 95). Lawyers are authority figures that people can easily trust on and yet to know that a lot of them are behind such act is terrible. This relates back to what we read at the beginning of the semester about doctors informing girls/women to give up their child and provided no other options.  Again, it brings up the question of who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted when one is in similar situations.

Adam Pertman, Joy and Surprises from Abroad

a.       I was intrigued with the story of Michele Greene and what she endured to finally have her child. We have read stories about agency being tricky and manipulative, but this story definitely topped all of them because Greene waited a whole year or so to get her baby and loss huge amount money. The story is different and refreshing since the child had a cleft palate, yet Greene did not give up on the child. She fought and gave in to the agency just so that she can raise a child with a disability and I think that is why the story is so heartwarming.  One would think that the agency would want to give the child with a disability away as fast as possible, however in this situation; they used that to their full advantage.

b.      A point that we mentioned briefly in class that I think is wrong is the changes of the adoption in terms of “shifting perceptions, political pressures, and even personal views” (pg. 81). These changes may be correct for some people; however I think that with more restriction, it only targets a specific group. For instance, with China the applicants have to be married, a body mass index of less than 40, etc… I think all these requirements are impractical because with this implemented; it closes the doors on other loving parents who are either single or have a body mass index of 41.

-          MAI NHIA.

Nelson, K. (2006). “Shopping for Children: In the International Marketplace” In Jane Jeong Trenka, Julia   Chinyere Oparah, and Sun Young Shin, eds. Outsiders within: Writing on Transracial Adoption.                    Cambridge: South End Press.

Pertman, A. (2011). Adoption Nation. Boston, MA: The Harvard Common Press.

Blog post #6

The most interesting and compelling thing from chapter three of Pertman’s book was the ethical issues pertaining to international adoption. The experiences that adoptive parents went through illustrate the ethical dilemmas associated with adoption. Michele Greene’s story of adopting her son from Guatemala really struck me. It was shocking that the government and adoption agencies expected bribes from Michele in order for her to adopt her son. This is a complete violation of the Hague Convention because the best interest of the child was not the foremost important thing in this instance. It’s saddening that people try to make profit from children who are already in a vulnerable condition. 

Pertman stated, “Given its paramount position in the adoption world, the United Sates should take the lead in ensuring that the (Hague Convention Treaty) is widely implemented and adhered to, but it should also work to simultaneously ensure that every girl and boy who genuinely needs a safe, permanent family can get one” (pg. 85). Yes, this does sound ideal, but this seems like an unlikely scenario. This is a significant task for the U.S. to take on and it seems nearly impossible to patrol all of the adoption agencies throughout the world. I agree with Pertman that the treaty needs to be implemented everywhere, but I think he is being too optimistic by believing that the U.S. has the power to do so.

I thought the most compelling aspect of Kim Park Nelson’s article was her explanation of cultural enrichment being a reason of adoption. She states that, “Ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish of mainstream white culture” (pg. 93). Nelson points out that this hope is misguided because the adoptee usually assimilates into the American culture. Therefore, adoption doesn’t fulfill this hope of cultural enrichment that some adoptive parents wish for. I agree with her argument that some adoptive parents may get too caught up in what their child will bring to their lives, in terms of expanding their horizon to a different race and ethnicity, causing them to overlook how the adoptee might suffer because of his/her race and ethnicity.

I thought Nelson was wrong with her statement about how American adoptive parents view birth mothers from different countries. She states that, “Parents in the United States view themselves as superior to parents in poor countries, further easing their decision to adopt transnationally” (pg. 103). This may be the case for some adoptive parents, but I do not agree that a majority of adoptive parents believe they are superior. I don’t believe that adoptive parents see themselves as a savior and they don’t view birth parents as not worthy of the child. I think that Americans adopt because they want to have a family and to love and raise a child and to be able to provide a child with a good life. 

Blog Post 6 ~ Katie C

Through the readings for today, there were several different things that I picked out of each one that I stood out to me. 

I'll start out by talking about the reading by Kim Park Nelson called "Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace." Just in reading the title, I knew there would be some things that I wouldn't like. The main part that stood out to me was on page 100 when Nelson was talking about costs. She said, "The complicated transnational adoption process encourages the marketplace behavior of parents and the treatment of children like merchandise" (Nelson, 100). I agree that this is certainly true, though I wish it weren't. Nelson also said, "Parents must shop for children to choose their national origin, their race, and their gender. Because the decisions to be made are so large and difficult, the adoption industry is full of companies or individuals offering services to help parents through the process." Sadly, all of this is true. There is so much talk about the cost of adoption and how much that can influence where a family will adopt from. 

On page 81 of Pertman's book, he talks about China's new set of criteria for anyone who wants to adopt. Some of the restrictions he included were that applicants must be married, cannot be older than 50, must have a body mass index of less than 40, must be free of specific health problems, and must have net assets of at least $80,000" (Pertman, 81). I personally think that is very implausible. It is just very interesting to see the different requirements set out by different countries.

One part that I found very interesting in the Pertman reading was when he said, "But a large majority, including those who profess little interest in their genealogies, will say they feel more grounded and secure when their adoptive parents infuse their upbringings with the cultures from which they came, routinely give them information about the backgrounds, and, when physical differences are apparent, expose them to other people who look like them" (Pertman, 66). I think that this is very important to know because it can help perspective adoptive parents in the future. It is just like what we talked about in our debate last week on transracial adoption. We said that as long as the adoptive parents are doing everything they can to learn more about their child's culture, they will be doing the best for their children.

The point that I found interesting in the Nelson reading was her idea that transracial adoption fulfilled a desire of the adoptive parents to "enrich their lives by parenting a child from a foreign culture" (Nelson, 89). She mentions this several times throughout the chapter. I just thought it was interesting to think of it as an enrichment for the parents with nothing in return for the adoptees. 

Overall, I thought that both of these readings were very interesting and informative about transracial adoption and they covered several important points.

Blog Post #6 Option A

While I read Pertman, I couldn’t help but think about our guest speaker who grew up in a diverse community.  Our guest speaker said how important it was for her to have grown up in a community full of diversity so she didn’t feel so “out-of-place”.  Pertman highlights a similar strategy that social workers suggest for adoptive parents, that “moving to a new neighborhood, so their sons and daughters can grow up among peers and adults who look like them”, (Pertman, pg.67).  I like this idea, but that is a drastic change of lifestyle; but so is adoption J.  The part that I found most interesting from the reading was the lack of education that was available for adoptive parents in regards to racism that their child will face.  Being a white male, the only racism I have ever felt was in Mexico where somebody had spray painted “F*** You Gringo” on a wall.  That has been, probably, one of the only times I have felt direct hatred for my skin color.  I wouldn’t know how to address racism or comfort a person for being discriminated, because I have absolutely no experience with the matter.

                I also found the black market of children interesting.  It is fascinating that humans would have a child and sell that child for money to benefit them.  It makes complete sense why people would go through an agency instead of directly through the birth parent when adopting.  They can find out more information and, most often times, the agency can be more trusted.  Touching back on the racism issue that many adoptive parents will face, adoptive parents are also at risk of not completely understanding the situation that their child had been growing up in.  Using the Romanian adoptee example, as described by Pertman, many parents did not know that their adopted children would face developmental issues because of the poor treatment they had in foster care.  Once again, adoptive parents are left unprepared and may have been able to handle a situation regarding race or developmental issues.  These are just a few examples I noticed from today’s readings, and I’m sure organizations exist that prepare adoptive parents for a range of situations.

Brandon Kasper  

Blog post #5

The two articles about white privilege really struck me. This topic has come up in some of my other courses before, so it was not a completely novel subject. However, I really enjoyed chapter one of Silent Racism by Barbara Trepagnier. The differences of the definitions of racism between white people and black people were new to me. White people have two categories for racism: racist or not racist. Whereas, black people and other people of color define racism as “permeating the institutions of society, producing racial inequality in employment, education, housing, and justice” (Trepagnier, 2006, pg. 4). These two definitions greatly differ and serve as evidence that privilege is inherent to white people because they do not see racism in terms of institutional and structural inequality. White people never have to consider that their race is the reason as to why they did not get a job, why they got pulled over by a policeman, why their kids are not getting the best education, etc. Peggy McIntosh referred to whiteness as an invisible knapsack in an article she wrote about white privilege. This analogy refers to the fact that white people carry their race without knowing it because it is the  accepted race in the U.S. McIntosh encourages white people to unpack their knapsack in order to work towards social change.

Trepagnier raises the question about whether all white people are racist. She wrote that one study found that “white people generally are racist” (pg. 6). Other theorists have concluded that not all white people are racist. As much as I’d like to say that a majority of white people and I are 100 percent not racist, I believe that everyone possesses a degree of racism. Going back to the invisible knapsack analogy, white people unknowingly carry privilege with them without questioning or acknowledging its presence. Of course there might be some white people who are constantly aware of their white privilege knapsack. But I think most people are not, meaning that they are using their white privilege to their advantage in an unconscious, innocent manner.

The articles were very academic and educational, however, I wish that the authors provided solutions. They pointed out that white people inherently carry this privilege around, but we can we do about it? It would have been nice if they would have made suggestions about what people can do to share their privilege. 

Blog Post 5 - Option 1

I found the readings for Tuesday’s class very informative, but not eye opening.  As we discussed in class, I had always been aware of racism and realized the marginalization of some groups, but I had never given it much thought.  I also found interest in the views of racism between the students who grew up in rural Minnesota vs those who grew up in the cities/suburbs.  I myself come from a very Caucasian community and was not exposed to race unless I travelled, and when I did travel, I considered myself to be “non-racist”.  I laughed when I read through Rethinking Racism by Barbara Trepagnier because her definition of the white viewpoint on racism could not be more spot-on.  “Most whites think in the terms of the oppositional categories ‘racist’ and ‘non racist’”, (Trepagnier, pg.3).  Before taking any classes at Saint John’s I definitely thought that being racist meant your actions had to be blatantly racist, but never gave thought to the idea of institutional racism. 

                “Fewer and fewer whites were willing to openly make claims of biological superiority to people of color”, (Williams, pg. 92.).  I really couldn’t agree more with this statement, especially coming from a rural blue collar working class community.  People of my town thought everyone had equal chances and opportunities to achieve the America dream.  I would like to say that I didn’t live a sheltered life, and that I was exposed to racism, but the only direct racism I ever heard was a joke my grandpa had told.  When I learned how the media operates and that there are basically 5 major companies that dominate the industry, I really began to be exposed to institutional racism.  The media is controlled by white power and really only shows what whites would like to see.  There are some off-stream media channels that will cover other racial groups, but the main 5 cover a white perspective.  “If racial parity had been achieved, African Americans would have 2 million high schools and college degrees, nearly 2 million more professional and managerial jobs, and roughly $200 billion more in income”, (Williams, pg. 92).  The idea that everyone has an equal chance in life is crap.  People are either born into privilege or are born into oppression and rarely does resilience exist for those in the second category. 

Brandon Kasper 

Blog Post 5- Transracial Adoption (MY)

          I never thought much about transracial adoption until I encountered it on a trip to Tanzania. As part of the trip, we volunteered at an orphanage. Upon arrival, I instantly grew an attachment with a baby boy name Nestory. For the rest of the week we were inseparable. As funny as it sounds, I immediately wanted to adopt Nestory and bring him home with me. However, I was informed that adoption was not common with this particular orphanage and transracial adoption was out of the question. Heartbroken, I managed to understand the reasoning: these children were thoroughly educated on their history, culture and language. The daily routines consisted of reminders of who they are. For instance, before every meal a four year old would say grace, which to my amazement was the Tanzanian song. One could tell that this orphanage wanted to keep their religion and culture alive by not partaking in adoptions, specifically transracial adoptions.

I have a hard time deciding where I stand on this topic. First of all, I believe that transracial adoption does indeed secure the child’s best interest because these children could possibly be living a harder life. To me, the idea of any type of parents is better than no parents. These parents who participated in transracial adoptions are well aware of the consequences and yet, they took the chance. Although they may not be able to teach their children about their native culture or help deal with the racism, there is the foundation that “’love’ and the swift placement into a stable family are the key factors in a child’s development” (pg. 4). From my own experience, I know parents who are active in their child’s culture by encouraging them to learn the language or attending cultural events. I think the results are more positive as the children are well-rounded in other cultures.

Secondly, Jane Jeong Trenka, Julia Chinyere Oparah, & Sun Young Shin (2006) mentioned a claim made by some scholars and social workers that “transracial adoption damages children of color, leading to low self-esteem, identity crises and difficulty relating to their communities of origin” (pg. 4). As this may appear true, I also want to point out that this issue does not only affect adoptees; it is an issue among all minorities. For instance, most minorities face either the “too white” for these people or “too Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc…” for these people. This claim cannot be put just against transracial adoption because all minorities will have an identity crisis regardless of what skin color their parents are.

                In addition, the discussion on racial microaggressions by Mia Tuan and Jiannbin Lee Shiao (2011) is quite interesting. Racial microaggression is described as “situations in which minorities are pulled out of the moment because their race has become salient” (p. 141). This issue is similar to what we learned about with “Silent Racism’ and it extremely affects one’s self-identity, as one can see with the example of Caleb. I have also encountered these situations and, honestly, there is not much one can do. Minorities will face racial microaggressions regardless if they are adopted by white parents or born in America. Therefore, I think the idea that transracial adoption results in a loss of self-identity is not only an effect on them, but again on most minorities.  

                In contrast, I also understand why these authors reason that transracial adoption violates the best interest of the child. Although, I argued that all minorities face self-identity crisis, I also have to acknowledge that the adoptees may have it harder because they have no one to help them realize who they are. As much as I hated my mother’s lectures and strict rules, I am thankful for it because I have learned a lot about my culture and who I am. This is not to say that they are extremely clueless, and struggling, but it is harder for most of them.

                Furthermore, in my culture our main religion is Shamanism however this is slowly diminishing as people have converted to Christianity. (I am not opposed to this at all, however….) This has always made me question what would become of my culture if everyone converted. I know my analogy of religion is a different matter than transracial adoption, yet to me it holds the same purpose as to why the orphanage in Tanzania does not allow adoption. In some way my religion is why I understand how the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978 or why the National Association of Black Social Worker's (NABSW) is against white adoption of black children. The idea that a culture or language could be lost or forgotten is probably where people find it hard to accept transracial adoption. With this being said, I am still unsure as to where I stand and I may never know. 

-          MAI NHIA.

Trenka, J. J., Oparah, J. C., & Shin, S. Y. (2006). Introduction. Outsiders within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge: South End Press.

Tuan, M. & Shiao, J. L. (2011). Choosing ethnicity, negotiating race: Korean adoptees in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation