13 Responses to “I will not watch I will not watch I will not watch”

1. cherylc
   October 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

   

   No, the country *sells* the children, then uses the money to fix the sewers. It’s brilliant!

   I can’t believe she said that. Just can’t. She said in the People magazine I read that she wanted to “save” him. I don’t like that as the motivating factor.

2. Louise
   October 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm

   

   Hi Dawn- I think this is my first comment here….I agree with your assessment of Madonna. So odd!

   After read the link to the Guardian article, I just wanted to recommend two health/human services organizations that provide sponsorships to villages and children in Africa.

   I am sure there are other good orgs. out there, but we have had a good experience with World Vision and Compassion International…We give money to World Vision to help a village with their well water. and our Compassion money sponsors two little girls, an AIDS orphan from Ethiopia and an older girl in Tanzania…Our money helps send them to school, provide meals, water and clothing…And we are now pen pals, to boot!

3. shannon
   October 25th, 2006 at 6:53 pm

   

   I just think of the difference between this latest Madonna publicity stunt (I really think she’s just a garden-variety meglomaniac) and what Bono (of U2) is doing with his star power, to help people with HIV–adults and cute little babies–in Africa.

   It’s not all that shocking, what she said though. There’s an academic book on transracial adoption that has some extremely similar quotes from the US Congress in 1994, arguing for relaxing resttrictions on transracial adoptions to essentially extract children from poor Blackness and transplant them into middle-class whiteness, “saving them” (and conveniently giving “better” consumers babies) with no concern for the (poor, Black) people left behind.

4. parodie
   October 25th, 2006 at 7:02 pm

   

   I know that there was a trend, too few years ago, to take children from Native Reservations here in Canada and place them with “good” white families — the reasoning was very similar to the one presented here.

   Since then this practice has been discontinued (and, I believe, ruled as wrong by the courts) and social services are supposed to try to keep children in their own community as much as possible. Really, this is quite logical - and I’m sad that it took us as long as it did to stop the practice.

   However, it astonishes me that we would fall back into exactly the same rhetoric when we’re dealing with other countries. It’s terrifying how much we are blinded by our assumptions.

5. Julia
   October 25th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

   

   All I can muster is, “Ugh.”

6. DD
   October 26th, 2006 at 12:41 am

   

   I’ve seen several posts on this topic from both sides of the camp: what does it matter where she adopts since now the child will grow up healthy and happy; and then there’s the other camp who think Madonna just using her star power to circumvent the systems.

   I understand where both sides are coming from and I think a couple of years ago I would have leaned towards the opinions of the first. Now I realize that she wasn’t out to save a child; she was out to create a public furor and I think she thought the $3M was going to help her cause. All it did was point out how her needs as one outweigh the needs of the many in that African community.

7. Terri
   October 26th, 2006 at 1:24 am

   

   I’m with you. It would have been a massive waste of my time to watch her on Oprah. Another fading pop diva getting face time/opinion time when the others involved are not.

   On Louise’s sponsorship note, another good one is PLAN USA. We prefer this one, as a personal choice, simply because it does not teach or require a certain religion.

   I’m not saying this to pat myself on the back … far from it … in fact sometimes I feel like a massive hypocrite for not sponsoring a family right here in the U.S… or doing more work here. I’m just saying the opportunites are in place there (in Africa and other impoverished countries/continents) to help without dividing a family that does not wish/need to be divided.

   We’re privileged that our very meager dollars go so far over there.

8. brave
   October 26th, 2006 at 10:35 am

   

   perhaps more anger should be directed towards the governments of these countries that are so corrupt and burdened with debt and without social services infrastructure. The aids epidemic which is devestating Africa — a public health issue, yes a crisis. These are the real source of the problems. This situation is not unique to Malawi or even Africa. mothers die in many countries without any adoptions available for their children or support for their families if they wanted to take care of a the child. A very high percentage of babies and kids do die of simple things such as diarrhea, so yes, adoption, inter-country adoption does “save” some of them, but not every child can be adopted nor should that be appropriate for every child. It’s not an either or situation.

9. Julie
   October 26th, 2006 at 12:33 pm

   

   On your points about Madonna, I totally agree. She’s always struck me as a pseudo-intellectual, making statements and taking action without really considering all sides of the issue.

10. Amy
    October 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    

    Saying that foreign adoption is the answer for the millions of African AIDS orphans is sort of like saying that playing the lottery is the answer to large scale American poverty. It just isn’t a realistic or advisable large-scale solution.

    I can understand that urge of being in a country where there is so much suffering, falling in love with a child and wanting to take him away from all that. I get that. I have felt that urge myself while visiting third world countries and while volunteering with AIDS orphans in the US.

    But I think the issue with someone like Madonna (and anyone really who has too much money) is that no one challenges her on a personal level. And when they do she can’t even sit there and acknowledge that there might be a reason why people are upset. It is all self righteous anger that everyone else is hurting the children of Africa even more by just saying that maybe international adoption wasn’t the best solution for this boy and questioning weather maybe there was a way to allow him to return to the family he had. They did not, from what I understand, place him in an orphanage because they didn’t love him but because they couldn’t feed him. There was no acknowledgement on her part of the place that money played in this adoption. I do not think that at this point returning that boy to the orphanage would be the right thing to do. I actually hope she gets to keep him since it appears that his father has chosen not to attempt to block the adoption. I hope she makes good on her promise to return to Malawi often, have an open adoption and keep this boy in contact with his existing family. But I really hope that even if she didn’t acknowledge it on Oprah, she has given the implications of her decision a little bit more thought.

    But as upsetting as it must be for families who have adopted internationally through proper, legitimate, legal channels I am kind of glad this has taken some of the issues involved with intercountry adoption and blown them up on such a grand scale. On some level I feel bad for her. She really isn’t different that different from any other clueless adoptive family out there (and we know there are many) except that she has millions of dollars, a faux British accent and a national platform on Oprah instead of an Ebay fundraising sight and a ladybug infested webpage that plays midi versions of “Jesus Loves Me” incessantly.

11. Amy
    October 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    

    Oh, and I wanted to add…I get that Madonna is the more famous in the relationship but it is kind of pissing me off that no one is really calling out Guy Richie in all this. He is also adopting this boy but somehow all the critisism has fallen on Madonna. That doesn’t seem fair to me.

12. Margie
    October 26th, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    

    One of the many things that concern me about Madonna’s comments is that they come from a person who has clearly put little thought into adoption generally. It seems to me that for her, this is all about altruism, and not at all about adoption. Such a skewed perspective, and wrong in so many ways.

    The foundation of all intercountry adoption is the same, I think. There may be more focus on adoption and adoption issues, but altruism is the foundation. So I’m a little uncomfortable being too critical, because to some degree the same things could be said about me as are being said about her - we both adopted to give a child a better life.

13. Plain Jane Mom
    October 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    

    Ah yes, the old “the children are the future” argument. It is a convenient way to gloss over difficult problems. Like making up your own laws!