National (anti)-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 questions

National anti-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 questions. Daniel Drennan ElAwar Assistant Professor, Illustration Aubain Faculty of Art Emily Carr University of Art + Design email: drennan@panix.com National anti-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 quest... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/anti-adoption-... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. N a t i o n a l a n t i - a d o p t i o n a w a re n e s s m o n t h : 3 0 a n s w e r s t o 3 0 q u e s t i o n s . Posted on November 1, 2013 The problem for adoptees arguing about their position in society is similar to what has been experienced previously by other marginalized groups looking to make a space within the hegemonic culture. Namely, how to expand out from what is considered simply a personal issue; an individual hang-up; a “selfish” focus on one’s condition. The individualistic and solipsistic dominant culture ironically turns around and tells its abscondedwith children to not be so “selfish” as to complain. In other terms, this was used against other groups as well—”don’t be ‘uppity'”; “know your role”. We should literally be seen and not heard. Those days are over. What follows is a reversal of roles. 30 answers to 30 questions that have come up in discussion boards and various “answer” web sites that pretend to be objective but more often than not stifle debate, delete contrarian posts, and disallow membership to those with a minority point of view—the web site Canada Adopts! is probably the most fascistic in this regard. This is understandable, however, when we consider that the answers to the questions, when removed from a personal or individual emotional plane, and instead focusing on the economic and political realm, are harder to justify by those in power—and thus the retaliation, the backlash, and the twisted framing of the dominant culture of those seeking infants as being somehow minority, victimized, and on the defensive. Armed with this positioning of the argument, the anti-adoption movement is poised to join its brothers and sisters in other liberation movements of dispossessed and marginalized peoples the world over in the struggle for equality, true equality; the status of polis for all, and the end of the false positioning of the dominant mode of thinking as anything other than what it is: the political and economic destruction of those who don’t fit in to its view of the world. Nothing more and nothing less. The questions listed out include: 1. Do people who have been adopted blame others all their lives for their adoption? 2. Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption? 3. When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-compliant adoptees? 4. Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity? 5. What do you anticipate your response will be if another family member/friend decides to adopt? 6. What about the children? Is it better for a child to live in hell? 7. Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? 8. [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? 9. Should international adopters send the children back? 10. Do you believe God has a play in infertility/fertility/adoption? 11. Why is it common for infant-adoptive parents to be ridiculed? 12. Have you felt in your life like you’re always searching for something? 13. In adoption-speak, what difference between “from China” and “Chinese”? 14. Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my care? 15. Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? 1 of 3 11/1/19, 18:17 National anti-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 quest... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/anti-adoption-... 16. Why are people so against adoption here? 17. Shouldn’t we praise those who disrupt their adoptions? 18. What if I make every effort to help my child through their grief? 19. Is there a difference between an adopted child and a “Western” child? 20. Why don’t more people adopt? 21. What can adoptive parents do to change things? 22. What do you think of expatriate adoptions abroad? 23. Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? 24. Is it okay to not get U.S. citizenship for an internationally adopted child? 25. What are you grateful for as an adoptee? 26. Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? 27. What does “adoptee” mean to you? 28. What are you [adoptee] trying to accomplish on this blog? 29. Isn’t it valid to compare adoption with a pregnancy? 30. Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? The point here was always to shift the debate from the personal to the economical and political. “Entitled opinion” of course exists where history is concerned, but at least changing the parameters of the discussion gets us away from the purely emotional, and the mythologies that take advantage of this. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Responses to National anti-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 questions. sarasuespeaks says: November 1, 2013 at 10:08 pm You gotta love #6. It’s a classic. Reply eagoodlife says: November 2, 2013 at 12:21 am Reblogged this on The Life Of Von and commented: Please check the link and the answers to these questions on adoption. Reply nancy rodgers says: November 2, 2013 at 9:18 am Thank you! It’s so refreshing to read the truth. 2 of 3 11/1/19, 18:17 National anti-adoption awareness month: 30 answers to 30 quest... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/anti-adoption-... Reply lara/trace says: November 4, 2013 at 4:59 am Reblogged this on Blue Hand Books and commented: THINK about these questions – really — then answer! Reply Pingback: Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions | lara (author-blogger) Pingback: Bitter? Adoptees? Beirut Diary | lara (author-blogger) Pingback: Richard Land Sent to the Woodshed: Bastards have the wrong dad | The Daily Bastardette D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 18:17 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. P ro b l e m s i n h e re n t t o t h e a d o p t i o n d i s c o u r s e . Posted on November 2, 2013 The problem with “days” and “months” such as National Adoption Awareness Month within American culture is that they are not, in fact, meant to focus attention on those in the minority; they are instead meant to further marginalize those who are outside of the dominant American cultural framework. Black History Month is thus not a focus, but a marginalization, a sign that “Black history” is somehow still not assimilated into so-called American history. Unfortunately, ethnic studies and the focus on narratives from those who are marginalized do not in fact expand on or create this enlarged history; they instead point up the failed “melting pot” or “beautiful mosaic” or “rainbow coalition” of American society. They simply further the dispossession of the Other that is the ultimate goal of Anglo-Saxon culture. Giorgio Agamben, in his book Homo Sacer (Sacred Man), summarizes the philosophical debate on this subject as to how people are viewed in terms of who is given validity by the State (the polis) and who isn’t (those who simply maintain zoë, or “bare life”). To note is that this is premised on the work of Aristotle, and reveals in this way the patriarchal notions of existence that underpin liberal democracy as we know it today. Hamid Dabashi, in his book Islamic Liberation Theology, takes this one step further, moving beyond Agamben’s inability to come up with a valid praxis: The entire function of Orientalism, and by extension Islamic Studies, or Chinese Studies, Indian Studies, Iranian Studies, etc., is nothing but “to explain” the foreignness of these languages and cultures to their “Western” readers. To explain something is ipso facto to constitute its foreignness, and thus by definition point to the quintessential inexplicability of the phenomenon in its own terms–and thus to constitute the foreign as the enemy and the enemy as the foreigner, as he who does not speak one’s language (literally, “the barbarian”), the enemy who speaks a foreign, estrange, and thus dangerous language, and thus acts in a strange and inexplicable manner, and is thus in need of a native informer (Fouad Ajami) or an Orientalist (Bernard Lewis) to explain him/her, and is thus outside the form of the political [polis] squarely in the realm of zoë or bare life. The singular function of Orientalism over the last 200 years has been nothing but to constitute the “Orient” as the enemy of “the West” by trying to understand and explain it–the same holds true for all Area Studies fields. They make strange and thus constitute as the enemy that which they seek to explain and make understood. Here the point is that this alienation within a dominant culture fits into a functional aspect of that culture that seeks not to focus on or bring forward such studies and their represented minorities, but to eradicate their agents—the “constituted enemy”; not to bring attention to minority groups, but to co-opt and, ultimately and ideally, destroy them. In order to understand the scope of such destruction (literally or via incorporation), it will be necessary to refocus attention on dominant and dominated populations, in economic and political terms both inside and outside of the dominant culture, as well as the methods used for such destruction. 1 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... Adoptees, whether domestic or international, have been displaced; dispossessed; disinherited. They share with others in this realm of the zoë the nether-class citizen designation that is exacerbated and not denied by their adoption into the dominant bourgeois class. Such that when they speak up and out about their condition, they are told to “get over it”, or “be thankful instead”, or that they should “be happy” with their lives. No doubt this rings true to descendants of slaves, to those living in the shadow of the decimation of Indigenous populations in the Americas and elsewhere, as well as slave-labor immigrants. The problem for adoptees arguing about their position in society is similar to what has been experienced previously by other marginalized groups looking to make a space within the hegemonic culture. Namely, how to expand out from what is considered simply a personal issue; an individual hang-up; a “selfish” focus on one’s condition; a psychological “illness”. The individualistic and solipsistic dominant culture ironically turns around and tells its absconded-with children to not be so “selfish” as to complain. Similar terms were used against other minority groups as well—”don’t be ‘uppity'”; “know your role”. We should literally be seen and not heard. Those days are over. What follows is a reversal of roles. 30 answers to 30 questions that have come up in discussion boards and various “answer” web sites that pretend to be objective but more often than not stifle debate, delete contrarian posts, and disallow membership to those with a minority point of view. The web site Canada Adopts! is probably the most fascistic in this regard, but sadly many adoptee-driven web sites do the same thing. This is understandable, however, when we consider that the answers to the questions, when removed from a personal or individual emotional plane, and instead focusing on the economic and political realm, are harder to justify by those in power—or those seeking such power. This results in the retaliation, the backlash, and the twisted framing of the dominant culture of adopters as being somehow minority, victimized, and on the defensive. Armed with this positioning of the argument, the anti-adoption movement is poised to join its brothers and sisters in other liberation movements of dispossessed and marginalized peoples the world over in the struggle for equality, true equality; the status of polis for all, and the end of the false positioning of the dominant mode of thinking as anything other than what it is: the political and economic destruction of those who don’t fit in to its view of the world. Nothing more and nothing less. For starters, the follow question appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Do people who have been adopted blame others all their lives for their adoption? I see it a lot on this section where a person will put the blame on others who choose to adopt, for themselves being adopted and having a bad experience. I also see a lot of I was treated like this, or THEY did me like that. And most of it is coming from adults. Why can’t they learn to forgive the people who hurt them and move on with their lives? When someone has done something bad to you, its not them who goes around letting it be a chip on their shoulder, its you. And that is not healthy regardless of rather you are adopted or not. To always play the victim card gets you no where in life, regardless of who you are. So why do it? Reply: The trouble with this question is what is implied by it, and therefore what it requests of someone who answers—namely, that they defend themselves against this implication whether it is true or not. It is like the question: “When did you stop beating your wife?” and therefore is not valid as a question for debate. 2 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... Meaning, the implication that someone cannot get on with their lives because they are blaming someone for their misfortune is a loaded question, and is patently illogical from the outset. Furthermore, it reveals the mindset of the person asking the question, and how they view adoptees. For I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the people airing their grievances were, say, war veterans, or cancer survivors. The true question here is why should anyone who goes up against systemic abuses of human rights by those of the dominant discourse—meaning, those who control and maintain power within a given society—are met with abuse, or told to “get over it”, or asked to “stifle it”, which is exactly what this question is attempting to do. It is no different than calling a Black American “boy”, or telling Native Americans to “get over” the genocide that occurred to their peoples, etc. Anyone who goes up against the dominant discourse as defined by such people is set up for abuse of this kind. This is unfair, unjust, and unbecoming of anyone who in any way believes in the validity of human rights, and the right to one’s person, which, I would argue, includes the right to not be abducted from one’s family and community, as well as the right to not be forced to lose one’s language, culture, identity, and sense of self. If the “complaining” by adoptees seems personal, it is because there is nothing more personal than one’s identity, one’s place in his or her family, community, society. This, however, does not deny the greater injustice, crime, and violence of adoption, nor does it give those who see adoption as a wondrous thing the right or the ability to shut down the debate, or to tell adoptees that they should get over it. Debate Tactic: Before debating anyone on adoption, the first tactic should be to reframe the question and find what is being insinuated; effectively turning the question around. This works toward evening out the playing field. Removing the personal aspect of the question reveals the bigger picture that needs to be focused on instead. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Bernard Lewis, Black History Month, blame, discourse, Fouad Ajami, Giorgio Agamben, power differential. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Responses to Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. Mirren (@newhall89) says: November 3, 2013 at 4:24 am Thank you, thank you for making clear how personal the issues are while how very aggressive and violent the responses of many of the public at large are to our feelings and grievances. I have been hurt, then angry, then sanguine about the inanity we come up against, all too often. Of course the ruling elite doesn’t want to see what we’re saying, or give up their power! And those who aspire to that power don’t want to admit that they’re playing the game. Having been around the block, I know the rhetorical ploys they use, so brilliantly parodied in Derailing for Dummies, and I appreciate your practical suggestions for mounting counter offensives. 3 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... You are inspirational at a moment when I need it more than you know. Thank you for stirring me not to give up, as well. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm I appreciate your kind words more than you know as well! Thank you. Reply Marley Greiner says: November 4, 2013 at 2:07 am Thank you so much for your posts this month. They are very important. I’m not a a transnational or transracial adoptee, so I’ll address what I see happening in white American adoptacujlture. I have been disappointed for years that many in the adoptee rights movement are not only ahistorical, but exhibit little interest in developing an intellectual underpinning in their analysis, interpretation, and activism. A couple years ago I was soundly trounced by a woman complaining unfortunately to a large internet audience of people who acted like she was a goddess, that when I brought this up I was trying to make her feel stupid and inferior. For some inexplicable reason she identified me with her first mother, which I guess explains her problem. (BTW, a long time ago a first mom friend of mine was kicked off a mothers anti-adoption list. Seems certain mothers didn’t ‘believe that she was actually a first mom because she was “too articulate.” She also made the error of holding a Ph.D. ) More alarming is that the vast majority of “activists” are too busy re-inventing the wheel or posting on FB to develop strategic thinking and planning. When called on it, they complain “you don’t understand.” Much of the movement is self-absorbed., argues in generalities, and dare I say bourgie in their belief that only their experience or pain counts. . Much of this disconnect, imo, is due to the traditional view that Americans have of themselves and the state. During the Great Depression, for example it was very common, especially for the middle class and formerly upward mobile, to blame themselves for their lack of work, money–their inability to function as they once had. They refused to blame their circumstance on the rotten social and economic and state structures that imploded, on them. Their circumstances were their own faults. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that therapy, which later developed into the full-blown therapeutic state, started to grow in popularity a little while after that. That mentality is still prevalent in the US in some ways, but there has also been an expansion of blame to other individuals or aabstract social players, (“my birthmother,” “my adoptive parents,” the church”, ‘social workers” and then make a major jump to the “adoption industry” with nothing in between or outside of it..For sure the industry is predatory. It is a marriage of the worse aspects of capitalism and socialism, but it wouldn’t survive if it didn’t serve a need of some sort on both ends–the producer and the consumer, both of whom can be exploited and jerked around.. Speaking again of white middle class AdoptionLand, any discussion of domestic colonization, draws blanks. Any discussion of cultures that force adoption are met with blanks. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard men attack girls and women for putting their newborns up for adoption, when in fact, the culture of the day simply didn’t permit any decent alternative for many. I’m old enough to remember when even adult divorced women (teachers and nurses in my hometown) were barred from certain professions much less housing if they had kids If If teachers and nurses with “legitimate” children were treated that way, how would a 14 year old make it? “Well, I would! cry the men.” Yeah, right. And don’t even get into a discussion of male (or for that matter, white, privilege.) Any discussion about how the professionalization of social work played into adoption culture as we know it today is met with blanks. “Oh, that’s interesting,” is about a wild as it gets. Most discussions of how social services has become the civilian arm of the police only gets play when it affects white families. And any discussion of the increasing role of the state in the intimate seems to be off the map. Since we still live in a society where the government is considered our friend, serious discussions on the badness of the state are viewed as incomprehensible and downright Republican 4 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... Obviously activism doesn’t necessarily require day-to-day arguments to government hacks who have no idea what you’re talking about, but it’s essential to tie all the shit together to develop clear you own head and develop personal and political strategies. I’ve blathered on long enough. I wrote much more than I planned, and I don’t even know if I’m making any sense. Maybe I’m discussing a couple different things and trying to make the whole. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 4, 2013 at 10:39 am Not at all! It is extremely important to have this discussion. It is interesting to me that you bring up the Depression, because it is in fact at this time that a certain kind of radical American culture was seeing its heyday. Not as a function of the apparatus of the State, which was more “borrowing from” a Soviet Union against which it posed itself as a competitive model in order to placate such internal radicalism. Ignorance of history is thus a desired aspect of the dominant mode–no one in the power structure wants us, for example, in the name of solidarity, to refer back to the coal mine strikes of Matewan, West Virginia, which saw a united front of white locals, Italian immigrants, and former slaves; the victory of such a preventive mentality can be seen today in the signs on the lawns of the impoverished of Appalachia today that read: “Stop the War on Coal”. So the adoption rights movement is not immune to any of the ravages that have taken place in every other movement looking for the establishment of civil rights. The New York chapter of ACTUP split along racial lines when the white guys got their meds and a welcome into the halls of power; now they are turning around and adopting children in a further effort to ingratiate and normalize themselves. The various aspirational groups during the Civil Rights era all were split by the promise of eating crumbs at the Master’s table instead of waiting for them to fall on the floor. Malcolm X states in On Afro-American History: The so-called liberal element of the white power structure never wants to see nationalists involved in anything that has to do with civil rights. And I’ll tell you why. Any other Black people who get involved are involved within the rules that are laid down by the white liberals. And as long as they are involved within those rules, then that means they’re only going to go as far as the liberal element of the power structure will endorse their activity. But when the nationalistic-minded Blacks get involved, then we do what our analysis tells us is necessary to be done, whether the white liberal or anybody else likes it or not. So, they don’t want us involved. History shows us that whether you Uncle Tom it in the Main House or plan your escape from out in the fields your fate is the same; both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X came to the same end. That we might ignore this fact, and smilingly enter the slaughterhouse door so kindly held open for us simply boggles my mind. And the “liberals” are the worst. I much prefer the abject racist or classist who at least admits to their individualized notion of supremacy than any one who thinks this same way but claims the opposite. This is a heinous hypocrisy. X was speaking at a time when class lines were much more clearly defined by race. Obviously in context we should be talking in terms of class difference and not racial difference. The issue is tied to the fact that we have–unlike immigrants, etc.–leap-frogged into a class status that otherwise would not have been afforded to us. This is our trap, and our straitjacket. It’s also an extremely comfortable place to be; I know, I was there, and I have much to make up for in my life along these lines. I try not to cast blame to much, because I understand how this functions. At the same time, I know who, in their zeal to be recognized by the power structure, will willingly throw us to the wolves. I think it is time to call them out, because we don’t have time to waste pretending to play a comfortable game of high-school debate or worse, a useless back and forth of being “entitled to our opinions”. Adoption, as we know, is one small part of a much bigger and horrifying world of displacement and dispossession. To understand our place in that world is to know 5 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Problems inherent to the adoption discourse. | Daniel Drennan ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/problems-inher... what ties us to the rest of humanity, not to the class that adopted us. It also absolves us from having to go down the destructive path of “healing”–again, as defined by our society and culture, and a pathologizing of our behavior that serves no purpose other than to keep us docile and quiet. I would only add that this is a class which has no problem jettisoning us when we are seen to be rocking the boat, as witnessed by these questions posted for this month. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 6 of 6 11/1/19, 18:19 Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption?... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/can-someone-p... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. C a n s o m e o n e p l e a s e t e l l m e m o re a b o u t t h e d a r k s i d e o f ! a d o p t i o n ? Posted on November 2, 2013 This is the second question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The follow question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption? Answer: As an adoptee who has moved back to his land of birth, I see international adoption now as the willful leveraging of inequalities and class differences in order to establish a nuclear family and individual fulfillment, in a clash between the dominant cultural outlook and those cultures which are resistant to this outlook. This brings up the “dark side” of adoption as you put it, which is full of unanswered questions that adopters are loathe to admit, much less address, except to say that their “individual act” is somehow so beneficent that it undoes or balances out injustice in the world. This can be proved wrong very readily by a series of statements that deserve to be central to any and all debate on adoption: If it can be argued that there are government policies, inherent to a given cultural outlook, that in fact do much to create the poverty, the wars, and the conditions that have always resulted in so-called orphans, and one chooses to apply Band-aid solutions to these symptoms and not the disease, then one is complicit in those policies. If it can be argued that it is a non-relative cultural outlook that allows for the imposition of the notion of nuclear family over those cultures that are more community based, and one decides that individual happiness is more important than that of all, and that “family” is more important than “community”, then one is complicit in the destruction of the community that one is adopting from. If it can be argued that it is a power differential between those of different classes, walks of life, and living conditions; that an inherent inequality is the engine that drives most adoption on all levels and at great profit; that the willful leveraging of this differential economically, politically, and culturally has nothing to do with family creation but everything to do with exploitation and extraction of said profit; that in this can be seen the destruction of cultures that do not echo the dominant and prevailing one in a direct correlation with the historical approach to the “Third World” by the “First”, then one is complicit in this status quo that has wrought nothing but destruction worldwide. Because if we truly cared about the child, we would not support the economic and political wars that resulted in such children’s situations. Reference: The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein. 1 of 2 11/1/19, 07:45 Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption?... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/can-someone-p... Debate Tactic: Shift the debate away from the personal. Keeping the debate in the realm of “emotion”, of “what we feel”, allows for two things: psychological dismissal, as well as the ridiculous concept that “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. “Entitlement” is the root cause of adoption. We should not mimic it when debating the subject. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged dark side, international adoption, Naomi Klein, nuclear family. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Responses to Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption? Pingback: the juno myth | i miss you Pingback: Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption? | brokenbyadoption D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 2 of 2 11/1/19, 07:45 When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-complia... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/when-did-the-... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h e n / w h y d i d t h e w o rd “ b i t t e r ” g e t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n o n - c o m p l i a n t ! a d o p t e e s ? Posted on November 3, 2013 This is the third question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The follow question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-compliant adoptees? Answer: The mentality on display that refers to us as “bitter” does so for cultural as well as political reasons: it is reflective of a culture that tends to victimize those who are down, while maintaining a hypocritical false victim status for itself. For example, it is the same tactic that claims “reverse racism” as used against those who are for affirmative action, or the current “tea party”, which claim oppression by a “king”—the president—when they are of the class who not only profit from others’ misery, but can afford health care in this country. You cannot be of the dominant discourse and claim oppression from those whom you yourself oppress. To reflect upon is that this expressed self-righteous indignation is no more valid than that of adoptees, simply because everything, but everything within the dominant discourse, from the media, to non-profit organizations and the government, etc. all support unequivocally the idea that adoption is valid, that adoption is desired, and that adoption should not be challenged. This reveals what we are up against. Furthermore, this is not a balanced equation in terms of two sides of a debate. On the one hand, you have a dominant discourse of those who hold, wield, and control legal, social, medical, and financial power, as well as their tools of discourse, such as media, legal decisions, etc. Those of us who go up against this discourse can be termed resistant to it, and there is a long history of those who resist the dominant discourse as concerns their eventual fate: They are slated for silencing, and hopefully, to the majority culture, for eventual disbandment if not destruction. The accusations we are receiving are the first steps in this process, which will only escalate. The question that naturally comes to mind when I hear this from someone who supports adoption is “where is your empathy now? Where is your great big heart now?” I am that adopted child you pretend to care so much about. I am that adoptee that you claim to have done so much for, who asks only for understanding as to the violence of adoption, and the validity of my side of the story. It isn’t too much to ask, and there are many adoptive parents who in secret understand, but dare not speak out because of the same silencing we receive. I would love to hear from them here. For why should it be valid for someone of this dominant discourse to parade their angst at not having a child, and carry on about needing to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives? Why is it okay for them to have Internet forums, and episodes on Oprah, and celebrity icons going back to Joan Crawford, and generally the understanding if not outright sympathy of the entirety of this society? They litter the Internet with their repugnant 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:46 When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-complia... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/when-did-the-... “Dear Birthmother” web sites that are scandalous in their making public something which should not only be private, but should not be happening in a just and egalitarian society. Vultures have more candor and sympathy than this. On the other hand, those who are adopted, or who are convinced to give up their children and who later feel angst about it (to put it quite mildly), and who also only wish to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives, are then castigated in the harshest terms as ungrateful, and spiteful, and bitter. Why does no one say to infertile couples: “Get over it?” Why does no one say to those without children “This is God’s plan for you, not adoption”? Who, may I ask at long last, are truly the bitter individuals? But not to worry. The accusation takes such a high-handed tone because deep down the injustice of adoption is obvious, as all societal injustices have been before attempts to overcome them. Those who speak out against it are on the right side of history. The truth is on our side, and the truth will out. Reference: The Wretched of the Earth, by Frantz Fanon. Debate Tactic: Today’s reference comes from Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist from Martinique who was active in the Algerian revolution. In his discussion of the “colonized mind” and the tactics of the colonizer, he makes comparison to adoptees “who only stop investigating the new family framework at the moment when a minimum nucleus of security crystallizes in their psyche”. Here he reveals the tactic of silencing those who go up against the given power structure. His book reveals to us our common cause with others so displaced and dispossessed, as well as the counter-tactics of this engagement. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged bitter, colonized mind, Frantz Fanon. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Responses to When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-compliant adoptees? Lucy Sheen aka 4gottenadoptee says: November 3, 2013 at 10:33 am I think often and long on language.The language that is applied to adoption, especially transracial adoption, the vitriol that can sometimes pour from the mouths of those that I can only describe as born again advocates of transracial adoption and born again transracial adoptees. There is no “exchange” no give or take, no consideration it is most definitely a one way street. In which the traffic resolutely flows in one direction. To even think of APs in anything other than a saintly persona, is for many, especially the born again advocates, adoption sacrilege. I find it very interesting that still in this secular age that adoption is still very much given such a pseudo religious status. Once again fascinating and challenging article. When I read your posts very often I spend a day or two mulling over everything that has surfaced – very often I forget to comment as I am still deep in thought. Btw I could not find the “like” button on your blog 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:46 When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-complia... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/when-did-the-... Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 3, 2013 at 11:06 am Language is key. Not just in terminology, which our culture likes to vaunt as evidence of its “understanding” and “sympathy” when discussed in terms of politically correct usage, but also in such usage in and of itself. These language games (as Wittgenstein referred to them) reveal much more about the discussion taking place than the words themselves. And this is why I try to focus on them so much. The “religious” underpinnings of what we are dealing with come from the Calvinist backdrop to Anglo-Saxon culture that is ever-present, and the foundation of capitalism in this particular form. I am stating this as historical fact and no more. In later questions we’ll come back to the idea of language use again and again. Thanks for thinking about it and bringing it up! I think this becomes our responsibility: reframing the discussion in more-fair terms. As for the “Like” button…. LOL I’m so much not a fan of WordPress! I’m setting up a separate web site for all this stuff, but it is slow going, and in the meantime I’m stuck with the mushy mess of Javascript code that makes no sense in terms of interface. The “Like” button should appear at the top of the page. I’ve turned off the appearance of “Likes” on pages to avoid WordPress self-promoting spammers! I’ll look back in the preferences and see if I can’t figure out what’s going on! :-) Reply Megan Tannous says: November 12, 2017 at 7:50 am I really appreciate this article. We’ve written another in support of Adoptees voices which cites the same mechanism inherent in an argument using “reverse racism”. It’s a strange phenomena that we have to work so hard to prove our worth to have “a seat at the table “ Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:46 Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-would-s... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h y w o u l d s o m e o n e t h i n k t h a t A d o p t i o n e r a s e s a c h i l d ’s! i d e n t i t y ? Posted on November 4, 2013 This is the fourth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The follow question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity and replaces it with a fake one? Answer: First, we need to define our terms: what do we mean by “identity”? Adoption laws, courts, agencies, and most any and all other agents involved in adoption have a clear interest in rupturing all ties of a child with its progenitors and community, and replacing them with others, as defined by the legal system that they control on all levels. To do this, myths have been built up concerning adoption that, when challenged, place those in power, those in control of the situation—including parents—in a moral dilemma: Even if they agree with what is being explained here—theoretically, morally, ethically—the circumstances of their lives, the weight of their laws, the preponderance of notions of property in their legal system, as well as the sheer desire to make it so, all result in questions such as this one being asked. The question is pre-framed by their lived reality, and despite their claims to “agency”, in actuality they are performing the will of the nation-state. In purely legal terms, due to the fact that for the majority of states in the U.S. a child’s birth certificate is sealed by the courts, or that for most of us adopted overseas our birth documentation is completely falsified—an avalanche of bogus paperwork in order to shuttle us out of the country—then yes, I think it is fair to say that an adopted child’s identity, as defined in this legalistic manner, is not his or her real or true identity. Second, what strikes me particularly strange about having growing up in the United States is the attention given to all aspects of, say, the immigrant experience, and genealogy, and “roots”, and ethnicity, such that everyone gets a “hyphen” attached to their country of origin—Polish-American, Italian-American, and in my case, LebaneseAmerican—except for the true-blue Americans, who are simply “all-American”. Given this pride taken in ethnicity, and the obvious hierarchy it establishes in terms of racism, xenophobia, and the like, how is it possible to claim some kind of ethnicity—or other marker of identity—for any child who has not grown up in his or her culture? Eating falafel does not make me “Lebanese”, and I still do not claim to be Lebanese now that I’m living here. Why allow such pretension in the States? So in this case as well, I think that my American identity was not “true”—it was instead a series of masks, of affectations—both in terms of my adoptive family, and in terms of my birth country. Third, and as an elaboration of this, I would admit to having an identity, that is made aware to me when I am around people from where I grew up—our speech patterns, our cultural references, our way of seeing things—all are reflective of a time in U.S. history when local areas all had their own manners and mores, quirks, and culture. This of course has now been paved over, suburbanized, and WalMartized. This truly local culture has been replaced by a strange globalized and globalizing hodgepodge of references to superficial trappings of ethnic “style”, such that a child’s identity is not formed in a local town, say, but from a Mountain Dew commercial instead. Perhaps this is what is meant by “identity” in this question? 1 of 5 11/1/19, 07:46 Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-would-s... Fourth and finally, I think there is a hypocrisy within the American view of itself in terms of adoption, in the sense that society and culture in general make reference to blood lines, ancestry, familial ties, and the “nature” aspect of family relationships, such that we have no problem saying, “he’s a chip off the old block” or else, “she takes after her grandmother on her mother’s side”, or “he’s the spitting image of his father.” Why should it be, then, that all of a sudden the adopted child is supposed to believe that in his or her case, this doesn’t matter? That there is no nature, only nurture? How is it not possible to understand that each and every one of these references might seem slight in and of their own selves, but in the aggregate, they are like being bled to death from a million tiny cuts? The problem here is much deeper than portrayed, because it isn’t a bunch of so-called anti-adoption activists that have made suicide the number one cause of death for adopted Korean males in certain adoptive countries, for example. It isn’t “bad answers” on this bulletin board that have driven hundreds if not thousands of adopted children from Korea, Taiwan, Lebanon, etc., in progressive waves of generations of dispossessed children who vainly attempt to reverse their exodus and return to their lands of birth, in a useless but necessary attempt to reestablish some vague sense of what we currently refer to as “identity”. In 10, 15, and 20 years, it will be the turn of Ukraine, and Russia, and Guatemala, and Ethiopia, and Kenya, and Kazakhstan, and and and…., until such a day, God willing, that the injustice of adoption, and thus this destruction of identity, can be definitively stopped, once and for all. And so you can challenge this “revolt”, with a kind of haughtiness that I’m sure is not normally of you, and thereby risk alienating your adopted child, or you can make the huge leap necessary in your worldview in order to attempt to finally understand, instead of simply imposing on him or her, and by extension, on all of us, these myths that we simply wish to point out as being such; in an effort to clear the air; to breathe. To start a process of healing. To know who we are. References: Cold War Orientalism, by Christina Klein. Race, Nation, Class, by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. The Karma of Brown Folk, by Vijay Prashad. National Identity, by Anthony D. Smith. More books on the subject… Debate Tactic: There are two sides to this debate. The first is about “claiming” identity; the second is about “assigning” identity. Both are fraught with peril, because the proud claiming of the first maps too well onto the pejorative assigning of the second. By this I mean to say that my “pride” is someone else’s “epithet”, or tool of destruction. Like much that is currently taken for granted within an acculturation of individualization, the fact is that “identity” is not a function of an individual, but of a community and a society. The first step to break out of this debate is to drive it away from its usual reductiveness. To do so, we need to consider what the prevailing formative norms of language and culture are, and where they come from. This brings us to the very local, for example, my neighborhood in Beirut is radically different from the next one over; Two people from the East or West “Upper Sides” of Manhattan have very different ideas of what being a “New Yorker” is. So even when I claim 2 of 5 11/1/19, 07:46 Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-would-s... to be a “Jersey boy”, I need to really say “North Jersey”, and then “suburban” (as opposed to rural or urban), etc. To resist along these lines requires us to question any effort to define and delimit us. Checkboxes on government forms, placement in certain lines at the border screening within an airport, replacing an entire culture with a discussion of certain foodstuffs: We must challenge a reductive idea of what identity is. Adoption, in and of itself, is designed to destroy identity. But too often the stunted and crippled shoot that comes from such a pile of rubble is, itself, a Frankensteinian construct. Ironically, it is perhaps in not claiming an identity that we find ourselves. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Identity. Bookmark the permalink. 1 0 R e s p o n s e s t o W h y w o u l d s o m e o n e t h i n k t h a t A d o p t i o n e r a s e s a c h i l d ’s ! i d e n t i t y ? Mirren (@newhall89) says: November 4, 2013 at 9:26 pm I feel assaulted by the faux naif nature of that question, the “Why would someone think that adoption erases someone’s identity?” How can people even *ask* that? Conversely, how can people coddle the people who ask that question? I don’t want to educate. I want to scream. Maybe I am simply too raw today. Your point about the Frankenstinian nature of that crippled shoot of grass, emerging from the rubble has haunted me overnight. I am that shoot. I am cobbled together, denied. I have found who I am, and I am a horror to those who should love me, given societal mores. Those who bought me want me to be the “good” girl, the one who always acted and did the right thing, never questioned (or only within sanctioned boundaries), never shamed them (that they knew of). I am so very tired of the masks. I embrace my Frankenstinian self. No one else in my families does, or will. As you say, maybe it is in the forging of our own sense of self that we can find freedom. I wouldn’t exchange not knowing for this pain, but at the same time, people are so very, very cruel. Reply naturechildtraveller says: July 11, 2014 at 6:54 pm Yes. Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 5, 2013 at 8:38 am This has been my salvation. Throwing all caution to the wind and dis-affecting myself. I refuse to claim identity markers of any kind. If we think about it, this is a power shift—those in the dominant mode have the luxury and privilege to not claim for themselves, as well as to categorize Others. I see it as refusing their power, assuming a similar stance of not claiming, while rejecting their categorization. The Frankenstein monster was horrific for being a base reduction of a human being; a literal sum of his parts. This need be rejected wholesale. 3 of 5 11/1/19, 07:46 Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-would-s... Reply Pingback: An Adoptee By Any Other Identity . . . | Lucy Sheen actor writer filmmaker adoptee Sherri Gabel says: July 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm I am a mom of 2 boys who were taken and then forced adoption to 2 different families. Through the years I have had a range of emotions in regards to the entire adoption scene. As I found out more information about those who adopted my boys there was a lot of anger and a lot of frustration. There have been a lot of lies told, voluntary choices made, and facts buried to make it easier on those who, from day one, had ulterior motives. Both of my boys have found me and we are working to repair the damage caused to my boys’ emotional and psychological health. One of my boy’s adoptive family has opened lines of communication with me and we work together to keep those lines open so that my son doesn’t feel like he has to choose between his adoptive family and his birth family. We have spent time together with our mutual son and all get along. The adoptive parents of my other son have made no effort to return even a civil communication. This makes it hard to have an open relationship. I am these boys’ birth mother and I love them both with my whole heart. Their adoptive parents have been there for them as their parent figures for more than 15 years. I know first hand how it feels to be left out of so many firsts in both of their lives and do not wish that on any parent, adoptive or birth. Its a tough situation, but there are ways to make it easier for those have been adopted. Both sets of parents need to be open to the fact that our kids love all of us and that they have a right to know where they came from. It does not mean that they are rejecting their adoptive family it simply means they want to fill a void they are feeling. We can make it a great experience for our kids by being open and honest with them while helping them to deal with their feelings and their needs. Reply lktrevino says: July 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm Reblogged this on Living Live – Lori's Way and commented: An interesting take on adoption as a whole…. Reply uuvegan says: July 11, 2014 at 10:58 pm In my eyes you’re Lebanese, Lebanese-American. I feel you are your blood. My adoptive parents tried to make me Italian, but when I searched and found out my birth parents were Puerto Rican, I claimed Puerto Rican as my identity. Of course that culture and language was taken from me, but it’s still my blood. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 11, 2014 at 11:38 pm Thank you for this, uuvegan. It’s funny, because reference to my “blood” comes up a lot here in terms of this subject. Just the other day I was hanging at the corner, and the discussion was the World Cup, and support of teams. I remember saying something jokingly along the lines of “I’m without a country” to which my friend quickly replied: “You have Arab blood! You have a place in Syria!” 4 of 5 11/1/19, 07:46 Why would someone think that Adoption erases a child’s identity... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-would-s... Now, the fact that he said “Syria” and not “Lebanon” is left for a whole other discussion of the origins of the nation-states of this region…but it is interesting to me how a place can “claim” as much as we can. I don’t claim the identity because there are hundreds of them, all tied to very local places. I wouldn’t be able to describe what is “Lebanese” (or “Syrian”) identity at this point if I tried. Being in the States for two months was interesting in this regard. I spent most of my time in North Jersey, and it was extremely…comfortable. So my acculturation does count for something. And I’ll proudly claim to be a “Jersey Boy”, knowing how “foreign” this makes me in much of the rest of America. There’s something “romantic” to the notion of our blood….but the truth is we are all much more “mixed” than we perhaps want to admit at times. Over at Transracial Eyes there are quite a few discussions on DNA; I recommend them highly. http://transracialeyes.com/?s=dna&submit=Search uuvegan says: July 12, 2014 at 12:00 am I will check out transracial eyes for this topic. I am interested in DNA too and had my DNA done by Ancestry.com. It was quite interesting and there was even a percentage for hunter-gatherer if you can believe that. Only Me says: November 16, 2015 at 8:33 pm Excellent post. For me though, having roots going back to 1630 from immigrants arriving on the Mayflower (2nd trip). LOL. I can’t imagine being anything else other than American. I wouldn’t know how to be. I feel for those who’s experience is much more complicated and involved than my own. Good luck to all. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 5 of 5 11/1/19, 07:46 And if another family member/friend decides to adopt? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/and-if-another... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. An d i f a n ot h e r fa m i l y m e m be r / fr i e n d de c i de s t o"a dopt ? Posted on November 5, 2013 This is the fifth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: What do you anticipate your response will be if your child or another close family member/friend decides to adopt? Answer: This is an interesting question because it makes the assumption that a) a family member or a friend deciding to adopt might not ask my opinion first before starting such a process, and b) that they share the same presumption that this fact might change my mind, if somehow it is made “real” to me. By this I mean to say that the question is skewed to assume that I am making statements against adoption as if I have no experience with the subject, and also that I am only speaking about the “personal” level. It is thus a dismissal of my own adoption, or else it is an attempt to describe my adoption as having “failed”, as the current parlance would have it. Whatever the intent, the fact is that I have had many friends who have come to me concerning the topic of adoption in order to hear my thoughts on the subject, and unlike the one posing this question, they are respectful enough to hear me out and consider the big picture as I try to describe it, as well as their role in it. One of the historical facts we have to deal with is that the nuclear family–based culture that predominates in the U.S. has tended to prevent any other kind of “nurturing” or active engagement with children not one’s own. If this more communal aspect existed, I imagine that the incentive to adopt would be much less, as would the general pressure to have one’s own children. This is what needs much more examination and discussion. What are the economic and political incentives to have a child? It is interesting to note that in all of those wretched “Dear Birth Mother” letters that litter the Internet, the main focus of what makes for a valid adoptive family is their economic stature and means. The large house and yard; the endless vacations; the empty nursery; the correct school district; etc. The pressure to fulfill one’s economic “role” in society thus can be seen to weigh much more heavily than the purported “personal” reasons that are listed. Adoption is usually a “second-best” option after other efforts of having children have failed. There are entire branches of medicine and law now devoted to easing the hoops that are jumped through in order to produce or procure children. This is a function of economy, since such roads are not open to all. This, in turn, has produced a seeming “right to have children” for those of a particular luxury and privilege. We need to state this loud and clear: There is no such right. This brings us to a disturbing fact. In other areas of law we find similar concepts of “forced transfer of property”, or “transfer of property due to negligence of the owner”. For just a few examples: eminent domain, forfeiture, repossession, foreclosure, “finders keepers”, etc. Here we see the basis of much of Anglo-Saxon law in concepts of property and ownership, as well as the transfer thereof, the given notion of which is equally summed up by 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:47 And if another family member/friend decides to adopt? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/and-if-another... concepts found in phrases such as “private property”, “Don’t Tread On Me”, “I’m entitled to my own opinion”, etc. Much of the horrors of the past centuries such as indigenous genocide, colonialism, and war, come from these ideas of entitlement (the etymology here is quite telling) and of “putting to use” that which lies fallow. Adoption thus becomes a rather horrific “logical conclusion” of this thought process within one particular culture, now applied to human beings the world over whether of this mindset or not, and requiring a huge and shared mythology in order to make it “sit” correctly morally and ethically. The same thing, it need be noted, was done for slavery, for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war on Iraq, etc. But moving from the theoretical to the personal. One friend and I had some very intense discussions about adoption, and racism, and nuclear family, and the like. Very intense. She and her husband eventually decided not to adopt, and have become more active in their church concerning social activities that involve children of the community. One relative adopted a child due to very particular circumstances concerning a mother she was friends with and whom she wanted to help get back on her feet. To understand in this context is that there is no safety net for sustaining family in this way; adoption becomes an “only option”, and the fact that its roots are found in the destruction of family (poorhouses, Orphan Trains, indentured servitude) cannot be overlooked. This also answers the other assumption of this question, that it is somehow “easy” to go after people one doesn’t know personally, as if that were the main reason for speaking in this particular way about adoption. This is an ignoble projection. This brings us to another Great Unsaid of the question. A woman whose child was kidnapped would get our sympathy; a mother convinced to give up her child who later has regrets is told to “get over it”. The question that might be better to ask is: Why is society so negligent in taking care of those it claims as belonging to it? Why don’t we imagine those of means as contributing back to society, instead of taking from it? Along these lines, I also have friends and family members who never asked my opinion, and just assumed that I would be “on board” because I am an adoptee. This reveals the extent to which adoption is just accepted as part of the status quo, with no critique or criticism allowed. I think the mentality that can accept such a positioning is much “worse” than anything that might be seen otherwise as worthy of such disdain within the anti-adoption and reform of adoption movements. If I understand this question correctly, it is attempting to state that those of us with an anti-adoption or reformist stance (on any level) are somehow not “close” to adoption in any way. I’m not sure how much closer we can be other than by being adoptees or mothers ourselves. I also sense that there is a shared concern for children, but no acknowledgment is made that there might be anything other than adoption that would be considered to be a valid way to care for children not of one’s own. Truth be told, there are outlets for this desire to take care of children if we seek them out; they just happen to not involve ownership thereof; they require a shift of focus from that of the self to instead that of others. I would argue that most in the adoptive class have achieved their position in society based on the former mindset, and until they are willing to examine their own belief systems then honestly there is no discussion to be had. Adoption is the Lie that tries to take a focus on self and individualism and redefines it as being selfless and communal. This doesn’t stand as a premise much less an argument on any level whatsoever. References: Orphan Care: An Introduction, published by the Social Work and Society Journal. 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:47 And if another family member/friend decides to adopt? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/and-if-another... Adoption in America, edited by E. Wayne Carp. Debate Tactic: The historical, economic, and political need be stressed over the personal. This removes the subjective and “claimable” opinion: “Well, that’s just your opinion”. The idea of individual agency (without connection to the will and goals of a society or country) is a myth, unless one is working toward revolutionary changes in that society or country. We might wish that adoptive parents, given their class status and political clout, would be in fact working toward such a goal. But this is rarely the case. And so their actions can be seen as working in tandem with prevailing ideologies, and this whether they consider themselves “conservative” or “liberal”; “Republican” or “Democrat”. The power structure, and the maintaining of that structure, are expressed inherently in the actions of those who see validity in this power structure, and this covers the full political spectrum as it currently stands in most “First World” countries. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged power di!erential. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Response to And if another family member/friend decides to! adopt? Nat says: January 25, 2014 at 12:55 am Your ability to conceptualise what many of us think, particularly at the macro level, astounds me. What a gift of intellect you have. Thank you for sharing it and continuing to challenge the common dominant belief systems that continue to perpetuate adoption as an option in our world. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:47 Is it better for a child to live in Hell? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/is-it-better-for-... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. Is it better for a child to live in!Hell? Posted on November 6, 2013 This is the sixth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The follow question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: What about the children? Is it better for a child to live in hell or to be unloved or unsafe and stay with those that bear similar DNA? Then [sic] to be in an environment where they have safety and love? Is that just their cross to bear to see all these things and grow up to be abusive or incapable of love or responsibility? Answer: In the panoply of lies that make up the adoption mythology, there is no Greater Lie than that which purports to care about children, and there are no greater liars than those who premise their adoption on the heinous and ultimately self-serving idea that somehow adoption saves children from a “hellish” fate. We need only turn to the history of adoption to find previous references to “saving” children. In the days of poorhouses, the Orphan Trains, and Indigenous genocide, the “saving” involved removing such children from their (usually destitute or criminally ethnic) families, and treating them as indentured labor. This reflects a particular kind of Calvinist capitalism that remains at the root of such ventures when they are expanded out to the level of the world stage. For the rest of the planet, this is referred to variously as colonialism and imperialism; The United States prefers nicer (or not) metaphors that speaks to a particular kind of nationalistic exceptionalism that would not be worthy of the most fascistic state. And so the “big stick” of Theodore Roosevelt; Manifest Destiny; the “New Alliance for Progress” of Kennedy; the “end of history”; the “clash of civilizations”; the recent “America is exceptional” speech of Obama. Again, those who pose as “liberal” or “progressive” are even worse than their more rapacious counterparts; Malcolm X referred to these as the “smiling foxes” (as compared to the seemingly more dangerous wolves), and recommended they be trusted even less. Each war has seen its inverted press relations campaign that uses orphans to give credence to the war effort as well as shift sympathies away from places that might actually be capable of caring for their children if their governments were not consistently overthrown, and if their countries were not systematically destroyed economically and politically. And so the Hungarian orphan transfers of Truman; the outpouring of “care” for the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the creation of a Korean diaspora of 250,000 children; Operation Babylift after the Viet Nam War; the summer camps for children from Colombia and Afghanistan, etc. Wherever American wars are being waged, there are children to be had via adoption. This is no coincidence. Some might say that I am simply brandishing a grudge against the country that “saved” me, thus making me ungrateful in the worst way. America, love it or leave it! Well, I’ve left it. And every single day I can see the incursions made into the political realm here by the United States along with its lap-poodle lackeys in Great 1 of 5 11/1/19, 07:48 Is it better for a child to live in Hell? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/is-it-better-for-... Britain and France. From the French and American education systems, to the so-called “aid” from the IMF and World Bank, to the 5,000 NGOs who act as a forward battalion in a war of humanitarian imperialism, the foreign thumbprint as well as jackboot-print is ever present. Charles Loring Brace, speaking of foundling children in New York City, described them as “street Arabs” from the “dangerous classes”. Here he is actually using an anti-Semitic slur to describe the mostly Irish poor—Arabs were seen to be at the bottom of the world’s social class ladder then as now. Which on some level brings us full circle, to the current war being waged against the Arabo-Muslim world, in a “crusade” against terrorism, to borrow George Bush’s words. During the July War of 2006, 1500+ civilians were killed as the infrastructure of Lebanon was devastated by Israeli bombs. One third of those killed were children. I remember Dianne Feinstein and Trent Lott on CNN discussing the fact that countries have the right to “defend themselves”. Sharing the screen with them was a shot of the civil defense buildings in Sour that had just been bombed—headquarters of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, among other charitable organizations. These “wolves and foxes” had no awareness of this, nor of the second Qana Massacre, nor of any of the other crimes that were being committed in their name and with their funding. At the same time, the American media celebrated “Logan”, a Lebanese adoptee who was given a special humanitarian visa to leave the country. And so, what about the children? 500 to 1; 10,000 to 1; 1,000,000 to 1: What kinds of odds are those? And who is willing to wager them? The half a million killed in Iraq from sanctions alone? Madeleine Albright referred to this wholesale slaughter as being “worth it”. The hundreds killed in Lebanon in 2006? Condoleezza Rice called the efforts of this war the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”, making a horrifying reference to birth amid the death of so many young ones. The hundreds killed in Gaza? Hillary Clinton at the time announced that anyone in the Arab region, if they wanted to know what democracy is, need just look to Israel. This hypocritical stance is made even more evident given the current counter-revolutions that have snuffed the revolutionary flame out (once again) in this region. Given the fact that we are able to historically point to an endless list of democratic and socialist leaders, elected via the will of their people and with the popular commonweal in mind, with this desire foregrounded as opposed to the depredation and exploitation so desired by the “First World”, it truly begs the question: How blinded can “First-World” countries be by their own sense of supremacy? Given the political will and clout and economic weight of adoptive parents, the question still remains: At what point will they actually and in fact stand up for the children they pretend to be advocating for? The greater hypocrisy here is that domestically speaking in the U.S., things are no better. Why is there no safety net? No health care? No help for anyone to parent? No discussion of the thousands of children kidnapped and trafficked over the years? All we hear instead is blame, guilt, and innuendos having to do with class and race and Calvinist notions of people getting what they deserve in their own lifetime. How many American children’s lives are snuffed out by the violence of that society? Whether it manifests itself in quick bursts of violent energy, as in school shootings, or slower, much more painfully lived but no less murderous violence, such as that of poverty, and hunger, and ghetto-ization, and racism? Where are the voices to stand up for these children? Why do we only hear about children who fulfill some greater 2 of 5 11/1/19, 07:48 Is it better for a child to live in Hell? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/is-it-better-for-... propaganda purpose, such as the children of Haiti, or the children of Reece’s Rainbow and its ongoing war against the former Soviet Union? Why do these parents not advocate for those closer to home? And finally, why do they see the need to attack those of us who are actually on the ground and activating to change things? The pathological need to see orphans as dusty-faced girls in Little Orphan Annie waiting for Daddy Warbucks to come and save them reveals perhaps the ultimate of metaphors that only proves this point. Worse even still than the smiling foxes are the delirious vultures and self-congratulatory hyenas. In reviewing the economic, political, and cultural incentives that undergird adoption as a practice, and examining the needs of globalizing capitalism that these map onto, we fundamentally shift the debate concerning adoption away from the usual arguments that center on family building. Furthermore, we expand this notion of family from a strict binary to a spectrum of caregivers; from a nuclear family to a community. The main obstacle to adoption reform remains adoptive parents who likewise believe in the mythologies ascribing them free will, ultimate agency, and supreme control of the family unit. Breaking through this mythology reveals them to be willing or unwilling pawns in an Imperial project—the world’s proud pyromaniac firefighters fighting fires with gasoline. This is challenged more and more by the countries and populations whence the children temporarily in their care originate. The second obstacle to adoption reform is found in adoptees who have bought in to the class status afforded them by their adoption. Even among those who might preach a reformist viewpoint, the mere fact of holding on to such a class status remains an discrepancy without resolution; an unlivable “knife’s edge” between two worlds separated not only by geography and race (often) but also by class. And so there is a choice to make here for those with the actual will and power to change things: Continue this masquerade, or join in with the truly progressive grassroots calling for justice from below. The arguments we make cannot assume that those with the ability and voice to make them are the only ones who matter in this equation. A huge percentage of those who make up the population of those “touched” by adoption have no access to this discussion, and no Voice allowed them. All the same, their growing resistance to adoption can no longer be ignored. This call to arms requires us to join hands with them. Not just the class/race-similar, such as in the case of Baby Victoria, but with the Guatemalan mother fighting for her child in Missouri; the mothers in Central America suing to repatriate their kidnapped children; the Russian mothers devastated by the murder of their children Stateside; the Argentinian mothers demanding to know what happened to their disappeared children during the dark days of American-supported dictatorships; the women who make up the underclass of American society preyed upon by so-called charitable and evangelical organizations. For we are not really just talking about adoption, but also about the various displacements and dispossessions of which adoption unfortunately forms just one category. Breaking with one’s class identity thus reveals the world of those who similarly, for economic and political reasons, have been removed from their place, dispossessed from their family, and left longing for Return. At long last, it is time to find Home, for one and for all. Reference: The Lie We Love: Corruption in International Adoptions, by E.J. Graff. 3 of 5 11/1/19, 07:48 Is it better for a child to live in Hell? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/is-it-better-for-... Asia’s Unknown Uprisings: South Korean Social Movements in the 20th Century; Vol. I, by George Katsiaficas. The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel Of Adoption, by Kathryn Joyce. Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945–1961, by Christina Klein. Shattered Bonds, by Dorothy Roberts. Americanizing the American Indians, edited by Francis Paul Prucha. Debate Tactic: The ignorance of culture’s not one’s own is as strong today as it has been historically speaking. This question reflects both such ignorance as well as a contempt for the “street Arabs” of the world who are seen as being sub-human at best. The language of adoption advocates has not changed in over a century, and there is no point arguing against such outdated and ignoble concepts before clearing out these tired and destructive clichés. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged colonialism, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, imperialism, July War 2006, Lebanon, Madeleine Albright, operation babylift, salvation, Theodore Roosevelt, Trent Lott. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Responses to Is it better for a child to live in! Hell? K-6714 says: November 13, 2014 at 5:40 am When I lived with my real family in a poverty stricken country, I never felt it as living in hell. It’s only after I got adopted to a rich country that I felt like living in hell. I’m not saying living in wealth feels like living in hell, nor that living in poverty is like living in heaven. I’m saying taken away from your family feels like living in hell. Reply Mae says: April 16, 2016 at 6:47 pm Yes to K-6714. I agree with you. I talk about this in one of my blogs….adoption actually creates trauma, it does not eliminate it. I lived in an orphanage for the first three years of my life….things were bad, and I was ill….but I was surrounded by people who were my color, race, background and language. When I was adopted, all of that was erased. I was raised by white people who believe in white supremacy and who treated me very poorly. How is it that the myth of adoption is fed through what we like to call Kool-Aid? I would have preferred to stay among my people, and those who I knew loved me unconditionally than be joined with a family that expected me to be exactly what they were. Reply gooddaytotry says: 4 of 5 11/1/19, 07:48 Is it better for a child to live in Hell? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/is-it-better-for-... July 23, 2018 at 1:51 pm The grossly inaccurate marketing and propaganda causes millions to be taken from true loves. Not only are adoptees four times more likely to commit suicide but their moms are too. In a pound pup survey only 2.3% seeking assistance wanted their child taken yet moms aren’t really given a choice. The few of us who fought know it wasn’t an option.. to let or force a child to think they were unwanted, how cruel. Most of us were read a mantra of the many things buyers would do: talk of adoption from infancy, tell babies their moms love them. In fact no buyers were told to say this. It is only a balm for the nutt case losers afraid of and inept at poverty: Aka adopters , slave owners, sellers. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 5 of 5 11/1/19, 07:48 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. D o e s a n y t h i n g a n y o n e s a y a b o u t a d o p t i o n h u r t y o u ! a n y m o re ? Posted on November 7, 2013 This is the seventh question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? Answer: The original question was speaking of the “pain” of those adopting when they hear adoptees speaking out. But I want to turn this around, because the question is not valid. It’s like a plantation owner being upset by being called a racist—there is an inherent power differential that needs to be revealed. This claim of a kind of “victim” status in this way does not stand. More importantly, I think it is important to understand where the “hurtful” accusation is coming from. We know that adoption is a violence, based in inequality; it is candy-coated to make it seem about family and children, but it is an economic and political crime, a treating of symptoms and not of disease; it is a negation of families and an annihilation of communities that are not seen as having an intrinsic human value equal to that of those adopting, for reasons having to do with race, with class, and with a preconceived notion of what makes for a “valid” life in this world. In this light, adoption is in and of itself the “hurtful” act, with any reminders of that act being in and of themselves “hurtful” in turn. This is known. To circumvent this Truth, an attempt is thus made to turn tables. For many of us who are vocal concerning adoption and what it truly represents, it is problematic when the response to carefully (or angrily, emotionally, scientifically, or literarily) expressed statements concerning the subject at hand are not met with proper responses, or rebuttals, or arguments, or any kind of discussion, but instead with dismissal, personal invective, insinuations, accusations, or as here, an accusation that what we say is “hurtful”. The problem is much deeper. The problem is not what is said, but the fact that what is said reflects inherently the initial violence and rupture of adoption. Just having the discussion is “hurtful” to many of us, but we are told to check our words, which make those who adopt “wince” as stated here. Hearing “that is hurtful” puts many of us in a place where we are fearful of another rejection, when what is sought is simply understanding and empathy. On some level, those who would parrot the dominant discourse on adoption know that this pressure and weight is on their side; that the slightest offhand remark or casual dismissive word in fact carries the full punch of adoption’s original violence in terms of dislocation, uprooting, rejection, and annihilation of family and community. In this light, the accusation of “hurtful” directed against us is yet another weapon in an arsenal used to keep us quiet. This makes such minor reflex actions all the more reprehensible, because there is no adequate defense against them. The power differential here is not on our side; we are playing on the downhill side of an uneven playing field. If everyone simply stands still and keeps quiet, we lose all the same. Personally I have chosen to no longer reply in the singular. Alone I don’t have the energy to go up against such a 1 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... prevailing force. And so I seek out not just those in the same situation, but those whose voices are not even considered as being valid, that we too, because of our acculturation, might likewise dismiss or ignore. For the amount of time due to those who have remained silent for too long—mothers whose babies have been taken from them, the adopted who had no say in the matter, the communities missing their most vulnerable members—is infinite if you ask me. If the debate were one-sided for the next thousand years this might only start to equalize what has been one-sided in the other direction for far too long. We are not living something new, and it is vital to understand this. The history of the dominant discourse is one of trying to stifle, co-opt, buy out, assimilate, or purge any and all resistance discourse. The label “hurtful” is used to do just that. Note that it is a remark about form, not content. What we are saying is not even being heard. This is the sign of someone thinking like a child, not like an adult. This is an immature and, dare I say it, narcissistic statement to make. An adult in a debate defends his or her position. A child slings epithets, or claims “hurt”. In other words: We are being told to “shut up”. This is the same kind of stifling that takes place when a Black American is told he or she is being “uppity”. It is to be told: “Know your role”. Ignored is the “why”. Why should there be a resistance discourse in terms of adoption? It isn’t about personal “hurt”, but social injustice. We need to make this clear. And sometimes we have to borrow the tactics of those who would silence us, as much as this might run counter to how we usually act. Those who would ignore us need to understand what that discourse is—whether they want to hear it or not, and whether they like hearing it or not. Only when the other side of the story is fully heard can the dialogue move on to address and hopefully fix the problem. We have yet to hear a valid defense of adoption; only exceptional cases that cannot be used to validate a position; emotional accusations that we are the heartless ones. Where are the adoptive parents who might stand up and admit, at long last, what we know and what they know to be the truth about adoption? What we are witnessing now is an attempt to spin wheels, to run in neutral—to crush the discussion before it can even take place. The problem is made worse if we take this to heart. Because to soften the blow—to make of it Pabulum—is to further weaken one’s already unequal position; it is to undermine oneself. And so the only reply must carry the full weight of the original statement: There can be no middle ground. To pull one’s punches is not resistance, but compliance; it is not defiance, but complacency. My adoption story does not focus on me personally, but reflects backward to the greater injustice that was its source, and which had an impact on more children than I can sometimes bear to think about. I may have a great amount of empathy with someone who cannot have children. But I also have empathy for those whose families are destroyed as a result of such “First World” problems. And if I have to choose sides, it will be on the side of those downtrodden, those who are silent, those who have no Voice. Because their “hurt” is infinitely beyond anything that most can imagine living day to day. And so in an attempt to respond in an equivalent manner, every time someone punches me with the phrase “get over being adopted”, I will say: “get over being infertile”. Every time someone uses the word “adoption” I will respond: “abduction”. Every time someone tells me, “you were chosen”, I will correct: “I was procured for a tidy sum”. Every time that I hear that adoption is “God’s plan”, I will state: “To even conceive of such an ignoble, spiteful, and heinous God is the work of the monstrous; the arrogant; the conceited and narcissistic; the infinitely vain, and that those who espouse such a God do not deserve children.” And every time someone suggests that I have no feelings for these children, I will respond: “I am these children; 2 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... and I have returned to live among these children; and I dare you to live my life, where I am living now, and see what I see every day; to live the wars, and the poverty, here in my land of birth, among the to-you non-existent strangers who, beyond all expectations have welcomed us home, and to fathom what I know of my orphanage, and of the plight of thousands of children who passed through its halls and to experience it, and see if you can bear this, the fruit of your far-off day-to-day life and decision to adopt, for one single solitary second. I dare you.” Reference: Wittgenstein and Justice, by Hanna Fenichel Pitkin. The Grammar of Politics, edited by Cressida J. Heyes. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, by Leonardo Boff. Debate Tactic: There is much pain in adoption, as well as what leads up to it. We can talk about what is “hurtful”, or we can focus on what the source sickness is. Healing belongs to all, not to those who have a leg up in terms of life’s advantages. Remove the personal; reveal the narcissism inherent to the discourse of adoption; reverse the power differential of the discussion; qualify/quantify “hurt”. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged hurt, narcissism. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Responses to Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you! anymore? Gina Bailey says: November 12, 2013 at 9:27 pm I want YOU on my film production team! We NEED a counter narrative NOW in the visual form….I am looking at funding avenues—–Thanks for this POST—–I am a first/birth mother and would say the same……..Let me know if you are interested in being part of a widely distrubuted Doc that is more political-economy than ‘personal’—–yes, personal will be in it but people do NOT understand what is behind the ‘curtain’——– Reply Denise says: November 13, 2013 at 3:51 am You say it like no one else can Daniel. Thank you. Reply Deb says: November 13, 2013 at 7:20 pm 3 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... Gina, you’re not ready to do any sort of film about harvested mothers and their trafficked offspring ! Using a degrading offensive term eg ‘birth mother’ shows your level of awareness is severely limited. Reply Gina Bailey says: November 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm Aloha Deb, I totally agree with you being offended by the use of the term ‘birth mother’ (not with the film, however). Language is an organ of perception and therefore very important. This was a huge topic in Melbourne last year when I attended the Australian adoption conference (were you there? Maybe we have met?). There were people from all over the world and all using different terms—we all understood each other but, nonetheless, every term was offensive to someone. A group of us finally got together (all Ph.D.s and deeply involved in adoption issues) to discuss the discourse around ‘adoption’ (I even abhor THAT word as well) and decided that we would stay in touch and write about the fact that we STILL cannot find ‘language’ which reflects the realities of the pain and injustices…..ALL language, to us anyway, has been appropriated and whitewashed…….I think you most likely feel/think the same given your response? I welcome all input re: language as it truly is a problem area……. I also agree with Daniel about ‘slack’—–it was so necessary in Australia as it is here (Hawaii)—-So, if you would not mind, could you reply re: terms you prefer and how you help educate others about the fact that language is indeed an organ of perception and how we go about creating dignified terms which reflect reality on a global level? Aloha and Mahalo——Gina Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 13, 2013 at 7:31 pm It’s time I think to cut each other some slack. We swim in the muck and mire of adoption discourse our entire lives, and when we finally stand up and speak, someone says to us: “Look! You’re still covered in mud!” This is not helpful, and is counterproductive to any common cause. I can find old posts of mine where I formerly said “birth mother”. I’m not proud of that, but hindsight is, as they say, 20/20. We live and learn; equally we should live and teach. Reply Joan Wheeler (@forbiddenfamily) says: November 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm I think that when people, the general public, adoptive parents in particular, call an adoptee’s other mother a “birthmother” this negates what she truly is: that adoptee’s mother. Having said that, I want to share that yes, I am still hurt by what others say about adoption. Beyond the hurt are the truths that are ignored. People continually use the words they hear in conversation, they inflict those words onto me. I correct them. No, I say, I do not have a “birthmother” or a “first mother”. My MOTHER died when I was an infant, I tell them. My MOTHER was replaced by another woman. And my FATHER was replaced by another man. These two people became my adoptive parents, and as such, they are the ones who deserve the adjective in front of the words “mother”, “father” and “parents”. These two people are my social parents. They are my legal parents, but the two people who sired and gave birth to me are my parents. Period. When I approach the topic in this way, in one-on-one conversation, with boots on the ground, I can tell you that people receiving my words are truly shocked into reality: this woman’s MOTHER died and that’s why she was adopted. The expressions on their faces tells me that they understand. They then say to me, “I’m so sorry for your loss. How tragic.” Yes. The death of my mother is tragic. And so is the punishment I received: removal from my family of birth because my father was too poor to keep me. And let me add another variable into the larger discourse: religion. A Catholic priest so compassionately reminded my father at my mother’s funeral that “the baby needs two parents” that my devout Catholic father followed exactly what his parish priest suggested. My grieving father relinquished his youngest child to a closed adoption because that was a better solution, better than asking for help to keep his family together, better than having his second wife take care of all of his children while he went to work. It must have killed him to come home each day to his older children, filled with grief and despair. He had kept his family together by getting married very soon after his first wife’s death, but at the cost of giving up his newborn daughter, a choice he told me decades later that he regretted. So, when people tell me their joys of adoption, I am hurt. And then I tell them 4 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... what adoption did to me. My broken families are not the only truth I hit them with. I slam them with the truth that my real birth certificate is sealed and that every single adoptee in America is issued a falsified birth certificate. People are just not aware. … sorry for rambling. Just in a rush today. Reply Deb says: November 14, 2013 at 12:02 am Beautifully stated Joan. Reply Deb says: November 14, 2013 at 12:09 am The very notion of ‘adoption’ is another bug-a-boo. Many young pregnant girls were targeted for harvesting and their newborns harvested for trafficking to certified married infertiles on a long waiting list served by the very SW’s who were mandated to provide services to the mother-to-be. Infant-adoption all too often was in reality ‘harvested and trafficked’ all tied up nicely in a pink or blue bow. These trafficked persons were never legally available for infant-adoption. These crimes have never been addressed and will never be addressed while they remain under the fluff and mislabeling. I see the entire ‘harvest and traffic’ as an atrocity – young fertile women and girls forced into sexual reproductive slavery and their offspring too enslaved. Reply Maxens says: November 25, 2013 at 1:43 am Honestly arguments about perceived age are as shitty as “this is hurtful” arguments and often used for the same reasons & in the same way to shut up revendications (notice how when people agree with younger people, they don’t mention their ages to wave off their revendications?) Plus you attribute something said by an adult to a child or teenager, because children and teenagers are useless and bad and not insightful and less valuable. Just get that adults aren’t always the greatest thing around for fuck sake. People associate children and teenagers to negative things and then use these associations to wave off abuse, and then people do the same thing when they care about children which is hypocritical. It also assume children’s words about their feelings and health state or how they’re being treated are automatically invalid or less valid or even dishonest. Something is not bad because it is childlike, that’s too easy. Saying “it’s hurtful stop talking about that” is wrong because it places the emphasis on the feelings on the person who is privileged in the situation or protecting the status quo and detract attention from your revendications and problems, it’s not your role to protect their feelings after all, not because it’s “childish” or something a child could say (and many adults say, and sometimes only adults say the things qualified as childish which makes it even more ridiculous, often people say it’s childish, immature, and it’s something you only ever hear adults saying or doing!) Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 25, 2013 at 8:21 am I don’t mind being corrected when the case warrants, but here I would point out that you are ascribing motives to me that are not valid. When I say that an adult who resorts to claiming “hurt” is being childish, I did not imply any of the negatives that seem to be much more prominent in your mind than in mine. I was reversing the roles which often have the adult adoptee living a perpetual childhood, and treated as such. I was trying to “invert” this, which I do think carries the negative implications you bring up; a pointing out of the hypocrisy of that “stage-setting”, if you will. 5 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 Does anything anyone say about adoption hurt you anymore? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/does-anything-... In the October run of posts, I was discussing the 10 years of my return, and I said something along the lines of “I am 50 years old and I am 10 years old, and I vow to act my ages.” I am more in tune with “childishness” as a virtue than anything negative. I hope that helps set the record a bit straighter. janmarie says: January 1, 2014 at 2:58 pm “For many of us who are vocal concerning adoption and what it truly represents, it is problematic when the response to carefully (or angrily, emotionally, scientifically, or literarily) expressed statements concerning the subject at hand are not met with proper responses, or rebuttals, or arguments, or any kind of discussion, but instead with dismissal, personal invective, insinuations, accusations, or as here, an accusation that what we say is “hurtful”. The problem is much deeper. The problem is not what is said, but the fact that what is said reflects inherently the initial violence and rupture of adoption. Just having the discussion is “hurtful” to many of us, but we are told to check our words, which make those who adopt “wince” as stated here. Hearing “that is hurtful” puts many of us in a place where we are fearful of another rejection, when what is sought is simply understanding and empathy.” I may have been silenced by the smiling progressive foxes over at npr this morning having had my comments deleted from a discussion about wisecracks that were made on some talk show about a photograph of the Romneys and their 20 or so grandchildren, one little baby, a transracial adoptee in a sea of blonds. To me it seems far more racist to pretend that the baby does not stick out in the photo. It is also racist to assume that the baby is fortunate in his position as an adopted member of the Romney clan. But I may not continue to try to get my point across because I fear that they will damage me by twisting what I say and make me into the racist when what I’m looking for is empathy and understanding for the little baby on Mitt’s knee. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: January 1, 2014 at 11:56 pm Don’t get me started on NPR. I am still stinging from this exchange: http://www.npr.org/2010/08/20/129301982 /meant-for-each-other-scott-simons-adoption-story Half of what I said was deleted, I’m pretty sure….NPR is the Smiling Fox Kingdom! D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 6 of 6 11/1/19, 07:49 [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-do-you-t... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day”!celebration? Posted on November 8, 2013 This is the eighth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? I read with horror on Facebook that one of my high school friends is having a Gotcha Day celebration for her son at his school tomorrow. I haven’t seen this woman in 23 years and we only chat once in a while on FB. She adopted her son in a foreign country while living there four years ago (the child is now six). What horrified me most about the whole “gotcha” thing—and yes, she actually called it that—is that she is ‘celebrating’ it at the child’s school! It’s not his birthday; it’s the day she adopted him. I find this exceedingly creepy. Any thoughts? Answer: To answer your question, I’d like to take a step back and talk about birthdays for adoptees. For those of us from the orphanage here in Lebanon, most of our birthdays are set to prominent Catholic holidays that we were likely born “on or around”. This slight shift was a huge preoccupation of mine when younger; everyone else was sure of the exact time and date of their birth, and I had an approximation. In and of itself this is not such a big deal. Later I was astounded to find out that many adoptees shared a hatred for their birthday like me, and only in looking back does this make sense. The birthday is in and of itself a marker that is erased, changed, altered —officially and unofficially—in order to suit bureaucratic needs and not any concept of “arrival”. And so to promote “Adoption Day” or “Gotcha Day”, which is purely bureaucratic in this sense is, to me, adding insult to injury. Furthermore, when i recreate the timeline from the day I was “begotten” into one family to the day I was “gotten” (ugh) by another, it reveals a devastatingly sad story of likely procurement, not abandonment; I was not “chosen” as much as provided, and thus “gotcha” rings very trite and very hollow. Linguistically speaking, there is no other use of this word in English except in a pejorative way, or else in a way that implies a trick or a sending up of some kind. And so the whole concept of “Gotcha Day” saddens me infinitely. For again it celebrates not so much the arrival of the child, but the action of the parents. It is an active verb that is done to a passive child, and this reminder is painful. This is very different from saying you were “born”, or “birthed”, which implies an action that the child is fundamentally part of. And thus the loathsome analogies such as “paper pregnancy” and the like. It fundamentally reduces something very complex and multilayered into a cartoon parody; it forces something private (especially to a young child—I remember not wanting anyone to know about my adoption when I was younger) into a public sphere that is not always welcoming of such a fact (the first question I was asked in school 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:49 [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-do-you-t... was: “Why are you brown?”). I’m glad it wasn’t around when I was young; I don’t know that I’d be able to forgive my adoptive parents such a thing. Reference: Talking Power: The Politics of Language, by Robin Tolmach Lakoff. Debate Tactic: The linguistic aspect here is, to me, rather startling. That I would never say “gotcha!” in any other way except to startle, or else entrap, pin down, or otherwise “grab” someone against their will is phenomenally astounding as far as its use in regards to adoption. In and of itself, this is enough reason to argue against it; everything else is downhill from there. Addition: To further note is its genesis in animal adoption. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Gotcha Day. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Responses to [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? 我是收养 says: November 8, 2013 at 11:03 pm I was talking with Gotcha Day with some other Chinese-American adoptees yesterday, which got me thinking about my own feelings about the concept. My family never celebrated, and I’m glad. The words “Gotcha Day” prioritize the feelings of adoptive parents and dismiss the pain associated with adoption. It focuses on the adult’s experiences of events and ignores the fact that adoption cannot occur without loss or abandonment. Additionally, “Gotcha Day” furthers a rhetoric of child commodification. Children are not something just to simply be gotten. http://redthreadbroken.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/whats-wrong-with-gotcha-day/ Reply Pingback: Gotcha Day: Turning the private into the public | The Daily Bastardette Donna Catterick says: November 8, 2014 at 8:15 pm Wow, it seems so beyond inappropriate to use ‘gotcha’ – I have heard of its use only with pet adoptions. I happily celebrate my dog’s Gotcha Day. It is all about the parents, not the child. Again. I am a birthmother, but I had never heard this term used for a child’s adoption date. Reply 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:49 [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-do-you-t... pammcrae says: November 8, 2014 at 8:40 pm This phrase is actually fairly new to me. I don’t like it one bit. I’m both a “birth” mother and an adoptive mother, and the whole notion of “Gotcha” is revolting. That’s what you say when you scare someone by jumping out of a closet when they least expect it. It’s not a kind thing to say to anyone. Where did it come from anyway? Reply Karen Waggoner says: November 9, 2014 at 3:53 am Gotcha Day has been around for a while. Both my daughters are adopted, one out of the family and one into the family. I would never consider celebrating Gotcha Day. There is something so negative about the term; to me, it implies someone hiding around a corner, waiting to jump out at another, yelling “Gotcha!” It’s an abduction. At least, so far as I know, Hallmark hasn’t made a card for it, so it’s not that popular! Reply legitimatebastard says: November 9, 2014 at 5:03 am Fortunately, this phrase was not in use when I was growing up. However, my adoptive parents used a slightly different phrase to designate “before you were adopted” and “after you were adopted.” They said, “before we got you” or “after we got you.” My would-be adoptive parents were married and childless for 18 years, so there was much history between them and their relationships with other relatives. So, to explain personal histories, my adoptive parents would say, “this happened way before we got you.” I felt awkward, but understood that they could not say, “before yo were born.” I think it made them feel awkward, too. IT wasn’t until recent years that I heard of this “Gotcha Day.” It doesn’t make me feel very warm at all. Reply Karen Moline says: November 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm I wrote “Get Rid of Gotcha” for Adoptive Families magazine in 2004 and was instantly flamed by incensed APs and PAPs who couldn’t believe someone stepped on their Red Thread/China Doll/Savior of the Poor Orphans/entitlement complex. The word is still in regular use, unfortunately, and you can even find Gotcha jewelry, tee shirts, and other ludicrous merchandise aimed at people who ought to know better. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 14, 2014 at 9:07 pm Patently offensive. And their lack of insight into their offense just makes it a million times more horrifying. ellecuardaigh says: November 8, 2015 at 6:07 pm Thank you for stepping into the line of fire, Karen. Daniel Ibn Zayd says: 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:49 [What do you think of this] “Gotcha Day” celebration? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/what-do-you-t... November 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm “Gotcha” better describes the results of the actions of those from my orphanage who saw fit to name a baby born around Christmas “Noel Hafleh”—Christmas Party. File under: adding insult to injury… Reply Belinda says: December 23, 2018 at 12:46 am Never heard of it. Sounds kind of like Gotcha is referencing joke? The term Gotcha? Is a term of trickery. And if ignorant folks would realize natural law just gets in the way of really any celebration of the Gotcha day? It’s would be way more respectful to pay homage to our losses at the expence of our new families perceived gain and maybe grow up a bit. It’s raw. But true. Sad day all around. Folks just need to see what they have done to the adopted child who is still their Mamas child and stop playing cruel ignorant games with our lives. Respect would be so great. Considering how grateful we are. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:49 Should international adopters send the children back? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/should-internat... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. S h o u l d i n t e r n a t i o n a l a d o p t e r s s e n d t h e c h i l d re n ! b a c k ? Posted on November 9, 2013 This is the ninth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Should international adopters send the children back now as in like a revolution or returns or something? Since it’s so wrong and all. Answer: Despite the snarky tone of the question, it deserves an answer all the same. Note how it assumes that agency lies entirely with adopters. But it’s a moot point, because they don’t have to send us back; we’re leaving in great numbers as soon as we come of age. As soon as the adoption fog lifts. As soon as the Kool-Aid supply runs dry. And we’re going to stop adoption and trafficking of “Third World” children. Korea soon enough, and line the other countries up behind that. And the “revolution” (as you facetiously put it) will come in the reverse direction. There is nothing new in this idea of return—see also those who have exiled themselves abroad—much less in that of revolution coming from the outside, as seen in the following two quoted passages. The following passage is from The Fire Next Time, by James Baldwin, a preacher as well as the son of a preacher, and a fellow adoptee. First published in 1962. “Time catches up with kingdoms and crushes them, gets its teeth into doctrines and rends them; time reveals the foundations on which any kingdom rests, and eats at those foundations, and it destroys doctrines by proving them to be untrue. In those days, not so very long ago, when the priests of that church which stands in Rome gave God’s blessing to Italian boys being sent out to ravage a defenseless black country [note: Ethiopia, colonized by Italy during World War II]— which until that event, incidentally, had not considered itself to be black—it was not possible to believe in a black God. To entertain such a belief would have been to entertain madness. But time has passed, and in that time the Christian world has revealed itself as morally bankrupt and politically unstable. The Tunisians were quite right in 1956—and it was a very significant moment in Western (and African) history—when they countered the French justification for remaining in North Africa with the question “Are the French ready for self-government?” Again, the terms “civilized” and “Christian” begin to have a very strange ring, particularly in the ears of those who have been judged to be neither civilized nor Christian…Furthermore, those beneath the Western heel, unlike those within the West, are aware that Germany’s current role in Europe is to act as a bulwark against the “uncivilized” hordes, and since power is what the powerless want, they understand very well what we of the West want to keep, and are not deluded by our talk of a freedom that we have never been willing to share with them….” It is strikingly similar to The Story of My Shoe, by Mutadhar al-Zaidi, made most famous for lobbing a shoe at the head of the former president-select Bush: 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:50 Should international adopters send the children back? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/should-internat... “What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot. And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country. We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade. Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.” Adoptive parents need to understand their role as agents of the nation-state, and thus actors in its domestic and foreign wars against the poor. This stands in stark contrast to their vaunted personal “wants” and “needs”. Their actions maintain the preservation of their class status as economic stakeholders, and reveal family creation to be a function of this economic exigency: It is misleading to conceptualize the needs and concerns of prospective parents as being somehow outside of or separate from the needs and concerns of the nation. Individuals who adopt from abroad do so within a particular domestic/international/political context. Their needs and desires are socially constructed and emerge out of the same domestic/international/political and economic context as the policies that formally address national needs and concerns. —Lovelock, K., Intercountry adoption as a migratory practice: A comparative analysis of intercountry adoption and immigration policy and practice in the United States, Canada and New Zealand in the post W.W.II period., International Migration Review This sentiment is echoed in works that focus on adoption tangentially: This representation of the Cold War as a sentimental project of family formation served a doubly hegemonic function. These families created an avenue through which Americans excluded from other discourses of nationhood could find ways to identify with the nation as it undertook its world-ordering projects of containing communism and expanding American influence. —Klein, C., Cold war orientalism: Asia in the middlebrow imagination, 1945–1961 Even advocates of adoption admit to this primary truth: 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:50 Should international adopters send the children back? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/should-internat... It can be viewed as the ultimate in the kind of exploitation inherent in every adoption, namely the taking by the rich and powerful of the children born to the poor and powerless. It tends to involve the adoption by the privileged classes in the industrialized nations of the children of the least privileged groups in the poorest nations, the adoption by whites of black- and brown-skinned children from various Third World nations, and the separation of children not only from their birthparents, but from their racial, cultural, and national communities as well. —Bartholet, E., International Adoption: Current Status and Future Prospects., The Future of Children: Adoption In terms of revolution, we can say jaaye al-yom….The day is coming. It will not be in the hands of the “First World” to change or reform adoption; they don’t seem capable. It will be in the hands of the “Third” and “Fourth Worlds”—both domestic and international—to wrest control of their children away from the traffickers, the purveyors, the hawkers, and abolish adoption once and for all time. Both adoptees and adopters have a much bigger role to play than simply focusing on their individual selves, or salving their personal trauma. The trauma of adoption is collective; communal; worldwide—and so is the solution. Debate Tactic: Adoption is a junction, between quite separated worlds at most, or simply distanced classes, or estranged family at least. In examining other such meeting points, we gain insight as to the workings of adoption in a bigger economic and political context. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged James Baldwin, Mutadhar al-Zaidi, repatriation, return, revolution. Bookmark the permalink. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:50 Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/do-you-believe... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? Posted on November 10, 2013 This is the tenth question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: How many of you believe God has a play in infertility/fertility/adoption? Answer: Here are some questions in return for those who claim a religion-based advocacy for their adoption: To what degree would you consider yourself a passivist, as opposed to being an activist? By this I mean to say, to what extent are you willing to ignore a hurricane and then ascribe the movement of leaves in the wind to God? Do you think that adverse conditions on the planet such as poverty, sickness, “orphans” just happen, have no cause? Do you believe that this is punishment? Such are the thoughts of the pyromaniac firefighters of the world, spraying gasoline on a conflagration of their own creation. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The poor deserve their lot in life”. Will you not lift a finger to help another soul on this planet unless it benefits you directly? Are your prayers only to make you feel better about yourself and to give you the sense that you’ve accomplished something when in fact you’ve accomplished nothing, or worse? This is not a judgement, but a series of serious questions to search one’s soul. It is an effort to reveal the rather Calvinist underpinnings of modern-day evangelical thinking as well as “Western” capitalism, and to question them. In both the Qur’an and the Bible, advocacy for the orphan is an invocation, but also a metaphor for taking care of the most vulnerable members of a community. The focus on the object of the invocation is misguided when the intention of the one acting is the subject; i.e., on the one acting; on the one with agency. This is an egregious hypocrisy. The origins of the Qur’an and the Bible come from a part of the world that is not based on the nuclear family, but on extended family and community. This manifests itself in the way that orphanages are viewed and maintained, as well as the manner in which adoption is viewed, both of which are completely different from their “Western” counterpart, except where neo-liberalism and capitalism have made their inroads with a growing bourgeois class that looks to the “West” for its inspiration. It becomes rather disturbing, then, that such notions of community and family found in both Holy Writs from within the culture of much of Anglo-Saxon and “First-World” consumerist society are mutated into selfish, solipsistic advocacy of hypocritical and salvationist ego trips. They manifest themselves in the colonialist language of prospective adopters who preach adoption as an act of faith, as well as in web sites that advocate for adoption, and which list categories such as race and gender of the child, along with a price list. This is not much different from the days of slavery (also defended as “of God”), when newspapers did the same thing. I defy anyone to defend how this is in any way valid of any believer or person of faith. What is most problematic is 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:51 Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/do-you-believe... that the religious invocations concerning the orphan (in the historical sense of the term, not in the current-day fabricated sense) are usually combined with similar references to the mother of the child, the widow, etc. Yet advocates of this idea that God chose them to adopt only take what they want from the list, and ignore the rest. This is not valid. I would suggest looking into making your passivist attitude more activist, along the lines of the Liberation Theology movements, both from within Christianity and Islam. For perhaps this is the true calling, as opposed to kidnapping someone else’s child. It is interesting that such advocates of adoption always seem to ignore foster care—they want that brand-new baby, at whatever cost. If you truly wish to advocate for children, then you would do all in your power to make sure that their lives are complete within the family that God provided them. Thinking of others requires we deny ourselves. How many people of faith, looking to adopt, truly act in this way, worthy of the words they preach? As is written: AND I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts. —Malachi 3:5 THUS saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place. —Jeremiah 22:3 BUT NAY, nay, [O men, consider all that you do and fail to do:] You are not generous toward the orphan, and you do not urge one another to feed the needy, and you devour the inheritance [of others] with devouring greed, and you love wealth with boundless love! —Al-Fajr, 89:16-20 AND devour not one another’s possessions wrongfully, and neither employ legal artifices with a view to devour sinfully and knowingly anything that by right belongs to others. —al-Baqra:187 [AS FOR your adopted children,] call them by their [ascendent] fathers’ names….and if you know not who their fathers were, [call them] your brethren in faith and your dependents. —Al-Ahzab, 33:4 NONE are their mothers save those who gave them birth. —Al-Mujadalah, 58:2 Peace and blessings; as-salaamu aleikum. Reference: Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, by Leonardo Boff Islamic Liberation Theology: Resisting the Empire, by Hamid Dabashi We drink from our own wells: the spiritual journey of a people, by Gustavo Gutiérrez Selected works of David Smolin 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:51 Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/do-you-believe... The Child Catchers Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption, by Kathryn Joyce Islamophobia and Adoption: Who Are the Civilized?, by Daniel Ibn Zayd Debate Tactic: There is no argument to be made with those who do not seek to discuss the topic at hand. To understand is that any faith that allows for an individualistic mentality, the salvation of self as a paramount duty, and which is able to make allowances for the inequalities of current economic and political systems (Calvinism, Wahhabism, nationalist Hinduism, for a few examples) need be challenged economically and politically; they are functions of neo-liberalism and capitalism, and will disappear once these systems themselves have been challenged successfully. On a side note: Recent revelations suggest a link between transgenetic crops, pesticide use, and infertility. Can we imagine anyone comfortable in their class position boycotting Monsanto in the name of their “right” to have children? Why or why not? About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Calvinism, Evangelism, fertility, infertility, Liberation Theology, Monsanto, orphan advocacy, Wahhabism. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Responses to Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? Marion McMillan says: November 11, 2013 at 1:45 am INFERTILITY—–GENISIS 20-18. For the LORD had fast closed up ALL the wombs of the house of ABIMELECH, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife. 1 Samuel 1-5,6 .But Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb. Hosea 9-14 Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a mis-carrying womb and dry breasts. Reply Marion McMillan says: November 11, 2013 at 2:03 am FERTILITY—-Deuteronomy 7-13. And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb. Job 31-15. Did not HE that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion US in the womb. Psalm 139-13,15. Thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Isaiah 44-2. Thus saith the LORD that MADE THEE, and FORMED THEE from the womb. Genesis 29-31. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, HE opened her womb. Reply Brent Snavely says: November 11, 2013 at 7:50 am >Can we imagine anyone comfortable in their class position boycotting Monsanto in the name of their “right” to have children? Why or why not?< 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:51 Do you believe God has a play in infertility/adoption? | Daniel D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/do-you-believe... Nope. Because, you know, money can purchase a kid on the open market… Reply Marley Greiner says: November 11, 2013 at 9:24 am A few years ago I attended an adoption conference. One of the papers was the “role” that God played in the adoption process. I believe it was the topic of a dissertation. Anyway, the presenter, wan adoptive mother herself, had researched websites, lists, etc, and done some extensive survey work on the topic. She was pretty floored by it. She said that nearly everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs (Christian, evangelical, Jewish), believed that “God” had intervened. Respondents believed that the child and the parents were “meant” to be together as part of God’s plan. Atheists and agnostics followed that route, too, only submitting “fate” or some other word for God. The latest absurdity in this topic came from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare which tonight published a prayer request for PAPs suffering from PSTD due to “their” children being taken from them when they lose in court. Such is the topsy-turvy world of adoption. Reply Pingback: ICWA-Induced PSTD: Give me a child lest I wake up screaming | The Daily Bastardette Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm It’s such an offensive trope. It has a counterpart as regards slavery. In the New Yorker, there was an article on Michele Bachmann. It referenced one of her ideological mentors, who wrote that slavery was actually beneficial, because it brought the slaves out of their “pagan” ways. There’s no arguing with this kind of insane non-logic that is so much tied to an individual’s ego and worldview based on self and selfishness. It just leaves me speechless. Reply dmdezigns says: January 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm I hate when someone tells me “God” intented for my adopted children to be raised by me. Bullshit. If God is all powerful and all knowing, why didn’t he just put them in my womb? Why did he put them in another woman’s womb, forcing her, the father and the kids to deal with loss before they even started their lives? No, “God” didn’t do this. Humans made choices. Sometimes freely, sometimes with no education, sometimes with coercion. I can’t belive in “God” if everything that happens on earth is “his will.” That means rape, murder, cancer and all other pain are created by him and are his intent. No, God hand no hand in this. Infertility is just like any other medical condition. It’s a natural part of life. It happens just like cancer and accidents happen. I don’t believe God plans for people to hurt. He created a world. It has natural laws and natural consequences. That’s all that’s happening. Pretending it’s God’s will just allows people to think they own something they don’t. And that it’s okay to take someone else’s children even if they don’t want to give them up. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:51 Why is it common for adoptive parents to be ridiculed? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/why-is-it-com... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h y i s i t c o m m o n f o r a d o p t i v e p a re n t s t o b e ! r i d i c u l e d ? Posted on November 11, 2013 This is the 11th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Why is it common for IA or infant-adoptive parents to be ridiculed for being passionate about their decision to adopt in that particular way? Answer: When you are part of the dominant discourse—and by dominant discourse I mean the way of speaking, and formulating ideas, and getting ideas across that belongs to a particular group of people who hold power in a given place, and who are supported by every legality, every court, every media outlet, every aspect of government in the form of rebates, and tax breaks, and general and constant support by a federal legislature which cares more about the votes of this dominant class than they do about the actual lives that their laws effect—you don’t get to claim to be “ridiculed”. You don’t get to play victim. You don’t get to claim that you are on the receiving end of anything other than the resistance that your words, actions, reactions, and attempts at stifling such resistance bring about and which is long overdue. I don’t know that anyone is “putting down” these people; it is strange that the reaction of those of the dominant mode in society is always personal, and in counterattack form, especially when the correct response would be for you to defend yourselves against the counter-argument to your adoptions. If it is so righteous, and so meant to happen, and so God-willed, and so alleviating of poverty, and misery, and hunger, and homelessness, and ache, and pain all around the globe, then prove it. Prove to me that this is the case, that in any way, 120 years of indentured servitude and domestic adoption, or 60 years of international adoption, has in one small miniscule amount done anything to change the world for the better. And then I’ll turn around and show how with all of the money and time that was invested in those adoptions, a revolution could have taken place, and there would be no orphans as you call them whatsoever. So explain to me yet again how this is about “the children”. The problem here is for those who adopt internationally to admit that they don’t truly desire to see the end of the horrible world they decry so much; it would take away their prime reason for existing, which requires inequality as a basis for their own class position. 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:51 Why is it common for adoptive parents to be ridiculed? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/why-is-it-com... Adoption is based in the leveraging of inequality by a dominant class in order to procure children for those who have none from those who ideally would keep their children except for circumstances that are a direct result of this class difference to begin with. On the international level, this same class is the one that enables, funds, equips, provides for, and sustains economic and political wars around the world that result in the very “orphans” (who all have extended families) that you claim to “save” by adopting them (however you phrase it, and whatever terminology you use). You simply need to look up any of your birth countries of your adopted children in a book such as The Shock Doctrine to see how that country was targeted and destroyed economically and politically. That you might in your daily lives continue to act, live, consume, and go about existing in general as if this destruction is in no way connected to your lifestyle is a mind-boggling remove from reality. I have not personally attacked anyone here, I have not ridiculed anyone here, I have stated a case based in political and economic reality, and if there is a response, it cannot be in the form of a personal attack, but in countering what I have said. Using the facts, logic, and reason that your culture claims to value so much. And I welcome such a discussion that has yet to appear; I wait for it and I welcome it. References: The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein The political and economic context of adoption, by Daniel Ibn Zayd Debate Tactic: The personalization of the discussion is a tactic; for this reason it is best to avoid anything subjective, including our own personal stories. If we do speak personally, we need make comparison to other adoptees in a geographical, historical, and economic context, as well as others who have been equally displaced and dispossessed. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged backlash, dominant discourse, international adoption, ridicule. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Responses to Why is it common for adoptive parents to be ridiculed? mad momma moogacat says: November 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm Alas– the martyr complex of adoptive parents knows no bounds. Great post. 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:51 Why is it common for adoptive parents to be ridiculed? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/why-is-it-com... Reply Transracial adoptee says: November 11, 2013 at 11:51 pm Beautiful. Reply janmari says: November 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm The dominant ones don’t have to prove it. The laws of science do not apply in adoptoland, where the hypothesis is the conclusion. Historically adoption was a great way of covering up infidelities of powerful husbands and transgressions of powerful priests. Now it has additional benefits of supplying children to those who have the assets to demand them and it creates jobs with sweet salaries and even a handful of fatcats. The resistance has a big challenge. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:51 Have you felt like you’re always searching for something? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/have-you-felt-l... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. H a v e y o u f e l t l i k e y o u ’ re a l w a y s s e a rc h i n g f o r ! s o m e t h i n g ? Posted on November 12, 2013 This is the 12th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers: Adoptees have you felt in your life like you’re always searching for something? [Note: A nonadoptee replied that she always wished she were adopted.] Answer: Those who claim that they used to “wish” they were adopted have the luxury to do so; it is the equivalent of those who hang out in places normally off limits to them—referred to as “slumming it”—meaning, doing something that is considered outside of their norm, knowing that at any time they can retreat to the safety of their “normal” world. It speaks of someone comfortable in such a world, but wanting the “edge” of those—and this is important—they do not consider to be like them. In this light, compared to those not comfortable wherever they might be, or not afforded the benefit of the doubt as starting from the “norm”, it is offensive to say, much less even consider, and reveals our starting power differential. To search implies a quest for something that is definable, nameable, even if unknowable, or intangible: “The search for the Holy Grail”, for example. Here the above question explicitly stresses on the undefinable—“searching for something” which is a phrase most often used for the forgetful. “I got up and went into the bedroom, but I forgot what I was looking for; but I knew I was searching for something”. Even here, benefit of the doubt is given to the one searching; their relation to place or space is not questioned, and the object of the search, though forgotten, still exists in its unnamed state. It is, on the other hand, not possible to define the feeling of “searching” when you have no connection to what it is you are searching for, much less a relationship to the places you might search. By this I mean to say that the “luxury and privilege” of being of a place allows me both to explore that place, as well as “slum it” elsewhere. Without that connection, searching takes on a paradoxical if not existential significance. This is similar to trips and destinations: I might very well say, “I’m going to the store” or “to the movies”, implying that I am sure of where I am, where I’m going, and how I’ll get there. But it is much rarer (and infinitely more sad on some level) to say: “I’m getting in the car and am going to drive, but I don’t know where to”; or “I’m leaving, but I don’t know where I’m going or how I’ll get there”. This latter statement, as odd as it might sound to those of a particular class, defines many who are displaced, including emigrants, immigrants, refugees, migrant workers, etc. Yet even here, there is a sense of agency and actionable will implied in the verb, meaning, despite the “not knowing”, the active agent is still the one fleeing or leaving; their movement is still of their volition. This leaves us with those displacements that do not involve such agency: Trafficking, kidnapping, and, 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Have you felt like you’re always searching for something? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/have-you-felt-l... contradictory to how it is viewed, adoption. Adoption can thus be categorized as a violence of displacement, and the discussion of it cannot take place in terms of willed action. As such, it is only a compounding of this violence to ask the adoptee to accept their circumstance and attempt to ascribe to them the agency or ability to search that their very displacement robbed them of. For the sake of comparison, we would never ask someone kidnapped or trafficked to consider themselves to be in a better position or stature, and the entire notion of the resolution of their status legally and physically speaking revolves around their bodily “return” to a place that they are “of”. In this light, the migrant worker demanding rights, or the Palestinian refugee demanding return, or the immigrant demanding acceptance in a foreign land is a furtherance of their sense of agency, and implies a knowledge that they’ve left something behind, yet there is validity in such a self-willed exile. This is often referred to as seeking a “better life”, but it doesn’t deny the validity of their sense of self as relates to their former place. Exiles of a different class position speak of this in literary, psychological, and sociological terms. For the exile, we would never think tell them that they are “better off”, yet those of the nether classes hear this all the time. That the adoptee hears this is thus the very contradiction of the class position they, at the very least, might feel belongs to them, as a function of their adoption. And so it can be seen that for the adoptee denied such “place” the notion that one life is “better” than another life is an unbearable discrepancy, as well as a fundamental fallacy. It is a sick and twisted judgmental view that can only come from a culture that considers itself to be dominant on the planet, and is only expressed by those of such a culture, or desirous of belonging to such a culture. Exacerbating the problem in such places is the complete destruction of any valid local culture seen as a manifestation of place. Everything is WalMart and Disneyland, former-suburbia-now-exurbia, and this false market-based culture aims to re-establish a Hollywoodized existence via nostalgia for things that never were and never happened. And so Martha Stewart; the Disney Channels; Celebration, Florida and Las Vegas; and the like. In some way, then, we have all been rendered “without place”, only some of us are much more painfully aware of it than others. The definition of one’s “place” thus becomes a game of comparison with those who are placeless; the placeless are thus needed for those of a particular class and culture to literally feel “grounded”. This explains the attempt to “save” only the children of those whose non-existence as “lost” forms the basis of the “First World’s” sense of well-being. And so living as an adoptee in the United States is a double whammy of dispossession from anything resembling an identity or culture that would make one want to put down roots of any kind: The roots one puts down don’t match the soil or the climate; they won’t hold one steady; they aren’t nourishing; they are painful to consider. A grafted rose is no less alien for its beauty or perfume. The adoptee is asked to consider these superficial aspects as valid in and of themselves, and to ignore his or her transplantation: This is not a valid request, and the problem remains with the one asking such a thing of him or her. This question thus has no validity whatsoever. To live as an adoptee is to understand what Limbo is. To live as an adoptee who returns to his or her land of birth, or who searches for his or her roots or origins, is to understand what Purgatory is. To live as an adoptee who is denigrated for such searching, who is put down and castigated for seeking a sense of 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Have you felt like you’re always searching for something? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/have-you-felt-l... self, who is thus denied a footing in the place they were brought to against any concept of will or agency, and who is asked questions that of their own stating define verily the adoptee’s inability to answer them, is to understand what Hell is. References: Cultures Of Globalization The work of Mike Davis “The New Abolition: Ending Adoption in Our Time”, by Daniel Ibn Zayd “On trauma, memory, community, place. | 0/31”, by Daniel Ibn Zayd Debate Tactic: The power differential in this question requires an analysis of who is able to say what, as well as a comparison to other displacements and dispossessions in order to provide a kind of “hierarchy” in which to put adoption. This reveals the true nature of the question, and the truth behind its asking. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged displacement, dispossession, exile, migration, refugees, return, searching. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Responses to Have you felt like you’re always searching for something? Janes Pain says: November 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm Ya I understand I started to travel the world at 16 looking for somthing….Amazingly enough I spent a year in india which at the time I didnt even realize was the other half of my heritage. I also loved paul simons song………I ended up in Canada which I now call my home but it is home to many displaced people it is the mixing bowl of the world….. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 12, 2014 at 9:25 am It is interesting for me to now review my words from a while back now that I feel I am very close to finding my family here in Lebanon. The sense of sheer groundedness and re-establishment of sense of place as described here is exhilarating and is, for the moment, quite enough for me…. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 12, 2015 at 10:14 am 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Have you felt like you’re always searching for something? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/have-you-felt-l... This post was much more greatly developed for the introduction to a book on adoption narratives. The file can be downloaded as a PDF here: http://www.academia.edu/15249125/The_Seeker_and_the_Sought Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 In adoption-speak, what difference between “from China” and “... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/on-the-differen... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. I n a d o p t i o n - s p e a k , w h a t d i ! e re n c e b e t w e e n “ f ro m C h i n a ” a n d “ C h i n e s e ” ? Posted on November 13, 2013 This is the 13th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. I received a reply in response to a review I posted at Mediarama, in which I questioned the inappropriate use of the phrase “Kiss Me I’m From China” on a T-shirt meant for adopted children: Based on the [dictionary-based] meaning of this suffix, the denotation of “Chinese” or “from China” is synonymous. If you perceive a specific connotation from the text, that is one thing. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I’d like to elaborate more on this idea that “from China” and “Chinese” mean the same thing, or that this is simply a “difference of opinion”. Let’s talk linguistics. A denotative definition is half of language. No one walks around quoting dictionaries. Dictionaries list all usage, including current or actual usage, dialectical usage, as well as archaic usage. What they don’t give is connotative meaning, or usage that reflects the intent of the words used. So it is invalid to say to me “that is one thing” if I understood the meaning differently than you. Language is social; there is no individual understanding of language. It is, on the other hand, possible to tease out meaning from actual use of words. And so, “Chinese” vs. “from China”. We tend to talk about things “from China” in one way and things that are “Chinese” in a different way. We can refer to Chinese culture, Chinese food, the Chinese language, Chinese imports. It seems to me that in terms of current usage, anything that maintains or attempts to maintain a living link to the originating place is defined using “-ese”, hence, “Chinese”. We don’t say, for example, “this language is from China”. Furthermore, to say this food is “from China” means something quite different than saying “this food is Chinese”. So the argument does not hold based on purely the denotative meaning. There is flexibility here, but it is one-sided; and where it leaves off is where it is most telling. 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:52 In adoption-speak, what difference between “from China” and “... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/on-the-differen... For example, if I walk into a Wal-Mart (which I wouldn’t do, but bear with me), I might say, “this shirt is from China” or “this television set is from China” but I do not say “this television is Chinese”. If a Chinese-American worker there approaches me, s/he might say that s/he is “Chinese”, different from if s/he were to say “I am from China”. But this is completely different than if I describe her in either of those two ways. They obviously would mean different things—the context would be describing two completely different and noninterchangeable responses, as well as different points of view. This difference comes down to a lost connection—something that or someone who is of a place but has no rooted connection to that place for whatever reason is “from” there; something or someone that maintains or attempts to maintain that living connection is given the “-ese” suffix. So, personally speaking, I’ve never been truly able to say I’m “Lebanese”, though this is where I was born, and I’ve since regained my nationality (which, conceptually speaking, was never “lost”). I am, on the other hand, able to say that I am “from Lebanon”, and even after living here for many years, I am careful to maintain this distinction because it is insulting to the local culture to do otherwise. Unfortunately, because of my adoption, I am not “Lebanese” in this cultural, place-based sense; perhaps I never will be, despite re-establishing my nationality, or living here the rest of my life. There has been a rupture. The borrowed phraseology here is “Kiss Me I’m Irish”, and so the leap to “from China” is not innocent. Quite the contrary: The glib insensitivity of this seemingly banal T-shirt speaks of the condition of those who are displaced or dispossessed from their origins in any way, and who see the dominant discourse reminding them of this fact, especially at an age when they don’t even have the ability to understand such a concept, much less stand up for themselves. We can start to see here the insult of literally labeling someone as being “from China”. The child wearing this T-shirt is, unfortunately, able to say: “I’m from China”. This is in no way the same as saying “I’m Chinese”, and the extent of what has been lost between these two statements is irretrievable. This remains a damnable function of those who removed her from her place, and they should not—adding insult to injury—impose this loss on the child as well. References: A Marxist Philosophy of Language, by Jean-Jacques Lecercle. The Arabic Language and National Identity, by Yasir Suleiman. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, edited by Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz. Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Debate Tactic: The use of the word “entitled” in a conversation about opinions concerning adoption is in and of itself obnoxious; it is a subjective cop-out and a power play of those who are, in fact, “entitled”. This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged China, Chinese, language, nationality. Bookmark the permalink. 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:52 In adoption-speak, what difference between “from China” and “... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/on-the-differen... About Daniel Drennan ElAwar D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. Create a free website or blog at→ WordPress.com. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:52 Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my care? |... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/should-i-write-t... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. S h o u l d I w r i t e t h i s l e t t e r t o t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d i n m y ! c a re ? Posted on November 14, 2013 This is the 14th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted in response to a topic at Fodors.com in which a woman was wondering whether she should write a letter to the mother of the child temporarily in her care in order to “thank” her. I’m afraid that the mother will fall in love with the twins and not want to give them to me….I’m afraid that the twins will not believe that I can love them as much as she can….I remember how calm and unemotional the mother was after delivery….I don’t understand why she doesn’t want contact with me…. Answer: There is no way to mediate yourself out of what you’ve done. Here’s a redefinition: Adoption is based in the leveraging of inequality by a dominant class in order to procure children for those who have none from those who ideally would keep their children, except for circumstances that are a direct result of this class difference to begin with. As such, to write such a letter is only to gloat, and rub in the face of those who are on the receiving end of your excess that you have stolen their children. The power differential here is not equal, and as an adult adoptee, I am hard-pressed to imagine the selfishness of those who would prefer to take someone’s child rather than correct the social and economic situation that might force someone to give in to the dominant societal pressure that tells them they are not worthy to be parents and so make such a “difficult decision”. Decisions made under duress, extreme pressure, or torture are not even admissible in a court of law, yet they fly when it concerns adoption. If this woman were a mother whose children were kidnapped, you would be falling all over yourself empathizing with her grief and anguish. But because we are dealing here with a class of people who are considered marginal to the society and class that you are from—in general, the poor, the disenfranchised, the foreign—then somehow it is okay to abduct their children, using all of the legal, social, medical, and governmental systems that are stacked in your favor, and against theirs. Relinquishment papers? How many lawyers, agency workers, government officials were part of this crime? Why should it surprise anyone that the children’s true family should not make contact? It’s like asking why freed slaves don’t come back to the plantation to thank their former masters. I have to ask—why make this public? Why mediate this in a public forum, this, what should be so completely private, and personal, and of family? This is the fatal mistake, that adoption is about “children”, or that adoptive parents are somehow selfless. This is testament to the exact opposite. Why is your self-righteous indignation more valid than mine? Simply because you have the entire culture on your side? The whole culture which, by the way, formerly believed that the races shouldn’t mix, and that slavery was justified, and that kings had a divine right to govern? Why am I singled out as the “exceptional case” that doesn’t 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my care? |... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/should-i-write-t... prove anything, while the adoption in this instance is the “exceptional case” that proves everything? Why is the onus on me to prove my humanitarian integrity? I dare you to come live my life in Lebanon. I dare you. My neighborhood, and those of the other dispossessed people I work with certainly do not show up in any Fodor’s guide, that’s for sure. How do you determine the limits of this, a public discussion on the web? If you are having a private conversation at a party, that’s one thing. If you are talking so loud and I overhear you, I have the right to comment. I’m tired of “walking away” from it, and so this time I commented. To culturally make relative what I am saying in an attempt to dismiss it is invalid from the get-go. Four-fifths of the planet thinks the way I do. Most every adoptee I’ve come in contact with from my birth country to other countries to domestic adult adoptees all carry the same burden with them, one that is made no easier by those who think we shouldn’t have a right to speak out. References: Conceiving the New World Order, edited by Faye D. Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, by Frederick Engels. Debate Tactic: The entire pro-adoption discourse is “hostile”. It’s time to balance the equation. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Responses to Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my! care? Barbara Thavis says: November 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm Thank you from a mother brutalized by adoption. The only reason I lost her is I had no money and no permanent residence. I was in college and my parents told me I couldn’t come home. I was in love with my baby so when they told me I would be selfish to keep her, how could I? Of course now I kick my sorry ass every day. At 54 years old it’s no less painful than the day they took her. Reply 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my care? |... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/should-i-write-t... nancy rodgers says: November 14, 2013 at 8:16 pm You have a gift with words. Thank you for the clearest answer I’ve heard to the same idiotic question I’ve heard over and over from adopters.. It makes my blood boil every time I hear it. Reply llis45@yahoo.com says: November 14, 2013 at 11:07 pm For goodness sake, never THANK the birth mom. She wasn’t doing you a favor, she was doing the only thing she could to give her child a chance at a decent life. If that happens, she will undoubtedly thank YOU for taking care of the part of her heart you have had in your keeping. Yes, you are that child’s Mom and Dad, but there will always be someone who loves your child as you do, and hopes and prays you love him/her and gives that child the life she couldn’t. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 14, 2013 at 11:29 pm Did you read the counter-argument here? Do you understand where you are posting? kym says: November 15, 2013 at 7:13 am Daniel, I love your questions and answers so far this month! You write so well and honestly. I never realized there were so many questions that needed answers, but you keep on coming up with more. Truly sad that despite that how long adoption’s been going on, there is SOOO much progress needed. Because my poor father didn’t want to hear any more from me about Veronica Brown’s forced adoption, he gets to hear triply from me about many of the inequalities and injustices in adoption, every day (or every other day) for National Adoptee Awareness Month. I’ve put him to work to help change some of these slave-like adoption practices. He understood me when I informed him that only slaves and adoptees in the US have had their original identities legally erased and rewritten by our government, to benefit those who paid for and bought these people. Bless him for listening to me, but his willful ignorance and inaction has gone on FAR too long. It’s too bad that he has to get educated about adoption by the person he adopted decades after HE adopted, because either he didn’t want to learn about these disparities before or his peers didn’t want him to know about them before. Although long-winded, from another transracial, international adoptee, THANK YOU! Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 15, 2013 at 11:15 am I’ve always imagined the power inherent in mothers uniting with their peers in places like Spain and Argentina, where mothers loudly protest the theft of their children. In Guatemala, mothers are suing for repatriation; in Indigenous Canada, the demand is for an apology from the government. American culture frowns on this kind of communal activism to say the least; the other fact is that there is much blame regarding the so-called willful relinquishment of children. Focusing on the systemic nature of things it seems might allow for some space to heal there; such activism I know from personal 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Should I write this letter to the mother of the child in my care? |... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/should-i-write-t... experience would do the same. Kym: You seem to have better luck with your adoptive father than I did with mine, and this is no small thing! Continued success with the re-education; bless you both! Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:52 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. Wo u l d n ’t y o u w a n t L e b a n e s e o r p h a n s t o b e s a v e d l i k e !y o u ? Posted on November 15, 2013 This is the 15th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted in response to an article that was published in the Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass, as well as in the Boston Globe. I’m regularly asked here from members of a particular class if I would have “preferred” to have lived here during the civil war. Today, Logan and his adopted family continue to enjoy a sort of celebrity status. His parents have received calls from people all over the country, and even Canada, who want to adopt Lebanese children. Many people who followed media reports of the family’s struggle to leave Lebanon quickly recognize Logan’s thick crop of dark, curly hair and the wide smile through which he now flashes new, white teeth. On a recent day at his North Salem home, Logan wore a navy blue sunsuit emblazoned with an American flag and blue Skechers sandals. Answer: As an adoptee from Lebanon who has returned definitively to his place of birth, I was intrigued to read this story about “Logan” (named rather ignominiously after the airport of his arrival) and his voyage out of Lebanon, where you say he is now “thriving”. I would like to simply point out the bias inherent in your story, and the disturbing undercurrent of “salvation” that you attribute to adoption, which is belied by the facts on the ground here in this country. Laura Gabriel with the Lebanese child now temporarily in her care. I am going to guess that Mr. Gabriel is born of immigrant “stock” as you put it, spanning generations, as witnessed by his Anglicized name (Al-Jibril or Al-Gebrayel would be the Lebanese orthography of the family name, depending on local culture). Or, perhaps he is a new emigrant to the United States. In either case, the decision to adopt from Lebanon without mentioning the fact that such adoptions are handled without any government oversight by the various sects within the country—predominantly Christian, as far as adoption is concerned —speaks of a particular bias that you have no problem airing when you refer to Hezbollah as “a militant Islamic 1 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... group based in Lebanon”. You could just as easily refer to “militant Christian groups based in Lebanon”; they are numerous, and the largest of them gleaned its ideology from the Nazis in 1938; its name from Spanish fascists. The fact that you might not speak this way is most telling. I would only point out that the Hezb is a valid political entity, has been elected democratically to its positions within the parliament, and the Shi‘a which make up much of its constituency are as Lebanese as Mr. Jibril’s family, despite attempts to paint them as being “based” here, instead of their having a right to be here. What is interesting is that the political dispossession of this people goes hand in hand with the dispossession of adoptees, many of us coming from such Muslim families—abducted, kidnapped, brokered, trafficked—by missionary organizations seeking to weaken a certain population within the country, and reflective of similar efforts in other countries: Indigenous peoples in North America and Australia; children from Reunion Island in France; the Roma in Europe, etc. That you might advocate in any way this local trafficking of children is appalling. Most disturbing in your article is that the Senators listed therein as having helped “Logan” leave Lebanon with a special humanitarian visa are the same Senators who deliberately and with malice aforethought allowed the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and civilian population centers to take place. I remember very clearly during the July War, 2006 an interview on CNN featuring Senators Lott and Feinstein, talking about the usurping entity in Palestine’s right to “defend itself”. “CRIME”. Pulling children from the rubble of the second Qana Massacre (Al-Balad newspaper). The television screen behind them showed the headquarters of the local Civil Defense complex in Sour, smoke rising from its bombed carcass, and which housed among other caritative organizations the local Red Cross and Red Crescent. Here we were inadvertently revealed the nature of this war, in which no one was spared: hospitals, Red Cross workers, ambulances, convoys of medicine and supplies, sites of former massacres, funerals of those killed in the bombings of the previous day. The adoption of one infant from the midst of this uncivilized carnage 2 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... does nothing to change the truth of what happened here. That these cowardly Senators would have the nerve to expound on Israel’s so-called “right” in front of such an image speaks long as to the American viewpoint of this country, especially when only a year earlier, the United States was supposedly “standing with” Lebanon and its dubiously entitled “Cedar Revolution”. This reflects an American foreign policy which allowed Madeleine Albright, when asked about the death of half a million Iraqi children due to sanctions and war, to reply that this was “worth it”; a vision of this region that permits Condoleezza Rice to horrifyingly use the metaphor of “birth pangs” in describing a “new Middle East” in which the murder of children is a day-to-day given. The men had gone to look for bread. Qana Massacre II, Lebanon (As-Safir newspaper). What was the Eagle-Tribune‘s stance concerning the war here? Frankly, I’m almost afraid to ask, but I would only quote Desmond Tutu who said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Falser friends are hard to come by, especially when I also remember the evacuation of Americans from Beirut coming in stages–first, “all-Americans”; second, Americans by marriage; third, Americans by naturalization. I am in this third category, as is this child. The mistreatment suffered by my friends trying to evacuate—cancellations, this third-tier status, abusive questioning by American officials, being forced to choose from among family members based on a limited number of allowed accompanying individuals—is reflective of current politics in the United States which see naturalization as something to be revoked, as opposed to an entrance point of belonging to a nation. As immigrants, this might give the Jibril family pause. If I think back, I can remember very clearly a photo of my naturalization at the age of five, eating cake decorated to resemble the American flag. But I also remember as if it were yesterday waking up to mega-ton bombs falling a scant half-mile from my house in Beirut. And I will never forgive those who gave the green light to such violence, or those who support it via their mediated efforts, such as the one that appears in your newspaper. 3 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... “The butcher of the children of Qana”; two-story poster hanging in downtown Beirut. Unlike the Jibril family, I had no problem deciding to stay. Mr. Jibril might also pause to consider what it means to decorate his son with American flags when it is that country that saw to it that over 1400 civilians were killed during this war, a third of them children. I shudder to think that perhaps this now-“father” might wish certain segments of the Lebanese population dead, especially when he has no guarantees that his son is not of these people. Fo this is a perfectly valid scenario, given the trafficking, and brokering, and criminal profiteering that takes place here, as well as the politics of exclusion that also marked my American acculturation. That anyone would continue to aggravate such criminal activity by adopting from Lebanon is thereby complicit in this criminal activity, as are those who do not denounce their new country’s foreign policy and economic and political wars on the Third World that directly result in the poverty that create “orphans” in the first place. “Logan” has family and community here in Lebanon, as do I. As do all of the adoptees from Lebanon who have returned trying to find a sense of closure to their identity and to their lives. To not see adoption as a political act is to validate a certain worldview that is being resisted more and more both here in Lebanon and around the world. And so “Logan” was supposedly “saved”, and this gets media attention; while 400+ other children died in this conflict, and no one raises any cry of outrage. Given the “equation” of his adoption–400 to 1–I would like to know how his adoptive parents sleep at night. Was his “price” worth this? Where is the justice? How do you even begin to justify such a horrifyingly lopsided equation? Norman Finkelstein, when asked about Ms. Rice’s statement, said: “The Secretary of State said it was the birth pangs of a new Middle East. That’s the statement of a freak. A human freak would compare the birth of a child with the destruction of a country.” He also said that it is “It’s better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees.” And so when you ask me if I would have rather lived here during the Civil War, my answer is that this is an obnoxious, selfish, and disgusting thing to ask; a stone yoke thrown around my neck. And I now categorically reject it. I lived here during the July War in 2006, and I would rather resist from within, than observe passively and disempowered from 4 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... without, surrounded by those who might offensively ask such a question. And thus my decision to stay. Inch’allah “Logan” will one day come back and know the place he is of, and will know that it isn’t eating falafel that makes him of this place—it is his roots, his family, his heritage, his community, his local culture, his language, and his blood ties to former generations that he has been displaced from in what can only be termed a great and offensive injury; a monumental tragedy. And that perhaps, unlike the Pabulum forced on us our entire lives, there was, in fact, a life here for us that we will never know. I wish him peace. References: Norman Finkelstein interview, from LBC television. A History of Modern Lebanon, by Fawwaz Traboulsi. Brand America: Of False Promises and Snake Oil, by Daniel Drennan. Articles on Lebanese adoption. Debate Tactic: The media’s role in advocating for adoption cannot be underestimated, and they must be challenged at every turn to actually perform their journalistic duty. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Condoleezza Rice, Israel, July War 2006, Lebanon, Madeleine Albright. Bookmark the permalink. 2 R e s p o n s e s t o Wo u l d n ’ t y o u w a n t L e b a n e s e o r p h a n s t o b e s a v e d l i k e y o u ? r.m. says: November 15, 2013 at 10:50 am Very powerful commentary. I hope it is widely read. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: April 13, 2015 at 2:39 pm What kind of depraved monstrous place expels its own children from its “body” and then celebrates that expulsion? And if we are “saved”, then why are we not welcomed back upon return? Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr 5 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Wouldn’t you want Lebanese orphans to be saved like you? | Dan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/wouldnt-you-w... Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 6 of 6 11/1/19, 07:53 Why are people so against adoption here? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/why-are-people... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h y a re p e o p l e s o a g a i n s t a d o p t i o n ! h e re ? Posted on November 16, 2013 This is the 16th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Yahoo!Answers (later deleted): Why are people so against adoption here? Don’t you even consider the times when it is necessary? I agree that sometimes it isn’t, but if my friends were not adopted they wouldn’t have parents at all. Answer: Don’t you understand that you cannot prove a generalized thesis by stating the exceptional case? Don’t you get that this is a tactic of a rather conservative status quo, a dominant culture and discourse; that it puts the one answering on the defensive against something he or she never stated; and that it has precedent in everything from pro-slavery and anti-miscegenation arguments to the denigration of so-called welfare mothers which “proves” that a social welfare system is a “bad thing”? Don’t you stop to ever consider that events in this world do not just “happen”, that we do not live in a mindless matrix, that cause and effect are at work in terms of everything you and I do and their relationship to everyone else on the planet? Having stated this, do you not ever wonder what it means to live in a culture and a world in which your friends’ lives are at the mercy of a particular class of society, as opposed to the beneficence of society as a whole? Can you not tell the difference between what might be considered valid concepts of foster care, or extended family care, or communal care of those most vulnerable in a society such as your friends, and the leveraging of inequality in order to procure a child for those who—for reasons they cannot accept—are not able to procreate? Can we for one split second imagine a perfect world where no orphans exist and ask: “What would these people do then?” Can you perhaps consider your friends stating that it might have been better if a social safety net were in place to keep them with their families, or their extended families—would you nonetheless denigrate them as being thankless and bitter? Will we ever come to a point where we see that treating a profound illness by applying quack medicine to alleviate symptoms will never bring us anything close to a cure of the ills of society? That if every man, woman, and child in the United States were to adopt a so-called orphan both domestically and internationally, that the inherent systemic economic and political inequality would still exist, and would continue to make the problem worse? Can the pro-adoption “angels” who claim it is “all for the children” accept the premise that a reduction in their 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:53 Why are people so against adoption here? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/why-are-people... standard of living across the board, and a decision to actually live within their means would, globally speaking, do more to help more children around the world than the plucking up and out of a few children here and there? That via such self-denial they might be quote-unquote “saving” hundreds of children and not just one? Why does no one suggest this as a solution when it is so painfully obvious? When thousands of us are advocating for the rights to unsealed birth certificates and the reunification of families; and when thousands of us are planning to or have returned to our lands of birth in order to reclaim a sense of identity and to work to help undo some of the damage done to these forgotten places around the globe by our adoptive societies; when thousands of us are activated to help make the world a better place in the bigger picture because we are not so cynical to believe that “there is nothing we can do”; when the majority of the planet still manages to not think along lines of purely individualistic so-called happiness, or still expands beyond the false precepts of the supposedly perfect “nuclear family”, or imagines that there is something called community that has as much if not more weight than one’s singular solitary self, might it not behoove you to look at this work and perhaps join in and support it? To realize that this debate is a necessary part of getting to a point where adoption might not be necessary? That this would be a more beneficial use of your time and energy, rather than the constant disparagement, criticism, and the demand from adoptees of some kind of gratitude that you, I can imagine, at times do not give your own biological parents, nor have you ever been asked to demonstrate? What is this shameful double standard? Why this self-serving hypocrisy? References: Anti-Systemic Movements, by Giovanni Arrighi, Terence K. Hopkins, Immanuel Wallerstein. Dignity and Defiance, edited by Jim Shultz and Melissa Crane Draper. A Poetics of Resistance, by Jeff Conant. Debate Tactic: We must deny emphatically the concept that the individual is the ultimate valid elemental unit of a society, at the expense of community. The exceptional case is a tactic usually seen in politics, where a given case is made to be emblematic of an entire group: The furloughed (black) prisoner as recidivist; the (black) welfare mother as public benefits cheat; the happy-as-a-clam adoptee, just for a few examples. This has no validity in terms of debating an issue. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Communalism, Individualism. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Responses to Why are people so against adoption here? ellecuardaigh says: November 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:53 Why are people so against adoption here? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/why-are-people... Reblogged this on elle cuardaigh and commented: Even when asking Daniel Ibn Zayd an ignorant question, you can expect an intelligent answer. Reply CD says: November 17, 2014 at 12:43 am One of the most amazing essays I’ve ever read concerning “motives.” Bravo Daniel Ibn Zayd. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:53 Shouldn’t we praise those who disrupt their adoptions? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/shouldnt-we-pr... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. S h o u l d n ’t w e p r a i s e t h o s e w h o d i s r u p t t h e i r ! a d o p t i o n s ? Posted on November 17, 2013 This is the 17th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted in response to a discussion taking place on the Motherlode Blog of the New York Times. My thoughts and emotions were disjointed and came in waves. One moment I was determined to keep D. because I loved him. An instant later, I realized that I wasn’t the parent I know I could be, and that I should place D. with a better family, with a better mother. Answer: For all of the back and forth, we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room: adoption as an institution to begin with. That those with a certain class privilege are allowed to leverage inequality on the world scale to their own advantage is the initial injustice. That a percentage of all international adoptions ends in disruption is a heinous injustice on top of that. The fact that your husband is deployed overseas only adds a certain sickening irony to the mix—between the two of you I think you’re both wreaking enough damage to various communities in the “Third World” to last quite a long time, and for which you might both start apologizing, if only to show some respect, and a shred of decency. For it is a power differential between those of different classes, walks of life, and living conditions that creates your so-called “orphans” (please note that no one is from “Central America”, or “South America”; I’m not from “the Middle East”: these are your constructs, not ours). It is an inherent inequality that drives international adoption on all levels and at great profit. It is the willful leveraging of this differential economically, politically, and culturally which has nothing to do with family creation but everything to do with exploitation and extraction of profit. In this can be seen the destruction of cultures that do not echo the dominant and prevailing one in a direct correlation with the historical approach to the “Third World” by the “First”, which leaves those adopting as complicit in this status quo that has wrought naught but destruction worldwide. To claim that this act is “brave” or “courageous” is sickening, and reflects perhaps the collective guilt of those assembled here speaking in this woman’s defense, the collective guilt of those who are complicit in putting their interests first over that of the families and communities that their adopted children come from. “D.” had a life before you came into it, before he was taken from his family and community. Let’s try not to forget that. The “selling” of this story is the other hidden facet that need be revealed. A parody translation of the marketing efforts of Anita Tedaldi and Lisa Belkin can be found at Mediarama. A similar super-mediated response came from one “Rebecca” after the recent Reuters stories on re-homing. At babble.com, she decided to announce “Why I Supported the Adoption Rehoming Group that Yahoo and Reuters 1 of 2 11/1/19, 07:54 Shouldn’t we praise those who disrupt their adoptions? | Daniel ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/shouldnt-we-pr... Shut Down.” The comments section is especially telling. You really must question the audacity and arrogance of those who speak of their own privilege and luxury in such an offensive fashion. The aristocracy yet lives, and the only valid response is an overturning of the system that allows such people to speak in this manner; that or their complete overwhelming with the Voices of those unheard. References: The Meaning of Freedom, by Angela Davis. Letters of Transit: Reflections on Exile, Identity, Language, and Loss, edited by Andre Aciman. No Name in the Street, by James Baldwin. Debate Tactic: The single most horrifying inversion perpetrated by adopters is turning vice into virtue; speaking of “destruction” as somehow constructive. This comes from such a dark, dank, blackened core of narcissistic individualism that it is like physically struggling with a black hole; screaming into an abyss. All the same, it must be challenged, especially when we can see how much the mainstream media advocates this type of thinking. Challenging involves “inverting back”: Revealing that the emperor has no clothes. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Anita Tedaldi, disruption, inversion, Lisa Belkin, Motherlode, New York Times. Bookmark the permalink. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 2 of 2 11/1/19, 07:54 What if I make every effort to help my child through their grief? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/what-if-i-make... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h a t i f I m a k e e v e r y e ! o r t t o h e l p m y c h i l d t h ro u g h t h e i r " g r i e f ? Posted on November 18, 2013 This is the 18th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted to a blog whose author doesn’t seem to mind the pain and loss adoption would bring to her adopted child as well as to her family: I do want to be as prepared as possible to help my child grieve and empathize with his or her loss. I know that no matter how much we love our child he or she will still have an incredible loss. I know this. I understand this. I want to learn more about it so I can help. That is very clear from my blog. I have said nothing other than just that. so I don’t understand why someone would infer the total complete opposite. Answer: The “inference” of the “total complete opposite” comes from the fact that your statement is what we call an “inversion”, a reversal of logic that is designed to be the “correct” response, to fall nicely on the ears, while continuing down and covering up the same destructive path that is represented by adoption. By this I mean to say that it becomes obvious at some point when someone has studied the “talking points” of a discussion and thinks they have come up with the “correct answer” that will allow them to do what it is that they want to do while simultaneously ignoring the basic gist of the argument, as well as the negative fallout thereof. If I realize the mistake I make in a logic problem after I am finished solving it, and correct it, this is very different from cheating before I begin working on it. A more honest approach, as offensive as it might be, would be that of horrifying web sites like this one: “Homestudy Boot Camp“. Anyone who is attuned to this as a tactic is thus left completely befuddled and nonplussed by the abject hypocrisy and double-dealing of such a statement, as in this reply, which is attempting to show some kind of empathy, but for pain that she is directly the cause of. It’s like a biologist feigning pity for the insects he skewers in a display case; it’s like the famous Walrus and Carpenter from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, crying over the oysters they led out of their homes and plan to consume. These are the tears of a very dangerous crocodile; this is stacking the deck; this is gaming the system; this is an Orwellian inversion bordering on propaganda. There’s work for you in the Democratic Party if you should want it. It is very telling that you are willing to put into question the relationship of a child to her parents and family, require that a mother make a decision that no mother should have to make, and remove said child from her community, all based on your seeming needs that you feel compelled to blog about and present in the public realm. How many people is that who are directly effected by your decision? Three at minimum? Three lives, not counting the extended family and community? Let’s say, five. Or ten. Do you really care? Do you not see the inherent imbalance here? To understand is that you are able to do this because systemically, everything is in your favor. You win. It’s all yours. You even get to crow about it, unlike the Voiceless who are the target of your machinations. 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:54 What if I make every effort to help my child through their grief? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/what-if-i-make... The child’s family? They do not have the same access to health care, or to legal support, or to agencies willing to bend over backwards for them. If they did, then the child probably would not be given up in the first place. Shouldn’t it be an even playing field for such a momentous decision? For such a life-changing process? Shouldn’t you avoid taking advantage of an unfair system? If indeed you decide to continue, given the odds against this child and her family, and the complete unfairness of the whole exercise, what does this say about you? About your sense of justice, and empathy; about your worldview? Would you really carpet the entrance ramp to a slaughterhouse and call this charitable? Whom are you trying to save exactly? At what point do you realize that your needs should probably come last? Finally, what gives you the right? References: The Essential Works of Anarchism, by Marshall S. Shatz. Social Anarchism, by Giovanni Baldelli. Debate Tactic: This is one form of “backlash”; trying to appease those making the argument against their very action, and we need be wary of it. I am drawn here to the quotation of Josiah Warren, a historical figure of American anarchism, who stated in the above referenced title: No body talks of the principles of Arithmetic having failed: if results disappoint the operator, he attributes it to some mistake of his own; because he knows that Arithmetical laws never fail. The blunder of [the] critic [of our movement] is in not knowing that our enterprise is not based on human inventions, but on Natural Laws, that are as old as the creation; and yet so new to most people’s comprehension that the whole subject appears to them at first like a dream. Adoption is a “human invention” that supporters attempt to make into a “principle of Arithmetic” and a “Natural Law”. It is our duty to show how horribly failed this equation is. Giovanni Baldelli (link above) sums it up for us: “Imperialism, however, is not a token of ethics but a characteristic of power. Ethics does not advise the enslavement or elimination of competitors. A monopoly is always bad, and a monopoly of goodness is worse than a monopoly of evil.” About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged anarchism, Communalism, Giovanni Baldelli, grief, Individualism. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Responses to What if I make ever y effort to help my child through their grief? Dana says: November 18, 2013 at 7:41 pm Oh, there’s work in the Republican Party too, and then some. Sheesh. 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:54 What if I make every effort to help my child through their grief? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/what-if-i-make... Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 18, 2013 at 8:15 pm Agreed. :-) My point is more that we “expect” this from one party, and perhaps not the other. That both do the same thing means that one is on some level more “honest”, and the other more “duplicitous”. Malcolm X referred to this as the difference between the wolves he knew to be wolves, and the “smiling foxes” who pretended to be friends. eagoodlife says: November 19, 2013 at 4:26 am Reblogged this on The Life Of Von and commented: Speaks for itself! What more is there to say? Just read…. Reply lara/trace says: November 19, 2013 at 5:20 am This is brilliant Daniel, so I shared a link at American Indian Adoptees blog. Reply mad momma moogacat says: November 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm This comment could have been made by me at a certain point after our adoption, though I readily admit I was more clueless than this poster about the damage I was inflicting by adopting at the time we adopted. It’s embarassing to read those words knowing I could have spoken them. I know I can’t turn back time, but with what I understand now I can’t participate further in such a flawed institution by adopting again. The things I can do? I can try to limit the damage I’ve done (1) by speaking out about the institutional wrongs being perpetrated in a macro sense; and (2) in our micro situation preparing my daughter the best I can for what life holds for her in light of what I and the international adoption system have done to her. And totally agreed on the Malcolm X quote. I often speak of this concept with relation to US politics–the racists, sexists, homophobes, imperialists etc. of the Tea Party Republicans are easy to see and deal with. It’s the more subtle racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ, pro-imperialism sentiments among alleged progressives that are much more dangerous and harder to reach and eradicate. Reply Andrea says: November 19, 2015 at 7:56 am It’s like people using the term “family preservation” as if it’s wonderful and altruistic. In fact family preservation wouldn’t exist without adoption. It should be the default, not something the supposedly enlightened promote to make themselves look good. Reply 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:54 What if I make every effort to help my child through their grief? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/what-if-i-make... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:54 Is there a difference between an adopted and a “Western” child? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/is-there-a-diffe... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. I s t h e re a d i ! e re n c e b e t w e e n a n a d o p t e d a n d a “ We s t e r n ” c h i l d ? Posted on November 19, 2013 This is the 19th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was emailed to Counter Punch online, in response to an article by Dave Lindorff (“David Brooks’ White Guy Nightmare”) that tangentially mentions adoption: I might add, as the parent of a son adopted in China, that there is for me, and for any adoptive parent, absolutely no difference in terms of thoughts of my own posterity, between my hopes and fears and dreams for my biological daughter and my adoptive son. In fact, if for some reason the entire population of North America and Europe were to suddenly be rendered sterile, the single most predictable result would be a huge surge in adoptions from other regions of the globe that had been sheltered from the solar flare. (And despite what the “birthers” are implying, those adoptive children would be every bit as “Western” when they grew up as biological offspring would have been.) Answer: I realize there is no Letters to the Editor section, but I felt the need to write and say that I was a bit taken aback by the recent article critiquing a David Brooks editorial concerning the possibility of the entire “Western” world being rendered sterile entitled: “David Brooks’ White Guy Nightmare”. Mr. Brooks is of course guilty of assuming that Western culture is in danger (yet again) of not surviving; to do so requires that he maintain the fictions of civilization, modernity, and objectification of the subaltern that are the hallmark of imperial thought as we experience it today and as your web site documents and exposes so well. Unfortunately, in arguing his point, the author ends up painting a picture that is just as arrogant and “FirstWorldist” if you will in terms of its presumptions as to what it means to be adopted from the “nether” regions of the planet. He seems to be stating that the “First-World” has the right to abscond with children based on its needs; that this is its purview and its privilege. This, however, ignores the fact that the conditions of these countries are a direct result of the political and economic excesses of so-called modern civilization in the first place. He also makes the naïve mistake of assuming that internationally adopted children are to be considered just as “Western” as anyone else in the “West”. For those of us who grew up far from our lands of birth, the experience of coming into adulthood in an AngloSaxon culture is anything but this seeming given, and it is fair to say that we are seen as anything but “Western” (reference Obama’s “birthers” here, as well as the experience of most minority groups within the United States, including those now seen as “white”). We are considered “Western” only when we “know our role”, removing ourselves from any cultural or other allegiance to the places whence we come. This, however, leaves us stranded in the paradoxical non-place of attempting at all costs to fit into a dominant culture, while at the same time it estranges us from our diaspora communities within this culture, as well as from our original homelands. In this regard, we have more in common with the dispossessed globally speaking than we do with the minority bourgeois class we are adopted into and which we are expected to imitate as de facto “Westerners”. 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 Is there a difference between an adopted and a “Western” child? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/is-there-a-diffe... The reminder of our ostracism comes every time we are asked, “Where are you from?”; every time we are told, “Love it or leave it”; every time it is assumed we don’t speak English; every time we are stopped at the airport on arrival and demanded, “Who was the petitioner for your naturalization?” (the suggested example for me was “you know, the woman you married to get into the country”) or “How did you obtain your citizenship?”; every time we receive the “SSSS” stamp on our boarding pass; every time we are put in what I call the “brown people party” at the back of a plane on a domestic flight, or in the “seeming Muslim and male” line of interrogation when passing through border control. Perhaps it can be argued that I grew up “Westernized”, but since my return to my native Lebanon, I’ve found in this place a resonance with how I see things, feel things, sense things, on levels too complicated to get into here. I’m slowly shedding the burden of imposed and affected identities and starting from scratch, and it is a hugely liberating experience (and, admittedly, an excrutiatingly painful one). Much of my effort now is concentrated on regaining my nationality, and hopefully paving the way for other adoptees to do the same. I am also working to convince local opinion as to the intrinsic value of its children remaining in their place of origin. I’ve written an article that appeared in the local newspaper al-Akhbar to this effect. What I would like Counter Punch and the author to consider is that the “huge surge in adoptions” alluded to in the article would not in fact happen because many of us have become activated in our homelands in an effort to stop the human trafficking that we genteelly refer to in this day and age as “adoption”. By this I mean to say that the article does not ascribe any agency to the source countries of the global south, which is a statement I would more likely imagine from the pen of David Brooks. This is a grievous oversight. I think deep down we can all admit that the practice of adoption is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. Further, it has reached a crisis situation in which the efforts to market it and convince the world of its beneficence is meeting up with a greater and growing awareness of and resistance to the toll it has taken on human populations not just in terms of children and their psyches, but in terms of their families and communities far outside the mediated reality of the “West”. It’s time to admit that Pearl S. Buck was just as much a cheerleader for U.S. imperialism, conversion, and the nuclear family via adoption as David Brooks is in this article being critiqued. For the familial aspects of adoption and the arguments in support of them, as emotional and personal as they might be, nonetheless ignore the political and economic injustices that result in so-called “orphans” and their displacement from their lands of birth, their families, their cultures, and their local communities. I find it interesting that this should appear on your web site when previously you have published articles that speak from this point of view, namely the article entitled: “Celebrity Colonialism in Africa”. It is high time that adoption be called out for what it is, and that the battle to end adoption in this world be seen as part of the greater struggle for human rights and dignity for all on the planet, even if this be only maintained as a “utopian goal”. Anything other than this goal is a recipe for failure. Many of us adopted from the opposite side of the globe have lived a “White Guy Nightmare” of the title of this piece all of our lives, but perhaps not in the same way implied. It is distressing, however, to see it emphasized in places such as your online magazine that we have long considered safe havens. References: 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 Is there a difference between an adopted and a “Western” child? ... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/is-there-a-diffe... Race, Nation, Class, by Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. Debate Tactic: This touches back on what was posted yesterday, in terms of those who consider themselves politically progressive, or “enlightened”, yet who place adoption in a category defined by these concepts. To understand is that such politics reflect a luxury and privilege of those who insist on maintaining a class position that distances them from those effected by their policies and decisions. In a private email response, the author dismissed my rebuttal, saying the child temporarily in his care lived a “multicultural” lifestyle with friends of “all races”. That someone writing for Counter Punch cannot see that diversity should also mean of class and not just race is deeply distressing. This “cosmopolitan” mentality is a function of neo-liberal globalization, and taking advantage of this to enlarge one’s family while condemning it at the same time is a great hypocrisy that need be called out. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoption, cosmopolitanism, Counter Punch, David Brooks, global South, Lebanon, multiculturalism, racism, West. Bookmark the permalink. 2 R e s p o n s e s t o I s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a n a d o p t e d a n d a “ We s t e r n ” c h i l d ? Marion McMillan says: November 19, 2013 at 10:48 pm ‘Till awe the seas gang dry, and the rocks melt with the sun, Daniel Ibn Zayd, you will touch the hearts of mums, the son lost, who has now come HOME. There is a tapestry in the soul of those seared by adoption, woven by the most beautiful threads of life, from the darkest to the brightest, telling the story of roots, belonging, causing you to soar, and dance on the rainbow of life, God grant you Daniel, to always see that rainbow, and oft dance on its beautiful bow. Once again Daniel,thank you for your article above, as a mother of loss to adoption, to read Daniel, of you, a son of loss to adoption, that has found his way home to where HE BELONGS, is a priceless gift to us mums. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 26, 2013 at 4:20 pm Thank you for your beautiful words, Marion! I have faith in humanity as long as there is a fighting spirit in Alba! D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 Why don’t more people adopt? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/why-dont-mor... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h y d o n ’t m o re p e o p l e ! a d o p t ? Posted on November 20, 2013 This is the 20th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted to Psychology Today‘s web site, in response to an article that focuses on the pitfalls of adoption that concern, among other things, its cost: Cost is a significant barrier for many families that would like to adopt. According to adoption.com, “Adopting from the U.S. foster care system is generally the least expensive type of adoption, usually involving little or no cost, and states often provide subsidies to adoptive parents…Agency and private adoptions can range from $5,000 to $40,000 or more depending on a variety of factors including services provided, travel expenses, birthmother expenses, requirements in the state, and other factors. International adoptions can range from $7,000 to $30,000.” Answer: The time has come to shift the focus of adoption away from the adoptive parents and their supposed needs, backed up as they are by social, medical, and legal systems, the government in the form of rebates and tax incentives, the entire spectrum of media (like this magazine), and the general cultural norms that not only support adoption in all of its forms, but actively seek to quiet any resistance to this, the mythology of the adoption discourse. For there are many others involved in the story, and no matter how adoptive parents may try to include them as part of their “plan”—using offensive terms such as “birthmother” and “triad” and “constellation” and “those touched by adoption”—or justify what they are doing in any way, the sad fact is that adoption violently intrudes on a family, on a community, and on a culture. Their losses are not considered valid because these are the abject masses who exist primarily to work, slave, and endure their condition such that the dominant classes of the “First World” can maintain their lifestyles and a standard of living that could never be extended to the rest of the planet equally. To complain about the price of adopting is therefore a disgusting non-acknowledgment of the trafficking that is taking place. I fail to understand how prospective (such an appropriate term) adoptive parents are unable to find empathy for those who are asked to give up what is most precious to them. The manifestation of this selfishness in “dear birthmother” web sites and the mediation of young children on the web as if they are ethnically evocative dress-up dolls is a shameful condemnation of a consumerist culture with no sense of what is appropriate, what is valid expression, what is beneficent action, indeed what is selfless charity. Vultures and hyenas have more sympathy and candor than this. Adoption is based in the leveraging of inequality by a dominant class in order to procure children for those who have none, from those who ideally would keep their children except for circumstances that are a direct result of this class difference to begin with. So this class of adopters doesn’t get to have an objective position removed from the fray, when the class position that allows them to adopt creates the problem they are trying to “help” with in the 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 Why don’t more people adopt? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/why-dont-mor... first place. On the international level, this same class is the one that enables, funds, equips, provides for, and sustains economic and political wars around the world that are a direct cause of the very “orphans” that they claim to “save” by adopting them. This is like a pyromaniac firefighter complaining about his work, sighing: “Someone’s gotta do it”. And the culture pats him on the back and congratulates him for his efforts. This is twisted and immoral, and cannot go on. Adoptive parents wish to fill a “hole” in their lives. In so doing, they create multiple holes in many peoples’ hearts much less lives, and consider this somehow fair. As a magazine supposedly based in uncovering the psychological reasons for our behavior, please, at long last, explain to me how this is in any way valid? References: On the false equality of the adoption “triad”, by Daniel Ibn Zayd. Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD): the alienation and resistance of the adoptee, by Transracial Eyes. On “radical psychology” and adoption, by Daniel Ibn Zayd Debate Tactic: The psychology/psychiatry wings of the dominant discourse are only worthy of particular mistrust. The question remains why there is no internal dissent within such ranks; alternative models of mental health that do not just assume the validity of the dominant culture. As such, they are simply aiders and abettors; co-conspirators, and need to be challenged as such. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoption cost, psychiatry, Psychology, trafficking. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Responses to Why don’t more people adopt? Brent Snavely says: November 20, 2013 at 1:50 pm I wonder what effect(s) $5-40K, or $7-30K, plus all the “lifetime installment payments”, might have were it spread across the communities and families of origin… Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 28, 2013 at 5:52 pm It would radically change the power differential on the planet. Which is why it won’t happen. Brent Snavely says: November 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 Why don’t more people adopt? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/why-dont-mor... Ahh, yes, the power of Privilege and the corrupting power of Power, all wrapped within an extremely violent set of actions and inactions. Gina Bailey says: November 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm I think we all know the answer to your question—–Wish everyone would think and DO as such—— Reply everyoneactdead says: November 21, 2013 at 12:51 am What people who complain about cost don’t realize is that without the price tag, the corruption and manipulation would not occur because there’d be no incentive, and there would ultimately be far fewer adoptions. Newborn and infant adoption would be practically unheard of. That high price tag is the reason anyone is working hard to procure a child. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:55 What can adoptive parents do to change things? | Daniel Drenna... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/what-can-adopt... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h a t c a n a d o p t i v e p a re n t s d o t o c h a n g e ! t h i n g s ? Posted on November 21, 2013 This is the 21st question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following reply was posted to a Yahoo! support group for international adoptees, in response to an adoptive parent’s reply to some articles written by international adoptees: This extremely well written article makes me feel like a pariah. Hard to read from the AP viewpoint, but impossible to argue against. I can take the personal out of it and say, “Yes! There must be changes in the system.” But I can’t really see a coalition of adoptive parents being able to get behind these truths. Answer: By definition, a “pariah” is someone outcast for reasons considered essential to that person, like a lower caste member in India (to get to the root of the word). To state that one feels like a “pariah” is to buy into this notion of something inherent and unchangeable, which allows in turn for a kind of passive and tacit acceptance of the status quo, which I sense in your words, and which I would like to challenge. For this to me is the biggest problem, as [the adoptees] state so well here: You don’t get to assume this position, given your place in society. At the same time, to accept this class entitlement, or the idea that one is unable to step down from one’s class position, or that one can make no change in one’s life in order to better the common good is, in and of itself, the problem. Because we know this is not true. These are all changeable, malleable, mutable aspects of our lives; they are affected and are not shared by all; they are not “essential” to us. This is given stark proof by those of us who have returned to our lands of birth; or who otherwise challenge the mythologies of adoption, or who are striving to cast off other affected identity markers. Because if it can be argued that there are government policies that are inherent to a given cultural outlook that in fact do much to create the poverty, the wars, the conditions that have always resulted in so-called orphans, and one chooses to apply Band-aid solutions to these symptoms and not the disease, then one is complicit in those policies. If it can be argued that it is a non-relative cultural outlook that allows for the imposition of the notion of nuclear family over those cultures that are more communally based, and one decides that individual happiness is more important than the happiness of all, that “nuclear family” is more important than “community”, then one is complicit in the destruction of the community that one is adopting from. If it can be argued that it is a power differential between those of different classes, walks of life, and living conditions; that an inherent inequality is the engine that drives adoption on all levels and at great profit; that the willful leveraging of this differential economically, politically, and culturally has nothing to do with family creation 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:55 What can adoptive parents do to change things? | Daniel Drenna... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/what-can-adopt... but everything to do with exploitation and extraction of profit; that in this can be seen the destruction of cultures that do not echo the dominant and prevailing one in a direct correlation with the historical approach to the “Third World” by the “First”, with the result being that one comes to the conclusion that “nothing can be done”, then one is complicit in this status quo that has wrought nothing but destruction worldwide. Given our life experiences, I doubt highly that it was our desire to make anyone feel like a “pariah”. We are stating a case that has precedent in James Baldwin, Frantz Fanon, Audre Lorde, Malcolm X, and more recently Dorothy Roberts, Mike Davis, Edward Said (among many many others), and which is not about drawing more lines, but establishing a new coalition, based in human rights, and human dignity. Inherent to this argument if you will is a desire to change the status quo, yes, but an understanding too that to go up against the status quo—the very economic and political systems that are the basis for inequality in the world—is more of a challenge than an accusation. A challenge assumes equality of starting point based on common goals; an accusation assumes the opposite. And thus to accept the basic tenets presented in this article is the first step in making changes in one’s life, in one’s family, in one’s community, town, state, country, region, world. For each decision concerning everything we do can be framed within a notion of equality, or based on the premise of whether it comes at the expense of someone else. And having previously adopted does not “opt one out” of this. A coalition of adoptive parents with adopted children, to me, is one of the most logical and one of the most powerful coalitions that might come from understanding these words. It’s a decision to be made between passivism and activism. We are acculturated to be passivist, we have been systematized and cajoled and placated by a worldview that presents itself as a Whole Truth. As adoptive parents of children from outside of this worldview, or indeed targeted by this worldview, you know better, and this is your first major step. The second major step is being here, and listening to these words. The third major step will be to feel empowered by what you already have, not disempowered by what you have done, and from there, to act. Whether tentatively or decisively, but to act all the same. There is no audience, or spectator remove. We are all players on the same stage. And however we might deem such judgment, we shall be judged based on our actions. References: No Name in the Street, by James Baldwin. A Dying Colonialism, by Frantz Fanon. On Afro-American History, by Malcolm X. The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein. In Praise of Barbarians, by Mike Davis. Culture and Imperialism, by Edward Said. Debate Tactic: I have been in contact with one adoptive family that made the socially speaking excruciating 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:55 What can adoptive parents do to change things? | Daniel Drenna... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/what-can-adopt... decision to move to the neighborhood of the children they adopted from foster care in an effort to have them be closer to their family and originating culture. This decision made of them outsiders; it made a huge change in the schooling of their children; it radically altered their lives. That adoptive parents might be horrified by this idea, but yet have absolutely no problem perpetrating such change on a child in the other direction, reveals in spades the power differential we are talking about here. To claim “there is nothing we can do” is thus a mind-boggling bald-faced lie, and an insult to those who truly understand what the word “pariah” means on a day-to-day basis. To remember is that those who will not willingly step down from their class position will, one day, be unwillingly stepped down from it against their will, one way or another. The game we play is thinking we can “out-wait” this long overdue Correction. Now, the bill has come due. And the time has come to collect accounts. In the words of a Russian proverb: “Injustice is like having an eye gouged out, but looking away is losing both eyes.” Take the personal out of it. Put the iPad down. And then activate yourself. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged action, activism, adoptive parents, Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, Hannah Arendt, inaction, injustice, Malcolm X, Mike Davis, Naomi Klein, passivism. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Responses to What can adoptive parents do to change! things? 我是收养 says: November 23, 2013 at 8:52 am A coalition of adoptive parents with adopted children, to me, is one of the most logical and one of the most powerful coalitions that might come from understanding these words: Yes, yes, yes! Like every other movement in which an oppressed group of people were granted rights, (key figures may have been of the marginalized group) but help from the dominant class was needed. Since so much of the current adoption system is adoptive parent centric, their voices are a powerful source for change. Additionally, what a beautiful gift for an adoptive parent to give to an adopted child. With adoption, parents agree to unconditionally love and support this child and to walk with them through life. Walking next to adoptees in the activist movement is a way of showing adoptees continued support, care, and a desire to understand this complex issue. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 28, 2013 at 5:50 pm There’s so much that can tie in here. What if adoptive parents also decried the inequality in the American public school system? I think Vermont is the only state, for example, which apportions property tax revenue to all districts state-wide equally. What if they were to acknowledge the agro-industry that brings food to their table, keeping millions enslaved, and radically altering the environment? It wasn’t so long ago that César Chavez was boycotting grapes, for example. If I can remember those days, then certainly adoptive parents my age can as well. The power is literally in their hands as a class and as a community. Choosing not to act is a criminal action on their part. dmdezigns says: January 14, 2014 at 2:09 pm 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:55 What can adoptive parents do to change things? | Daniel Drenna... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/what-can-adopt... As I’ve learned more, I realize how much as an AP I don’t get. How much I didn’t understand before. I can’t change what has already happened, but by listening to the voices of adoptees, I can begin to empathize, I can accept, and I can begin to change my corner of the world. While a coalition of APs could potentially make an impact, I’m bothered by the idea that we need a coalition to start. Why not instead begin by joining our voices to adoptees arguing for change and reform? Why not instead now join the fight to unseal OBCs? Why not instead look at our own adoptions and ask the very hard question of what could have preserved this family? In our son’s case, it’s 2 fold. It was drug use and poverty. I can’t do anything about the drug use. That affects people in all walks of society. But I can start to work for better resources and safety nets for those in poverty. I can contribute to organizations that help those in poverty and especially those that work for family preservation. I think that sometimes it seems to take so long to get from the view of maybe this isn’t right to what can I do. I know your post was more on the thought processes and changing those. But some people are truly clueless and could benefit from more concrete examples. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:55 What do you think of expatriate adoptions? | Daniel Drennan E... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/what-do-you-t... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. What do you think of expatriate!adoptions? Posted on November 22, 2013 This is the 22nd question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question was posted to Transracial Eyes: How do you feel about white Europeans and Americans living in countries abroad (like in Southeast Asia/China/Africa/Haiti) and adopting children there “domestically”? Answer: The question is problematic from the outset, making the common but patently false assumption as it does that adoption is culturally universal. The question is attempting to bypass one of the complaints of adoptees, that a child’s culture is taken away from them. The person asking is taking a geographic view of culture, and not a political/economic one, and this is invalid. To explain: I have returned to Lebanon and have been living here for almost ten years. The first two years I was here were uncomfortably spent among those who made an easy transition for me from New York–class-wise, this was the expatriate community. I wasn’t happy with this at all; this wasn’t the reason I came back, to hang out with people I could just as easily hang out with back in New York (but wouldn’t have)—especially when they decided to refer to me as “Li’l Orphan Danny”. After those first years, I moved to a more marginal community far enough away from the university that I could not get away with speaking English or French. To learn the local language, I started hanging out every night on the corner, as is the practice in my neighborhood. This is how things work where I live now: doors are open, and one’s life merges with the neighborhood, public and private, inside and outside. This challenged fundamentally every aspect of my acculturation as a “First Worlder”. It echoed the discomfort I felt living in France when I didn’t know how to make such a transition. This wasn’t easy, by any stretch of the imagination. My trip to university each day was thus like traveling between two worlds. It reminds me of when I was teaching both at NYU and City College: worlds apart, though physically not that far away. And whereas someone who goes to NYU can say “I am a New Yorker” and someone up in Harlem can say “I am a New Yorker” (geographically speaking), these worlds are still very different, and still removed one from the other (politically and economically speaking). Expats excel in keeping such distances intact, while invading the geographic space. They maintain their world, their language, their ways, and like every colonized space historically speaking, the city morphs and changes to make room for them. It is an imposed and imposing life they lead. It changes the local culture for the worse by creating dependence on the invading group. Their children go to private schools, and they live a private life away from the “local culture” if you will, which still must cater to them. This is a microcosm of “First World” living, which does the same thing on the global scale. 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:56 What do you think of expatriate adoptions? | Daniel Drennan E... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/what-do-you-t... So for me, should one of them “adopt” a child here and stay here or if one of them should “adopt” a child here and return to the States or Europe, it is exactly the same thing. It is the same colonial/comprador class, and the child will still be reared away from the majority of the population, will be educated with peers of his or her class, and will work within the peculiar trades of the foreign contingents here: business, NGOs, academia—all markers of continuing colonization. This is where definitions of space on a purely geographical level fail us. In an article I wrote for Culture Critique concerning these margins entitled “Traversing Meanings: Remapping East and West”, I define this space thus: I will therefore define my use of the concepts West and Western to mean the dominant powers to whom belong the hegemonic or dominant discourses of maintenance of power structures, and including the globalized (or globalizing) East following in these footsteps, as well as their compradors and class representatives found in every country of the so-called developing world. This is opposed to the use of the term East, which will be employed to describe economically dominated populations, often referred to in the past as the Global South, the Third (and Fourth) Worlds, and the periphery of the centers or core of Capital, and including their class representatives working (not living) within the First World, or in the West. The point is to differentiate between geographic and economic space(s), to reflect the mixing of these populations, as well as their potential for action across politically defined entities such as national, confederated, or economic borders as well as ethnic, religious, or other identifying lines; also to render a bit vaguer what has often been a binary distinction used predominantly in a pejorative way. What this means is that someone physically in the “East”, shall we say, can still be culturally, politically, economically, etc., “Western”. Their children will be “Westernized”, will “slum it” in terms of the locale’s culture just like the expats do; will grow up with concepts of family structure, individual identity, community, and faith very different than if they had grown up within their actual place and among their true family and community. And so the answer is an emphatic no: A “Westerner” in the “East”, or a “First Worlder” in the “Third World” does not make adoption any more palatable, or justifiable. It is, in fact, representative of everything that makes adoption execrable, heinous, and unjust; it maps for us adoption as yet another arm of exploitation and colonialism; it reveals those who have the luxury and privilege to “displace” themselves as well as those unwillingly displaced by them; and the attempt to make it more culturally “legit” fails on all counts. References: The Winona LaDuke Reader, by Winona LaDuke. The Karma of Brown Folk, by Vijay Prashad. Racist America, by Joe R. Feagin. The Colonizer’s Model of the World, by J. M. Blaut. 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:56 What do you think of expatriate adoptions? | Daniel Drennan E... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/what-do-you-t... Debate Tactic: The larger point to make here is that this question is an attempt to find a “chink in the armor” and exploit it; it is not truly looking for an answer, but is designed to undermine the idea that we are “removed” from our culture. Answering it requires us to redefine the “distances” that separate us from our family, our place, and our forebears. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged Classism, Expatriates, racism. Bookmark the permalink. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. D o e s n ’t i t s a y t o a d o p t i n t h e ! B i b l e ? Posted on November 23, 2013 This is the 23rd question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question shows up in various forms, often as a triumphant rhetorical question. Are there not examples of adoption in the Bible? Are we not all adopted into the “family” of God as Christians? Answer: In light of the evangelical push for adoption and its ramifications in supply countries, it becomes important to point out something on the purely linguistic level concerning languages of the Bible and their translation. First we must understand that language is not neutral; it reflects a given culture in terms of worldview and family structure. It “allows” for some thoughts and actions, and “disallows” others. In learning other languages we see the limitations of our mother tongue, and how our thoughts, actions, and very lives are shaped and conform to a given mindset that comes to us through our shared communication. I returned to my birth country of Lebanon ten years ago, and have been researching my adoption through a Catholic charitable organization since then. Learning Arabic, and reading Qur’an in Arabic, has given me an idea of what Aramaic might have been like in a purely conceptual sense, since both of them are Semitic languages of the same region. Furthermore, Levantine Arabic differs from Standard Arabic in its use of Aramaic and Syriac words, likewise Semitic tongues that are still actively spoken. Given this greater vocabulary, I can state that the word used for the modern-day idea of “adoption” is a conceptual back formation from the English or the French since it also carries the meaning similar to the English “to start using [something]”, as in “cell phone adoption”. In order to examine the concept of adoption linguistically speaking, it will be helpful to see how it is used in both current and historical usage. Along these lines, the word I use in Modern Standard Arabic to describe myself–mutabanna (vaguely, “en-soned”)—is not the same word translated in the Qur’an as “adopted”. There are in fact two words used in the Qur’an that are both usually translated into English as “adopted”. In doing so, the original cultural context is lost and modernized in one fell swoop, for the sake of convenience and not understanding. The first word so translated in this way—itakhadha—means “to take in [someone]”. From the story of Joseph (peace upon him) it reads thus: “so that we might take him in or find some use for him”, which is more like acquiring a boy servant than it is adopting a child. Meaning in the Semitic languages is carried by consonantal roots of usually three letters, and there is resonance between the different languages. For example, the root S-H-f which is the basis of words having to do with writing in Ethiopia’s Amharic, for example, resonates in Arabic in words such as “press” and “journalist”. And so given the close link of consonantal roots among the languages of the era—reflecting shared ideas and a common lifesense— it is a far stretch to give a modern meaning to a Biblical translation which is all the more tainted by the absence of an original text. By this I mean to say that linguistically speaking, the act of translation carries forward the tropes 1 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... of the language of translation, and its contexts and prejudices, not necessarily the original language; furthermore this political and economic usage is then formalized theologically speaking. In the case of itakhadha, we can see the English use of “adoption” straying from its original meaning, coming to represent a current familial usage from a primarily object-based one, especially since we know that “adoption” conceptually within the Anglo-Saxon tradition was about indentured servitude, and not family creation. This is made obvious for me locally by the fact that the use of this word only has currency within a certain bourgeois class of the population in Lebanon, which lives closer to a globalized and globalizing Anglo-Saxon model than anything locally relevant culturally speaking. For everyone else on this “street” level I cannot say “mutabanna”, I have to state that I was an “orphan” (yatiim), or that I was “in an “orphanage” (dar al-‘aytam), and that I was “taken in” by a family overseas. The linguistic concept of “Western”, modern-day adoption is absent from the language. The main point still holds true: The modern-day notion of adoption, as practiced in primarily “First-World”, capitalist nations, has no precursor from Biblical times that would allow the imposition of this more-current notion on Biblical readings or texts—it’s current use is a fabrication of modern-day needs and conceits. It thus becomes disturbing the lengths to which current interpreters of the Bible will go to twist the language and the stories to suit their purposes, such as a recent example found in Cruciform Press’s Reclaiming Adoption. Sadly, the precedent here is similar to the previous use of Biblical verse to justify slavery, and the divine right of kings, among other traditions and actions that we dismiss today. Nonetheless we can point to the evangelical revival of such tropes, such as slavery disgustingly recategorized as a salvational experience for slaves. Comparatively speaking, the Qur’an becomes rather enlightening in this regard, if only because its language is unchanged and untranslated since its inception. This gives us insight into the culture and practices of the time of its writing. Readings of the Qur’an reveal that its supreme invocation concerning orphans—representing the most vulnerable members of society—is that they be taken care of, that they remain within their community, that their filiation remain intact, that the community preserve their property until they should be of age to make use of it. This is very much in line with the given social fabric of the countries of this region, despite it being stretched to the breaking point by globalization and other foreign pressures. This also reflects, interestingly enough, what is found to be most distressing to adult adoptees concerning their own adoptions, namely, removal from family and community, and absence of filiation. This lack locally of a concept of nuclear family, or anything outside of what is a given here—extended family and communal solidarity—explains the reaction of most of those who hear my story from this perspective: They apologize that I was removed from my family, my place, my land. The term they use to express this—haram— means colloquially “that’s too bad” but literally means “that’s a shame/forbidden”. They sympathize, because historically and culturally the notion of “adoption” or “guardianship” is about the importance of place, as well as a family or group’s ties to that place. This is a welcome relief from the “you were chosen”, or “you are lucky” that most of us grew up hearing. Furthermore, it explains why these tropes of being “chosen” or “lucky” are rather misleadingly projected onto Biblical accounts, ignoring the historical context of the Book and its cultural underpinnings. For example, in many of these modern-day accounts, there is a focus on metaphorical stories such as the Prodigal Son, which make reaching linguistic efforts to link this “son” to all of us as “God’s children”. Yet Paul, for example, equally refers to himself as a “slave of Jesus Christ (puh)”, yet this isn’t taken as literally as the “adopted” trope, for obvious reasons; no one joyfully refers to themselves as a “slave” of God. More apparent are the stories that are 2 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... also cited by such proselytizers, namely those of the prophets Joseph and Moses (put) and their “adoption” by others. As usual, this is done without context, focusing only on the act itself—they are the fortunate chosen ones. But the context is much more revealing, both in the Bible as well as in the Qur’an, since their re-unification with their true families is the central focus of both stories. As such, these justifying claims have no basis whatsoever. Furthermore, and likewise ignored by adoption revivalists, is that each and every invocation concerning the “fatherless” in the Bible also contains within the same passage a call to care for widows and others who are unable to sustain themselves. Would not a logical conclusion of this be that the expectant mother—especially if she be single, or widowed—be afforded this same zealous care and protection? As opposed to being preyed upon, condemned, and ostracized? The question remains: How do you single out the word “orphan” from that sentence from millennia ago, and then use it in its modern-day definition ignoring its context? The concept that the orphan should be removed from a given community, both literally in terms of the Bible and on the ground, only reveals the moral bankruptcy of those whose primary concern is, in fact, their own nuclear family, their own salvation that might come at the expense of others, as well as what is left unsaid in these works: the desired conversion of the heathen multitudes, a neo-colonialism writ large. This is nowhere more clear than here in Lebanon, where the past sordid history of children trafficked from the nether regions of the country and beyond, often via missionary intrusion, is starting to come to light. By my observations into paperwork in my orphanage, I can safely say that a full 40 to 50 percent of infants circulating through its halls were from non-Christian families (including myself). Based on stories of reunion here, as well as the quite different Islamic concept of the orphanage, it is fair to say that many of the parents of these children had no idea that they would never see their infants again. Yet again missionary disdain for the religion of these children and their families is a prime motivator in their being targeted for adoption/conversion in the first place. This targeted action, based in theological precepts, defines a particular kind of hypocrisy that is equally condemned in the Holy Writs. This brings us back to the originating efforts of those such as Pearl S. Buck who saw the world through this particularly obnoxious lens of colonialism, conversion, oppression, and universalism. Given that this same Anglo-Saxon/Calvinist culture has done nothing to alleviate poverty, racism, classism, and mono-culturalism on its own home front much less in the world at large, why should anyone believe that it truly desires to improve conditions elsewhere in the world? Given the history of the English attempts to destroy the clan-based familial structure of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, how else are we to interpret the efforts of grandscale adoption on the foreign communities it so targets? Can we really imagine a God who would allow his “children” to wage economic and political wars on others, and then claim some state of grace in adopting their children from them? How is this different from the Romans enslaving the children of the peoples they conquered, if we want a more relevant Biblical analogy? Here we see revealed the humanitarian imperialism that is a more fitting definition of adoption historically speaking. And they will ask thee about orphans. Say: “To improve their condition is best.” And if you share their life, they are your brethren: For God distinguishes between the spoiler and the ameliator. —The Cow, 2:219 In this ayat from the Qur’an, it might be possible to interpret support for our modern-day notion of adoption, but only if one espouses supremacist notions of certain cultures being better or more valid than others. The one translating cannot help but impose a viewpoint upon the target language, and by extension, the speakers of that language. Obviously, given the inability to read one ayat of the Qur’an out of the context of the whole, this is not a 3 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... valid interpretation. Furthermore, like most invocations, it is followed by a “tempering mode” which grounds that invocation in very particular ways. In this example, the point is to make family (communally speaking) of those without, and it comes with a warning that one who “despoils” (the greater good) is negatively viewed, while one who “makes better” (this greater good) is seen in a positive light. And so with the Bible, where it is possible to argue quite readily against adoption, since everyone that is claimed to have been “adopted”—coming back to the stories of Joseph and Moses—were, to re-iterate, adopted against the wishes of their parents; their removal and absence caused great anguish to their families; the mother of Moses and the father of Joseph are never defined as anything but the children’s true parents; the despair of loss of these parents is an elemental aspect of the story of these two men; and they did not start the true calling of their lives until they were returned to their rightful place, status, and people. This brings us to the second term used in the Qur’an that is usually translated as “adopted”—ad‘iya’a–which means “to be acknowledged or claimed by”, as a townsperson is acknowledged by his or her town or people. There is something quite tragically lost in this translation. This is especially poignant in the Qur’anic story of Joseph, who is sold to and “taken in” by first a wealthy lord and then the king but whose destiny is to be returned to his family (note the class differential here, and the categorical rejection of the so-called “better life”). The Qur’anic story of Moses is even more pointed, when it states that Moses was “taken in” by “those who were his enemy, and the enemy of his people”. In fact, we only see the removal of someone from their family in the Qur’an as an act of self-inflicted total alienation, since the only instances of such separation are used as metaphors for the punishment of removing oneself from the community of God—meaning, the result of one’s own sin. Thus you have the son of Noah drowned, the wife of Lot left behind, the progeny of Abraham as being “on their own” in terms of their deeds and the judgment thereof, etc. The point being made that such a separation—as punishment—takes precedent over the strong familial bond implied. How, therefore, could there be a willful separation of child from parent, condoned by God at that? Adoption revivalists need examine the contextual and linguistic nature of the Bible, and thus its link to a given culture from a given place and a given time. Furthermore, there is no innocence or objectivity in terms of supporting foreign policies of bombing, pillaging, and marauding, while simultaneously pretending to advocate for the “orphans” that result from such actions. Any examination of human trafficking in the world points a very accusatory finger and paints a very scathing picture of the majority of “First-World” nations that remain at the center of such trades and practices; this is where Biblical references might best be applied first—and then the “orphan” problem will most likely take care of itself. For such supposed saving grace is always resented by those on whom it is imposed against their will. And the reaped fruit of such crimes is just as bitter. As adoptees, we may have been “taken in” temporarily speaking, but our “acknowledgment of belonging” continues to point somewhere else. Here lies the tragedy of our displacement, and the root of our loss via dispossession and disinheritance. To ascribe religious justification to such an act remains—no matter how you parse it—the work of the ungodly. References: Man and Islam, by Ali Shari‘ati. Justice and Remembrance, by Reza Shah-Kazemi. 4 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Religion, edited by Robert L. Arrington and Mark Addis. Black Religion and Black Radicalism, by Gayraud S. Wilmore. Orphans of Islam, by Jamila Bargach. Debate Tactic: There is no greater inversion than the preposterous claim of a religious basis/divine reasoning for adoption. To understand is that the particular “brand” of Christianity that allows for rapacious capitalism, slavery, individual salvation over the commonweal, as well as adoption—namely, Calvinism—is not only the basis for the dominant mode of thinking concerning “orphans”, but also as concerns the poor, the destitute, the marginalized, and the needy. To argue against adoption is thus to equally argue for those most in need. This cannot be done in a way that focuses on symptoms and not on disease. This collectively destructive notion of the individual supreme over the community has its counterparts in other faiths, and these need be similarly called out. They cannot be seen as a validation of the dominant mode of Christianity, but should be seen instead as a poisonous spreading of a nihilistic worldview, and need be condemned in equal terms. On a final note, it is intriguing that the Arabic consonant root k-f-l—meaning to feed, support, provide for—has not only come to mean “guardianship” in a foster care/adoption sense, but is also used to describe the despicable act of “taking in” or “sponsoring” a domestic slave by the local bourgeoisie. And so we come full circle yet again. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoption, Arabic, Aramaic, Bible, colonialism, Joseph, missionarism, Moses, Qur'an, Semitic languages. Bookmark the permalink. 25 Responses to Doesn’t it say to adopt in the! Bible? Marley Greiner says: November 24, 2013 at 10:02 am Thanks much for this very helpful piece. Now you need to take on Richard Land who posted a preposterous piece in the Christian Post yesterday. This is my very favorite part. I actually had to re-read it a couple times. I’ve never seen THIS argument before: “Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have.” Women should put their babies up for adoption because God wants them all to have “a father” that he’s hand-picked for them. Land has out done himself this time. Sloppy writing. Does he want one man to be every baby’s father. I have a friend who’s parents were married 8 times each! She has over 120 full, half and step siblings. Seriously. Did God plan that? BTW, Tim Jacard, the baby dump king out on Long Island also facilitates adoptions. He has the moms put his name on all the birth certificates to get around the whole dad problem. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 24, 2013 at 10:31 am 5 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... The dilemma in countering such arguments is elevating their status from the completely absurd, reductive, and baseless to that of valid discussion. I know there is no discussion to be had in such quarters, and I’m frankly horrified by the way in which capitalism has turned Christianity into an affirmation of self, ego, and oppression, counter to all of its precepts. I realize too that I will be countered with the epithet of “heathen”, and so I leave this argument to others from within the movement, such as David Smolin. In any case, what a horrifying argument! He only ends up justifying everything I said, in a weird way. God help us. In any event, I posted a reply at the Christian Post web site. Feel free to “agree” and bump me up, before I’m lapidated with disagreements…. Pingback: Richard Land Sent to the Woodshed: Bastards have the wrong dad | The Daily Bastardette Sarasue says: November 26, 2013 at 4:44 pm Agreed. Bump complete. Yes, that land guy is a freaky extremist, but that doesn’t take away the fact if the cultural climate here in the US and elsewhere, your average man on the street considers adoption more than valid. Noble, even. This cultural norm is wearing me down, grinding my nerves to dust. I want to bounce a message via satellite off the moon in every language: ATTENTION PEOPLE OF EARTH–ADOPTION HAS CONSEQUENCES Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 28, 2013 at 5:46 pm Thank you. I can’t describe him as an extremist, myself. I see this as the basic cultural mode of American society, formed from a crucible historically speaking of self-defined persecution; Calvinist outlook; a competitive and Darwinian work ethic; a “frontier” slash-and-burn mentality; etc. That he is able to speak so easily and assuredly of such things is testament to how little it is seen to “ruffle feathers” as it were. It is a “cultural norm” that is designed to grind up and spit out. The only solution I can see is for those “in the grinder” to rise up and take over. Because I don’t think even a message on the moon (and it would only have to be in English) would change things. The rest of the planet, on the other hand, is very much aware of those consequences, and will not mind when the Grinder is shut down. just a mom... says: July 10, 2014 at 3:33 pm I am reluctant to post but…I think that the verses about Rachel in the jewish Torah deserve a mention too, though I am well aware of the possibly very sensitive nature of the implications. “Rachel is the spiritual matriarch of the Jewish People who are scattered throughout the world. Rachel personifies the cry for the spiritual and physical return of all Jews. Rachel is she who refuses to be comforted until the ingathering of her children is realized (see Jeremiah 31:14).” And then Hagar, the very problematic relation with Sarah (both to Hagar and her son), and the portrayal of Hagar as a wonderful and strong natural mother who loved her child deeply. Both the tears of Rachel and the cry of Ishmael (and perhaps even more the silent cry of his mother!) relate to the issue… at least, in my heart and mind. Moreover, their cries are the very cries that were and will be heard, as the Torah indicates more than once… Reply 6 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 10, 2014 at 4:17 pm I don’t refer to Rachel because the Biblical story speaks (to me) more about a perceived “right” to children, and even after successfully “providing” children via a surrogate, Rachel is not satisfied. The deceptions (the theft of the teraphim) of her story are disturbing along these lines, and she becomes more symbolic of a desire to establish a primacy of (her) family; again, this to me reads of the narcissism and selfishness often seen in adoptive parents. As to the modern projection onto her as the mother in-gathering her children post–historical Bible, I would say that this is a stretch, and a woeful one at that. just a mom... says: July 10, 2014 at 5:30 pm Thank you for responding. I see your point. But I also think it is a very good and natural desire of a woman to have (her ‘own’) children. The ‘use of surrogates’ is demeaning in and of itself, to all involved. (I think it’s good to keep in mind that the Torah records it all, both the good and the evil, it’s not painting saintly pictures of godly people, there are no such people). As to the ingathering… of course it’s a stretch… and one that obviously has a deep and dramatic impact until this day. (and here it’s good to keep in mind that the Torah is not seen as solely a book but as both a written part and an ongoing revelation and evolving oral tradition – and more. Which might be very troubling on one hand, but could also be a source of hope for a better future, think: evolving insight). It’s hard to say in a few words what in reality is all so very complex as we all know… About the perceived right…. It is my belief that it’s never about ‘rights’… but about desire (and it’s hard to question or argue with desire). And even the most good and natural of desires does not give us the right to violently take… I think it’s about trust and patience, and the power to wait. Not getting everything we want when we want it is not injustice. There’s just no way to get what we want prematurely without committing great injustice ourselves. If what we took really was ‘ours’ (but not yet) then it will be terribly tainted… not to mention if it wasn’t ours… According to my perception. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 10, 2014 at 5:36 pm I would agree with most of what you say here. I might say that the “desire” you mention has been formalized as a legal “right”, for all intents and purposes. just a mom... says: July 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm Yes. And nobody is satisfied…. Reply just a mom... says: July 11, 2014 at 1:49 am Thinking about that, there might be an analogy with birth certificates. Legal documents should record actual births and circumstances of births. And always after the fact, the actual fact. Only in that way can ‘a piece of paper’ have actual and true value for it reflects something that actually exists and really happened, and from there “rights” may be derived (though things like rights won’t be needed any longer for it’s obvious what the situation is and all will take its natural course). Taking what’s not ours to begin with can never make it ours, no matter how ‘legal’ the paperwork, no matter how many people believe it. Somewhat like that quote attributed to Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? 7 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” Also, how will we know the (specifics of any) situation before it arrives? We can’t be certain until it’s really there. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm As a postscript I wanted to say that whereas the focus here is linguistic and Qur’anic (which acknowledges preceding Holy Books) for a critique of the Biblical and evangelical advocacy of adoption I would recommend highly the work of David Smolin (http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/) and Kathryn Joyce (http://kathrynjoyce.com/). Reply just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 12:03 am Update: I just found a reference on a website to the book of Job (Iyov), chapter 24, which might interest you. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 12:08 am Thanks. I obliquely made reference to this (along with many other references) when I pointed out that the orphan (“the fatherless”) and the widow are always cited together in Biblical scripture. just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 12:48 am Yes, but what surprised me is that in verse 21 the widow is mentioned (who is shown no kindness) together with the childless woman (who is preyed upon), both as victims of injustice. And thinking about that, it does make sense, at least when reading with the current situation in mind. Eventhough it’s a bit hard to stomach (quite a bit actually!) when you know the role many childless women currently play. Still, it fits also with my prior remark that surrogacy is demeaning to all involved (including the “receiving” woman). And of course, it goes without saying that infertile women who long for a child deserve our sympathy for their plight. Just not for their bad solutions… But then again, as is ‘indicated’ in the verse, they too might be a victim of sorts, being lured in by a wicked system. But THEN again… without their “receiving” there would be no “giving”… And then THEN again; the reverse is true as well. Who is responsible? I tend to think that the plight of ‘the widow’ is immensely greater than that of ‘the childless woman’, the latter has love, support, a husband to share her anxiety with. The former has no one. Just sorrow. But re-reading the verse, I find it quite mysterious: What was meant by the barren woman being preyed upon originally? Who was preying? For what? Possibly it refers to the stigma attached to infertility in those days when women were loved and respected for their motherhood, and not when they were not. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 1:11 am The stigma is quite obvious throughout the Bible. There are stories in the Bible which point out kindnesses despite this stigma, such as the story of Hannah. So the flip side of this is to point out the extreme cruelty of one who would prey on a woman already suffering. 8 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... The greater point here is one of power differential; the child “transacted” to a woman who is in a position of power comparatively speaking reveals an injustice based in inequality. So the responsibility is quite evident. just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 1:20 am Yes I agree. With both paragrahs. I was writing while thinking. So you read a process, not an end-conclusion. That is to say, the conclusion was there, but obliquely. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 1:39 am Yes; it’s more like “reading between the lines”. In this case I read a metaphor, and not a narrative (although narratives can be symbolic in their own right): How a society treats its most vulnerable members defines that society. It is interesting to me (comparing Books) because it’s almost as if the Bible allows for the stigma, but asks us to overlook it. The Qur’an challenges this stigma directly, giving “equivalence” to women capable and incapable of bearing children. This brings me back to the story of Rachel, who it seems to me seeks to a) obtain a particular status via her children and b) maintain a particular status for her own family. It’s a question of thinking individually or thinking communally; I think both Books admonish the former and give incentive to the latter. Jill khelil says: July 13, 2014 at 2:13 am Daniel, I can understand you are not happy that you were adopted out of your home country and I agree such adoptions should not happen. What I do not understand is what you would rather have happened. Do you think parent less children should be left in orphanages til adulthood? My ex husband ( a Muslim Arab ) told me that adoption wasn’t permitted in Islam. I saw orphanages full of children with no hope of having a “family” and I felt a profound sadness for these children. If I can be so personal, were you unhappy with your adoptive parents and the life they gave you ? I believe if children are adopted it should be within their own culture , religion and language. Is it not better to have a “family” rather than be “alone”? Please, I really would like to understand your thoughts, and what you would like to see happen to orphans now. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 11:18 am In 2012 I presented a paper at the Adoption Initiative Conference entitled: Islamophobia and Adoption: Who Are the Civilized? It’s currently in review for publication, and so I haven’t yet posted it here. My argument is that the Qur’anic invocations concerning orphans provides a much healthier starting point for communal child care than does the historically Calvinist treatment of the poor and indigent in Anglo-Saxon countries (and which you actually reiterate in your qualifications for how adoption should work). This reveals the “bias” in your question, which presumes a nuclear-family superiority over other types of family structures, and a resulting notion of being “alone” which is culturally specific. Having said that, I admit readily that the Islamic orphanage system is not perfect, although I have seen examples of it that are quite heartwarming and amazing in terms of guaranteeing that a child reach maturity able to enter into society. Many of my students for their final year projects work with children in orphanages, and what I notice is that without the pressure of adoption, the children are happier than your projected sadness might allow them. What I mean to say is that I also remember friends from my (Catholic) orphanage telling stories of the pressure to perform for “parents-cadeaux” (gift-parents) who would come to pick out children. The competitiveness expected 9 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... here is the mark of a twisted society, if you ask me. This still takes place in England, if I understand correctly. So what I would like to “happen” is first an end to the economic and political nightmare of neo-liberal capitalism that is the main producing cause of “orphans” as well as the obnoxious basis for ideas such as “nuclear family” and “individualism” and “non-society” (as phrased by the likes of Margaret Thatcher, most notably). Then there has to be a focused elimination of the stigma of bastardy that still exists culturally speaking in most societies. Beyond this, proper health care and education. Finally, an end to the wars that produce most “orphans” in the first place. Because I would like to flip the question around and ask: Even if you forced every family to adopt a child, you would still have the root causes of poverty, illiteracy, famine, sickness, and class difference. What do you really imagine that adoption solves then? Why do you insist on maintaining a class difference that is the root problem to begin with? As far as the question concerning whether I am “unhappy” with how I grew up, this is a loaded question to ask me, with the implication being that I am some rogue outlier who doesn’t propose solutions; who only complains after having such a “good life”. This web site and Transracial Eyes are full of explanations as to how I see things, proposals for changing things, as well as my thoughts on my adoptive family, whose support has been crucial in my ability to come back here. I am currently living a life closer (class-wise) to what I imagine I might have lived had I stayed here. I am unable to make the classist decision that this life is “worse” or somehow not as good as one lived in a “First-World” country. Since little of what I write focuses on me personally; to then frame a question about “me personally” is a projection on your part, if I may be so bold. I am speaking of all those who are displaced, dispossessed, and disinherited, not just myself. So it seems to me that this classist and individualist attitude is the first thing that has to change, not anything from my side of the argument. Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 11:38 am Just for the record, most of your questions are answered here: Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions. Peace and blessings. just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm Daniel, in answer to your last response, I think (as do you I’m sure) much more can be said about all this and frankly, I wouldn’t know how to comprise all that in a short response while doing justice to all, both ‘the individual’ and ‘the community’. But to me too, it’s very interesting, as well as personal, and for now I thank you for this brief exchange. Reply just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm PS. And I should probably add that I am writing from the position of ‘the widow’. Daniel Ibn Zayd says: July 13, 2014 at 3:08 pm Thank you for reading and for taking the time to post a question. Peace and blessings. 10 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Doesn’t it say to adopt in the Bible? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/doesnt-it-say-t... just a mom... says: July 13, 2014 at 3:15 pm Same to you. And may justice be done… Today! Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 11 of 11 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. I s i t o k a y t o n o t p ro v i d e c i t i z e n s h i p f o r a n a d o p t e d ! c h i l d ? Posted on November 24, 2013 This is the 24th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Transracial Eyes: I came upon your website today and found several thoughtful comments. Perhaps this is the place to pose my question. Is it ever okay to not get U.S. citizenship for an internationally adopted child? I have read the horror stories of deportation and know that no one seems to question the necessity of getting U.S. citizenship. In fact adoptive parents are urged to make sure this is done before the child reaches adulthood. My child was adopted at age ten and doesn’t like a lot of things about American culture. He has stated he does not want to be a citizen of the U.S., yet he does not see himself going back to his country. I hope I am not a terrible parent for questioning this issue. Dual citizenship is not permitted in his case. I figure I could let him make the decision after he is 18, but there is always a chance something could go wrong and end in deportation between the time he turns 18 and the time he decides for himself. I also considered that he may be able as an adult to reject his U.S. citizenship and apply for citizenship of his own country. Most likely I will get his U.S. citizenship. I always tell him that it is okay to not like aspects of this country and that others would agree with him, even those immigrants who moved here of their own choice. Answer: I would agree with what has been posted so far, castigating as it were (and given the limited amount of information we have) the negligence on the part of a parent who does not provide for a solid grounding in this child’s new-found place, especially after dispossessing the child from his land of birth. I was naturalized a citizen when I was five years old; what were/are you waiting for? How did this happen? How often does this happen is perhaps the bigger question. Having said that, the question opens up a much bigger discussion concerning place/non-place, belonging, and the rights afforded us by virtue of being citizens. In an ironic way, I can imagine the “non-place” of this child between his land of birth and the place he was adopted to, because I am more and more familiar with it, as an adoptee returned, with no will to return (like this child) or no ability to truly assimilate (as has been mentioned). To gain insight into what the reality is of those who actually live this way, we can look at those who are truly “stateless”–for one example, the Palestinian people, or that of the Bedouin populations, the Roma in Europe, or the case of immigrants to the United States who are now facing deportations that are breaking up their families, because the children were born in the U.S. This idea of jus soli, or right of citizenship based on birth, is a “New World” right, based in economic and political decisions having to do with cheap labor and public relations concerning “freedom” more than actually investing immigrant groups as citizens. But the “New World” is getting rather old, and the “Old World” is reverting to a “wall them out” mentality as well. 1 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... Because of the way that U.S. law works, deportation is seen as a punishment, and therefore does not extend to family members, just the individual. It is becoming easier to be caught up in the grinding gears of immigration bureaucracy these days; this can involve overstaying one’s visa, speaking out on campus or online, or simply (these days) having an Arab-, Hispanic-, or Muslim-“sounding” name or surname and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We can see in American law vestigial elements of a mimicked Greek Athenian philosophy which bestows citizenship on some, while pauperizing others in this regard. It’s a cruel system, and the greater goal should probably be not to run afoul of it. In terms of adoptees’ rights in their lands of birth, a lot depends on the originating country. Lebanese adoptees like myself have a chance at citizenship here, but this is based on our bogus paperwork and the class status afforded by our bourgeoisification and acculturation in our adoptive country. This is hugely ironic, given the inability of local immigrant populations or refugees to gain citizenship. This is painful when these populations end up one’s friends—how to explain such a disparity? The Lebanese population is currently one-fourth Syrian refugees and migrant workers, for example; they have no hope of becoming part of the body politic. Similarly, Lebanese adoptees taken during the war without this paper trail have no such right; nor adoptees with fathers unknown (Lebanese nationality is patrilineal). All laws and all rights lean toward those who “have”, and so to be of this class and not provide such privilege to a child you are caring for is rather disturbing. This brings up a point being discussed, which is the idea of “dual citizenship”. To note is that like jus soli, hosting countries take advantage of certain immigrant groups by “claiming them”, especially if they represent an important brain drain on the supply country (India or Germany, for example) or if their supply country allows for the voting of foreign nationals—who tend to be much more conservative in an attempt to assimilate—in which case the hosted population acts as an agent of foreign policy (Lebanon or Korea, for example). And whereas the United States nominally since a 1952 Supreme Court decision allows for dual nationality, it maintains the “right” to renounce American nationality based on its assumptions as to intent vs. the national interest: The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality does not affect U.S. citizenship; however, the acquisition of a foreign nationality upon one’s own application may cause loss of U.S. citizenship under Section 349(a)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1481). In order for loss of nationality to occur under Section 349(a)(1), it must be established that the naturalization was obtained with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Such an intention may be shown by a person’s statements or conduct. If the U.S. Government is unable to prove that the person had such an intention when applying for and obtaining the foreign citizenship, the person will have both nationalities. Adoptees beware, especially if you currently belong to a group targeted by the U.S. State Department. The child in this case should weigh things carefully as he grows up. United States laws are increasingly aiming to marginalize, deport, and eliminate groups seen as posing any kind of internal “threat” however defined by the United States (the political “reverse” of reservations, internment camps, and prisons). This child does not have “free speech” to air his views concerning how he feels about his American acculturation. Were the Patriot Act II to be passed, no one would have even this as birthright or, indeed, as a right in general. Those of us who are naturalized who “run afoul” of increasingly restrictive laws risk losing our bank accounts, our ability to travel to and from the U.S., and/or our citizenship based on this as well as a variety of bills either under consideration or passed into law that forbid advocacy for or contact with so-called terrorist groups, even though 2 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... locally said groups may indeed be valid political actors, democratically elected, etc.; or the vagaries of American politics might see all of a sudden former foes as friends. I state this emphatically as a warning because greater freedom of speech in a foreign country for a U.S. national becomes a trap and a double-edged sword. For example, television stations, newspapers, etc. here in Lebanon are politically affiliated; I have to weigh what the consequences are of appearing on a particular television station or taking part in a newspaper interview when discussing the social welfare, for example, the trafficking of children in Lebanon. I have to ascertain what the perception of this appearance will be by the U.S. State Department. Activism on behalf of Palestinians, for example, requires dealing with a full spectrum of political actors in varying degrees; that the U.S. should focus on a few of these and make determinations about one’s status as a citizen thereof is a twisted and egregious misuse of the notions of citizenry of supposedly “free” nations. And thus we are silenced. Perhaps it is a good point to explain to this child that to be naturalized as a minor requires a sworn statement of the petitioner of citizenship, not s/he being naturalized, if I’m not mistaken. Once he is 18, then he will be required to make this oath, and this might make a difference in how he views it. Personally, I am glad that my adoptive father made this oath on my behalf, especially now that I’ve lived through wars funded and armed by the U.S., and am currently living through the counter-revolutions sponsored by the U.S. and its allies. It was my father’s will, and not necessarily mine, that resulted in American citizenship, and this is a consolation of sorts. I make these political comments as statements of fact, not to enflame or annoy. Because for any adoptee traveling back or moving back to their originating place, there is a need to acknowledge the politics of the Empire that preceded them. This has made it often difficult at times to connect with people here, and I understand why. It also makes it more and more difficult to connect with those left behind. And this is the psychological counterpart to physical statelessness, and I am not sure which is worse. In this regard, my acculturation in the United States and my American passport are albatrosses around my neck, despite my friends telling me they allow me to go “anywhere”. This isn’t necessarily true; to travel locally in this region or the Global South is much easier with a Lebanese passport which I am trying to obtain via a reestablished nationality. My students who not so long ago had no problem obtaining a visa for their studies abroad are now being rejected simply for being Lebanese and/or of a particular sect; they are refocusing their future on other places more welcoming to them—an increasingly shrinking venue. And thus my re-entry to the United States each time I visit becomes more and more a painful reminder of the rejection afforded to the adults who, as children, are seemingly welcomed in with open arms. I now see these as deceptive arms, and their reach is long, and their judgment is final. Caveat emigrator; especially when s/he is migrating against his or her will. The concept of citizenship, its relation to the formation of nation-states many of which (like Lebanon) were created wholly out of the foreign policies of the adoptive country and its “First World” allies, the concept of travel as opposed to displacement and dispossession, and who is effected by these and why, all paint a damning picture of adoption when we analyze them thoroughly. The simple answer is that you should have naturalized this child if only to provide a more solid and stable base for him, especially after destabilizing him from his origins in the first place. Adoptive parents are a microcosm of the country that allows them to dispossess others, and for them to “lord it over” the destiny of the child temporarily in 3 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... their care is horrifying when mapped onto the greater culture’s insouciant disregard for concepts of citizenship or belonging. References: Consenting Muslims in America , by Hamid Dabashi. Public Power in the Age of Empire, by Arundhati Roy. Rough Music: Blair, Bombs, Baghdad, London, Terror, by Tariq Ali. Civil Rights in Peril: The Targeting of Arabs and Muslims, edited by Elaine C. Hagopian. You Have No Rights, by Matthew Rothschild. No One Is Illegal, by Justin Akers Chacon. Exploited, by Toby Shelley. Debate Tactic: This discussion is almost certain to elicit the “Love It or Leave It” immune response of Americans. And so there is some consolation in having “left it”. All the same, my time spent with those who are literally “without state” has shed an entirely new light on the notion of who belongs and who doesn’t; I imagine this must be similar to the sentiment of those belonging to Indigenous Nations in North America. Similar to adoption discussions which get past the status quo idea that adoption is a “given” and a “starting point”, this discussion similarly need call into question our comfortable concepts of the nation-state, and what it means to be afforded “belonging”, especially when this can be taken away at any moment. Everything about the capitalist system focuses on removing connections to place and property, and as such the definers of these concepts control the shots. For parents who adopt, to be unaware of this is a criminal act of dispossession, on top of that which was our adoption. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged belonging, citizenship, Dual citizenship, emigration, immigration, nation-state, nationality. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Responses to Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted !child? Mirren (@newhall89) says: November 25, 2013 at 12:36 am I don’t understand the motivations of adoptive parents who don’t finish necessary paperwork and tasks, once the child is procured. It’s so distressing and seems once more a failure of responsibility. “Is this child a member of the family, or not?”, the ambiguities scream out at me. It’s possible to honor and support a child while providing that protection you said you were going to give. I think it’s a positive option that parents can take the oath for a child, and have the child decide at the age of 18 to renew or renounce U.S. citizenship. 4 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... My husband is a U.S. citizen because he was born in New York, but he has German parents who returned with him to Germany when he was less than six months old. Odd thing: they never bothered to get him German citizenship, which he just discovered last year, at the age of 43. He immigrated back to the U.S. at the age of 24, and always traveled with his U.S. passport; he realized at some point he didn’t have a German passport. He had to go to the German consulate and prove that he was German with all kinds of paperwork that his 90-year-old father sent over: birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc. Our sons are dual citizens, which is good for them; they somehow had confirmed German citizenship, but he didn’t. The person at the consulate told him, “They cannot be German, because you aren’t.” He said, “But you issued them passports. Here they are.” Beamter: “No, we didn’t.” My husband, “Yes, you did.” The battle of German wills was sorted out, but again, the relative ease of the process made me feel sad: my husband is German, can speak fluent German, understands German bureaucracy and can readily yell back at the Beamter as necessary. He belongs, and he *knows* he belongs. I am extremely envious of his family trees going back centuries (thanks to Nazi homework), and how he knows who he *is*. His situation reminded me of the stories I’ve read about international adoptees who get off the plane to reunite with families, or to visit in countries where they belong, but don’t, thanks to time and language barriers and the original work of the pyromaniac firefighters. The pressures of loss and limbo are beyond painful. The non-adopted don’t understand. As a parting note, I remember the headline of the paper in Hamburg on New Year’s Day, 2000, the first year that they decided to grant citizenship by birth to the children some Turkish “guest” workers and other immigrants who had lived in Germany for generations. Up to that point, being born in Germany didn’t grant you citizenship. You had to have German blood (read: be white): Jus Sanguinis. Anyway, my husband and I were horrified by the headline: “First Baby of the Millennium: Turk with German Passport.” What?!? If you have a German passport, doesn’t that make you German? No, no, no. Apparently not. You can be there, but you don’t *really* belong. Moreover, they won’t let you forget it. Ah, being marginalized is such a “gift.” Reply dmdezigns says: January 14, 2014 at 2:26 pm I’m amazed any time I hear of APs who didn’t finish the process. I’m also disgusted. It’s just not fair to the kids. Of course if you bring a child from another country you need to finish the paperwork and provide citizenship for them. Where do these idiots get these ideas? It also angers me when people adopt children from another country, don’t learn the language of that country, immerse the child in a new culture, new language and refuse to allow the child to keep the culture of language of their birth. We didn’t adopt internationally, but if we had, I would have learned the language. The child would get to speak that language. I would learn about the culture, the food, the history of the where the child came from. They would have been granted US citizenship and if possible, had dual citizenship with their home country. I would be planning for visiting their home country in the future with them. Too often I think people adopt internationally thinking they can go back to the old idea of “as if born to” meaning no other family, no other history. We can’t erase our children’s heritage. It’s part of their identity. We can pretend they don’t have original families, but that’s not reality. I wish more APs understood that adoption isn’t a substitute for having a baby, it isn’t just a different way to create a family. It’s complicated. These are children who are going to grow into adults. They are people with heritage and histories, even if adopted at birth. They have a right to that knowledge. And as Mirren pointed out, they should be able to still feel connection to that heritage. When we remove kids from their culture, we seperate them from a part of themselves. We should be doubly sure that adoption to a foreign country is necessary for the child and not just completing a family in the US. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: January 22, 2014 at 8:34 am I have a good friend—we were in the orphanage together, and we are frighteningly similar in many ways (we want to do DNA testing)—who was raised in a Lebanese adoptive family. My hometown in NJ had a very large Lebanese community. Neither her family, nor those of my hometown, reflect in any way the “culture” I’ve managed to return to, for various class-based, religious, and regional reasons. 5 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 Is it okay to not provide citizenship for an adopted child? | Danie... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/is-it-okay-to-no... I just wish to caution us as to a kind of reductive trap that is easy to fall into. It would have been great to have learned, say, classical Arabic as a kid; this would have given me an avenue of entry into a culture here. But it would not have been my “local” culture regained. The places locally where I feel the most resonance are exactly those that are likewise denied by the “national” culture, which pulls from a particular class and a particular worldview. All this to say that the effort to keep a child “in” his or her culture is like pounding a screw down with a hammer: The seeming solution is often more problematic and more extensively damaging. dmdezigns says: January 22, 2014 at 12:40 pm I absolutely agree. And it’s important to not think that culture camps or even local communities take the place of an adoptee’s original culture. But I’m thinking of situations where an older child who already speaks a language other than English is forbidden to speak it and forced to choose only English. They never get to eat anything even similar to the tastes that were familiar prior to the adoption. They are immersed in a new culture and told to be grateful. You’re right that when you take a child from his homeland, you cannot recreate the culture that is now lost. You can however accept what they bring. It’s part of who they are. It’s another reason that international adoption – meaning taking a child from their country to a different country regardless of which one- should be a last resort. (actually, all adoption should be a last restort). If I move a child from one family to another within the same country/state/region they still suffer a loss, but that loss is compounded when they also lose their familiar surroundings, the language, possibly their religion (if they are being “saved” from “heathens”). I didn’t grow up in just one place as we moved a lot. I find myself yearning at times for the types of stories/memories of home that so many have. I can only imagine how that might be magnified for one who lost not only their family, their heritage, their homeland, their language. . . . I just think that APs who are going to adopt internationally should embrace as much as the adoptee wants them to embrace and to be not just be accomodating of the differences but accepting/embracing. Too many times, these adoptions fail not because the child has “soooo” many issues but that they are dealing with loss and grief which is not only unacknowledged but dimissed. After all, they’re supposed to be grateful right? I’m enjoying the conversations with you. You give me things to think about. And my kids will only benefit from these discussions and the perspective that you share. Daniel Ibn Zayd says: January 22, 2014 at 10:04 pm And that makes it all worth it somehow. Thanks. Reply D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 6 of 6 11/1/19, 07:56 What are you grateful for as an adoptee? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/what-are-you-g... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h a t a re y o u g r a t e f u l f o r a s a n ! a d o p t e e ? Posted on November 25, 2013 This is the 25th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Transracial Eyes, asked by another adoptee: In adoptee terms, grateful has become synonymous with indebted for being “saved” or obligated to be thankful for being adopted. Obviously, it’s way more complicated than that. Can you transracial adoptees enlighten everyone on these complications? I’m tired of being viewed as an ingrate, just because I have criticisms… Answer: On this topic I always go back to the basis within adoption of this religious salvationist sentiment as found in the many and varied references to Noah’s Ark within the adoption world. The basic premise of the Flood story is that some are saved, and some are not, and the grace of God determines this outcome. Given that the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the Flood are both predicated on the metaphorical ruin that comes from a willful persistence in sinning, it seems not just a stretch of the imagination but a fundamentally and stunning misinterpretation of this concept to apply it to children who are not of an age to manifest any kind of free will. This puts the adopter—the “savior”—egotistically speaking within the realm of a God figure, and I think this goes a long way to elucidate the mindset of those adopting, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Furthermore, at least in the Qur’anic account, being thus “saved” is not without concern for those who are left behind; Noah (peace upon him) grieves for his son who refuses to change his ways as it were; Lot (puh) pleads for those destined to be punished; and so the focus on those “saved” is not without acknowledging those who are metaphorically undone. The pinpoint focus of adopters on one infant thus becomes a mind-boggling remove from what would be truly an act of those of faith. I often look at the street children I see every day and I try to imagine: How do you, the adopter, choose just one? How do you settle on picking a single child from a population that is suffering the same? To turn around and say to an adopted child that they should be “grateful” when they had no choice concerning their supposed salvation is to assume a God-like judgmental position of power over those left behind. Adopters, in the very act of adopting, seem to be saying that these are the “rightfully punished”; their act condemns entire communities to the adopter-Savior’s willed punishment, which often takes the form of their country’s foreign policy. Similarly, such a worldview makes a relativistic judgment that one kind of life is better than another; that white, Christian, individualistic, nuclear-family based, and capitalistic society is the sine qua non of all possible worlds. Personally, given that I am more and more living the life I might have led had I not been adopted, I can say that I don’t accept this kind of classist comparison any longer. Therefore I refuse to consider myself “saved”, much less “grateful”. No favor or justice is done when an act of so-called saving grace in and of itself perpetuates the economic and political deprivation that then becomes the reasoning behind this supposed “saving” in the first place. Worse still, it does not even consider extending the equality of such action to all those in need, in all of society. Instead, it selfishly—not selflessly—it selfishly focuses upon one child; an individualistic projection. Jesus 1 of 3 11/1/19, 07:57 What are you grateful for as an adoptee? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/what-are-you-g... (puh) did not say, “suffer the child (singular)…to come unto me.” An overly rational and literal reading of any Holy Writ produces a list of check-off points that the one checking off uses like they would an Excel spreadsheet. “How is my Bill of Salvation coming along?” they might well ask. Here is the greatest hypocrisy of those demanding that we be grateful: This demand is for their salvation, not ours. They see their salvation as needing our acknowledgment. The problem here is the bringing to the fore of something which should just be. It is a given, in my mind, that one acts in a way that looks out for the common good, and especially toward those who might be dependent on one’s beneficence. To foreground this changes it to a question of accounting—“I did this, he didn’t thank me”. This completely undoes any concept of empathy or care, and what could be more selfish and narcissistic than this? It reminds me of Westerners who come to this part of the world and who marvel at the “hospitality” of the Arab, as if it is an affectation, and not a function of the lived condition. I hate the word “hospitality” now, because it is taken advantage of when used in this way; it becomes an expectation without reciprocation, and to point it out is to show what is lacking from the culture of the one using such a turn of phrase. I likewise hate the word “grateful”, because it reveals what is not forthcoming from the one demanding my gratitude. If I am to be grateful, it is for something, not for nothing; not for this void of a non-action so egotistically centered in the one supposedly doing the saving. Thus for an adopter to merely speak the word “gratitude” is to reveal this negative, this vacuum, this very missing aspect. It’s not there. And if it were there, and was simply unstated, it has now been completely ruined by virtue of calling attention to it. References: Re-evaluating Adoption: Validating the Local, by Daniel Ibn Zayd. Daniel, Shouldn’t You Be Grateful?, by Daniel Ibn Zayd. Debate Tactic: Those who demand gratitude know not the meaning of selfless action, beneficence, empathy, or charity. They condemn themselves with the very question. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoptee, adoption, grateful, gratitude, salvation, savior. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Responses to What are you grateful for as an adoptee? Brent Snavely says: November 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm I’m grateful for water, food, clothing and shelter, none of which are necessary aspects of the A word. Reply 2 of 3 11/1/19, 07:57 What are you grateful for as an adoptee? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/what-are-you-g... Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 26, 2013 at 4:12 pm Well said. Only to add: And all of which we likely would have had were we not adopted. heatherrainbow says: November 26, 2013 at 12:11 am I just want to say that I’ve been reading your articles a lot lately, and I find your writing absolutely refreshing. As a mom whose baby was trafficked here in the U.S., and one who has been doing extensive research on all things trafficking, your words are lights in this darkness. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 26, 2013 at 4:12 pm Thank you. I appreciate that. I think the “all things trafficking” study/comparison is vital; it shows us we’re not alone, and helps prevent us from forming the insurmountable Adoption Bubbles which are everywhere we turn. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 3 of 3 11/1/19, 07:57 Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? | Daniel Drennan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/is-there-any-va... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. I s t h e re a n y v a l u e i n a n a d o p t e e c u l t u r a l ! c a m p ? Posted on November 26, 2013 This is the 26th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Transracial Eyes: We recently received an invitation to lend our voice to support the Fresh Air Fund, and we declined, stating: Thanks for thinking of us, but as policy we only allow questions from readers and this is far from our web site’s mission. In general, our members would rather people focused on improving social justice and equality for poor families than self-soothing through privileged acts of charity. This mind-set is what separated us from our original families to begin with, and we don’t want to contribute to more of the same. The response to our statement showed no acknowledgment of our stance, or where we were coming from, which should not surprise us. I was wondering if any of you wishes to comment on the idea of culture through camp, and the idea of camp in general in terms of the adopted experience. Answer: I never know how to begin to broach this subject because it is so incredibly complex, like our originating cultures. Evoked is the innocuous nature of these camps as they relate to adoptees at such a young age. For some there is the security of community for those “of” the particular group, and I think this is an important difference. I always questioned even as a child the idea that I had something in common with a) someone who was Lebanese and b) someone who was adopted. Thinking this through, I imagine adoptive parents will jump on any positive response they can get out of an adoptee as perhaps corroborating their view of it—the camp for adoptees is harmless fun, and why overburden the discussion with anything beyond that? I think what most bothers me is the very word “camp” to begin with—because historically speaking it seems that such a term has more often than not negative connotations as relates to race, ethnicity, religion, or other identity markers: concentration camps; internment camps; refugee camps; reservations; etc. What I mean to say is that in most cases, when the dominant culture decides to make a camp for subaltern cultures, it is not based on any idea of “celebrating” that culture; quite the opposite. So here we have such a scenario, and perhaps at first glance it seems pretty “harmless”. But the question remains, what is the real purpose? Why the obfuscation of terms—culture vs. heritage? Heritage seems hugely problematic as a term to use, etymologically sharing roots with “inherit” and “hereditary”. Linguistically speaking, this is a poison dart. 1 of 5 11/1/19, 07:57 Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? | Daniel Drennan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/is-there-any-va... But a digression. This past Friday I went with a friend of mine and her kids to a town north of Beirut, to a more or less exclusive swim/beach club. The Lebanese “culture” here is bizarre to me, reflecting a penchant for all things Western (mostly French), especially language, fashion, mores, education, etc. This is the culture of my orphanage, of a large part of the diaspora community. This is the culture of the Lebanese who make up a big percentage of my hometown in the States. My Lebanese friends growing up reflected this, and manifested (as did I) a hatred for our dark skin, hair, and eyes; a desire to not be seen as Arab or Muslim. The French spoken is learned and pidgin, has no capacity for evolution linguistically speaking, and I am regularly misunderstood for speaking the French I learned from actually having lived in France. Yesterday, quite on the contrary, I traveled with members of the artists’ collective we’ve started here to visit the village of one member whose family resides in the Bekaa Valley. We went to the Baalbek ruins, and to spare my bald head from the harsh sun, I bought a counterfeit kufiyyeh from a boy in a shop who tied it for me in the local Bedouin manner. This boy had blondish hair and green eyes, reflecting the time of the Crusades as passed down genetically speaking. His Arabic had the lilt of those in this part of the country. Despite it making local “sense”, most of the tourists ignored this local and traditional protective garment for baseball caps or straw hats. The kufiyyeh is made in China, and reflects the traditional Palestinian pattern, different from the Syrian, or Jordanian, or Iraqi (as we call these nation-states now). Our collective has been working with the last kufiyyeh factory in Palestine, put out of business slowly by embargoes and cheap knockoffs. The machines that weave the kufiyyehs were supplied during the silk boom in Lebanon, which itself died when the French pulled it out to move to cheaper locales—Japan and China. So in this one piece of cloth, there are overlapping cultures and stories, origins and history. At the Baalbek ruins there is a museum which focuses on the Roman influence on the region; this is no idle choice, and again reflects a political desire to locate one’s worldview centrally and historically to Europe. It becomes a strange exercise for me to map true Roman ruins onto the architecture of Washington, D.C., or any major Eastern seaboard city and their architecture which in no way reflects the depth of craft, culture, and art revealed in the details of these ruins. American revivalist architecture is thus a barren shell, a mimicry without soul—like the Chinese kufiyyeh. Baalbeck also stages in the summer a series of concerts, a cultural event that draws mostly tourists and those from outside the region. The Bedouin I have worked with in the past, on the other hand, have a mostly oral culture, and local crafts and traditions that do not “expand out” to the national level. The local residents certainly cannot afford the ticket prices for these concerts. Their village literally serves up an elitist culture to an outside elite. The Bedouin influence brings me back to my neighborhood, which has a huge population of inland Syrian and Kurdish workers. My language is inflected now with their accent and expressions, and I am more familiar with Syrian debke dance than I am with the Lebanese versions. To speak Syrian in Lebanon “marks” me among those of the dominant culture, who now refer to me using the same epithets that condemn those low in terms of class strata to their status in life. One neighborhood away, across the former Green Line dividing Beirut, is a part of the city that more reflects the beach club denizens I mentioned above; culturally speaking I find it alien and lonely, barren and outsider; ironically, my upbringing allows me to walk in that neighborhood unimpeded; my Syrian friends do not have this same luxury. The reason I am elaborating this to such an extent is that if I had to imagine such a thing as a “Lebanese culture 2 of 5 11/1/19, 07:57 Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? | Daniel Drennan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/is-there-any-va... camp”, I am absolutely positive as to whose culture it would be, and what it would avoid. I can only say this now after coming back and living here in a definite attempt to forego what is most familiar to me. That “heritage” in Lebanon means preservation of the architecture of the colonialist period for the most part, or that the markers of culture such as the kufiyyeh are no longer even produced by the culture they represent, show up the falsity of the dominant culture’s attempt to “preserve” or “pass on” culture or heritage. Culture becomes a cipher; an empty symbol; a dead and, more importantly, unlived product to be repackaged and sold. So the modes and institutions of dominant culture, whether the museum, or the national heritage site, or the music concert, or the adoptee “heritage camp”, all have one purpose, which is the exact opposite of what they claim: An erasure of history; a destruction of local, living culture; an imposition of a foreign and alien replacement. If I am a child from the urban or rural poor regions of this country, of what benefit, then, to learn imperialist and colonial culture? If I am a child of the urban or rural poor of Korea, how offensive, then, to learn the dances of the royal court? That this erasure and destruction of local culture maps directly onto adoption, and by extension colonialism, Orientalism, racism, and imperialism should, I think, give us all great pause. It’s not as simplistic as and cannot be reduced to saying: “let the kids have fun”. References: Marxism and Modernism, by Eugene Lunn. Black Athena, by Martin Bernal. Markets of Dispossession, by Julia Elyachar. Debate Tactic: Culture is an expression of local lived reality. Culture is no consumed, it is lived. Culture cannot be reduced to a “list of ingredients”. Those who have the luxury and privilege to “choose” culture are usually also the destroyers of culture. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoptees, adoption, and imperialism, colonialism, culture, Fresh Air Fund, kufiyyeh, Lebanese culture, Lebanon, Orientalism, racism. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Responses to Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? Jeff Nguyen says: November 26, 2013 at 5:03 pm I share your well founded misgivings on the adoptee heritage camp phenomenon as an exercise in assuaging white guilt, at least in America. One positive thing I have witnessed at a camp I participated for Vietnamese adoptees was, apart from the machinations of the mostly well-intentioned if misguided adults and parents, the connections made between the adoptee 3 of 5 11/1/19, 07:57 Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? | Daniel Drennan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/is-there-any-va... children themselves. I didn’t meet a fellow Vietnamese adoptee until I was in my early 20’s and struggled greatly for it. Knowing your not alone is a powerful therapeutic balm. This is not to say that the removal of the adoptees from their native culture is justified. Just pointing one positive aspect that I witnessed, firsthand. Thank you, Daniel, for being a voice for all of us adoptees. Reply Brent Snavely says: November 27, 2013 at 7:15 am I’ve no idea what a “culture camp” is like, unless it is the inverse of: Having “Fresh Air Children” (‘Colored’ kids from the city) spend a summer’s week in the good ol’ conservative, White countryside — they were probably too young to fully get the message: “If only you were white, you could have the safety of non-urban life and have food security too! Too bad you have to go back to where you came from…” Being an M-M-K in Nigeria during the last part of the Biafran War (probably the beginning of ‘My Great Disgust’), and living within a White and decidedly American enclave that, while living separately from those they were about to save, spoke of the indigenes in unkind terms. Visiting Beirut (I sometimes flash-back to the trip from the airport to Beirut where we passed by seemingly endless rows of tents at a refugee camp) and taking a side-trip to Syria to see where Roman gods used to be worshiped (and wondering if the members of the Syrian military would turn out to be members of Black September who would make good on that group’s threat to eliminate “Americans”). Viewing multiple cathedrals and other buildings and sites (all looking virtually alike) that were said to be of a sacred nature (the sacred figures and figurines were all white…I wonder why…). Hmm… Maybe I do have an idea as to what “culture camp” entails. It seems I attended one type of such a camp throughout my childhood and teen years. It’s too bad that “culture” was clear in expressing that it did not want me present. It’s too bad that “culture” was not mine… *Please keep up with the great work, Daniel* Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: November 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm I don’t know that I am a voice for “all of us”; I’m hoping that a different perspective might be helpful to others coming up with me and behind me. Because I know that there are adoptees who wish I would shut the hell up! But so be it. Brent, your description of the “indigenes” was my experience at the American University here. It was and remains very bizarre to me how people choose to “see” me according to their needs. So when they needed to go off on the locals, they would see me as “American”, or a “New Yorker”. When they needed some street cred—like when stuff would go down in my neighborhood—or needed help communicating, they would see me as “Lebanese”. The selfishness of it is appalling, and is so reminiscent of the mindset behind adoption that I can’t at all tolerate it. Sounds like you were here during what they call the waning days of the civil war or soon thereafter? Nothing much is different; things are just formalized into official violences. I joke that I gauge Lebanese politics at any given time by whose checkpoints I would least mind going through. It defines where I go and where I feel comfortable. The dominant culture’s “culture camp” is more readily referred to as “patriotism” and “nationalism” if I think about it. It is 4 of 5 11/1/19, 07:57 Is there any value in an adoptee cultural camp? | Daniel Drennan... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/is-there-any-va... hardly representative of those who actually end up literally or figuratively put in camps or encampments. Thank you both for your kind words! Reply Pingback: Racism, Class, and Adoption Dark Politricks D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 5 of 5 11/1/19, 07:57 What does “adoptee” mean to you? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/what-does-ado... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. What does “adoptee” mean to!you? Posted on November 27, 2013 This is the 27th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Transracial Eyes: What does “adoptee” mean to you, and how does race affect this? Answer: On a minor irksome note, at least on the Macintosh computer, anytime I type the word “adoptee” into anything with a spell check, the word is highlighted as incorrect. It doesn’t exist in the computer’s dictionary, although the word has been around since 1892 (says Merriam–Webster’s 11th). For what that is worth. In terms of “disambiguation”, I would point to an attempt to redefine the term. I found this at a great web site (though seemingly dormant now) called Transracial Abductees. I always liked their redefinition of adoptee to abductee because, as they say: “Adoption” conceals the unequal power between abductors and abductees, and in the abduction industry in general. It fits so perfectly. Now that I have Webster’s out, under the definition of the suffix –ee, there is only one meaning that can apply: A recipient or beneficiary of (a specified action): <appointee> <grantee> This is distressing in what it reveals to us. “Adoptee” thus means being the direct object of a (rather heinous) transitive verb. Except that unlike “abductee”, the negative connotation of the verb goes missing. Furthermore, like the above words that insinuate an “appointer” and a “grantor”, we are literally and linguistically incomplete without our “adopter”. In a culture that gives great credence to individualism, this inability to thrive on our own— think of a grafted rose—leaves us live a paradox worthy of Sisyphus: The more we try to get away from it, the more we see the extent of how much we are bound to it. In terms of race, it is interesting to focus on the expressions that are used to define us in our lands of abduction and that link us to other Outsiders. For one example that came up recently, in Quebec the expression pure laine (literally, pure wool) refers to original French explorer/settler/colonizers. It seems to be the racial equivalent of “all-American” or “WASP”, and refers to bloodline purity, and one’s relation to the original invaders, similar to the Daughters of the American Revolution (my adoptive mother’s side of the family), or the “invisible majority” that is offensively implied by the phrase “visible minorities”, as used by Anglo-Canadians. These terms, when applied to original outsiders now insiders (immigrants, migrant slave labor, adoptees), set an impossibly high bar. I came across another expression in an article about demanding Chinese mothers (“Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”) which referred to this enforced isolation (as in quarantine, ghettoization, exclusion) 1 of 2 11/1/19, 07:58 What does “adoptee” mean to you? | Daniel Drennan ElAwar https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/what-does-ado... concerning the immigrant population: “The bamboo ceiling”. Meaning, the point beyond which you can’t go or grow because of your (always perceived) race. This sets up a triple bind for the adoptee. We are acculturated to be “pure wool”, or “All-American”, or “de souche” (used in Francophone countries, vaguely translated as “of original stock”). Yet we have no claim to such a thing. Furthermore, we have no access to the supportive ethnic community of our place of abduction’s diaspora to fall back upon. At the same time, we are bound by the strictures of perceived-race racism in the society. Three strikes, and we are out. This is the debacle that awaits us, as defined in the word “adoptee”. Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, states: The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. The “crushing truth” of adoption is our burden; the endless voicing of it our seemingly useless effort; the unceasing undoing of such efforts the eternity of our Hell. If there is any relief, it can only come in believing, in knowing, that one day no one need follow us. That the truth of adoption, once acknowledged, will be its very undoing. An adoptee is free when she has removed herself from the shackles of her transitive status. And this is not an individual action, but a collective one. For now, such awareness need suffice; will have to be solace enough. References: Ethics and Action, by Peter Winch. Lectures and Conversations, by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Debate Tactic: The dominant discourse speaks, even in silence. To undo this requires that we, too, be heard in our silence. For screaming into an abyss is a useless endeavor. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged abductee, abductor, adoptee, adopter, Sisyphus. Bookmark the permalink. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 2 of 2 11/1/19, 07:58 What are you [adoptee] trying to accomplish on this blog? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/what-are-you-... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h a t a re y o u [ a d o p t e e ] t r y i n g t o a c c o m p l i s h o n t h i s ! b l o g ? Posted on November 28, 2013 This is the 28th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. The following question originally appeared on Finding God’s Fingerprints blog, in a discussion about adoption: What are you trying to accomplish by commenting on this blog? Are you trying to make adoptive parents feel that they’ve done something wrong, or are you trying to effect societal change by promoting your views? Do you think adoptive parents should take the children they’re raising back to where they found them? Answer: My question for adoptive parents on blogs like this one is whether you stop to consider ever the opinion of those who have to deal with the results of your choice, a choice that is based in class privilege and luxury. By this I mean to say that in any other aspect of life, a decision that is wholly centered on economic disparity, life inequality, and the taking advantage of the differences between human beings, etc. would be described using verbs such as “to prey on” or words such as “vulture” or metaphors such as “pyromaniac firefighter”. The idea that Jesus (peace upon him) might have condoned the acceptance of societal inequality so that one class of people could use all of the means at their disposal including the medical, legal, and judicial systems as well as the media to basically leverage children out of the hands of those in most need of help from their neighbors is obscene on many levels. Furthermore, the notion that we as adoptees, our mothers and fathers, our communities are required to remain silent so that the mythology of those who advocate for what was never intended to be about family creation —adoption comes out of the Anglo-Saxon institution of indentured servitude, lest we forget—speaks of a practice that in its coercion, trafficking, lies and fabrications, as well as sheer hypocrisy spits in the face of God. Like slavery before it, this institution requires people of faith to rise above their own selfishness, narcissism, missionarism, and self-righteousness in order to truly Do the Right Thing. It might be said that adoption is a test of faith, to see how people view the world, their place in it, and their relation to others. In this regard, you have failed miserably. To further promote adoption then becomes an act of sheer audacity; a willful deceit; a shame of shames. A parable: Two people meet in a crowded square; one of them is an evident stranger, the other is known to the crowd. The latter asks the first, “What are you doing here?” and he asks knowing that he has the support of his community, as well as the position of his place in the community to ask. To the stranger, it is an accusation, and a statement of 1 of 4 11/1/19, 07:58 What are you [adoptee] trying to accomplish on this blog? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/what-are-you-... confrontation made obvious by his inability to ask this question first. “Who are you to ask me what am I doing here?” is the response, an attempt to even the playing field, to come to a place of equality before an exchange takes place. “Why are you so insolent? Just answer the question put to you!” replies the known local, in feigned innocence, the crowd murmuring their support. “What are YOU doing here?” he instead replies, and he is bodily removed from the square, banished from the place, accused of being an outsider, his punishment due him. Another parable: A man comes upon a poor stranger struggling in the water; all but drowning. The stranger is known to the passerby; he is of lowly status, and must work on the banks of the river to feed his family. Yet he has a ring of value, something passed on from generation to generation. The passerby states to the man drowning: “You are suffering due to your condition in society; this is just the way things are. But think about your ring; I will relieve you of it, and take care of it, and it will be passed down just like you might wish for it.” The man drowning considers his fate and knows better than to ask for help from the passerby. He implicitly understands the impossibility of imploring for his life. He throws his ring away, cursing it. “I’ve always hated that ring; it weighs me down; it is a burden—take it!” The people of the class of the passerby watching this transpire on the banks of the river applaud him and congratulate him on his new-found gain. The family and people of the man drowning curse him for taking advantage of a situation instead of jumping in and saving the man. An argument breaks out, and as the people stand arguing back and forth on the bank of the river, the man’s head goes underwater. I am trying to illustrate with these parables that there are two aspects of this discussion taking place, one obvious, one not so. One is the rhetoric of the “arguments” back and forth, and the other is the power play if you will of who assumes “right of way” and who wishes to have equality of right of way. In the first parable, no one considers the power differential at play, or the uneven aspect of the dialogue to begin with; the crowd justifies its actions with self-righteous aplomb. In the second parable, no one considers the separation that exists between the two groups except to say that this is a given, when in fact the group “of means” as it were not only has the luxury and privilege to step down from their position of power and dominance, but has the duty and imperative to do so. No one arguing the need for equality in these scenarios, from Jesus and Imam Ali (put) to Emma Goldman and Malcolm X, would by any stretch of the imagination allow for the economic, political, social, and cultural differentiation between these groups to stand. No one who seriously wishes to argue about grace, or our role as caretakers of this planet, or our ability to help others can do so while simultaneously maintaining that we are capable of doing this while not stepping down from our class positions, from our status in society, from our places of luxury and privilege, no matter what they might be, and no matter how they might manifest themselves. This is where I start using words like “hubris” and “hypocrite”; this is where I attempt to reveal this true power differential which, were it to change, would go much farther in “saving orphans” than anything else I can imagine. For had adoptive parents as a class and as a community protested any of the wars the United States had waged going back for decades, we would not have “orphans” coming to us from Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua. Had adoptive parents as a class and as a community voted in representatives who did not adhere to the Chicago School of Economics’ idea of class warfare as de facto stance of foreign policy, we would not have “orphans” in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Korea, China. If adoptive parents as a class and as a community had not blindly swallowed the propaganda of Empire that allowed for the creation of bogus countries and the imposition of servile kings, we would not have “orphans” from Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt. If adoptive parents as a class and as a community stood up to more recent wars of Empire, we would not have thousands of 2 of 4 11/1/19, 07:58 What are you [adoptee] trying to accomplish on this blog? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/what-are-you-... children dead and orphaned in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan. Given what the dominant class is capable of in terms of power, to claim saving one child from a “horrible world” brings us back to our pyromaniac firefighter. No, we do not live in a perfect world. But in giving up the vision of such a world, we become de facto supporters of those who would maintain the horrors that much of the planet lives under as a factor of their day to day. And so to disassociate adoption from its obvious economic and political links is therefore, to me, a criminal act of those in power. I can either assume that power and that position and defend it, at which point I am no different from plantation owners defending their property no matter where there heart might lie in the matter. Or I can step down from that power and see that what is described glibly as an “act of grace” has its own derivations, its own repercussions, its own manifestations that in and of themselves do nothing but support and perpetuate social injustice, class difference, and the imbalance between the Haves and Have-Nots. Any seeming act of beneficence that maintains a given inequality in this world is not an act of grace. Quite the opposite. I honestly believe that it is time for people of true faith to stand up and declaim this as a fact; to disclaim adoption as being “of God”; and to decry any and all charitable action that in and of itself requires no change in one’s own status. Five percent of the world’s population using up 25% of its resources cannot stand. Those who suffer under this imbalance no longer are required to give up their land, their resources, their children so that others may maintain this imbalance and then call it “a given”. It is not a given. It is a willful act of exploitation, of usurpation, and it cannot, must not—indeed, will not—continue. References: The Anti-Capitalism Reader, edited by Joel Shalit. Obsolescent Capitalism: Contemporary Politics and Global Disorder , by Samir Amin. Debate Tactic: The treatment of the Internet as the private playground of the Few is as insolent a mindset as that which lies behind adoption—it is not possible to “trespass” in a public arena. This is the first correction to be made. The second one is to always point out the fallacy of the “Savior” mentality as it applies to the world today. From here there is a possibility of having a valid discussion. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar ! This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoption, adoptive parents, capitalism, Christianity, globalization. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Responses to What are you [adoptee] tr ying to accomplish on this !blog? kym says: November 28, 2013 at 11:01 pm Thank you for another GREAT answer! I’m glad for your blog and for your comments on other blogs. 3 of 4 11/1/19, 07:58 What are you [adoptee] trying to accomplish on this blog? | Dani... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/what-are-you-... Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: December 3, 2015 at 11:38 am I’m replying two years after the fact, but thank you, Kym. It makes me sad that every year I repost these, and every year we keep having the same discussions, and every year we forget that “having a discussion” does not necessarily equate to action. But I’ll keep posting them until such a time—very soon I hope—I won’t need to do so. arlinehunter386 says: December 3, 2015 at 11:27 pm I am in my senior years as a Mother of loss to adoption. Waiting (lost count)… Wish I knew how to make an upside-down smiley face on this comment. Upside down suits adoption anyway so, I’ll just leave it at that—old and tired. I will see my lost ones in heaven. God will make sure of that. We are to be only with our own, friends and family there. No separations or ADOPTION IN HEAVEN!!!!! Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: December 4, 2015 at 6:43 pm Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m terribly sorry for your loss; I wish you peace of mind and eventual reunion… D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 4 of 4 11/1/19, 07:58 Isn’t it valid to compare adoption with a pregnancy? | Daniel Dr... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/isnt-it-valid-to... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. I s n ’t i t v a l i d t o c o m p a re a d o p t i o n w i t h a ! p re g n a n c y ? Posted on November 29, 2013 This is the 29th question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. Paper pregnancy is one of those horrid terms that has been created solely for the benefit of the adoption industry and its followers, and shows up in hundreds of blogs as a valid trope, such as this one: Parenthood for Me: Adoptive Parents Are Expecting Too. In question form, it might sound something like this: Because of the wait involved, along with other similarities, isn’t it valid to compare adoption with a pregnancy? Answer: No. Categorically, no. It is completely invalid, because the metaphor is not a natural one, meaning it requires great leaps of logic to make it. Furthermore, it is fabricated after the fact, and by those wholly invested in such an outcome. Finally, it is selective in its comparison which is based in unequal references, meaning it takes similar concepts and equates them while ignoring the disingenuousness of such matching. For example, a woman “waiting” for nine months for the gestation of the child who is physically part of her cannot be given equivalence to the “waiting” for a bureaucratic process to take place that also “delivers” a child. There are much more dissimilarities here than things similar. Most problematic is that I can make the same analogy, in the very words of this author, and borrowing her faulty rhetoric, but instead comparing pregnancy to something completely horrifying and hideous, like lynching (which I will spare you; see reference). Such a comparison reveals the power differential involved, and shows how much we see adoption as part of the status quo; as the norm. If we don’t react in a similar manner to the “paper pregnancy” comparison, if we don’t recoil with the same disgust, then this shows how debased a culture we currently live in. The common background historically speaking of both slavery and adoption as institutions of human trafficking provides a more-valid counter to such an egregious comparison. This reveals the invalidity of the resulting analogy, while simultaneously pointing out the self-aggrandizing intentions of the one invoking it. That the author of this dreck might allow pride in her feeble attempt at a creative writing analogy outweigh the consequences of positing such a disturbing trope speaks volumes as to where she is coming from in terms of morals and ethics. That it should be received with thanks and gratitude reveals to us the depths of depravity that adoption sinks us to as a society and as human beings. The metaphor of adoption to pregnancy is loathsome, insulting, misogynist, and disgusting on all levels. Reference: Killing the Black Body Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, by Dorothy Roberts. 1 of 2 11/1/19, 08:15 Isn’t it valid to compare adoption with a pregnancy? | Daniel Dr... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/isnt-it-valid-to... About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Adoption activism, Q&A. Bookmark the permalink. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Blog at WordPress.com. 2 of 2 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Adoptee, rematriated. W h y a re a d o p t e e s n e v e r a s k i n g , a l w a y s a n s w e r i n g ! q u e s t i o n s ? Posted on November 30, 2013 This is the final question in the series: “Anti-adoption month: 30 answers to 30 questions on adoption” [link]. This is the “meta” question that is only revealed after years spent answering such questions as represented by the past month of answers, and which themselves only skim the surface of what need be discussed. Reframed, this might be asked thusly: When is it our turn to ask the questions? When is it our turn to find answers? At long last, at what point do we assume any kind of position of strength among all of this seemingly endless back and forth, both with others, but more importantly, among ourselves? Answer: In considering this whole exercise of questions and answers at face value, we ignore the unstated but now quite obvious “dark matter” of adoption discourse. By this I mean to say the systemic nature of what we are up against; its existence whether we acknowledge it or not; it’s actual need for a “useless debate” that leaves us spinning wheels and not accomplishing much; and beyond that—and perhaps most importantly—the intrinsic danger of our own mimicry of that system. As mothers, true families, adoptees, and communities thereof, half of our battle is being aware of how our actions resonate within the abysmal echo chamber of the mediated adoption landscape, and then how we might act in ways that do not in and of themselves exacerbate the societal injustice we are activating against. I once joked to a friend that the discussion of “Democrat” vs. “Republican”—or of any two-party electoral conflict—was like that of docile cows, awaiting their turn in a slaughterhouse, discussing “ketchup” vs. “mustard”. This maps readily onto any discussion which ignores the context of the debate, or how such a context itself frames its very structure, and thus predetermines its outcome. Despite the positing within the media of a recent “antiadoption” activism, the roots of this resistance are long and deep. How many decades have adoptee activists been in the trenches trying to change states’ laws concerning birth certificates? A century ago, women were sewing symbolic scraps of fabric onto their absconded-with children in the hopes of reunion. What does it mean that 100 years after this, and after 50 years of my own displacement, that nothing has significantly changed in the world of trafficking/adoption, except for a particularly obnoxious formalization of the process? A spoonful of sugar to help down the bitter pills otherwise very hard to swallow? There exist architects whose sole responsibility is designing slaughterhouses such that entering cattle do not sense their own impending doom; that they do not react, or manifest any fear, so as not to spoil the final “product”. We have been cajoled by similar “architects” to not react by the “designed” and “designer” discourse surrounding the subject of adoption. But first, an aside on such bureaucratic context, that I know many can relate to: I was working locally for a time with a group that does research for adoptees returning to Lebanon, similar to such organizations in other source countries. They are not an NGO, they are not registered with the government, they are not a non-profit charity. They are working for a local television station, which makes of our life stories much in the way of broadcast soap opera. In the absence of anyone else doing this kind of research, they have built up a network of connections that 1 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... has no official status outside of the commercial nature of their work. When they move on to something more lucrative, we will once again be forgotten, with no record left behind. This is of course extremely bothersome, but this is how it works. I have been offered many occasions to speak on such television programs, but I have refused. I had little choice but to work with this group. We went through my collected bogus paperwork, bogus passport, and bogus references and one by one checked off the information contained in them as being useful or not (mostly not). We made full connection inquiries, meaning, everyone within the process was tracked down for any kind of information they might have (or not; mostly not). For the million times I’ve gone through this on my own, it is somehow exponentially more painful when it becomes “official” in this unofficial sense, and is thus the “last ditch effort” before calling it quits. That it is inherently invalid on multiple levels concerning its propriety; its legality; the disturbing reaction of those supposedly advocating for me who still express much in the way of unwanted pity; as well as my wholly absent sense of agency in the matter is viscerally disturbing. Yet there is no real alternative. The bureaucracy of it all is stunning, and the hoops my lawyers have jumped through—in an effort to “rectify” a falsehood designed to remain unrectified—are rather phenomenal. For just one example, I needed to obtain a letter from a lawyer in order to look into the archives of a government ministry where police reports are kept. This is where the local police say the report made about my purported abandonment (as documented on the two scraps of paper furnished by the nuns of my orphanage, later corroborated by my orphanage register entry when they finally deigned show it to me) would be kept if indeed this is how events transpired. I say “if” because I have my doubts. A lot of doubts. It wouldn’t be so bad if anyone treated my doubts as valid, but this minimum is not forthcoming. I mean to say that I tend to call everything into question, such as my passport (was it made at the orphanage as well? Does it share the same handwriting of all my other papers?); those I work with tend to give these documents credence. Which is my main point here: What does it mean to be an active player in the burlesque charade of one’s own life story? This charade has many bit players. For example, I heard second-hand from the family of the priest who baptized me that apparently they were “touched” by my story. Yet they maintain that he “was not aware” that he was giving children false names. This is patently ludicrous. In Lebanon, there is a finite set of valid family names, and there are Arabic words which are meaningless in this regard. There is no way, therefore, he did not know. Especially when, as we are finding out now, these “names” often moved into the realm of mockery: “Noel Hefleh (Christmas Party) for one child born around December 25, for example. But a focus on the systemic aspect of it raises further questions: How and when was the list of false family names that were assigned to us produced? By whose banal efforts? Based on what incentives? And by what extent of denial do we not refer to this act openly and honestly? Why are we pretending here? Pretending that I, like most of us, was abandoned, and not, more likely, traded, trafficked, coerced for a sum of money? For what is this pretense, for whom these mythologies? Is it to save my feelings? I’ve been to the bottom of the bottom of the bottom of the abyss in terms of what I’ve learned about the depravity of child trafficking, brokering, and breeding infants for adoption; do my feelings really need to be spared at this point? Please, spare me this greater insult. This charade has a vocal chorus. This is revealed in the “protective” lies that flow from the mouths of orphanage and hospital workers, many of religious orders, protecting the power structure: “Those archives were burned during the war”. No, in fact, they weren’t. A friend’s stoic resolve resulted in her obtaining her paperwork from a hospital basement after being told such a story. How existential is this inability to find resolution? It was, for example, on the third attempt seeking my entry in the civil registry—and only after making a huge scene in the 2 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... office—that my lawyer found “me”. And if I had stopped at one? At two? The vagaries of these efforts weigh us down with doubts, and later with regrets. To borrow a visual metaphor from The Wizard of Oz, it’s like being forced to address the overwhelming fire-and-smoke image that glares down at your bodily insignificance when you know there’s a man behind the curtain standing right there next to you. That he maintains his power position after you point him out reveals how Kafkaesque our situation truly is. I have become hugely sensitive to this need to maintain mythologies. In particular, I am quite sensitive to anything I do that might solidify this mythology, and thus make it more difficult for those coming after me. The path of least resistance is to fall back on the luxury and privilege afforded to me via adoption, but I know this is a trap. I could have continued to hound the orphanage in the hopes of finding a sliver of information after they threatened to destroy all of the records in their possession; but I could not live with such an outcome. I could very easily speak on television in a vain attempt to find family; but this very act supports a super-mediation of our Voice, and it sustains a power structure that I find repugnant, and which I refuse to support to the extent of which I am capable. My “personal” needs must take second place; by this I mean to say that we must err on the side of all, and at all times. This charade has a large and eager audience. Our stories become trifling entertainment for such an audience’s own psychological and political needs. Our dismissal becomes affirmation for their own maintenance of the power structures we decry. Many who read this will be nonplussed and say that this is “different” from their own concerns as domestic adoptees. For the record, I don’t see a difference between international and domestic adoptions, in terms of class difference and inequality of power. I don’t see any difference between my actions here and domestic adoptees trying to unseal records, or obtain medical information, or who attend the legislators’ convention every year for decades on end, or who in any other way continue to battle for some semblance of justice for what should be rightfully ours, genetically, genealogically, legally, medically, ethically, and morally. I don’t see any difference between this and mothers who feel helpless and unable to speak up about the theft of their children; mothers activated in Guatemala and Argentina and Spain demanding answers; mothers in China who leave their own homes and families to track down their trafficked children. We are united via such dispossession and displacement. To self-segregate, to see ourselves as a passive audience, to not activate ourselves on this level is to mimic adopters who, with their class status and position in society, are able to do infinitely more than those without such connections. That an immigrant woman—without means, without access to online chats, without the basic societal acknowledgment of her status as a living human being that we all take for granted—still manages to find the energy to fight to have her child returned to her is both an inspiration and a painful reminder of how much of nothing our endless discussions and hashtag passivism concerning the topic accomplishes. That there are infinite parades of functionaries from the various pillars of society who pat us on the head and congratulate our “speaking up” and “speaking out”, but not our “acting up” or “acting out”, should give us great pause. They are functional to this system, active agents of its will, and they have much to answer for. For how are we expected to handle the systemic nature of things at this, the end game of it all, the end perhaps of our searches, or of our very narratives, when we have absorbed the lies, the deceits, the hideous truth of child trafficking, that require of us that we still pretend that in any way the system might one day be forthcoming? That we still must give the System its due respect and honorific regard? That we still have to work within the paradigm of the adoption mythologies and infrastructure that we know to a despairing degree are false, and to an unfathomable level? A system that we must come to understand is designed and maintained to put us in our place, 3 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... if not expel us from the body politic, to exterminate our Voice? “Ketchup, or mustard?” In a class I teach called “Voice Manifest”, I show a movie entitled Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story. One of the readings that came out of research for the class is entitled: “Rhetorical Exclusion in the Trial of Leonard Peltier”; it maintains that the discourse of the courts, laws, media, etc. conspired not just against Leonard Peltier in his case, but against American Indian culture. At the end of his trial, Peltier, fully aware of his own railroading at the hands of the FBI and legal system, made a statement in order to enter into the record the mistreatment of American Native peoples—these were the self-same Natives who were barred from the courtroom. The prosecution rebuts his statement, and Peltier tries to regain his ground. The judge ignores his questions, and then interrupts him to pass a guilty sentence. The article states: The legal rules, regulations, and language superceded the only informal attempt Peltier or other American Indians made to attain power in the courtroom. Peltier’s cries appear to be a desperate effort to fight for legitimacy, but he is silenced by the very power structure he is trying to fight. This is our plight. That we might always answer and never ask questions reveals the power differential at work. That we might attempt to “enter into the record” our protest without considering the nature of that record or its audience undoes our effort before we begin. Leonard Peltier remains in prison, and I would be willing to venture that the majority of Americans have no idea who he is, or how he ended up where he is, or in fact that the prison system in the United States is now the equivalent of what reservations/internment camps have historically been for marginalized populations. This acculturation of ignorance is quite willful. It begs the question: Why would we continue to think that working within the system is a possibility, here or anywhere in the world for that matter? How do we get past this systemic delegitimization, barring an overthrow of every wretched aspect of it that sustains adoption as an industry and a practice? And here we come to those who have no issue with their own inherent ability to heed and heel and point and toe the line in order to acquire a sense of accomplishment. How to explain adoptees who, similar to super-mediating adoptive parents are so completely focused on their own personal narrative that they refuse to see how our stories as adoptees map onto those who are equally displaced and dispossessed? There is no explanation, except to link it to our adoptive acculturation. We are active agents contributing to our own Darkness. This charade has its hecklers. This is a toxic strain within the adoption discourse, but it needs to be brought to light. For example, what do we make of a “support group” for adoptees that destroyed years of history found in thousands of informational posts? This targeted action resulted in the signing off of the board by many for whom it was too painful to receive from others “like us” the treatment we get from the dominant realm. Furthermore, the destruction of history and the “infinite present” are prerequisites of disempowerment, historically speaking. What then to make of the epithets that flowed behind our backs that we were “acting adopted”? Why would we use the same enfeebling and culturally based diagnostic terms that are designed to keep us Voiceless against each other? Where does that really place us in this battle? To this I counter: “And you are acting like adopters”. What does it say when adoptees, claiming activist stances, wallow in self-advocacy, self-help, guru-isms, and other disturbing trappings of our narcissistic acculturation? Who don’t see “cultural appropriation” as a feeble stepping stone to something much deeper, but as a goal in and of itself? Who support immigrant deportation? Who state 4 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... that rioters in London “have it coming to them”? In all cases, again mimicking the dominant culture in all of its ignoble classifications and categorizations and stereotypes? What does it mean when such adoptees determine that the “boat rockers”, the “radicals”, the “vocal” are an impediment to their careers, to their own arrival at the table of power, or to their ability to gather crumbs thrown to them therefrom? Following every other battle for civil rights historically speaking, can we still afford to not have a discussion of what it means to “Step ’n’ Fetch It”—or, indeed, to refuse to do so—within the world of adoption? To accept the basic premise of our “luck” or our “salvation” class-wise or otherwise is to embody the brutality and violence of our adoption and carry it forward a hundredfold. These are, I know, rhetorical questions, and painful ones at that. Given the amount of time I spent in my own fog and happily drinking my own soma and Kool-Aid cocktails, I do not bring this up as an accusation, but as a plea. I am not concerned with whether someone agrees with me or not. I simply aim for a true starting point to the debate; an even playing field. I do not buy into the idea that we “are all entitled to our opinions”. It shuts down any discussion before it even has a chance to occur; it destroys any kind of moving forward. Linguistically and sociologically speaking it is an invalid premise that comes from a particular cultural context; an affectation of our acculturation. For our statements, actions, and agency as such all have repercussions on all whom we are connected to, directly and indirectly. I have said this before: Unlike adopters, unlike the adoptees beholden to them, I would give anything to not write on this subject. I would give anything for one minute of one day to not think about adoption. I would do anything to avoid the constant reminder of this status, especially as it expands out to others equally displaced and dispossessed, with whom I feel great common cause. I would love to be able to understand what it means to “enjoy” this status as they seem to; this in-fact stasis. I look back at the past two months of words posted here and I am left completely and utterly undone. There is no catharsis to be found here. Our voices, in the separate and in the singular, are but whispers in the void. Our voices, as active as they might seem to be, are not Action. Our Voice, not necessarily united, but seen as an aggregate whole, a spectrum valid only in its completeness, going from most docile to most radical, is a powerful tool for the actual change needed in society to rectify the injustice of our adoption. At the end of these two months of musings and questions/answers, I might only ask that at the very least, even among our disagreements and disaccord, can we not acknowledge the validity of this, our Voice? Not what I say, but what we say, collectively speaking? Is there any hope to be found by remaining firmly entrenched within and wholeheartedly affirming the status quo that was the direct cause of our adoptions in the first place? If so, can those happy within this Matrix at least formalize their actions, and admit to themselves the effect this has on the rest of us, with a dropping of the pretense of “activism” where none exists, and an acknowledgment of the desire to see us silenced? Can we not pretend we are changing the System until such a time that we actually have managed to change it? Me, I want to be done with this charade. Is this even possible? This is my question. About Daniel Drennan ElAwar Adoptee, rematriated. View all posts by Daniel Drennan ElAwar → This entry was posted in Q&A and tagged adoption, child trafficking, colonized mind, dark side, Identity, Individualism, narcissism, trafficking. Bookmark the permalink. 5 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... 19 Responses to Why are adoptees never asking, always answering !questions? janmarie says: November 30, 2013 at 8:42 pm I hope so. But adoptees need empowerment in finding their voice and using their voice. I think support groups can be helpful when they open up the floor to the discussion that it is okay to challenge the beauty of adoption. Many adoptees aren’t even aware that such a discussion exists until they stumble upon these groups, usually by accident because they’re looking for search help. Daniel. I cannot tell you how much I admire you and how grateful I am for you and others like you who are so dedicated in the fight against child trafficking/adoption. Your writing is beautiful. I wish there was no need for it but there is need for it and you do it because it has to be done. You inspire me. I want to help you and I hear your sense of urgency. I wish you could be rewarded with a feeling of great accomplishment for everything you are doing Reply Marley Greiner says: November 30, 2013 at 11:08 pm Daniel, this is such a wonderful analysis today. I’m probably going to comment more on it later, but I’ve got time restraints at the moment. I will say, though, that we addressed some of these issues back n 1996–97 with The Psychology of SelfDefeatism in the Adoptee Rights Movement written by Damsel Plum. It’s different from what you wrote today, and geared to the US, but related. Not much has changed. There were great opportunities to change in records access in the US after 1999, , but certain elements of the so-called movement refused to take the chance. They preferred the old way of doing things. They even refused to support Oregon Measure 58, claiming it would set back “adoptee rights” 20 years. As if they’d done anything of value in that 20 years they had. They still argue that line. They’re still holding their hats in their hands begging for crumbs. Are they afraid to ask for what they want? Or worse, get what they want? I have no idea. NJ has had a freaking bill going for 40 years and have gotten nowhere with it, no matter if it’s clean or highly compromised. I appreciate their perseverance, but they’ve sold out too many times to be taken seriously. For now I want to echo janmarie’s thought about your work. It is inspiring and tenacious.The sad part of this is that the people who are writing the truth and acting the truth are dismissed or even attacked for “raining on our parade” or taking chances blah blah. Some days I wonder if it’s worth it. Well it is but you’d not know it by the stats. Reply peter franklin says: December 1, 2013 at 4:20 am Yep lots of good house slaves and lots of do nothing complainers on-line, that never get off the couch. NJ is brutal because adoption is de-regulated (a lawyers game) and the Catholic Church moved “father” priests to NJ, not to mention the ACLU and the largest newspaper advocates for secret adoption. Reply janmarie says: December 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm I think to imply that we are couch potatoes is counterproductive. We’re dealing with all kinds of adoptees in all stages of nightmare or healing. 6 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... Not everyone is cut out to be an activist, or a leader. But they can be supportive in other ways. No bit of support should be considered too small. It reminds me of being on the subway, feeling sad or crabby and a beggar passes asking for anything, even a penny or a smile. And I put on my even crabbier leave-me-the-funk-alone face and he senses my sadness and says something funny and makes me laugh. He smiles. I smile. No money changes hands and we have a better day. It was all we could do at the time. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: December 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm In no way do I mean to imply that everyone need be an activist. Nor do I deny the lifetime I spent trying to make sense of things (an ongoing process, to be sure). The inequality found in scrambling up a ladder and then pulling it up after oneself, though, puts the burden squarely on the divisive one’s shoulders, I think. I mean here to say that acknowledgment of one’s “humanity” is a given for those in power, who then decide who is seen as valid, and who isn’t. When we mimic this internally, we do their work for them. This isn’t new; this is the history of activism. It just seems as though the “inversion” I’ve often gone on about has caught up with the adoptee movement. This need be called out, not in terms of denigrating others, but in terms of honesty. The racists in France I gave credit to for acknowledging their racism. The Anglo-Saxon version—sublimated and reversed—is much more insidious. janmarie, you sum it up beautifully for me. An equivalence was found; however fleeting, and an honest acknowledgment of each other’s humanity. This would be a minimal starting point. Reply Mirren (@newhall89) says: December 1, 2013 at 8:57 pm This is beautiful and astringent and needed. Marley is correct: too many groups settle for the “cap in hand” approach. I don’t see how leaving some out to be rectified later will help. At all. Nor do I see in my home state of Missouri how perpetuating the horrid idea that we need permission slips from adults or the meddling of other adults in the form of social workers is at all helpful. NO. I cannot see or support this at all. To have adoptees saying, “Well, it’s a start.” No, it’s more of the same. It’s also usually the people who benefit who say, “It’s a start.” I see where janmarie might have been confused, but I truly don’t see this post about pushing us all to be activists. It’s about how “activism” is defined, and how people are left in or out to please the dominant group so that certain people can get positive feedback from the community-at-large (pulling up those ladders that Daniel mentioned). The not rocking the boat, so that APs don’t get their feelings hurt, or adoptees don’t get their feelings hurt, or first parents don’t get their feelings hurt. The problem is that it’s impossible to please everyone, and once down that path, one ends up selling out one’s allies. It’s possible to have allies without sharing their beliefs 100%. It’s possible to disagree like adults without cutting off communication. On the other hand, if one’s goal is to be the beloved of the larger group, probably not. If one spreads oneself extraordinarily thin to placate each segment of the “constellation,” however, one’s message is less powerful. It is truly impossible to make everyone happy, a lesson one learns with age. This post is about being aware of the power we hold, and how we wield it. Like Daniel, I also hate being told, “You’re acting adopted,” as if that completely explains my being angry about an injustice. I said it once to someone and have always regretted it. I love the story of the subway, janmarie. I’ve had those moments, myself: I am so deep in my bullshit and someone unexpected pulls me out of it. If we can connect with others on the level of humanity, we are getting somewhere. 7 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... Reply HeatherRainbow says: December 2, 2013 at 11:41 pm Is it possible? I think yes, and I think you are spot on with how you think things out. I consider myself an activist, in multiple areas; anti-trafficking, anti-colonialism, pro-environment, etc etc etc. I see these issues throughout activist circles. There is little community, if any at all amongst most activist circles. Historically, it was, hey, lets spread ourselves thin, meet at all these protests / rallies, and yet, we never seem to accomplish much of anything. Maybe I am at the point now where I’m a couch potato activist. I don’t go to rallies or protests anymore, because these are the dominant cultures way of saying that dissent is acceptable. It’s the dominant culture’s way of saying what it is that is acceptable, and whatever is acceptable is what doesn’t change the structure of the dominant culture. We are all human, all in need of respect, all in our traumas, all in different stages of healing. And, I see what happened with the Veronica Brown case, and saw, like with Leonard Peltier, the colonial system ripping apart promises to native people. They never intended to have it protect vlunerable people. Laws were put into place to protect / keep the power structure the same. to keep those in power, in power. It is possible, but I think it will take a great amount of creativity to see solutions outside of the current paradigm. Which is difficult to do, and so seeing the spectrum of who we are is a chance to see the paradigm for what it is, and then we can use our creativity, as one way, to creat something different. Perhaps back to the partnership society, or something else entirely. Thank you for asking the question, Daniel. Reply BB Church says: December 3, 2013 at 11:27 am Yes, Daniel. Yes. Reply janmarie says: December 5, 2013 at 1:48 am There was background I hadn’t considered and I was confused. I had to ask myself why I didn’t ask questions? I must have known deep down there was something dark but I chose to stay in denial because I could not stand to have the truth shatter my safe little world. So I allowed a person of great significance to be taken down because I was carrying out my own needy personal agenda where I thought I needed the system in place. And the adopters won in the end anyway. Perhaps next time I will have learned my lesson. Ask questions. Yes Daniel. I’m beginning to understand. It is good this is being addressed. Thank you. Reply 8 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... janmarie says: December 5, 2013 at 2:11 am Sorry. I forgot something… Huge lesson learned: ask questions and never accept the pay no attention to the man behind the curtain answer. Reply Kate Reinke says: December 10, 2013 at 11:20 pm Daniel, I can hardly believe what I am reading. You know full well that nothing was destroyed, it was simply archived. As for your accusation that a support forum, that never promised to be anything but a support forum, was not political or activist enough for you, well, fine, start your own. We did not lose “many” members when we archived the forum. We lost you. There is a fine balance when you are trying to help an entire sector of society who all have different experiences. Forcing them to hold a particular view in order to receive support is counter-productive for a support group. The process of de-fogging is difficult and being beaten over the head with the most extreme views will send people running back into the fog and who does that help? You know that certain members of that support forum worked tirelessly to get open access to records and are horrified when those bills are tampered with and non-contact provisos are added. You also know that that support form, whose administrators you are attempting to shame here, provided you yourself with years of support and validation and encouragement. I am shocked and disappointed beyond belief. Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: December 11, 2013 at 12:02 am Hi Kate, thanks for posting. I’m not sure where to start. Perhaps by saying that I’m not sure what the semantic difference is between “archiving” and “destroying”. Instead of my overly hyperbolic statement I might have said “removing almost completely from any ability to be read by members”, which is pretty much the same thing to me. What I remember is signing on and seeing that my posts had dwindled from thousands to mere hundreds, which was like a kick in the stomach. I imagined that this was shared by others; I’m not singling myself out. In any case, in none of my correspondence with admins did I express anything approaching anger about it, and bringing it up here is not about shaming anyone. I’m asking simply, “what does it mean?” In the big picture, and covering many examples given here and not, what does it mean? You needn’t lecture me about support, or de-fogging, or trying to reach many people from different sectors of society. I know the difficulties here. Yet it is interesting that you use words such as “extreme” and “beat[ing] over the head”, which pretty much corroborates my sense of having overstayed my welcome. I defy anyone to point out where I might have implied that I believe in “forcing” anyone to think or do anything. But this focus on me is beside the point. What this post is trying to say, and what these months of posts are trying to say is that the full spectrum of voices is required come hell or high water. Selecting a band from within that spectrum, in the long run, is what becomes counter-productive. This is all I’m saying, and I used these boards as an example of this. I’ve said to many people who asked after me that I cherished very much those boards, and they were there for me during many hard times, and you could chart my “journey” as it were historically speaking by reading my posts. That is, until that day. Just for the record, I also continue to maintain all of my links to those boards from my web site, and to this day recommend that people join there when they ask me for online support sites. But this is what makes what happened and what I am reading here most difficult. I don’t expect from those who share a given situation in any way to effectively marginalize others in a manner similar to that which occurs from within the realm that attempts to keep them down. This is an inversion of the “ungrateful adoptee” epithet, in this particular case. I’m not sure why it should be that there is no sense here of dialogue or compromise or consensus; it was decided—and 9 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... correct me if I am wrong—that certain viewpoints became less welcome shall we say than others, in an effort to “help the largest number”. I understand the logic here, but at the same time I am saying that this doesn’t make sense for a variety of reasons, especially given the amount of people who lurked and never posted, but also and more importantly in terms of the self-selecting feedback loop that becomes the net result, but which you are instead misstating I advocate for. This is the farthest thing from the truth. Nothing in our communication, or in any of my communication with any of the admins, or with anyone since about what happened should lead anyone to any of the conclusions that you have come to here. I never said that the boards were not political or activist enough for me. Much of my posting there was in a light-hearted vein, and I appreciated this aspect of the boards. I’m simply attesting to what I’ve witnessed dozens of times in the past in other activist circles, and what I continue to see as the ultimate Achilles heel of any activist or support group of any kind: drawing lines. That’s all! For me, in the organizations that I’ve worked on, and drawn up bylaws and charters for, and elaborated rules of consensus for, losing one member is losing one too many. Not only that, but any “self-cloistering” is unhealthy. Others may not see it like this, which is their prerogative, but they can’t berate me for seeing it this way, and this is what I’m trying to express is problematic. Not in terms of just this one board, but in terms of all of our work. And not just in our realms, but in the overlap between activisms. I don’t know how to make this more clear, that I am trying to speak of inclusion, and bridging, and interconnectedness. Of community. I am grateful for the years I spent on those boards, and for the friends that I have made there. I bear them no ill will, and wish them success. I am the first one who is willing to bow out if that is what is needed for the “common good” as it were. But as I’m leaving, I’m going to point out that this, in and of itself, is a sign of something that perhaps should be given heed. Not in terms of judgment, or accusations, or anger, or spite, or what have you. As a plea, for unity. That’s all. I hope this helps clear things up, and thanks for raising these concerns here. Reply Kate Reinke says: December 11, 2013 at 3:55 am Hi Daniel, I appreciate your reply. Regarding the archive, it is accessible to members – there is a link on the main forum where any member can access all of the past posts. The reasons this was done was to make the forum manageable for the admins, because many topics are discussed over and over as new members join and ask the same questions and because one of our members’ biological family members were threatening legal action that was possibly going to involve the forum. We felt that archiving those posts so they could be removed would protect the privacy of members who were not discreet about sharing information. I felt that your leaving the forum was a great loss to all of our members and I told you that privately – the loss of one member was too many that day, you are right. But I do feel that you expressed your anger to me in our correspondence, especially when I mentioned our TOS at the forum being primarily for support, not politics. You even implied that you had been wasting your time on the forum. I guess I felt when you started your paragraph about the forum in this blog post with the words “This charade has its hecklers” that your were referring to us. The words I chose, extreme and beating over the head, were specifically with regard to what happened on the forum at that particular time when a few new members joined. I do not mean extreme as in aggressive, I mean extreme as in on one end of the spectrum. The fact is that some of our members believe that there is a place for adoption in our society. The majority believe that reform is essential and that sealed birth records are unlawful. The extreme end of the spectrum do not believe there is any place for adoption at all. There was never a move by the admins to make the board more “friendly”; we have always asked everyone to respect each others’ beliefs. The problem was that new members were getting multiple replies telling them why they were wrong, before they even had a chance to get to know everyone. You know from your time on the board that the more senior members would always try to show the other side to those members who joined and only talked about how happy they were to be adopted. We would dig carefully to find out why that person had joined a support forum if they were so happy and more often than not, they would realise what had led them to us. Inclusion and bridging and interconnectedness can only happen if you can get people to hang around and talk to you. 10 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: December 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm Just for the record, it was you email that referred to the “archived” messages as “deleted”; I took it hyperbolically to “destroyed”. In my email I said I was “…astounded. Shocked and angry”. The truth? This was me trying to actually express this emotion which has posed problems for me my whole life. I see it as a valid emotion now, and its expression as valid as well. For what that is worth. To be clear, this wasn’t directed at anyone personally, but at what had taken place. Imagine you come home and your stuff is packed up into storage; furthermore you have to request your most personal item from that “storage”. For me this was requesting my introductory topic, which was still active at the time. Who would stay in this environment? I ask this in all honesty. This is a devil’s bargain of no small proportions. My implication was not really of having “wasted my time”–time which I stated was worth it–but of what was missing from the “contract” with users, which I realize all the more now is only apparent in retrospect. But this is trifling and not as important as what I maintain is the bigger picture. This bigger picture still remains in my opinion, for any group of those marginalized for any reason, anything that mimics in any way the dominant mode of things that they find themselves going up against. Whether this takes the form of the inversions I’ve described these past months, or levels of inclusiveness/exclusiveness, or structural controls on expression, or limited definitions of what counts as “politics”, etc., there is danger here. This is compounded by a technology which is in and of itself “leaning” in a particular direction in terms of all of the above, adding to it communicative skill, ability, access, etc. As always, I tend to focus on bias that is unseen, unstated, unexpressed, but nonetheless there. Listen, in all ruptures/splits/breakups/however we define it there is blame for each side, and there is agency for both sides as well. I assume my agency for having misunderstood the focus of the boards, as well as for deciding to remain away. By “hecklers” I was referring to those who claimed I might be “acting adopted”–this required a bit of a lead up. But again, I don’t think this is the issue, and I’m trying extremely hard to make this clear, because I also know there are Adoption Piranhas (throughout the spectrum) who love this kind of thing. I categorically refuse to burn bridges, or hold grudges, or what have you. I’ve learned my lessons, and I was just hoping to make of that another learning experience, come what may. People are free to take it or leave it as they wish; and the future manifestations of this might surprise us all. Reply Joan Wheeler (@forbiddenfamily) says: January 1, 2014 at 5:11 am Daniel, Where do I begin? So much to say. I, too, “would give anything to not think about adoption”. I long to be normal. But I am not. I had the shit kicked out of me that evening in March of 1974 when I answered the phone only to be told that the woman on the other end of the call was a sister I had never known. My so-called loving adoptive parents had lied to me for the 18 years of my whole life up to that point! That moment was the most devastating moment of my life. People assume I must be happy and joyful to have been reunited, and I was, but then, non-adopted people do not want to hear my anger over the situation – the entire situation. Non-adopted do not want to hear my questions. They do not want to hear about the defective systemic problems that led to entire family systems and political systems joining forces to entrap me. There are many issues you raise here that I would like to address. Some I will come back to talk about. Some issues I cannot comment on publically, and you know why. The hunted is still being hunted. I left the group you mentioned to protect the group as a whole. I will go back someday when other matters in my life are cleared up. I wasn’t asked to leave, but the situation caused me to back out of much of my life for over a year now. Indeed, this comment will cause flare-ups elsewhere. 11 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... In being as outspoken as I have been since being found in 1974, I didn’t realize that this made me a whistleblower. I didn’t realize that this job would be so hard. And I didn’t realize that so many people would take issue with the angry adoptee will not be quiet. I can’t be quiet when, in a supposedly free country, the government can, and does, confiscate adoptees’ actual birth certificates for no crime committed, but because of adoption. If that weren’t bad enough, adoptees are then subjected to be re-born, on paper. I repeat this over and over. Surprisingly, in the past few years, some people are actually taking notice of the severity of the problems. These people ask me, “They aren’t still doing this, are they?” I answer, “Oh, yes they are.” (Sealing and falsifying birth certificates). Then I ask, “So, now that you know, what are YOU going to do to stop it?” Some people are asking me the RIGHT kind of questions on what can be done about the problems. Soon, very soon, another article I wrote will be published. It is very direct. I am surprised that the editor will publish it. She is open to the implicit hard questions my article brings to light. By stating facts. Implying the questions. I’ll be back here with the link. Yes, I see adoptees arguing, discussing, in and out of fog. I see adoptees doing their own form of change, even if it is searching and finding and being in reunion. Even the quiet ones tell their stories to others. And the activists, well, I don’t know how I did it this long. I just know that the moment I heard the truth from a stranger who really is my sister, I knew that this thing called adoption is way bigger than I am. This isn’t about me. I am one voice. One voice. Broken record. For forty years. BTW: Thought you should know that by logging in to comment using Twitter, I cannnot click on the boxes to receive followup comments or posts. Glitch? (Been off my main email accounts, too. Will catch up with you on this later.) Reply Joan Wheeler (@forbiddenfamily) says: January 1, 2014 at 5:11 am PS Happy New Year! And with that, I am off to a gathering! Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: January 1, 2014 at 11:58 pm Thank you! Peace and blessings in the coming year; may we get a bit of rest….and some understanding. eagoodlife says: January 2, 2014 at 8:24 am Happy New Year – you might like to check out http://eagoodlife.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/liebster-awards m Reply Daniel Ibn Zayd says: January 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm 12 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15 Why are adoptees never asking, always answering questions? | D... https://danielibnzayd.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/why-are-adopte... Thank you! An honor to be in such company, and a great idea besides! Will work on it…. D Daanniieell D Drreennnnaann EEllA Aw waarr Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. 13 of 13 11/1/19, 08:15