Why white adoptive parents must actively engage in anti-racist work
by Anti-Racist Parent Columnist Jae Ran Kim, originally published at Harlow’s Monkey
It’s a precarious position for anyone who tries to be an agent of change within any institution. It can be difficult to balance the needs between individual people and systems that were created to help and instead have become so bureaucratic that it is a wonder anyone is helped at all.
When I was in graduate school for social work, we were often told that social reform and social justice were as important to the profession as the ability to empathize and help. Truthfully, however, the field of social work is quite polarized.
I would say the majority of the people in the field (and most of them are women) came into the program because they wanted to “help people” (I could go into a whole separate post about how women are valued in our society and why that created an over-representation of women in the “helping professions” because that deserves an investigation as well. But I’ll leave that for another day).
Many of my colleagues spoke passionately about how their personal spiritual beliefs “called them” to the field.Well, I have no argument with that because in a way I also feel “called” to my work, though not by a sense of spiritual duty. My “calling” if you can call it that, was based on many goals; first, I did not want to participate in a profession that was based on the production, marketing or selling of consumable goods. Secondly, I wanted to try to be an agent of change within the field and represent as a voice not included in the existing framework (as both a person of color and as an adoptee). Third, I strongly felt I could contribute to critiquing and challenging the current paradigms of practice and research.
I think “helping people” is a nice goal too. And I believe that it is very important. But in my view, having only a tight focus on “helping people” is limiting. We can “empower” people to change their lives on a singlular basis and I believe that is all well and good. But without looking at the rest of what is happening in the forest, we might be encouraging people to try and work within an overall system that is set up to fail them and send ‘em right back to your doorstep.
We give a lot of lip service to the abstractions of “social reform,” “social justice,” and “empowerment.” But it would be more accurate to say that a great deal of social work involves social control more than our obligation to empower the people we serve.
And, in fact, I have difficulty with the concept of “empowerment” because as one of my insightful fellow grad students once stated, “empowerment is a gift we bestow on our [clients].” We’re speaking about privilege here, because as social workers we have the power and control (backed up by our government and agencies) to make people do certain things in order to receive services. Right, we don’t just believe in the welfare state - people need to prove or earn their way to services.
What we are really about is telling people how to fix their lives the way we think it should be fixed, as arbiters of whatever framework of morality we believe.
The result is a push-pull between “worker” and “client” (on a tangent, let me just say that I really despise the way social work has chosen to appropriate business/market economy language - as if the people who use services are free to choose among a buffet of options).
The push-pull in adoption services is balancing the needs of prospective adoptive parents and the children who become adopted. I’m not selling goods, but I’m definitely selling ideologies. In order to make prospective families and children in foster care appealing to each other’s social workers, we use marketing strategies. Wednesday’s Child or Thursday’s Child as many “markets” call them are features of foster care children in newspapers. Just like the puppies and kitties they feature for adoption on other days. We use brochures and flyers and videos of the kids to show prospective adoptive parents. And prospective adoptive parents are asked to make brochures and flyers about themselves so the children’s social workers can determine if they look like “a good match.” Many adoption agencies have web sites where prospective parents can look at featured children and read a little blurb about the child. If that doesn’t seem eerily like shopping on the internet, then you are not being honest with yourself.
It’s one part marketing and one part matching services like an on-line dating service would provide. Which begs the question: who is the real “customer” in this transaction? The prospective parent, or the child?
We know the child has no “voice” of their own (unless they are older kids and then most people aren’t interested anyway). And I believe that prospective parents have an infinitely difficult time with all the decisions that have to be made as they go through the adoption process. What kind of temperments do they have? What kind of children would they be able to best parent? Where do they live, and is diversity going to be an issue for them? Do they have enough supports in place? Are they aware of the losses and traumas that children in need have? What are their expectations? And it goes on and on.
So while I believe that prospective adoptive parents must be honest about what they can or can not deal with in adopting a child, it also breaks my heart to see so much “choice” being thrown around on behalf of adoptive parents and meanwhile the child has to hope and pray that their social workers are making good choices on their behalf.
Agencies become damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Yesterday, I participated in a panel on transracial and transnational adoption for a local adoption support conference. Many of the participants there had great questions and we had, what I thought, was a difficult and educational discussion.
One of my thoughts, as I was driving home from that event yesterday, was how I felt adoption agencies do not prepare adoptive parents enough. I’ve heard over and over again from adoptive parents that they just did not receive this information before hand, and now that they’re delving into the issues they feel all kinds of guilt, sadness, helplessness and even sometimes hopelessness.
It would be easy to blame agencies for lack of preparation. Yet, when I meet adoptive parents who are in that stage of the process - the pre-adoptive stage - they are angry when we attempt to educate about issues of race and loss and culture and all the other things that go hand-in-hand with transracial and transnational adoption. For instance, at the agency where I work, we require all pre-adoptive parents to attend a day long session on transracial and transcultural adoption as part of their required training. The presenter is very skilled in these issues - and is a transracial (domestic) adoptee as well as a professional social worker. And this very week, one of these families threw a temper tantrum because of this training, challenged the trainer on every point, and raised a fuss with the home-study worker because they felt the trainer was being too negative and telling this family they couldn’t successfuly adopt transracially. Now, I have seen this trainer many times and I think I would have been even more pointed and challenging then he.
Agencies are bound by MEPA (MultiEthnic Placement Act) legislation which places strict limits on what agencies can do to prepare prospective adoptive parents for transracial and transnational adoption. But we can’t just find fault in MEPA, or ipso facto the federal legislature, because our government is reacting to what our society in whole - especially those who are white and wealthy - dictate.
If I could rule the process myself, I would have a few additional requirements for adoptive parents who wish to adopt transracially or transculturally - including proof that they had actively worked on investigating their own whiteness and that they have the ability to educate themselves and act as allies in the issues and concerns of communities of color. Because just loving and being “open” to a child of another race or culture is NOT ENOUGH. And just hoping that as a parent, one would be able to help them with racial “self-esteem” is NOT ENOUGH. Adoptive parents must be part of a larger movement of anti-racist work. If as a white adoptive parent, you can not picture yourself working within the political movement of your child’s race or culture, then I believe you must take a hard look at why that is.
This goes way, way beyond issues of whether you can love your child, or parent them if they have “special needs” or even whether you live in a diverse neighborhood or read books to them about their culture or take them to culture camps. This is about realizing that your little one is a member of a group of people with a long history of struggle at the hands of whiteness and you, as a member of that oppressive group, must be willing and able to step up and actively work towards dismantling those very structures. This means you will be risking your own membership in the elite group of whiteness; others who are part of the dominant structure will begin to challenge you, call you a traitor and try to bring you down. It won’t be easy. You may even risk losing friends and family who won’t agree or understand.
In the White Racial Identity work by Helms* and Carter**, they point out that many white people who become actively involved in dismantling racism face a stage where they have to learn to give up their membership in the dominant white reference group and yet accept they will not be accepted as members of a community of color - having to exist being “betwixt and between.” If adoptive parents can understand this, they might begin to understand the “betwixt and between” that their transracially adopted children will deal with in their lives.
This is tough work. My advice for pre-adoptive parents who think I am being unreasonable in suggesting they engage themselves in active anti-racist work? They should reconsider whether they are really about the child or their own needs. Nobody ever said that this work was going to be comfortable or easy.
In my own little corner of the world, I am attempting to be the small rudder of a huge ship in the ocean - hoping that by making small little changes in degree, I can help the ship change directions. But even as I’m trying to change things by small degrees, my mind is always on the ocean that surrounds me. Until we are able look out into the sea instead of focusing only on the ends of our noses, like the Titanic, what seems to be just a small little jut of ice in the ocean will instead be the deep and massive iceberg below the surface that will destroy us all.
—————————————————-
I strongly urge you to read and investigate the work of white, anti-racist activists Tim Wise and Paul Gorski at EdChange as places to begin.
—————————————————-
* Helms, J.E. & Cook, D.A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psycotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
** Carter, R.T. (1995). The influence of race and racial identity n psycotherapy: Towards a racially inclusive model. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jae Ran Kim, MSW is a social worker, teacher and writer. She was born in Taegu, South Korea and was adopted to Minnesota in 1971. She has written numerous articles and essays and is most recently published in the anthology “Outsiders Within: Writings on Transracial Adoption” from South End Press. Jae Ran’s blog, Harlow’s Monkey, is at http://harlowmonkey.typepad.com/
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Yondalla wrote:
I am a foster mother to gay teens, and everything you said applies there too. It is not enough to be open. You can’t just welcome the child into your family and community; you have to join his.
I love this post.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:45 am ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
“Adoptive parents must be part of a larger movement of anti-racist work. If as a white adoptive parent, you can not picture yourself working within the political movement of your child’s race or culture, then I believe you must take a hard look at why that is … This is about realizing that your little one is a member of a group of people with a long history of struggle at the hands of whiteness and you, as a member of that oppressive group, must be willing and able to step up and actively work towards dismantling those very structures.”
Wow, is that really what our public servants are into these days? This is nothing but racial Marxism, plain and simple. What parent in his right mind would want his children to see the world in stark terms of “oppressors” and “oppressees”, whether of the racial variety or any other? A receipe for a lifetime of unhappiness. No, thanks.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:50 am ¶
Jenna wrote:
Interesting, but lacking. You totally neglected to talk about the white mothers who birth biracial children. So, they don’t have a responsibility, just adoptive parents?
Hmm.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 12:43 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
“My advice for pre-adoptive parents who think I am being unreasonable in suggesting they engage themselves in active anti-racist work? They should reconsider whether they are really about the child or their own needs. ”
To complete your argument you still need to demonstrate that engaging in “anti-racist work” (in the Marxist sense you describe) is in the best interest of the child.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:15 pm ¶
irshlas wrote:
I know I am opening myself up to some pretty harsh criticism by posting. I read here often but don’t have the academic backing that most of those who post here obviously do. Even so, I feel compelled to write. I’m trying to broaden my horizons and delve more deeply into the issues that may someday face my transracially adopted son. (In U.S. census terms, I am white and he is Hispanic.)
You stated,
“If as a white adoptive parent, you can not picture yourself working within the political movement of your child’s race or culture, then I believe you must take a hard look at why that is.”
My question then becomes, how can I determine what the ‘political movement of [my] child’s race or culture’ is? In his own country of birth there are many political parties, activists, etc., all of which have their own ideas as to what it is to be Guatemalan. In his newly adopted country (admittedly by my choice), he will most likely be considered ‘Hispanic.” As such, I’m a little confused as to how it’s not racist thinking that all Hispanic people have the same political ideas / affiliations/ agendas. More so, I have found that a common topic of discussion among various U.S. minority communities is their lack of cohesion. (i.e. we need to stop bickering among ourselves and become a more unified voice). If these communities can’t decide what their unified voice is within the community itself, how can I, as a white person, decide for them? And in turn, decide for my son what his voice within that community should be?
I thoroughly enjoy reading here at ARP and perhaps, in time, I will see the bigger picture. Thanks for letting me drop by!
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:41 pm ¶
Jae Ran wrote:
Jenna, I write from the perspective here of transracial adoption. Just because this essay wasn’t aimed towards white parents of biracial kids doesn’t mean I think they don’t have to work in anti-racist movements. I think that any white parent of a child of color, whether by birth, adoption or foster, needs to be a part of a larger anti-racist movement.
irshlas, I appreciate your comment. I don’t think your goal is to figure out or decide what your son’s political or racial or cultural identity is going to be for him or anyone else. That’s actually the antithesis of what I meant by my post because it will still be you, a White person, “deciding” for a person of color and that’s what we’ve experienced throughout our history in this country. But through engagement in different communities - start with the Guatemalan community if your area has one - you will provide both yourself and your son with the range of options and experiences that will all be a part of both your identities as a multiracial family. White people don’t all have the same identities - politically, spiritually or culturally. There is no monolithic “Latino” or “Hispanic” or “African American” or “Asian American” culture either.
My challenge is for white adoptive parents to stop relying on culture camps and ethnic cultural tourism and begin to really engage in communities that reflect the culture of their children. I’ll give you an example; some White adoptive parents have told me that they have attended churches where they are the only White members. Yes, at first it was uncomfortable, but it made them understand how their transracially adopted children felt being the only ones of their race or culture in other areas of their lives. Their children, by attending these churches, were able to connect with adult mentors and teachers who looked like them and could help usher them as members of that community. One parent told me, “I don’t know how to do physics; I can’t teach my son physics. If he needs help, I have to do what’s best for him and get him a tutor that can help him understand physics. In the same way, I can’t teach my son what it’s like to be a Black man in American. I need to reach out to others who can do that.” This woman didn’t feel guilty about this or shamed, she felt she was advocating on his behalf. And that is what I’m advocating for as well.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 3:08 pm ¶
SF Mom wrote:
Why do we have to become activists if we love our children, if for no other reason? Let me give a simple example: my spouse and I were talking about Barack Obama as potentially the first African American president. Our daughter, who is adopted and African American, was listening. Now that she’s in Kindergarten, she has some concept of the president. She was horrified. “What do you mean there has never been a black president? Why not? “
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 6:08 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
Dear SF Mom,
What is so horrifying about that? There have been only 43 presidents. But there has never been an American Indian president, a Lutheran president, an Italian-American President, a Mexican-American president, a Mennonite president, a Scandinavian-American president, or (so far as I know) a president from the state of Louisiana. Should these groups be horrified too?
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 7:33 pm ¶
Kathy wrote:
Jeff I read your blog and it’s boring.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:29 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Cynic and Sarcastic Culbreath:
So far as I know, the fluidity of Whiteness which does allow for the political (if not psychic) collective grouping of all on your list save the American Indian and the Mexican-American, does find W h i t e people, independent of cultural, ethnic or religious affilitation, represented.
What is so horrifying is not that a Black might never have successful attained the office, but that it has only been forty or so years since it was even safe, LEGAL in many areas of this great nation, for a citizen so categorized to seek to cast a ballot for damn near anyone in a Presidential election. Horrifying that the first steps to civil exercise of the right to vote, perhaps the seedbed for understanding and participating in the larger ceremony of seeking elected office, was one which threatened the very life and limb of Black Americans.
Along the hierarchy of needs, to make an analogy, the right to vote (follow that with to speak, to assemble) would have to be met and embraced as a ‘given’ before one could move on the next level of inclusion in the democratic process of voting.
Horrible that every time a Black man seriously seeks elected office, the good White folk (include every single ethnic, cultural, religious and secular organization) of this land will openly answer reporters’ questions as to whether they would vote for said candidate (always said “Black” candidate) the answer , in large part is, “no,” or “never.”
Need I mention how people like to silence a vocal, politically savvy, bridge-building Black?
Mexican-Americans and American Indians lag even in representation in civic discourse, local elected offices, chambers of commerce and in other areas in which ‘block’ membership and power work to lend voice to one’s struggles, issues, ideas and tactics.
As groups and communities gain voice and visibility in this pluralistic society, they demand more voice and visibility, and as they cement working strategies to achieve such, we all begin to recognize the ways in which we have not included them in the conversations, and are then compelled to. For the greater good, for the better of us all.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:49 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
“To complete your argument you still need to demonstrate that engaging in “anti-racist work” (in the Marxist sense you describe) is in the best interest of the child.”
You cannot be serious, therefore this is undeserving of a direct response.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:52 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
If any parents are interested in doing some antiracist work (against anti-Chinese, anti-Asian racist videos), check out this blog I am helping promote!
http://cky-brandon-dicamillo-racist.blogspot.com/
It’s dedicated to stopping the viral spread of one particular racist video on popular social networking sites.
It’s basically a modernized and intensified version of the “Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, look at these” playground chant. What’s most disgusting is that the legions of fans don’t understand how racist it is.
Many Asian kids have to face this stuff… check out the blog to help create an environment hostile to anti-Asian racism.
irshlas, there are many issues that impact all Hispanics/Latinos. Chief among them, simple nativism-racism. If he is in a majority-white environment your child will most almost certainly hear “Go back to Mexico” at some point.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:57 pm ¶
Kathy wrote:
Atlasien,
I just made a visit to the blog and checked
out just a few of the you/tube links. I am
sickened. And scared. And very angry.
Count me in.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 1:29 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
“Jeff I read your blog and it’s boring.”
That hurts, Kathy. It’s the best I can do.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
“Cynic and Sarcastic Culbreath:”
Hello Kim.
“So far as I know, the fluidity of Whiteness which does allow for the political (if not psychic) collective grouping of all on your list save the American Indian and the Mexican-American, does find W h i t e people, independent of cultural, ethnic or religious affilitation, represented.”
Only in the minds of racists.
“What is so horrifying is not that a Black might never have successfully attained the office …”
Tell that to SF Mom.
” … but that it has only been forty or so years since it was even safe, LEGAL in many areas of this great nation, for a citizen so categorized to seek to cast a ballot for damn near anyone in a Presidential election.”
Yes, that’s a bad thing. Glad it’s over. But under the circumstances it should not be surprising that we haven’t yet had a black president.
After reading your diatribe it sounds to me like a black president is something I should oppose. If only a black president can represent black people, then only a white president can represent white people. Do I understand you correctly?
“Along the hierarchy of needs, to make an analogy, the right to vote (follow that with to speak, to assemble) would have to be met and embraced as a ‘given’ before one could move on the next level of inclusion in the democratic process of voting.”
The right to vote is highly overrated. Most people probably should not be voting anyway. Sometimes I don’t even vote myself.
Seriously, what is wrong with literacy tests if applied equally to everyone? I would not only re-institute literacy tests but would also require proficiency in English and the passing of a civics examination similar to what new citizens used to take back in the ’50s.
“Horrible that every time a Black man seriously seeks elected office, the good White folk (include every single ethnic, cultural, religious and secular organization) of this land will openly answer reporters’ questions as to whether they would vote for said candidate (always said ‘Black’ candidate) the answer , in large part is, ‘no,’ or ‘never’.”
Hyperbolic and anecdotal. The last time I read a poll on this topic the majority indicated they would have no problem voting for a black candidate. I voted for Alan Keyes myself, but wouldn’t vote for Obama if my life depended on it.
“Mexican-Americans and American Indians lag even in representation in civic discourse, local elected offices, chambers of commerce and in other areas in which ‘block’ membership and power work to lend voice to one’s struggles, issues, ideas and tactics.”
I believe that has more to do with culture than with race. Some cultures are more quietistic than others.
Human nature has a lot to do with it also. Man is NOT inherently democratic. When the people running things seem to be doing a decent-enough job, normal people are content to let them do it. Mexican-Americans, and most other immigrants, are still normal people. Here in America our citizens are programmed from kindergarten to be politically active. That isn’t normal, and it takes most immigrant groups a few generations to get used to it.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶
Kathy wrote:
Jeff, you have written very long comments
at other blogs that seem instructive and
combative so I find that to be boring.
Asking thoughtful questions or just listening
might be more helpful but that is just my
opinion.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 2:38 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
I was kidding when I said “that hurts”, Kathy. I don’t mind you thinking that I’m boring. As for my blog comments here and there, those who promote controversial ideas should not be surprised at a little … controversy.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 2:49 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Culbreath:
The lag in representation within the houses of the Senate and higher offices could be deduced to be reflective of the 135 years it took for White racists (include in that subgroup of Whites anyone from the previous discussions, thank you) to be federally mandated to stop denying more than half the nation’s Blacks easy access to the polls. The resultant 40 years reflective of the time it has taken for Blacks to begin to meld the disparate ideas of financial and political access and power into strategies that can work concomittantly, and not consecutively, with one holding a greater value.
Did you really read that Blacks would best represent Blacks in the presidential office? Where? Blacks, and other non-Whites, who come into political consciousness and activity through their non-White constituency and putting forth an activism for full inclusion in the making of the law of the land seek to do what? Didn’t read it did you? Bridge-build.
SF Mom knows full well that the hurtful and despicable aspect of there being no nationally elected Black to anything, barely any Reps since the twenty-two years post-Reconstruction, and the harrowing atmosphere of seeking to be publicly and ardently political active, aspiring to higher office should well have found the faces of those most like her daughter’s and her own on the pages of who it is that has led this nation, in its many houses and chambers, many offices and at various daises.
Honey, if you don’t know that the fluidity of Whiteness kept you (?) and yours in communities with citizens’ councils that forbade the sell of homes to Blacks, local governments that denied admittance to schools, attainment of mortgages and medical care — all the fundamentals of truly living in the land of the free– even while granting access to such things to those who were born White, and then accepted as White over time as their political and economic bases strengthened, (and the face of the immigrant became Eastern European and African/West Indian/Latino)…then you need to attend the Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Junior High School, at 129th Street and Amsterdam Avenue in Harlem.
Only racists, and illiterate, at that, would not understand that to be pre-literate, as many were at the end of the Civil War, and the extension of voting rights made for Black MEN, was not the same as not being able to deduce, form intelligible thought and speech, and to examine what was in one’s best interest for onesself.
And everyone has a starting point, the late 1800s would have been just fine for us, if that is the hand fate dealt us as freemen, but good, well meaning, democratic, paternalistic, egalitarian minded folks, (such as yourself) denied us even that.
Really. Go read a book. If you need help, I am skilled at teaching adult literacy strategies. You can do it. I can help.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 5:50 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
Dear Kim,
With respect to the history lesson, I don’t dispute any of the facts, but I do wonder what it has to do with this discussion. The institutional evils you mention were thankfully eradicated, due in large measure to the efforts of privileged white people. (I don’t expect you’ll be thanking them any time soon.)
“Did you really read that Blacks would best represent Blacks in the presidential office? Where?”
It seemed to be implied here:
” … the fluidity of Whiteness … does find W h i t e people, independent of cultural, ethnic or religious affilitation, represented.”
I thought this suggested that white people were represented by white presidents, and black people were not. If I misunderstood, in what sense do you mean that white people are “represented” in the statement above?
If black people can indeed be represented by white presidents, as I believe they can be, why all the handwringing over there never having been a black president? Shouldn’t blacks want a president who best represents the entire country and not just their own racial interests?
Most Americans are not black. And for whatever reason - just or unjust - there is a disproportionately smaller percentage of qualified individuals within the black population. That makes electing a black president highly unlikely though certainly not impossible. As a white person I don’t care if every president from here on out is black - so long as they are the best men for the job.
“Only racists, and illiterate, at that, would not understand that to be pre-literate, as many were at the end of the Civil War, and the extension of voting rights made for Black MEN, was not the same as not being able to deduce, form intelligible thought and speech, and to examine what was in one’s best interest for onesself.”
Most people are easily manipulated by political demagoguery. This is even more true of illiterate people who have few political resources. Literacy should be required of all voters. Furthermore your statement has, at its root, the assumption that self-interest is the foundation for political participation. I don’t blame you: that assumption is virtually universal nowadays. But I can’t accept any political ideology based on self-interest. It isn’t enough that voters know who best represents their own interests. A voter should have the common good in mind, and to know and understand the common good requires not only literacy but also demonstrable ties to the interests of one’s community and country.
“Really. Go read a book. If you need help, I am skilled at teaching adult literacy strategies. You can do it. I can help.”
Thanks, Kim. I’ll think it over.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 6:41 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Culbreath:
Wow, you can have a conversation.
No, the statement about finding, through the fluidity of Whiteness, one’s group, or race, represented, did not suggest an implicit or explicit intent on the part of the elected official to play to the needs of its same-race constituents.
It went to those same-race constituents, as described and classified under U.S. Census records, being able to say, “as I am White, so too the President.” Not to them being able to say, as I am [religious or cultural affiliation], so, too, is the President.
Hmm…it would seem to me that if we suppress the voice of a group of Americans who have truly embodied and believed, like Gospel, the credos of “justice for all,” “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” “one man, one vote,” then we have denied inclusion and representation by one of the potentially strongest, true voices in pursuit of those same credos for ALL Americans.
That statement definitely imputes that not all of the Presidents (White) have been commited to such a platform, and I stand by that, if for no reason other than I would stand by imputing the ‘good White folk’ who acquiesced to the citizens councils, and violent injustices, routinely (till they were deemed organic, if not divinely, separations). Where such good White people stood by and said nothing in opposition to the bigoted, racist, inhuman practices put in place by communities, government officials, family members, etc., they decided that such things were not deserving of their efforts at eradicating.
Where such good White people stood by and said nothing in opposition they wrote a blank check for others to cash on my grandparents’ and great-grands’ hides. And cashed these checks were, with brands, then knotted hemp rope and pyre.
Culbreath, you have not read anything else by me or you would know that I do think that there are Whites devoted to the struggle of ending racist policy, practice and thought. These are not all White people. And just who do you expect to be thanked for doing what they are supposed to do? You feel that because I am willing to group people as the census would that I would view, in an ahistoric and revisionistic sense, any individual knowing that such an individual might have worked mightily toward an end-goal that frees the spirit and energies of both his own children and mine? Do not make such assumptions.
Self-interest is the foundation for political participation. It was the self-interest of the Colonists that had them fight for independence from the British (and some would say, their insistence on being able to continue the importation of slaves into the colonies, which the British had decreed would end…but that’s another conversation), self-interest that foisted Davis to man the helm of the Confederacy (please don’t toot the horn of that cause, no matter how given to honor of one’s forebears you may feel it honestly represents).
Self-interest, where it be narrowly confined to a specific interest area or for the benefit -nearly exclusively- of a small group, can by no means be the driving impetus that compels those who do seek statewide (or higher) electoral office, as one would have a severely limited platform that would speak to the issues of the vast majority of that diverse audience.
However, as we see in the present administration, bringing together narrow interest groups combined under one banner, where the groups make for strange bedpartners, is not beyond or outside the scope of a savvy team of die-hard politicos. Neither is a self-interest in redeeming the good name of one’s father, and restoring his image, outside of the focus of one entrusted in working toward representing the People of the United States, independent of one’s personal desires.
And you must stop calling the freed Black illiterate. Where a language is not one’s own, and there is NO written system in place for the verbal syntax and structure as made known to, or devised by, the speakers of such language, the speakers are pre-literate.
Smiley to smiley, we’ve diverted the thread, and I do it enough, so I’m out now.
Jae Ran: please excuse.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 8:00 pm ¶
Denise wrote:
I am jumping in here, but really, my interest in the latest sidetrack of this conversation is really on track with it’s original intention.
When I adopted a black son, as a white mother, I knew that I would have a lot to learn, and I knew I would have battles ahead of me to fight for my son. It has only been a year, but I have already faced issues dealing with racism, and I want to take an active role in fighting this on behalf of my son. Moreso, I want to help my son learn to be strong… learn to be a fighter himself.
My son arrived at 9 years old, having no formal schooling in his past. He is 10 now, and just beginning to read. He could be called illiterate. We just faced a situation at our church (Catholic) where my son was not going to be allowed to make his First Communion because of his inability to read. My husband and I fought this decision, realizing it was one ignorant priest, who was incredibly narrow-minded, and not the church itself. He will be making his First Communion this Spring along with the other children, despite his illiteracy.
This situation made me sit back and think about the larger picture of illiteracy. The most ignorant assumption people can make is that illiteracy=stupidity. It makes me so angry that anyone would try and make this correlation. My son is incredibly bright…as a teacher, and mother of 6 other children, I know this. I know that his lack of reading skills has only to do with his lack of exposure, his lack of access to eduaction. How many adults face this as well? We are spoiled here in America with our free public education. We take it for granted, and love to rant about unqualified teachers and poor eduactional systems. But the reality in other countries is very, very different. In my son’s birth country of Haiti, even the public schools cost more that many families can afford. Education is for the priveledged, the wealthy… in many cases, the whites.
There is a reason that we have done away with the literacy test. The foundation of this country is equality, and though we have failed miserably in the past to create this equality, I like to think we are still working towards it. Why should an illiterate adult be unable to vote? Are they unworthy of this equality we boast? I do understand your thought process… that without being able to read, how can they understand the politics involved? But I know many a literate adult who is completely ignorant to the issues. I know many immigrants to this country who are not yet literate in English, but take a great interest in the voting process, the politics, the parties and candidates. They follow the live debates, listen to the speeches being made and follow the issues and make their own judgements. I also know literate adults who have their head in the sand… ignore the issues and make their judements based on their own ignorant, narrow-minded beliefs. Do they have more of a right to vote, simply because they know how to read?
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶
Jae Ran wrote:
Kim, no problem at all.
I knew from how Mr. Culbreath has behaved on other blogs that it was useless for me to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue, so I’ve chosen not to.
That is why I’ve been so silent regarding those posts.
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 10:52 pm ¶
Jae Ran wrote:
I meant to say comments, not posts, above.
P.S. And I think what makes blogs so cool is the way the different “side tracks” evolve from the original post, so I’m enjoying it very much!
Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 10:55 pm ¶
Jeff Culbreath wrote:
“Smiley to smiley, we’ve diverted the thread, and I do it enough, so I’m out now.”
Kim, I appreciated the effort. You’re willing to discuss “first principles” and that’s a rare trait these days.
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 1:13 am ¶
Dorothy wrote:
Saw you speak at BlogHer Business, so I decided to stop by. Karen Wolrond wrote a wonderful post on adoption and race a while ago, which is now unavailable to link to since Chookooloonks is down.
However, her point was this: don’t kid yourself that race doesn’t matter in adoption. Ask yourself before how you will react, not after. It’s not fair to a child to adopt transracially without thinking about that.
I have one biological child, so I can’t speak to adoption (a white child or otherwise - I am white), but I think this is a really relevant discussion, and I’m glad you’re having it.
Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 8:40 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Hey Dorothy, thank you so much for stopping by! That was a great post by Karen. We actually republished it here on ARP for those of you who may have missed it the first time around: http://tinyurl.com/2m6zf5
Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 10:03 pm ¶
Ana wrote:
Before we adopted our oldest, I read a passage in “Adoption After Infertility” by Patricia Irwin Johnston that affected me a lot. It said something to this effect: When you become a parent, you are committing to advocate for your child and everything that he or she is — including race, sex, special needs, nationality. That struck a chord with me. I really felt like I could do it. Of course, in practice it turns out to be a lot harder as it’s something you have to do on top of all the normal duties of parenting and providing that are part of everyday life.
When we adopted for the first time, we of course thought we were very educated and totally prepared to adopt transracially. We’d read a couple of books and I’d participated in some transracial adoption groups online. But it helped us a lot for the first couple of years to belong to a group of transracial adoptive families (Families for African American Awareness in Utah). We definitely learned how much we had to learn still. At one conference, an African American college student physically took my husband and son into the university bookstore to buy Beverly Daniel Tatum’s first book, which is really a must read. (Her new one came out this week and I am waiting for payday to order it!)
I’m not sure how to wrap this up except to say that I am still preparing to be a parent in a multicultural family, even as I am doing it every day, almost 8 years later. The fun never ends.
Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 6:31 pm ¶