Celebrity Intercountry Adoption - An Awfully Off-mark Focus of Our Lens (2006-10-26)
Celebrity Intercountry Adoption – An Awfully Off-mark Focus of Our Lens (2006-10-26)
It was just inevitable that squabble and controversy would explode from Madonna’s visit to Malawi, the fourth poorest country in the world.
Madonna arrived in Malawi on Wednesday Oct 4 2006, intent on providing close to $5 million in education and other various programs toward alleviating the dire adversity and destitution faced by the indigenous orphans. She was also in the process of adopting a child from the nation which has a child mortality rate of 103/1000, an HIV infection percentage of 30%, and where 14.2% of the population is already HIV positive.
This particular adoption is currently being strongly criticized by many various factions including the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) inMalawi, and the Eye of The Child protection society, as it seems that Madonna was granted certain exemptions from the country’s dated adoption process.
However, the director of child services in Malawi, Benston Kilembe has repeatedly said that the couple (Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie) had followed all the normal processes, which had actually begun months ago; and thus, the official application for the adoption of the child, David Banda, was approved through the High Court of Lilongwe, where an interim order was granted.
This provision allows David Banda to reside with the singer for 18 months, while being monitored by officials from Malawi before a final approval is given for the child to wholly join with the family.
The majority of international adoptive parents reside in the US. Over the last few decades, US international adoption of children from developing countries has been on a constant rise, and especially so in the last 15 years.
Because of society’s misdirected focal point on celebrity, if ever a child from an impoverished nation is adopted by any celebrity, the details are naturally widely publicized. The media has recently dubbed the existence of celebrity intercountry adoptions as a mere “trend” while we are tirelessly bombarded with the respective particulars, even though such adoptions have been happening for years (Mia Farrow was doing it since the 1970’s).
Well! This is so laughable that I seem to be way past laughing! I just… it’s not… I just can’t laugh.
What is done (and thus seen in the public eye) by a few celebrities in this realm is merely a mirroring of what has been occurring for decades. A percentage of theUS population is involved in trans-continental, transcultural adoption, and a few celebrities unsurprisingly fall into that percentile.
Jini Roby is an associate professor of social work at Brigham Young University, whose research, according to Noelle Nicolai in Crisis Calls for a Radical Increase in International Adoption of African Orphans, has proven that the coupling of the epidemic of AIDS in Africa with the orphan crisis “leave consideration of intercountry adoption as an imperative.”
In-country adoptions, also known as kin adoptions, were previously found to be effective, “but the kin system is now saturated and cannot adequately support the growing number of parentless children without external support.” Abuse and neglect is not unheard of and, says Roby, “although it may not be the ideal situation, a permanent stable home is still the better option.”
International adoption simply is the viable alternative.
So, why is it that so much of the media is blatantly disrespecting the attention that it itself is bringing to strife-ridden, AIDS-ravaged Africa?
I am not too sure, but this fact may have something to do with it: Last year, American families adopted 7,906 orphans from China, as opposed to 440 from Ethiopia, which had more orphans than all of the other African countries combined.
(Sigh)… Will it ever end?
I used to think so. But I’m older now, and hopefully a little wiser.
We can always have hope, though.
Could it be that as a genuinely concerned citizen of our world, maybe Madonna has somehow actually educated herself on these issues and is yet again trying to accomplish something philanthropic?
Were the international adoptions of other celebrities given this much condemnation and scrutinized this closely by the press?
The world is especially hard on the Material Girl. It is way past the start of a new millennium. We are living in 2006/2007 and people are still jealous, spiteful and afraid while watching someone who embodies an idea of free, innovative and different thinking.
What are we doing to ourselves?
Who are we as sentient beings?
At least there is some good that has come out of the despicable media farce that threatens to even further thicken poor Madge’s skin. Some much needed awareness has been raised regarding Malawi, and the possibility of international adoption is now open to those who may not have previously considered it as an option.
Girl! You better stock up on that Nivea!
During a short and very sour interview on Tuesday Oct 17 2006 with Suhana Marchand on CBC’s Newsworld Today, the forgettable Michael Blugerman, proclaimed invidiously that the child, David Banda “will have a charmed life, but how does that help the other children?” Well Mr… er… whatever, I really fail to see what, if anything at all, the separate, individual life of David Banda has to do with any other children, anywhere. Regardless of the fact that an indescribable amount of awareness has been raised by Madonna, David Banda and her Raising Malawi Foundation regarding the plight of “Africa’s AIDS orphans”, and the option of intercountry adoption.
This insidious Michael… whatever, then went on to falsely, recklessly claim that a foreign adoptive parent has to reside for at least 2 years in Malawi during the adoption process. Under the Malawi adoption system, an applicant should be resident in the country for at least 1 year - not 2.
But, nothing in this world is simply black or white!
Except maybe for the following statement: Basically the critics of this particular adoption would rather see one more child suffer the horrible plight destined to so many of Africa’s children, than to have allowed Madonna to continue to do her work without the extreme fanfare and drawing of attention to out-dated stipulations that have absolutely nothing to do with what Africa is facing today.
Interim orders are granted every day! They are inherent in all normal processes.
In light of what is happening in nations across the continent of Africa, the particular issue of an interim order being granted to Madonna in this case should be seen as even more normal!
It should be… but it isn’t.
Instead, it is wielded. As an effective weapon against the aid and relief of a rapidly dissolving representation and even foundation of human culture.
Taking into consideration the contemptible effects of colonialization, many people regard a high concern for a child’s welfare in a situation where he/she is taken away to be cared for by those of a different culture. This is a genuine, valid concern, and as Jini Roby stated in a discussion with me on Sat. Oct 21 2006, “many of the countries have a struggle with the past history of white colonialists and human slavery. They can’t believe that now a white person can really love a black child to the fullest degree.” However, this way of thinking can only hinder any benefit that can be gained through the incident of international adoption and, as Roby went on to say, “there are many barriers on both sides… that is why people who can traverse that chasm are to be congratulated.”
At this point, and in addition to the establishment of the charitable Raising Malawi Foundation, her Madjesty’s immeasurable heart (which, let’s face it, has to be at least vast enough to be able to house enough love in there for Madonna herself) is simply trying to help one more child avoid the inevitable: an extremely severe life of hardship and possibly death.
On behalf of the Eye of The Child protection society, Boniface Mandere said on Oct 16 2006: "The court seems to have made a decision based on Madonna’s wealth. But being a good parent is not about money. It is about caring, having heart. It’s about love.” Now then, if the Eye of The Child protection society really believes that Madonna has no care or love to offer, maybe the injunction they should be seeking is one that contests the multi-million dollar establishment of the Raising Malawi Foundation!
To add insult to injury, it was reported by many sections of the media that the confused father of David Banda, Yohane has claimed that he didn’t fully understand the details behind the recent events in his life. Well, who can say really what motivations have stirred this upset?
In an interview with Time Magazine (posted on Oct 24 2006), he has stated that he was not interested in reversing the adoption, as that would mean a significant demise to his son. As of Oct 26 2006, he was very concerned that Madonna would abandon the adoption: “These so-called human rights activists are harassing me everyday, threatening me that I am not aware of what I am doing… I’m afraid David will be sent back and the orphanage may not even accept him back. So where will he end up? Here? He will certainly die.”
Even if Madonna had considered returning David Banda to the hesitant hands of his birth father, and went on to adopt a different child, one without any living immediate family - so as to avoid any likewise complications, she would inescapably risk reinforcing the media’s unscrupulous view of the visit to Malawi as a mere “shopping trip.”
Oh Maddie! Our prayers are with you.
(I see a lengthy skit at the mental asylum in your future)!
During the much anticipated interview on Oprah aired on Oct 25 2006, Madonna thanked Oprah not for the chance to defend the adoption, but rather “for the opportunity to set the record straight.”
On being asked if she was hurt by the “negative press,” the singer replied: “I wouldn’t say I’m hurt by it… I’m disappointed, more than anything.” She harbors a concern that the media’s negative connotations to this particular incident may deter others from the idea of adopting from Africa.
A teary-eyed yet resolute Madonna then went on to state that her focus was turned to Africa while doing Live AID in 2004 with Bob Geldof, and that the couple (Madonna and Guy Ritchie) “decided to adopt 2 years ago,” although a location was not in mind. However, while becoming familiar with, and experiencing Malawi during the work that included the development of the Raising Malawi Foundation (the idea of which came about in Nov 2005), it seemed only natural that the adoption solidify with a child from Malawi.
Photographs were exhibited, and it was evident that David Banda is, at present, a very appreciated and cherished part of the family.
Speaking of 13 month old David, she disclosed that since his arrival at the orphanage when he was 6 weeks old, “he had survived malaria and tuberculosis, and no-one from his immediate family had ever been to visit him.” She believes, and rightfully so, that the obnoxious presence of the world press has frightened the local farmer, Yohane Banda, into a frantic worry over the adoption of his birth-son, after he had originally expressed gratitude toward Madonna for giving his son a life in the face of certain death.
At the close of the interview, firmly reinforcing her mandate, Madonna articulated: “I will give David an education and a chance for a better life, and what better way to go back and help his own people, and help (Malawi), and be a voice for the people, than to be able to first have a life and be educated.”
Madonna intends to return to Malawi often, every year, and hopes that David would be able to go with her, as well as the rest of her immediate family.
Whew! This has been one trip!
Sadly, there is no celebrity trend that I see here. Only prejudice, covetousness and misplaced resentment.
And although Madonna has seemingly gained some understanding from a pathologically unkind media while yet again deflecting some seriously incomprehensible hostility, this is only temporary, as usual.
Yes, I am sorry to inform you that, in the words of Phil Collins and Genesis, “This is the world we live in.”
-Kevin Dass
It was just inevitable that squabble and controversy would explode from Madonna’s visit to Malawi, the fourth poorest country in the world.
Madonna arrived in Malawi on Wednesday Oct 4 2006, intent on providing close to $5 million in education and other various programs toward alleviating the dire adversity and destitution faced by the indigenous orphans. She was also in the process of adopting a child from the nation which has a child mortality rate of 103/1000, an HIV infection percentage of 30%, and where 14.2% of the population is already HIV positive.
This particular adoption is currently being strongly criticized by many various factions including the Human Rights Consultative Committee (HRCC) inMalawi, and the Eye of The Child protection society, as it seems that Madonna was granted certain exemptions from the country’s dated adoption process.
However, the director of child services in Malawi, Benston Kilembe has repeatedly said that the couple (Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie) had followed all the normal processes, which had actually begun months ago; and thus, the official application for the adoption of the child, David Banda, was approved through the High Court of Lilongwe, where an interim order was granted.
This provision allows David Banda to reside with the singer for 18 months, while being monitored by officials from Malawi before a final approval is given for the child to wholly join with the family.
The majority of international adoptive parents reside in the US. Over the last few decades, US international adoption of children from developing countries has been on a constant rise, and especially so in the last 15 years.
Because of society’s misdirected focal point on celebrity, if ever a child from an impoverished nation is adopted by any celebrity, the details are naturally widely publicized. The media has recently dubbed the existence of celebrity intercountry adoptions as a mere “trend” while we are tirelessly bombarded with the respective particulars, even though such adoptions have been happening for years (Mia Farrow was doing it since the 1970’s).
Well! This is so laughable that I seem to be way past laughing! I just… it’s not… I just can’t laugh.
What is done (and thus seen in the public eye) by a few celebrities in this realm is merely a mirroring of what has been occurring for decades. A percentage of theUS population is involved in trans-continental, transcultural adoption, and a few celebrities unsurprisingly fall into that percentile.
Jini Roby is an associate professor of social work at Brigham Young University, whose research, according to Noelle Nicolai in Crisis Calls for a Radical Increase in International Adoption of African Orphans, has proven that the coupling of the epidemic of AIDS in Africa with the orphan crisis “leave consideration of intercountry adoption as an imperative.”
In-country adoptions, also known as kin adoptions, were previously found to be effective, “but the kin system is now saturated and cannot adequately support the growing number of parentless children without external support.” Abuse and neglect is not unheard of and, says Roby, “although it may not be the ideal situation, a permanent stable home is still the better option.”
International adoption simply is the viable alternative.
So, why is it that so much of the media is blatantly disrespecting the attention that it itself is bringing to strife-ridden, AIDS-ravaged Africa?
I am not too sure, but this fact may have something to do with it: Last year, American families adopted 7,906 orphans from China, as opposed to 440 from Ethiopia, which had more orphans than all of the other African countries combined.
(Sigh)… Will it ever end?
I used to think so. But I’m older now, and hopefully a little wiser.
We can always have hope, though.
Could it be that as a genuinely concerned citizen of our world, maybe Madonna has somehow actually educated herself on these issues and is yet again trying to accomplish something philanthropic?
Were the international adoptions of other celebrities given this much condemnation and scrutinized this closely by the press?
The world is especially hard on the Material Girl. It is way past the start of a new millennium. We are living in 2006/2007 and people are still jealous, spiteful and afraid while watching someone who embodies an idea of free, innovative and different thinking.
What are we doing to ourselves?
Who are we as sentient beings?
At least there is some good that has come out of the despicable media farce that threatens to even further thicken poor Madge’s skin. Some much needed awareness has been raised regarding Malawi, and the possibility of international adoption is now open to those who may not have previously considered it as an option.
Girl! You better stock up on that Nivea!
During a short and very sour interview on Tuesday Oct 17 2006 with Suhana Marchand on CBC’s Newsworld Today, the forgettable Michael Blugerman, proclaimed invidiously that the child, David Banda “will have a charmed life, but how does that help the other children?” Well Mr… er… whatever, I really fail to see what, if anything at all, the separate, individual life of David Banda has to do with any other children, anywhere. Regardless of the fact that an indescribable amount of awareness has been raised by Madonna, David Banda and her Raising Malawi Foundation regarding the plight of “Africa’s AIDS orphans”, and the option of intercountry adoption.
This insidious Michael… whatever, then went on to falsely, recklessly claim that a foreign adoptive parent has to reside for at least 2 years in Malawi during the adoption process. Under the Malawi adoption system, an applicant should be resident in the country for at least 1 year - not 2.
But, nothing in this world is simply black or white!
Except maybe for the following statement: Basically the critics of this particular adoption would rather see one more child suffer the horrible plight destined to so many of Africa’s children, than to have allowed Madonna to continue to do her work without the extreme fanfare and drawing of attention to out-dated stipulations that have absolutely nothing to do with what Africa is facing today.
Interim orders are granted every day! They are inherent in all normal processes.
In light of what is happening in nations across the continent of Africa, the particular issue of an interim order being granted to Madonna in this case should be seen as even more normal!
It should be… but it isn’t.
Instead, it is wielded. As an effective weapon against the aid and relief of a rapidly dissolving representation and even foundation of human culture.
Taking into consideration the contemptible effects of colonialization, many people regard a high concern for a child’s welfare in a situation where he/she is taken away to be cared for by those of a different culture. This is a genuine, valid concern, and as Jini Roby stated in a discussion with me on Sat. Oct 21 2006, “many of the countries have a struggle with the past history of white colonialists and human slavery. They can’t believe that now a white person can really love a black child to the fullest degree.” However, this way of thinking can only hinder any benefit that can be gained through the incident of international adoption and, as Roby went on to say, “there are many barriers on both sides… that is why people who can traverse that chasm are to be congratulated.”
At this point, and in addition to the establishment of the charitable Raising Malawi Foundation, her Madjesty’s immeasurable heart (which, let’s face it, has to be at least vast enough to be able to house enough love in there for Madonna herself) is simply trying to help one more child avoid the inevitable: an extremely severe life of hardship and possibly death.
On behalf of the Eye of The Child protection society, Boniface Mandere said on Oct 16 2006: "The court seems to have made a decision based on Madonna’s wealth. But being a good parent is not about money. It is about caring, having heart. It’s about love.” Now then, if the Eye of The Child protection society really believes that Madonna has no care or love to offer, maybe the injunction they should be seeking is one that contests the multi-million dollar establishment of the Raising Malawi Foundation!
To add insult to injury, it was reported by many sections of the media that the confused father of David Banda, Yohane has claimed that he didn’t fully understand the details behind the recent events in his life. Well, who can say really what motivations have stirred this upset?
In an interview with Time Magazine (posted on Oct 24 2006), he has stated that he was not interested in reversing the adoption, as that would mean a significant demise to his son. As of Oct 26 2006, he was very concerned that Madonna would abandon the adoption: “These so-called human rights activists are harassing me everyday, threatening me that I am not aware of what I am doing… I’m afraid David will be sent back and the orphanage may not even accept him back. So where will he end up? Here? He will certainly die.”
Even if Madonna had considered returning David Banda to the hesitant hands of his birth father, and went on to adopt a different child, one without any living immediate family - so as to avoid any likewise complications, she would inescapably risk reinforcing the media’s unscrupulous view of the visit to Malawi as a mere “shopping trip.”
Oh Maddie! Our prayers are with you.
(I see a lengthy skit at the mental asylum in your future)!
During the much anticipated interview on Oprah aired on Oct 25 2006, Madonna thanked Oprah not for the chance to defend the adoption, but rather “for the opportunity to set the record straight.”
On being asked if she was hurt by the “negative press,” the singer replied: “I wouldn’t say I’m hurt by it… I’m disappointed, more than anything.” She harbors a concern that the media’s negative connotations to this particular incident may deter others from the idea of adopting from Africa.
A teary-eyed yet resolute Madonna then went on to state that her focus was turned to Africa while doing Live AID in 2004 with Bob Geldof, and that the couple (Madonna and Guy Ritchie) “decided to adopt 2 years ago,” although a location was not in mind. However, while becoming familiar with, and experiencing Malawi during the work that included the development of the Raising Malawi Foundation (the idea of which came about in Nov 2005), it seemed only natural that the adoption solidify with a child from Malawi.
Photographs were exhibited, and it was evident that David Banda is, at present, a very appreciated and cherished part of the family.
Speaking of 13 month old David, she disclosed that since his arrival at the orphanage when he was 6 weeks old, “he had survived malaria and tuberculosis, and no-one from his immediate family had ever been to visit him.” She believes, and rightfully so, that the obnoxious presence of the world press has frightened the local farmer, Yohane Banda, into a frantic worry over the adoption of his birth-son, after he had originally expressed gratitude toward Madonna for giving his son a life in the face of certain death.
At the close of the interview, firmly reinforcing her mandate, Madonna articulated: “I will give David an education and a chance for a better life, and what better way to go back and help his own people, and help (Malawi), and be a voice for the people, than to be able to first have a life and be educated.”
Madonna intends to return to Malawi often, every year, and hopes that David would be able to go with her, as well as the rest of her immediate family.
Whew! This has been one trip!
Sadly, there is no celebrity trend that I see here. Only prejudice, covetousness and misplaced resentment.
And although Madonna has seemingly gained some understanding from a pathologically unkind media while yet again deflecting some seriously incomprehensible hostility, this is only temporary, as usual.
Yes, I am sorry to inform you that, in the words of Phil Collins and Genesis, “This is the world we live in.”
-Kevin Dass
posted by Kevin Dass at 6:55 PM
0 comments
