Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
I’m been getting mad shit from
antiblack abuse apologists people trying to justify the actions of Stacey Conner, that white American mother who gave away her adopted 5-year old Haitian child and claimed she suffered "domestic abuse" at his hands.
Of course they claim to be unbiased fact-checkers in search of “the whole story,” all the while remaining conveniently ignorant of all pertinent facts to the growing epidemic of adoptive child trading abuse and in the U.S.,
From When Children Are Traded, published November 20, 2013 in The New York Times:
[TRIGGER WARNING: sexual assault, child abuse] This is “private re-homing,” something that once meant finding a new home for a dog that barked too much. Now it refers to families recycling their adopted children, often through Internet postings.
There are commonly no courts involved, no lawyers, no social service agencies and no vetting of the new parents. There’s less formality than the transfer of a car.
Private re-homing of adoptive children was explored in a devastating five-part investigative series this fall from Reuters. The reporters found that on one Yahoo message board, a child was offered for re-homing on average once a week (Yahoo has since closed the board). Most of the children ranged in age from 6 to 14 and had been adopted abroad, but some were American-born.
When one troubled Russian girl was 12 years old, she was re-homed three times within six months and told Reuters that, by the time she was 13, a boy at one of the homes had sex with her — and then urinated on her.
A Chinese girl crippled by polio ended up in a home where a woman with an explosive temper was eventually overseeing 18 children. The girl says that the woman confiscated her leg brace, which she needed to walk. And, according to court records, the woman, as a form of punishment, once ordered her to dig a hole in the backyard — for her own grave.
“You die here and no one will know,” the Chinese girl quoted the woman as saying. “No one will find you.”
But instead of reading Reuters or the New York Times, these
antiblack racists “objective” bloggers keep relying on that one Good Housekeeping magazine interview (LOL of all sources).
post-buster, which exclusively promotes itself as a “fact checking” tumblr, is the most recent culprit in the vilification of an abused 5-year old Black adopted orphan. They claim coverage of his mistreatment was “exaggerated” and without “context,” and they focus on J.s “behavioral problems that made the mother fear for the safety of her other children.” They FAIL to acknowledge that the “attachment” abuse J. was subjected to for months where a child must ask for necessities like food and water, was the same kind that murdered 4-year old Cassandra Killpack, another Black adoptee branded with “reactive attachment disorder” and “emotional problems.”
post-buster encourages others to call them out when they fuck up. So I leave it to the allies of adoptees to step up now and do so.
It bears knowing that this Haitian child was branded “attachment disordered" and subjected to an intense regimen of "attachment parenting" in which children are forced to ask for basic necessities like water and food.
One of the leading proponents of this brand of “parenting” is American adoption expert Nancy Thomas, whose standard for good adoptive parents is as follows:
"If you don’t know if a parent’s a really awesome parent or not, we have a little test. You look at the child. If the child has their head and their arms and legs still attached, that’s it! It’s an awesome mom, an awesome dad. And you know, it’s just proof right there. Because if they weren’t an awesome mom and dad, they would have ripped the child’s head off by now, or at least an arm." — Healing Trust: Rebuilding the Broken Bond for the Child with Reactive Attachment Disorder [X]
this article is also quite good i think in deconstructing the bill? http://38north.org/2012/09/chong091912/
ironically there’s a comment from a guy who runs a similar organization in canada and a comment from someone from LiNK at the bottom of the article/briefing/report thing.
LiTL: Okay this report is very good so I’m just gonna replicate the important bits here
Yet this bill recklessly turns on the fiction of the “North Korean refugee orphan,” construing the latter as a child without nationality, in order to authorize the acceleration of U.S. adoption procedures through “alternative mechanisms.” Although the bill purports to help “thousands of North Korean children [who] do not have families and are threatened with starvation and disease if they remain in North Korea or as stateless refugees in surrounding countries,”[ii] its truth can be found in its preamble, which supposes that “thousands of United States citizens would welcome the opportunity to adopt North Korean orphans living outside North Korea.” Suturing its loose definitional categories together, this legislation seeks to establish, as a precedent, the category of “statelessness” as a flexible definitional vehicle by way of which inter-country adoption can be expedited and international laws meant to safeguard the rights of children and families circumvented. Aimed not at resolving North Korean hunger, much less the well-being of the children whom it willfully misrepresents, this bill lays the task of “identify[ing] other nations in which large numbers of stateless, orphaned children are living who might be helped by international adoption” at the doorstep of the State Department.
The bill’s alarmist image of “thousands of North Korean children [who] are threatened with starvation or disease” does not, in point of fact, correspond to the reality of the children who—albeit often poor and sometimes in the care of a grandparent—actually have families, have household registration papers, attend schools, are relatively well-nourished, and are Chinese citizens. Strategically loose on the supply-side details, this bill risks instrumentally construing these children as adoptable when, in fact, they are not. Far from ensuring the best interests of the child, as specified by international protocols, including the Hague Adoption Convention to which the United States is signatory, the North Korean Refugee Adoption Act, if passed, will give legitimacy to practices that shift U.S. adoption policy toward child-laundering.
Although the image of the destitute North Korean child wandering alone in strange lands may serve as potent propaganda for the bill, this dire portrait is complicated by the fact that the children whom this legislation primarily targets are Chinese citizens who have families.
Neither, for that matter, does the current legislation acknowledge that the “North Korean orphan”—anachronistic language retained from the 2003 bill—designates the China-born, mixed-ethnic offspring of Chinese fathers and North Korean mothers. If the details of the North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2011 are fuzzy on the supply side, they are clear on the demand side.
this bill sounds very exploitative to me and wow this is fucking horrible
this article starts with the line ‘when half the faculty at Harvard and Boston College Law Schools endorse a bill that encourages poor countries to take children from their mothers and send them to the United States for adoption, you’d think something was amiss’ and it’s probably a sign i read too many (or just enough) adoption blogs that my first thought was ‘i thought that was the whole point of international adoption’.
"Children who were not unparented or homeless before end up becoming institutionalized as a direct result of orphanages setting up shop in poor areas.”
Page 1 of 28