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.
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
I said something stupid an my friend’s response was
“Go back to the orphanage”
bio spawn spew ridiculousness all the same time, but this is the sort of shit that a true friend (or hell, even just a friendly acquaintance) would never even CONSIDER saying to somebody who’s orphaned.
i’m so sorry that happened. damn.
and because adoptees’ wholly valid responses get constantly invalidated in this world, I must say— just in case you felt like removing this “friend” from your social circle, you’d be more than justified.
DEAR BIO SPAWN,
STOP BEING DERAILING GASSLIGHTING FUCKWITS TO TRANSRACIAL ADOPTEES.
THE FACT THAT SOME OF YOU IGNORANT ASS SPAWN ARE FELLOW POC MAKES IT WORSE. THIS SHIT’S EXPECTED FROM WHITE PPL, BUT WHEN IT COMES FROM YOU IT’S NOTHING LESS THAN A BETRAYAL. (as if we weren’t excluded from poc communities enough already)
I HOPE YOUS REALIZE THAT THE SAME WHITE SAVIOR INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT DICTATES ALL ADOPTEES MUST ALWAYS BE GRATEFUL FOR AN INCREASINGLY ANTI-BLACK, ABUSIVE, ABLEIST SYSTEM OF CHILD TRAFFICKING (yes truly) IS THE SAME COMPLEX THAT DECREES ALL POC PARENTS AS INFERIOR TO WHITES, ALL POOR PARENTS AS INFERIOR TO THE RICH, THAT BLACK AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES DESERVE TO BE DECIMATED.
OH YOU MEAN YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT WHITE PEOPLE CAN ADOPT AS MANY CHILDREN OF COLOR AS THEY WANT AND THEN ABANDON THEM WITH NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES BUT POC WERE LITERALLY BANNED FROM ADOPTING WHITES (to the point where there’s still public outcry when black parents try to adopt white children)
OH AND IF YOU HAVE KIDS YOU BETTER PRAY YOU’RE NEVER CAUGHT IN POVERTY, NEVER UNJUSTLY ARRESTED, NEVER A SINGLE PARENT IN THE NON-WESTERN WORLD. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE, YOUR CHILDREN WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE BRANDED ORPHANS AND INSTRUCTED TO BE GRATEFUL WHEN THEY’RE TAKEN FROM YOU, WHILE YOU’LL BE BRANDED A WORTHLESS WHORE.
PUT DOWN THE WHITE SUPREMACY-UPHOLDING KOOL-AID, DO SOME READING, AND LEARN TO LOVE YOURSELF FOR FUCKS SAKE.
YOURS IN ETERNAL INGRATITUDE,
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.”
Dumbledore, notorious for giving second chances Dumbledore, let Sirius rot in Azkaban for twelve years.
He must have known Sirius well due to his time in the Order, he must have known what James meant to Sirius. Dumbledore was a member of the freaking Wizengamot yet he didn’t fight the Ministry’s horrifying trial-optional policy.
This is a man who took back Death Eater!Snape at his word, shielded him from prison, and employed him at a school for children.
But he didn’t have a use for Sirius, so he didn’t care about him.
I got 99 problems with Dumbledore and his treatment of Sirius Black accounts for like 64 of them.
To be honest, Albus Dumbledore is one of the most disturbing, terrifying characters I’ve ever found in a book, because he thought he was a good guy and so did everyone else and the books don’t really challenge it either (given that Harry forgives him for everything he did), but when you look between the lines he was profoundly, profoundly immoral and unethical.
A couple of months ago, I was talking about HP characters with a friend, and he said that Dumbledore was one of his least favorite characters of all time.
Naturally, this took me back a bit since he’s one of the heroes of the series, misguided as he was at times. Still, I was curious and asked my friend why he hated him. His answer still strikes a chord with me.
"There is never, ever a reason to leave a child in an abusive home. Never."
proof harry potter is definitely white and cannot be a POC:
- they dont mention his race, which means he’s white, the default race
- he has green eyes, which only white people can have
- he has messy black hair, a hair color most commonly associated with white people
- he is funny, charming, brave, and charismatic charismatic, traits i have trouble associating with non-whites
- he is a complex character and i have trouble imagining non-whites as complex people
- he is the protagonist of a book that is not about racism
He’s an orphan, and while the overwhelming majority of orphans are POC, important orphans that aren’t total charity cases (even though the Dursleys always harangue him about how grateful he should be while abusing him outright) MUST be white.
Page 1 of 14