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’ve never heard the term “trans-ethnic” before I saw it tonight in a reblog of someone I follow, so I googled it and I’ve concluded…
"Trans-ethnic" is basically just a term for white people who are pretending to be POC/appropriating the culture of POC and then claiming they are oppressed because they are white people who are pretending to be and/or appropriating the culture of POC. Yes?
What. The. FUCK. is wrong with people?
I know this is an old post, but I couldn’t not say something. Transethnic is a legitimate term that has been co-opted by dickheads who attempt to make it mean something it doesn’t actually mean.
Transethnic is a term used by adoptees who are of one ethnicity and have been adopted/raised by people of a different ethnicity. That is it’s true meaning and correct context.
Transracial is another adoptee-related term that keeps getting co-opted by racists. It’s real - in the context of adoptees being raised by people of another race (99.99999% of times it’s POC adoptees raised by white people).
But, yes, transethnic and transracial are real things. Just not in the ways those gross people would have you believe.
More info found here:
“Pro-tip: Transethnic adoptees who have been taken out of our birth communities and raised in white households are indeed ‘a thing’,despite white oppression-fetishizing fucks trying their damndest hijacking our terms.”
Actually, just searching transethnic on Brand X’s blog will give a wealth of information.
Eee, class bastards all over the world are giving me such LIFE today — many thanks, inthepocketofherraincoat *doffs cap* X
And to OP: I get that your heart’s in the right place and you’re trying to take white folks to task for co-opting the oppression of POC, but what you are actually doing is propagating the erasure of POC (especially children of color) by white supremacists with your buying into their hijacked notion of transethnicity.
Cut it out plz.
As an adult Korean adoptee, I knew first hand how it felt to grow up divorced from the language, culture and people of my birth country. The undeniable question for me involved whether I could reconcile my political beliefs with participation in international adoption. Could I call myself a feminist and social justice advocate and still adopt? I realized that for me, the answer was no.
I am part of a growing number of adult adoptees who view adoption as a feminist issue, part of a continuum of reproductive rights. This perspective extends to the right to raise one’s child the same importance as the right to choose whether or not to bear one.
In her book “Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States,” feminist historian Rickie Solinger examines adoption through this lens of reproductive rights. She states, “I believe it is crucial to consider the degree to which one woman’s possession of reproductive choice may actually depend on or deepen another woman’s reproductive vulnerability.” In other words, how might an individual woman’s right to choose adoption actually exploit another woman’s lack of rights?
Myths of the legitimate mother
Conventional language around child relinquishment has often fixed birthmothers in a position that simultaneously acknowledges and negates them. As an example, here is the story I was told about myself when I was a young girl: You were abandoned on the doorstep of an orphanage with a note that read “Please take care of my child.” Your mother loved you very much, but since she was probably a prostitute, a very young (probably teenaged) girl, or a single woman, she couldn’t take care of you. So, she did the most loving thing a mother could do, she gave you up for adoption so that you could have a better life.
I accepted and retold-indeed, even took pride in-this story for years. This narrative, conveyed by my parents who first heard it from the adoption agency, illustrates the sort of manufactured positioning that Kim describes. It marks my birthmother with a presumed status, and this status ranks her on a social scale, at an inferior placement that highlights her lack of resources and defines her as therefore illegitimate for motherhood. Her economic and social vulnerability is an unquestioned given.
The story further implies certain suppositions about what “a better life” means. In this scenario, “better” clearly means American, but it also suggests wealthier, Caucasian, and most important, not with my birthmother. This notion of “a better life” has permeated adoption narratives since the practice began, often used as justification for its existence.
Over the years the social justice argument for adoption has proved increasingly problematic for many. In her article “Birth Mothers from South Korea Since the Korean War,” scholar Hosu Kim states, "Although it often has been understood historically as a humanitarian effort … I argue the practice of intercountry adoption is a radical example of global inequality played out at the site of actual woman’s bodies and often pits two women-the birth mother and the adoptive mother-against each other in a struggle to claim a legitimate motherhood."
As a woman dealing with the pain of my own infertility, I did not want to think through all these questions when I first considered adopting a child. Frankly, I just wanted to be a mother. My decision not to adopt after realizing that adoption was in conflict with my political beliefs is my personal choice. I do not condemn all adoptive parents, my own included, whom I love profoundly. Nor do I condemn adoption across the board. I do think, however, that we need to reframe our discussion of adoption. And though this story is about international adoption, I believe this discussion should include domestic adoption and foster care.
I believe that if the spirit of feminism creates solidarity between women across social, economic and racial barriers, feminists should work to remove the obstacles that render women around the globe so powerless, rather than using their situations as a reason to take their children from them. We should also question adoption language that carries implicit judgments of who makes a legitimate mother. Other issues to address are using children as a commodity, and racial coding of mothers and children. And we should work toward the extension of reproductive rights to include the rights of women to raise their children.
YES! finally found this link again, i’ve been searching for it again for ages (too many links in my resource list). this is a PERFECT commentary on how i feel about the fundamental problems of adoption and the right to parent.
pssst. PRO-TIP: The international adoption industry took off when an army of Western countries (everyone from Australia, Canada, Luxemburg, United States, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) went to Korea, committed genocide and war crimes, then adopted the children of Korean natives they’d killed or raped.
maybe it was the 80s or maybe it was just clueless adoptive parents or both, but i always feel bad when a krn adoptee gets named ‘kim.’
ew. omfg, I have also met white people who adopted girls from China and renamed them ‘Jade’
Page 1 of 30