“I’ll go to Africa and get a baby if that’s what I want!” at Racialicious

“I’ll go to Africa and get a baby if that’s what I want!”

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

Um… okaaaaay?

Hat tip to Jezebel via Latoya.

Comments

hypoglycemiagirl wrote:

One can always hope it’s taken waaay out of context….

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶
ej wrote:

Okay these are children not pockebooks. Oh and furthermore what can these white people teach these black kids. They may not be american black but they are still black. Now if I wanted to adopted a white kid people would look at me sideways. This trend has become a joke now.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 4:04 pm ¶
Chill wrote:

Yup we manufacture em, you take em, smh

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 4:05 pm ¶
Jasmine wrote:

I’m with hypoglycemiagirl — it’s Page Six the Magazine, so I’m taking that pull quote with the biggest grain of salt I can find.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 4:12 pm ¶
Mireille wrote:

Damnit. I like Kristin Chenoweth.

I’m going to assume that was taken out of context. Or, you know, hoping.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 5:14 pm ¶
hadji wrote:

“take it with a grain of salt,” ummm, okay… But to play devil’s advocate and historian, that’s how it always starts.

Black americans and africans if we have anything in common, it’s that whenever someone “takes” we’re always asked to assume that those who do the taking either have the best of intentions or that it’s somehow a joke.

will we wake up one day with “adopt-an-african” trips? hardly. but this neo liberal white person’s burden of “lemme go scoop one of them up” like they’re a Prius or something is a little sickening.

I’ve been “the black friend” paraded around at hipster parties in college and after one too many times; but and i always had the luxury of leaving. i’ve had more than a couple black friends whose parents adopted them thinking, “oh there’s no difference between us being white and he/she being black, not really”… (long stories to say the least.)

raising a child is hard enough without some delusional crusading white liberals bringing their BS into some kid’s life. adoption is not a party and the kid doesn’t get to walk away once she/he figures out they’re just an accessory in somebody’s family wardrobe.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶
Brian wrote:

Whatever - that quote is nonsense. Kristin C is the business.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 7:10 pm ¶
Safiya wrote:

I saw that picture and thought “No way”.

Not cool, especially in the light of recent events in Chad.

P.S Despite the sucky name, I am growing increasingly fond of Jezebel. It’s good to have something for women to read that isn’t moronic consumerism.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 7:17 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

The African child has become the latest fashion must have item, right up there with expensive shoes, pocketbooks and little dogs that fit in your purse.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 7:46 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

BTW whats up with the hours to next day approval of comments by the moderators? How are you suppose to have a discussion if you have to wait the next day for a rebuttal?

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:04 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:

Shame on the mag for pulling that one quote out of what was at least an hour long interview.

I kinda like Kristen so I am going to blame the mag. But, it knda sucks that people think of Africa as the land of Stop and Shop Babies. Even when Romania was in dire need of adoption services, I don’t recall people referring to it with such flippancy….does anyone else?

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:29 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:

If these kids can have a chance, then why not?
I didn’t hear this uproar over the adoption craze of Asian girls ten years ago.
This sin isn’t with the adoptee, it’s a world that abandons it’s kids.
If you all disapprove then you put your signature where your criticisms are, and adopt one of these children if you don’t like it.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:48 am ¶
merq wrote:

Okay, I really hope someone actually reads the full article before leaping to her defense like some above have. I mean, it’s one (smart, savvy) thing to say:

<One can always hope it’s taken waaay out of context….

or

it’s Page Six the Magazine, so I’m taking that pull quote with the biggest grain of salt I can find.

or even to hope that someone you like didn’t actually make a statement as seemingly idiotic as this.

But chastising the publication for besmirching your girlcrush’s good name without any proof either way bothers me. I understand there’s a dearth of people we can still look up to, but saying “I kinda like Kristen so I am going to blame the mag” (ostensibly without doing any research to find out who was actually at fault) is no way to go about this.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 2:04 am ¶
NayLah wrote:

Wow - now African babies are in……..Thanks Angelina….

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:34 am ¶
NayLah wrote:

Ummm squidfly, so is it the world that is abadoning its kids or the world that is ignoring the millions of african parents who die from AIDS, genocide, starvation………shall I go on? Its funny to me the US always rushes to the aid of other races in need but when it comes to people of color especially Africans - they drag their feet and something is only done when some American star gets involved to raise awareness. Africa has been Africa for centuries and lieves are being lost everyday all day but we pick and choose the times we want to be involved when it is politically correct…….do you actually think the fact that Oprah put an all girls school in Africa that it will change anything? What a joke……why do people have to take these children away from their home in Africa instead of working to provide a real life for them while they live there……..sure it may be better here in America but what about the thousands of others that are still suffering? - Ok, now I am rambling………that darn Constant Gardener movie…….

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:44 am ¶
squidfly wrote:

NayLah wrote:
Ummm squidfly, so is it the world that is abadoning its kids or the world that is ignoring the millions of african parents who die from AIDS, genocide, starvation………shall I go on? Its funny to me the US always rushes to the aid of other races in need but when it comes to people of color especially Africans - they drag their feet and something is only done when some American star gets involved to raise awareness.

Your vitriol is aimed at the wrong target. The reason that most citizens avoid Africa is that it looks so overwhelming when they look at the problem in terms numbers, Americans see the millions who are desparate and throw up their hands, we then neglect the individual, that one person who can be saved.
And yes as the old adage goes “Take your help where you can get it”.
If Bono, Mia Farrow, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Don Cheadle are shaming the impotent Governmental bodies who are shackled by their Corpartist alliances into action, then why not. If Bill and Melinda Gates aim to make sure every poor child in the world has a laptop, then I support them, we can argue about class action law suits later.
Oprah’s school becomes a Beacon for others to take a chance and follow suit. If twenty of those young girls graduate from Oprah’s school, go to University, then you have twenty more educated young Africans than you did before. How do you think role models, become role models?
If Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Lil Kim, Diddy, and JZ used their influence to build a school in Ghana what ripple affect would that have?
The welfare of the child should be primary.
Let’s face it, celebritity star power is Western shamanism.
Save the Child, help the Nation.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 11:16 am ¶
mSsUnDrOp wrote:

Ultimately, I am going to have to agree with squidfly on this one: Save the Child, help the Nation (speaks volumes).

Yet, which Nation is really benefiting? Most of these children that are adopted OR given some form of external aid (via education or what have you) that did not rise out of the support of their respective ‘nations’ / communities seldom give back to the places that birthed them.

Also, Michelle, and I am just speaking from my minute sphere of observation here, how many of the families (famous or otherwise) that have adopted children from Romania or any other European/Asian Nation flaunt it in ways that scream ‘Applaud me, I’ve taken on the burden?’

My question: When did adopting the hordes of parentless children suffering from various atrocities (AIDS, genocide, starvation ….) in the States or Americas become substandard? Are ‘American’ children the equivalent of cheap knock-off ‘accessories?’

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:31 pm ¶
April wrote:

Holy shit!

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:56 pm ¶
Nina wrote:

Yeah it seems like a review of the entire article would be prudent, however it is not clear how the quote could be a positive one. Celebrities should know better than to toss off comments like this. Don’t worry Kristin, Dog the Bounty Hunter and Halle Berry didn’t get the memo either.

African babies are the new “it” accessory. And yes there were complaints in the past with the adoption of Chinese girls. I also recall uproar when people were returning thier less than perfect Romanian adoptees.

The issues in Africa are greater than getting kids adopted into wealthy Western families and giving each child a laptop. Education is important but for example, how do we stop brain drain-educated Africans leaving the continent for prosperity elsewhere. How can we increase production of goods in African nations when electricity and water infrastructure continue to be sub par. And of course there are the civil wars, and preventable diseases like TB and malaria that are taking their toll, not to mention HIV/AIDS. How do we convince big pharma to lower the cost of drugs and accept reducing their already exorbitant profits for the good of human beings in poor countries around the globe?

There are 54 countries on the continent of Africa, each with it’s own unique colonial history, form of government, exports, debt service, and current set of circumstances. “Take your help where you can get it” is what landed so many African nations in so much debt. So I disagree with that adage. I do agree that it is overwhelming and it does require great thought and long term commitment.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:

April: Seconded.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 1:27 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:

African Footballers(soccer) who play in Europe return back to their communities to help and share the wealth. Michael Esssien and Didier Drogba of Chelsea are examples, they also bring the focus back and humanize the people, since the image most Westerners have of Africa is a Sea of Black faces being buzzed by flies.
The brain drain issue has been going on for a long time. During the 60’s in England, it became a huge controversy because all the Tech and Science Brits were running off to Australia, South Africa or coming here to the US. Sometimes you have to leave in order to go back, that’s just the way it is.

Nina wrote:
“Take your help where you can get it” is what landed so many African nations in so much debt. So I disagree with that adage.
Look Africa still hasn’t recovered from Colonialism because the European’s won’t let go.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 1:55 pm ¶
Tokyorosa wrote:

Wow. Seeing that quote, it just struck me that the adopt an African baby trend for American (celebrity) women are much like the Thai sex tours for American (and Japanese and Australian) men: Go in, take what you want, and get out. (Bragging to your friends about it later optional.)

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 3:50 pm ¶
Nina wrote:

squidfly, you say “footballers humanize the people”. That is one of those statements that could ignite quite a discussion. And you mention a few examples but this is not the norm. African nations need a lot more than a few returning athletes, and entreprenneurs to end the brain drain. There needs to be real opportunity for Africans to stay where they are and prosper. Furthermore you cannot equate techies leaving developed countries with brain drain in developing countries. The consequences are much greater in the latter category. A lot of African nations need teachers, doctors, lawyers and not software developers and computer programmers. Why do professionals leave? More money of course and perhaps other factors, smaller class sizes, better school supplies, better medical equipment and access to medicines (some nations have only one dialysis machine and/or no treatments at all for cancer). I could go on and on, and I don’t mean to make excuses for Africa as there is certainly a lot that has transpired as a result of home grown corruption and dictatorships. But again I just want to point out that it is complex and there are no easy solutions. And it’s a global economy so decisions in Europe and the U.S. will continue to affect Africa.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 4:44 pm ¶
Miss B wrote:

I don’t know (or care) about the context. It made me think of this website though: http://adopt-a-black-baby.com/

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 5:20 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:

Actually Merq I stand behind my statement. Yes, I think she is a hard-working woman and I have heard her interviewed before and I have never heard her say anything “idiotic”. But whatever she said, I BLAME the MAGAZINE for PUTTING that quote on the cover of the issue. Whatever her fault is, the fault ultimately lies with the publication for pulling that one quote out of the context of the article and splashing it on the cover. It is a function of the thought process of the magazine that they use that quote to sell the magazine. She can say whatever she wants, but I think in the scheme of things, the fact that a publication would actually put that on the cover is more telling of the way that people think about adopting African babies. I don’t need to read the article to have an opinion about the cover of a magazine.

In fact the issue that I have is that whatever she said, however she said it, for that quote to be acceptable, or even sensational enough to put on the cover, speaks to the larger issue. I have no problem with people adopting babies from any part of the world, including America. But I have a problem with people seeing it as “Oh whatever, I’ll just go get a baby from ____”. But is seems like within popular culture, the current attitude toward adoption seems to be “Whatev, I’ll just go to Africa”. Again, with no thought to “Which country in Africa” or “And what are you going to do to with the baby once you get it”. I think that you could insert any celebrity on the cover, and the fact still remains, Why is that an okay quote to put on the cover of your magazine?

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 6:43 pm ¶
Shelise wrote:

In a thinking, critical community such as this one, I ask that we not essentialize adoption in to children being have-nots to haves. Adoption is a complicated process that has lasting ramifications for all parties involved, especially the adoptee.

Please also keep in mind that while adopted children are often referred to as orphans, we know that many adoptees have been relinquished by living parents, as is the case (to my understanding of the coverage) with Jolie and Madonna.

A question I have been grappling with lately, Why do we have chose which is the better life? Because, we can never really know which one would be better. Sure, in material terms it is easy to say which is the better, but material things won’t mitigate all the issues that come from being an international/transracial adoptee.

As someone who does not know the luxury of having genetic relatives, I often wonder how much material comfort I would sacrifice to have been able to grow up in a place where I see my own face reflected all around me.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

“American’ children the equivalent of cheap knock-off ‘accessories?’”
Now you know dam well no one wants to buy a domestic.
Maybe some one should ask an African how they fell about this.

Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 10:53 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:

Nina wrote:
squidfly, you say “footballers humanize the people”. That is one of those statements that could ignite quite a discussion.

Nina, I wrote:
“humanize the people, since the image most Westerners have of Africa is a Sea of Black faces being buzzed by flies”.

You list the problems and not the solutions.
If a Millionaire sports star can help the two kids in his/her community become a Doctor, then I don’t see what the problem is.
Nina wrote:
Why do professionals leave? More money of course and perhaps other factors, smaller class sizes, better school supplies, better medical equipment and access to medicines (some nations have only one dialysis machine and/or no treatments at all for cancer).

Your comments here sound like a recent report from the depts of Education and Health in any American City.

Maybe people should drop the accessory jokes and become active.

Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 12:09 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:

Shelise,

I agree. I have often wondered some of those same things myself.

In the case of Zahara Jolie-Pitt, she was allegedly dying in a orphanage, her mother had just passed away, and because of the intervention and adoption, resources were then available to save her life. Angelina was able to pay for crucial medicines. If that is the truth, then great. I wonder, however, is it better to give the crucial resources to the hospitals and people, and then letting the children stay with their families? I don’t know and no one can no what each child’s destiny is going to be, but your post raises some very interesting questions.

Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 3:59 pm ¶
egypt4 wrote:

Zahara’s story is not that one at all, actually. Some intrusive reporter tracked down some members of her birth family, whose photos were published in some paper.

Many or most of the kids coming from Ethiopia to the US have one or two living birth parents. They are far from being orphans.

Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 9:02 am ¶
michelle wrote:

I said allegedly because I wasn’t going to give the media too much credence.

But do you know more about the Zahara story?

Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 11:16 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:

People adopting children from foreign countries who are often in need, is a great and admirable thing to do. But when it’s racialized the way it has been, it seems like the honorable white heroes going in to save the poor africans from themselves, cuz they can’t even get it together to take care of their own kids.

What’s left out of this story is the history of colonization, oppression, violence and war, stripping nations of their resources, their people, their culture, their sense of community and autonomy. So when rich white celebrities go to these countries because (hopefully) they want to do something about the fact that children are starving to death or don’t have families in certain parts of the world, that kind of action is admirable. But what they’ve left out is that the culture this rich white celebrity comes from is directly responsible for the plight of these communities and children in the first place…the way the story is framed in the media, the entire historical context is conveniently left out, and all that’s left is: “decent white folk once again have to save the impoverished Africans”…um, you forgot the part where the decent white folk went in and massacred populations all over the world into submission, and MAYBE that’s why some African nations are having a bit of trouble right now, not because of something inherent about their race or culture…

Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 4:46 am ¶
GDS wrote:

Generally speaking, adopting from a foreign country has even less to do with the context some people are suggesting. Adoptive parents usually are not doing it to save a child’s life or to look outwardly good to their neighbors.

First, adoptive parents realize a desire and ability to become parents or to parent another child. Then through a wide range of circumstances, they decide adoption is right for them. Next, they look to where the needs are - where are there children in need of parents. Finally, they research the variety of adoption processes and circumstances and determine which makes the most sense. So yes, the need (real or perceived) is taken into account big time, but the decision is much more complicated.

As for why adoption is popular in certain places vs others - that’s more a product of the systems and agreements with those particular countries. Adoption is NEVER easy, but China is popular because while a long process, it’s predictible.

Adoption from nations such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, etc are becoming more common simply because those places are opening up and allowing adoptions now. Formerly common places for Americans to adopt like Russia, Romania, Columbia, and Cambodia are either closed, or have new restrictions.

I often see the question posed as to why American’s aren’t adopting kids from Iraq, Sudan, Burma or whatever place you can name. The answer is simple - those places don’t allow it.

That said, it’s possible the context of the article has more to do with the naysayers who suggest the actress should not be adopting across racial lines. So her reaction is to thumb her nose at them.

Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶
egypt4 wrote:

And there’s a false notion out there that massive waves of African kids are being adopted by American parents. Most African countries are closed to adoption for Americans, or if they’re not closed, then adoptions are only an option for Americans who reside in that country or for Americans who have citizenship there as well.

Ethiopia is the largest “sending” country in Africa right now. And in 2006, 731 Ethiopian children were admitted to the United States as adoptees, and a total of under 2000 have been adopted since 2002. Compare that to China, which had about 7900 kids going to the US in 2005 alone. And in 2006, over 4000 kids came into the US as adoptees from Guatemala. (All from the Dept. of State website on intercountry adoption: http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_369.html ) African children are a small percentage of new adoptees each year in the US.

I’m not discounting any individual child’s or family’s experience, but simply pointing out that the perceived trend is not quite so dramatic as it appears.

The other interesting thing about this conversation is that white adoptive parents often get accused of wanting the second best after white… thus the appeal of China because of the availability of girls and the model minority myth. But when parents go to Ethiopia, they’re accused of being proto-colonialists. And asked something along the lines of, “Aren’t American black kids good enough for you?”

The other one I heard recently was that Americans are choosing Ethiopia because they’re the lightest or least African of the African countries. (Not my words!)

Despite these comments, and my adoption of two boys from (guess were) Ethiopia, I am really ambivalent about intercountry adoption, including from Ethiopia, because I suspect there’s too much money involved for it be clean. This has been a developing attitude that I still struggle with.

The Page 6 cover was still awful. Did anyone actually read the article?

Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 5:36 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:

I went to Jezebel to find the whole article with no luck.

I also went to IMDB, Page Six and some other fan type sites, and still no luck. I haven’t seen the mag on the newstands (but I don’t live in NYC)

I thought the point of the original post was to discuss what the cover itself conjured up and to spark discussion. But if anyone can find the original article, I would love to see where that takes us.

Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 1:46 am ¶

“I’ll go to Africa and get a baby if that’s what I want!”

Comments

Post a Comment

« Home

About This Post

Categories

Interact

Subscribe to This Blog

Search

About This Blog