After reading these two
severely contrasting pieces of literature on transnational adoption, I have a
hard time deciding which side I agree with more. I first began with Nelson’s
reading which had an overall negative tone when discussing transnational
adoption though the author states “I neither support nor condemn the practice
of transracial and transnational adoption” (Nelson, pg. 90).
I found “Shopping for Children” to be a chapter
that reiterated some of the downfalls to transnational adoption that we
discussed in class. One of the more shocking parts of Nelson’s piece that we
did not discuss in class was the “authenticity” and “ethnic” appeal to transnational
adoption. I had never before thought of Americans as adopting children for the “excitement”
of having a diverse family member. It was almost appalling to read that
adoptive parents were expressing, as Nelson states, “their appreciation of the ‘enrichment’
they will receive as a result of having someone foreign-born in the family”
(Nelson, pg. 94). When a child is being adopted for “enrichment” of the parents
it is as if the child is being used as a mere means. I think this mentality
results in an inaccurate expectation of the adoptive parents and may lead to
inadequate care for the child.
After reading “Shopping for Children” I read the
chapter “Joy and Surprises from Abroad”
by Adam Pertman. His writing was at a stark contrast to Nelson’s. He displayed
Americans in a glowing light when it came to transracial adoption. I found
Pertman’s writing to be interesting in that he made the other countries in the adoption
processes out to be the deceptive and “evil” ones. When he discussed the
adoption process of Michele Greene he focused on how the Guatemalans involved
in the adoption were in the wrong, while at the same time Michele Greene was
also just as involved in the shady on goings as the others. I think Adam
Pertman does have a point when he discusses the way in which some countries can
abuse the adoption process. It raises a question of how does one know when an
adoption is safe and when it is abusing someone. I think this is something that
needs to be further investigated because many adoptive parents may be involved
in deceitful and harmful adoptions without their knowledge.
I believe our discussion in
class will be helpful for me to better grasp these contrasting viewpoints and
to hopefully uncover where I personally stand on the subject of transnational
adoption.
Julie Thurmes
Graded Blog Post Reply 8: Marit F.
ReplyDeleteJulie-
I thought your blog post was very clear as you described the contrast between the articles. I also felt that Nelson has a negative view of transnational adoption while Pertman tends to see the light in all the possibly negative situations that arise with transnational adoption. I also thought that it was interesting how negatively the Guatemalans’ were viewed in Michele Greene’s case. Michele states, “Almost everyone I dealt with there [Guatamala] was awful” (Pertman, 76). This quote seemed blunt and discriminatory towards the Guatemalan adoption services. It was obvious, to the reader; the only problems Michele faced in her transnational adoption were with the Guatemalan services. By stating this, Pertman is putting the United States on a pedestal that is better than all other countries. Although I think it is always good to see things in an optimistic way, I think it is important to include the negative aspects of a certain scenarios. Pertman should have included some of the wrongdoings or “shady” things Michele was doing in her adoption process. By stating this, others may not gain such a negative view of the Guatemalan government and adoption agencies and furthermore, may think more deeply about the hardships they may endure adopting transnationally. Overall, I think it is important to look both at the positive and negative views of transnational adoption, such as those from Pertman and Nelson, before making an overall decision whether it is ethical and in the best interest of the child.
-Marit F.