Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

The Ignorance of International Adoptions
Saturday, September 6, 2008

Adoptions are not a novelty. Jesus was adopted by Joseph, Mohammad himself was fed by an adoptive mother during the first two years of his life.

Hokusai's first few years are a mystery, but he was born near Tokyo, and when he was four or five he was adopted by a mirror-polisher named Nakajima Ise.
Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, physician to King Amyntas II. His parents died when he was still a very young boy and he was brought up by a guardian, Proxenus, who sent him to Plato's academy in Athens about 367.
At the age of six Capote's parents abandoned him to the care of four elderly, unmarried maternal cousins, three sisters and a brother, living together.
Poe's actor parents died before he was three years old (his father had disappeared before he was born and his mother died in 1811) and he was fostered (never formally adopted) by a merchant named John Allan and his wife, Frances, who had been a friend of his mother. His older brother was raised by their grandfather and his younger sister was adopted by a different family, the Mackenzies, but he remained in contact with them.
Rousseau's mother died a few days after he was born (in Switzerland) and he was then raised by an aunt and uncle.
Langston Hughes was also fostered for two years by James and Mary Reed. Ella Fitzgerald, known as “Lady Ella", was also fostered by different people. The list could easily continue.

A domestic adoption is the placement of a child for adoption within the country in which he or she was born and normally resides.
International adoption is the placing of a child for adoption outside that child’s country of birth. The laws of different countries vary in their willingness to allow international adoptions. Some countries, such as China and Vietnam, have relatively well-established rules and procedures for foreign adopters to follow, while others, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for example, expressly forbid it. Some countries, notably many African nations, have extended residency requirements that in effect rule out most international adoptions. And some countries such as Romania are closed to international adoption altogether, with the exception of adoptions by close relatives (such as grandparents) or the case when the child can not find a family within Romania.
What are the reasons for these rich people to adopt from this part of the world? Media coverage? Lack of common sense? Extreme ego? Stupidity? Probably all of them.
Can a “star” be a good parent, responsible, capable to offer a child true motherly affection, a happy childhood and beautiful memories between shootings and travel?
Many children born to extremely rich and famous parents have complaint not once during their lifetime that they felt neglected, abandoned, because “My father was always gone, doing business”…
Can we assume that these actors and actresses from Hollywood can offer their child happiness and a true family?
How many of the actors and actresses coming from a Hollywoodian background can say that they had loving, caring parents, that they spent unforgettable holidays with their grandparents, that they remember decorating Christmas trees, going out for skating with their parents?
Almost all they remember is their parents divorcing and having sisters and brothers of different mothers and father.
And now, they are not only satisfied with their own born children, but they even adopt. From poor countries. To show the world their deep care.
As actors and actresses, do they have time to experience what parenthood is?
Can they offer love, besides expensive toys, clothing and trips? can they offer true affection? Or exotic maids are hired for that?
Do these children have grandparents? Is there a place in their adult memories for the image of grandparents?
What is hidden beyond these adoptions? Are these “stars” true Samaritans?
Usually, traditionally, people adopt orphans from their own culture and race, for various obvious reasons.
This offers the chance to give that child a home, a world without conflicts, visible truths and visible differences.

It is well known that the relation between Jolie and her father, actor Jon Voigh, is not to be envied.
In 2002, he was talking abut her “mental illness”, without giving details, probably thinking of her teenage habit of cutting herself. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/03/1028157858647.html).

In 2006, Jolie was finally able to have a child of her own and she gave birth to a daughter named Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, at night at the Cottage Medi-Clinic Hospital in Swakopmund, Namibia. People paid more than $4.1 million for the North American rights, while British magazine Hello! obtained the international rights for roughly $3.5 million; the total rights sale earned up to $10 million worldwide – the most expensive celebrity image of all time. All profits were donated to an undisclosed charity by Jolie and Pitt. Why undisclosed? On July 26, 2006 Madame Tussauds in New York unveiled a wax figure of two-month-old Shiloh; it was the first infant re-created in wax by Madame Tussauds.
Having already three children, Jolie can not stop from adopting and she put her eye on a little boy from Vietnam: Pham Quang Sang, who became… Pax Thien.
Hollywood has not only created a fashion in adopting exotic faces, but in inventing ridiculous names as well, “names” parents are happy to put on these children’s shoulders.

Meg Ryan couldn’t resist this trend either, so she joined the club in 2006 adopting a girl from, of course, China and, of course, renaming the girl as Daisy.

Michelle Pfeiffer (Catwoman in Batman Returns) has adopted a daughter, Claudia Rose, who was then adopted by Kelley following their marriage. The adopted baby was the daughter of an African-American nurse living in New York, who already had four children. At the time of the adoption, there were rumours that money was exchanged for the baby, but Michelle has vigorously denied these claims stating that the adoption was private (no money involved?!).
But Mia Farrow is definitely the champion with her 14 bunch of kids, 6 adopted and 4 of her own.

Cross cultural adoptions might be that popular because of the low cost, compared to indigenous ones and probably there is another factor: the spectrum of the living natural parents within your country is hard to deal with, especially that some natural parents might turn to extortions.
With children from the third world, people feel more comfortable.
But are those children happy?
Having an adopted child with dark skin or flat nose is an accessory for these women who believe that adopted parents develop deeper relationships with their children than natural parents, as actress Sharon Stone has declared.
Well, from the little puddle, dressed in pink and carried in expensive bags, buying an exotic child is all what these questionable people were able to think of.
If your image was a bit damaged or is in shadow, join the UN, adopt a baby, start fighting for Africa. Tibet is no longer on the celebrities’ list. Why not?
Because if they start messing around with the Chinese authorities, there are no more babies from China…


It is not known yet what is the future mental, emotional and ideological development of children coming form Africa or Asia, adopted by western “stars”.
Are they happy? Do they really feel that they have parents? Are they happy to grow up in a completely foreign environment, sometimes with natural born children to their “parents “as siblings, dispossessed even of their original names?
One day, they might feel the difference: my brother is the natural son, but I am adopted and I am from Africa. They go to school, but they know that their siblings are the natural children, while they are only the adoptees.
What is the future like for a child from Cambodia named”Maddox”? Or that one of an Ethiopian with a Swahili name?
What if these children would one day go back to their place of birth? And live among those people?
What drives these rich people to adopt from this part of the world? Fashion? Media coverage? Lack of common sense? Extreme ego? Stupidity?
Can a “star” be a good parent, responsible, capable to offer a child true motherly affection, a happy childhood and beautiful memories? Probably there are examples. But the overwhelming cases prove the opposite. Children of actors are not happy themselves, experiencing a troubled youth, blaming the separation of their parents for everything … Well, it is Hollywood, even if very far from anything connected with “holiness”.
How many of the actors and actresses coming from a hollywoodian background can say that they had loving, caring parents, that they spent unforgettable holidays with their grandparents, that they remember decorating Christmas trees, going out for skating with their parents?
Almost everything they can remember is their parents’ divorce and having sisters and brothers of different mothers and fathers…
And now, they are not only satisfied with their own born children, but they even adopt. From poor countries. To expose the world their profound “care”.
As actors and actresses, do they have time to experience what parenthood is?
Can they offer, beyond expensive toys, clothing and trips, love? Affection?
Or the exotic maids are made and hired for that?
Do these children have grandparents? Is there a place in their adult memories for the image of grandparents?

It is well known that the relation between Jolie and her father, actor Jon Voigh, is not to be envied.
In 2002, he was talking abut her “mental illness”, without giving details. He was probably referring to Jolie’s habit of cutting herself when he was as young as 12 at 14 she was already living with a boy. Her personal life is punctuated by bisexual love stories, written in her own blood on the back of some t-shirt, stories that ended in less than 3 years. Her tatooos also come and go, according to her benefit. Among those which had to go is the name of her former husband Billy Bob.
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/03/1028157858647.html).
Beyond their adoptions resides a colossal hunger for publicity. Selling the image of their born daughter for 10 mil dollars advocates it.
Pitt comes from a normal family, where his parents did not divorce and he has two siblings, Doug and Julie. He is one of the lucky actors who had a real family, with real siblings. After his marriage with Jennifer Aniston, he became trapped in Joliemania, adopting her style and “her” children as well.
Changing the names of their adopted children is not only the sign of their bottomless ignorance and lack of cultural sensitivity, but also the inability to foreseen the destiny of these unfortunate souls. Or should we call them instruments to gain public affection?
Adopting children from exotic areas gives them a phony sense of accomplishment, in truth no more than blatant selfishness and ignorance.
Changing their adoptees ‘names into some hybrid ones, is also the proof of their disrespect of the cultural background of these children.
Pham Quang Sang had an identity. (Quang: clear, brilliant; good reputation Sa'ng: bright)
What is… Pax Thien? Beyond the brilliant explanation given by Jolie?
Rath Vibol, who became… Maddox Chivan, might ask, one day: why did you change my name?
Tena Adam, adopted from Ethiopia, became…. Zahara Marley Jolie-Pitt! Tena means health. Zahara is a Swahili name, Swahili not being even among the languages spoken in Ethiopia.
… and… why Marley and not simply… Bob? When it comes to inheritance… well, that’s going to be another juicy story for the media.
Until then… maybe, in a few years, Brad Pitt marries… Marley.
Woody Allen had no problems in making Soon-Yi Previn his legal wife.

What is hidden beyond these adoptions? Are these “stars” true Samaritans?
What lies beyond these adoptions made outside your own culture and race? A sense of safety? That that child will love you more than one adopted from your own social area? That that child will never want to find his/her natural parents?
One day, they might feel the difference: my brother is the natural son, but I am adopted and I am from Africa. Or China.”I am Chinese, but I don’t speak Chinese”, they might say one day.
A Canadian documentary about the life of a Korean adopted by a Canadian couple gave a bitter glimpse in the pink painted world of international adoptions. That young boy felt alienated in “his family” in Canada and he never felt he had “parents”. He eventually went to find his natural parents. But his father had another life and this adopted teen had no place there, even if they tried to integrate him.
He committed suicide.
He was less than 20 years old.
Where is the place for such children? How much loneliness is hidden in their eyes?

Recently, Jolie and Pitt showed the world their own twins, a boy named Knox Léon Jolie-Pitt, and a girl, Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt (notice the French names as the babies were born in France; Marcheline was Jolie's mother name, an actress of French-Canadian descent on her father's side). They again sold the first photos of their newly born kids for… 14 million and this time there was no secrecy to where the money went: the Jolie-Pitt foundation.
Lucky Shiloh! Now the forces are equal in the Jolie-Pitt international team: three natural and three adopted, three blond and three other than blond.
Not long ago I was looking at a “family” photo with this little blond girl, Shiloh, surrounded by her “siblings” and I felt sorry for her. I saw her lonely.
I must admit that Jolie-Pitt’s decision to have more natural offspring was a brilliant choice, probably triggered by the idea that the little blond girl was in a … visibly minority position.
Three more and you have got yourselves a baseball team!

“I AM NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT”

October 18, 2007

CECILIA AND NICHOLAS SARKOZY: DIVORCE IN FRENCH STYLE
This is what Cecilia Sarkozy said. And we know that a non PC declaration coming from a first lady could cost a president’s destiny. She didn’t take any risks. Cecilia Sarkozy simply couldn’t accept the standard expected behaviour of a first lady. Accompanying her husband to all sorts of events was not for her. She is the woman who can’t submit her life to anything she doesn’t believe in. Politics is not her passion. In fact, it is a boring matter she found herself whirlpooled into.

She is the type of woman to lounge on a golden beach, sipping from a refreshing fruit cocktail, decorated with a pink miniature umbrella. She was a model and she keeps behaving like a model. And she made the rules from the very beginning, showing that she doesn’t want to dance according to the tune.

She left for a holiday in Florida directly before the Election Day, and also left Sarkozy alone at the G8 dinner table, heading for Paris. How else can someone display in a more direct manner a message? Today, she and her husband, President Sarkozy, separate by mutual consent. How is this going to affect the President’s political decisions, consequently France’s internal and external politics? We shall see. Nicholas Sarkozy , elected president this year, must face immense publicity and media scrutiny. Who is the next wife, if any? Is Anne Fulda, the Le Figaro journalist, who was Sarkozy’s girlfriend during his brief separation from his wife, Cecilia, in 2005? Maybe not.

On the other hand, Cecilia Sarkozy, born to a Romanian father and a Spanish mother, also had an affair in 2005 in New York with Richard Attias, a Moroccan-born French. Is there a reunion floating in the air?

Her mission to Libya and her chatting with Muammar Gadaffi left room for endless comments, suggesting that Sarkozy used her as a weapon of seduction. Hopefully, we won’t witness a Cecilia converted to Islam, advocating the “religion of peace”.

However, you never know.

KATOUCHA NIANE DEAD: ACCIDENT OR MURDER?

February 28, 2008

Some tradition-minded families have their daughters undergo FGC whilst on vacation in their home countries.
Some women take the hard road and speak out against the abuse and humiliation dictated by what some call “tradition”. Katoucha Niane was one of them. Born in Guinea, she was one of the world’s first models to have come from Africa. In the 1980s she modeled for Thierry Mugler, Paco Rabanne and Christian Lacroix and was described as Yves Saint Laurent’s “muse.”

Even if she was born to educated parents (Djibril Tamsir Niane, her father, is an author, playwright and historian, specialized in the history of the Mali Empire. In spite of his studies made in France, he has remained deeply anchored in the primitivism of the rituals dictated by his religion and agreed on his daughter to undergo the repellant procedure)at the age of nine, she had to experience one of the most barbaric rituals still practiced on Earth: female genital mutilation or cutting.

As Western governments become more aware of FGC, legislation has come into effect in many countries to make the practice of FGC a criminal offense. In the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly among foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley.

In Indonesia, the practice is fairly common among the country’s Muslim women. Due to immigration, the practice has also spread to Europe, Australia and the United States. Some tradition-minded families have their daughters undergo FGC whilst on vacation in their home countries.

In 2006, Ethiopian Khalid Adem became the first man in the United States to be prosecuted for mutilating his daughter. He had personally excised his 2-year-old daughter’s clitoris with a pair of scissors, in order to preserve “her virginity”. Katoucha Niane stopped modeling in 1994 to focus on activism and has become an outspoken activist against female circumcision, a rite constantly performed in Mali, Senegal, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Tanzania and some groups in the Arabian Peninsula.

In the Arabian peninsula, Sunna circumcision is usually performed, especially among Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation). The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan, and Iraq. Egypt recently passed a law banning FGC. She created the organization KPLCE - Katoucha pour la lutte contre l’excision (Katoucha for the battle against female circumcision).

In 2007 she published a book about her mutilation experience,”Dans ma chair,” in France. On February 1st, 2008, she returned to her houseboat from a party. This was the last time she was reportedly seen alive. Police believed that she was likely intoxicated and fell into the Seine. Her body was found in the Seine on February 28th, 2008.

While some customs and traditions must be protected and preserved, others are only remains of obsolete social realities or simply symbols of ignorance. Foot binding was a custom practiced on young girls or females for approximately one thousand years in China. In Chinese foot binding, young girls’ feet, usually at age 6 but often earlier, were wrapped in tight bandages so that they could not grow and develop normally; they would, instead, break and become highly deformed, not growing past 4-6 inches (10-15 cm). As the girl reached adulthood, her feet would remain small and dysfunctional, subject to infection, paralysis, and muscular atrophy. This mutilation requested by social status ended in the early 20th century.

FGC is the next on the list.
http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/FGM/netscapeindex.htm

July 3, 2007

Who is the new French president? Not a Frenchman, says Le Pen, expressing his total lack of confidence in the newly elected president. More than half of the French trust him to save the values of the country, say others. Labeled like no other modern European politician, Sarkozy gave hope to all those who believe that the national values are in danger, that the national identity is being swallowed by the refusal of the numerous ethnic communities to be integrated in the mainstream society.
Today, when the “ cultural globalization” crusade is PC and mandatory, while any phrase using the word “national” creates tsunamis of anger, Sarkozy made French think of their identity without embarrassment or culpability, and he opened the path for their voices to be heard and listened. He is the one who gave them hope that the Gallic rooster will continue its march in history in its traditional shape and colour. French or non-French, Nicolas Sarkozy was elected with 53.5% of votes ahead of Segolene Royal with 46.5%. That the Royal supporters were calling for re-elections is not something much of surprise, democratic values not being exactly what the socialist-communist ideologies are famous for.

Not a surprise indeed if you pay attention to her crowds of supporters. The great majority comes from certain parts of the globe, thus they can be easily spotted in the mob, parts of the globe where democratic values have no meaning, presidents being changed like socks or shoes, overnight, by a murder or coup d’etat. A president elected by the nation, through free voting, has no meaning for their mindset. Thus, translated to the French land, carriers of their traditions and values, these supporters keep thinking that their simple presence could change what a European nation has built for hundreds of years: a society based on democratic values. They believe that, if they do not agree with the elected president, they can riot in the streets and oust him in order to enthrone whoever they want. Well, unfortunately for them, they have chosen a wrong country to do so. Citizens or not, legal immigrants or not, Royal’s supporters exhibit a gregarious mentality, so much present and contagiously spread throughout Europe in the last decades. Why so much ado? Why the fear of rioting and violence since France is (still) a European, democratic country, where elections are not subject to frauds? Let’s take a closer look at the demographic profile of today’s French voter: there are more than 5 million Muslims who beyond doubt overwhelmingly voted for Royal. Take a look at the democratic values in the Muslim countries. Take a look at their “elections”. Besides Muslims there are south Asians, Chinese etc. ; take a closer look at their countries, at their elections, at their political assassinations. “Candidate for brutality” Royal says, apparently with her eyes closed at the French banlieues residents’ comments, since she got strong support there. Determined to crack down on crime, Sarkozy is not welcomed by those who grew up in families on social welfare, drug transactions, they themselves living gang lives on hard working people’s money. Sarkozy talks about children not respecting their parents and teachers. It is not only a problem specific to the French society, but the entire industrialized world feels the results of the “children’s freedom”. Children should run the world, say some. But children are already running the schools, the cases where teachers are threatened by violent pupils and overcrowded classrooms not being breaking news anymore. Sarkozy wants to change not only one minor thing, but many major ones. If you want to change you must be prepared not to be liked. And you must be prepared for labels and hatred coming from those you are pointing your finger at. Sluggish, violent youths, wandering the French suburbs, selling drugs, with earsplitting tunes emitted by the speakers of their cars, wearing ill-fitting trousers, gigantic chains and gilded plates around their necks? The image is familiar. They are those who started the violent riots in 2006. They feel “excluded”. Well, is it so? They are among those who are hot and bothered by the new president. Sarkozy can not be liked by such groups since Sarkozy doesn’t respect them and he had the courage to imply it, openly. They are what the communist societies called “parasites”. Quite accurate, isn’t it? What is the contribution these rioters brought to the French society? Do they pay taxes? Do they have a job or”¦ profession? “Job? Profession?” blasphemy! would scream the street. What is that sh–t? Instead of playing the slogan of “poor victimized youths” Sarkozy called them what they are, pointing out the reality: a bunch of people who are not interested in working, since working is considered degrading among their gangs. You work if you are stupid, they say. You don’t work and you make money if you are smart, they say. “Smart”? You can figure it out what the meaning of “making money” is for a “smart” one. Sarkozy’s victory has been marked by violent protests in Paris and other French cities. Police said that on the first Tuesday after the final result 20 people were still being held after a second night of violence in the capital. Police used tear gas to disperse around 400 protesters in the western town of Nantes late on Monday, while several hundred protesters gathered in other towns. Police made almost 600 arrests on Sunday. Protesters?! Protesting against WHAT?! Protesters protesting against the democratic results of democratic elections. Is this Europe? Is this a European mindset? The other discontented with the presidential result are the trade unionists, anxious that Sarkozy might take decisions without consulting them, thus, some began to wag their tails. Union workers have impressive amounts of immigrant members, and are, by definition, leftists. If union membership is almost forcibly for each worker in a factory, the demonstrations can also be seen as actions where presence in not compulsory, but required. This reminds us of the communist parades and peace rallies where each factory and institution had to be present, carrying and shouting slogans mastered by the “writers of the regime”. The French unions suggest social unrest if the Sarkozy policy is going to step on their toes.” Racist, nationalist, violent”- what else can be added on the list of labels Sarkozy was crowned with? He won, whether some like it or not. He won as a result of a democratic vote. Vox populi has spoken. In a lax society, where the PC ideologies and the “care” for the “cultural minorities” have given the majority the sentiment of being drastically neglected and discriminated, the voice of common sense has spoken. Half of the French are determined to put an order in a society mined by a crass lack of authority. Policemen are afraid to patrol in certain suburbs; youth attack policemen without penalty. Everything, in the name of “tolerance”. Everything in the name of “multiculturalism”. It has come the time to show an iron hand and the message is clear. Sarkozy might soften his image, but, if he softens his pre-electoral opinions and promises, the same vox populi who wanted him will give him the red card. And, no matter how good you are, once you got it, you must leave the playing field.