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!

February 18, 2008

The world is divided and it’s time for everyone to admit it. It was never “one world” and it can’t be.

I’ll never enjoy sharing a table with a Chinese or Korean who engulfs pieces of dog in front of my eyes. It is their table, not mine.

On February the 15th, Muslims from Denmark are re-enacting the riots of the Muslims from France in 2005. The 2005 civil unrest in France of October and November was a series of riots and violent clashes, involving mainly the burning of cars and public buildings at night starting on October 27th, 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois. A state of emergency was declared on November 8, 2005, extended for three months a few days later. The riots were triggered by the accidental death of two teenagers, Zyed Benna and Bouna Traore, in Clichy-sous-Bois, who were chased by the police as the two refused to stop. The two later ran into a power substation where they died, electrocuted. And the police was held responsible.

February 16, 2008 - Gangs of Muslims in Denmark set fire to cars and garbage trucks in northern Copenhagen, the sixth night of rioting and vandalism, angry at the reprinting of the cartoon of Mohammad in 15 Danish newspapers. Five youths (called “Danes” by the media) were arrested in the capital on Friday after 28 cars and 35 garbage trucks were burned. Cars and several schools have been vandalized or burned in the past week. Soft weather, schools closed, what else can the “Danes” do than burning or vandalizing schools? Anyway, they don’t need them.

I thought that their parents have left their archaic homes for Denmark to “give my children a better education”.
Several hundred Muslims (or “Danes”?) gathered in central Copenhagen on Friday to protest against re-publication of the cartoon.

November 8, 2007

One of these days, while looking for Toronto Hindu community websites, I found one where “our successesful campaigns”(sic!) are reason for community pride. These campaigns deal with a list of issues which bothered the Hindu community in 2003. The incriminated apologized so the community became at ease. Among the offenders, there was a Seattle based toilet seat manufacturer; this came up with a design depicting Lord Ganesh and Goddess Kali on the toilet inside cover.

February 2001: FoxNews Withdraws India map without Jammu and Kashmir http://www.ivarta.com/Cause/C1_Fox_Map.htm

31 January, 2003: Maxim Magazine Apology for Gandhi Bashing http://www.ivarta.com/Cause/C17_Maxim_Gandhi.htm

27 April, 2003: American Eagle Apologize for Lord Ganesha flip-flops http://www.ivarta.com/cause/C18_AE_Ganesha.htm

11 July, 2003: ‘OM’ Socks, Apology from the President, Gold Medal Hosiery http://www.ivarta.com/Cause/C21_OM_Socks.htm

9 October, 2003: Apology by Toronto Star for Insulting Durga Image http://www.ivarta.com/Cause/C23_TheStar_Durga.htm Toilet Seats with Ganesha & Kali Pictures withdrawn http://www.ivarta.com/Cause/C2_Sittin_Pretty.htm

I understand that, for a Hindu, it is an offensive gesture. Imagine the illustration of Jesus, Virgin Mary or, if you are an atheist, the image of a cherished writer, composer or painter in such a posture.

Not that our reaction would be similar to that of some Muslims.

Not that the Hindus reacted like the Muslims did when the Danish newspaper published the “offensive “caricatures.

The Hindus didn’t rush out in the streets, in strident crowds, burning flags, shouting “peaceful” slogans (see the Muslims’ slogans during their rallies), offering rewards for killing those incriminated or attacking churches and priests. Hindus proved to know better than the Muslims themselves a Muslim saying:”The ink of the scholar is closer to god/ more valuable than the blood of the martyr”.

After Sweden has taken a bold step in publishing Lars Vilks drawings, rewards were offered by two Islamic leaders for killing the artist and the newspaper editor. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, has offered 50,000 in an audiotape posted on an Islamist Web site to anyone who killed the editor of the newspaper that published the drawing .

Driven by the religion of peace, he even suggests an increased reward if the body is … slaughtered.

The head of an al Qaeda-led group in Iraq has offered a 100,000 reward for killing the Swedish cartoonist whose sin of drawing Islam’s prophet Mohammad triggers fueled reactions. He even threatened to attack major Swedish companies.

What we should acknowledge is that Islam and Mohammad are given unmerited absolute attention. This interest made Muslims believe that their presence in our societies is without equal, extremely important or even… vital.

They should be remembered that they are only one of the numerous religious communities in the western societies and that we do not owe them anything. On the contrary, they owe us a lot.

They should be remembered that their presence in our world bears nothing exceptional, with one notable exception: the terrorist fear instilled in the mainstream society. They are not more hardworking, educated or intelligent than other cultural or religious communities.

They should not be the exception to create the rule.

Weak voices say that not all Muslims are terrorists and that these fundamentalists are only an undersized group and they do not represent Muslims.

Very well, this is obvious, only that since a fundamentalist imam represents Muslims and the imam declares war on west, I believe that the Muslim community, if disagrees with such a position, must amend him. Instead, “moderate” Muslims (what exactly is the meaning of “moderate” when applied to them?) come in front and try to tell us that Islam is peace.

What about those imams who deliver daily speeches of hatred? Whom are they representing?

It has become a question of ultimate courage and symbol of “expression of our freedoms” to caricature/draw, with or without any aesthetic value, their prophet. I believe that it is an immature method to state and prove western values, our freedoms. There are by far much more imperative issues to deal with, to open and discuss, topics like teacher’s lack of authority, global warming, GMO, human-animal embryos, lenient laws in rape, pedophilia, first degree murder and the list could go on.

Our society must reconsider certain “values”, examples of “emancipation” like teenage pregnancy and parenting or encouraged trendy interracial adoptions. Instead, the western mind is obsessed with drawing Mohammad.

Be more serious, gentlemen.