Don Cheadle on Darfur: "And Now What?"

Darfur is Rwanda in slow motion. Darfur has time that Rwanda did not. America can make the difference. WE can make America make the difference.

That’s the message Don Cheadle and John Prendergast recently imparted at a lecture I attended, adding urgency and up-to-the-minute information to the passion expressed in their book, NOT ON OUR WATCH: THE MISSION TO END GENOCIDE IN DARFUR AND BEYOND

Don Cheadle, fresh from his role in HOTEL RWANDA, had heard about Darfur from Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA). A short time later, he met John Prendergast at a screening of the film, hosted by the New York Holocaust Museum. In 2005, NIGHTLINE captured Mr. Cheadle's journey to the camps in Chad, and the burned 1,500 villages in Darfur. The experience left him humbled, but he also felt it would be the height of hypocrisy to declare the platitudes of "Never Again" during the promotion of HOTEL RWANDA, but not do everything in his power to stop the killing in Darfur.

"If you're a parent, like I am, to see the children that are suffering as a result of what's happening in that region and also, finding yourself in a place where you can't believe you knew so little about, where so much is happening... It just struck a chord in me and touched a nerve that it's hard for me to do anything but ask myself afterward, "And now what? You've seen it, you know it, you've confirmed it, and now what?"

That lingering question led NOT ON OUR WATCH: THE MISSION TO END GENOCIDE IN DARFUR AND BEYOND, a book authored by the actor and Prendergast, a senior advisor to the International Crisis Group, an organizer of Enough! The Project to Abolish Genocide and Mass Atrocities and a former director of African affairs for the National Security Council (1996-99) and a special adviser to the State Department (1999-01). Prendergast has been working to end crises in Africa for 23 years.

Prendergast described Darfur as "Rwanda in slow motion". "In Rwanda, within 100 days, 800,000 lives were extinguished. Those people can't be brought back... Here in Darfur, it's going on NOW. It's a race between the killers in Khartoum and those who would intervene and stop the killing." Prendergast noted, sadly that during the entire 100 days of the Rwandan genocide, the US government didn't receive one letter from an American citizen, urging action. This time, he points out, is different. The crisis is moving slowly enough, and, "for whatever reason", Darfur has captured the imagination of the average citizen in such a way that it IS becoming a political issue. These two factors give Prendergast and others in the human rights community hope.

As Prendergast explains it, after years of brutal political repression from Khartoum, non-Arabs living in the Darfur region of Sudan began a small guerrilla war to fight for political representation. They successfully attacked about 30 Police and Army outposts in the region. Rather than engage with the guerrilla militias, Khartoum "contracted out" to the Janjaweed, a militia Prendergast describes as a Sudanese "Ku Klux Klan" -- a racially motivated, armed "lynch mob", essentially. The Janjaweed practices a slash and burn warfare against villagers, figuring if they kill or displace anyone who can give material support to the rebels, the rebellion will dry up. In the ensuing years, 1,500 villages were razed, 400,000 people were killed and millions were displaced, mostly to NGO-supported refugee camps in neighboring Chad.

"Phase Two" of the Janjaweed assault consists of attacking African Union Peacekeepers and NGOs (charities like Mercy Corp., Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc.), forcing them to pull out of the region, leaving the refugees abandoned and vulnerable. It is in the face of this mounting crisis, this attempted genocide against those who survived the first pogrom that requires stronger international intervention.

So far, the White House has offered a very mixed bag: Bush has rightfully called the crisis in Darfur a "genocide", but then has failed to take the next step, required by the Genocide Convention, signed after WWII, to take swift action to prevent the genocide and punish those responsible. Prendergast explains that while the US has provided funds and material support in the form of humanitarian aid to the refugees, it has refused to impose any real consequences on the Sudanese government.

The reasons are simple. First, Khartoum feels that by hiding behind the extra-governmental actors, the Janjaweed, it has plausible deniability. Second, after spending decades helping Osama Bin Laden, Sudan suddenly switched sides shortly after 9/11, becoming an "ally" on the war on terror. According to Prendergast, Sudan has vast intelligence on the financial structuring of Al Quaeda, and they are withholding that information from the US -- dangling it in front of our noses, as it were -- to provide themselves with an insurance policy against international interference. "Every time the US is about to get tough, Khartoum 'happens' to find another file." Finally, China is the major investor in Sudan and the biggest customer for Sudan's oil. To sanction Sudan would be to confront the Chinese, something few in Bush's inner circle wish to do. Prendergast insists that China is, in essence, "financially supporting genocide".

To answer criticism that the UN is obstructing the US on this issue, Prendergast pointed out that China has never once exercised it's veto power on the Security Council over a human rights issue. While everyone acknowledges that China is no champion of human rights, to put it mildly, they also don't want to be isolated as the only country publicly DEFENDING genocide. It is Prendergast's considered opinion, that with the US and Britain in lockstep, we could back China into a corner, essentially shaming China into going along with sanctions.

How do we move President Bush? This is the most interesting part of the lecture -- and, interestingly, due to it's timeliness, the part not covered in the book:

Don Cheadle exclaimed, "There is a decision being made very quickly. There's a way to make your voice heard while there's something that is pending." Prendergast elaborated: "The President has on his desk, or is about to get on his desk, very soon, something he's asked for. He said, ‘We are not doing enough to end this genocide.’ He's using this word, ‘genocide’, the first time a President has ever called a genocide by it's rightful name while it was ongoing. President Clinton didn't do it in '94 in Rwanda, famously using all kinds of verbal gymnastics, trying to circumvent what was believed to be a legal obligation, then, to act. President Bush, remarkably and courageously, used this term. Everyone thought it implied that he would act [due to the requirements of the Genocide Convention], then [Bush] didn't..."

Now, after mounting political pressure, especially from Christian and Jewish conservatives -- members of his base, Bush has asked for recommendations from National Security Advisor Steve Hadley. Those recommendations either have been or are soon to be delivered. The recommendations could range from instituting an arms embargo, freezing assets or travel bans that would restrict the movement of senior Sudanese officials. Other recommendations could include sending in more African Union Peacekeepers (ironically, including troops from a now peaceful Rwanda) or more UN Peacekeepers. Not even advocates like Prendergast believe it is in anyone's best interest to commit American troops.

This brings us full circle, to Mr. Cheadle's stark, honest question: AND WHAT NOW?

Relying on his own experience in the halls of government, Prendergast shared his plan of action, "Make some noise. Demand from your elected officials that they make this issue a priority and that they press the President of the Unites States to do so, to take the lead in undertaking the kinds of actions necessary within the international system and we can end this genocide very very quickly.

There's no K-Street lobbying firm advocating for genocide and crimes against humanity. It's in our hands. We don't have an opposition -- it's just inertia and indifference and ignorance that are our enemies on this issue.

From the experience I've had, [calling/writing/emailing/demonstrating] DOES make a difference. When a member of Congress or a Senator or the White House gets a slew of letters or emails or phonecalls, demanding action, they will respond. That's the way our system works."

For more great information on how to effectively work to end genocide, buy "Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond" by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. The book includes a thorough history of the Darfur genocide, Northern Uganda, Congo and (as those involved in Ethiopian adoptions are aware) Somalia. The book includes SIX INSPIRING WAYS TO ACT, three ways to stop genocide, a profile of "upstanders" -- normal citizens who are making a difference through creativity, and a HOST of incredibly valuable tips about how to effectively advocate (which would be useful for ANY kind of activism). The book also contains many emotional stories of the crisis and lots of first-person reporting by Don Cheadle as he canvases the globe in hopes that he can make his pledge "Never again" a reality.

SwerlAction:

Call The White House comment line this week, to demand stiff sanctions against the Sudanese government.

Here's the number -- (202) 456-1414

Talking Points (courtesy of www.savedarfur.org):

I'm calling because I am concerned about the violence in Darfur, Sudan.

I urge President Bush to implement "Plan B" without further delay.

Nearly two months have passed since the President's January 1st deadline for the Sudan to cooperate - it's time to act.

While calls are best, you can ALSO email the White House and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, urging them to take stronger action. The message will read:

Every day, the 2.5 million people chased from their homes in Darfur face the threat of starvation, disease, and rape, while the few lucky enough to remain in their homes risk displacement, torture, and murder. Therefore, I call on you to do the following:

1. Push for the immediate deployment of the already-authorized UN peacekeeping force.
2. Strengthen the understaffed African Union force already in Darfur until the UN force can be deployed.
3. Implement a fair and lasting Peace Agreement.
4. Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for delivery.

Other resources:

SAVE DARFUR/Global Days for Darfur

Enough! The Project to Abolish Genocide and Mass Atrocities
www.sudandivestment.org - if you are part of any kind of mutual fund or pension fund, contact the mutual fund or pension fund manager and request that the fund DIVESTS ITSELF OF ANY SUDANESE INVESTMENTS. This kind of economic boycott helped bring an end to Apartheid.

Making China accountable

Buy HOTEL RWANDA


earth.google.com - Download Google Earth, find and click on Darfur to see an amazing presentation that gives you the reality of the situation through a massive on-line exhibit.

Introducing SwerlAction!

We are a dream constituency. We are, for the most part, pretty well-off, responsible citizens, spread out all over the country, in all different districts, in different faith communities, of all different races and backgrounds. Yet, due to the miracle of adoption, we care about ending extreme poverty on a continent still coping with the legacy of actual imperialism and economic imperialism.

We are all agents for change. There IS NO ONE BETTER THAN US. We aren't neo-hippie college students or professional activists. WE ARE THE AVERAGE FOLK -- except for one fact: how we are expanding our family, and the cultural and political awakening that brings.

I've been increasingly motivated to take my commitment to Africa seriously -- to try to give back as much as I can, in return for what Africa is entrusting to me.

I'm also trying to keep this here blog clean and readable. Sometimes, as new posts get added, important ideas get buried.

I've avoided expandable posts for activism, trying to make sure it all gets read, but it's gumming up the works.

The solution is SwerlAction, a new link list at the upper left-hand side of the blog. Before surfing your friends' blogs, take a moment to peruse.

The rules of SwerlAction are simple: ONLY TIME REQUIREMENTS, NO CASH REQUIREMENTS.

THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SOLICITATIONS FOR DONATIONS.

No lists of non-profits, no "cause marketing", no "fair trade catalogs".

It will be:

EMAIL CAMPAIGNS
CALLING CAMPAIGNS
ONLINE PETITIONS
ADVOCACY GROUP MEMBERSHIP DRIVES (NO COST, NO CHARITIES)
NO-COST-TO-YOU, "CLICK"-BASED FUNDRAISING.

It will work to end extreme poverty and attendant problems in AFRICA.

This keeps everything nice and clean. I will keep on top of it to try to keep it current.

If you have any ideas that MEET THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS, please EMAIL ME.

Let's be the best darn motley crew of advocates for Africa we can be.

Darfur Days

On Friday, I heard an inspiring lecture by John Prendergast (International Crisis Group/www.enoughproject.org) and actor Don Cheadle on the genocide in Darfur.

I will have a proper post on Monday regarding the lecture, but that will be too late to urge everyone to attend a rally on Sunday (tomorrow). This is a crucial moment. President Bush has declared the crisis a "genocide", but has failed to live up to the International Genocide Convention, signed after WWII. His staff has recommended stiff sanctions against the Sudanese government, but Cheney and other members of his Cabinet are arguing against implimentation for various political reasons, including Sudan's intelligence capabilities against terrorists and maintaining good relations with China.

It could either way. Only popular pressure can encourage Bush to make the moral choice rather than the politically-expediant choice.

Attend a rally tomorrow (Sunday, April 29th). Go to SAVE DARFUR/Global Days for Darfur for information on rallies in your area. You can enter your zip code to pull up that information.

Also, if you cannot attend a rally, call The White House comment line this week, to demand stiff sanctions against the Sudanese government.

Here's the number -- (202) 456-1414

Talking Points (courtesy of www.savedarfur.org):

I'm calling because I am concerned about the violence in Darfur, Sudan.

I urge President Bush to implement "Plan B" without further delay.

Nearly two months have passed since the President's January 1st deadline for the Sudan to cooperate - it's time to act.

While calls are best, you can ALSO email the White House and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, urging them to take stronger action. The message will read:

Every day, the 2.5 million people chased from their homes in Darfur face the threat of starvation, disease, and rape, while the few lucky enough to remain in their homes risk displacement, torture, and murder. Therefore, I call on you to do the following:

1. Push for the immediate deployment of the already-authorized UN peacekeeping force.

2. Strengthen the understaffed African Union force already in Darfur until the UN force can be deployed.

3. Implement a fair and lasting Peace Agreement.

4. Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for delivery.

Addis Sheraton the New Guantanamo!

Is anyone worried that our government has turned a downtown hotel in Addis Ababa into a potential target for a terrorist attack?!?!? Seriously, ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? (full article here)

More than 200 FBI and CIA agents have set up camp in the Sheraton Hotel here in Ethiopia's capital and have been interrogating dozens of detainees -- including a U.S. citizen -- picked up in Somalia and held without charge and without attorneys in a secret prison somewhere in this city, according to Ethiopian and U.S. officials who say the interrogations are lawful.

U.S. and Ethiopian officials say they have netted valuable information from some of the 41 detainees, who are being brought before a court whose proceedings are closed to the public.

Others have been quietly released, however, and human rights groups are criticizing the joint operation as a kind of "decentralized Guantanamo" in the Horn of Africa.

Welcome to the SWERL Family

Welcome the following folks to the SWERL family:


Ethiopian Adoption Blogs:

• A New Flower Blooms


• All Marrd Up KitKat


• Bringing Home Babylicious and Other Adventures (One Woman's Journey)


• Carpenter's Children



• Church of Christ: Adoption Stories from Ethiopia


• Church of Christ: Adoption Blog - Ethiopia


• Growing a Family


• Hale Clan


• On the Road to Emmaus


• Homeward Bound - Our Ethiopian Adoption Journey & Life


• Life is Hard But God is Good


• The Sering's Trip to Ethiopia

Other African Adoption Blogs:

• Adventures from Brown City Rd


• Help for Mama

Parent(s) Who've Adopted Transracially:

• Life in Fitzville

EVEN NEWER ADDITIONS:

• Cathytalks


• Elias Brown


• Named After Mexico


• Our Family Expansion


• Ramiah


• The Rowan Family Tree


• Westhaven Kids (Previously Miriam Desta)

Pamela Kruger Weighs In

I've had the good fortune of hearing directly from contributor/editor of A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER, PAMELA KRUGER. She opens up about her own adoption and discusses the question "How open should your adoption be?", in response to Jenna Hattfield's contribution:

I stumbled across your blog and was delighted to see your thoughtful discussion of the essays in our book.

As a parent of a bio child too, I really related to your point about Bonnie's essay.
But I have to respond to the comments someone made to your other post about searching for birthparents and openness. I actually did quite a bit of research on this topic (before writing my essay for the book and before deciding whether to open up adoption).

The adoption literature clearly shows that the secrecy and shame of past generations was hurtful and damaging to adoptees; but it's not clear what impact openness--and all its variations--will have on kids. Open adoption is still an experiment, a work in progress.

The major longitudinal study on the subject--following children in open adoptions, and comparing them to a group in closed adoptions--has found that a lot of the fears about open adoption were unwarranted. But so far, it hasn't found that kids in open adoptions are better off emotionally. It seems that there are other factors at play.

As Dan (Savage's) essay shows, having an open adoption presents unique challenges. I've opened an adoption myself, so I'm clearly not opposed. But my feeling is that too often this discussion is filled with "shoulds." Adoptive parents should do this or should not do that.

What I wanted to show with this book--my essay, Dan's, and others--is that the situation is infinitely more complex.

Thanks.

Pam

www.pamelakruger.com

A Love Like No Other: Transformations

Here's the last review post about the book of essays, A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER. These focus on how adoption has transformed the life and world-view of their adopted families.

RELUCTANT NO MORE (NOT THAT I EVER WAS) by Joe Treen is a personal favorite. Ladies, if anyone ever needs to peer into the mind of the "RELUCTANT SPOUSE" (or need help in PRODDING a "reluctant spouse", these few pages are the keys to the Kingdom. Joe hits on all the concerns that quickly jumped into men's minds: anxiety about providing for a family, loss of autonomy, threat to career path -- it's all there. What Joe also explores is the huge, unexpected reservoir of emotion that children pull to the surface. Ultimately, as is usually the case, love easily trumps all nagging doubts.

AND THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED by Adam Pertman describes how an adoptive father/journalist slowly transforms into an adoption advocate, working at the Evan B. Donaldson's Adoption Institute. I admire Adam's desire to look for the "big picture" and his passion to ensure, to the best of his ability, that his personal choice for his family's expansion is something that his family can view with pride -- by ensuring that EVERY adoptive family feels pride.

ACROSS TWO CULTURES by Emily Prager portrays Emily as a forerunner in ensuring that her adopted child feels connected to her country of origin. Emily puts her daughter, "LuLu" into a private school for Chinese immigrant kids, so she could learn Chinese and about Chinese culture, history, customs, etc. As the only non-Chinese parent, she stuck out like a sore thumb, but in time, her hard work to connect LuLu to her country of origin pays dividends. I really admire Emily's approach. Her dedication is remarkable, and it's amazing to see how poised LuLu is, how accepting she is of her adoption, because of all of Emily's hard work. This one is inspiring.

THE ORPHAN MYTH by Doug Hood reads like Sebastian Junger -- a doctor traveling the world with Healing the Children ends up becoming an adopted father, taking his new daughter along with him as he travels from orphanage to orphanage. The writing is evocative and intense, a great read.

SPECIAL NEEDS by Jenifer Levin tells the touching story of a woman who, as a girl, felt like an outcast. Along with her girlfriend, she adopted two "special needs" boys from Vietnam. She tries to shelter and protect the boys, struggling to make sure they thrive. In the end, however, when a "routine" operation nearly kills her, it is the boys who come to HER emotional rescue.

A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER spans a tremendous number of stories and situations. The writing, largely, draws the reader in, encouraging the reader to live and breath in the essayist's situation. With so many different stories and different personalities of writers in the offing, the book succeeds in provoking thought in potential
adoptive parents.

Urban Outfitters Still Selling Shirt in Stores

It's been confirmed that Urban Outfitters STILL HAS THE SHIRT IN STORES. They think they can combat an internet campaign by taking it off the site, but leaving the shirt in stores -- without admitting a mistake in judgment.

TELL Richard A. Hayne, Chairman of the Board of Directors and President of Urban Outfitters that it needs to be PULLED FROM STORES.

EMAIL: richard.hayne@urbanout.com

TEL: 215-564-2313; FAX: 215-568-1549

SNAIL:

Urban Outfitters, Inc.
1809 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Urban Outfitters Follow-up

My letter to Richard Hayne/who else is blogging about this:

My letter:

Dear Mr. Hayne:

My wife and I are adopting a girl from Ethiopia. My sister was also adopted into my family via a closed domestic adoption in 1976. I grew up in Lancaster, PA and have been a customer of Urban Outfitters in Pennsylvania, New York and Los Angeles.

I've recently seen what I consider to be a demeaning and offensive T-shirt, sold at Urban Outfitters, which reads: "Adopting is the New Black". Obviously a reference to Angelina Jolie and Madonna, it nevertheless trivializes adoption, adoptees, the motives of adoptive parents and diminishes the bond they share. All of this adds up to re-enforcing a cultural prejudice that adopted kids are somehow "less than" children, in comparison to biological children. This is certainly not how my parents felt, and certainly not how I feel (I am also the father to two "bio" sons).

I am very active on the online adoption community, running a blog that gets a thousand visitors per week and links to approximately 150 other adoptive family/adoptee blogs, which receive similar traffic.

I assure you, those of us who seek to help our families and improve the lives of children here or abroad, will not patronize a store that seeks to belittle our children in pursuit of a misguided attempt at cultural commentary.

I strongly urge you to consider the impact this shirt will have on the very real day-to-day lives of adopted children. I hope that you will be moved to take action and remove this shirt from your store.

Other thoughtful posts on this issue:

A NEW FLOWER BLOOMS

LIFE IN FITZVILLE

OUR JOURNEY TO "LITTLE MAPLE" AND BACK

THIRD MOM

THE VOYAGE

CHSFS ETHIOPIA FORUM

4 LITTLE BIRDIES

Urban Outfitters' "New Black" Eye

Adopted children are not trendy accessories. Not fashion items. Not fads.

They are our hearts.

To URBAN OUTFITTERS, they are the butt of a cruel joke:

ADOPTING IS THE NEW BLACK

Ha ha. Sadly, most people don't hang with Angelina and Madonna, so they won't get the joke. Who will "experience" this fine foray into humor are adopted kids and their parents. They will be the ones who get the "pleasure" of being demeaned, of having their bond trivialized. Adopted kids are already prone to feeling like they don't really "belong". Imagine the "fun" of having their peers wearing these shirts which suggest that their parents acted not out of love but out of a desire to be "trendy" or "hip". How "cool" to have your existence equated to a Birkin bag, a Louis Vuitton or Ugg boots! And for adoptive parents, how "irreverent" to suggest that your child is a commodity, obtained thoughtlessly, for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and status.

What makes this all the more disgusting is that the founder, Chairman and President of the company, Richard A. Hayne, is a staunch supporter of a "family values" politician, Rick Santorum. I would love to know how the above T-shirt fits with Santorum's Christian beliefs and "pro-family" stance.

Evidently, Richard Hayne's idea of valuable customers don't extend to adoptees or adoptive families. Other customers Haynes decided not to value include those of Mexican descent, Jewish people and African-Americans. The store has featured shirts with the slogans "New Mexico, Cleaner Than Regular Mexico" and "Everybody Love a Jewish Girl" (the slogan was surrounded by dollar signs, showing that Shylock is alive and well in this century) and the board game GHETTOPOLY , which, I'm sure, had a very realistic portrayal of black, urban life.

Oddly, given his politics, he also decided it was cool to sell a magnet set in which one could play "dress up" with an image of a crucified Jesus... put him in a nice hat and a dress, for example.

I think we need to inform Richard Hayne that our children are not accessories.

Please join me in calling, writing and emailing Mr. Hayne to communicate our feelings on the way he chooses to make money:

Richard A. Hayne
Chairman of the Board of Directors and President

Urban Outfitters, Inc.
1809 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

richard.hayne@urbanout.com

Tel: 215-564-2313

Fax: 215-568-1549

PLEASE PASS THIS POST ALONG TO EVERYONE AND ANYONE YOU KNOW WHO CAN HELP TAKE ACTION!

American Idol

I'm sure most of you watched and were as moved as I. What made me very happy was how many people I spoke to on the phone tonight -- family and friends -- who were moved for the FIRST TIME by the show. Personally, I felt they did a great job, even though they touched on key points very lightly. It is amazing to me the power of a few seconds of oblique television coverage. I could do this blog for a thousand years and not reach the number of people American Idol did with a few minutes of "coverage".

Like many, it was Jeffrey Sach's inspiring call to arms, THE END OF POVERTY that originally stoked my passion to help end global poverty. I'd read a review and bought the hardback when it came out. It managed to be rational, spiritual, realistic and hopeful all at the same time, moral in the deepest sense. I think it would be impossible to read it and not be moved.

So, even before the adoption process, global poverty has been on the radar. What amazes me is how many really "felt" it for the first time tonight - even people who've been aware of our adoption. It makes me feel great that perhaps, because of this special episode of an otherwise banal show, I may be saved from having to explain the kind of conditions that lead to children being relinquished in African countries. More importantly, maybe this will represent a turn of a corner for this issue in the mind of public.

I'd love to know what reactions you've heard to the show. Were people surprised? Did people seem to have a new awareness? Will any of them carry forth, allowing their emotions to stoke long-term action?

Please share!

Oh, and to keep the momentum going:

What can you do to support Idol Gives Back:

Make a donation here.
Read more at www.cpefund.org.
Tell your friends about Idol Gives Back.
Get all the kids you know to go to Scholastic.com/idolgivesback
If you want to learn more about how you can help to make poverty history go to www.one.org.
If you would prefer to donate offline, please send checks, made payable to:

Idol Gives Back
c/o Citizens Bank
PO Box 4365
Woburn, MA 01888-4365

ONE: Senatometer At 42

Since last Monday, ONE members have been writing and calling their senators asking them to sign on to the "Feinstein-Hagel" Dear Colleague letter asking for $39.8 billion for the international affairs budget (IAB). We want 60 signers by Friday, and right now we're at 42.

VIEW THE LIST OF SENATORS, BUG YOURS IF HE OR SHE IS NOT ON THE LIST!

Birthmothers

You know what a broken heart looks like? Like a sobbing teenager in a hospital bed giving a two-day-old infant she knows she can't take care of to a couple she hopes can.

Orphans. The word is thrown around alot in cases of International Adoption. On those long walks in the summer with my family when all this first came up, I was comfortable with orphans. Who couldn't appreciate giving an orphan a home?

Then, while on the boards, people kept making references to "traveling south", once in Ethiopia, to meet the "family" - overtaxed aunts and uncles?

No, the poster made clear that she was in contact with the birthmother. Initially, I rebelled (in my mind) -- "Wait! Whoa, hold the phone, nobody said anything about birthmothers!"

Since that moment, I have worked on educating myself about open adoption, trying to visualize explaining it to a child, weaving it into our lives.

Much of my fear comes from the fallout from my sister's closed adoption, her birthmother's return and then her birthmother abandoning the relationship. In our case, the birthmother was a destabilizing influence, to say the least.

That's why Dan Savage's essay, LIVING WITH A VERY OPEN ADOPTION really spoke to me.

It provoked me to visualize a moment I intellectually comprehend happens, but on which I dared not dwell:

I was thirty-three years old when we adopted DJ, and I thought I knew what a broken heart was, how it felt, what it looked like. I didn't know anything. You know what a broken heart looks like? Like a sobbing teenager in a hospital bed giving a two-day-old infant she knows she can't take care of to a couple she hopes can.

I won't be there for that part. We will get a referral picture. Maybe, if she shows up, we will meet the mother months later. That doesn't mean that a moment such as the one described above didn't happen. It's just uncomfortable (or, maybe, emotionally crippling) to think about.

Dan continues:

Ask a couple hoping to tadopt what they want most in the world and they'll tell you there's only one thing on earth they want: a baby, a healthy baby. But many couples want something more: They want their child's biologincal parents to disappear. THey want their child's viological mothe rand father to be forever absent so there will never be any question about who their child's "real" parents are.

In my darker, less proud moments, I admit to this. I was shocked that Dan Savage put it in an essay in an actual book. (He goes on to explain that he never felt this way and wanted an open adoption).

Then, in other moments, I would find myself agreeing with the anti-adoption folks, that maybe the whole idea of adoption is wrong on the face of it -- cruel and confusing to the kid, robbing them of a sense of culture and history and family. Better to stay in Ethiopia.

I guess, at some point, I grew up. After long talks, my wife and I started discussing about ways to keep the birthmother "in the family". My wife would talk about feeling a connection "as a mother" to this woman -- knowing what it feels like to be pregnant and experience birth...

Um, no, I didn't get it. Intellectually, I was all about discussing it, but emotionally -- nada. My "heart" wasn't guiding me. My heart was shrunk back in my chest cavity hiding from the whole thing.

Then, I wrote that review for Bob Shacochis' essay, KEEPING IT ALL IN THE FAMILY. As I recall, my review reflected my initial feeling: "basically useless to me".

Well, yesterday, I found myself ruminating on it, for no particular reason, when, suddenly, my heart spoke up: "What if, for whatever reason, you were tapped to take care of your niece, like Bob was? How would that be? More importantly, how would you treat your sister in such an instance?"

Suddenly, it came to me, a gloss on the "Golden Rule" that made sense to me intellectually AND emotionally: The birthmother will become family. TREAT HER THE WAY YOU'D TREAT YOUR SISTER. TREAT YOUR ADOPTED CHILD THE WAY YOU WOULD TREAT YOUR NIECE, IF YOU HAD LEGAL CUSTODY. Instantly, everything became clear. I would never not "parent" her. I'd be the parental role model. I'd teach right from wrong, exert my "parental authority", or whatever, but I'd never try to create a fantasy that my sister didn't exist. I wouldn't fail to acknowledge her role in my neice's life, or try to quell the unique bond they would share. I would never try to deny her importance to my child's identity in a misguided attempt to make her feel "normal", "the same as the bio kids", "part of the family" or "ours". She WILL be "ours"... and she won't be. She will also be the daughter of a man and woman in Ethiopia... and that makes THEM part of our family, too -- to be treated with the same respect and decency as a sister or brother.

Blair warns West will suffer if it fails Africa

"The more I look at what is happening in Africa, in some of the worst trouble spots, in Sudan and Somalia and so on, the more I am convinced that if we do not take a responsible and long-term view of Africa and its need to develop and make progress then we will end up ultimately with our own self-interest back in countries like Germany and the UK being damaged as a result of the poverty, the conflict, the mass migration and the spread of terrorism," he told journalists.

by Guy Jackson Tue Apr 24, 3:54 PM ET

BERLIN (AFP) - Prime Minister
Tony Blair warned here on Tuesday that wealthy Western countries would ultimately suffer if they failed to fulfill their pledges to help the development of Africa.

Blair, former UN chief Kofi Annan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met in the German capital to discuss the work of the Africa Progress Panel. Chaired by by Annan, it was set up last June to monitor the progress of rich countries in meeting their commitments to Africa.

Leaders of the Group of Eight most industrialised nations pledged at the British-hosted Gleneagles summit two years ago to grant substantial debt relief and double aid to Africa by 2010.

While the debt relief goals have largely been met, most G8 countries are well behind on the aid targets.

Merkel has promised that Africa will be also one of the key themes at this year's G8 summit hosted by Germany.

Blair said debt relief to Africa had totalled around 38 billion dollars (28 billion euros) in recent years and there had been "significant, though not enough, increases in the aid money that has been given."

He said the consequences of failing to help Africa could be dire.

"The more I look at what is happening in Africa, in some of the worst trouble spots, in Sudan and Somalia and so on, the more I am convinced that if we do not take a responsible and long-term view of Africa and its need to develop and make progress then we will end up ultimately with our own self-interest back in countries like Germany and the UK being damaged as a result of the poverty, the conflict, the mass migration and the spread of terrorism," he told journalists.

Blair said it had been shown that "where the help is given it does make a difference.

"There are health service systems and education systems being transformed and changed as a result of the help and commitment that has been given by the international community," he added.

Merkel and Annan said the Africa Progress Panel was seeking to ensure that existing debt targets were met.

"We are not asking for new promises, we are asking for the implementation of what has been promised and I am encouraged by the meeting we've had and by the support we've received from both leaders," Annan said.

The former UN Secretary General said African leaders were increasingly aware that "they have to solve these political conflicts to be able to focus on the economic and social issues."

He pointed to conflicts resolved in Angola, Sierre Leone, Liberia, Burundi, and Eritrea and Ethiopia as proof that Africa could get its own house in order.

Annan said earlier he would be delighted if Blair were to join the panel after he left office this year. Blair is yet to reveal his future plans.

Merkel said it was time for wealthy countries to meet their pledges.

"We don't need more meetings to set targets, we already have the targets. Now we need to make a certain amount of progress.

"The German presidency (of the G8) will take over the impulse of Gleneagles," she said.

The G8 summit takes place on June 6-8 in Heiligendamm and will be attended by the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.

David Halberstam: The Children

David Halberstam died today in a car crash in Menlo Park, California.

He'll be eulogized for many things. For me, though, he's the person who made the Civil Rights movement REAL. In his inspired work, THE CHILDREN, Halberstam brings depth and emotional resonance to the story of the young, non-violent protesters who formed the nucleus of SNCC, CORE and the Freedom Riders. It's a bottom-up view of all the familiar scenes -- Birmingham, the march to Selma, etc. While most books about the Civil Rights movement concentrate on Dr. King, this book focuses on the kids he inspired. The dramatic shift in focus is disarming, recasting the entire story in a fresh way.

Here's the secret -- Halberstam captures the FEAR. By focusing on King, knowing he is a martyr for the cause, many books portray King (and other leaders) as righteously resigned.

THE CHILDREN begins with college students, just being introduced to the concept of non-violence in little workshops. Some don't take to it very well. Some don't take to it at all. The book goes into deep detail about what a person feels like, who, on the basis of convictions and a few hours of training is going to sit there and allow themselves to be beaten and abused. It's terrifying!

Halberstam rips away the inevitability of history, which also affects books on this topic. In THE CHILDREN, none of the participants can "see the mountain". They have NO IDEA if their struggle will mean anything. Since slave rebellions on, very few African-American uprisings amounted to more than violent retribution and worsening oppression. Again, this unique points of view lends urgency, suspense and horror to these familiar places and times. For me, the book allowed me, for the first time, to really feel TRANSPORTED to that MOMENT when the firehoses were being turned on.

The perspective also shows was a modest movement it was at the beginning -- everyone knew each other, and everyone had opinions as to how it should be run. In some ways, it felt like a contentious student government meeting, or a weird frat or a strange extracurricular activity. At that moment, the movement seemed fragile and fractious - ready to dissolve into nothingness, from causes within and without.

Amazingly enough, the backlash and the headlines galvanized the movement, crystallizing the concept of non-violence: if the cause is just and the oppression is unjust, the barbarism of the oppressor will be self-evident, even to the most jaundiced eye.

It's also amazing to see how more conventional interpersonal dynamics played out: We see the SNCC kids view King as sort of going Hollywood, as it were, and he becomes less approachable. We see that, even in the fight for racial justice, homophobia, sexism and colorism were not left behind -- one of the original group is a closeted gay man, and a shining light of the book, DIANE NASH, benefits from colorism, but suffers from sexism, as her boyfriend in the movement comes to overshadow her.

The most gripping passages are the Freedom Rides, executed like military campaigns, with all the edge-of-your-seat moments as any spy thriller. They are deep behind "enemy" lines, and there is no room for error. One secret revealed is that the riders almost turned back!

Halberstam was there as a cub reporter at 25, then, later conducted extensive interviews with his principals, giving the entire work a real, commanding feeling of verisimilitude. You feel the voices of his subjects, not his authorial voice. In this instance, it's just what the doctor ordered.

If you only read one book about the Civil Rights movmement, consider this one. It's amazing.

Rest in Peace, David Halberstam, and thanks for all the great books!

A Love Like No Other: Variations

Much of my "Are We Guilty?" posts made oblique references to Jacquelyn Mitchard's WHICH ONES ARE YOURS?, in which she fields a question in such an aggressive way, she admits she categorized, by her interviewer as a "Tiger-Lady-Crabby-Oversensitive-Diva". My question in this essay is, "what's the point of that?" Why be so aggressive, that, even if you are RIGHT, you are still written off?

Much of my previous discussion came from questioning this stance. Still, the essay is not without it's merits. She does a marvelous job of heading off any attempts by her kids (bio or adopted) of making an issue of adoption during moments of discord. Her DAT (that would be "Dumb Adoption Talk", in the parlance of her kids) eschews the chestnut, "You're not my real mom!" in favor of, "I don't hate you because I'm an adolescent who's trying to adjust to the fact that he was adopted. I hate you personally." While obviously funny, I think it's a good point. How amazing that they've digested the adoption process so thoroughly that they know not to bring it into arguments -- that the bio kids don't use the adopted kids' "primal wound" to do just that. More amazing, is that the adopted kids have the presence of mind not to use their story as a way to inflict damage on their adopted parents. What can be a quick, devastating way to win an argument (or deflect punishment for a curfew violation) can lead to long-term harm in the relationship, a fact sometimes not considered by the adolescent adopted kid.

THE DAY THAT HALLMARK FORGOT by Jesse Green focuses on the intrigue surrounding Mother's Day in a family with two dads. Managing to be both irreverent and touching, it ends on a note that is applicable to all of us: the benefits of being able to "express unconventional truth in conventional terms".

STANDING OUT AND STANDING UP IN THE CROWD by Marcelle Clements is an ode to her unsinkable, adopted son, Luc. Within her celebration, she goes to lengths to refute the psuedo-science of "Adopted Child Syndrome". "...[C]reated by psychologist David Kirschner and first used as a defense in the 1984 trial of an adolescent adoptee accused of setting fire to his home and murdering his parents... the "adopted child syndrome" has been cited as scientific evidence that adopted adolescents are at high risk of becoming liars, thieves and serial killers..." She mentions that this notion has been soundly refuted and that even Kirschner renounced his theory. Still, it seems that in prime-time news magazine shows and other popular "news" media, the "adopted child syndrome" looms large.

DIVORCE, ADOPTION-STYLE by Antionette Martin is a powerful bit of personal testimony -- what happens to children, adopted out to stable, two-parent homes, when those homes lose stability -- and a parent? I can only imagine it would be a life-line for anyone attempting to ensure familial support for adopted children through a stressful divorce. Antionette and her ex, Ted, seem to do as good a job as anybody, in separating without separating from the kids. I hope never to need it!

KEEPING IT ALL IN THE FAMILY by Bob Shacochis tells the rather sad story of an infertile couple on the verge of adopting, when Bob's sister-in-law reveals that she is dying of breast cancer, leaving in her wake a teen daughter and a dysfunctional ex-husband. Bob and his wife, "C", become guardians to the girl, but find her nearly uncontrollable. Her bio-dad creates numerous problems, preventing them from adopting, but also failing in his role as a father. The essay ends with the nature of the relationship unclear -- Bob is both more than and less than an uncle and certainly not a father, although he treasures the one Father's Day card he did receive, as a token of his best attempt at fatherhood. Frankly, this essay did not provide me with much to take away, except, perhaps, that even in the most troubled adoptive parent/adoptee relationship, there is still a memory, a trace of what could have been, to be cherished.

Is rap to blame?

Well, after the events of this week, I doubt anybody much cares about rap vs. Imus, but I wrote it, so I'm posting it. However, know that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings.


Young black men fight against social and economic oppression through rap lyrics -- a testosterone-fueled idealization of adolescent male power fantasies. Rap lyrics reflect the rest of society, in that male value is judged by three things: physical prowess, conspicuous consumption and attractiveness to women.

I'll leave the first two alone. The opposite sex, however, is a center of fascination for most every adolescent male -- the source of desire and fear. Since inkwells and pigtails, boys seem to react to girls with hostility. Whether it's the "I don't need you", reject them before they reject you school, or simply a way of proving how cool you are that you can be cruel to girls that everyone else is clamoring to please, misogyny seems to be a step in male evolution.

I think rap picked up the torch for the "hair metal" of the 80's, which was just young male power fantasies for white kids. Motley Crue, Aerosmith, etc., all had the same objectifying attitude. Granted, Motley didn't discuss pimping girls, they merely led listeners through an audio-led guided tour of LA strip clubs. Anybody who thinks women had it better in rock is fooling themselves.

Still, I'm hardly willing to be an apologist for misogyny. So, how do you end it?

Keeping with the rock theme for a minute, I think the PMRC/Government hearings idea is a non-starter. First, I hate censorship of art. It brings into play very subjective (and, I feel, un-American) ideas of "community standards" -- who's community? Who's standards?

Even if you don't share that view, there's another great reason to keep the Government out of it. Rap, as an expression of adolescent male power fantasy, is an oppositional art form. It thrives on conflict with authority. In other words, the more parents it pisses off, the more "cred" it has with it's listenership. The stronger the bond with the audience, the stronger it becomes as an art form. The PMRC made Heavy Metal.

Protests and boycotts won't work for similar reasons. The people protesting are enemies of hip-hop already -- this includes protesters within the black community. These people represent the parents of fan base. As for boycotts -- how can you boycott that which you don't buy, anyway??? Oh, no, hip hop's going to lose the 25+ audience? Who cares??

In some limited cases, if a major label which is part of a larger conglomerate is pushing one particularly offensive act, a mass boycott on all the company's other products could work, but it would need to be a large, coordinated effort.

I think the only way to stem misogyny in rap lyrics is to raise the consciousness of the rappers themselves. The only people who have the moral authority and credibility are young black women. I feel that if young women of color made it known -- with some force and consistency, that such lyrics aren't appreciated, most rappers would come around. Certainly, putting a human face on the women Don Imus objectified and ridiculed brought gravitas to that story. If women in the industry stopped singing hooks or dancing in the videos of offensive rappers, they'd notice. If choreographers stopped working with artists, they'd notice. If young women, who are in the regular habit of buying hip-hop records, suddenly stop buying those cds, they'd definitely notice.

The best part of such an "education" would be that instead of trying to stifle artists, young women involved in hip hop would stand up for themselves and encourage already popular artists to make an important stand.

There is a kind of black feminism, pioneered by Alice Walker, called "womanism", which deals with the unique oppression that comes from the combined marginalizing forces of racism, sexism and classism. It stresses positivity and universalism (unlike the "us" vs. "them" of first wave feminism). Most importantly, by recognizing racism, it takes pains not to lift black women up at the expense of black men. If the older generation worked harder at inculcating this philosophy into young women, and they, in turn, demanded it of the artists they support, we'd be much farther along than if we focus our efforts on suppressing, ostracizing and marginalizing young black men, who, let's face it, are already pretty suppressed, ostracized and marginalized in the first place.

Imus and Free Speech

Yesterday and today, the big story on talk radio has been the backlash against Imus' firing, including hate mail being sent to the VICTIMS of his "joke". Radio is abuzz with angry, pro-Imus callers, asking: Is "political correctness" killing freedom in America? Why is there a double-standard, in which there are words which are “verboten” only for white people? Where's Imus' right to free speech?

There IS no “free speech” issue in the Imus story. Imus isn’t arrested. His property isn’t seized. Despite many complaints, the new “tougher” FCC, which arose as a result of the Janet Jackson dust-up, didn’t even level any fines. The State is not suppressing anything.

Imus was dismissed by GE and Viacom, giant, sprawling corporations that viewed supporting him to be a liability for their shareholders and their other employees. It’s ironic to me that many of the same people who most fervently praise the free market and supply-side economics are the first to call “foul”, when this decision is so obviously the product of supply-side economics.

Imus made a ton of money, bringing in millions of dollars for CBS Radio, while costing them only his salary, staff and studio. He spoke to affluent white men, a desirable market for advertisers. If CBS Radio was a SOLITARY company, a “radio only” company, chances are, Imus would not have been fired. “Blacks are offended? Who cares! They don’t listen, anyway!” Imus could go on a rant about political correctness run amuck, and emerge a hero to his key “demo” of affluent white men.

But, in the wake of media de-regulation and consolidation, radio is not Viacom’s only business. And CNBC is a troublesome speck on the blotter of the giant GE. Do you think GE wants to lose market share in lightbulbs and appliances over Don Imus? What do you think the money he generates – enough to keep a decent-sized company in the black – means to GE, who makes – in profit -- around 1.5 billion a QUARTER? It’s NOTHING.

Imus is an employee, on a contract. I have the freedom of speech (which I’m exercising right now) – but I’m not doing it on company time or with a company computer. Workplaces can limit all kinds of “liberties”. It’s apples and oranges.

Two giant corporations with massive media holdings, Viacom and GE, decided that racism and sexism are bad for business – whether that is measured in loss of ad revenue, fear of a worsening P.R. disaster or merely in terms of internal strife, racism and sexism was viewed as a LIABILITY.

All of the corporations that decided to pull ads from Imus’ show decided that racism and sexism were a liability.

And that’s the story. Racism and sexism, at least in this case, were rejected as being bad for the bottom line. That’s how America changes: when values are reflected in the marketplace. When Bill Cosby proves that white people will watch a show about a black family, the market responds. When Eddie Murphy proves that a blockbuster can star an African-American comedian, the market responds. When Shania Twain proves that a woman can outsell established, male country music artists, tons of women flood the market.

Imus’ dismissal is not the erosion of free speech, but proof of a growing sensitivity to diverse “markets” – groups of people, black, brown, female, non-racist whites – on the part of Fortune 500 companies. That’s something to be celebrated.

If you agree with me, thank these companies for not supporting sexism and racism:

General Motors

Sprint Nextel

Bigelow Tea

Staples

Proctor & Gamble

PetMed Express

GlaxoSmithKline

American Express (Ron Stovall/SVP Investor Relations)

Rappers vs. Imus

Obviously, the US has been in the middle of a cultural firestorm over Don Imus's comments. Many commentators, black and white, including Maya Angelou, have laid part of the responsibility at the feet of black rappers.

Below, rapper Snoop Dogg dismisses comparisons between sexist hip hop lyrics and the recent sexist/racially charged remarks made by Don Imus -

"It's a completely different scenario. (Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about hoes that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh*t, that's trying to get a n***a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-a** white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them m****f****s say we are in the same league as him. Kick him off the air forever."

Are We Guilty? - The Sequel

My sincerest appreciation to everyone who commented on ARE WE GUILTY? This has been the most-commented-upon post in Swerl's short, modest history. Thanks!

Your comments have spurred me to further refine my own thoughts, and I am excited to share what I hope will be a more reasoned distillation of my point-of-view:

Everyone seemed to react to the idea of "educating people". I think that's important, but it is only a BY-PRODUCT. As a parent (obviously) the well-being of your kids is really your ONLY priority. So, when I say that I will be very open to questions, even potentially intrusive questions, I say that ONLY for it's benefits to my child.

MODELING:

Kids model their behavior. If we're lucky (and if we deserve it), they model themselves after us. They may model themselves after peers. They may model themselves after karate-proficient mutant turtles.

Every encounter, in the presence of your child, in which your child's story becomes a topic -- with strangers, with work associates, with neighbors, with folks at church, with family -- will be a time in which your attitude towards your child's story (and your child's different way of coming to your family) will be viewed and internalized by your child. It WILL BE. Someone asks, you talk, child hears, child MODELS his or her opinion about his or her own story. This will influence his or her self-esteem. It will create an emotion, long before the child can make his or her own decisions.

Because of modeling, I feel the idea of "allowing the child to choose how to tell his or her own story" is a canard. The child's been watching US make that choice for years before we ask it of them, and in this scenario, our choice has been to REFUSE TO DISCUSS IT.

Chances are, they will internalize this, model this, and their choice, too, will be to refuse to discuss it. This is the idea of "shame" to which I had previously referred.

Not making a choice is also a choice.

THE ADOPTION LITERATURE

In a few essays, articles, blogs and forum reports, I see an exchange crafted in the following manner:

QUESTIONER: Where did the child come from? How did you get him/her? Does he/she have parents? (or some variation)

ADOPTIVE PARENT: That's private information, that's my child's story to tell, when he so chooses.

Now, the kid may be sucking on a pacifier. So that's a total dodge. That's a "I'm not answering your questions".

I've read some other accounts where the adoptive parent counters: "What sexual position did you use to get pregnant?" (obviously snarky) or a terse "It's not your business."

To me, "None of your business" implies shame.

TEACHING A YOUNGER CHILD TO OWN A STORY

Since we're on the list for a girl under twelve months, and since the kids we have now are 5 and under, the following is written from the perspective of a parent with kids who can't completely speak for themselves. It is, I think, an effort to parent in such a way that when the child is older, she WOULD feel comfortable speaking for herself.

I agree with Brian that I would never tell anyone more than I would tell her, and that when she feels comfortable talking to adults, she can explain her own story. This is really about how to handle questions from people -- including friends, family, co-workers, etc., prior to that time.

To me, how to model these encounters in such a way to ensure that your child does not associate shame with his or her origins (no matter how horrible) is to make sure that EVERY ENCOUNTER IN WHICH THAT CHILD'S ORIGINS ARE MENTIONED ENDS TRANQUILLY AND POSITIVELY FOR ALL INVOLVED.

That way, the kid learns that his or her origins, no matter how painful, are not a source of shame. The story can be discussed in "polite company". The story is to be OWNED.

People talk all the time about "owning" their stories: Christians discuss "owning" their faith. If Christians don't feel comfortable, in themselves, express their faith openly, do they have it? Strangely analogously, in the early days of the AIDS crisis in America, the rallying call was not for a cure, but "SILENCE=DEATH" Alcoholics always talk about how the first step in recovery is to admit the reality of their situation. In WWI, they learned that the only cure for "shell shock" was "the talking cure", a precursor to all post-traumatic stress therapies (and if being either relinquished or orphaned isn't a cause for post-traumatic stress...)

To own a story is to discuss it without shame.

Now, within that, certainly there are a million ways TO talk about stories, a million ways to direct the conversation, details to be added or glossed over.

I think this is where some of the comments and my post my suffer from a semantical conflict. I'm not advocating volunteering every bit of information. What I am advocating is handling questions in a non-confrontational manner, in the spirit of openness, so the kid and the questioner do not see the parent being defensive or guarded.

One of the essays I read features a woman who would not tell which of her children was adopted. For most of us, that's not a question that needs to be asked. The questions will be variations on "why are you parenting a black kid?" These questions will come from EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE. Some will be more carefully crafted than others. I have black nieces, and when my wife and I have taken them shopping or whatever, we always get questioned -- from black people and white people and Latinos and Asians and old and young, whatever.

Based on those life experiences, I imagine I will handle questions this way:

Is she yours?

She was born in Ethiopia, but, now, she's our child -- one of the gang!

Is she adopted?

She's adopted. We adopted her from Ethiopia. Ethiopia is an amazing country. Did you know it's the only area of Sub-Saharan Africa never to be colonized? It's a great culture...

Is she an orphan/where are her parents?

IF SHE'S AN ORPHAN:

Sadly, her birth family died. Ethiopia has had a rough time of it, and the United States hasn't done enough to help. As a culture, Ethiopia values children tremendously and are going to amazing lengths to ensure that every kid in Ethiopia has a loving family, no matter what's going on.

IF HER BIRTH MOM IS ALIVE:

She has her first family in Ethiopia, but because of conditions over there right now, her parents loved her enough to relinquish her to be raised by us, but we're doing everything we can to make sure she knows her family there and knows her culture.

IF SHE'S NOT AND WE DON'T KNOW THE BIRTH MOM:

She has her first family in Ethiopia, but because of tragic conditions there, her parents loved her enough to relinquish her to be raised by us. We're trying to honor them by doing everything we can to connect with, and, within our power, help all the other kids in Ethiopia.

I think politics is important. I think it's important for kids to feel empowered in our great democratic society. I feel that politics can be part of the explanation. I also know people hate hearing folks with causes, so it seems like a great way to conclude a line of unwanted questioning without conflict or discord. Any questions about why the child was given up can be countered with the real facts on the ground -- the number of orphans, the toll of diseases that we find manageable, the fact that the Clinton administration helped support drug company patents over human life, the fact that the Bush administration made a number of showy promises towards meeting Millennium Development Goals which have gone unfunded, etc. Heck, maybe I'll just carry ONE bracelets around and pass them out if someone is so interested. That would at least model engagement and empowerment to my child. Also, it's suitably boring to enough people that they'll probably disengage politely at that point -- without having my child see me refuse to talk about her entry into our family.

AIDS

Amy asked a provocative (good) question about HIV status. We are not adopting an HIV+ child at this time, so none of my imaginary projects dealt with that reality. After a lot of mulling, I think there's a way to address that honestly in front of your child as well. Again, it mixes the personal and the political. I think you can say that your child is HIV+, but, thankfully, the viral count is low and she will live a long, healthy productive life. Furthermore, she's no danger to anyone else.

From there, I'd say that it's tragic that a dollar a day could prevent this. That life in Ethiopia is just as valuable as in the USA, but while we've almost eliminated mother-to-child infections and have allowed this disease to become a manageable, chronic condition, in Ethiopia and much of the less developed world, there is still a lot of needless infections and a high mortality. I'd talk about the Lazarus effect these drugs have (a great picture in THERE IS NO ME WITHOUT YOU), and the fact that the "cocktail" has been refined into a twice-daily pill.

If the child is around a group consistently, say in church or school, explain it to everyone at once, maybe.

BIG CAVEAT: RACISM

All of the above is said with the understanding that the questioner is not racist. If the questioner IS racist, then that person needs to be corrected firmly, and then the conversation must end. Part of modeling is also teaching how to stand up to racism.

WHERE IT COMES FROM

I'm a joker with a blog. I don't know anything. I know I'm in the minority, here. But I've had the experiences of being in public with my nieces. For the HIV thing, I've known people who've died of AIDS and I also know, as a close friend of our family, a man who has lived for 15 years with it, who went from full-blown AIDS, with dementia and the whole bit, to now being back to working a demanding job and being the dad to four kids. I also have a sister who's adopted, who has struggled with issues of identity her whole life.

From my sister, I've learned that a close bond and a happy childhood does not guarantee a happy adolescence or young adulthood. My parents are in primary education. My dad has a Masters and was on the verge of getting his Doctorate in childhood development. They did everything "right" -- as of the 70's and 80's. The two things they didn't do were to embrace the fact that she was half-Puerto Rican, and they did not help her own her story prior to being adopted. (She was adopted as a newborn). It was a closed adoption, but she did reunite with her birth mother(with sadly disappointing results). She, too, was allowed to tell her own story, to judge what she wanted to say... and she never wanted to talk about it. My parents thought that was proof of her attachment and proof of their good parenting, until she hit 16 and the world came crashing in. She's 30 now, and she has kids of her own, but I think she could've had a happier 16-27 if she didn't feel that there was a social stigma being a "drug baby". To our family, empowerment would've been teaching her from the first, not just that she was loved and wanted and "meant" for our family and "chosen", but that her mother was a junkie -- and that does not define her. That last bit, that her "story" doesn't define her, that, although it is a fact, it is only one of a million, and will not be her summing up -- that was never modeled for her. She was the guardian of her "story" and it quietly tore her apart under all of our noses.

For these reasons, I feel the child's story should NOT be arbitrarily held back, and then dumped on a 10 year old (or whatever the age), passing the buck of the responsibility, the weight of that story to the child.

The child should grow up knowing that difficult truths can be de-fanged, made commonplace, to the point where the situation of their birth and adoption are normalized -- not a "story" placed in their lap like a gift or a curse, but just common facts -- with their TRUE "life story" -- the story of how their lives turn out -- yet to be written.

I'd love everyone's input on this. Once again, I'm just trying to sort all this out, myself. I greatly appreciate everyone who stops by and I welcome a very healthy discourse!

Are We Guilty?

Anyone who's read recent posts here knows that I'm struggling with the "politics of the public". My "adoption journey" has pretty much followed a pattern: have an idea about something. Read something that butts up hard against said idea. Think-think-think (like Winnie-the-Pooh). Strongly reverse original opinion. In a sheerly Orwellian move, deny I ever held the first opinion, especially to my wife.

So, I ran across this Oprah article. It coincided with some posts on some boards and with a few of the essays in A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER. It smacked me for a loop, as it had never occurred to me that a child's story was "private". Brit can't even keep her junk private. What's private anymore?

I pretty much fully envisioned blabbing my child's entire rich, compelling story, whatever it will be (still waitin' on that referral), to every Joe Wal-Mart and Bettie Target who crosses my path.

This is the path of the unjust. This will get me banished from Oprah-ville (testosterone will also cause banishment, but I digress).

So, mostly out of fear of spending the rest of my miserable life shivering for want of Oprah's beatific grace, I pondered. I asked the smartest birthmother I cyber-know. I almost convinced myself that there's something to this PRIVACY thing.

Then, I ran across the following, from Amy's utterly charming blog, ETHIOPIA OR BUST. They currently have an endearing slideshow of the moment they got their referral.

It was kinda late, and, after I read it, I rambled in her comment section. I found myself having an actual OPINION. It came from the heart and it came all the more freely for the fact that it was just some rambling comment, to be passed over, on someone else's blog, rather than taking front and center on my own.

So, here's a chunk of Amy's post, addressing the "O" magazine article:

Guilty.

I was reading an article today in the April addition of Oprahs magazine. The article is called 8 Things NEVER to Say to an Adopted Child. The article is written by Elizabeth Cuthrell. Her and her husband are white and have adopted two girls from China. After reading the article I am guilty of doing many things wrong when I see interracial families. She states that she used to stare at interracial adoptive families and kind of follow them with her eyes, not because she was judging them or disapproving, but because she was approving and thought it was neat. She said that familes would catch her staring and she would "smile warmly in an effort to convey her support."(Guilty) She said she now realizes that those families do not need her support and that what they do need is for people to not notice, or at least not make a big deal of noticing. She said that she "Now understands that frequently interracially adopted kids and their families long for privacy; just to be treated like any other human being whose history the public does not assume it knows or assume it has the right to know." She went onto share some stories of people approaching her when she is with the girls and asking very bold, inappropriate questions regarding the girls backgrounds. For example:
Where did you get them?
How much did they cost you?
Is their father Chinese?
Do they speak English?

So, I am guilty. Just last week we were at dinner with Josh's parents. This white couple with a cute biracial baby boy walked by. I smiled at the parents, nudged Josh, the whole bit. The mother stopped because she thought I had said something....I had not said anything, but then told her that her son was beautiful. I said, where is he from? (Yes, I am an idiot) She said, he's biracial. She smiled and walked away. She was very sweet and kind. The only reason I asked where he was from was because I was so hoping he was from Ethiopia. Now I know she was secretly hating me and my nosiness. I now realize that clearly where he is from is none of my business. I don't go walking up to cute white babies asking where they are from.

Elizabeth Cuthrell went on to write:
"Someday I hope we will live in a world where racial or familial differences don't matter because well have achieved the understanding that one kind, or one way, is not necessarily better than anothers. As for now, I fear we routinely call unneeded attention to these differences. For example, why are Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise's kids described as their "adopted kids?" Why aren't they just identified as "their kids?" Or why did the press write that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were expecting their first child when they already have a son and a daughter? We don't refer to how biological children become a part of their families, so why do we point out adoption?"

I sort of can feel this a bit. We have been asked about when we are going to try again to have biological children. It sometimes feels like others value biological children more. Right now, at this moment, today.....I don't know if I ever want to have "biological children." My heart is bursting with love for Silas. That is really all I can think about now.

The following is my comment:

I'm struggling with something similar on my blog, in which various experts have recommended that a child's story of origin is theirs and theirs alone, and, if asked if the kid still has a first family or not, or what the child's story is, you are supposed to basically tell people it's none of their business.

I find the Oprah author and the author to which I was responding both, frankly, full of it. That's my gut, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

I think that the world is not going to be particularly easy on our kids, and the more they see their situation being treated with honor and honesty and respect -- as DIFFERENT, but still GREAT -- can only embolden them to "own" their story.

To make it "private" to me is tantamount to shame. Or, worse yet, acting like they AREN'T different, when, in fact, they ARE. The problem comes when different equates with "less than". I think that, for a multi-cultural country, we are all pretty slow to realize that "different" means "a unique perspective" and "fresh insight", and that getting to know "different" people is a great way to broaden your horizons. So, I can't imagine, (unless someone is out-and-out racist) ever being "put off" by any questions, no matter how ignorant, because it's an opportunity to share our reality and experience with someone else. If we all do that, all the time, "different" won't be something to fear or "keep private" anymore.

So, will I be the worst adoptive father ever? Weigh in!

AP: Ethiopia Acknowledges Detaining Suspects

The Ethiopian government acknowledged detaining 41 suspected international terrorists from 17 countries and said foreign investigators were given permission to question them...

The government was critical of human rights groups and the media who have followed the detentions.

READ THE AP ARTICLE

Welcome Crazy Days!

I've added WELCOME TO OUR CRAZY DAYS! to the blogroll.

Thanks for your welcome, Tarah!

I've also added a new section for Adoption Doctors, for all those who'd like to have their referrals checked out by a doctor before accepting the referral.

Also new, a list of resources and articles for Transracial Parenting.

Unexpected: A Love Like No Other

Part Two of A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER focuses on "Encounters With the Unexpected", containing a variety of essays in which parents were caught off-guard by the reality of adoption.

Melissa Fay Greene's "Post-Adoption Panic" is as surprising as to WHO wrote it as what she wrote. Melissa Fay Greene (as her bio at the end of the book attests) wrote a book "about a foster mother to AIDS orphans in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. That book is practically the Bible of Ethiopian adoption. That book is, in whole or in part, responsible for many people considering Ethiopian adoption. That book is recommended highly on this website. Don't have it? BUY IT. READ IT. There's a handy link, go-go-go, we'll wait.

Good. Everyone owns THERE IS NO ME WITHOUT YOU. Now, buy THIS book (A LOVE LIKE NO OTHER) and read how a mother of 4 "bio" kids struggles to bond with their first adopted child, a boy named Jesse, from Bulgaria. This is prior to their children adopted from Ethiopia. This is the story of a mother who bristles at having this "interloper" in family pictures, who loses her patience easily, who finally makes an appointment with a psychiatrist, because she just can't seem to LOVE this adopted, older, Bulgarian child. It is a question that few parents ask honestly. While there is endless work put into trying to coax adopted children into loving their "a-parents", no one asks -- not out loud -- if they are REALLY capable of loving an adopted child like their own. And for some, it is a hard adjustment. Greene's honest portrayal will help anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation.

Sheila Stainback's "Baby on Board—But Not Everyone Else" will be massively identifiable to many of us. What happens when we think the sun and moon revolves around our kid/s -- but our extended family refuse to welcome him or her/them into the fold? This essay describes the slow thaw that occurs when the "other" becomes "family".

Amy Rackear's "The Second Time Around" revolves around a fertility-challenged couple who adopt successfully, but struggle with the decision of expanding their family through adoption a second time.

Jill Smolowe's "Color Her Becky" recounts a family with a daughter adopted from China (the titular "Becky"), fail to see the importance of discussing race with their daughter, until she has to grapple with a school bully who delight in taunting her with the brilliant put-down, "Cut the cheese, you're Chinese."

Reading this essay was like having a conversation with the person I was a year ago. At that time, at the beginning of our process, I would've said that emphasizing race is unnecessary. Play it as it lays, right? I now feel, after a year of reading books and blogs and forums, asking friends, etc., that it's irresponsible to leave a child unprepared for this kind of unpleasant experience. Judging from much of the tranracially-adopted adult adoptee community on the internet, it is those who grew up identifying as "white" until adulthood that had the biggest trouble when the world failed to see them as they saw themselves. It may be counter-intuitive at first, but the more race is discussed, the less of an "issue" it may be later in the child's life.

Jana Wolff's "The First Thirteen" makes some starling admissions about her thirteen-year-old, transracially-adopted son: the more he excels in that which she does not, the more she realizes he is not "of" her. Likewise, the more he fails at (or fails to care about) things she finds important, the more she grows to understand the truth of adoption -- we are loving another's child like our own. ANOTHER'S child, with a different set of genetics, different predispositions, different medical histories, different issues. She tells of how her son said, in a moment of anger, "Adoption sucks, you end up with the worst parents". She quietly agreed, not for his reasons, but her own... that, "like many adoptive parents, [we] persist in our fantasies about our children -- saping them if not in our image, than in our image of them." And if they don't live up? "Many of our kins turn out to be only average. There's nothign wrong with average, expect that it doesn't give moms and dads the vindication that above-average does."

From this point, questions as to nature vs. nurture are parsed, eventually leading to increased interaction with the child's birthmother.

My own opinion of the piece is that the writer came off as having unrealistic expectations for her son, and that, in any number of ways, her ego was getting the better of her parenting. I think one of the greatest challenges to good adoptive parenting is the almost zen-like discipline it takes to get your own ego out of the way of your child.

Bonnie Miller Rubin's "The Fallout from a Less-than-Perfect Beginning" is the adoption horror story. A "Gerber baby... in a pink crocheted dress", adopted from Chile, develops a profound (but undiagnosed) emotional disorder, consisting of rage-filled meltdowns. The essay explores how desperate, how powerless, this loving adoptive mother feels in the face of "a bunch of neurotransmitters."

Personally, I feel much of this has little to do with adoption, per se, (unless there are studies of which I'm unaware), and everything to do with the decision to add a child to the family. Before we had our second bio-kid, we had months of discussions, that all boiled down to one unanswerable question: "what if it's a BAD one?" You can't answer that question. Ultimately, you go on faith, because there's no crystal ball. Like Rubin, no matter how much you try to hedge by good, informed, enlightened parenting, there may be problems outside your ability to control -- with ANY kid.

My wife and I have the disquieting habit of watching that show, INTERVENTION. It's like a horror movie for parents. What if that was one of our kids, running the streets, cooking up smack in the bottom of 7-11 cans? What if our kid is schizophrenic?

Scary? Yes. But what if you get hit by a bus? So much of life is out of your actual, physical control, that to live your life in avoidance of pain or risk is to live a gray, empty life.

We want the noise and the energy and the challenge that will come with another child. Our child will be a different gender from those we have now, a different color, a different nationality. She will be loved unconditionally, whether she wants to be or not. Her problems will be our problems. Could it all go sideways? Sure. But to think we WANTED to take this step, but let FEAR win the day? I couldn't imagine anything scarier than that.

Make "Child Heath Site" Your Homepage

Okay, I never said I was smart. It's taken me a few days for the creaky gears in my noggin' to figure this out. A family friend pointed out this site to us. It plays into our situation in two ways: 1. we care about improving health in Africa (since before the adoption) and 2. we're pretty strapped.

So, this cool network of charity sites basically figures, "hey, we'll generate ad income based on traffic, like any commercial website, and pass the cash on to responsible charities! We'll also get eyeballs on fair trade products and the like." Brilliant. All they need is motivated, idealistic-yet-strapped folks to click on their little buttons to prove their traffic-flow. Easy!

Except I didn't do it. Occasionally, but not every day. I may actually have worked out more than I pressed that button (and I HATE working out). And it takes 2 seconds. And it's free. And it does what I wish I could do if I had all the money in the world. But I am such a lazy, First World bast**d, that I didn't do it. I have a PERMANENT LINK on my OWN WEBSITE and I didn't do it.

Well, maybe it was the Easter chocolate, but something got my mind turning. An epiphany:

MAKE THE CHILD HEALTH SITE YOUR HOMEPAGE

That's what the voice inside my head told me, as I tore into Peter Rabbit's ears. That way, EVERY TIME I LOG ON, I'll take two seconds to do good, and then I can surf for minutiae with peace of mind. I also now click over to the HUNGER site, as they benefit Africa as well. Boom! Done! Good, free charity work, now seamlessly integrated into my daily routine.

I am now slightly less hypocritical when I urge you to take similar measures to support this innovative cash-generator for worthy charities.

Here's the original post, in case you have no idea what I'm blathering about:


How You Can Help Save Children In Mere Seconds — Every Day - FOR FREE!!

The Child Health Site provides a feel-good way to help promote awareness as well as prevent and treat devastating childhood illness every day -- through easy and quick online activities.

With a simple, daily click of the blue "Fund Healthcare for Children" button at The Child Health Site, visitors help children. Visitors pay nothing. The treatments and preventative services described above are paid for by our site sponsors and accomplished through our charitable partners, who currently include Mercy Corps, the Prosthetics Outreach Foundation, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation and Helen Keller International.

Please remember to click every day to help children get and stay healthy, and to give hope to future generations. Every click counts in the life and health of a child.