Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Husky]

Institutionalised racism still going strong and taking place in front of your very noses:

"international"/"multi-ethnic" adoption.

Recall its particular uni-directionality: the powerful first-world stealing from the second and third world which are powerless to stop them, and which are (again) viewed by the first world as meant for exploitation. (All kinds of Traffick.)





Angelina Jolie, Madonna, Sandra Bullock etc. and now some star called Gaga - all into the selfish western ("first-world") fad of stealing ("second" and) "third world" children with the excuse of "saving" them. And all of them into doing a United Colours Of Benetton ad.



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/20...ady-GaGa-/

13th July 2011 By Daily Star reporter

BROODY pop babe Lady GaGa is planning to adopt a Benetton family of children from around the world.



Poker Face singer Lady GaGa, who showed off a two-tone hairstyle in Sydney yesterday, wants to copy multi-mum Angelina Jolie, 36.



GaGa, 25, who thinks a clutch of children would be the “perfect accessory to her world”, is determined to be a mum before she is 30 and told a pal she wants “lots of babies”.



Lady GaGa is determined to be a mum before she is 30 and told a pal she wants 'lots of babies'.

This latest fad of the rich, bored and trivial in the first world is not merely patronising, which it most especially is when they then expect others to be grateful for such selfishness. (And when the 'gracious' grow indignant at protest or resistance, they will claim the moral high ground: that they're supposedly the only ones trying to help the orphaned - always equated with "abandoned", but only where third world orphans are concerned - among the so-called third world children, that natives/native communities can't do it for themselves or wouldn't.) The acquisition industry is driven by the very selfish and self-aggrandising motives of the patronising first worlders who like the idea of seeing themselves acquire a multi-ethnic or multi-national family and in their triteness think they actually do good to their victims with it.



Victim populations regard the kidnapping of children from their societies as Kidnapping, as do the victims themselves ("Transracial Abductees"), rather than viewing this as the act of selfless heroism that the thoughtless, selfish and ultimately bigoted traders in children imagine it is. It's yet another form of lingering colonialism and conquest of other nations, where the first world argues it has the moral right in assuming for itself such supposedly 'benign' acts as allegedly 'saving' children from their own so-called 'negligent' societies (note monotheistic tendency to "save" people from themselves). Next to arguing that they can provide better for the children, self-justifications are essentially of the form that the first world is capable of and will love children more than the second and third world can or is willing to do. ("Else why do you have so many orphans? Obviously you natives don't want to look after your own and can't either" - said the western transracial abductors, ignoring western orphans in their *own direct* backyard. And at nearest, they still reach all the way for the 2nd world: Russia/Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia etc. There is a religious component to the crime too, if case you didn't notice.)



Such arguments are both innately racist and but an excuse to make the acquisitions: in the affluent climes of the first world, people are used to having their own way and so their childless couples must have children by hook or crook. And committing their crime in an African or Asian or South American setting is easier in practice and to their conscience: since these nations are poorer - but who made them poor? - and hence defenceless to easy exploitation. It's a continuation of cultural genocide and of racism:

- alien communities stealing children from their ethnic birth societies is nothing less than cultural genocide.

- the direction of travel of children is always from the second and third world to the first. The way heathen "artworks" are acquired by the west and put on show as "world heritage"/"culture" in museums or end up in alien collectors' personal collections. The direction of travel of "transracial abductees" is quite the same as the direction of travel of slaves. The only difference is that conceited first-world people will admit that slavery is evil (since it's been abolished), but will argue that such selfishness as adopting other nations/societies' children is supposedly a 'benevolent intervention' in the "best interest" of the children, and that the societies they are uprooted from are hostile, dangerous or disinterested (and dubbed more so if they protest).





But why is this post in the christianism thread, when Jolie is a confirmed atheist? Well, because this is a spin-off of christianism (yes it is): it's the latest mutation of the same old slavery + colonialism + "white man's burden" fantasy continuing in a supposedly PC form: that of "saving" *others'* children.





Oh, but it seems the best part of this post will be that one needn't listen to me at all: can listen to some real brains that tear to shreds western presumptions to moral superiority in adopting=abducting children from other ethnicities/nations and who translate what all the doublespeak and pretence is *really* about. (Credits go to Dhu or whoever on IF first found the site on transracial-abductees.)



[color="#0000FF"]You *want* to read the following.[/color]



1. http://www.transracialabductees.org/index.html

Why Abduction?



Abduction is the word we like better than adoption. "Adoption" conceals the unequal power between abductors and abductees, and in the abduction industry in general.

2. www.transracialabductees.org/politics/livingdolls.html

Living Dolls: Transracial adoption and cultural appropriation

by So Yung



In this age of cultural sensitivity and cultural awareness, white parents claim to do everything they can to learn the language, culture, and food of their abducted children of color. In newspapers, journals, fashion magazines, and television commercials, white abductors insist they are being culturally sensitive. It's time to talk about what this claim of sensitivity masks, to call it what it really is: cultural appropriation.



Many white parents use their abducted child to complete their collection of ethnic accessories. The child becomes the centerpiece in the ethnically decorated house. The child becomes the passport into foreign countries and people of color spaces. Surrounded by so much difference, in the form of two, three, or more abducted children of color, the white parents feel justified; they use the number of children of color in their possession to shield themselves from charges of racism.



Other parents admit that they have no contact with people of color, apart from their abducted children. They don't own any ethnic art. They don't enjoy eating ethnic foods. But they feel a responsibility to expose their abducted children to the tastes, smells, and sounds of their birth cultures: through culturally sensitive stuffed animals. Through culturally sensitive storybooks. Through language classes. And culture camps. Through telling their abducted children that there's nothing wrong with having different skin, eyes, and hair.



Desperate to be not-racist-white-parents of children of color, many abductors gather people of color around them and have them interact with the abducted child. By surrounding themselves with adult people of color, and throwing themselves into the struggles of their children's "people," white parents hope to shed their privilege. They are not appropriating people of color cultures�\they're saving them.



White parents will acknowledge that their abducted child is a different race from them and "there's nothing wrong with being a different race." They are open-minded and can't fathom the bigotry that inspires some people of color to call them racist. White parents will admit they live in an all-white town, but they hastily insist they would move to a more diverse place if their child's race "ever became a problem."



Whites choose which aspects of the abducted child's culture to assimilate into family life and which to discard. The children are forced to participate in the racial fantasies of the white parents. White parents dress the children of color up in their "native costumes." They treat their abducted children like little ethnic dolls. The white parents become perversely expert on the food, language, and customs of the abducted child's birth culture. They proudly claim to be "learning with my abducted child."



What is most disturbing about this form of cultural appropriation is that whites who abduct children of color disguise their cultural fetish as a concern for the well-being of children. Whites abduct multiple children of color and say "it's important for my transracial children to have someone from the same ethnic background to grow up with." Or "it's important for my transracial children to see each others' faces." Everything is purported to be done for the good of the abducted child, when in fact, the transracial abduction industry operates to feed white parents' insatiable hunger for "difference" in a form they can dominate.

(Actually, the above arguments are applicable on a wider scale, for all heathenism:

- all uncontactable peoples should be left alone

- heathen practices and rites etc of other religions should be made permanently off-limits to alien dabblers, who are always ever-eager to dabble

- native children belong to their native communities. If anyone *really* wanted to help - and weren't selfishly in it to acquire children - they would donate to heathen charities that keep help the native heathen community support their own heathen children and preserve their heathenism)







3. And see the site expose feminism* for the patronising racist colonialism and culture genocide that it is.

(* All feminism. There is only one feminism: the western kind, which is duplicated and transplanted globally by the monotheistic drive to "save" other people.) Who said females won't/don't commit cultural genocide and justify it? And so you see once again, it's not gender either that makes the difference. It's whether someone/a society is infected by the mindvirus or not.





Look how well this reviewer points out the inanity, double-standards and downright villainy of the pro-abduction feminists. No one can fail to see the blatant evilness of the Transracial Abductors who, after committing the crime, then write treatises trying to explain away and justify and support their racist abduction fetish in writing, all while continuing to pretend (using digressions on "women" and what-not) that they are somehow better than their indistinguishable male counterparts:



http://www.transracialabductees.org/poli...ctors.html

Conscientious Abductors: White Feminist Justifications

by So Yung



There aren't a lot of "feminist considerations of intercountry adoption" out there, and after reading this one, I feel like that's a good thing. Barrett and Aubin's article is full of familiar racist, U.S.-chauvinist myths and misrepresentations of transnational abduction, only this time they're "feminist," whatever that means. Barrett and Aubin begin the section called "CULTURE VS. FAMILY" with this narrative:



"Traveling all over with our daughter, we tried to soak up the very essence of her birth country. While she had the strong, stunning features of the people in the countryside, we wore the neon signs of tourists. We know a lot about her birth country. We have books, music, pictures and momentos, but we know not how to give her the deep, deep love of her birth country that can come so naturally to native people . . .



. . .Yet, our daughter knows how deeply she is loved and cared about by her family. She has an extensive, loving support system. We can only guess at her life had we not met, but are quite sure that she would have become one of her country's orphanage or homeless statistics" (128-29).



They go on to argue that, "Feminists who adopt internationally are in a unique position to further the active connection among women of varying cultures. We become bi-racial/cultural families immediately. Our children have strong ties to women in other countries, whether they remember them or not. We, ourselves, are inextricably bound to another woman who gave birth to the children we raise" (134-35).



So much of white feminist writing on "global feminism" depends on this kind of self-indulgent wishful thinking. Transnational abduction is the opposite of a movement to build "active connection among women of varying cultures." In fact, many people find transnational abduction appealing because they believe there is less chance of the birth parents trying to contact or "take back" the child. White women wanting to feel "connected" to women of "other" cultures is a classic example of feminist racism. Barrett and Aubin use their power as white, "North American" feminists to represent transracial, transnational abduction as a potentially transformative connection between women of "varying cultures," clearly a self-serving white feminist fantasy.



Most disturbing is Barrett and Aubin's "consideration" of the objections to transracial abduction raised by the National Association of Black Social Workers and "representatives from Third World countries." Barrett and Aubin acknowledge that "There are obviously some strong negative consequences of intercountry and interracial adoption. A child is usually raised as a brown/black child in a white home, without parents who understand directly the impact of racism." And they also state that the "general negative impact" of transracial abduction includes "cultural genocide" (130-131). But Barrett and Aubin abruptly (and conveniently) end their discussion of the "downsides" to transracial abduction before satisfactorily exploring any of them, cryptically stating, "People tend to polarize around the issues of family and culture, creating debates instead of working to see value in both sides. As feminists, we must address the total picture, delving still deeper into seemingly contradictory concepts looking for a fuller truth" (131). And finally, carrying their "culture vs. family" theme to its illogical conclusion, Barrett and Aubin pit "children" and "culture" against each other, suggesting that opponents of transracial abduction willingly and irresponsibly "risk" children "in order to save a culture" (131).



I don't know which is more upsetting, people who abduct without seeing anything slightly wrong with it, or people who claim to have a semi-clue as to what's fucked up about transracial, transnational abduction and then go ahead and do it anyway. Barrett and Aubin think being feminists automatically makes them better, more thoughtful abductors. However, it's clear their analysis doesn't challenge the white middle-class feminist tradition of maternalism toward "other women" and automatic breakdown when it comes to addressing issues of race and culture.



The article just gets weirder and more fucked up toward the end where the authors actually say this: "It is difficult for us, being white and North American, to know what intercountry adoption would feel like if we were, for example, Hispanic and South American. The closest we can come is to imagine a world in which girl children were without homes and only men were available to adopt" (137). Like I said, classic.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Barrett, Susan E., and Carol M. Aubin. "Feminist Considerations of Intercountry Adoptions." Women & Therapy 10.1-2 (1990): 127-138.

On this bit at the end:

the authors actually say this: "It is difficult for us, being white and North American, to know what intercountry adoption would feel like if we were, for example, Hispanic and South American. The closest we can come is to imagine a world in which girl children were without homes and only men were available to adopt" (137). Like I said, classic.

Am I reading this right? The fembots outdid themselves. Are they really implying that girl children belong to "women" - as some sort of community by itself - and boy children belong to "men"? Or are they saying that all children exclusively belong to "women" and so children don't belong to "men" at all - except when boy children grow up and reach adulthood and then I suppose they belong to "men" automatically by gender default?

Truly, these people are madder than I credited them with. They're quite, quite mad.



Apparently there's no such thing as family and society in these fembots' views? Owing to christoconditioning, the west dismisses *true* identifiers (like heathens' heathenism/family/overall heathen community) and instead sets up false (and trite) identities such as "skin-colour" and "gender". Next they'll try to tell you that heathen accomplishents and heroes are to be classed by gender, rather than be considered an equal stroke for all their religion's kind. Who - which *normal* person - would think that way.







4. And another one: http://www.transracialabductees.org/poli...marks.html

"Birthmarks: feminist racism in contemporary America" by So Yung. Read in full at link.



This bit:

There are lots of books out there about transracial abduction. They're usually called something like "Inside Transracial Abduction" or "Love Makes A Family." I thought I should try to read one all the way through, so I checked out this book called Birthmarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America. It's by Sandra Patton, who at the time she turned her dissertation into this book was a visiting professor of women's studies at the University of Minnesota.

[...]

So I know the whole being in women's studies thing should have made me way more automatically suspicious of this Patton person, but I thought since she identifies herself in the acknowledgments as an "adoptee" that she wouldn't be totally fucked up.

Should be the universal response among Hindus too: automatic dismissal of all people in social engineering/brainwashing fields. Be immune.







5. http://www.transracialabductees.org/update/

The following segments all contain links to articles on the original page (visit the above link):

[color="#FF0000"]Christian vultures[/color], oops, i mean missionaries, circle Indonesia



Rev. Vernon Brewer, President of the Virginia-based missionary group WorldHelp, describes his organization's efforts to abduct tsunami orphans as "'no different than what Mother Teresa did by taking Hindu orphan children and placing them in a Roman Catholic children's home in Calcutta, and she won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing that.'" Read more about WorldHelp's thwarted abduction effort: Tsunami Orphans Won't Be Sent to Christian Home



Posted by So Yung on March 5, 2005





White Queers Address Homophobia, Ignore Racism (Shocking!)



As queers seek to gain access to mainstream institutions of marriage and adoption, the number of white queers who abduct children of color will continue to grow. This article from proudparenting.com celebrates the growing trend as a triumph for queer couples, while completely ignoring race and the ways in which racism and homophobia interlock. The article also vilifies birth mothers who AWOL before giving up their babies, absurdly portraying them as a form of 'adversity' faced by queer couples that is equal to, if not more powerful than, institutionalized homophobia. This myopic determination on the part of white queers to gain the same rights as straight whites, including the right to buy children of color, will further the systematic dismantling of communities of color, and alienate people of color within queer movements.



Gay Adoptions: Defining Triumph Against Adversity



Posted by So Yung on February 1, 2005





Bargain Bin Babies



This article is kind of a gross consumer report on transracial adoption: Growing number of white parents adopt black babies.



Posted by So Yung on November 28, 2004







Who Doesn't Love A Good Matrix?



So this Joint Council on international children's services seems like a mega-conglomerate of all sorts of crazy abduction agencies, but this might be a useful chart, excuse me, matrix, for u.s. legislation update stuff: Adoption Legislation Matrix.



Posted by So Yung on November 23, 2004





Another Even-Handed Look at Transracial Adoption



This article has some interesting stuff:



Transracial adoption ‘inherently racist’



Oh, and by the way, besides my professional involvement with transracial adoption, I am an adult transracial adoptee.





Posted by So Yung on November 21, 2004





Sometimes It's Hard To Be An Abductor



I love it when white people talk about issues of race and identity with such humor and light-heartedness, especially when it's abductors talking about their experiences walking their colored babies around in front of other 'way more ignorant' whites.



Here's an awesome article where this actually happens:

Adoptive parents want to know if you have any questions



Read it, love it, live it.



Posted by So Yung on November 21, 2004





"My abductors bought me on eBay"



Don't let this become a reality! Follow this link sent to us by Sunny Jo: Ban Online Auctions Orchestrated to Raise Funds for Individuals to Adopt Children From Overseas http://www.petitiononline.com/intladpt/petition.html



Posted by So Yung on July 18, 2004





Breaking News: African American Babies are Cheaper than White Ones!!

(But of course they are: Transracial adoption is a racist industry.

African and other 'third world' children are not merely cheaper but also easier to acquire by criminal means, and the west never bats an eyelid when doing it. See Madonna's controversial yet successful stealing - in plain sight - of one or more African children.)



Check out this article that just appeared in the Oregonian: The price(s) to adopt. For my commentary on American Adoptions and like agencies see Abducting on a Budget: Agency Policies on "Minority" Children, which has been on our website since, uh, February 2003.



Babies For Sale

Hey, check out this interesting article Sam-dol/Tobias told us about. It's from, like, '88.