The current plateau in the falsely named "pro vs. anti" adoption debates is among those from both "sides" who consider that they constitute some kind of "middle ground" of the discussion; that their supposed progressive open-mindedness is anything other than more of the same self-congratulatory passivism. The words "race" and "class" are bandied about, and studies for and against are trotted out, as if this back and forth advances anything; as if this logorrhea brings anything new to the table. The problematic of their positioning is that it takes adoption to be a given, with the ensuing discussion stemming from this "reality on the ground". This results in adoptees giving advice to adoptive parents as to why they should live in a racially diverse neighborhood; this results in adoptive parents (such as this one) finding nothing wrong in promoting a "Chinese Barbie Doll" on her blog; this results in the endless parade of discussions, talk shows, conferences, and blogs on the subject that rehash the topic to death—as opposed to, say, condemning adoption in the first place for the act of class aggression against other peoples that it is. Until such a time that the discussion shifts, then this is all so much Uncle Tomism; a horrific beguine of compradors and masters. And you'll forgive me if those of us truly on the ground don't "LOL" along with you.We had a twitter discussion about the Barbie in China clothes before he posted this; he objects to it as "neo-colonialist predation "and labels it as #heinous #racist #oppressive #adoptionIsCriminal. I understand his point, but Chinese adoptees playing with white Barbies in Western clothes colonizes their minds, it seems to me, so an alternative isn't a bad thing (see, there I go again, accepting the fact that there are already adoptees who should be considered -- he's right about me!). The "LOL" reference is to my twitter reply of surprised laughter when he accused me of "promoting adoption" at my blog, since more people accuse me of being anti-adoption than of promoting adoption.
He's right about me -- more of that "both sides" discussion I find important and he finds "advances nothing," exemplified by my decision to, in fairness, share with you his viewpoint.
P.S. Daniel Ibn Zayd responds. I appreciate his perspective, but I do not appreciate his implication that I called his work "stupid." Not something I'd ever do.