…who finds the need to email me and explain that I somehow don’t “understand” adoption and that adoption is somehow “different” in the UK:
The history of adoption in terms of Anglo-Saxon society reflects a targeting of the poor, the marginal, the “base classes”, the Indigenous, the colonized. That 120 years later this still takes place in the UK (not to mention that you still live in a “kingdom”) is beyond mind-boggling, and this horrifying state of affairs stands no matter how you package it, now matter how you market it, no matter how you promote it. I think it is fair to say at this point that adoption has done nothing to ease the class division in English society, or the disdain of the English for those they consider to be “sub-par”, including the parents of the children temporarily in your care. I’m not sure why you feel the need to expend extra energy to contact me; you need not break your arm patting yourself on the back on my account.
What you are saying to me is exactly what was said to abolitionists: “Slavery is of value, because there are a few good plantation owners, and the slaves themselves are better off”. That you are unable to even question the institution leads to your need to lecture me into some kind of submission. I don’t want to hear that you are “sad” that I blocked you, because I know your tune will change later. I don’t want to hear that my writing is nice, to be honest. Unlike you, I would give anything to not think about adoption for just one split second. I derive nothing from my writing on the subject, not even catharsis. To understand is that my writing is the forefront of my action, the framework for my praxis, and if adoptive parents aren’t beside me, activated with me, I have little use for them. I want adoptive parents to see their own role in maintaining the status quo that benefits a particular class in society to the detriment if not the destruction of marginalized communities. This is your burden, not mine.
Because what you are implying is that I would prefer that these children would stay in an abusive home. This is not only a filthy thing to say, it is rather (and quite literally) beyond the pale in terms of elevating yourself to a kind of savior figure. This is what I don’t understand about adoptive parents like yourself: their inability to step back and question the institution, the practice, and the industry of adoption, as well as their role in maintaining it as such. They are the ones with power to change their own society, and instead they cater to their own narrow class interests. They assume that their act, in and of itself, is somehow charitable or beneficent. This is provably false, and there’s no point discussing it. Worse, they then claim some kind of victim status, and then expect the victims of their actions to pity them. In certain psychological circles, there are quite a few names for this behavior, and they are far from kind.
In my previous entry likewise directed at you, I explained that your blog post, which stated that you saw the possible reunion of the children temporarily in your care with their parents as a “nightmare”, was like “a kick in the gut”. Do you even acknowledge this? No. What was your reaction when you read this? “Maybe I should admit that outside of my doting audience of other adoptive parents there are those who might not take kindly to my words.” No. Can you even contemplate that the children in your care might read about your disdain for their progenitors, whom you limit to immediate parents? No. Do you consider that, as stated, your words map on to rather dark and dangerous aspects of this heinous practice you find no fault in—for example, eugenics, forced sterilization, colonization, etc.? Not even. Instead you see the “correction” that must take place in order for your words to have merit; to have meaning. This is the same game of public relations indulged in by the institutions who trafficked us and then take aim at us when we speak up and out. Do you understand what it means to literally be targeted? Do you know what a death threat is?
Let it be said that adoption is not the sign of a beneficent or charitable society. Quite on the contrary, it is the sign of a sick, demented, and decrepid one. Your exceptional cases of adoption do not weigh in on this or change it, as my exceptional case as a personal story likewise carries no weight in this regard in terms of the big picture which you skillfully avoid discussing. I will state it again: The exceptional case does not prove the general rule. To selfishly focus this way is a tactic of the same political and economic depravity that brought us adoption in the first place. It’s not about what happens to any of us as individuals. It’s about our worldview communally speaking, and further how we collectively judge a society that sees fit to prey on its own people. For yours is a society that historically speaking has not done much more than to aid and abet its very deep-rooted desire that 99% of humankind needs to perish. After 10 years of researching adoption historically and otherwise, I wouldn’t wish what I know and what I have gleaned on my worst enemy. So you need not remind me of “the other side”. A more vulgar and obscene economic and political tango does not exist.
So know that you will not get any kind of “stamp of approval” from me. This is an attempted “normalization” from the greater side of a power divide, and I won’t fall for it. And if I blocked you, it is exactly because of this extremely overbearing kind of badgering, lecturing, and hectoring, that adoptive parents like yourself feel it is their duty to level on anyone who might challenge them. I do hope and pray that the children temporarily in your care have a better time of it. And God forbid any one of them might air some resistance to the society that, like pyromaniac firefighters, burned down their house, “rescued” them, and then demanded that they be grateful. For the nth time, take the hint. Please spare me your unwelcome missives. Because whatever you might think this is, it is not “debate” or “discussion”. Your very act of adoption is, from a certain standpoint, abuse enough. To demand, then, that I recognize it as valid via a one-sided dialogue is offensive at best; equally abusive at worst.