»   Damning exposé: "Revealed: how the Yes2AV campaign malfunctioned behind the scenes" http://bit.ly/lgw3Bk 6 hrs ago

»   In @paulmasonnews's review of Fightback, key bit: "the lingering question is one of strategy"- that's the Achilles Heel http://bit.ly/jYsEXZ 13 hrs ago

»   Dunno if I'm courting another libel suit, but tomorrow morning's story on libcon is a cracker 13 hrs ago

»   Mitt Romney's run for President is pretty much over already http://bit.ly/jUPUNI So is Ron Paul's http://politi.co/lUL9iS 14 hrs ago

»   An early #FollowFriday recommendation - @suey2y Sue Marsh is force by herself 14 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shreen Ayob
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Inter-racial adoption sounds like a good thing to promote


    by Sunny
    2nd November, 2010 at 9:45 am    

    I’m fully in favour of this government announcement:

    Social workers should make it easier for white couples to adopt children from different ethnic backgrounds, a government minister said last night.

    There is currently no bar on inter-racial adoption, but the children’s minister, Tim Loughton, said too many children languish in care because social workers hold out for “the perfect match” rather than deciding whether the would-be adoptive parents would provide a good home.

    Damn straight. Enough said. Etc etc.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Race politics






    100 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : Inter-racial adoption sounds like a good thing to promote http://bit.ly/bnYZpQ


    2. Fenrir

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Inter-racial adoption sounds like a good thing to promote http://bit.ly/bnYZpQ <Agreed, should help integration


    3. Word Play

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Inter-racial adoption sounds like a good thing to promote http://bit.ly/bnYZpQ


    4. Esaba Chowdhury

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Inter-racial adoption sounds like a good thing to promote http://bit.ly/bnYZpQ




    1. matt — on 2nd November, 2010 at 10:06 am  

      Race is an illusion, a construct based on historic movements of populations and the accretion of culture. There can be few grounds to refuse adoption on grounds of race.

    2. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2010 at 10:19 am  

      Yes,

      And vice versa too.

      It appears from the statement that it is to help white adoptees rather than all adoptees.

      Social workers should make it easier for white couples to adopt children from different ethnic backgrounds, a government minister said last night.

    3. platinum786 — on 2nd November, 2010 at 12:08 pm  

      I’m not against the idea, but I would like to know, when adopted children find out they are adopted? Surely kids under the age of 2-3 wouldn’t be able to tell? If they were a different race though, they might well be able to tell.

      Still, I think I’d rather see a child in a loving home than in the care system.

    4. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2010 at 1:10 pm  

      platimum786,

      Me too.

    5. Ravi Naik — on 2nd November, 2010 at 2:01 pm  

      I’m not against the idea, but I would like to know, when adopted children find out they are adopted? Surely kids under the age of 2-3 wouldn’t be able to tell? If they were a different race though, they might well be able to tell.

      No, at that age they would not understand that you inherit your parents genes and therefore appearance.

    6. Don — on 2nd November, 2010 at 2:39 pm  

      Good idea.

    7. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2010 at 2:47 pm  

      Agreed. Get the children out of the (state) care system and into (private) loving homes. See, privatisation can work.

    8. earwicga — on 2nd November, 2010 at 3:12 pm  

      Is there much desire from ‘white couples to adopt children from different ethnic backgrounds’? Will this actually make any difference in practice? Don’t most people who do overseas adoption do it because younger childre are available?

      (sorry for all the questions, just points that came to mind)

    9. africana — on 2nd November, 2010 at 4:03 pm  

      people who do overseas adoption are deeply selfish individuals.

      far, far better to leave the child in his home environment with his nearest of kin and provide the child with, in regular installments,money. the money the adopter would have spent purchasing the child (for that is what happens) as well as the money that might be lavished on him/her had they became the adopter’s show piece/testament to your right on-ness would be better used to support the child in his homeland.

    10. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2010 at 4:10 pm  

      Africana, I’m not sure Anjaline Jolie and Madonna’s kids would entirely agree with you…

    11. damon — on 2nd November, 2010 at 4:46 pm  

      Have the people who used to argue against inter-racial adoption changed their minds? I think there used to be some pretty strong arguments against it.

      Or is it that Britain has moved on somewhat like the ”right wingers” have said? And that families now come in a variety of different compositions - and being mixed race, or having adoptiave parents of a different race, or two gay dads or lesbian mums is not to be seen as such a big deal?

      One of the arguments here in Northern Ireland about not having mixed schools is that some nationalists say that catholic children will not be able to express their Nationalist and Republican identity in a mixed school.

      There was a lot of race and identity politics in this adoption issue in the past.

    12. cjcjc — on 2nd November, 2010 at 6:07 pm  

      This Guardian response is truly beyond parody.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/02/adoption-race-matters?showallcomments=true

    13. Don — on 2nd November, 2010 at 7:08 pm  

      Africana,

      I think I can see a few problems with your proposal. If a wealthy prospective adopter did indeed use the money they would have spent purchasing the child (for that is what happens) as well as the money that might be lavished on him/her then that money would completely and abrubtly transform the economic dynamics of the community in which the child lived.

      I don’t think it is cynical to say that the child would become a ‘cash cow’ and whoever had guardianship of the child would be in a position of power and wealth within that community. Far better to spend some time deciding which already functioning charity or NGO was best helping the problems that matter to you and send the money there.

      I know that when people do sponsor a child elsewhere in the world they are given firm guidelines so that the sponsorship is not so lavish as to risk alienating the child from his/her community.

    14. Don — on 2nd November, 2010 at 7:18 pm  

      earwicqa,

      Is there much desire from ‘white couples to adopt children from different ethnic backgrounds’?

      As far as I can tell from a little google research, it’s more about couples who want to adopt and don’t see ethnicity as an issue. Some, of course, may indicate a preference for mixed race children because they know such children spend much longer in care.

      Will this actually make any difference in practice?

      I don’t know how many outcomes this could effect, but how many is enough to be significant? One?

      Don’t most people who do overseas adoption do it because younger children are available?

      I suspect that may be the case, but if the removal of the apparent tendency to ‘hold out’ for an ethnically correct match for several years means that children can be placed with suitable people much sooner then that factor could be reduced.

    15. cjcjc — on 2nd November, 2010 at 10:48 pm  

      This Guardian response is even better!!

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/02/transracial-adoption-race-is-crucial

    16. earwicga — on 2nd November, 2010 at 11:19 pm  

      Thanks Don. Yes, one would be significant. I was looking at a website ‘advertising’ children who need adoptive parents earlier. So sad.

    17. Don — on 3rd November, 2010 at 12:07 am  

      cjcjc

      I agree This went beyond wierd.

      On Monday, paradoxically, an elderly black couple went to court to claim that they’d been denied the chance to become foster carers because of their Christian-based views on homosexuality. They didn’t believe it was an acceptable lifestyle. Clearly these views are outdated, but the fact remains that they are held by many who originate from strongly religious countries in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. So, if the couple’s claims are correct, would the adoption rules now in effect state that black and Asian children can no longer be adopted by those who share their cultural heritage? If so, combined with the message Loughton is sending out, we could be moving towards an effective whites-only adoption policy

    18. africana — on 3rd November, 2010 at 1:47 am  

      @kismet hardy,

      whether the adopted child is that of madonna or anyone else,i still believe that it is in the child’s best interests to remain within its community where the longing to know about one’s birth parents is satiated if not by siblings/extended family, then by the wider community.

      i am not of the view that monetary gain equals happiness-what is all of this kabbalistic zen macrobioticism, but the quest for something beyond the material (something which madonna isn’t short of)? nah, material gain creates nothing but persistent disatisfaction.

      “If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam’s son except dust”

    19. africana — on 3rd November, 2010 at 1:53 am  

      @don@13,

      “Far better to spend some time deciding which already functioning charity or NGO was best helping the problems that matter to you and send the money there.”

      your suggestion is a far better one than mine.

    20. douglas clark — on 3rd November, 2010 at 1:56 am  

      Don,

      I doubt a wain has a ‘cultural heritage’ until it is taught it. OK, the older they are, the less true that becomes, but still.

      My point @ 2, was that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      It is culturally idiotic to talk about ‘white rights’ to adopt, when we should, ought, whatever, to be talking about ‘everyones rights’, being a fit and responsible person, to have the right to adopt, subject to standard safeguards. It is that that I objected to, and still do.

      I have no time whatsoever for Chris Nicholson. I have no idea what his agenda is or whether he has any sense to say.

      I kind of doubt it.

      An agenda which says that in order to be accepted in Britain, migrants and minorities must speak the language fluently, adopt “British values” (whatever they are) and ditch their religious beliefs: to assimilate into this country rather than maintain their cultural traditions and historical ties.

      Y’know what? I think that is bullshit.

      Nicholson overemphasises culture. I’d expect infants to be taught English by their adoptive parents - for obvious reasons - and if they are sensitive and sensible enough to be selected as adoptees, perhaps to teach the child’s native language too. Strike one.

      It has been a moot point around here, almost since Sunny started this site, that there is no such thing as ‘British Values’. I for one agree.

      One mans Flora is another man’s butter, etc, etc, and so on ad infinitum.

      Strike two.

      His own experience was to desert him in his conclusion:

      Do I think that it was the right decision to let us adopt our children – yes, they had already spent four years among a variety of foster parents. Do I think that we were able to provide a good, loving home – I hope so. Do I regret adopting my children – not for a moment. But do I think “inter-racial adoption should be promoted”, as the headline of the Guardian article suggests? No, I don’t.

      Eh!

      Strike three!

      He’d just gone and done it!

      as cjcjc says, that is beyond parody.

    21. cjcjc — on 3rd November, 2010 at 9:07 am  

      Here’s another one!

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/03/adoption-must-not-serve-adults

      Don, yes, that was fantastic from Harker.
      How very dare anyone deny those kids the chance to take on the homophobia which is their cultural heritage!!
      (Though, in 100000 other articles on the subject of homophobic rap lyrics, that homophobia is all the fault of slavery and colonialism….)

      Only, literally only, in the Guardian!

    22. Ravi Naik — on 3rd November, 2010 at 12:19 pm  

      How very dare anyone deny those kids the chance to take on the homophobia which is their cultural heritage!!

      What a weird article that was, and offensive to argument the importance of ‘cultural heritage’, and in the same line include homophobia in it. What is next? Shall white couples introduce ‘casticism’ to Indian kids they adopt?

    23. Rumbold — on 3rd November, 2010 at 3:38 pm  

      It is people who thought like Hawker who caused black and Asian children to languish in care for decades; a bunch of racists par excellence. I thought his child benefit article (“tax the poor more to give me more money”) couldn’t be topped. I was wrong.

    24. Dr Paul — on 3rd November, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

      The thing I thought objectionable in Harker’s article is that he assumes that all non-white ‘cultures’ are anti-gay, with the implication that that is what they are and that’s how they will stay.

      What would he prefer: a non-white kid who turns out to be gay to be stuck with a gay-bashing non-white family who will give him hell as he grapples with his sexuality; or for him to be adopted by a white family who helps come to terms with his sexuality?

      In any case, British ‘culture’ wasn’t exactly friendly to gays, and only relatively recently has it become more acceptable to be gay. Bigotry can decline.

    25. deemz — on 3rd November, 2010 at 4:02 pm  

      I think it depends on the age of a child, on whether race/culture should be taken into account for adoption.

      I would think that the younger the child is, the less race/culture would be a factor but if the child is older in age and has already “grown up” in a certain culture and has become accustomed to it, then it is easier for him/her to become a part of that family rather than a family from an “alien” culture.

      I wish that I had been adopted by rich white parents.

    26. damon — on 3rd November, 2010 at 6:44 pm  

      The place that the child is going to grow up might be more inportant than the race of the adoptive parents then. Joesph Harker talked about ”taunts in the playground” because he was mixed race, and that’s not such an issue in large British cities these days I think. Whereas taking the child back to a remote Scottish island might be more alienating for a BME child growing up.

      One of the reasons for confusions about identity is the cultural politics that children are often expected to fit into. So in the USA for example, black people can be expected to speak with an African American accent. Even if you never grew up in the USA, but move there, if you are black, you might want to learn some African American Vernacular English or otherwise be seen as a bit odd.
      This guy, John McWhorter talked about it in his book Authentically Black.
      http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/authentically_black_and_losing.htm

      If you’re black (he argued) some things are just not done. Like having an interest in Russian literature or art for example. Or classical music. Show a passion for that at school, and carry a violin case … and you may be accused of acting white.

    27. Don — on 3rd November, 2010 at 7:45 pm  

      taking the child back to a remote Scottish island might be more alienating

      Why?

    28. John Christopher — on 3rd November, 2010 at 8:25 pm  

      If common sense is, as cjcjc puts it “beyond parody”, then why can’t I as a black man brought up in a overwhelmingly christian family, see the joke? My upbringing did not stop me from questioning the world around me but it did prepare me to face it. It’s hard enough for a black man to survive and thrive in the white man’s world, it seems that this isn’t enough for some on this forum. They want black children to go forth into the world, unprepared and unprotected. This for me, is political correctness gone mad and a social experiment fraught with danger for the most innocent the children. It must always be remembered that children grow up into adults. However good a white home might be for a black child, the plain truth is that this happy world cannot never be replicated in the world beyond that home. No amount a breast beating by the liberal left can change that sorry fact….

    29. douglas clark — on 3rd November, 2010 at 9:16 pm  

      John Christopher,

      I don’t really see your objection. Although I see no reason why a white child shouldn’t be adopted by black parents either. Assuming both sets of potential parents meet reasonable criteria.

      Would it be better for the child to remain in care or with foster parents, as per Rumbold’s point @ 23?

    30. John Christopher — on 3rd November, 2010 at 11:59 pm  

      Douglas

      I object to your argument because it is utopian in sentiment and therefore simply not practical (in the long term) to the real world that both of us ( and more importantly, those black and asian adopted children of white parents ) live in. Both my wife and I wanted to adopt but decided otherwise because of the “cultural” hurdles that were put in our way as black people. I know we would have made good parents but the PC agenda told us different. Like I said, we do not live in a perfect world…..

    31. cjcjc — on 4th November, 2010 at 8:56 am  

      No we don’t.

      But what we do know is that the worst outcome - by miles - is for children to stay in state “care”.

    32. damon — on 4th November, 2010 at 9:21 am  

      Dan @27 ”Why?”

      I just meant that being the only black child in a school or town might be more alienating than going to school in a multi-cultural city.
      But it shouldn’t be a bar either I think, to take an adopted ethnic minority child to somewhere like the Isle of Lewis. The blame is with us adults for giving children the idea of what is ”normal”. And as kids just want to be seen as normal, they can be sensitive to anything that might be unusual. And of course, because other kids also pick up on this, that’s where playground taunts can come from.

      But I don’t think there is any duty or need to imbue an adopted child from some other part of the world, (particularly) in the culture of it’s birth parents.
      I don’t think for example that if the child was from a country where everyone was religious, that the new parents should have to teach that child about his parent’s religion.

      Anyway, before I get accused of being a panto-dame again, I’ll just stop here, as I don’t think that this thread was set up to discuss these wider implications of culture, belonging and the sense of loss that can materialise in some children brought up by parents of a different ethnicity.

    33. Ravi Naik — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:34 am  

      However good a white home might be for a black child, the plain truth is that this happy world cannot never be replicated in the world beyond that home. No amount a breast beating by the liberal left can change that sorry fact….

      Both my wife and I wanted to adopt but decided otherwise because of the “cultural” hurdles that were put in our way as black people. I know we would have made good parents but the PC agenda told us different.

      So - on one hand you are against white parents adopting black children, on the other, you decided not to adopt them because of “cultural hurdles” (whatever that means). What does it mean for minority children in the care system, if everyone thought like you?

      I believe the arguments made against inter-racial adoption can be made - and have been made - against inter-racial couples having children. I found it bizarre that Joseph Harker starts his article by stating he is a black man raised by white parents - which lead you to believe he is adopted, but in fact, he is mixed-raced and was raised by his Irish mother who later went on to marry another person when his father abandoned them.

    34. Ravi Naik — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:05 am  

      belonging and the sense of loss that can materialise in some children brought up by parents of a different ethnicity

      The sense of loss, I would assume, is the realization that you are adopted. What you refer to, in my view, is no different from children who stem from parents of different ethnic backgrounds, or children from immigrants who need to conciliate their ancestral culture with the host one. Happy children are those that are free to choose and deal with multiple identities without the social/community/family pressure to conform to a certain standard, or to be imposed an identity.

    35. damon — on 4th November, 2010 at 1:24 pm  

      Don, sorry for inadvertently calling you Dan.

      Ravi Naik - I completely agree with your last two points pretty much. (Harker has some issues).

      One of the things that white adoptive parents of a black child in Britain might struggle with, is the idea of Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome.
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=ie7&q=post+traumatic+slave+syndrome&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7GZAZ_en&redir_esc=&ei=frDSTMfhG5CRjAf9nMHqDQ

      But I’m sure it’s an idea that a lot of black parents would struggle with or reject too.

      The idea is that black children of Caribbean origin in Britain are still suffering a hangover from slavery.
      Which then goes on to explain a host of other issues to do with the realities of inner city life.

    36. An Old Friend — on 4th November, 2010 at 3:46 pm  

      Not eveyrone believes that white people have the midas touch. Black parents should have priority when it comes to adopting black children, as white parents, or Asian parents should have priority when it comes to adopting children. Views on homosexuality should not bare anyone from adopting children. It is far better to be raised by homophobes than it is to grow up in care.

    37. douglas clark — on 4th November, 2010 at 8:16 pm  

      An Old Friend @ 36,

      I doubt that there is a soul here that thinks white people have the midas touch. Nor that they should have some sort of priority in an adoption queue.

      Quite why you think that the overall criteria should be white with white, brown with brown and black with black needs a lot more explanation than you have chosen to provide. If anyone can provide a caring home for anyone else, then that, to my mind is the only worthwhile criteria.

      You then go off tangentially with an arguement that it is better to grow up with homophobes than in care. Where do you draw the line?

      Anywhere? Anywhere at all?

      I’d have thought there were sufficient decent couples that wished to adopt without having to pander to homophobes or worse….

    38. Don — on 4th November, 2010 at 8:42 pm  

      It is far better to be raised by homophobes than it is to grow up in care.

      I believe a couple of the Phelps children feel differently.

      Would you stand by that statement if you substituted ‘racist’ for ‘homophobe’?

    39. John Christopher — on 4th November, 2010 at 8:47 pm  

      I DON’T disagree that children stuck in the care system have very poor outcomes than children in loving homes (of whatever colour). Alas this does not negate my original argument. I’ve seen at first hand the results of this kind of social engineering and it isn’t good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I’m sorry to inform you Douglas, this is one of them. Please can someone tell me why is it WRONG for black parents to bring up black children? And why is it right for Black parents to be prevented from bringing up black children, in a black household? What have we to fear?

    40. damon — on 4th November, 2010 at 8:51 pm  

      I don’t think this new idea of homophobia should be such a big deal.
      I don’t even think the word homophobe is the one to use in this context.

      I have that exceedingly middle class TV food programme ‘River Cottage’ on at the moment. I quite like it, even though it’s a lot of middle class tosh.
      The one set in villages of Dorset or somewhere, with that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

      Is it OK for a black or minority ethnic child adopted from some failed inner-city situation to be sat down in front of that with their adoptive white parents right now?
      I think that might be the kind of thing that the people who opposed inter-racial adoption were concerned about. Because they thought it would not be culturally appropriate.

    41. Don — on 4th November, 2010 at 9:44 pm  

      Please can someone tell me why is it WRONG for black parents to bring up black children? And why is it right for Black parents to be prevented from bringing up black children, in a black household? What have we to fear?

      Where has that been remotely suggested? In fact, what the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that black children in care should only ever be brought up by black adoptive parents, and if there are not enough black adopters then the child should remain in care?

      Because if that is not your point you have not grasped what this discussion is about.

      I’m prepared to see the argument that if two sets of equally suitable potential adopters are available for a child then the fact that one set shares the child’s ethnicity might be considered a factor. All other things being equal. I’d need to see that argument laid out rationally, but I’d be prepared to listen, although there are probably counter-arguments.

      So far you haven’t made an argument.

      Damon,

      I’m (reasonably) sure you mean well. But you can be fucking annoying.

    42. douglas clark — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:12 pm  

      John Christopher @ 39,

      Well, apart from the occasional orphan, the social engineering that is going on here is down to the failed parents, not the prospective adopters. What I am saying is that a kid who had been removed from their parents - because their parents were on hard drugs or whatever and were unable to cope with them -would be in a far better position if they were adopted by any decent caring adult(s) than if they had been passed from pillar to post awaiting a perfect, racially matched adoption.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with black parents bringing up black children. It is what happens where there is a family with a black father and a black mother. I’d agree with you to the extent that clearly white prospective adopters should not be privileged over other potential adopters, on the basis of their whiteness. Is that clear enough for you?

      You are the one that wants the social engineering, not me. I am saying as clearly as I can that I don’t want the sort of apartheid that you would appear to favour.

      If that seems a bit strong, I’m sorry, but that is how you are coming across to me here. I appreciate that you had a bad experience with adoption agencies and I sympathise. I’d refer you to my comment @ 2, before this all got a bit intense. Clearly, the older the child might be, the more sensitive the potential adopters have to be to cultural heritage. That should be a given.

      The childs welfare should not be cannon fodder for adult political posturing. I hope we could at least agree on that.

    43. Ravi Naik — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:18 pm  

      Is it OK for a black or minority ethnic child adopted from some failed inner-city situation to be sat down in front of that with their adoptive white parents right now?

      Yes.

    44. damon — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:23 pm  

      Don, that may be the case, but you don’t say why.
      Like your teacher told you when you did your maths, you should show your working out in the margin.
      I’m sure Sunny finds this programme on Channel 4 right now fucking annoying too, but unless it’s explained why, it’s not something I can really take too much notice of.
      ”What the Green Movement Got Wrong”
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1SMSN_ENUK404&q=channel+4+what+the+greens+got+wrong&aq=f&oq=

      Inter racial adoptions were frowned on for a reason.
      I have tried to highlight some of those issues.
      Things like ”Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome” Don.
      I don’t know why you felt that inter-racial adoptions were frowned on as you haven’t said much on it.

    45. douglas clark — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:35 pm  

      damon @ 44,

      Well, what do you think about the children of mixed race marriages, something that was equally frowned upon? Was there a ‘reason’ for frowning on that too? Or was it just that everybody frowned about everything back then?

      You are right, there probably was a reason. It just happens to be a particularily stupid and retrogressive one.

    46. damon — on 4th November, 2010 at 10:50 pm  

      Douglas, the people who stopped thousands of inter-racial adoptions - (because there were more black kids in care than average … and less black potential adoptive families than average) saw themselves as the most left wing and progressive people of their day.
      The people who the Daily Mail used to slate as the ”looney left” councils. Places like Lambeth and Islington councils in London.

      I would just to be interested to see why there was this change of mind, rather than just moving on and not explaining why.

    47. douglas clark — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:04 pm  

      damon @ 46,

      Charles Fort, whom I am sure I have quoted before had this to say about the human condition:

      I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while.

      Do you recall when there was a satanic child abuser under every bed? I was very, very peripheral to the Orkney case and I have never seen so many allegedly sane people go so stark raving bonkers. It was actually career threatening to even suggest that it was manufactured, and my career, such as it was not even in social work. I suspect similar pressures apply here.

    48. Don — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:09 pm  

      Is it OK for a black or minority ethnic child adopted from some failed inner-city situation to be sat down in front of that with their adoptive white parents right now?

      No.

      It’s not ok for any kid of any ethnicity, regardless of parental status to be watching Hugh Fearnley -Fucking -Whittingstall. They should be upstairs with their X-boxes or in the park drinking cider. Or forming a band or training for the Olympics. Or being obnoxious. Getting tats and even moderate body-mods would be preferable to that.

    49. John Christopher — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

      “Anything that isn’t white is by definition black”. I was forced to learn this harsh lesson by the white Irish mother of my best friend, who just happened to have a dad who was black. I was brought up by parents who overwhelmingly had objections against homosexual lifestyle. I was also brought up to think for myself. I’m SURE that I wasn’t alone in this experience but I am now informed by people better than me, that my experience, my upbringing and nearly everything that I know is without worth or value. That I am the exception and not the rule. This is patronizing twaddle of the worst kind. Worse that this, it’s plain dangerous given the world we live in. Douglas, you live in a world that I admire but do not recognise. That Irish woman who beat me and her children into submission, did what she did out of love not hate. She wanted her children prepared and readied for a unkind, unjust and unfair world of the white man. Better a racist who calls me nigger to my face than a happy liberal who undermines my community from within.

    50. John Christopher — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:35 pm  

      Just to make myself clear. I will defend the integrity of my community from ALL COMERS both from within and without. History dictates, every time a liberal has stuck his or her nose into the business of my community, my community ends up the worse. So I’ll stay where I am and defend.

    51. persephone — on 4th November, 2010 at 11:45 pm  

      “combined with the shortage of non-white couples wanting to adopt, is that ethnic minority children are over-represented among the young people in care who never find permanent homes. It takes an average of two years and seven months to adopt; black, Asian and mixed-race children wait three times longer than white children.”

      The elephant in the room seems to be the question: why is there is a lack of non white couples adopting?

    52. Katy Newton — on 5th November, 2010 at 12:18 am  

      John Christopher, do you feel able to share the cultural hurdles that you and your wife felt stopped you from going through the adoption procedure? If the system is weighted against non-white parents adopting then that’s something that people should know about.

    53. Don — on 5th November, 2010 at 12:35 am  

      That Irish woman who beat me and her children into submission, did what she did out of love not hate.

      If that is the sort of thing you said to the adoption agency, it may well have counted against you.

    54. damon — on 5th November, 2010 at 12:56 am  

      The elephant in the room seems to be the question: why is there is a lack of non white couples adopting?

      Persephone, for that lame question you definitely deserve to be the back end of the panto horse.

      It’s cultural (and economic) of course.

      Why is there a dearth of BME organ donors and such things. Or volunteering?

    55. douglas clark — on 5th November, 2010 at 2:07 am  

      John Christopher @ 49,

      You say you recognise that the outcomes for children that remain in ‘care’ throughout their childhoods is poor.

      I agree with that.

      You claim to defend ‘your’ community against attack from outwith and within.

      I am not attacking your community.

      You are.

      Why do I say that?

      Because you have failed to provide any sort of answer whatsoever to resolving the problems of institutional failure. Or else you see children as sacrificial pawns in forwarding your own viewpoint, your own opinions and your own agenda. You wouldn’t be the first to have done that, and, no doubt, you won’t be the last.

      And that’s the problem John. It is what I hate about identity politics, and especially those that choose to pretend they speak for anyone except themselves. Thurled to their own idea of a Utopia and devoid of any self criticism of it.

      ‘Tis you sir, that is the would be social engineer, and I do not like the half baked ideas about society that you propose which would lead us basically into apartheid.

      It is my view that the individual is the basic unit of the society that we both live in and that community comes a very distant second in value or importance. Society should be trying to favour the outcomes for the individual rather than worry about this ‘community’ stuff.

      Especially when it comes to kids.

    56. cjcjc — on 5th November, 2010 at 8:08 am  

      Uh-oh, I’m in danger both of understanding what Douglas is saying and more or less agreeing…!

    57. Katy Newton — on 5th November, 2010 at 9:14 am  

      Don @53 heh.

      I suppose it is possible that the system is loaded against non-white parents. It’s odd because I think lots of non-white parents do foster.

    58. damon — on 5th November, 2010 at 3:00 pm  

      Don, I may be annoying, I just thought that there was so much more to this story than welcoming making it easier to have inter-racial adoptions.
      There was a lot of politics that went into the reluctance of councils and social workers to promote it.
      As can be seen here on Operation Black Vote’s website.

      Decades ago race was not a consideration and as a consequence many hundreds of black children were placed with white families.

      Adopters may have had the best of intentions but many of the children were brought up as if they were white and consequently suffered identity crises as adults. As a result they were either in denial about their colour and heritage or had to embark on their own often-lonely journey of self-discovery.

      Some of the adoptive parents lacked knowledge about how to care for the child’s hair and skin, while the children lacked the sort of cultural or historical input that would give them a reference point about where they came from.

      The backlash against this situation came in the early 1980s, when black social workers and councils like Lambeth began to introduce policies against cross-racial adoption. By 1989 the Children Act was introduced to make race a consideration. These debates took place, and were settled, nearly 30 years ago.

      http://www.obv.org.uk/node/3265

      I have a lot of differences of opinion with the kind of politics that the likes of OBV promotes, but I don’t think Pickled Politics is the place to discuss them, as some people are quite lazy and will just pass snide comments about being ”pro BNP” or anti-muslim or whatever. And OBV itself the other day dismissed black critics of it’s line of thought as ”right wingers” and more or less sell-outs.

      The whole area is very fractious and controversial, with people like Ken Livingstone’s former advisor on race and policing (Lee Jasper), advocating all black schools for black children.

      To even critiscise this statement below, would not lead to discussion, but to acrimonious dismissal, and me being a white person, my motives for doing so might be questioned (”is he a closet racist?” etc).

      It is ironic that Loughton should make his remarks just after Black History Month, which is in part a celebration of the importance of black history to a sense of self-worth.

      It’s this identity politics that I suspect is more negative than positive.
      But that’s getting into panto-horse territory I guess.

      Oh.. just one last bit, as the guy seems to completely disagree with Sunny’s opening post.

      There may well be circumstances where white couples can provide the cultural input that black children need, but unless Loughton and the government can demonstrate that they are taking seriously the need for black children to understand who they are – and the press reports don’t give any clue that they are - then the policy should not be changed.

    59. John Christopher — on 5th November, 2010 at 5:19 pm  

      Good Lord, Douglas, I hate claptrap. So I’ll say this again. The world that you advocate, I don’t recognise because in truth it doesn’t exist. It’s a myth, a dream, pie in the sky fantasy. It’s hard enough for white parents to bring up white children that they have adopted, given the broken social care system that those children have come from and YOU think white parents can pull a rabbit out of a hat with black children. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible just very improbable. From the white people I know who have successfully brought up a black child, they have had to pay a terrible price, a price that most never signed up for. Suffice to say, they wouldn’t repeat the experience. In principle I have no problem with Douglas’s world view but until that world is a reality please for the love of God, all either of us can do is protect the child and prepare the adult for the real world that they will eventually have to face. Where black children are concerned this is best done from within a strong, loving black family. And yes the questions must be asked, why is there a dearth of BME families willing to adopt? Beacuse right now BME children have little choice. Either they stay inside a stale institution and rot or walk the rabbit proof fence within a white family culturally alien to their own. That’s what I call a lose, lose situation if ever there was one.

    60. John Christopher — on 5th November, 2010 at 5:35 pm  

      Katy

      My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer just before we started considering adoption. Alas what we both saw and heard from the social services quickly modified our ambitions. Needless to say being both black and Catholic does not make for good parents……

    61. Ravi Naik — on 5th November, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

      From the white people I know who have successfully brought up a black child, they have had to pay a terrible price, a price that most never signed up for. Suffice to say, they wouldn’t repeat the experience.

      They successfully raised a child, but they paid a terrible price? What are you talking about?

    62. Don — on 5th November, 2010 at 6:55 pm  

      From the white people I know who have successfully brought up a black child…

      Do you mean you know several white couples who have successfully raised a black child? That would be very unusual. I know one white couple who happily fostered a black child for about two years. His mum got her life back on track and he was returned. They stayed in touch and no discernable cultural calamity ensued.

    63. persephone — on 5th November, 2010 at 8:01 pm  

      Damon @54 “ It’s cultural (and economic) of course.”

      Why not discuss it – for the fact that it may be cultural? - that is exactly why I raised it.

      What is it about the culture that stops it – if we are talking Asians – what aspects of the culture need to be aired & challenged. If it is economic – how much is taken into a/c here? How wealthy do you need to be? Asians on average have higher than average home & car ownership for example. A large proportion also have extended family living together/nearby so childcare/ family support network should be easier & not as much a cost issue.

    64. damon — on 6th November, 2010 at 1:21 am  

      Persephone, it takes a certain kind of person who wants to adopt someone else’s child. I’m not sure if South Asian families even come into the picture here, usually having strong family networks of their own.

      I don’t really have a desire to expose myself again and again on threads like this, as we can see, many people say very little and just pipe up now and again to say ”what an idiot” and such things.
      I have just highlighted the difference between the opening post which was welcoming of this statement from Tim Loughton (and saying no more about it), and mentioning the historical opposition to wide scale inter-racial adoption by those people who for 30 years have considered themselves the progressive left and champions of multi-culturalism.
      The people who have slammed anyone who disagreed with anything they said all these years, as being right wing.

      I showed in my last post that Operation Black Vote is highly skeptical of any change here.

      To simply cast aside ‘race’ as a factor amounts to a blatant disregard for everything ‘race’ stands for. History, food, stories and sayings – they all have enormous value.

      And I don’t think they are interested in any discussion about this. It’s a world view.
      So you’ll excuse me if I don’t stick my neck out more than to say that I have grave reservations about OBV’s world view.
      Sunnys only comment on the story was

      ‘Damn straight. Enough said. Etc etc.’

      … so it’s not my job to try to go off on some tangent.

      From the OBV article:

      Decision-makers should instead show respect for the importance of race and culture in the adoption process, respect that was fought for in past decades as a direct result of the emotionally harmful consequences of black children growing up without a black identity.

      And here’s another from OBV
      ”Adoption: Minister in race row”
      http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/adoption-minister-race-row#

    65. Katy Newton — on 6th November, 2010 at 2:53 am  

      @John Christopher: I am really sorry to hear about your wife, that must have been very hard. A friend of mine (white) adopted a little girl a few years ago - she had cancer when she was about 20, and was told that you had to be 5 years clear, I think.

    66. douglas clark — on 6th November, 2010 at 10:07 am  

      John Christopher @ 60,

      I too am really sorry to read about your wife.

      My best wishes go to both of you.

      dougie

    67. Chris Baldwin — on 6th November, 2010 at 10:09 am  

      Meh, they’re just pretending white people aren’t allowed to adopt non-white kids to score some easy points with the PC-Gone-Mad crowd.

    68. John Christopher — on 6th November, 2010 at 12:58 pm  

      Thank you everyone for your best wishes. I’ll pass them onto Sharon.

      Anyway back to the matter at hand. I’m interested in outcomes. Ultimate outcomes. Black children staying within a broken care system and black children being brought up as white, equate to my mind as exactly the same thing, ending in exactly the same destination, just by a different route. It ends up in a broken human being. Yes, I have known white families who have successfully brought up “black” children but like I said, they have had to pay a price in doing it. That price, how can I put it has seen those families kissing goodbye to a lifetime of doctrine and safe assumptions. It was once put to me this way. They choose to swallow the blue pill (instead of the red) and when they saw the truth, they were horrified. The safe illusion of the past lives had been shattered forever, a life they could NEVER go back to. I’m not white and I can’t imagine that happening to me.

    69. Don — on 6th November, 2010 at 2:56 pm  

      John,

      May I ask if you have similar reservations over mixed marriages?

    70. Ravi Naik — on 6th November, 2010 at 3:06 pm  

      That price, how can I put it has seen those families kissing goodbye to a lifetime of doctrine and safe assumptions. It was once put to me this way. They choose to swallow the blue pill (instead of the red) and when they saw the truth, they were horrified. The safe illusion of the past lives had been shattered forever, a life they could NEVER go back to.

      I still fail to understand what is the truth that they were so horrified to discover after successfully raising a black child. And no references to sci-fi movies, please.

      The problem is that you see inter-race relationships (between parents and children, or between couples) as taboo and an attack against your community. Is your life experience based in South Africa by any chance?

    71. DocMartyn — on 6th November, 2010 at 3:28 pm  

      “John Christopher — on 6th November, 2010 at 12:58 pm
      Black children staying within a broken care system and black children being brought up as white, equate to my mind as exactly the same thing, ending in exactly the same destination, just by a different route”

      So in the case of divorce of a mixed couple, then the parent with the dark skin should be awarded custody of the children?

    72. douglas clark — on 6th November, 2010 at 3:50 pm  

      The whole adoption thing is a bit fraught, to be honest. Whilst it is sometimes seen as an ideal solution, it is something usually born in the traumas of both the birth parents and the adoptees. It also contains further shocks, especially for the child, along the way. These appear to be well understood in the academic literature - although I have only been able to Google abstracts as all the studies I have been able to identify are hidden behind pay walls. With this exception.

      This study suggests that John is wrong -

      http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mvandul/Weinbergetal2005.pdf

      although the authors admit that the sub sample sizes are an issue. What that study found was that, all adoptees have worse outcomes than kids living with their birth parents. And that - in that study at least - inracial or interacial adoption was not a further confounding issue.

      No, I am not claiming much here. I am just saying that it is at least a study, not heresay.

      For some reason John is suggesting that white adoptees go into the situation with their eyes closed, or that the revelations are so shocking, so horrific, that every white potential adoptee should think twice. Or indeed be put off for ever from considering adopting outwith their own ethnic community. Whatever the heck that is these days.

      Least that’s how I read what he has to say. I’d like some evidence that that is the case, as I have provided evidence, albeit scanty, from another country, etc, that it is not the case.

    73. douglas clark — on 6th November, 2010 at 4:07 pm  

      Just as an aside, ’cause it’s been bothering me, lets assume that black and asian people were far more willing than they appear to be to adopt. Let’s assume that all black and asian kids that were up for adoption were adopted by black and asian families respectively.

      Would John deny the surplus of black and asian families that still wanted to adopt a kid the right to adopt a white one?

      If so, why? And if not, why not?

      —————————-

      I have a feeling that Sunny knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote:

      Damn straight. Enough said. Etc etc.

      Obviously it’s early days, but as Pickled Politics is ‘only’ the 24th most popular political blog in the UK and Liberal Conspiracy is numero uno, then a bit of controversy here would do no harm :-)

      Assuming he wants his blogs to occupy the first and second places on the list….

    74. cjcjc — on 6th November, 2010 at 5:14 pm  

      What exactly does being brought up “as white” actually mean / consist of??

    75. Don — on 6th November, 2010 at 6:24 pm  

      cjcjc,

      Watching Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Apparently. Preferably in Dorset.

    76. damon — on 6th November, 2010 at 8:36 pm  

      cjcjc

      What exactly does being brought up “as white” actually mean / consist of??

      I think it can mean a whole lot of things depending on who is asking the question.
      In the USA, if you are black and you are living in an area where nearly all black people speak with a particular ”African American” accent - and you don’t, then you might be considered as being odd.
      The same thing could also apply in cities in England too, althought the accents are more nuanced and subtle. And are not so exclusive.

      In the US, it is known that black and white people even generally watch different tv programmes.
      The same as those people who voted for the new mayor of Tower Hamlets also probably have their satellite dishes tuned into something other than Strictly Come Dancing right now.

      As for Don and his Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall fettish .. I think you are wrong Don in what you said.
      I think parents have a right to bring up their children cider drinking and ‘X-box’ free, if that is their wish.

      The only place where I would draw the line is when parents expect their female children to travel to and from school in burkas.

      But joking asside, these were the words from Opreation Black Vote that I felt were most telling:

      Decision-makers should instead show respect for the importance of race and culture in the adoption process, respect that was fought for in past decades as a direct result of the emotionally harmful consequences of black children growing up without a black identity.

      What a black identity is, no one has explained to me. Is it somthing inherent or created?
      Is it something that English people who are of BME origin, feel the same as some new immigrant from Africa or Asia?
      And is the wider community meant to get all the subtleties and variations of it all?
      To me, OBV and their like, open up more questions than they bother to answer.

    77. damon — on 7th November, 2010 at 12:06 am  

      Even worse than subjecting some kid to Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on a thursday night for an hour, right now on BBC2 there’s a three hour block of programmes on the life and times of former Led Zeppelin frontman Robert Plant.

      An adoptive white dad who was a fan of Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin might not be considered a suitable dad to a black (or south Asian) child I guess.
      Or certainly shouldn’t try to induce the kid to get into the history and the music of Plant and Led Zep.
      Because it’s beyond the regular black or BME expeience, or should be, I guess reading from that OBV site.
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1SMSN_ENUK404&q=plant+krauss

      My own opinion is that I think that straightjacketing children into particular cultures or religions because of their ethnicity and origin is abusive.

    78. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 7:27 am  

      damon,

      My own opinion is that I think that straightjacketing children into particular cultures or religions because of their ethnicity and origin is abusive.

      That is my opinion too.

      See?

      C U Jimmy agrees with you!

      Bloody hell.

    79. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 7:32 am  

      Don,

      Watching Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Apparently. Preferably in Dorset.

      Well then, I’m apparently not white. And neither are you.

      Let’s celebrate our greyness!

    80. Ravi Naik — on 7th November, 2010 at 9:44 am  

      Decision-makers should instead show respect for the importance of race and culture in the adoption process, respect that was fought for in past decades as a direct result of the emotionally harmful consequences of black children growing up without a black identity.

      What a black identity is, no one has explained to me. Is it somthing inherent or created?

      It is created by people who live by and exploit identity politics for their own gain. Change ‘black’ to ‘white’ above, and you will find yourself in BNP territory.

      Because you can’t escape the conclusion that all of them believe society must be divided by race and must adhere to the estabilish identity, and nobody should dare cross that line, or they will be emotionally harmed. Oh the horror.

      Once we start analysing what ‘black’ identity is, or ‘asian’ identity… then you figure out that it is nothing more than an artifice to keep us divided.

    81. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 11:08 am  

      Ravi Naik @ 80,

      Amen.

    82. damon — on 7th November, 2010 at 3:11 pm  

      Yes Ravi Naik (and Douglas), but identities do exist, and people will have affinity with other people of that identity too. African Americans are bound to have a certain feeling for their own community because of their collective history in the United States.
      Even I as a white guy, get a warm feeling reading about (for example) the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s and 30s, and walking around the Shaw District in Washington DC which I did one time, following a guided walk around the neighbourhood, which has information boards ouside places of particular historical interest.

      The neighborhood thrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the pre-Harlem center of African American intellectual and cultural life.

      You can’t go ignoring, that history is bound to make many African Americans look at themselves a bit differently to other Americans of a European heriatage.

      Same with the Afro-Caribbean community in England when they first started turning up in numbers in the early 50′s, and then started the Notting Hill Carnival in 1964 as a way of celebrating their own cultures and traditions.

      The question is, whether you are depriving a black child by bringing them outside of this idea of being black.
      I have even heard BBC radio’s Dotun Adebayo asking (only slightly tongue in cheek) at the start of his radio programme that is mainly for the African-Caribbean part of London’s population, whether Lewis Hamilton was someone black people identified with.
      Whether they looked on him as a sporting hero. Because the way he was brought up was atypical.

      I am never ceased to be … if not surprised, then at least very aware, when I am travelling around London at night at the weekend, and see people going into night clubs, where everyone seems to be Afro-Caribbean, to the point that you get the idea that it would be odd for any non-black people to also go to that club, unless they were a particular friend of some of the people at the club.
      There’s obviously something going on there that I don’t really get (because I’m not a part of it), but those people it seems, like to associate with each other in an almost racially exclusive way. And that’s fair enough, but I always wonder what it is that I am lacking, not to really be seen as someone who can socialise in that kind of environment.

    83. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 4:22 pm  

      damon,

      Read what I had to say @ 80, why don’t you? Read what Navi Naik has to say.

      I say that folk that write and read here are a community. Which you have no respect for.

      Just saying.

      I have an enormous amount of time for folk that can stand out from their backgrounds - say Ravi Naik - and actually argue a point. They are a bit better than
      you.

      I had no idea that you wanted to go to Afro-Carribean nights out.

      Would they let me in, on the grounds that I think Bob Marley was a genius?

      Which appears to be the viewpoint of most working class Glaswegians? And one I share.

      Just asking.

    84. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 4:57 pm  

      Dunno how I said @ 80.

      Try, 72, 73…

      Or Ravi Naik @ 80.

      You talk some shit….

    85. damon — on 7th November, 2010 at 5:29 pm  

      Why you say things like that Douglas, I guess only you know. Was there anything wrong with what I said? What are you going on about ”respect” for?

      I agree with what Ravi said to a degree, but some of these Scholars in African American studies would have different opinions on that idea.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Studies#Scholars_in_African_American_studies

      It’s a hugely emotive area. One of them who I’ve read a bit of stuff by is Cornel West, university professor at Princeton University, where he teaches in the Center for African American Studies.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

      What West thinks of inter-racial adoption I’m not sure, but has opinions like this:

      West has called the U.S. a “racist patriarchal” nation where “white supremacy” continues to define everyday life. “White America,” he writes, “has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks.” This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many “degraded and oppressed people hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth.” Professor West attributes most of the black community’s problems to “existential angst derived from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture.”

      I’m not sure if my writing stuff like that is what Douglas thinks of as being disrepectful to the forum.
      To me, it’s just highlighting the very real debate that is ongoing and very passionately argued in the USA, and by default, in the UK too.
      If your saying that the thread wasn’t set up to get into all that kind of detail, you may have a point Dougie.
      But I can’t really see the point about raising an issue, and then not exploring it thoroughly.

    86. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

      damon,

      There is an enormous amount of things you say that are not at all right. In my opinion.

      You reference a huge range of scholars - hah! - that argue that American black folk are disadvantaged. Frankly, that is an opinion.

      Let’s take your first reference - one Makungu Akinyela, and lets see where that leads:

      http://www.myonlinecounselor.com/drakinyela/ViewMyWeb10.aspx?EUID=

      Would that be him?

      damon must do better than referencing tits on the internet, if he is to persuade anyone, at all :-)

    87. damon — on 7th November, 2010 at 6:50 pm  

      Dear oh dear Mr Clark. ”Tits on the internet” is not how you describe people of the calibre of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. He heads the The W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard University for goodness sake. Harvard.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates

      Cornel West was at Harvard and is now at Princeton.

      I listed that range of scholars in African American studies just to highlight the number and weight of people active in that field. It’s a serious field of study, and maybe coming from Glasgow you don’t hear much about it. In London you will.

      Maybe Douglas, you should spend a little time familiarising yourself with Operation Black Vote’s website. It’s leading person sometimes writes posts on Pickled Politics.
      http://www.obv.org.uk/

      They are real people with real opinions, and some of them will take great exception to relaxing the adoption rules.

    88. Arif — on 7th November, 2010 at 7:51 pm  

      2 issues jump out at me.

      1. Rights to adopt versus protecting the rights of the child. I believe over time, with adoptees growing up and influencing the debate, the rights of the child gained precedence over the right to adopt for most policy-makers.

      2. Defining the best interests of the child is very subjective, cultural, etc. But when decisions have to be made that’s all we have to go on - interpreting the shifting sands of competing orthodoxies to decide what would not be an acceptable trauma for a child and the adult who later looks back on their childhood. And these orthodoxies unavoidably get mixed up in identity politics issues.

      I do think the interests of the child should have precedence over interests of adopters.

      With what little confidence I have in my ability to interpret the interests of children, I’d argue:

      1. Children’s homes should obviously be of a high standard. No-one should “languish” in care.

      2. The ability of adopters to care for the child’s needs - including needs they can be expected to have to understand the culture and history of their biological parents as they grow up - should be taken into account in placing children.

    89. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 9:12 pm  

      damon,

      I ‘looked up’ your first referee and he is an idiot. Perhaps William Edward Burghardt Du Bois isn’t. His wikipedia entry, which surprisingly enough is available to Weegies such as myself, as much as the rest of humanity, such as you, suggests that he wasn’t.

      Just listing scholars that agree with you damon, doesn’t do it for me.

      I’d refer you to the study I highlighted at 72.

      Anyway, I agreed with you @ 78. Why do you insist on being a controversialist?

      If you take that tone then Officer Crowley might also have a view on your new hero, Henry Louis Gates Jnr.

    90. Niaz — on 7th November, 2010 at 9:13 pm  

      Damon
      “Dear oh dear Mr Clark. ”Tits on the internet” is not how you describe people of the calibre of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.”

      No but it is how we describe tits like you.

    91. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 9:30 pm  

      Arif,

      I think you will find that it is already the case that the rights of the child take precedence over the rights of adopters. Which is as it should be.

      No-one, especially not the courts, should listen to folk with a political agenda.

    92. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 9:56 pm  

      damon @ 85,

      Maybe, just maybe West is right when he says this:

      West has called the U.S. a “racist patriarchal” nation where “white supremacy” continues to define everyday life. “White America,” he writes, “has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks.” This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many “degraded and oppressed people hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth.” Professor West attributes most of the black community’s problems to “existential angst derived from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture.”

      Though he might just as well have said:

      Life is shit. Get over it.

      I hope he was being misquoted, as ontology is the lived experience, and he would have committed the sin of repetition. Do you suffer from existential angst? Don’t we all?

      What a lot of rubbish. It could apply equally to any community whatsoever, except perhaps, rich male, WASP golfers. But they lack self awareness, so they are losers too.

    93. damon — on 7th November, 2010 at 10:17 pm  

      The usual hit and run from this ”Niaz” or what ever he’s calling himself this week.

      Douglas (dear god) that list wasn’t a list of my ‘referees’. I only know 4 of them.

      Just listing scholars that agree with you damon, doesn’t do it for me.

      What are you talking about? I just have NO idea.
      You seem to have no ability to understand the most simple point Douglas. Do you not know anything?
      African, and African American studies are a major part of modern politics and sociology to do with our modern societies. It’s not something I have dreamt up or just pulled ”off the internet”.

      You really should just look up people like ‘Skip’ Gates.
      http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=henry+louis+gates

      And Cornel West.
      http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cornel+west&aq=f

      My point on this thread has just been to highlight that there are a host of opinions on all these ‘race issues’ of which inter-racial adoption is one.

      Sound like that idiot ‘Niaz’ person if you like Douglas, but it makes you sound a bit stupid.

    94. douglas clark — on 7th November, 2010 at 10:47 pm  

      damon,

      Leaving everything else aside for a moment, you know damn fine that I am not Niaz. Check with the owners of this web site if you like.

      Anyway.

      You are doing your usual damon shuffle of not answering any points that are put to you.

      What do you think about inter-racial adoption? You seemed to say @ 77:

      My own opinion is that I think that straightjacketing children into particular cultures or religions because of their ethnicity and origin is abusive.

      And I agreed with you! Shock, horror!

      Then you just let yourself down by undermining your own opinion with a whole lot of references to, mainly Americans, who have made a successful fist out of making black studies an academic subject. And the best quote you can come up with is near enough a parody in it’s own right.

      damon, I know a little bit about a lot, and not a lot about anything. But what I do know wasn’t exclusively gleaned from the internet nor the Daily Mail.

      My ideas are mine and mine alone, warts and all. If I reference something on here it is because I have read it and can’t fault it, unless I specifically say otherwise.

      I don’t recall how long you have been reading Pickled Politics for, but if I am wrong about something I am man enough to make a full apology for it. Which you can see in the archives, should you wish to go there.

      I think you have ‘interesting’ opinions, however I don’t share most of them. Doesn’t make you an idiot, nor does it make me one either.

    95. damon — on 8th November, 2010 at 10:42 am  

      I didn’t mean I thought you were this Niaz person Douglas.

      Maybe I’ve made it too complicated for you and I should have just agreed with the opening post (which I do) and left it at that.
      I am also inclined to agree with what Ravi Naik said @80, but that is actually a very controversial thing to say, as there is a huge body of opinion based particularly in black and minority ethnic political thinking, that would strongly disagree with that.
      The booksehelves (particularly in the USA) are filled with acres of books on African American studies, and other minority ethnic and gender studies. And me as a white chap am somewhat wary of saying that much of that is nonsense.
      Some of the most stongly opinioned champions of minority politics, will call people who disagree with them ”right wingers” and if a black person takes issue with the likes of Jesse Jackson or Operation Black Vote, they will be called even worse than that.
      Sell-outs and Uncle Toms and such things.

      As I have already mentioned on this thread Douglas.
      http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/prospect-goodhart-and-race
      Remember? The guy from OBV said this of black and minority ethnic people who disagreed with his world view.

      It is sad that our own people should do this to us, but that is a reality of life, I’m afraid.

      So can we drop this now?

    96. John Christopher — on 9th November, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

      I have three nieces and four god daughters of mixed race. And I love them all. They have seen the worst and best of both worlds being a product of both. In a loving and secure family they can be anything they want to be but in the world outside their front door, that choice is NOT exactly theirs to make. Why? Because that world is racist. I wish I could keep my girls safe at home but I can’t and so ALL I can do is to give them the ways and means to protect themselves. They will never be white and that will be their burden to bear.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.