My mother’s friend just dealt with the problem of racism and adoption. She had to take her 13-year-old Chinese daughter with her to get a new passport in a ritzy suberb next to theirs, and when the woman behind the desk saw Juliana (my mom’s friend’s daughter), she said, “You’re CHINESE!?” Well, her mom let the woman have it, as she should have, and when she was telling us all the story not long ago, her daughter was smiling the whole time, and when her mom asked if she embarassed her, she laughed and replied, “No.” I don’t know what my reaction would’ve been had I been in her place.

Actually, Aaron’s perspective is the mainstream view of adoption – from adoption/child welfare professionals to parents to adoptees. People who hold on to other views are just reluctant to change. And, unless they refer to biological children as “biological child” then they are also hypocrites.

To prove the point – which apparently needs proving — here are the guidelines for journalists writing about adoption and children who were adopted http://www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org/journguide.html

in particular see the section on when adoption is/isn’t relevant:

“When is mentioning adoption not relevant to the story?
As in the case of race, religion or gender, the fact a person was adopted should be mentioned only if it is clearly pertinent to the story. For a journalist, the main requirement for language is accuracy. It is inaccurate to use language that implies that having been adopted confers a different/lesser status within a family, and that having been adopted is a main distinguishing feature that a person retains for life. That does not mean adoption should never be mentioned but its relevancy must remain clear to the story.

Once a child reaches adulthood they should be referred to as an adoptee or adopted person.

A daughter who joined the family through adoption should be described as simply a daughter. If it is relevant, use phrasing such as: “She was adopted in 1997″ rather than “she is adopted” or “their adopted daughter.” For instance, coverage of the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman divorce typically described the couple as having “two adopted children.” The fact they were adopted was not relevant to the story. The obituaries of Maureen Reagan provided another example by mentioning her brother Michael was adopted. The fact that he was adopted 50 years ago was as relevant as information that someone else was born prematurely or by Caesarian Section.”

also:

“Language suggesting parents “couldn’t have a child of their own” is inaccurate. Adopted children are their parent’s “own” by law and by love. Such language suggests adoption is second best can be hurtful, especially to the children. The myth that most people who adopt go on to give birth is also inaccurate. In reality, only 15% of adoptive parents eventually become pregnant. While both adoption and birth are celebrated, it is hurtful to suggest that one is more their parents’ “own” than the other. Consequently, the phrase “children of their own” is an equally inappropriate reference to birth children since it implies some special status above children who came to the family in other ways.”

Aaron: with all due respect, you have no idea of my own experience re: adoption. Your experience is not identical to everyone’s. I was simply stating my opinion that I see both sides of the argument. That includes yours.

As an adoptee, I find it offensive when I read “so and so’s adopted child John and her daughter Jane”. It IS offensive. It connotes that there is a difference between them. Like it or not, there are huge prejudices and misconceptions associated with adoption, and by separating birthchildren and adopted children in that way, it just encourages it.

It would be great if the “adopted” qualifier meant something special, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that something special connotes something positive for the vast majority of people.

I know a LOT of adoptees, and not ONE of them would tell you they want to be referred to that way. My family never referred to us in such a way. Nobody would have even dreamed of it. In fact, my relatives, although they knew we were adopted, forgot about it because we were treated just like any other child born into the family…i.e. “You get that from OUR side of the family..” etc.

If we had been identified as adopted all the time, how would that have made us more a part of the family? It identifies you as different. It puts you off to the side in a different category. We always grew up with positive attitudes about adoption, and I think it was a direct result of us having been treated and referred to exactly as all the rest.

What does it matter if the child is biological or adopted?? Why should you feel the need to tell someone, “This is my Sarah, John, adopted daughter Suzy.”??

It shouldn’t matter if they are adopted or not. They are still your children, loved just as much as your biological children, and it shouldn’t matter how you aquired the child.

one can be open and proud of adoption without referring to one’s child as “adopted child x” – you parents through biology don’t refer to your children by the way they were conceived, do you? Such as the “child conceived via missionary position” or the “IVF child” or “the oops child”? So, we adoptive parents don’t refer to our children by how they came into our families. they are just our children. They are are own. It is only those people who don’t know much about adoption who have this desire to see children who were adopted labeled as such.

Michelle was “hocked at the prejudice, voiced in some quarters, over [her] decision to adopt a mixed-race baby. It’s really surprising that people still put so much emphasis on it.”

Welcome to reality, honey. I think adoptive parents, especially Caucasian ones, should really take time and understand the cultural implications of their adopting bi/multi-racial children. It is all well and good, but part of her naivety stems from living in a world where being white, her cultural perspective is very narrow. Not saying she does not know about other cultures, but I have seen this before. Several adopted acquaintances, some of whom have white parents, and the parents just thought they would adopt them and life would be popsicles and puppies, not prepared to raise children of color, who don’t enjoy the same privilege of wearing rose-colored glasses.

I see it as this. Adopted, biological, or even foster, they’re your children and you are responsible for them, love them and care for them until they are able to do so on their own, and even then, you still love them and want the very best for them. That’s what makes a person a parent to any child. They are your children, period, simple as that.

But I do like how she dealt with the movie’s core issues.

ITA, Jane. Adoption should be celebrated and in our family, it is.

However, I don’t say my son IS adopted. He WAS adopted.

Adopted is a verb, not an adjective.

As far as the question of being bi or multi-racial, I stand by my previous statement.

I am bi-racial. I have never called myself “mixed”. Other than sounding awkward, it isn’t an accurate nor positive picture of how I see myself.

Kel, I call Michelle out on the fact she uses that term we families blessed by adoption loathe: “my own”. Unless you have adopted a child(ren), there isn’t a question that raises the hackles faster than being asked if “you have children of your own”.

Blech!!

Chiara, I agree with you completely. I’d also like to add that to not acknowledge that a child is adopted is to ignore the child’s own unique heritage and history. It is much healthier to acknowledge and celebrate adoption, for the child’s sake, because one day that child will have many, many questions about her “birth” parents or country – it’s only natural.
Acknowledging adoption has nothing to do with loving or treating an adopted child any less, and everything to do with respecting that child has a “birth” family and a whole other history out there as well.