the crazy thing is, I almost thought the quoted words were real.

It's because white people bring truth and beauty to the great unwashed. We the mud people have a yearning to loved and accepted by the imperialist colonizers.

The thing is many feel Jolie is doing a great service to "rescue" the children from the third world squalor.

*sigh*

yes, i know. they see her as a saint, bestowing her kind, wealthy, white way upon these loser kids. dear blessed well-meaning and beautiful jolie. you oughtta see some of the comments i'm getting from the crosspost over at jesus' general for this post! how dare i assault her generous, colonial heart. how dare i speak "for" the children who grow up away from their culture and looking at white faces. how could i know anything about that.

"Probably better than being fathered by a pedophile whose actual gender in puzzling."

And you have no problem with this statement?

Indeed how dare you! Because you must. And is it just me or does this smell a bit, just a tad mind, just a flitting whiff of, oh I don't know, baby trafficking?

It's not that I have "no problem" with that comment, Dead Inside. But a) what on earth do I say to that? and b) I just can't answer every person who harbors strange reality. I wouldn't have time to write any more controversial junk. :)

also...i dont even know what the hell that person is talking about, to tell you the truth. and that's okay.

Yikes. Yeah... the BoC collecting is just ew. "Oh look, I have one from here, and one from there, and..." Bleah.

Meh.

I guess this is one of those things. I read that and I know it's some kind of attack on me and mine. But you replied directly to the person who said it without so much as a, "Oh, the other thing you said, I have no idea what it means, but it sounds creepy and I'm not going to validate that." More likely in a more stylish way, such as you do.

I've never liked that site, cause there's so much creepyness there.

You bring up an important issue, in a hilarious way. I'm sadly not surprised that the Jesus' General people don't get it. Hell, I don't get it in a lot of ways. Yes, it's really simple and I should get it, but I don't. So, I'm not mad at you for not saying something to the other comment. I'm just mad.

It poisons all my thinking.

hmmm. interesting.

i'm sorry...i didn't meant to make it seem as if i were validating that weird comment by not answering it. i hate to be obtuse...but how was that commenter attacking you and yours? trust me if i had picked up any slur on anyone, i would have spoken. i didn't catch it...some attack on spielberg? a pedophile???

i guess that when people attack a point, you have to stay on point. or you lose, you get drawn into a long list of barbs, of jousts, and all with no core purpose. talking about things is very tricky. everyone is always throwing out appeals to emotion, authority, red herrings.....and the moreso the more their belly flips. on top of that, i am a very emotional person. so i have to really guide myself not to get sidetracked. i've sort of trained myself to keep the thesis in mind. so i think i shunted off that "better than being" as such because a response that begins "its better than/not as bad as..." is not really addressing your point. it's setting up a comparison that does not exist except in their need to drive you off-point. to follow that person would have been abandoning my point.

there may be "creepiness" there at times because it is a much bigger site (tho you should see some comments i don't let through here). the bell curve will bring a wider range of people about with bigger numbers, to be obvious for a moment. and their common denominator is Left Wing Humor/Satire. so they are not necessarily focused on "social issues" or "human rights" as specifically as we are, and thus the demographic who hangs around and feels comfy being vocal is different, too. but i like patriotboy, and i usually have a good time there. if you suss out the thread of his articles, he is for many of the same things we are. which is why i write there at all.

we must remember that i write from a radical, Pro-Brown POV. so there must be friction now and then if i take it there, into a mainstream venue. i've never even posted hardcore shit there! this is just satire. but yes...a serious point as you point out.

i left a serious comment over there to lay it out literally and i hope more clearly than my post may have communicated just so i am at least understood, at least my view understood, if not agreed with. i think some people really felt i was being mean with absolutely no point. its funny how our own views preclude some facts. and yet we always feel we have an unobstructed gaze.

What don't you "get"?

Good for you Nezua! All the other men are like "oh Angelina, change my pants! give me a bath! Powder my bottom! hold me to your tit all afternoon long and rock me, I'm a baby too!" lol.

I dunno, I respect all adoptive parents, and I always thought she hates our culture as much as I do, but it does smack of rich folks trafficking as Rafael says. These things have to be held up to the light.

I think she'd get a kick out of being named colonizer of the year. And it's only March! and I do suspect were she in your midst Nez that she could talk you into anything whe wanted to ;)I'm no lesbian and she still gives me a hardon. I better tag this post satire myself.

well i hope people understand this is not really about her, the person. it is about an underlying impulse, and one, i feel, that is also connected somewhere on the continuum of occupying other lands or stirring up wars or deposing leaders 'for their own good.' it is the colonizer's philosophy at work.

also, i am concerned with the transplantion of culture and the new role model faces that won't match their own. there's a site, something about "abducted asians" or something that really goes into the idea of being taken from your culture and raised white. i wish i could remember. "transducted"? i can't remember.

angelina jolie's beauty is a separate matter entirely.

ps i do not "hate" angelina jolie (as someone said on jesus' general site), nor do i even feel bad about her as a person. nor do i know her philosophies. this is not about that. this is about a shape of thought manifested on various scales. adopting "poor brown babies" from other lands and teaching them how glorious white colonial action is, and how inept and unable thier own people are and how their role models' and saviors' faces will be white and their own brown, and they will grow up in this society with all its views on the Brown™ embedded in its media, of which she is a part....

i just see better ways to help thier people. it feels like having pets to me. i'm sure she's a good person. i hope you understand the distinction i make. i am not discussing her personhood. i am talking about an impulse, a way of seeing the world, a way of "helping" that may do harm, too. not to draw attention to her being bad. but as you say "holding it to the light." i hope my method was not entirely ineffective.

Adopt locally. Do other things to help the Third World. A few dollars to Oxfam will help lift someone out of 'third world squalor' without also ripping them from their family.

Hehe, yeah I'm totally with you, Nez. And dude I didn't realize there were so many doofuses at JC's place.

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned one of the most telling and offensive things about this whole episode, the fact that she adopted a 3-year-old boy with a perfectly functional Vietnamese name Pham Quang Sang, and gave him a new Latin name Pax. As I see it this particular aspect of the story says a lot.

As usual Twice the Rice gives us the thoughtful perspective of an actual Asian American adoptee:

Children are not show ponies or Cabbage Patch Dolls.

No child’s name is a throwaway name — regardless of who gave it in the first place.

Adopted children whose birth parents named them deserve to carry that piece of their heritage with them, as it is one of the few parts of their birth histories they can lay claim to, as part of their very own, real, authentic, true-life stories.

Adoptees, such as myself, whose names were given to them by social workers, nurses or orphanage intake workers may find that although those names don’t represent a piece of their birth histories or bloodlines, they nonetheless represent pieces of their rightful histories.

On a lighter note here's The Onion:

Angelina Jolie Coming For Your Baby

MALIBU, CA—Angelina Jolie has filed for adoption of your newborn baby, sources close to the actress reported Tuesday. "Angelina loves your baby, and you should be honored that she has chosen it," said publicist Jacqueline Silver, citing the growing collection of babies Jolie has culled from families worldwide. "Color, creed, whether your child is wanted—none of it matters. Angelina has fallen in love, and through legal means or force, your baby will soon be hers." Immediately after acquiring your child, Jolie will dress it in Betsey Johnson infant wear, give it a faux-hawk, name it after a random passage from the The Tibetan Book Of The Dead, then resume her relentless search for babies.

Thank you for engaging with me on this, because I realize you really don't need to. I don't think your credentials are in any way lacking on social justice issues, including trans issues. Not that I know of anyway. I don't have any evidence otherwise.

One thing I don't get is what you explained above, about losing by allowing someone to get you off-track. I really don't get that. I'm certain that you know a million times better than I not only because most people do, but because you do this with a ferocity like so many others that I really am completely incapable of. I don't do linear and I don't think clearly. That's just one of my issues. I'm saddened that it has to be that way, because I think it allows passes that really shouldn't be given to people.

I'm guessing that the person was referring to the white person ("John Mark Karr") who claimed to be Jon Benet Ramsey's killer who I think was living in Thailand at the time as opposed to Vietnam and was a schoolteacher there, but hey, it's one of them countries where people are different-lookin'. All the same, right? In case that's not clear, the person named John Mark Karr was in Thailand and identifies as as a trans person and was seeking sex reassignment surgery at a clinic there. He was under investigation for having possessed child pornography and therefore is considered a pedophile. I could go on about why that's not necessarily a valid conclusion, but I would be treading on dangerous ground and have probably said too much already that people will make all sorts of assumptions about me and about trans people all being pedophiles. I will say I don't believe it's valid to say JMK is a pedophile based on having been in possession of child pornography. I don't have any studies to cite, but from my understanding, there is a reason why a trans person would have pictures of a young person who has the body that they have their entire lives felt was similar to their own body-image. Maybe I'm pathologizing trans people by holding this opinion, but I don't think it's an unreasonable area of inquiry.

I'm assuming this person was saying that it's better that Angelina Jolie adopt the kids than have them be taught by a (white) trans person who happens to also have at one time in his life had possession of child pornography.

I hope that makes sense. I hope it also makes sense why what that person said might be a slur on trans people.

I get what you say (though only in a non-experiencial sense) that people of color from other countries will have basically their identities stolen from them when someone like Angelina Jolie (or as someone said on the Jesus General site, "buying our children like dogs", which is harsh, but illustrates the situation in a way that makes it easier to understand just how wrong it is). I guess where my own personal issues make that difficult for me to get is that my own identity has been so messed up and denied and I can't even think of all the words to describe the mess that is my own identity. You'd think that'd make it easier to have empathy, but for some reason, it doesn't. I'm *supposed* to be comfortable with my identity, proud of it. Despite it being the byproduct of othering and colonization.

But yes, what AJ is up to is rightly called child abuse, though I think there's a good chance that these children will become wealthy hollywood stars and we will go see their movies and they may even be the ones who make this a mainstream issue when they speak out about it. That's one possibility.

I do think that there is a small possibility that AJ really does love these children. As some have said. She's just going about it in so many wrong ways, contributing to a problem that she probably abhors, yet not realizing that her money and celebrity is making it more lucrative for child traffickers.

But as has been constantly pointed out by so many people, white people just don't seem to get that even when our hearts are in the right place, we don't understand the implications of our actions, that a great deal of the time, we are doing more harm. The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all.

So, I think I get it in some ways, and yet, in other ways, don't get it. Maybe my own issues are standing in the way of that. Maybe I just don't want it to be true and I'm closing my eyes and covering my ears and singing, "la la la". Cause the particular kids in question would otherwise be growing up in an orphanage, or worse, if there weren't such a market for buying children of color. Instead, they'll likely be immensely wealthy, have the best educations, have insane connections for future employment possibilities in movies, the arts, whatever.

All because of child abuse.

Are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt not getting married because they realize they won't be together forever and it's not true love or whatever, or not getting married because of the reasons they state, because they won't get married until all (U.S. americans) are able to get married legally? Is that even pertinent? Is it just a calculated plan that will somehow make them more money through support of lesbian and gay people? Do their intentions matter? Is it even a radical thing to do? Personally, I think so.

Obviously, that doesn't mean they can't still act in racist ways or be racist. Despite their intentions. I really don't think they are even aware. And what if someone actually sat down with them and reasonably told them what the real repercussions of their actions would be? I'm assuming there is real love for the children. Yes, it's snarkily funny to pretend she is collecting people like pokemon. But also not funny at all.

So, that's what I don't get. It's really simple that anyone who can travel to another country and buy a kid and think that they are only doing good is not seeing the whole picture. I don't think the comparison to Iraq is apt, but only because I don't think the actual goal in Iraq was ever to do anyone any good. There was no love involved in the Iraq invasion plans or even in the post-invasion excuse of bringing democracy to people.

But colonizing and imperialism is very clearly what is going on. So, in that way, they're the same.

Sorry, I wrote too much and said too little.

the [fe]male Kirk

Yes, I commented to piddle over a silly typographical error! Also, this comment is a makeshift trackback.

I am all for helping children, we all need to do that, but there is an implicit concept that they will be "better off" that they need to be "rescued" the more I think about it reminds me of Roots (book and movie) on how the names of slaves where changed, so they would "fit" in their new cultures. Ms. Jolie may have the best of intentions, but good intentions are not enough. Some Spaniards had good intentions when they wanted to convert the native people of the Americas, the Romans though that their civilization was second to none, and the British sought to "civilized" the world. All seemly lofty aims, but in the end, no so much.

I wish her and the children the best of luck, but this trend disturbs me.

thanks for the eye, sylbia. fixed.

Keeping in mind that you write from a "radical pro-brown POV" I see ONE fly in the ointment. By limiting adoptions to "one's own kind" aren't you also buying into the white racist... or more specifically (since it's more current) the anti-gay adoption argument as well? Even if we say, "ok, this isn't the BEST circumstance, but..." we're denegrating adoptive families and saying... well, you gays, or browns or blacks can only have the bottom of the barrel kids. But only because there's no one BETTER". And, even with your rp-bPOV I know that's not what you meant.

I'm not going to delve into the Jolie-Pitt family motives, but -- yeah -- it looks like they're trying to put together a compete set of cute brown kiddies... or assembling the cast for a future musical about a United Nations day care center. If these kids are going to be raised as normal, weird, movie-star's kids, then they probably shouldn't be wearing their colorful native costumes and just treated like ... spoiled rich Califonia brats. Which, I assume, the Jolie-Pitts will have the sense to do.

OTOH... I distinguish between race and culture (an Afro-Cuban has more in common with a Afro-Venezuelan than with an African-American, for example) and children have a right to their own culture. Cross cultural adoptions should be the last resort (though I can understand an orphanage in a poor country wanting to give their charges the best possible material start in life... plus the rich gringos are good for a few thousand Huggies at least).

Rafael hit on something that scares the piss out of me. I've read more than one request on the internet from people who wanted to adopt a kid from Central America, and their requests... even with the best of intentions... sound like they're shopping for a cocker spaniel. I hope its naivety on the person's part, but adopting out for money is a very, very nasty business. The urban legend about kids being stolen for body parts is based on the very real business of kidnapping babies to meet the demand of private adoptions in the rich countries. How many of the orphans shown off to prospective "buyers" overseas is something I have no way of knowing.

All that said, an orphanage is the worst place to raise a kid -- and every kid deserves a mommy (or two mommies... or a daddy or two) even if mommy or daddy look kinda different.

Damn, no easy "one size fits all" solutions in this world, as usual.

dead inside, hi. i hope i answer clearly. if you have any more questions on this, feel free to ask, or tell what you need to.

1. i do not have a lot of knowledge with trans issues. but i want to learn. so just give me some time.

2. what i meant by being swayed from my "point" was that my point in that post was the harm i saw in what jolie was doing, or in a broader sense, the colonial mind that wants to "rescue" without really understanding the implications on the "rescued" through any lens but that of the US's "big daddy" type of paradigm, the white man's burden, the "we know better," and don't. so if i were to say to that fellow "what? who is a pedophile? what are you talking about? spielberg?" i am already away from the point of my post, and now debating whether it is "worse" or "better" to be raised by a pedophile. this is a way to lose hope of having any fruitful discussion, to be led by attacks and distractions by those who have emotional reactions to what you write.

3. i had no idea what references he was making. you understood. i did not. if i had caught them and understood them to be something hurtful or wrong, i would have said something even in passing, i hope. but i did not.

4. on further conflicts beetween our thoughts on the adoptions: you are thinking of immediate, real effects upon the children's lower "heirarchy of needs," true. and i feel you. i am thinking/talking (and usually do) on a little bit of a broader/removed/philosophical arc, thinking about the overall reinforcement of this american tendency, thinking of all the actions that arise from this paradigm being in place and being reinforced, thinking of the long term effects upon these childrens' minds, thinking of feedback from others who have lived similarly, thinking of my own feelings on growing up in a white family with no mexican culture, thinking of this "do gooder" notion justifying such controlling behaviors so often. but i do agree, i hurt on the immediacies of their situation, too; i want these children fed, and all these children in iraq fed, too, and all of the killed babies undeaded and all our bombs undropped....

but we can also go to the root...the thoughts and philosophies that make all the rest possible.

Dead Inside,
You may be right about the "pedophile" comment. I assumed the commenter was referring to Michael Jackson. Incidentally, Jackson visited an orphanage in Japan recently, sparking rumours that he plans to adopt.

hola richard.

By limiting adoptions to "one's own kind" aren't you also buying into the white racist... or more specifically (since it's more current) the anti-gay adoption argument as well?

hmm..."kind" is a big word. there's "one's own kind" and there is "one's own country" and there is "one's own sexual orientation paradigm," and i think you are making some jumps for me. i can't answer on how my thinking ties into White Racists' thinking. i don't know that body of thought. but i do think there is much to be said that is harmful in being raised as if white in this culture that hates non-whites in so many ways. i do think there is something lost, denied, shame internalized, etc. check out kai's link above for some of that. or read some of my blog.

anti-gay argument? which one?

you sort of disagree and then agree...i'm not sure where to take the comment after this, but i hope it's clear i take one argument at a time. i don't really think you can apply this post to my feelings on gay families. and i'm not sure i've thought that one all out. we can take it as it comes.

I can't wait to see the handsome couple in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'.

Atlas Shrugged is a film in active development by Baldwin Entertainment Group and Lions Gate Entertainment… Angelina Jolie has been confirmed to play the role of Dagny Taggart, and Brad Pitt is rumored to be cast as John Galt. Both are fans of Rand's works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged_(film)

Hope she shows her stomach tatoo, "Quod me nutrit me destruit" (What nourishes me also destroys me).

http://celebrity.aol.com/people/ataol/galleries/0,19884,1152393,00.html

you sort of disagree and then agree

Yeah.. kinda, sorta, maybe :-)

YOU weren't making the anti-gay, anti... whatever arguement, just that similar logic is used to justify the opposite of what you meant.

I get a kick out of the "Children do best with one mother and one father," being used to say gays shouldn't adopt. I don't have to read too much between the lines to hear those same folks add "of their own kind". OK, I'll buy that. But what if a "one mother-one father" family isn't available? You can't put the kid on ice for a few years until you find the perfect match. Is a Vietnamese kid better off growing up in Vietnam? Yeah. Is a Puerto Rican kid better off growing up in a Puerto Rican family? Yeah. But, if there was a family available, the kid wouldn't be in an orphanage.

Yeah, if no Vietnamese or Puerto Rican family is available, the kid is probably better off becoming a ... whatever. Even a Hollywood brat, in therapy and rehab (and writing a tell-all book) is probably better than staying in the orphanage until he's 15 or 18.

I guess the BEST of all imperfect solutions is to make it easier for "pro-brown" families to adopt (you know... better job opportunites for all, universal health insurance, etc), and then when we're doddering around the old geezer's home, we can worry about whiteprogressive kids being raised Chinese.

Thank you again, Nezua.

I remember this being brought up in a somewhat different context by BrownFemiPower and it was controversial then.

I think what I think I understand you're saying to be legitimate and I cannot deny your experiences and the experiences of others. That this causes damage to people's psyches. That it does indeed reek of colonialism and patriarchalism (and matriarchalism) and the imperialist mindset.

And I don't think that it's the same as the anti-gay adoption argument. For the important reason that I have never heard of a child being raised by gay parents and later saying what a horrible experience it was (except the oppression that was directed at them by other people for their parents being who they are and that's definitely not a reason to disallow same-sex-parent adoption). Yet we do have youth of color saying they feel robbed of their identity and a culture that was by birth theirs but was taken away without their input and replaced with another that actively hates them.

Maybe this can be a volunteer program? I have a feeling that it isn't at this time.

If the person were referring to Michael Jackson as opposed to John Mark Karr, I'd feel the same way. Though Michael Jackson doesn't, to my knowledge, identify as trans, I feel there is a great deal of hatred directed at him because of his non-standard gender presentation. It is my understanding that a great deal of his life has been ruined by some very deep internalized racism. I'm not going to judge how he has chosen to deal with that and I don't really believe anyone else has that right either. No one can measure the pain of another person nor measure their strength and ability to bear it.

Thank you again for spending so much time answering my questions and re-making your point so that I could understand. I'm sorry that I became part of the "justify yourself" crowd.

Richard,

well i just think you have to be careful applying your own issues/interests to all topics. you mention a great topic, and important. but it's separate. i can't help what "similar logic" is used to mine in a specific post, and i'm not sure i feel compelled to defend it... and honestly, we can get into "if"s and "probably better off"s all night.

the BEST of all solutions is we stop desiring and constructing small rich shining cities on hills that overlook swampy colonies, and we adopt philosophies that value all lives like our own, spread the wealth and the opportunity around. stop hoarding. stop the greed ruling everything. stop being spiritual pupae. realign. become humane.

the rest, the practical details, will follow.

no, that's cool, D.I.

talking things out can be good all 'round.

yeah, kai, that's just what i'm talkin about.

and the onion had me rolling.

Of course, it was a minor glitch in the logic, but I always figure you're so careful, it's useful to know the potential weaknesses... what is it they say about the devil being in the details.

the BEST of all solutions is we stop desiring and constructing small rich shining cities on hills that overlook swampy colonies

Living in a desert, my metaphor might be a little different, but the same idea. Water holes are great... if you're a puma. They might tolerate a coyote or two and the odd skunk, but the only way all us critters get a drink is when the deer and elk crash the party ... (maybe with a few adopted pronghorns!). Still got to keep an eye out for pumas though.

The rich are always going to be with us, and they're always going to do boneheaded things, so I guess the best thing to do for now is keep an eye on them... and stay with the herd.

On a happier note, I see that someone picked up my copy of your copy of the MIRA request and sent them some money. Another imperfect response, but better than nothin'.

hey that's good news!

at least the folks who read your blog "get it." reading the comments at patriotboy's place made my eyes bleed. about the time they decided to devolve into personal attacks i quit following.

it's really unfortunate that so many don't understand a)the basic point you're making, and b)why we should be doing anything other than celebrate her. at least demcommie was over there trying to keep some sense going.

as someone who spent a very long time in a relationship with a transracial/internation adoptee, i will reiterate your point: there are many, many other ways to "help out" that don't involve stealing children from their country and culture. i'm sure there are families out there that do their best to retain some sort of cultural awareness or experience for the children they take, but it seems for the most part these cultural experiences are things like special adoptee camps or the like that only go to further show just how other the child has become. instead of just being a part of daily life experience, you go to a fair or a festival or a special dance class or summer camp for all the other kids like you--the brown kids with white names who learn in a classroom setting about the foods they would've eaten everyday, the language they would've spoke, the dance they would've performed. and again, that's the "best case scenario."

my ex repeatedly said that he wished he would've never been taken, that he would've rather died over there. i know he's not the only one with those sentiments. that's why sites like Transracial Abductees are around.

'There you go again', Nezua, putting a stick in the spokes for the nefarious plots of Pitt and Jolie, agents of C.R.A.C.K.E.R. - Cool Rich American Celebrities Kollecting Ethnic Kinder.
And they'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you, ya darn kid.

;>)

Makes me think...With all the disadvantaged kids of every color right there in the U.S.A., why all the high profile junketing? Just who is working out their issues here in such a showy, attention-grabbing fashion?

We're not talking Beanie Babies in a cabinet here..I don't tell people what to do with their time and money (unless they pay me to) but it seems some of these expenditures could be better directed elsewhere, to greater effect.

and i do think it's good to keep pointing out--if someone really wanted to "do good" for underprivileged, impoverished "third world" countries and or children, why not instead invest some of that fortune into making improvements there? not just celebrities, but all the good americans who spend thousands of dollars to adopt internationally. think of all the good those thousands could do, especially when combined.

and i do think it's good to keep pointing out--if someone really wanted to "do good" for underprivileged, impoverished "third world" countries and or children, why not instead invest some of that fortune into making improvements there? not just celebrities, but all the good americans who spend thousands of dollars to adopt internationally. think of all the good those thousands could do, especially when combined.

YES. Everyone I know who has adopted internationally believes they have saved their child from horror and has no interest in where they are from. One adopted from Guatemala and was so afraid of being there that he only ate Granola bars, brought with him from the U.S., for the entire 5 days. Others get into melodramatic struggles with the mothers who do not actually want to give up the children but who are terribly broke and have other children. They could solve the problem by kicking a few dollars a month to this mother, but instead, they put on pressure to relieve her of her child. This is NOT 'helping the Third World' or anything of the sort.

Meanwhile here, there are kids in orphanages who cannot find families. They have been known to put on talent shows in malls to see if they can attract adoptive families. People who will not adopt locally (and I do not oppose interracial adoptions, although I understand the reservations of some POC about them) - but people who will not adopt locally should not be allowed to adopt internationally.

Maybe with a few one exceptions - those Chinese girls in orphanages, and some of those Rumanian kids in orphanages, who really and truly do not have families or prospects of finding them ... maybe. Otherwise, the whole thing amounts to human trafficking and it is horrid.

darkblack i see it like school. it is the game teaching itself to play. widespread and strong approval for this sort of thing is america instilling her affection for white supremacy, colonialism and american exceptionalism into other races and other peoples, instilling the standard of White above Brown into brown people, instilling justification for "knowing better" and playing savior to the world. this is part of why some White® people freak out at this post. it attacks the very notion that this is a good thing to do. it attacks american exceptionalism and white supremacy. all some people can see is one of our celebrities' (America's royal family) loving madonna like quality of hero-ness being questioned. but that's not what their belly is flippin' about.

--

thank you herm, for sharing your personal knowledge of someone who had their culture left behind, of an international adoptee, specifically. i don't know why White people who have not experienced this feel they understand the consequences. and further, feel comfortable attacking me, who does understand the feelings behind growing up without your brown culture in a White family.

but well-meaning Whites® always know better, i had forgot that part.

Herm:

"at least the folks who read your blog "get it." reading the comments at patriotboy's place made my eyes bleed. about the time they decided to devolve into personal attacks i quit following."

Nice of you visit. Whilst reeling from the vicious personal attacks, perhaps the blood in your eyes obfuscated the fact that Nez's entire post was a personal drubbing. Of course, it later was explained away as a "performance art piece", with no malice in his heart towards her personally. Whatever.

Hope your eyes make a hasty recovery, you delicate flower.

good job nez / you just scratched off the scab of the colonization wounds & I just loved watching the WhiteProgressives floundering all over this one (at general jesus' site). These neo-liberales show their true colors when they hate you for showing them the stripes People of Color recieved from the lashings of the colonist agenda. Because WPs are 'snarky' and 'progressive', they will hate being reminded that they are still enjoying the benefits of the colonization of these 'third world' countries. They want to make 'those' peoples' countries into their own (assimilation - spread like 'gospel style') And why should they stop; afterall, they completely succeeded in this country (Amerikka)

Floriduh, please STFU when you speak to herm that way.

If you care to comment on the actual spine of the post—assuming you understand (or "get") it—I'll let your subsequent comments through. But if you can't refrain from being personally nasty, and especially to people other than me, then this is the last piece of ignorance we'll see of you around here. I have no malice toward Jolie. But you are clearly too wed to your views to understand what I'm saying.

And herm is a delicate flower. All the more gross of you to aim your vitriol her way.

DI, if you read carefully that person said gender is puzzling, as in ambiguous, not necessarily transgender. I'm sure it's Michael Jackson. I'm not sure if you really want either Michael Jackson or the guy who wants credit for killing Jon Benet Ramsey to be associated with transpeople. I don't think it's a good idea anyway.

I left my comment to this post over at Jesus' General. I doubt if it will make a dent in some of those thick skulls but who knows.

well, maybe not them. but you never know who might come along reading later. thanks donna.

--

and to Herm and Floriduh and all others, i don't mean that herm is not capable or strong by any means by saying flowerlike things about her. she can handle herself with grace and judo thought patterns galore.

What a way to treat a guest poster. Were they were raised by Cyclopes? Slothrops? Pilgrims? Whose blog is that anyway?

At least Slothrop was taught some manners. S/he would have been banned had s/he resorted to a sockpuppet attack. I like the Genrul too, Nezua, but he encourages this kind of shit.

Floriduh:

you name yourself quite aptly. it's pretty hilarious (in a wry, goes to show you sort of sad way) how a bunch of folks can get all riled up and hop all over a PoC who dares lambaste the beautiful, honorable, and humanitarian RICH WHITE ACTRESS for stealing children from other nations. i'm sorry, but nez is making a very smart point with something we thinking folks like to call satire. perhaps you ought to ask yourself why exactly everyone at el General's place seems to think Ms. Jolie needs a rescue. perhaps nez's point hits a little too close to something in you, eh?

and please, comments kindly directed toward the text of my replies. you know nothing about my person. delicate flower, my ass. don't let the jpeg fool you.

and 'duh, nice of you to miss the point of my comment entirely.

i wondered if JC would weigh in. but he's not obligated.

i know what it's about, LG. and if you think that reaction is bad wait til Chican@ Art Mag publishes that "reconquista revealed" article i keep talking about and do that marketing blitz. hoo-eee. you wanna see pissed off White® folks? oh well. suggesting that the hand of colonialism and white supremacy are contained in such "kind" gestures as Saints Jolie And Pitt exhibit is not appreciated by the bell curve as i see it. but i guess what gets me is that these people don't want to consider the stories of those who have been affected negatively from these kinds of international adoptions. nope. they want to attack me for being a spunky mexicano, and call it a day.

same ole same ole.

I would add to your worthy list the insularities of the celebrity lifestyle as well, 'mano. Cosseted and shielded from global realities, save for the filtered version doled out by their hired minders who are paid to keep a happy distance between the maintained fiction and reality's stink.
Sad meat puppets bathed in shadowy guilt over their circumstances, dance for us a while and increase the distance between our lives and your own.

The history of L'America is one of such pretenses masquerading as factual rationales for unacceptable behaviors.

Well at least I learned something during this exchange and that is that you will eventually piss people off, if you stick to your convictions, its a must. I was worried when I went into my Imperial America theme on my podcast, the downloads sort of dropped (probably because I sound more like an college prof than ethnocentric firebrand when I talk about History(tm)). But the Hell with it, I want to say, I want to record it and if you want to listen go ahead. If you don't like it, you know where to find me, challenge me and see where it leads.

I salute you Sir, carry on!

yeh, transracial adoption is I think a separate issue from -transnational- adoption. and celebrities who "collect" cute l'il adoptees are in a whole 'nother sphere of "ew," also, really. can be problematic even aside from the transnational adoptee issue (again, to some degree distinct from intra-U.S. racism): consider: Joan Crawford.

Josephine Baker had a collection of international or at least interracial adoptees too, if I recall: "the Rainbow Tribe."

ooops. busted. heh.