« You forge of your self a dull weapon [Support the Truth II] | Main | Please Help the Stranded Bedford Immigrant Children »

17 de Marzo, 2007

Nezua's 2006 Colonizers of the Year Award

Categorized under El Malestar Pálido , Humor | Tags: , , , ,

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — Actress Angelina Jolie picked up a new Baby of Color (BoC) from a Vietnamese orphanage Thursday. She arrived carrying her 5-year-old Child of Color, Maddox (whom she adopted from nearby Cambodia in 2002), and wearing a huge pendant sporting a photograph of 2-year-old Zahara, whom she adopted from Ethiopia. Together, Jolie and her Latest Brown Baby (LBB) went to a ceremony where Jolie was expected to detour to Laos, so she could adopt a third non-White child, officials said. When pressed, Jolie would not swear that she wouldn't "browse a bit" if she found any "exceptionally exotic-looking" infants along the way.

Before that, Jolie and her latest BoC were expected at the Department of Justice in Ho Chi Minh City where an official ceremony complete with real Vietnamese people will be carried out to complete the adoption, "all offical-Vietnamish-style," according to the film star. Vietnamese adoption officials confirmed to The Associated Press that Jolie was adopting these two new children so she could "have her own little Starship Enterprise."

It's as if I am the female Kirk,' Jolie said wistfully, a well-manicured hand on both Maddox's and Zahara's heads. 'And I get to steer these various third-world ethnicities to new frontiers. I mean, you have to admit, my life is like Star Trek. Because every day with these children is exciting, strange, enriching contact with alien races...and I get to do really exotic hair styles on them that just wouldn't work with my own children!'

'Listen, I'm a beautiful white woman, and these kids should grow up seeing my beautiful face. It will make them feel happy inside. Like the light of opportunity is shining down upon them every morning. They can look up and see a movie-star mommy and daddy every single day, and this will let them know that anything is possible in this life.'

'...and unlike the character of Captain Kirk on the bridge, I can be the bridge for these kids. The bridge to a new, exciting, world of possibility and designer clothes.'

—Angelina Jolie,The Unapologetic Mexican's 2006 Colonizer of the Year

Jolie, looking smashing in a snug black skirt and shirt, was preceded at the orphanage by a phalanx of private security guards and a translater who explained to the local media what "phalanx" meant.

Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, Jolie's partner, and Shiloh, their biological child, did not make the trip to Vietnam.

Related Articles


UPDATE: Seems it has actually proven harder for Captains Jolie and Pitt to recruit pets for their mission than it is to scoop up exotic kids? This might hamper their trek across unknown frontiers, but I bet a nice, new, bronze kid from, say, Brazil, might soothe the sting. I don't know. Guatemala? Hawaii? Columbia?

"Collectors," indeed.

digg | | delish

Comentarios (96)


brownfemipower dijo:

GRVTR

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


leesee dijo:

GRVTR

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*


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

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

And you have no problem with this statement?


Rafael dijo:

GRVTR

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?


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Trin dijo:

GRVTR

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


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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"?


Jena dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Professor Zero dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Kai dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Sylvia dijo:

GRVTR

the [fe]male Kirk

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


Rafael dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

thanks for the eye, sylbia. fixed.


Richard at Mexfiles dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


L.G. Fucktard dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


L.G. Fucktard dijo:

GRVTR

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)

L.G. Fucktard dijo:

GRVTR

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


Richard at Mexfiles dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

no, that's cool, D.I.

talking things out can be good all 'round.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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

and the onion had me rolling.


Richard at Mexfiles dijo:

GRVTR

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'.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

hey that's great!


herm dijo:

GRVTR

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.


darkblack dijo:

GRVTR

'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.


herm dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Professor Zero dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Floriduh dijo:

GRVTR

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.


tizoc dijo:

GRVTR

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)


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

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.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


L.G. Fucktard dijo:

GRVTR

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.



herm dijo:

GRVTR

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.


herm dijo:

GRVTR

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


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

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.


darkblack dijo:

GRVTR

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.


Rafael dijo:

GRVTR

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!


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

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."


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

ooops. busted. heh.


erizzle dijo:

GRVTR

it didn't take long for folks to get ugly over there. i really dig reading the general, but i almost never read the comments. some blogs (even good ones) have comment-sections that are like magnets for angry. great post.


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

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.

Oy. Bad enough to rename him, but PAX?? jesus. hey, why not "Veni Vidi Vici?"

Now all I can think of is the "Absolutely Fabulous" episode where Edina dreams she "ordered" a bunch of Romanian babies just to spite Saffron. "Oh, just send a selection, I'll pick the best and send the rest back"


Blackamazon dijo:

GRVTR

SO i guess my desire to start a free Zahara campaidgn would be bad and wrong


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

THAT is a crazycool idea. i can see the Tshirt now...


annie dijo:

GRVTR


i lost my rather long, well thought out comment, when i clicked a link in your other comments. i realized it when i clicked too. :(
i'll try again.

i understand the point you're trying to make.
although i never thought badly of her adopting babies from around the world before.

as for non-celebrity couples adopting babies internationally...
while the steps are many and there is still a lot of red tape to get through, the process can take years less to adopt a child from another country.
well, i don't know about every country, just a few. most specifially the ones my cousins looked into.
it took my cousins just over two years to adopt a child from russia, it would have taken them many more to adopt a child here. they started the process here first and realized how much longer it was going to take. that's why they ended up adopting from russia. his entire birth name is now his middle name and they have no intention of hiding anything about his adoption from him. they plan on taking trips back to russia when he's older and would better be able to understand his culture and he has a photo album/scrapbook of what they know about his life before they adopted him.
i guess no matter how good a person's intentions may be, there could be some long term consequences of things they never even thought about it.


Sylvia dijo:

GRVTR

Hey, there's already campaigns to free the Harajuku girls from Gwen Stefani's puppetstrings, and they're grown women who aren't adopted by Stefani. T-shirt away!


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

This has been an all around crappy day for white allies between this at JG's and BFP getting harrassment from the middle class white feminist contingent. One step forward, two steps back.

I want one of those t-shirts BA!


Nanette dijo:

GRVTR

Well, I missed most of this and am just now catching up.

About the only time I've read the General site is when you've posted there, Nezua, so I'm not all that familiar with his commenters... it's so strange that they would get so personally offended at this article. Not only are they not Jolie, I assume they are also not rich white celebs who are trotting around the world scooping up babies. Still, they are progressives, you see. Confusing.

Although I did learn that, apparently, working for the UN gives you a Scoop Up Brown Babies Free card! So all is not lost.


Nanette dijo:

GRVTR

I do think... or at least wonder if, tranracial/transnational adoptions are worse when the parents are celebrities. So many people think they know celebs, and are invested in their lives, their actions, what they do and with whom, where they go, so on. They feel a sense of ownership in their lives, and no doubt in their children's lives as well. Thus, with something like this, there is the potential for the "you should be grateful you were saved from some hellhole" type attitude, even if not displayed or even thought of by the adoptive parents, to be magnified for these children because of who they are, and who they come across in their lives.

It's all well and good to say "don't pay attention to what others say", but of course children do.

Makes me think of when Jolie had her baby - some wax museum got lots of letters saying that they (the public) wanted them to put up a Brad, Angelina and new baby wax figure display. So they did.

Brad, Angelina and new baby.

Someone (not the museum) eventually said.... um... there are more children, where are they? And so, with some added pressure from the women on that tv show, The View, they added the two(?) other children. The museum tried to excuse it away by saying something like they respond to what their public wants, and no harm was meant and so on and so forth, but still... the other children (who actually entered the family first) will always know that, at least in that instance, they were an afterthought. (Brad and Angelina didn't actually have anything to do with the situation, nor were they consulted, apparently.)

This could, of course, happen to any adoptive family (well, assuming a museum would consent to put them in wax) but not to that level of magnification.


Yolanda Carrington dijo:

GRVTR

Brother, between the manly defense of Ms. Angelina and the general craziness of good WhiteProgressives, it's been one hell of a weekend.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

you said it yolanda. you said it. altho there was at least one woman rushing to the aid of the benevolent and unassailable ms jolie over at JC's, so we could say it was a joint-effort to save Angelina's fragile essence from the hoary mexicruel clutches of Nez.

but yeah. one hell of a weekend!


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

word up, rafa. you've got to keep tus ojos on what is real to you, even as it shifts in your (my) personal growth. i will bend, i will admit where i have not been verdad to my own compass, but i will not be battered about or belayed by those who would see me silenced or submissive because they stand to feel better because of it, or gain something over me, or just don't understand what i'm getting at.

as we climb toward ourselves and toward our truth, we encounter so many obstacles. something all people can use, something that is true for all, i imagine.

and i agree with your final sense of conviction. simón, stay strong. see the reactions for what they are. nothing about you, unless your heart says so. but usually all about the react-or.

¡i salute you right back, carnál!


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

JOLIE-PITT NANNY BEGS EMPLOYERS TO STOP ADOPTING

Hollywood – Monica Soreno, the exhausted nanny for Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, has been begging her employers to stop adopting young children from third world countries. “I keep telling Mrs. Angelina and Mr. Brad that they are just too generous and should hire more nannies,” said Soreno, who takes care of Jolie and Pitt’s four children under the age of 6 in order to support her three children in Honduras.

Jolie is currently finalizing the adoption of her fourth child, a 3-and-a-half year old boy named Pax, in Vietnam.

Soreno, 36, was initially hired by Jolie in 2003 following her divorce from Billy Bob Thornton to help care for her adoptive son Maddox. She recalled that she was happy when Jolie and her then-new boyfriend Pitt adopted daughter Zahara from Ethiopia in 2005.

“I started getting worried when Mrs. Angelina got pregnant a few months later with Shiloh, because three little kids is a lot of work for me,” an emotional Soreno explained. “So I tried to drop hints like ‘three kids is the perfect size for a family.’ Then when I found out she was going to Vietnam, I panicked, because every time she goes to a poor country, she comes back with another kid. I don’t remember what sleep is like.”

“Raising a family of this size is not as hard as I thought it would be,” said Jolie in a recent interview with Esquire. “It’s amazing how much energy I still have every day even though I do get exhausted watching our nanny take care of the children. She is so good.”

Sources close to Jolie and Pitt say the couple has made a purposeful decision to try and keep the family intimate while using their wealth and influence to help out poor children from developing nations.

“What’s amazing about Angelina and Brad is that they help so many children, but they also want to maintain a sense of family, so they don’t have a whole team of nanny’s, just the one,” said a friend of the couple.

Soreno said she recently asked Pitt if they could hire a second person to help with childcare, cooking, and housework when Jolie returns to Los Angeles with Pax. But Pitt informed her that with the arrival of a fourth child, there won’t be room in the couple’s six-bedroom house for another nanny.

“Mr. Brad and Mrs. Angelina are such kind and selfless people who want to help out every poor child they see,” sighed Soreno. “I wish they’d stop for the love of god.”


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

BAJAJAJA!

Yeah, every satire I've read on this would be better received than mine if only for the reason that these articles play it safe. They don't touch the colonizing aspect, which is what disturbed those WP's. Now, these other satires are much better, on the other hand. They only call Jolie crazy and a bad mother.


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

Well, hmm.

Yes, you're right. Difficult weekend. But I presume no different than Any Other Weekend where we misunderstand, treat people of color snark as Not Okay and white people snark as Just Fine, attack the messenger. Don't we know that the real enemy is Them!?!?

Don't shoot! I'm an Ally! Really! My person of color friend told me so!

Them being defined as people we can safely all agree that have done Bad and nobody will have to challenge themselves with any kind of self-reflection or as Donna has been covering really well lately and BFP has consistently been asking that we actually do something.

Like, folks at these blogs are *really* good at writing letters to people, calling people, etc. When it's in their interests. Whether it's prank letters at Patriotboys or calling congresfolk at FireDogLake or whatever. Do they make calls about Oxaca? About the dehumanizing INS raids? Not that I'm personally aware of. So, they do stuff they think is important. And everyone knows what they think is important and what isn't.

And yes, I'm one of them, though I don't read their sites and I don't like them and don't hang out with them and they don't like me and they don't need me.

Being a "race traitor" isn't something to aspire to, it happens because of actions taken. And as some of the more vocal "race traitors" have shown us, the actions don't in themselves make one a good person, cause it's freakin' easy to piss off white people and just doing that doesn't earn anyone any cookies.

Though, I'm a firm believer in giving out cookies when folks treat me with respect or kindness or both. Even though it's the normal decent thing to do and they shouldn't *expect* cookies.

As for Michael Jackson and/or John Mark Karr being trans people and whether we want them to be our public faces, well, we don't really get to pick our public faces. We are who we are. And personally, I'm okay with our most damaged sisters and brothers and others being in a position to finally get some kind of respect or kindness or both, any kind of positive validation for becoming self-actualized and we don't always agree with how others choose to self-actualize because that would take the whole self part out of it and we're trying to recover from decades of people (including ourselves) defining to each other what it means to be acceptably trans.

If it's true that trans women or effeminate men have a higher-than-average desire to somehow connect with pre-pubescence that so many people take for granted that was denied us, I want us to find that out and find a way for us to connect with that in a healthy and non-oppressive way, in a way that doesn't mean a child has to have been abused so we can get what amounts to some kind of self-medication. Let's get the real stuff.

And in the process, everyone will understand a whole shitload more about the important and deep pain we are experiencing and trying to manage and become whole people.

And I'm sorry if this sounds off topic, but it's all interconnected, right? There's connections here that I can only barely sense, but are *very* much *there*. And by understanding one we can help understand the other.

Them's my feelings and I appreciate Nezua for your letting me put them here.


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

And yet, you're the one who was accused of being sexist how many times?

Feh.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

I appreciate all your thoughts, DI, and I immediately agree with many of them.

Thanks for comin' round and adding your experience as you see it relating.


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

DI, the thing I worry about is that most people don't know any transpeople, or at least aren't aware that they do. So if this is the face that they see, a man who wants credit for murdering a little girl, thier minds will slam completely shut. I doubt if you get alot of acceptance now, but I hate to see people who were non-commital, or nervous and uncertain, change to haters. We know it's easy enough, if they meet one Native American, one Latino, one Black, etc who appears to fit the stereotype or worse, then... SEE THEY'RE ALL LIKE THAT! THE KKK WAS RIGHT!


Dead Inside dijo:

GRVTR

I see what you're saying, Donna, but they're going to think the worst of us anyways, just like they do for non-trans people of color as you mention. I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world that JMK's infamy or even the completely irrational hate for Michael Jackson is what's best for trans people (and still Michael Jackson does not identify as trans, but is identified by others as trans, so it's other people deciding for us anyway and we don't really have any choice but to either accept Michael Jackson as a person who has self-actualized -- even if for some pretty horrible reasons that I think he has even identified as being pretty horrible), but we can't turn our backs on them, we just can't. And that means supporting them in whatever way we can and that means accepting them as a nominal public face of trans people, whether it's best for us as a whole or not.

The key would be for more trans people to be out. I'm obviously not up to that challenge. I'd rather that people like Little Light and other trans people of color and trans men be our public face, instead of yet more white trans women (who've already had our chance to be the public face and did not wield our power well) and let white trans women be the supporters. It's a different model than usual and that's a good thing, I think, and will take a lot of work to accomplish. Whatever new Feminism comes out that's being developed will keep white trans women safe, I believe, because that's changing a lot. I feel way safer in your and BFP and BA and everyone's hands than I do in the old, even "third wave" Feminist hands.

I'm having trouble with this cause I feel like I'm arguing with you about something that I shouldn't be. How can I be saying on one hand that I'm following you and at the same time replying to everything you say with a "sure, but"?

And at this point, I've completely gone off topic. It's a discussion I'd love to have, though.


saltyC dijo:

GRVTR

Holy crap that article about the nanny Soreno put the icing on the cake.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

i'm not a huge "OT" type of person, but i can see this definitely going into a long discussion, and the original thread is still warm, and i'd like to think, kicking around some important ideas. i agree it is connected in important ways. but not in a way where the conversation won't ditch the old topic. of course, i dont' know how important it is that we stay on the old topic here. maybe it's done. but i don't mind opening an open thread or something for you both...i dont want to shut anything down. what do you think i should do here? open thread on michael jackson? open thread on trans issues? open thread on the interconnectivity of marginalized groups?

(PS you can trust me not to let anyone begin bashing)


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

You have to answer with a "sure but" because I don't know your reality. If I need to be corrected, well then, I need to be corrected. I'm also answering everything you say with a "sure but" because I don't quite understand. I'm glad you feel safe enough and are willing to tell me.

I see what you mean now too. I have a cousin who fits most of the bad Indian stereotypes. I'd like to kick him in the butt sometimes and tell him to get his act together. He's really very loveable but a lost soul. Just because I do not want him to stand in for all of us, doesn't mean I will deny him either.


Donna dijo:

GRVTR

My vote goes to open thread on the interconnectivity of marginalized groups. Although I do think that DI and I have come to an understanding, so it might not be necessary. I guess if more people want to discuss it, or if DI has more to add?

--

Nez here. Thread continues here.


petitpoussin dijo:

GRVTR

NEZ! That Star Trek analogy is genius. Oh my goodness... especially because starting with TNG Star Trek had such politically correct casting... hahahaha I'm crying!


wordnerd44 dijo:

GRVTR

Oh come on, Brad and bio baby(bb)could never have come along on the trip. That would have been two too many white people along on her brown baby pick up.


Rafael dijo:

GRVTR

Would anyone complain if instead of Jolie it would have been Ricky Martin? Yeah or Neah?


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

I know, right? I mean, I expect that from, like, fanboys/girls, but those are supposed to be progressive-leftie types, no? I was all, and I'm sure 'gina's really honored that you're riding to her defense and all, but uh do you really think she's the one who's most in need of it here? and anyway: WHAT?


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

right, because Jesus' General is a kindhearted, earnest site that wouldn't dream of mocking anyone in power, on account of it might hurt their feelings, you know. which is of course why you were reading over there in the first place. get a grip. i really think Angelina will survive, you know?


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

(not saying JG isn't kindhearted, please note; just, savor it, OMG he was MAKING FUN OF SOMEBODY!! making fun of famous powerful people is MEAN and HURTS THEIR FEELINGS, or would do if there was the slightest chance in hell it'd even cross their radar. WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE MOVIE STARS??)


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

o, i dunno, this part might've rankled some:

I keep telling Mrs. Angelina and Mr. Brad that they are just too generous and should hire more nannies,” said Soreno, who takes care of Jolie and Pitt’s four children under the age of 6 in order to support her three children in Honduras.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

this is interesting, as well, I guess from an interview before she adopted "Pax" (aka Pham Quang Sang).

However the actress goes on to say, she has not decided which country she wants her next child from, “it’s going to be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now.”

What the hell does that mean? Did the kids vote on Vietnam? Did she mean in terms of shades? Tints? What would look best next to them? What nationality would "mix it up" the most? What child would bring immunities that would serve the other two children? I can't even begin to decipher that statement. Really, I think she should just buy a globe, spin it, and throw a dart.


belledame222 dijo:

GRVTR

Antarctica. Definitely, Antarctica.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

Why do I want to say "Borneo?" Is that a place?


Blackamazon dijo:

GRVTR

HIre more NANIES SAYS TEH WOMAN WORKING TO SUPPORT HER KIDS IN HONDURAS?!?!


*lies down*

Go on please i'm just trying not to detonate


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

jeje...BA, you know that is a satire, right?


Cynical dijo:

GRVTR

I am seriously sick of Jolie stealing children from "Third World" countries. It's sickening that the public and the media see it as a philanthropic effort rather than drawing a connection between a rich white western woman taking children away from brown women/families who cannot afford, or are socially pressured to give up her children. And how dare her rename the children and take away their one of their few claims to their heritage?!



Barbara dijo:

GRVTR

I came over from JG because your take on the Jolie baby buying is dead on. I've worked as a night nurse for rich white people (not famous ones) and their attitudes towards their purchased and natural children suck in very serious ways. That's why they like to hire dark-skinned child caregivers, because they know they are loving and nurturing to their children, and let's face it- it's not like brown or black-skinned women have anything better to do.

How many fucking ways can you say buying people, human beings is just plain wrong? No exceptions. No fucking Madonna, no Jolie. It is deeply evil and I do not understand how these "liberals" don't understand that.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

thank you barbara. i think they don't see that because to see that would mean seeing a whole lot of other things they resist. invested in the illusion.

it's good to see you. bienvenida!


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

I'm feeling just like you, Cynical. The post may laugh, but it pisses me off too. And yes, mostly the resistance of people to see how it can do harm.


Yun-Sook Kim Navarre dijo:

GRVTR

this is disgusting! i'm an adopteee from korea to abusive white parents and i will take this back to the korean adoptee community to organize around this issue so hoping that she will have to held accountable and definately watched!!1


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez dijo:

GRVTR

thank you for commenting, Yun-Sook. I understand how you feel, and wish you all my good energy. Stay strong out there.


abw dijo:

GRVTR

nezua, your article is on point. Aposter, Rafael, to paraphrase him said he thinks adoption is okay but he has a problem with the rationale. I got the same thing. Nezua, the site you are talking about is probably called Transracial Abductees. It touches on the issues you bring up. The is also an article by Tamara "Kil Ja Kim" Knopper called Bought colored Kids that sheds light on this issue. I think the website writer of that post was adopted along with Tamara "Kil Ja Kim" Knopper.


nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez Author Profile Page dijo:

GRVTR

thank you, abw. i'm sorry i missed your comment earlier. yes, it is "transracial abductees," and i think by now they are on my sidebar. i've had soem good plática with one or two of them (talks), can relate in soem ways, our lived experience, different in specifics tho it is. thank you for the article title.


abw dijo:

GRVTR

A report just came in that Ricky Martin has jumped on the bandwagon of adopting Third World kids. To his defense, I am slightly less judgmental of him because this seem to be in line with his concern about the Asian tsunami. Really, he in the wrong place at the wrong time/trend. But, to many affluent white people assume by default that they have the superior environment to offer kids and superior social skills-when this is not the case. Between no home and having one, I want all kids to have the second priviledge-so I applaud them somewhat-but it does have an air of colonialism about it. Once again, coming to the salvation of those dysfunctional coloreds. Yeah, I think material wise they offer a more decent environment-but those environments come with serious social problems as well; and, they can not teach a kid from a different culture or background how to rightfully adjust often because they can't relate. There are a few that successfully do this because they are open to these realities but many won't be successful because they will not try hard to bridge these obstacles. Anyway's,now that I think of it, a person that strike me as fulfilling more of what you are talking about is Madonna.In comparison to her-I think Jolie is more genuine. But overall, I know you are talking about a trend and these are the posterkids of it now. Anyway, this seems like it is becoming a new trend like collecting yachts,mansions,billion dollar Roll Royce's, bought/manmade islands or Roll's Royce's now, dammit! Or perhaps it is just me!Seriously,trendwise, it is the new black! It's some other points that can prolly be raised but I can't thank of 'em now. Sometimes my head gets like that!


Herbert dijo:

GRVTR

Hello,

I think Angelina's baby-collecting is fairly reprehensible if it is true that, as you suggest, the parents do not want to give up the children involved. It is also lame if she is going around talking about how much of a savior she is. But otherwise, what is the big deal? How is she not doing good? The birth rate in the developed world is relatively low, yet we control the resources and capital. If not for immigration, the United States, Europe, Japan, and pretty much everywhere else worth living would have declining populations because intelligent people with good jobs and high levels of education control the number of children they breed. So, we could use the kids to sustain economic growth over time.

In the third world, where overpopulation is a problem because of a combination of superstitious prejudice against birth control (or lack of availability of same), bad infrastructure, lack of jobs, etc., etc. They can't feed the inappropriate number of children they create, and in any case, even if they could, couldn't provide them with the opportunities that, as an influential millionairess, Jolie can. In some sense, it is the fault of the West for spending centuries using third world labor and resources without indigenous colonial institutions that, post-colonial withdrawal, could have left the colonized with a certain baseline of an administrative class, or even a middle class of any kind. But that's a pretty macro- way to look at it all - something like, "Jolie, as a western white person is patronizingly 'saving' the very types of people that her ancestors and the system she continues to benefit from set that indirectly made those people have a need to be saved." Blah blah. The reality is that if this was Oprah adopting a black kid, you'd be patting her on the back, just like you probably did when she opened the school in Africa. But Oprah is a Western person with a high level of education and even more money than Jolie, with a possibly even more sanctimonious attitude. I bet most people don't mind as much that Oprah does stuff like that in Africa because she isn't as pretty, thin, or young, and also because (even though the school is a boarding school that seeks to westernize the students and prepare them for a "global" life - decidedly NOT a local institution) the school is physically established in Africa. Nevertheless, it is pretty much the same thing. Spielberg has something like 8 babies he's collected, but we never hear about him.

I think what we can agree on would be that the sanctimonious attitude, when exhibited by anyone, is vomit-inducing - but putting the whole western-culture-white-people-evil thing on Jolie, who is probably just a stupid hot lady that got rich and famous for being hot and is now doing this kind of thing to feel like her life has some point, is both pointless and irrelevant.

I consider her adoptions to be a form of immigration without the hardship. Instead of having to make the trek out of some war-torn cesspool, the children can grow up in mansions with servants. I am jealous of this, and I didn't even grow up in a cesspool third world country; I just wasn't born a multi-millionaire in America. I'd trade lives with the little couture-wearing African children of Brad Pitt in a nano-second.

Incidentally, the kid will grow up and whine about it, because that is what kids do in the west - have enough time and inclination to reflect on ways in which they might have been even happier. I'm doing it right now. And by doing your blog (largely in English, but also in Castellano, another colonizer tongue), you are, too. Also, and not to be offensive, but how do Mexicans, who are the offspring of both the colonizers and colonized, get to be furious about one aspect of their heritage and not accept responsibility for same? Shouldn't your colonized fury and colonizer gult sort of cancel each other out?

Finally, I don't care what any of you say: there is pretty much no way that the kid would have had a better life in Malawi. Talk about measuring happiness in other ways all you want, but you are wrong. I agree his parents should be the ones to decide what's done with him, but only in the absolute best case scenario where the kid's parents are the two most successful people in Malawi and are genuinely kind and awesome people who don't have 14 other kids and AIDS would that actually be the best option. The kid was lucky.

Herb


nezua Author Profile Page dijo:

GRVTR

okay so...it's the USAs fault she did it, we here at UMX are hypocrites because we cheer on Oprah (which you are sure of), jolie is a "stupid hot lady" with a sense of emptiness who needs to prove something to herself and she does this by adopting third world children which is like "immigrating them" without the hardship, you want brad pitt to be your daddy, we're all western whiners who dare to imagine we might be happier and thats a bad thing, and because i am descended from conquerors and conquered people, i have no right to use the internet to point out wrongs that i perceive. got it. thanks!