In 2021 the Oxford historian Faisal Devji published an essay, “The Childhood of Politics,” which opens this way: Children, along with the mentally ill and prisoners in countries like the United States, are the only category of citizens disallowed from having a say in their own futures. That is to say, they are denied access to politics as a practice devoted by definition to making the future.
Tony, I tend to disagree with you on why people ask adoptees outrageous questions, ie, "would you prefer to have been raised by a crack whore," etc. In my mind, their real objection is that the adopted person is daring to challenge the myth that society adores, ie, that adoption is a wonderful thing. To suggest that adoption is less than wonderful is like suggesting Jesus was just a nice Jewish boy.
Despite hearing me talk for years about the anguish of losing my child, one of my sisters used to go on and on about the many adoption stories she encountered and how WONDERFUL they were -- the adopting parents, the "orphans," the whole situation/family. And I've had numerous friends and strangers tell me what a WONDERFUL thing I did in relinquishing my only child.
So I'm not sure they believe that adopted persons are too "dim" to understand the great favor done for them. The word "ungrateful" comes to mind, or "wrong-headed" or "don't know how good they've got it." Which, as I think about it, could also be -- "dim."
Also, I was reading the papers I signed in 1967, and there is nothing about my confidentiality/privacy now or later. I did have to swear that I would not attempt to remove Baby Boy Scott from wherever the State of Georgia wanted to put him. That was it. That whole "birth mothers were promised secrecy" thing is BS. It shocked me to observe that I signed them less than 3 weeks post-partum.
Tony, I tend to disagree with you on why people ask adoptees outrageous questions, ie, "would you prefer to have been raised by a crack whore," etc. In my mind, their real objection is that the adopted person is daring to challenge the myth that society adores, ie, that adoption is a wonderful thing. To suggest that adoption is less than wonderful is like suggesting Jesus was just a nice Jewish boy.
Despite hearing me talk for years about the anguish of losing my child, one of my sisters used to go on and on about the many adoption stories she encountered and how WONDERFUL they were -- the adopting parents, the "orphans," the whole situation/family. And I've had numerous friends and strangers tell me what a WONDERFUL thing I did in relinquishing my only child.
So I'm not sure they believe that adopted persons are too "dim" to understand the great favor done for them. The word "ungrateful" comes to mind, or "wrong-headed" or "don't know how good they've got it." Which, as I think about it, could also be -- "dim."
Also, I was reading the papers I signed in 1967, and there is nothing about my confidentiality/privacy now or later. I did have to swear that I would not attempt to remove Baby Boy Scott from wherever the State of Georgia wanted to put him. That was it. That whole "birth mothers were promised secrecy" thing is BS. It shocked me to observe that I signed them less than 3 weeks post-partum.
Your writing really makes me think! Thank you.
Mentioned you and linked to this blog today - https://missingmom.home.blog/2023/12/11/advocating/.
Thank you for inspiring me.
Your writing is so powerful at the level of the ideas AND the at the level of the sentence. Thank you!