Today, we will be debating white families adopting children of color, which we will be referring to as interracial adoptions. We are against interracial adoptions because there is a horrific history behind it, the white parents’ incapacity to understand institutionalized racism is dangerous to their children of color, and interracial adoption can cause a negative self image in the children being adopted. Other organizations that vilify interracial adoption include the National Association of Black Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America’s National Council of Latino Executives, and the National Council on Adoptable Children.
Between 1910 and 1970, in Australia, aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families, under false claims. These children were adopted by white households, many of which were emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive. And, in an attempt to rid Australia of aboriginal people and culture, the children were not allowed to partake in any behaviors associated with being aboriginal. Australian aboriginals weren’t the only group negatively affected by interracial adoption. Prior to 1978, 35% of Native American children were illegally removed from their homes. These examples show that interracial racism can be
…show more content…
When he was 19, he was pulled over by a cop, and was hit repeatedly in the face until he blacked out. LisaMarie Rollins was not just the only African American person in her neighborhood, but the only person of color. She recalls her childhood, saying “crazy, racist things happened to me. Not only verbal racism but physical, sexual violence, all kinds of things.” However, her parents never talked about race with
In the 1950s and 1960s, the government began abolishing the compulsory residential school education among Aboriginal people. The government believed that Aboriginal children could receive a better education if they were integrated into the public school system (Hanson). However, residential schools were later deemed inappropriate because not only were the children taken away from their culture, their families and their people, but the majority of students were abus...
Over the years Australia has had many different problems with racism and racism affecting peoples’ lives. Many racial groups have been affected, most significantly the Aboriginals. The end of world war two in 1945 marked a huge change in types of racism. Australia went from the ‘superior’ white Australians dominating over immigrants and aboriginals. To a relatively multicultural and accepting society that is present today.
Residential schools undoubtedly created detrimental inter-generational consequences. The dark legacy of residential schools has had enduring impact, reaching into each new generation, and has led to countless problems within Aboriginal families including: chemical dependence, a cycle of abuse in families, dysfunctional families, crime and incarceration, depression, grief, suicide, and cultural identity issues (McFarlan, 2000, p. 13). Therefore, the inter-generational consequence...
‘’ Abolition of systemic discrimination in the CJS may leave behind ‘structural racism’: the discriminatory impact of laws, policies and practices rather than individual racist attitudes’’ (Blagg et al 2005: 12). The white susceptibilities are offended when Aboriginal people’s occurrence induces loathing and fear: their social custom, and their differences (sitting in parks, moving around as a group). In public places it is approved or considered as ‘okay’ to discriminate against Aboriginal people, for instances; Aboriginal children was rejected from shopping malls for ruptures of dress codes while young non-aboriginal youths are not, Aboriginal background adults are denied service in pubs is all regarded as being ‘okay’. Aboriginal people’s cultural values and beliefs are ignored as the Criminal justice system (CJS) enforces non-Aboriginal principles upon them. As a result, such behaviour is considered as institutionalised norms, practices and standards but not reflected as deliberate
As European domination began, the way in which the European’s chose to deal with the Aborigines was through the policy of segregation. This policy included the establishment of a reserve system. The government reserves were set up to take aboriginals out of their known habitat and culture, while in turn, encouraging them to adapt the European way of life. The Aboriginal Protection Act of 1909 established strict controls for aborigines living on the reserves . In exchange for food, shelter and a little education, aborigines were subjected to the discipline of police and reserve managers. They had to follow the rules of the reserve and tolerate searchers of their homes and themselves. Their children could be taken away at any time and ‘apprenticed” out as cheap labour for Europeans. “The old ways of the Aborigines were attacked by regimented efforts to make them European” . Their identities were threatened by giving them European names and clothes, and by removing them from their tra...
Interracial adoption means placing a child who is of one race or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another race or ethnic group. In the United States these terms usually refer to the placement of children of color with white adoptive parents. Interracial adoption in America are seen less as a taboo today, but as out of the norm.. Even though “the U.S. Adopts more children... domestically, than the rest of the world combined.”[ Adam Pertman, Adoption Nation (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Common Press, 2011).] It is also prevalent to mention that White Americans serve overwhelmingly as the adopting race and also exercise the most control in the adoption process.[ David Ray Papke, 'Transracial Adoption In The United States: The Reflection And Reinforcement Of Racial Hierarchy ', SSRN Journal (2013).] Their white privilege continues into
Within Australia, beginning from approximately the time of European settlement to late 1969, the Aboriginal population of Australia experienced the detrimental effects of the stolen generation. A majority of the abducted children were ’half-castes’, in which they had one white parent and the other of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Following the government policies, the European police and government continued the assimilation of Aboriginal children into ‘white’ society. Oblivious to the destruction and devastation they were causing, the British had believed that they were doing this for “their [Aborigines] own good”, that they were “protecting” them as their families and culture were deemed unfit to raise them. These beliefs caused ...
The assimilation policy was a policy that existed between the 1940’s and the 1970’s, and replaced that of protectionism. Its purpose was to have all persons of aboriginal blood and mixed blood living like ‘white’ Australians, this established practice of removing Aboriginal children (generally half-bloods) from their homes was to bring them up without their culture, and they were encouraged to forget their aboriginal heritage. Children were placed in institutions where they could be 'trained' to take their place in white society. During the time of assimilation Aboriginal people were to be educated for full citizenship, and have access to public education, housing and services. However, most commonly aboriginal people did not receive equal rights and opportunities, for example, their wages were usually less than that paid to the white workers and they often did not receive recognition for the roles they played in the defence of Australia and their contribution to the cattle industry. It wasn’t until the early 1960’s that expendi...
The stolen generations of Aboriginal children were taken away from their families by the government, churches and welfare bodies so they could be brought up in institutions or fostered out into white families with the hope that these children would be integrated into white society. Beginning in the 1830’s and ending in the early 1970’s, many children were taken from their families in an attempt to eradicate the Aboriginal race and culture. The Australian government’s policy and practice of removing the Aboriginal children from their families was violently enforced during that time period, unfortunately this official government policy was in effect until 1969. During my research it appears that the practice of mistreating Aboriginal
According to Katherine Quarmby, the controversy over interracial adoptoin has been a popular topic since the 1960s. She believes the positive effects of being raised by a loving and caring family outweigh the negative effects of being raised by a family of a different race. The black activists however described transracial as “stealing children” and “cultural genocide”.
Her book focuses on the myriads of issues and struggles that Indigenous men and women have faced and will continue to face because of colonialism. During her speech, Palmater addressed the grave effects of the cultural assimilation that permeated in Indigenous communities, particularly the Indian Residential School System and the Indian Act, which has been extensively discussed in both lectures and readings. Such policies were created by European settlers to institutionalize colonialism and maintain the social and cultural hierarchy that established Aboriginals as the inferior group. Palmater also discussed that according to news reports, an Aboriginal baby from Manitoba is taken away every single day by the government and is put in social care (CTVNews.ca Staff, 2015). This echoes Andrea Smith’s argument in “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing” that colonialism continues to affect Aboriginals through genocide (2006, p. 68). Although such actions by the government are not physical acts of genocide, where 90% of Aboriginal population was annihilated, it is this modern day cultural assimilation that succeeded the Indigenous Residential School System and the Indian Act embodies colonialism and genocide (Larkin, November 4,
One of the major controversial issues in this era is adoption and parenting of children by sex same couples. It is depressing and overwhelming to know that while various people around the world disapprove this adoption thousands of innocent kids aspire to be loved and protected without stereotypes.
Black children are disproportionately represented in the foster care system. In the most recent Statistical Abstract published in 2011 by the U.S. Census Bureau, Black children accounted for 15% of the U.S. child population in 2009. In contrast, Black children were at almost 30% of the total number of children in foster care for the same year according to the Department of Health and Human Services 2009 Foster Care report. In addition, there are not enough Black families available to adopt these children. Interracial adoption advocates often hail it as a good solution to address these problems. Interracial adoption is promoted as a major step towards an integrated, unprejudiced, and colorblind society. However, instead of healing the wounds of racism, interracial adoption often contributes to racist ideologies and practices that devalue family relationships in the Black community (Roberts 50). This type of adoption is a surface only solution that fails to dig deeper and address the underlying reasons for the disproportionate representation of Black children in foster care and the lack of minority adoptive parents. This deeper analysis exposes a system of that is very biased against the Black community in the adoption industry. Even when it is altruistic, interracial adoption is mostly detrimental to the Black community because it aids in the breakdown of Black families and the dismissal of the root causes of the circumstances that lead to large numbers of Black children needing to be adopted in the first place. Furthermore, interracial adoption has not made any significant difference in lowering the numbers of Black children in foster care.
Adoption is the complete and permanent transfer of parental rights and obligations, usually from one set of legal parents to adoptive parents(Ademec 27). Not until the late 19th century did the U.S. legislative body grant legal status to adoptive parents. This is when children and parents started to gain rights and support from the government. Through the years new laws have been passed and amended to keep the system fair to all adoptive parents. In 1994, Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act, making it illegal to delay the placement a child to find a racially matching family. In 1996 the Multiethnic Placement Act was amended to say, “One can not use race as a routine consideration in child placement”(Lewin sec.A). Before 1994, it was difficult to place a black child with white adopters. Last year 5,000 children were adopted from Europe, and 6,000 from Asia, while 183 came from Africa.(Lewin sec. A). The number of out-of-country adoptions are so high because of the requirements and regulations one must follow in the U.S. The requirements include being 21, and include being committed and loving. The home income must be adequate enough to support the family. Passing all of the medical exams and filling out the personal information is mandatory. But the main reason people adopt from overseas is because it is much quicker. A person can adopt a child from another country in a matter of months. In the U.S. the wait can exceed 5 years, which is why some people choose international adoption.
Another argument against minorities being placed specifically in white homes is the idea that economically and socially sound Caucasian are determining what is considered “good” for minority children. This allows for white families to feel entitled to adopt any child of any race whenever they decide, and in doing so, fail to recognize the adoptee and their culture (Smith 1996).