No real news to report for now, other than that we received a letter about two weeks ago from our social worker, where she has told us that she is resigning from the agency.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as we have been reassigned to Sherie (the social worker we started with), who was extremely helpful.
In other news, we received a provocative response in the Urkel Effect thread today...
>I ... I ... I don't know where to begin. You say that it
>would be okay to adopt a Hispanic child because you live in
>the San Fernando Valley, and there are many Hispanics --
>correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't their Blacks in the San
>Fernando Valley as well?
Sure... but let's be real. There is a substantially larger latin/hispanic population in the San Fernando Valley.
>And to intimate that more books by
>Black authors or God-help-me, hip-hop CD's would help "define"
>a child's Black culture is frightening.
This misinterpretation of my post really emphasizes my point. When we talk about race issues, there is always a bias. You read this point of mine, and you completely missed the fact (it was the very next paragraph) that I was agreeing with you. While I have CDs, DVDs and books by and including African-Americans, I made the point that this simply isn't going to cut it to help my child (were s/he to be black) "define" his/her status as an African-American.
It is because of this inherent bias that I feel that those who adopt a child of a different race than either parent are already in a hole twenty feet deep. In fact, your response only solidifies my opinion.
Here is my quote, again... read it slowly.
"e-Sure, Marie and I have books by Toni Morrison and Zora Neale Hurston in our library. Jackie Robinson tops my list of role models. We have a number of "hip hop/rap" CDs in our music collection.
But, this would hardly count as providing an African-American child with sufficient culture, such that his or her identity would be clearly shaped.-quote&
I guess you missed that second paragraph.
>I won't even speculate why you call this the "Urkel" effect.
It was funnier (and probably less offensive) than the "Uncle Tom" effect.
>Listen: as a woman in an interracial marriage who adopted a
>biracial child, I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the desire
>to adopt a child who "looks like you." It's definitely a
>consideration, and one we took seriously when we adopted our
>daughter. You lost me, though, when you started coming up
>with reasons why "black" wasn't appropriate. If your only
>reason for not adopting a black child is because the adoption
>would appear obvious on its face, I would've supported you
>100%. It's the other reasons you pull out that start to make
>you appear racist.
I "pulled out" two. First, was the appearance factor; second, was the fact that I would teach my kid to be color blind, which -- actually -- I think is a detriment to an African-American child because it pins him/her into a neutral zone when many on both sides of the color spectrum either want to pull the child into that side or the spectrum... or do not want that child on their side at all.
In my humble opinion, this is hardly racist. It is merely realistic. Pessimistic, maybe... but, remember, what set off my post was an article by an African-American woman, adopted by a white couple, who was very dissatisfied with her adoption.
"Treat the Earth not as if it was given to you by your parents, but as if it was lent to you by your children." - Kenyan Proverb
"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw