我的收养日是失去的周年纪念日

由玛丽·崔·罗宾逊 (Mary Choi Robinson) 从韩国领养到美国。

我是崔顺圭。

这张照片中的她大约 4 岁,最近因贫困的蹂躏而成为孤儿和疾病。

在拍这张照片之前,她有前世,是某人的孩子,某人的女儿,很可能只是一个不同的名字。

2 月 18 日这张照片后约 8 个月,她将被送到美国,获得新的身份和家庭;一种陌生的、可怕的、强加给她的新生活。她的名字将被更改,她将失去她的语言和文化以适应新的语言和文化。

她的三个身份,她的三种生活,都承载着创伤和失落。她现在是我,我每天都从她失去的一切中幸存下来。

不要告诉我感恩或感恩,或者说每个孩子都应该有一个安全、充满爱的家庭和家。

相反,试着去理解我每天都背负着这种难以忍受的悲伤和失落。这种悲伤并不严重,但与其他无法总是轻易表达的悲伤不同。我不确定如何哀悼并且很可能永远无法从中恢复过来的悲伤,这可能会产生世代相传的后果。

有些日子我比其他人更挣扎,尤其是当收养出乎意料地让我措手不及时。

所以今天不仅是我被收养/抵达美国的周年纪念日,也是我失落的周年纪念日。但我还在这里,尽我所能,充分利用这一生,所以我会庆祝这一点。

如果您想阅读更多来自 Mary 的文章,她的硕士论文包含在 ICAV研究 页 - 平行生活:一个跨国韩国收养者的回忆录和研究.

采用:不是默认设置

经过 Mary Cardaras, adopted from Greece to the USA.

The legal right to an abortion in the United States tilts once again precariously on the precipice toward the great dark abyss. And once again, because these debates intersect and often are paired, adoption is back to the point of a rolling boil in social media circles, in newspapers and on television. This is because U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, mother of seven, two of whom are adopted from Haiti, sashayed her way into the question of adoption while hearing a case from Mississippi about abortion. She asked whether “adoption rather than abortion would ‘relieve the burden of parenting.’” In this question she seems to have fully revealed her hand. She has also managed to stir great passions among the adoptee community, far and wide, about adoption itself and our regard for it.

Abortion is a legal option for women and should remain so. But adoption is not a default setting to abortion. Neither should it be regarded as an automatic, fail-safe, fix-all alternative to any question about how to assume responsibility for a child. We need to permanently adjust what ails the practice and narrative of adoption, which happens to be a lot.

The reality is adoption has actually harmed millions of children over decades because children have been treated as commodities and experiments. We infantilized birth parents. We’ve villainized them in some cases. And we’ve decided that the white establishment, who work in and manage the lives of children in organizations and institutional settings all over the world, affecting numerous ethnic, racial and indigenous communities, know better. They don’t.

We know; we, the great, vast diaspora of adoptees, me included, know that the lives of children and their futures are still being compromised and mishandled without a thought for both the child and the birth mother. The mother is often rendered “incapable.” The children lack agency. And as for those who believe that adoption is always a selfless gesture, a love-induced solution to a problem, they have no clear understanding about the repercussions and consequences of the decision to give up a baby. Thank you to writer Gabrielle Glaser and her groundbreaking book, American Baby, for bringing the nefarious side of adoption, through one gut wrenching story, from the darkness and shame, to the light of day. That book and that author have changed the conversation and we need to keep talking. 

“Today is only one day in all the days that will ever be. But what will happen in all the other days that ever come can depend on what you do today.” This iconic quote by Ernest Hemingway from For Whom the Bell Tolls cuts me to the quick as I consider my own teenage birth mother at the very moment, at that very second when she made the decision that would forever alter her young life and mine. With hand to pen and paper, she signed me away, whether by encouragement or force or emotional surrender and sheer exhaustion, she never was given the chance nor any honest and open conversation about her choice and what the unintended consequences of her decision might be.

Adoptees have, over and over, heard both the “you had a good life” argument and the cheery “you were so lucky” rote sentiment. Both of these may be true for many of us, but they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with a mother who makes the profound and painful decision to hand over her flesh and blood to strangers. And they have nothing to do with an adopted child who grows to be an adopted adult and feels in varying degrees, for different reasons, and at different times, severed from their past, however brief it may have been, and about which they deserve to know fully. Who we come from and why is vitally important and necessary for our growth, development, and psychological well-being in the long term.

I was one of 4,000 Greek-born adoptees who were exported from our country of origin between 1948 and 1970. Some of us were politically-motivated adoptions. Some were legal adoptions. Many were done by proxy. Some of us were stolen babies. Some of us were sold and commodified by doctors and lawyers and priests who acted as intermediaries. Some were separated from siblings. Some of us were ripped from twins and identical twins. All of us were taken from our mothers. Some of us were taken from both parents.

No one ever thought about us, until now; about what happened to us, why it happened to us, and what we feel and think about it. Thank you to Gonda Van Steen and her book Adoption, Memory, and Cold War Greece: Kid pro Quo? for bringing us out of the shadows. This book is creating ripples that will turn into waves for change in Greece and maybe for all international adoptions. 

Compared to adoptee communities from China, South Korea, Viet Nam, Guatemala, and other countries around the world, we were among the first (likely even the very first) and oldest ethnic communities that provided children, en masse, to childless couples; to Jews after the war, who could not find Jewish children after the Holocaust, to Greeks who wanted Greek babies and to non-Greeks, who knew that there was a glut of children in Greece, after two wars, for the taking.

We are a small group, but now a mighty group that is aging and becoming more vocal and mobilized about what happened to us. In most of our cases, our adoptive parents have died. And now time is running out for us; for reunions, to meet birth parents and family who remembered us, who loved us, who missed us, who remembered what happened, and can recount our stories. We seek restorative justice in all matters of identity, which means easy and open access to our birth certificates, all our records, our personal histories, and we want our citizenship, in our case, to Greece, restored because it was stripped from us.

We were stripped, too, from our mothers, from their embrace after emerging from the very well of their beings, underneath their hearts, completely dependent on them for life itself. And in an act of cruelty, we were quite literally stripped from their breasts, often immediately after birth, which were filled with the warm, sweet milk that was individually meant and created for each of us. We were weaned too soon. Should we have been weaned at all? And if so, how so?

After weeks of speaking publicly about adoption, and on television and in print interviews, writing about it, too, in Greece, I got to thinking about CJ, my beautiful, loving, and troubled golden retriever. I “get” her. I understand her to my core. She is one of my best friends and a constant companion. She was and is emotional, she was difficult to understand, and it was a struggle to raise up my puppy into the calmer and more peaceful adult dog she is today.

I chose her from a litter of nine. When I met her, she was tiny, adorable, and pudgy, the way golden babies tend to be. A ball of fur, just weeks old, she tumbled around on stubby, tiny legs, fighting like her brothers and sisters to get to Mama’s nipples. They needed their mother. They needed her for sustenance. They needed her to teach them right from wrong as she carried them around by the scruff of the neck, a low-pitched rumbling growl when they got out of line, a snap at them to pipe down when there was too much whining and yelping and crying. She was there for them until she wasn’t anymore, taken from her pups after just five weeks.

CJ was weaned too soon and it took months to get her right. She was incorrigible. Difficult. Obstinate. Ask anyone who tried to work with her. When was this puppy weaned, one of the best trainers in northern California asked me? At five weeks, I answered. Way, way too soon he said, shaking his head. It was no wonder she struggled. Our previous golden, Sedona, was weaned after three months. What a difference in disposition and confidence!

Further, it occurs to me how we treat puppies. For those who adopt purebred dogs, we get their papers. We know who their mother and father are. We know their dispositions and whether they were “champions.” We know the kennel they came from and the condition of the kennel. We know the breeder. In fact, there is a long interview and discussion with them. They interview you about the home and then there’s a questionnaire about whether you will be suitable. For a dog. The same is true for those animals that come from shelters. There is a lengthy process and sometimes the dog comes to “test” the home and other animals they may be cohabitating with. If it doesn’t work, there is no placement. The point is there is an awful lot of consideration for the animal.

Don’t you see that we handle the separation of animals from their mothers better than we do with human babies and their human mothers?  Infants tend to be immediately ferreted off from the person who created them, from the person who carried them, nourished them before they even laid eyes on them, held them? How cruel it is to take a tiny human being from the mother who could feed and tenderly cuddle their offspring until and unless there is an informed uncoerced solution, that comes from the mother herself, who may realize she has to do something else. And then to prepare for it, to prepare the baby for it and to counsel that child as it grows about where they came from, how they came to be, and why they were placed with new parents. And wouldn’t it be great if birth parents were fully involved in that process in order to give the child the best chance at life and at growing to understand why their life was altered? This needn’t be confusing and we must take more time than we do to solve the problem, stigma, and often heartbreak caused by adoption.

I have explained, over and over again, that my adoptive family (which was wonderful by the way) and my birth family are not mutually exclusive. They are separate, but the continuum of one to another has comprised my identity, which is still not fully formed, and I am in my 60’s. Will I ever know? Further, I just learned that my birth mother died last year after I searched for her my whole life, wanting a reunion of some kind, mostly just to talk, to get answers, to see for the first time who I came from, and to finally know someone who looks like me. My sadness about that is real and cannot be overstated.

She, my birth mother deserves my attention and care, even though she can’t see me or hear me. Never will. Why? Because in her name I have to advocate for those other mothers who will come after her. Abortion couldn’t have been an option for her. Adoption was her only alternative and since it was, she needed care. She needed love. She needed support and a place for she and her baby to figure it out. In the end, she may have made the same decision, but her decision could have involved the strangers her baby was going to. She did not deserve to be shooed away from her offspring at a critical time when her offspring needed her most and in every way.

In the case of my mother, she was shamed to the point of changing her name and her identity. And when I was born, no one could stomach dealing with a teenage mother and her child who was “exogamo,” born outside of marriage. She wouldn’t be able to handle it, they told her, and so the state would, except that it didn’t.

The answer for so many adoptions, like mine, was to marginalize the birth mother for life, and to ship the children off; stripped of their culture, their language, their religion, their identities, and in thousands of cases, their race. This happened to millions of us. And birth mothers and their children, are not necessarily better off for it.

When it comes to adoption, social workers and lawyers and doctors and those who run agencies that care for mothers and children need to take direction from those who have lived the experience and have managed the consequences. It is not fair that pronouncements about adoption come from on high and down to us, the great unwashed. We’ve had enough of those “well meaning” people who want to make decisions for us because it makes them feel better about “solving a problem,” which they know absolutely nothing about. Adoption still carries a stigma. We need to both adjust the narrative around adoption and speak about the people who are, differently.  

为什么?

Because that day will be just one day in all the days that will ever be. But what will happen in all the other days that ever come depends on what we do on that one day. The lives of so many mothers and their children deserve the wisdom of that sentiment and the respect of a fighting chance to make decisions that do no harm.

Mary Cardaras is a documentary film producer, a writer and an Associate Professor in Communication at California State University, East Bay. She is a proud Greek, an adoptee and adoptee advocate fighting for universal restorative identity justice for all adoptees around the world and for those children born through anonymous sperm donation. She is the author of 从根撕裂. Her forthcoming book, Voices of the Lost Children of Greece: Oral Histories of International Adoption, 1948-1964 will be published by Anthem Press in 2022.   

我们爱的谎言

经过 杰西卡戴维斯, 在美国收养乌干达的养母 并共同创立 古加田,一个将乌干达家庭与他们的孩子重新联系起来的组织,这些孩子通过国际收养被移除。

我们爱的谎言。采用。

我听说有人说收养是最伟大的爱的行为之一,但真的是这样吗?也许对大多数人来说,收养并不像人们所描述的那样“伟大”。

我们不应关注通过收养创造的新“永远的家庭”的童话形象,而应关注收养如何意味着家庭的终结;儿童世界的绝对破坏导致与每个人和他们熟悉的一切分离。当注意力放错地方时,我们就无法真正帮助孩子,因此常常对他们寄予不切实际的期望。对感恩、结合、同化的期望,甚至期望他们从他们的历史中“继续前进”。

那么,什么样的理由足以让一个家庭永久分离呢?贫困?如果一个家庭很穷,可以带他们的孩子吗?或者,投入时间和资源在经济上赋予家庭权力,以便他们能够在一起,这不是更有爱心和更有帮助吗?

如果一个孩子有医疗需求,这个家庭正在努力满足,那么可以带走他们的孩子吗?或者,帮助那个家庭,这样他们就可以满足孩子的需求并保持在一起,这是一种更大的爱和人类尊严的行为吗?

如果一个家庭陷入困境,那么可以带走他们的孩子吗?还是我们应该团结在家人身边,帮助他们度过困难时期,让他们能够在一起?

失去双亲的孩子怎么办?那么收养孩子好吗?或者,首先确保孩子能够与他们的亲属、他们的家人住在一起会是一种更大的爱吗?为什么在有亲缘关系的情况下与陌生人建立新家庭更好?

如果孩子生活在发展中国家怎么办?是不是把孩子从家里带走,让他们接触到更多的“东西”和“机会”?给他们“更好的生活”?甚至有可能脱离家人过上“更好的生活”吗?或者,支持这个家庭,让他们的孩子能够在自己的国家获得更多的东西和机会,这会是一种更大的爱吗?建设那个国家的未来,通过投资和支持那个孩子,让他们成为最好的孩子。如果我们不断无谓地剥夺发展中国家未来的医生、教师、社会工作者、公共服务人员等,这对发展中国家有何帮助?

我对国内收养知之甚少,但我对跨国收养了解很多,这些是我反复听到的众多理由中的一部分,这些理由证明孩子与家人、亲属和原籍国永久分离。

在寻求帮助/援助时,父母和大家庭别无选择(收养除外)。当只有一个选项时,有什么选择?这些家庭中的大多数不仅没有任何选择,他们经常被告知他们的孩子没有他们会“过得更好”,而留下他们的孩子会阻止他们获得这些“大好机会”。这种心态是错误的,对孩子有害。

如此多的收养叙事都是围绕通过提供“永远的家庭”来“拯救”贫困儿童的需要而构建的,但在国外收养的儿童中有 70%-90% 拥有家庭。知道我们做错了 5 次中的 4 次,我们在收养过程中还会继续做哪些其他事情?

有人说最伟大的爱是收养,我说最伟大的爱是尽一切力量让家人团聚。

我给这篇文章起了标题 我们爱的谎言 因为似乎我们中的很多人都更喜欢收养(以及童话故事),而不是我们爱孩子本身。每当一个孩子被不必要地从他们的家庭和文化中剥夺时,这就证明了这一点,而我们作为一个社会一直在为这一过程欢呼和促进。当我们首先不愿意完成提出棘手问题的艰巨任务时,就会发生这种情况;当我们宁愿忽视眼前的现实而过着“童话”的生活时,收养一个已经拥有一个充满爱的家庭的孩子就解决了一些问题。

有一天,我希望情况会有所不同:越来越多的人会意识到没有孤儿危机,而是有一个 家庭分离危机 在我们的世界中发生的事情和采用不是答案,事实上它是问题的一部分。跨国收养已成为一项可以赚取大量资金的业务,但对最弱势群体几乎没有任何保护,因为我们大多数人都生活在舒适的第一世界中,对童话故事感到满意。领养真是我们爱的谎言!

关于杰西卡的更多信息,她和丈夫亚当最近接受了采访 也许是上帝 播客: 每个孤儿都需要收养吗.

查看杰西卡的其他 文章 在 ICAV 和她 好问题播客莱内尔劳拉 作为一个由 3 部分组成的系列 利·马修斯.

Decolonizing Moses

经过 郑凯拉, 从中国领养到美国。

Growing up in an evangelical white Christian home, I learned the story of Moses before I learned the story of Santa or Easter Bunny. White Christianity was a core pillar in my years growing up. Like Moses, who was orphaned and floated down the Nile to be rescued, adopted and raised by Pharaoh’s daughter, then to grow up and save his people the Israelites, I too now bear that responsibility. After all, I was an orphan, affected by policy, soared across the ocean to be raised by another people, and it was my duty to one day go back home and save my people, just like Moses did for his.

As I look back to a painful time of adolescence, scarred deeply by shame, guilt, white Christianity, and white saviorism (an extension of white supremacy), I also laugh at the irony of the story. As an adoptee who advocates for adoptee rights and the abolition of the adoption industrial complex, I am bombarded by demands to be grateful for the good white people that saved me. In lieu of being denied basic human rights, autonomy, forcibly rehomed, bought, and sold; I am still gaslighted into silence for speaking out. I am shamed for holding the systemic institutions of racism, capitalism, western imperialism, white saviorism, and the exploitation of vulnerable communities for the benefit of whiteness, accountable. Bombarded by the message that I should be indebted to the west for all the best it has given me: opportunities, education, escape from the clutches of poverty, and most importantly, my chance at salvation and living under the blood of Jesus Christ! I am never far from someone condemning me for my lack of gratitude, reprimands of how my story is not an accurate representation of their understanding of adoption and its beauty. The ones who curse my name are not and have never been a transracial, intercountry, transcultural, adoptee of colour. 

I always appreciate the irony that Moses, like myself, would have been hated for what he did. The Moses that is praised for saving his people and admired by millions of people around the world are the same people, who condemn me and my stance on abolition. Why? Moses turned his back on his adoptive family and people. In fact, it could be argued that Moses is responsible for drowning his adoptive people in the Red Sea. Moses was seen as a prince, had the best education money could buy, in the wealthiest family, and had unlimited opportunities. Moses escaped the absolute clutches of poverty and slavery, yet he gave that all away, turned his back on his adoptive family, and everyone accepts that he did the right thing. Moses is hailed a hero, his actions are justified and his choice to choose the love of his people and family goes unscathed. Why is the love for my people and family any different? 

As I have aged, studied, and examined the exploitation of the privilege, power, and systemic oppressive policies that are pillars in upholding the adoption industrial complex, I give back a burden that was never mine to bear. A multi billion-dollar industry that profits from family separation and the selling of children to the wealthy west and mostly white communities, I no longer feel a sense of doom in carrying the mantle of Moses. Rather, I embrace and hope to be the Moses for the adoption community. I have no desire to save my people, as adoptees have no issue in wielding their own power. I aim to liberate adoptees and remove barriers for adoptees to access tools to liberate themselves. Yes, I will be your Moses and I will provide a path through the sea of guilt, shame, obligation, and much more. I will be your Moses and watch the adoption industrial complex drown, with all of its supporters. Yes, I will be your Moses, just not the Moses you expect me to be. And when you ask me to look back at my adoptive family and all that the west has given me in hopes to shame me, I will point to your scriptures and show you that Moses chose his people over profits. Moses had his loyalties to abolition; Moses chose to relinquish prince-hood, power, and the most pampered lifestyle and what most would consider a “better life”, for the right to reclaim his birthright in family, culture, race, and identity.

So, when you ask me to be grateful, I will smile and remind you that it is in fact you who should be grateful, I could have drowned you.

简体中文
%%页脚%%