Comments on: A depressing look at transracial adoption

By: Dane Holweger

Dane Holweger — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:40:45 +0000

First of all, it was the Los Angeles Daily News, not a Pasadena paper that printed the story in which an interwiew with my family was included. I, too, was disappointed at the writers negative slant on the issue of transracial adoption and I sent a letter to the editor expressing this which follows (it was not published):
Los Angeles Daily News,
As one of the subjects of your cover story (and cover photo) on trans-racial adoption, I was saddened and confused by the article’s negative slant. Rachel Uranga has subtitled her article “Cross-racial adoption has detractors,” but the interviews she conducted for the piece support a more positive point of view. It seems irresponsible to simply suggest that there are those who disapprove of adoption across racial lines without including interviews or statistics to support that argument. Though I know detractors of trans-racial adoption exist, our personal experience has been overwhelmingly positive. The love and support we encounter on a daily basis from the community in the form of hugs, handshakes, and heartfelt conversation confirms our decision. Until all those ‘detractors’ who would judge our family stand up and provide for the multitude of children in need - love and stability will continue to be the very best option. Sadly, racism continues to live among us. All responsible parents, black or white, prepare their children to be proud of their heritage and culture, and to respond intelligently to those who would attempt to diminish them. My mother always said to me, “I cannot protect you from the pain the world has in store, but I can help you become someone who will not be daunted by it”.

Dane Holweger and Family
Los Angeles

As to any of the respondants to this site who seem to have made decisions about our parenting based on that anemic article - please get to know us before you pretend to know us.

By: justin

justin — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:34:58 +0000

Just in case. Picasso, Matisse and Gauguin are not only painters, they are geniuses who turned people of other races into commodities, ho hum .
Culture of Complaint is about how Liberalism and political correctness cause mediocrity and Fatal Shore has an inspirational segment about how Australia’s a melting pot and its mixed future. I haven’t looked closely at either really.
Can anyone connect Robert Hughes to the 2002 movie Rabbit Proof Fence? I swear I’m not trying to get you to do my homework.

By: justin

justin — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:41:32 +0000

‘For a person to reach their highest potential they must have a foundation in a projection of their races strongest qualities, while ultimately transcending any of their same limitations’ ???
Like Picasso, Matisse and Gauguin, or just people of other races that white folks turn into commodities?
There is a problem with black kids acting black, it’s to do with minorities and the depth or variety of their representations. (acting black or affecting blackness?)
What liberals are you talking about?
Has anyone here read Culture of Complaint by Robert Hughes or seen the end of his Fatal Shore documentary? I think that guys more neo-con than liberal.

By: Doubletake

Doubletake — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:19:48 +0000

There’s also nothing wrong with “Black” kids “acting Black.” In fact, some might even believe that for a person to reach their highest potential, they must have a foundation in their root culture (a holographic projection of that race’s strongest qualities), while ultimately transcending any of their same limitations..

What would Jimi Hendrix been without knowing the blues? Tupac without rap?

Bruce Lee without Wing Chun? Yang LuChan without Taiiquan?

Julio Iglesias if he only sang in English, not Spanish?

There is a beauty in the diversity born of extended isolation without cross-pollination.

But the liberal drive towards a homogeneous monoculture, and hell, mixed monorace - is a little disturbing in its parallels with a monogovernmental neo-con New World 0rder as well as corporate mega-mergers into multinational conglomerates. In short, all aim towards the elimination of all social/cultural/genetic/racial/business/political independent diversity to promote mass conformity.

And all under the Orwellian Doublespeak mantras of “diversity” and “multi-culturalism…”

Fools!

By: justin

justin — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:55:59 +0000

I think Ben’s ‘confused’. Ethnicity is a sociology term that covers the effects of both ancestry and race.. Ethnically no one is one thing, though some of categories people put themselves in can exclude or conflict with others. What is whiteness without at least an underlying racism ?
Its nice that Ben is so optimistic, but the way a person looks effects who they are unless they are sheltered and protected from society, maybe mirrors as well, which is pointed out in the original post. The effects of appearances aren’t necessarily good or bad and there is nuanced difference between assimilation and naturalisation.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:02:31 +0000

Transracial adoption is a perfect opportunity to separate ancestry from ethnicity, two concepts that are, unfortunately, inextricably fused in the current American racial construct.

To put it clumsily, just because they’re biologically “black” doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t become culturally “white.” I mean, they have white parents! That will have far more to do with their personal development than the color of their skin.

It kind of reminds me of the tragic mulatto myth… I think the extent to which these children might be “confused” is greatly exaggerated. Eventually they’ll figure it out, and they’ll have the capacity for a far more nuanced perspective on race than most of us