Another Haitian Adoption Blog

I came across this blog today. It is the personal blog of the Horne family- a family who has adopted children from Haiti. In this blog, the Hornes tell the story of their adoption process and, despite my slight feeling of voyeurism as I was reading it, I really found it quite fascinating.

The blog has been maintained since November 2007. It begins when the Hornes began their adoption process by sending their dossier to adoption agencies in Haiti. In 2008, the Hornes were approved to adopt Steevenson, a baby boy from Haiti. Most of the blog posts from 2008 describe the Hornes experiences as they wait for Steevenson to arrive from Haiti. The posts include the pictures of Steevenson and updates on his well-being which were proivded to the Hornes by the adoption agency. The blog also contains posts written by Dixie Bickel- seemingly an adoption worker in Haiti. Bickel's perspective is an interesting compliment to the Hornes' voices.

These types of posts continue throughout 2008 and into 2009. In February of 2009, the Hornes reveal that they are planning a trip to Haiti to see Steevenson. They describe this trip and their first interaction with Steevenson in posts from March 2009.  Later that year, the Hornes are approved to adopt another Haitian child, a girl, Roselaure.

With the onset of the January 2010 earthquake the Hornes are worried about their children's well-being, but mention in the blog that both children survived the earthquake. Like many adoptive parents who had pending Haitian adoptions, the Hornes adoption was sped up following the earthquake. They travelled to Miami in late Januray of 2010 and met with their children there. They outline their stay in their blog. It seems that both children were suffering from some health issues and the Hornes were obligated to stay with Steevonson and Roselaure at a hospital  in Miami for almost a month.

It appears that the Hornes were able to take their children home sometime in the mid-February 2010. The blog posts from this point on are reminiscent of the thoughts one would imagine any new parents would share with the world. In a proud and happy tone, they include an entire story of Steevenson's "pooping." They post many pictures of their children playing. They discuss Steevenson's favorite new shoes. In all, the Hornes are beaming new parents.

Yet, there are also clear allusions to their status as an adopted, and specifically internationally adopted, family. They include stories of the Haitian potluck they attended in February 2010 and they discuss their follow-up interviews with the adoption agencies.

In many ways, this blog is at the heart of my trouble writing about Haitian Adoption. When I write about Haitian Adoption I write about it as an outsider. I have no personal experience with adoption or with the country of Haiti. I typically look at the issue from a structural standpoint: "why adoption and not development?   how does international adoption affect social institutions? how is adoption a political metaphor? is adoption ethical?"

However, by looking at families such as the Hornes, I am reminded of the deeply personal relationship that many people have with adoption. I am challenged to see the "macro-issues" on a "micro" scale. I look at the Hornes and ask questions about their family. Why do the Hornes have this blog? Is this a form of display or just a way for the Hornes to keep in touch with their loved ones in the technological age or is it more specifically related to the politicization and display of adoption? or of race? Why did the Hornes adopt? Or more specifically, why did the Hornes adopt from Haiti? What will become of Steeveonson and Roselaure? How is what becomes of Steevonson and Roselaure related to their adoption?

I do not have the answers to these questions, but these are questions that relate to all adoptions. Although I have not stated this on this blog, I am becoming increasingly convinced that adoption is a truly powerful force in the world. It can be a political metaphor, it can cause a re-conception of the family and it deeply affects people lives. With these questions of the Hornes' adoption, I wonder if there are universal answers to these questions. If there are, I believe that these answers may be a part of the process that will lead to the sort of social progress and development that I have argued for on this blog already.

Buy: "Expecting-A Baby from Haiti"

Google has many fascinating features. Today, after typing into the search bar "Haitian Adoption," I was rather uninterested in the links that appeared under "news," "images," and "videos." So, expecting a laugh, I decided to click on the "shopping" results. And I did indeed get one.

I saw a whole line of "expecting! a baby from Haiti" products. There are shirts, cups, clocks, and thong underwear all plastered with the words "expecting! a baby from Haiti" on them. One can purchase these products from this page on Cafe Press for anywhere from $3.00-$35.00 dollars.

....Geez....

I feel like I should be shocked by these products, but in many ways I am not.This site has reminded me of a section of adoption discussion that I have been neglecting on this blog: the personal effects on and motivations of adoptive families and more specifically, the theory that adoption is deeply defined by display. Well, if this is not display I don't know what is.

If these products have a market in the US, we are either a country full of distasteful gag-gifters or we have some serious self-image issues. Why would people by these products for legitimate reasons? To show off their up-and-coming good deed to others? To make themselves feel better about themselves? To get attention?

I am not sure.

Race is a Topic

The group of children pictured left are five of the six Scheeres children. The story of these children, and more specifically Julia and David, is told in a memoir written by Julia, entitled Jesus Land. Jesus Land describes the life of the Scheeres family as an adoptive-multi-racial family in 1970s rural Indiana.

The Scheers parents are white, relatively well-off, yet incredibly frugal, and Calvinist. They adopt David when he is three years old out of a feeling of duty. Mrs. Scheeres appears to struggle with depression and is, at best, out of touch with reality in her religious outlook.  Eventually, Mr. Scheeres, a doctor, becomes extremely distant in the childrens' lives and is relegated to the position of punisher. The Scheeres do not show their children affection and the family is becomes deeply disconnected. Througout the book David, and later Jerome- a second African  American child to be adopted into the Scheeres family- undergo physical abuse by Mr. Scheeres.

Throughout this story race is a constant factor. David and Jerome are sent to schools where they are the only African American children. They are made fun of and excluded. Although Julia is white, she also seems to be affected by these issues. She has feelings of resentment toward her black brothers and feels as if she is primarily perceived as the "girl with a black brother." At times in the narration Julia even refers to herself as black, describing the trouble that she and David undergo as being related to "their color."

However, this question of color identity goes both ways. Always optimistic and loving David seems to deal with these issues by either going along with the jokes or attempting to "be white." He cuts a part in his hair and  once tries to put in blue contact lenses. It is clear that David is not comfortable with the physical differences between himself and his family.

However, the issue of color is not just decisive outside of the Scheeres home, but within it as well. Race was not openly discussed in the family (nothing was for that matter though). The Scheeres parents relegate Jerome and David to living in the basement and subject them to extreme physical punishment, while Julia lives upstairs in her own room and is not physically punished throughout the majority of the book. In the narration, Julia is adamant that these divides are due to color, not due to differences in blood ties or gender (although I believe gender and blood ties did play some role).

Yet, race clearly does divide Julia from her brothers to one extent or another. Julia recalls the use of racial slurs between her brothers and herself. She defines herself as the "white child" and her brothers as the  "black children."  She mentions a perceived color divide many many times.

This story, while not directly related to the current situation in Haiti, did make me question a few aspects of American's adopting Haitian children in a new light. When discussing international adoption, it is likely that interracial adoption is also part of the picture. And when discussing American's adopting Haitian children it is likely (although not necessarily always the case)  that some of the children will be adopted by parents of a race other than their own. Like the Scheeres family, a white family may adopt a black child.

Admitteddly, the Scheeres were suffered from more issues than just race issues, but their story is deeply touched by race and their story is not that old. This is not a story of 1880 Alabama, but 1970s Indiana. I have to wonder how much of the Scheeres story could be applied to a family that chooses to adopt a child from Haiti. I would hope none of it, but I know I cannot make that claim for sure.

Honestly, I don't really know what to think about interracial adoption. I want to say that it should be no problem. We should be color blind and all get along fine, but I wonder if this color-blind idea is really possible and I am pretty sure it is not. I think the solution needs to come from open discussion about race and feelings. Racism still is a part of American culture and not talking about it, probably won't make it go away.

I wonder how the story of the Scheeres would have been different if they took the time to talk about race. I suspect, it wouldn't be dramatically different due to the numerous other issues in the family, but it may have made things a little better (or maybe not?).

In all, I think that it is important that in today's world when talking about Haitian Adoption we don't make the mistake of the Scheeres and keep our lips sealed about tough issues. We should talk about the hard things. There is a language to do so respectively and constructively.  

Two Types of Potential Adoptees

Today when I googled "Haitian Adoption," I came across this video:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

The video highlights a foster home in Alabama which hasn't had an adoption in years. The commentator mentions the Haitian orphan crisis as a factor that has increased American awareness of adoption, but emphasizes that this increased awareness has not affected these kids. This video really struck me. I immediately began wondering about issues of race, age and class in relationship to these kids' lack of adoption. I was ready to talk about economic crises as a reason behind the lack of recent adoption or the fact that people often want to adopts infants, not older children. I was ready to make an argument about the domestic issues in the United States and possibly, even go so far as to reprimand people who only decided to adopt in the wake of the Haitian earthquake, while there were children before the earthquake and still are children after the earthquake who are in need of adoption at home - in the United States.


....But then I saw a link to this video:




Watch CBS News Videos Online

Granted this video is from January 17th, 2010, a mere 5 days after the Earthquake, it was a quite a shock to see the status of the American foster children and the Haitian orphaned children back-to-back. In the video, of the American foster home the children are adequately dressed and have a permanent place to live. In the video of the Haitian children, the children wear tattered clothing and no shoes and are housed in tents. They are also far greater in number. In all, the video of the Haitian children reminded me of the extreme situation in Haiti- a terrible natural disaster compounded by long-standing economic issues. My viewing of these videos respectively was deeply colored by my viewing of them in succession.

I am not sure how to reconcile my reactions to these videos. It is obvious that the children in Haiti, in terms of dire circumstance, are probably in greater immediate need of assistance than the American children. Adoption is at least one way to provide that assistance. Yet, I am reminded of a sociological term- relative poverty- that, if I remember correctly, describes a way of understanding poverty in relation to the society that surrounds a person. For example, a person living on $20,000 in the United States would be relatively poor to the majority of the country, while a person living on $20,00 in Haiti may not. I believe it is safe to say that the children featured in the video from the Alabama foster home do live, to some extent, in relative poverty to the rest of their home country. I wonder if adoption would raise these children out of relative poverty.

But, my emotions are further complicated by my belief that the children in the Alabama adoption agency and the Haitian children alike are equally as deserving of basic needs fulfillment- food, water, shelter yet equally as importantly they deserve love, comfort, acceptance and stability. The children in the Alabama home clearly yearned for these needs. They wanted a home. Adoption is what they want (although I do want to be honest and state that I wonder how much of their desire for adoption is socially conditioned by the agency itself).

I doubt (although admittedly I have little fact or experience to base this doubt on) that the children in Haiti want adoption in the same way that the children in Alabama do. Not that they are not equally as deserving of a home, family and acceptance, just that these children are experiencing a notably different set of issues than are the children in Alabama. This is inherent in the fact that when referring to adoption in Haiti and I inexplicitly, but clearly, am referring to international adoption- from a undeveloped- natural-disaster torn country to one of the richest countries in the world.

I am led to wonder how fruitful a comparison between the situation in Haiti and the Alabama home truly is, yet I also see that there are some fundamental concerns in common- human rights, children's well being, the right to basic needs, the human desire for love and acceptance. As this situation progresses Americans should consider their situation at home while also remembering our fellow humans who do not live within the American borders. We should remain open to Haitian adoption when it is the best option, but we should also consider the long-term macro issues in Haiti that might not be best addressed through adoption. We should find ways to support children here who are growing up in a foster system while desiring something else.We should work to connect these children with adoptive families. We should support the humanity of all people- not just those at suffering at home and not just those affected by glaring natural disasters. Adoption, for those wanting to take children into their families, is one of the many ways to do this.

Haiti's Failed System

Today marks the two month anniversary of the Haitian Earthquake. As I was scanning across the still steady stream of articles about the situation in Haiti, I came across this article from the Wall Street Journal. The article entitled, 'Earthquake Exposes Haiti's Faulty Adoption System,' takes an interesting perspective on the issue of Haitian adoption and, more specifically, the controversy surrounding Haitian childrens' status as orphans. The article focuses on the fact that many children in Haiti, even prior to the Earthquake,  who were in orphanages were not "orphans," but children who still have live parents who cannot afford to take care of them. This issue is covered in a video that was included with the article:

This fact definitely brings up a few parallel issues to the question of Haitian adoption ranging from the correct procedures of dealing with these children with parents in orphanages to dealing with the greater issues of why these children are being placed in orphanages in the first place. 

The article's authors addressed a few of these issues in the article. First, the authors noted the fact that because many children in wake of the earthquake are possibly being labeled orphans incorrectly, international relief agencies such as UNICEF are no longer sending children to orphanages in fear that they will be adopted overseas and separated from their families. The authors did not take a definite stance on this issue, but the articles title "failure of the system" reflects their view that something in the system needs to be changed. What is not clear is whether they believe the change should come from within the current system- altering the laws and international agencies stances  to make it easier for children to be adopted to countries such as the U.S- or from somewhere else- working to develop Haiti itself so that children no longer need to be sent away to have a good life. 

The article quotes people who are both side of the question.  UNICEF's executive director, Ann Veneman, is mentioned as one who is arguing that Haiti must be weaned off adoption. Yet alongside the mention of Director Veneman is the story of Margarette Saint-Fleur, a woman who spent 15 years trying to better conditions in Haiti, but has subsequently turned toward trying to send children out of the country.  

In the midst of these issues, everyone agrees that there are children suffering from poor conditions in Haiti. There were children living in dire conditions before the earthquake and now there are thousands more. These children unarguably need immediate care and quality centers to deal with these issues are definitely in order. But, in a country so economically devastated- where orphanages have become places for children to be taken when their live parents can no longer take care of them- people are questioning whether simply building orphanages and adopting children out of the country is a truly moral solution. I am questioning along with them.  

Intellectual Venting

I want to start off by saying that this post is going to go in a notably different direction than my previous posts.  I am going wrestle with my current thoughts on talking about international large-scale issues in relation to this blog on Haitian Adoption.

Last week, I went the United Nations as a NGO representative at the 54th Conference on the Status of Women. Women from all over the world were in attendance at the CSW. They discussed issues and met together in hopes of moving women forward in their communities.  While these women and I waited together in lines (of which there were plenty) or crowded into small rooms (where we would have to crowd into corners and sit on the floor) we would talk to one another. The conversations that I had with these women, these real women- mothers, lawyers, activists- really struck me. I was at the UN, a place where representatives of countries-at-large come together to pass resolutions and hopefully progress as entire nations, yet I was talking not to countries, but to individuals. Through these conversations, at this specific place, my general and abstract ideas about "other countries" were complicated by my immediate acknowledgement of the individuals behind them. It was made immediately obvious that when discussing Kenya I am actually discussing individual people and necessarily, in my generalization, leaving some out.

I suppose this realization- that real individual people are behind typical notions of Ethiopia, China, Afghanistan and so on- is basic common sense. It is something I have always been well aware of on some level or another. Yet, this truth is a complicated truth. It is a truth that goes both ways. For while abstract ideas of countries are ultimately composed of individuals, individuals are also deeply affected by their country. Or even more pointedly, a story of an individual can often mirror the larger story of a country. It is also a truth that is easily lost in the long processes surrounding international agreements. In bodies such as the UN a few delegates are charged with the task of representing the interests of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. It becomes easier to think of Haiti as an abstract whole, not a body of individuals.

In all, I suppose I am trying to reconcile my understanding of the individual and the country. I know that they are deeply tied, but I wonder how accurately one can describe an societal issue from an individual point of view or vice versa.  How does one discuss "Haitian Adoption" without losing sight the individual or how well can one ascertain a more encompassing truth about Haiti through a singular focus on an individual adopted from Haiti?

I think that these two views cannot be separated and I am still not sure of the implications of this connection for my life, but I  know that I do want to be more aware of these intricacies in my understanding of the world and in my writing. I want make an effort not overgeneralize my sentiments toward and descriptions of countries. I want to not draw too much out of an individual's story, but I also want to be aware of the greater picture surrounding that individual. I want to remember what I learned at the UN: that the picture isn't as simple as it seems.