What do you think is more important to a relinquished child in a third world country?

kims

I adopted siblings overseas. They were older children. When one of them gets really sad it's because they miss their family, not because they miss their culture. My children lost their mother to AIDs, their father placed them, and he died later. My children have never mourned the loss of their culture, they love it here. They miss their parents. When they talk about what they would change now if they were magic, it would be to have their parents back and living here in the US with them.

So in order of importance my children would have liked most if their parents had never gotten sick. Next, they wish there had been aunts or uncles and cousins to take them in. After that, they wanted any kind of a family anywhere. Second to last choice: staying in the orphanage. Last choice: staying in the village being passed around among the neighbors, or living in the street.

Don't get me wrong. We try our best to keep the children in touch with their culture. The children cooperate to a point but to them the loss of their culture is nothing to the loss of their parents. Eating Ethiopian food as opposed to pizza doesn't make them feel better about it. I think it must be different for children adopted at very young ages. My children were older and know their culture, so they don't feel so much like they are losing their culture as that they themselves are choosing to mix it with US culture.

red elephants

Personally I feel having a family (either bio or adoptive) is more important than growing up in ones original culture. I think that the argument of "stripping a child of its culture" is often used as a weapon in this forum. Either to make international adoptive parents feel guilty about adopting or to shame those who are interested in adopting internationally into not doing so.

there are far worse things than growing up/living in a culture other than the one you were born in. being left in an orphanage would be much worse in my opinion.

icehockeymom7

Of course it would be ideal to have both! But unfortunately, that cannot always be the case. I personally feel it is more important for a child to have a loving family (and I'm ok with all the thumbs down I will get for that, lol) Our daughter is adopted from China. She is growing up as an American citizen rather than a Chinese citizen. We do work on providing cultural opportunities for her, but we are not naive enough to believe that it's the same as if she were growing up in her homeland. But her reality would have been a life lived in an orphanage, then life on the streets without a family. I feel strongly that a family is more important for a child than a culture.

Randy B

I'd rather see a relinquished child have a loving home outside of their culture any time. I've seen the standards in which they live inside their culture and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

manda_jns

I would definitly say a family. If a child had a loving and caring family they could embrace the childs culture into their home. If the parents considered it then the child would be blest with both a family and their culture.

Daniel H

Having been to Mexico 9 times, Jamaica and The Bahamas, I would definately say family. A loving, caring family.

monkeykitty83

Ultimately, I think it's better for children from any country to be raised in a loving and stable family than in an orphanage/institution or to spend their childhoods in the uncertain world of foster care.

I consider family-- whether or not that family is related by blood-- of tremendous importance, and that's why I don't completely oppose international adoption.

However, before international adoption is considered for a child, every effort should be made to find the child a placement in country, so a choice between family and birth culture isn't necessary in the first place. I also think major efforts need to be made to clean up corruption and human trafficking in international adoption.

We also need to be aware that international adoption doesn't address the broader problems of poverty and social injustice, so more sweeping and creative solutions are needed than just adopting away children one by one.

(P.S. "Third world" is not a term that is used anymore. It's not only seen as rather derogatory, but hasn't even been accurate since the end of the Cold War. Using it makes you seem a little behind the times.)

Jennifer L

I don't think anyone can answer this question who has not been a child that was relinquished and lived in an orphanage in Africa, parts of Asia or South America.

I would like to hear personal experiences from someone who has lived that life (and was old enough to remember it) and was also adopted by a family of a different country and culture.

NotSureNow

First, good family and secondly their culture.

I think feeling safe and secure trumps enjoying & experiencing culture.

Ideally, the child would have both but the question was to pick.

Saying "third world" is not racist. It's a fact about a country. My husband was born in a third world country. He calls it that and so do all the rest of his friends and family who still live there. They love their country (and so do I) but it is what it is... no need to candy coat.

kateiskate

Really? A third world county? I'm sick of people who generalize all international adoptees as having come from "third world countries". I'm an international adoptee who was born in Korea. I'd hardly call that an uncivilized, third world country

Your question (like all of your q and a) is extremely biased and one sided. If you continue to think about international adoption in that closed minded way, I really fear for your future relationship with your son. Your lack of empathy for his (and his fellow adoptees) loss is hugely apparent in the way you pose these questions.

Wanting to have your culture in your life and feel in touch with your culture has nothing to do with not wanting or loving your adoptive family. It has to do to being true to yourself and true to your origins. You really need to stop taking it personally. It's not an attack at adoptive moms for kids to want to know their culture.

Lucy da cat

Wait, you can't have both?????

I'm pretty sure it's not an either/or kind of thing. Maybe to u it is, but not to everyone else.

guapagirl02

My sisters and I were all adopted as infants (we are all from different biological families), and all three of us are Colombian. Neither of our parents are Colombian (although they are Hispanic), so I do feel sometimes that I missed out on my true culture, but for me, first and foremost, I'm happy to have a family that I love and that I know love me. I think it also helped though that I was raised in a Spanish-speaking environment so I was able to keep in touch at least that part of my culture.

Edit:
In response to kateiskate... a third-world-country is not necessarily uncivilized. THAT is a horrible stereotype.

Mei-Ling

I envy your black & white view of the world, sumtingnue.

Seriously, sometimes I still wished I viewed adoption that way.

What about what happens before the child is abandoned/relinquished/surrendered? Do you take that into account at all?

cantstopLinnyG

Having a family who lives in their homeland.

"Third World Country" sounds so, I dont know..racist or judgmental. People who live in a "third world country" can and do love their children just as much as the well to do foreigners who adopt and Americanize them.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: