March 03, 2008
Everyone wants a little PunjabiKids
I wish we were beyond this exasperating stupidity. Via TOIlet (no need to visit and catch a VTD, the entire article is quoted below:
Three-month-old Livya was rejected thrice by prospective Indian parents, who found her too dark. A year later, however, an American couple chose to adopt her and flew her to the US. She now lives with her parents and has two siblings — one from Korea and another from Vietnam.
Livya was lucky, but the story is not the same for other adoptable children. Many who are legally free for adoption continue to face discrimination as wannabe Indian parents look for a “fair and lovely” baby, though the law prevents one from picking and choosing babies for adoption.
Perhaps those overlooked children are better off without such complexion-obsessed parents. After all, there is always the Angelina effect (aside: once again, Madonna is associated with the word “wanna-be”):
But most foreign couples prefer children who are dark-skinned, older or with medical concerns, HIV positive and with special needs.
And here, the reason for my title (and the explanation for the painful noise my jaw made when it fell on my desk):
Secretary for the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), O P Sirohe, says in-country adoptions have been encouraging and there is a long list of parents waiting. But still, they ask for fair-skinned, healthy and, preferably, Punjabi child as it is usually chubby. A child is no market commodity and adoptions become meaningful only when there is a change in people”s attitude, he says.
Preferably a Punjabi child. Wow. I love chubby babies, too (my Godson’s nickname wasn’t “The Pudgesicle” for nothing)…but this just makes my stomach twist. What are you adopting? A baby or an accessory? What does this even mean? That it’s too much work to feed your new kid butter-laced everything, so you can chub them up sufficiently yourself? “Honey, let’s go shopping for a baby on Saturday—I heard they have new Punjabi models in stock!” And to my Punjabi peeps…um…how do you feel about being objectified due to such a dubious distinction?
Foreign couples are more open to adopting any child, irrespective of its age, religion, skin colour or looks. Children who are older, with special needs and medical conditions are finding homes overseas, he says.
“NRIs and couples from Italy, Germany, US, Spain and Sweden take home kids with special needs. We place such children in Indian homes too, but they are an exception,” says Dr Aloma Lobo, chairperson, Adoption Coordinating Agency, Karnataka.
And thanggawd for it.
The following concern isn’t exclusive to India; American “waiting” children don’t have much luck when they are in their teens, either. Everyone wants a baby. And sometimes, a chubby one.
Another hurdle in the adoption of children is their age. For instance, Lakshmi, who is 13 years old, has still not found a home as her age is a major deterrent.
The law allows adoptions only up to the age of 12 (inter-country) and stipulates that the older parents age should not exceed 45. This is a setback as older children are not preferred by young couples and the older couples cannot adopt due to age limit.
It is quite a paradox as older couples have better financial status and parenting experience and can spend more time with the child, adoption agencies say.
When does this self-loathing end? I know people who have struggled with infertility; they just appreciate having a little kid to love. I can’t help but imagine the couples who rejected this infant. How does that thought process work? “Well, we can’t have a child of our own…but damn it if we settle for a dark one. We deserve more than that!”
So do babies like Livya. I hope her parents don’t tell her anything about this aspect of her past; I’m glad she was adopted by two people who looked at her and saw a toddler vs. a dark, undesirable object.
.
Thanks for leaving this on the News Tab, duax0001.
anna on March 3, 2008 02:41 PM in Identity, Issues, Kids · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Yeah, well. Look at the almighty wisdom of the Sri Lankan government:
Oi, hit "post" too fast! I meant to ask... does the Indian government have similar restrictions? What about other countries? What are adoption numbers pre- and post-tsunami? (I seem to recall that there was a lot of interest in adoption from tsunami-struck countries in the wake of the wave.)
anna, i'm shocked at the anti-indian slant of your post. unlike americans, indians have family values and aren't so materialistic and consumer oriented. indians aren't shallow like americans, who are always on the look-out for their latest bling or leave their parents to rot in nursing homes.
btw, the "skinny baby" thing. i'm wondering if any has noticed trends here. i talked to a tamil guy yesterday who rejects family values and lacks morals and so married a chinese woman. their daughter he notes is very skinny, and his chinese relatives note that that's pretty weird and all the other chinese babies in the family are plump, while and his family the babies are skinny. we just found out that there are metabolic differences between brownz and whites in terms of mitochondrial efficiency, and i wonder if plumpitude or lack thereof might be a side effect?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229112210.htm
3 · razib said
Naive fool! Do you not know that I am a plant of the Government of the Pakistan! Haha, I say. Haha!
on a serious note, stuff like this changes. korea, and later china, "exported" a lot of orphaned (or abandoned) baby girls. but the laws and social mores are shifting and that is now less common (korea is shifting toward girl preference, as japan did a generation ago). but i'm not sure about the skin color and preference for european features. my own exp. with ABD (which is only within the past few years) is that they don't care as much, but it is something that is in the background (e.g., people contrasting themselves with their darker sibling, but much more rarely pointing out how they themselves are the dark one). but perhaps it won't be an issue with the next generation, since the ABD parents aren't don't really talk about it like their parents do, so the implicit bias will go away. the same might happen in india even it is a much more slow going process (unless you contend that there is a hard-wired preference for these sorts of things).
Terrible but reality.
I didn't realise that Punjabis were considered 'better' in India. In Pakistan I think Pukhtoons are considered more valuable b/c they are very light skinned.
In Pakistan I think Pukhtoons are considered more valuable b/c they are very light skinned.
right. in india high-status muslims claim they are pashtun cuz that is more prestigious. if they are very "white looking" they will claim turkic or persian antecedents. a persian is a "black fellow" to a russian, a pashtun is a "black fellow" to a persian, a punjabi is a "black fellow" to a pashtun, a gujarati is a "black fellow" to a punjabi, and a tamil is a "black fellow" to a gujarati. if you read SM just note that some south indians who aren't tamil are at pains to distinguish themselves from 'madrasis.' when parents mentioned that telugu sounded like tamil to their ears at a party where most people were from andhara pradesh they had their heads ripped off. welcome to the brown-great-chain-of-being. at least there are the real kala-folk from africa even if you are are a madrasi....
For the record a cousin once removed has adopted 3 kids - and she's a desi living in India. None of which are chubby, Punjabi or fair-skinned(and two of which are girls) :)
CRAPPY TOI ALERT!!! Not really sure how that sentence got through an editorial staff with an eye and a pulse. And if that unqualified trend IS true, doesn't that say something about the adoptee's currency on foreign shores? If there are consistent trends in sought-after qualities (be they fair skin, dark skin, issues of health), it would seem that there's objectification and tokenisation either way.
So if they want punjabi babies, they would have to be girls only. Cause there many abandoned punjabi baby girls who made the mistake of being born a girl.
i suppose it would make sense to want to adopt a punjabi baby if the parents are punjabi though. it could be good because then they could teach it its own language, customs, etc. but if skin color is the sole basis of wanting a punjabi baby over others, that's not right..
Cause there many abandoned punjabi baby girls who made the mistake of being born a girl.
doctors which malpractice and let such fetuses come to term should have their license revoked!
it could be good because then they could teach it its own language, customs, etc.
i know what you're trying to say. but can we move beyond the idea that people are born with language, customs, etc. in their genes? mebee it's the amerikan in me, but the whole concept seems noxious to me. do muslims in india only adopt "muslim" babies and hindus vice versa?
The myth of a light skin punjabi is overrated.
I live in the Vancouver which now like the 2nd punjab. And least 95% of the punjabi I see here are darker then I'm. So I don't get the deal with punjabi being light.
On the hand I'm very light myself for a punjabi.
The myth of a light skin punjabi is overrated.
the distributions are real. i can post some skin reflectance values later , but there is a NW-SE gradient in the subcontinent. there are many dark punjabis, and many light ones, just as the are many light tamils and dark ones. but the distributions are real.
This makes me appreciate my uncle and aunt in Ahmedabad even more. They adopted two very dark-skinned dalit girls when they were 3 and 4 years old, and they (my cousins!) are now two beautiful ladies--one is studying in England, and the other is in medical school in Mumbai.
i know what you're trying to say. but can we move beyond the idea that people are born with language, customs, etc. in their genes? mebee it's the amerikan in me, but the whole concept seems noxious to me
But these poor desi kids raised in the west by white familes miss out on so much of there customs.
10 · ptr_vivek said
Oh, thank you so much for bringing this up-- like Sugi, I wondered about the rules re: adoption, and if it wasn't a question of such children being fetishized so much as such children being "easier" to adopt for NRIs or non-brownz...
Also, such as. Can't help it. Was inspired by my own current inability to articulate things properly (awful day at work, vat to do).
the distributions are real. i can post some skin reflectance values later , but there is a NW-SE gradient in the subcontinent. there are many dark punjabis, and many light ones, just as the are many light tamils and dark ones. but the distributions are real.
The funny thing is that when I go to California[Fresno to Bay Area], I notice that the punjabi there are more lighter then they are in Vancouver. I guess part of that is my family, but still it seems like they have lighter skin tone.
I agree with vivek, the objectification going the other way is equally sickening. I think the problem is that many from the enlightened classes deem themselves rescuers of the downtrodden third world children.
When I want on my nightmare vacation to the Punjab in 1996. I can recall that people were saying that I was a good catch for some girl. Not only of my Canadian passport, my taste in music and my skin tone. I had no idea how bad the skin tone was until I want there. And all I would here was gora rung[I think that means white skin tone]
Suki,
I think for being someone who claims to be enlightened you sure drop multiple refrences to how you are a light skinned Punjabi.
I have never in my life heard of that sterotype of Punajbi babies. Are there any more sterotypes that I dont know about Punjabi's? However, if Punjabi babies is what you people want then I just slapped a for sale sign on my balls.
I wish changing culture was as easy as taking a class in college, but this is something that will change in the next 100 years and even then it will still be a issue from some. I cant imagine how it is like to be a human being that has grown up in a orpahnage and never have been adopted. I honestly cant blame that person if they are angry at the world and rob people for a living.
Suki,
I think for being someone who claims to be enlightened you sure drop multiple refrences to how you are a light skinned Punjabi.
The reason I bring it up is cause I have seen it make a difference in my life, for being light skined. Also I have a daughter who is more darker then me and people have asked me if I which she was lighter, which I think is stupid.
Why does this not surprise me? There's all kinds of cultural issues at play on both sides. It's hard not to descend into stereotypes, but when you see the same things played out over and over, you begin to realize it really is about the way that people think in general - the messages they are sent and receive, consciously or unconsciously.
First, yeah, Indians are obsessed about skin color like Americans are obsessed with weight. This is reality, and it is thrown in your face everywhere you turn, from the chemist's shop to the hoardings in Gurgaon to Femina magazine. "Dark" is a euphemism for "ugly," even in English. I've heard it used for girls who are i guess "wheatish" but really not pretty at all though NOT dark. I have a friend who, if she gets dark spots on her face, her mother will apply turmeric paste till the yellow stain doesn't come off even with washing. And I hate to say it, but I look around at work and, in my department of about 50 people, there is 1 dark-skinned female and 1 Muslim male (but lots of pretty Punjabis.) Who knows - maybe the dark-skinned people and Muslims just aren't applying for these kinds of jobs.
And the prejudice extends to anyone who's dark-skinned, not just Indians. Never have I seen such overt racism as I have seen in Delhi. It is socially acceptable for even educated people to say things like "well, I might sleep with a white guy, but never an African, that's just disgusting." And there is no condemnation; this is just the way things are, the way people are. Think pre-Civil Rights in the southern US states ... not so much the lynchings, but the thought patterns are similar: Racism is okay, as long as it's to preserve our culture.
And on a more practical note - almost all potential adoptive parents in the US who travel overseas, pay attorneys' fees, etc. have the wherewithal to take care of a child with special needs. Are the potential adoptive parents in India who overlook the special babies as wealthy? Good medical care here is still expensive according to Indian standards. Everyone I know who has had a family member with a chronic illness has told me that they wished they could go to Mumbai/New York/London to get better care for their loved one, but that it was prohibitively expensive.
So... an Indian parent who wants to adopt a perfect, fair baby is certainly no stretch of the imagination.
Second, Americans kind of have a complex when it comes to adopting. They see it as a noble thing to do, something that you do for "the least of these" ... that it is a sacrifice you make that brings great rewards. Look at Madonna, at Angelina, at that family of 14 adopted kids from all over the world that makes the news every couple of years or so. This is typical of the "rooting for the underdog" thought pattern... let's take the kid ***that no one else wants*** and make the best life for them. Is there some guilt complex too? Does adopting a baby from China, India, Malawi somehow abate that sense of guilt they have for living in the richest country in the world?
(non sequitur - do people from Saudi/Dubai/etc. also have a similar guilt complex? But that's a post for another day and probably another website.)
So I see BOTH the Indian parents and American parents acting out of self-interest in some way or another, and can also understand how both sets of parents would justify it to you and insist that it was never about them, which they believe 100 percent. Indian, American, Indian-American, I believe at the core we are really very much the same... we just express that sameness in different ways.
Anyway... I can't get angry at this... I just can't. It makes sense in this culture in India to look for that fair Punjabi kid. It makes sense in America to take that one kid who is left behind.
However, if Punjabi babies is what you people want then I just slapped a for sale sign on my balls.
I don't think any punjabi family would put up a precious baby boy up for adoption.
So there would be no reason to put a sale sign on you balls.
(non sequitur - do people from Saudi/Dubai/etc. also have a similar guilt complex? But that's a post for another day and probably another website.)
No they don't have a guilt complex, unless you count some Sheik's who like to adopt young girls for there harems.
26 · triliana said
What does this anecdote have to do with anything?
What does this anecdote have to do with anything?
Just saying that maybe the skin color thing goes deeper than OMG my daughter will have a hard time marrying. Does it affect who gets what jobs in the workplace? Don't know. And I know that at least in my workplace we try to be inclusive... but maybe there are deeper prejudices.
30 · triliana said
I don't know if you can extrapolate that from your workplace experience. I sure there are high tech offices in the Silicon Valley filled with very, very dark South Indians.
Triliana,
I am not sure if it is necessarily guilty conscious but a desire to save the poor of the third world from themselves. I call it the Oprah complex.
Good thing dark-skinned Annna (ANNA?) was never put for adoption. Flixster (that zany world of foot foto's and puffed up Malayali as-ses) would never be quite the same humorous adventure.
Maya,
I don't think such personal attacks further any discussion. How about you discuss the post for its merits and leave the author out of it.
delurker: i'm in Delhi ... the situation in the US is very unique to the history and politics there. I know that if I were to go to other places in India it would be a different mix too. But for a city with so many kinds of people, I am really surprised that the ethnic makeup of support staff and middle management is not more diverse.
Wait. triliana, are you India? If you are, ignore everything I wrote.
Who knows - maybe the dark-skinned people and Muslims just aren't applying for these kinds of jobs.
In general, Muslims from North India tend to be fairer (not all). According William Darlymple, and even others, Muslims around Delhi area have not so trivial English blood in them from mixing of races in 16th-17th centiry. Read White Mughal for reference. So Muslims in general are not dark skinned. Then Pathans and all with Iranian blood (from really north, present Pakistan, and Afghanistan) are naturally fairer skinned.
Think pre-Civil Rights in the southern US states ... not so much the lynchings, but the thought patterns are similar: Racism is okay, as long as it's to preserve our culture.
There is one race in India. Many religions, but one race. Very tiny percentage are of Iranian origin (Parsis), and very, very tiny percentage of Afircan origin (they existence is an anthroplogical enigma) in India. Power dynamics of India - good, bad or ugly, take your pick - is very different from 1950s-60s America
Oi, hit "post" too fast! I meant to ask... does the Indian government have similar restrictions? What about other countries? What are adoption numbers pre- and post-tsunami? (I seem to recall that there was a lot of interest in adoption from tsunami-struck countries in the wake of the wave.)
This is a very touchy subject, and Indian, and Sri Lankan Government have to walk a very tight rope. While many western parents are genuine, are real, and should be let to be adapted parents. But some are pedophiles, or evangelical front organizations***, and with other agenda (even political) racketeers. Sometimes, easier adaption encourages baby for sale in develping countries. Cases in Sri Lanka, Thailand, and recently in Africa with the French group have been some examples. There are no simple answers. I wish they were. There are no easy way for vetting for adoption.
*** This became an issue immediately after tsunami in Sri Lanka
and for further disambiguation, i should just post under ONE handle ;) goin to bed now... :P
but i'm not sure about the skin color and preference for european features. my own exp. with ABD (which is only within the past few years) is that they don't care as much, but it is something that is in the background (e.g., people contrasting themselves with their darker sibling, but much more rarely pointing out how they themselves are the dark one). but perhaps it won't be an issue with the next generation, since the ABD parents aren't don't really talk about it like their parents do, so the implicit bias will go away. the same might happen in india even it is a much more slow going process (unless you contend that there is a hard-wired preference for these sorts of things).
African Americans have been here for a while and the color thing/european features-hair is still an issue in the African American community.
Light skinned desi women actually are at an disadvantage because dark hair really stands out on the light skin especially on arms etc. which is not very attractive. You are better off being a white woman with golden/light brown hair which does not stand out or a darker skinned desi woman with dark hair which also does not stand out.
P.S. Suki Dillion: Nice coy reference to your lightness ;)
In all my time at SM, I am yet to see somebody let us know that they are dark. Only the light ones always accidently and innocently let it slip that they are light.
On the flip side, there was this story about an American mom who adopted an Indian kid and was taken aback by her own reaction to the baby's darkness.
Why is this inherently wrong? On an absolute scale, abandoned kids in developing countries face a worse fate than abandoned kids in America. What is wrong with adopting from a developing country if you are motivated by helping "the least of them"? (I understand why the notion of the white man's burden is criticized, and a lot depends on how the kids are brought up, but this motivation for choosing a country to adopt from doesn't seem inherently bad).
And I know it's fashionable to criticize Angelina Jolie, but unless she is a bad parent or somehow treats her children as belonging to some kind of Benetton ad, more power to her if she adopts more kids because she can afford it. Personally, I think some desis should adopt Jamie Lynn Spears' or Nicole Ritchie's kid (although I guess it won't be chubby if mom has had anything to do with it).
P.S. Suki Dillion: Nice coy reference to your lightness ;)
In all my time at SM, I am yet to see somebody let us know that they are dark. Only the light ones always accidently and innocently let it slip that they are light.
I guess we will have to wait for the Vancouver SM meetup, to see I'm telling the truth. You can also find my picture on the SM facebook site, as I'm the one of the few that outed myself.
I guess we will have to wait for the Vancouver SM meetup, to see I'm telling the truth. You can also find my picture on the SM facebook site, as I'm the one of the few that outed myself.
i was mocking you for letting us know you are light skinned. so what do you do? my point completely goes over your head and you come back and argue about the fact that you are in fact light skinned!
Light skinned people have it so hard, can't catch a break from society. Of course, I know how that feels.
You were mocking me... really I had no idea.
PAFD,
I think the point is lost on a lot of people, in similar vein a lot of people subtly point to their upper class ancestory.
Light skinned people have it so hard, can't catch a break from society. Of course, I know how that feels.
Haha! That was a gem.
Light skinned people have it so hard, can't catch a break from society.
But there are some advantages that balance things out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Melbourne desi:
Would cream of the crop include cream of wheat-ish?
I forget add my indo-scythian background. Hell yeah I rule.
48 · Rahul said
Oh please, rahul...talk to me when you can't find large enough shoes. The things I have to go thru...
2 · V.V. Ganeshananthan said
guidelines for in-country adoption:
1.1.7 Criteria for Prospective Adoptive Parents:
1. Marital Status, Age and Financial Status with reasonable income to support the child and clear police record should be evident in the Home Study Report.
2. Prospective adoptive parents having composite age of 90 years and less and where neither parent has crossed 45 years can be considered for adoption of Indian children. These provisions may be suitably relaxed in exceptional cases for reasons clearly stated in the Home Study Report. However, in no case should the age of the prospective adoptive parent(s) exceed 55 years.
3. In case of Special Needs children with medical problems, the age limit of adoptive parent(s) may be relaxed by concerned State Government.
4. Single persons who have not crossed the age of 45 years and who fulfill the other criteria can also adopt.
5. The prospective parent(s) should have a regular source of income with a minimum average monthly income of at least Rs.3000/- per month. However, lower income will be considered taking into account other assets and support system i.e. own house etc.
6. All the criteria mentioned above for adoptive parents will also apply to single parents with the additional requirements given below:-
1. Age: Age of the adoptive single parent should be above 30 years and below 45 years.
2. Age Difference: The age difference between the adoptive single parent and adoptive child should be 21 years.
3. Family: The single parent should have additional family support system.
guidlines for inter-country adoption:
* Married couple with 5 years of a stable relationship, age, financial and health status with reasonable income to support the child should be evident in the Home Study Report.
* Prospective adoptive parents having composite age of 90 years or less can adopt infants and young children. These provisions may be suitably relaxed in exceptional cases, such as older children and children with special needs, for reasons clearly stated in the Home Study Report. However, in no case should the age of any one of the prospective adoptive parents exceed 55 years.
* Single persons (never married, widowed, divorced) up to 45 years can also adopt.
* Age difference of the single adoptive parent and child should be 21 years or more.
* A FPAP in no case should be less than 30 years and more than 55 years.
* A second adoption from India will be considered only when the legal adoption of the first child is completed.
* Same sex couples are not eligible to adopt.
club, meet dead horse.
Honestly people, I'm getting sick trying to sift through this crap for a worthwhile comment.
I'm sure someone has already mentioned this but I think it's much too easy to demonize India in this situation. Theres plenty of adorable and lovable American babies who are not being adopted because the demand is for White babies and these babies are African American. I read an article a long time ago about a trend where many German couples were coming to America and adopting African American babies to raise. The article was pretty straightforward but the sarcasm level was pretty high, emphasizing how when American couples search for a baby to rescue from poverty they conveniently ignore their local adoption centers. They would rather have an 'exotic' baby than one that conjures images of crack-addicted mothers. :( Poor babies, I'll take you!
58 · ptr_vivek said
This is one of those staple topics on SM that has to be covered at least once every few months. Others: M.I.A; model minorities; the plight of the turbaned sikh in the west. Not judging the relevance/importance (esp not with MIA!), it.just.is.
19 · A N N A said
fetishized. That's the word I was looking for. thanks
Totally agree that it's infuriating to see the skin colour bias put up there so blatantly. I agree with whoever said that it extends to much more than babies and brides, I've long observed that the upper management in the various MNCs my father and his crowd worked for were invariably light skinned and clean-shaven while the lower management had moustaches and didn't look quite so, well, Western. And I think cute babies are found everywhere.
When it comes to adoption, though, there are several factors at play and not just racism, though that's a part of it. If you believe that adoption is about selflessly taking on whatever child you feel you can help, then it's right to be outraged. However, the "most deserving" cases might then be twelve year olds with health problems. How many of us are truly selfless enough to adopt such a child? Anyone? Many of the most good-hearted and liberal people I know still won't adopt, period, because they want a child that "looks like them." When Americans adopt, they sometimes also worry about a child who will look very different from them or develop racially based resentment at the difference later on in life. With all the studies about the importance of early childhood bonding and nutrition and so on for the child's emotional and intellectual development, people do want babies as young as they can get them. And I'm as guilty as the next person of cooing over a cute baby, and if I went to the adoption agency and saw a cute little one and a less cute little one, who would I be drawn to? (There's also the factor of feeling more drawn to children who look more like us, I believe that's evolved - perhaps Razib can clarify).
All this to say that much as I've always believed in adoption as an ethical option and not a vanity one to get a designer kid, it's quite hard to battle the human desire for a child who will do the parents proud, or one they can feel a bond with, or what have you, and that's what people are often driven by. (I should note that I don't necessarily feel this way but various people I've been close to who are sceptical of my desire to adopt raise these points and I think they should be considered).
P.S. Another factor with desis is that they often try to hide the fact that they've adopted, or adopt from within the family - so a child who looks like them is considered safer because it can "pass."
I forget whether or not this was covered on SM, but a few months ago the Oprah show went to Anand, Gujarat and tracked a courageous (*cough cough*) couple who couldn't conceive and instead rented an outsourced uterus. Make no mistake, this isn't an industry that cropped up for the phoren - it's been going on domestically for a long time, but the way it was presented uncritically on the show was a bit much:
uhh... who's renting out her womb and hiding from her family again? Oh that's right, not you!
SP,
I know you mean well but it will be great if you can follow up your comments based on your anecdotal experience, generalizing something to a billion plus desis is definitely not accurate and there will be multiple posts that may follow debating the accuracy of such generalizations.
On my last trip to India, among the small circle of people I met, two of the families had adoptive children. The first were a very light-skinned Kashmiri couple who had adopted a very dark Tamil boy. The second were a couple who had adopted a dark and also a very unattractive girl child. Neither of the couples distinguished between their better looking natural children and the adopted one. I'd say both couples could be considered progressive, the adoption being one data point among many others.
In general I'd say that as much as Indians (both in India and abroad)fetishize lighter skin, they don't have as much of an issue with dark skin as white people do. Rahul's post and story (#43) is an example of something I myself have observed many many times in the kinds of comments white people make.
Umber_desi, want to maintain people's privacy, but my anecdotal experience is based roughly on a)two neighbour couples who adopted, one desi and one not (darker skinned children, adorable, have fit well into their respective families but quite close in skintone to them); b) an aunt who was adopted and it was kept secret for decades (light skinned, "looked like the family" but still got grief, apparently); c) a desi family friend living overseas who adopted a little girl (about a shade or two darker than her - not a problem as it might have been in desh); d) my ex and my current intended who have both been resistant to my desire to adopt and to hell with what the child looks like; e) a family member who was unable to conceive and had her sister actually have a child for her to adopt rather than looking to outside adoption.
FWIW, the original article trades in anecdotes too, so I'm not about to get into sociologically representative datasets ;) What I'm trying to offer is the reasoning of some of those people who seem rather heartless.
Sorry for scattiness - I'm also thinking of a very good American friend who's off-the-charts progressive but won't adopt because she wants a mini-me, or as she puts it, "a little girl who's like the little girl I was."
SP:
The desire to "pass" is not specific to either desis or the deshes - there was a case in the UK some years back with in-vitro fertilization (not adoption), where a clinic mixed up the eggs and sperm, with the result that a white couple gave birth to black twins. It led to a bit of a sticky situation where the white mother wanted to keep the babies (it being no different genetically from an adoption), but a black couple (apparently the babies' biological parents) wanted custody, except that in that case the white mother would have been classified as a surrogate mother, which wasn't allowed under the law because she was never asked nor did she agree to be a surrogate. Much legal fun was had.
My point is that, as the article states, IVF mixups between the same race are rarely detected or reported - the conclusion being that as long as the children can "pass", it doesn't seem to matter so much, irrespective of the race or ethnicity involved.
SP,
I was not taking issue with your comment but the comments that follow honest observations, sorry if it came any other way.
Upthread Shalu wrote:
That is also a problem. Adopting dark skinned baby should not be seen as superior to any act of adoption.
while the lower management had moustaches
What kind of moustaches did they have?
At the encouragement of Taz -- whose final words to me at the LA meetup were, "Post more often" -- this long-time lurker (2004) is giving it a go. Be gentle, okay?
I'm interested to know about the uniquely Indian aspect of this sad phenomenon. Societal color prejudice on one hand and white orientalism on the other -- there's many examples, in many countries. But I wonder if there's something more going on here...
Is it possible that Indian parents really want just their own little baby Krishna?
Many times when I hear Westerners point at Indian color prejudice, I point out that Indians (er, specifically Hindus here, I guess) are one of the few peoples to have a depiction of God that is dark -- BLACK. I mean, Krishna="Black" -- right?
And yet, of course, color prejudice has been at work in transforming that image of Krishna over the millenia. Just as Western Europeans century by century have transformed Jesus from a (likely) short, dark/olive-skinned Jew into a tall, blue-eyed, blond; so also, today, Krishna is very often depicted as off-white or pale blue.
I guess the crux of my question to you all, is instead of call this specific act of prejudice a case of color=success (as it would be in many parts of the world), wouldn't it be closer to the truth to understand this as a uniquely Indian parent's idea of what a perfect baby should look like -- ie baby Krishna (light-skinned & chubby, and ideally with some buttermilk around the mouth)?
And then, I guess it follows, that if it's the latter, then wouldn't one of the best, non-violent ways to change this behavior over time (maybe generations) be to make a special effort to accurately depict baby Krishna in media and entertainment?
Regards to all,
Zack
(PS Please don't spam me with hate mail)
Thanks for posting Zack. We love our delurkers. :)
re: your comment...I've wondered about that aspect of this issue b/c I was taught that Shiva and Krishna were very dark; I've even heard people point to this as "proof" that they personally harbor no bias against dark skin, I mean, how could they discriminate against the divine?
Years ago, when I first talked to my dad about this, I asked him if S + K were blue because it would be dishonest to show them as "fair", but no one would want to depict a God with dark skin, since it is something considered ugly...if "blue" was almost a creative compromise. He told me to go clean my room.
God bless!
Ha!! That's $2.5 per family per day. I.e. if it's a 3 person family, that could be as low as less than a dollar per person per day. That sucks even by PPP standards. This is the profile of a family that gives a child for adoption, not one that adopts a baby. Stupid GoI.
I guess that can keep the GLBT activists busy for some more time once same sex marriage are no longer a political issue.
re: post #56 on India's domestic adoption rules:
Isn't the 90 years 'age-max' for the prospective parents redundant given the 45-year old per parent 'max'? Or are they getting at something I'm missing?
Why this two person-normative view of the family, rob?
Haha! Good one!
Though to be annoyingly textual, the "neither parent" seems to imply that the statute takes that view as well. ;-)
As the article points out, this is income, and the adoption criteria factors in other support systems and assets. I bet that if the income requirement had been higher, there would have been people railing against discrimination and asking if poor people couldn't provide loving homes.
I knew the lawyer would point that out :)
Shiva isn't blue, right? In fact, isn't one of his names Neelakanta (blue neck) specifically because his neck turned blue when he drank the poison generated in the churning contest (yes, that's what the kids called it those days) between the gods and the demons, in order to save the world?
Where the hell was this trend when I was a chubby, (half) Punjabi kid?
On a side note, if anyone is still interested in adopting me, I'll forward my biodata (with picture, as soon as this 'tan' fades).
*sigh*
As sad as it sounds I don't think color issues are unique to Indians. Asians, Africans all have color heirarchies. I find it amazing that so many Americans are heading to India or China to adopt kids while there are literally 1000s of Black children in the Foster system that are desperate to be adopted. I don't get it. Or wait is it that even white Americans have their own heirarchy??
razib @ 8:
Stop speaking out of your ass, razib. Why the fuck do we have to put up with your/your parents 'all south indian languages sound the same' bullshit? And, why do you automatically assume that Telugus don't want to be called Madarasis becuase they think they are better than the Tamils. It's because we don't want to be all clubbed together under one convenient label by dumbasses like you.
You may pretend to know a lot about a lot, but you don't know shit about this topic, so shut eff up.
The colorism argument is valid but a whole other story. I'm a little surprised that people want Punjabi kids -- isn't the stereotype that we're dumb jocks?
As melbourne desi pointed out, several of us have reveled in our darker complexions :) [including me, a wheatish -- or should I say buckwheatish? -- ladki of Punju-descent] We actually blogged on this a while ago at The Langar Hall :) I thought Shiva was blue because he drank poison and survived? Isn't Kali Ma, well.. kali? [I apologize if these questions are hugely offensive -- I know literally NOTHING about the classic Hindu scriptures and mean no offense in my ignorance]I think "color=success" has a lot to do with it. That said, I guess every culture has its ideals of beauty. The desi one just happens to go for the fair and lovely right now. But just the other day me and my friend had this long bitchfest about our respective sisters and she goes "well she's always been jealous of me. I got the waspy looks you know and she got the dark eyes and hair." So I wouldn't say such feelings are confined to any particular culture.
By the way, I know of one Indian couple who adopted a kid from India. They asked for a 4 year old girl and took the first one they were offered. She was all covered with sores and pock marks when they got her and now 4 years later she's dynamite.
JOAT,
Generalizing here. We're in the process of adopting from the NJ foster-adopt system, and acc. to our case worker, it's because a disproportional number of children of color have (or are perceived to have) behavioral/medical problems due to in-utero drug/partner abuse. It is their disabilities that preclude them from being adopted rather than skin color (alone?).
Also, because of cultural issues--specifically the angry testimony of black children brought up whitewashed in white families--agencies try to match children up on the basis of ethnicity.
It's an extremely flawed system and in the meantime children get shunted from one foster home to another until they forget to hope.
And a quick elucidation: Shiva is supposedly *extremely* fair-skinned--it is his consort Parvati who is dark (kinda like my grandparents :)
If I recall correctly, this was one of Levitt's reasons for not adopting domestic Af-am babies. I am sympathetic to parents who find it difficult to adopt these kids - most parents wouldn't want to go through the emotional difficulty of dealing with their natural child having assorted illness (for example, many parents choose to have their embryos tested for Down's), and it is natural that they elect to avoid this situation when they indeed have the opportunity. Sure, it would be nice if unconditional altruism without accounting for the potential emotional pain was the norm, but I don't think the motive is reprehensible, in and of itself. Sure, there might be some adopters who choose not to adopt black babies because of racism, but there are perfectly non-racial reasons for the choice. And judgments based on maximum-good calculations seem especially problematic when many of these parents adopt Chinese girls, who are disproportionately abandoned thanks to male preference in a one-child-per-family society.
I think Levitt alludes to this reason too, as a factor in choosing not to adopt a black kid. He basically said that black teenagers will often have to make a choice about growing up "black" or "white", and either choice has problematic implications for the family - something Asian kids do not have to go through.
And also,
A) this poster is super dark-skinned
B) was unaware color prejudice growing up. My theory is that in South India, color=success isn't always true. Even our temple idols are black granite :). As far as i know, beauty is judged by features (lakshanam, kala/i) rather than color. Of course, with increasing sanskritization and more permeable north-south interactions, this may have changed...
I am confused as to why national loyalty should play a role in adoption.
There actually have been numerous lawsuits by white prospective parents (in the US) against adoption agencies who would steer them away from/hamper their ability to adopt black children. I think it's gotten easier for such adoptions to happen now, but that probably explains a part of the interest in international adoptions even though there are so many un-adopted US children. Of course, that's only one factor.
88 · maya said
Is Shiva fair-skinned? I though he was fair-skinned because he rubs ashes from the cremation grounds all over himself.
Here's one story about that issue, which includes the following eye-brow raiser:
"Rhetoric around the issue has softened considerably since the National Association of Black Social Workers, in 1972, likened whites adopting black children to 'cultural genocide.' The group removed the genocide reference from its policy statement in 1994, but it still recommends same-race placements."
Well, if adopted kids do better than non-adopted/foster/orphanage kids, then it would be in the national interest (though admittedly not global interest) to prefer/subsidize/incentivize intra-national adoption, as opposed to international adoption, in the interests of minimizing the number of non-adopted kids in the nation.
Yes, I think the highlighted phrase is exactly why I find the preference morally wrong, even if governments try to push such an agenda. Maybe governments should focus on social development and policies that lead to fewer children being abandoned in the first place.
Well, this topic of global justice is very interesting and complex, but without punting completely, let's just say that it's not terribly surprising if you find most countries preferring "we get +2, world gets 0" to "we get 0, world gets +4" in many situations! That's why countries sit back and watch Burma, Darfur, etc., etc., etc. I'm not trying to hide the ball on it, though!!
Agreed, but I am also arguing that it is an incorrect formulation of the problem, especially the false zero-sum choice. There are ways to get to "we +2, world +2", addressing fundamental problems will probably help much more than some adoption policies, although the latter is the kind of emotional dichotomy on which politics turns.
Hey, my example wasn't "zero-sum"!! ;-)
But, yes, I agree that we shouldn't be quick to accept that things can't be positive-sum for all!
Correct, and that wasn't the aspect I intended to highlight, as much as the either-or nature. But I think we're agreed :)
ROFL. It is like how people would advertise that even though they are Brahmin they are not "casteist"..
:-)
I think on looking at the pictures I'm dark like Obama . unlike Kofi Annan .
Talent on the Street
I dont think she is Punjabi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYBvapuC4P4
Actually, one of Parvati's names is Gauri, which, I was told, means "fair," so either both Shiva and Parvati are fair, or Shiva is dark and Parvati is fair... I've seen Shiva depicted both ways.
Of course, you've also got the Amar Chitra Katha depiction, which makes Shiva this extremely interesting purple color.
Even in the Mahabharata, some of the most beautiful/handsome people in the story had dark skin... You've got Krishna, Arjuna (despite the meaning of his name, he is usually described as having a dusky complexion), and Draupadi...
Let's see if this works--p 292 ff., Doniger reviews some Indian myths on Shiva's skin color:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KfA9ByNVjZ8C&printsec=frontcover
Read the link
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/punjabi.htm