10/11/06 - 12:04:38 pm
Categories:
Africa
Apparently Madonna has adopted a one year old boy from Malawi. A BBC article quotes the boy's father.
I have been in homes where one parent remains, or at least some family member is close, but cannot care for the child. Orphan in the African sense does not necessarily mean parentless, but often the family cannot care provide the care they need because of poverty issues or alcohol related issues (which typically leads to more poverty).
So did Madonna do right? I applaud her for wanting to adopt and to bring greater awareness to the suffering of Africa. Banda, the child's family name is a name commonly found in Zambia as well, and has positive tones. I am excited that a child in need has found some need.
But should he have gone away from his father? Maybe Madonna should have helped the boy's family to support him. Adopt a family rather than a child. Provide influence to get the father a solid job and find adequate ways to fulfill the family's need. Sure the boy will probably get a top-notch education in the states. He may be subject to the endemic of American child obesity. He'll likely get protein galore and allow for positive physical development.
But if we take children from their natural parents, we not only give an example to the parents that it is ok to give up your child, to take to drink, because Americans will take them, but we also add to the brain drain. I am all for adopting children from Africa. But in this situation, might it have been better to have adopted the whole family and attempted their entire poverty reduction?
What do you think?