Madonna to Adopt a baby | Page 12 | the Fashion Spot

Madonna to Adopt a baby

thoughtful op-ed piece from the houston chronicle:

Oct. 28, 2006, 7:44PM
MADONNA AND CHILD
Stop making truth an orphan
Media should track the needs of children instead of celebrities

By JOHN C. SMITH

For the past few weeks I have been deeply saddened every time I turn on the television news, or open up a magazine or newspaper. The media's coverage of Madonna's adoption of a Malawi boy leaves much to be desired, even though the story has been covered from the moment she set foot on African soil.

First it was speculation about why she was in Malawi. Then, when she confirmed her interest in adopting the boy, David Banda, the media attacked her motives, tracking every step along the way with bright-light headlines: "Madonna's Orphan Leaves Malawi," "Father of Madonna Orphan has Second Thoughts."

The media seem to play every angle they can, citing examples of past behavior that make Madonna unfit to be a mother, despite the two healthy children she already is responsible for.

There are spreads in the most widely circulated magazines displaying street photos of a number of celebrities with their adopted baby; Angelina and Brad, Meg Ryan and Nicole Kidman were mentioned to name a few. Every angle is covered except the most pressing one; that of the orphans themselves.
Not many articles mention Madonna's charity, "Raising Malawi," the nonprofit that helps children who were orphaned by AIDS. I read no statistics displaying the number of orphans in the world, or the number of Americans (not just celebrities) partaking in international adoptions. There is no discussion of any alternatives to international adoption.

The media have not researched the different methods of aiding orphans overseas, or the many American organizations that spend every day funding projects, drafting plans and raising money for children who are born into nothing.

Instead of criticizing Madonna for her choice, members of the media should focus their energy on telling the stories of the abandoned and orphaned children throughout the world who haven't been adopted and are still living in orphanages.

There are thousands of orphaned and uncared-for children all over the world; in Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru as well as Africa. Members of the media should be talking about this tragedy instead of the drama and heartbreak of Madonna's adoption of one child.

In recent years, international adoption by celebrities has called attention to this serious problem. Whole generations are growing up without parents, or face a home environment that is unable to sustain them in a healthy way, and are in desperate need of adult guidance. However, international adoption is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way of helping these children.

Funding and supporting orphanages that will keep the children in their home countries, near their remaining family and surrounded by their culture, is a great way to ensure the children grow and develop into healthy, contributing members of society.

By providing health care, education, clothing and food for these children we are giving them a foundation through which they can prosper and give back to their communities.
Members of the media ought not to be chastising celebrities and gossiping about personal choices; but discussing serious world disasters and strife such as the orphan epidemic.

I hope that as Madonna completes her process of adopting this baby, she continues to support her "Raising Malawi" projects and orphanage facilities around the world, thereby giving to the children she didn't take home a chance as well.

Instead of exploiting this problem one celebrity adoption at a time, I challenge the media to address it one country at a time, highlighting these orphanages where children work every day to change their position in life and become assets to their communities, while still remaining true to their cultures and cultivating diverse views and understanding.

By spreading awareness of these domestic facilities, we can secure safe environments where children can flourish in their domestic culture. America can make a difference in countries much different then our own, without the vulgarity or misuse of power displayed by the media these past few weeks.
Smith is interim CEO and president of Friends of the Orphans.

I don't agree with all of it, and I still like picking on Madonna, but a necessary dialogue is starting to take place regarding the topic of international adoption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, I've actually chosen the topic of international adoption for a research paper on trends. Reading the NYT on the increase of the child slave trade in African, Asian, and Latin nations makes me realize there's not much a poor parent can do in these places to guarantee a future for their children. Not that we should all go ahead and clean out their coffers of all their children, but until we find a way to help these countries sustainably develop--these horrible things will continue happening.

Really sitting down and doing the research has made me realize I need to put aside any notions of cultural loss or degradation resulting from international adoption--these countries are losing their children to more horrible things than well-meaning Westerners.

I also realize I need to put aside any discomfort I have with Kabbalah. Its world view may be different than mine, but then again so is native animism--you need to believe in the basic good intent of the human heart regardless of their particular notions of the features of the Godhead. Folks gotta eat!

Madonna is doing as she sees fit, and if I had the family structure and income to adopt a child--any child--I certainly would! I hope my and all our futures pan out well enough for this to occur. I have chosen to see it as a noble thing--perhaps a bit misguided in the details--but where else to start?

Thanks to everyone who's participated in this thread. It has really changed my mind---not something that happens alot! I wish the best for Madonna and her family and hope that others can come around to understanding the magnitude of suffering we all can give a hand to alleviate.:flower::heart:

And I will still make fun of Madonna!
 
mundodabolsa said:
I've been trying really hard not to post in this thread anymore as I disagree really strongly with most things that are said, however I couldn't let this pass...

I don't understand why it's "bad" for Madonna to put a kabbalah bracelet on David. Most Catholic parents I know give their daughters crosses or medals to wear long before the child can make a choice about their religion. Regardless of whether you believe in what kabbalah teaches, isn't it Madonna's role as his parent to teach him about her spiritual beliefs? Just because she's Madonna it contributes to her using him as an accessory?

I don't think it's bad to put a Kabbalah bracelet on David. Same goes for
Christians who wear a cross. For me, most religion teaches compassion,
love and brotherhood. Same with Madonna and her Kabbalah. I rather teach
a child about compassion, peace, love and brotherhood, then saying "my
god is better than your god"....For me that's all that matters....
 
I just saw her on the Today show and she told them she offered David's dad financial help so he and David could go back to the village but he declined.
 
Megastars Out to Save the World: Those Halos Can Tarnish in an Instant


For the star who has everything — money, fame, awards — the latest must-have accessory seems to be a saintly halo as images are burnished by high-profile attempts to save the world. Trying to turn themselves into glam versions of Mother Teresa has its perils, though. George Clooney addressed the United Nations Security Council without derision, lecturing its members about their responsibilities in Darfur, but Madonna had to do a whole damage-control tour after adopting a baby boy from Malawi.
Skip to next paragraph
James1190.jpg
When Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in tribal makeup for an AIDS-charity print ad, jokes flooded the Web and threatened to eclipse the campaign.

James2190.jpg
Gautam Singh/Associated Press
Adept: Brad Pitt assists a Habitat for Humanity project in India.

James3190.jpg
Gautam Singh/Associated Press
Kate Moss’s makeover for a project to fight AIDS in Africa.





And for every benign image of Brad Pitt hammering nails in India while building Habit for Humanity houses with Jimmy Carter, there’s the risk of a Gwyneth Paltrow debacle. When she appeared in a print ad over the line, “I Am African,” with tribal stripes painted on her English-rose complexion, scathing jokes flooded the Internet and threatened to overshadow the ad’s purpose, to raise money for the AIDS charity Keep a Child Alive. The tightrope that charitable celebrities have to walk reveals how volatile the relationship is between the stars and their public, how easily a credulous audience can turn cynical.
The connection of stardom and charity is almost as old as movies themselves. The silent film idols Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks lent their images to the American Red Cross fund-raising campaign during World War I. Today the Red Cross has a director of celebrity and entertainment outreach, Amnesty International has a flourishing Artists for Amnesty program (both divisions created in the last six years), and many other philanthropic groups have created systems for tapping into the frenzy of celebrities with causes.
Bonnie Abaunza, the director of Artists for Amnesty, said that while celebrities have always been drawn to causes, “they’ve had more of an impact in the last few years.” She continued: “It’s more of a pop culture society, and there has also been a resurgence of social activism. It’s the synergy between the two,” that is behind the growth of celebrity-
focused volunteerism. And, she said, stars create a valuable ripple effect. “When a Mira Sorvino attends a rally and speaks eloquently and passionately against the r*pe of women in Darfur, people read about it in People magazine, they see it on CNN, they want to get involved.”
At the highest reaches, though, celebrity activism goes far beyond participating in rallies or telethons and becomes an integral part of the star’s persona, the ultimate stage of his or her megastardom. In an industry so saturated with image making that a trip to a club can seem like a career choice, it would be naïve to think that spin plays no role in charitable moves, however sincere the star’s motives.
Mr. Clooney has been among the most successful at managing the altruistic side of his persona, partly by adopting a Bono strategy of choosing a specific issue, in Mr. Clooney’s case the genocide in Darfur, and becoming well informed. More originally, though, he has put a self-effacing attitude to good use. He has taken his dad, the journalist Nick Clooney, along on fact-finding trips to Africa. On the day of his speech to the United Nations in September, he and his father appeared on the weighty BBC World News report. When asked if he could change minds on the Security Council by urging them to send peacekeepers to Darfur, George Clooney replied: “My job isn’t really to change their minds. My job is to make sure that cameras and lights follow where I go” in the region, calling attention to the crisis and the United Nations’ responsibility there. It’s hard to find a less messianic or more palatable strategy.
If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were a bit less adept at spin, they could easily be ridiculed for messianic aspirations, with two children adopted from Cambodia and Ethiopia and the famous sojourn in Namibia for Ms. Jolie to give birth there. But they are almost always photographed with one of their children in their arms, walking embodiments of caring parents (however many nannies may be trailing off camera). Last week brought pictures of Ms. Jolie and her son, Maddox, sitting among children in a refugee camp in New Delhi on a day off from shooting her new movie. A constant stream of photographs like that can offset any number of reported scuffles between the Pitt-Jolie bodyguards and the paparazzi.
But Madonna’s nanny was photographed carrying her adopted baby home from the London airport, a terrible public relations move that illustrates how the spin slipped out of Madonna’s control early on. Arriving in New York with her three children for the damage-control tour 12 days later, she carried little David through the airport herself, in a nicely compensating maternal photo. If someone has to proclaim her sincerity on “Oprah” and “Dateline,” though, it may already be too late to recover.
Madonna’s frequent shape-shifting may have made the public skeptical, even though she has consistently inhabited her wife and mother role for years now. More likely, callous though it may sound, by adopting an African baby she seemed to be copycatting the Jolie-Pitts, latching onto a celebrity trend.
Such trendiness is sure to backfire because no one likes to feel played, especially a public enamored of its starry idols. When attempts at altruism are so clumsy they seem like ploys, members of the public feel they’re being treated like idiots.
That may be what happened with the “I Am African” campaign, which initially appeared in a fashion supplement to Condé Nast magazines in September and continues in its magazines this month. The Keep a Child Alive Web site (keepachildalive.org) explains the campaign’s concept more clearly. It was created by Iman, who wanted what she calls “a modern take on African tribal makeup.” Easy for her to say; she’s Somalian. It’s a lot harder for stars like Ms. Paltrow or Elijah Wood to manage without looking at best foolish and at worst like cultural imperialists.
Leigh Blake, the president and founder (with the singer Alicia Keys) of the group, which provides antiretroviral drugs to African families, said: “What we were trying to say is that we all have African DNA. We were trying to spark a discussion about our origins and the importance of paying attention to Africa.” She was shocked at the backlash, she said, yet has no regrets. “We got millions of hits on our Web site even from that negative press,” she said, and many donations followed.
As tone-deaf strategies go, “I Am African” is nothing next to the image of the usually pallid Kate Moss painted black for (Product) Red, a sight most Americans were spared. The photograph appeared on the cover of a special section of the London newspaper The Independent, edited by Giorgio Armani, to benefit (Product) Red. (That’s the project founded by Bono and Bobby Shriver, in which companies like Armani and the Gap create a product line whose proceeds go partly to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS.)
Even in the days of the Black Panthers and radical chic there wasn’t such a ludicrous appropriation of racial identity by the privileged. Ms. Blake of Keep a Child Alive sees what she calls “subterranean racism” in the backlash against her group’s campaign, she said, “as if the media can’t believe these people could possibly care about Africa.” And since the Madonna flap, she has been disturbed by a new trend, of hesitant celebrities wondering, “What’s the point in coming forward if the press just lambastes you?”
But it’s never that simple, and the dangers of stars’ involvement cuts many ways. Ms. Abaunza of Amnesty has had to turn down so many celebrity offers that she is amused at the predictable way some people try to exploit activism to offset bad publicity. She said, “I always anticipate that when a celebrity is arrested for drunk driving or something else, I’ll inevitably get a call the next day.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/arts/13halo.html
 
Miffed Madonna's adoption anger spills over on Jolie and Stefani
London, Nov 10: The backlash over her adoption of a 13-month-old Malawian boy has allegedly made Madonna so upset, that she's even starting to turn on her celebrity friends - Gwen Stefani, Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie.

The Queen of Pop adopted David Banda last month, but instead of being praised for her action, she has received negative criticism ever since, with some critics even accusing her of buying the baby.

And sources claim that Madge's anger over the adoption fiasco have now made her so frustrated that she has started attacking her showbiz compatriots.

A source revealed that Singer Gwen Stefani, 37, who gave birth to her son Kingston in May, sent Madge a present of some outfits from her Lamb fashion range for baby David. But the Hung Up singer instead of 'thanking' her pal, doubted her intentions, linking them with means of gaining publicity.

"She politely thanked Gwen but called her to say she and Guy disagree on the children wearing clothes that blatantly promote people's personal brands. She was touched but wasn't sure if Gwen was secretly trying to get publicity by sending her the gift," The Daily Mail quoted the source, as saying.

Meanwhile, Madonna has also has slammed Angelina Jolie and Nicole Kidman who are UN Goodwill Ambassadors, insisting her decision to adopt a baby has done more good.

"Look, I could have joined the UN and become an ambassador and visited various countries and just kind of showed up and smiled. But that's not getting to the root of the problem. And, by the way, neither is building an orphan care centre and giving people food and medicine. But it's a start. Which is better? That I found out about an issue and instantly wanted to take action, or that it took me years to get my s**t together?" she told Time magazine.

The 48-year-old pop diva also recently called up Jolie and expressed disappointment, saying it isn't fair that she has to suffer accusations when others - such as the Mr and Mrs Smith couple - Pitt and Jolie - are free to live their lives and adopt two babies from overseas without any accusatory glances or comments.

"Madonna just doesn't understand why she's been such a target here. She's not the first celebrity to adopt a baby but no one else is being treated like this. All she wants now is to get on with her life and her new family," said a source.

"Madonna has been quite short lately. Everyone really has to watch their words around her. She's quick to anger and it's got those around her on edge. She's very sensitive to comments or questions about the adoption. It's at the point now where she just wants to live her life in peace," the source added.
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=48767

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love Without Borders

by Andrea Lampos. Scanned from Diablo magazine.
 

Attachments

  • article 1.JPG
    article 1.JPG
    65.1 KB · Views: 4
  • article 2.JPG
    article 2.JPG
    144.3 KB · Views: 8
  • article 3.JPG
    article 3.JPG
    135.6 KB · Views: 5
  • article 4.JPG
    article 4.JPG
    155.8 KB · Views: 3
  • article 5.JPG
    article 5.JPG
    153.3 KB · Views: 2
International Adoption Article Continued

It's a good read, and a welcome break from Madonna bashing!
 

Attachments

  • article 6.JPG
    article 6.JPG
    140.8 KB · Views: 3
  • article 7.JPG
    article 7.JPG
    151.2 KB · Views: 2
  • article 8.JPG
    article 8.JPG
    154.8 KB · Views: 4
the sad and frustrating part is, no matter how many celebrities inform, help with their tax shelter money countries like Dafur, Malawi, Somalia et al will continue its rise to poverty, aids and abandoned-sick children because its own government chose to be so. Until its government stop their political corruption those places will be the same if not worse in the future.

mellowdrama said:
Okay, I've actually chosen the topic of international adoption for a research paper on trends. Reading the NYT on the increase of the child slave trade in African, Asian, and Latin nations makes me realize there's not much a poor parent can do in these places to guarantee a future for their children. Not that we should all go ahead and clean out their coffers of all their children, but until we find a way to help these countries sustainably develop--these horrible things will continue happening.

Really sitting down and doing the research has made me realize I need to put aside any notions of cultural loss or degradation resulting from international adoption--these countries are losing their children to more horrible things than well-meaning Westerners.

I also realize I need to put aside any discomfort I have with Kabbalah. Its world view may be different than mine, but then again so is native animism--you need to believe in the basic good intent of the human heart regardless of their particular notions of the features of the Godhead. Folks gotta eat!

Madonna is doing as she sees fit, and if I had the family structure and income to adopt a child--any child--I certainly would! I hope my and all our futures pan out well enough for this to occur. I have chosen to see it as a noble thing--perhaps a bit misguided in the details--but where else to start?

Thanks to everyone who's participated in this thread. It has really changed my mind---not something that happens alot! I wish the best for Madonna and her family and hope that others can come around to understanding the magnitude of suffering we all can give a hand to alleviate.:flower::heart:

And I will still make fun of Madonna!
 
smartarse said:
the sad and frustrating part is, no matter how many celebrities inform, help with their tax shelter money countries like Dafur, Malawi, Somalia et al will continue its rise to poverty, aids and abandoned-sick children because its own government chose to be so. Until its government stop their political corruption those places will be the same if not worse in the future.
I think that might be part of the reason Madonna chose Malawi to set up her NGO. Malawi has not had civil conflicts like Sudan and Somalia. Conditions are sad and frustrating, but I guess I have to agree with Madonna--in trying to help, you've got to start somewhere. She chose the place where she could have some impact, but I do see that $3 million could go far in the charities of Bay City, Michigan, too. It's just that the Boys & Girls Clubs there aren't facing civil war and religious conversion enforced by death just yet. Just give it awhile, we'll bridge that gap, too, I'm sure.
 
VainJane said:
Megastars Out to Save the World: Those Halos Can Tarnish in an Instant



Skip to next paragraph
James1190.jpg
When Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in tribal makeup for an AIDS-charity print ad, jokes flooded the Web and threatened to eclipse the campaign.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: This ad is a little on the dumb side to me IMHO...More like "I'm chic for Africa".

Funny how all these celebs wanna be Mother Theresa. None of them thought about this 10 years ago, it was more like who's gonna see my movie, how much am I gonna be paid. Now they wanna come out of nowhere trying to save the world in 2006? I can't help but laugh. Please, who's next Paris Hilton? Not buying one minute of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Ad’s lame IMO is it this a joke?, I can't even take it seriously. I am always amazed, that with the sheer dollar amount of aid going to africa, in the hundreds of billions, that so much of it gets lost in a web of bureaucracy and corruption. I told my mum the only way I’m making a donation to a charity is if I can go THERE, put the money in the hands of people who actually need it, and somehow arrange protection so local thugs wouldn’t take it.:innocent:

This is just another exmaple of of Hollywood Star taking up a cause to say “Look at me, look at me! I care about ( A "People of color" b)the homeless C)people on minimum wage, D) people with aids E) gays) I have substance now.”

Whatever...Bite me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In other words..to make it simple..please ignore the above..what took these stars so long? Why are they just now doing it in late 2006?
 
Gypsy_Doll said:
In other words..to make it simple..please ignore the above..what took these stars so long? Why are they just now doing it in late 2006?

Things have gotten much much worse in Africa of late: Darfur, Sudan. Mogadishu, Somalia, the Congo War. Western Aid in the form of G8, IMF, World Bank has, in the minds of many, caused more harm than good. In sub-Saharan countries, AIDS infects up to 1/3 of the population. There is death, poverty, war, and resulting dissolution of the rule of law. Countering this devastation is the Western Free Trade concept, or the North African/Arab 7th century solution of Sharia, Islamic law. I won't argue the merits and defects of either, just noting that when things swing too horribly far one way, they swing horribly far back in the other.

I think the stars are being drafted into this, quite honestly. It's the battle for hearts and minds, remember? No different than Gotta save the bodies if you want the hearts and minds! The souls we can do without...

Stars, with their visibility, remind us millions of "nobodies" that if we'd take even a small percentage of the time, interest, and money they put into these things--a couple million U2 or Madonna fans giving just a dollar to whatever cause certainly can make a difference. I don't know if it's "saving the world", but it's not idly standing by. If it makes them feel better and saves some lives, great. If it prevents a holy war, double-plus good. If it's the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions, well, what else is new under the sun?
 
I think what we need to address is the plague of globalization. These countries could survive, and did survive with their own resources. However once a country, or a person starts trying to achieve a certain 'standard', for example an indicator of a good 'living standard' in America is defined as having 2 T.Vs, a car, a nice house and expensive brand food in the SMEG fridge. In England that translates to having a £20,000 loan from the bank. You translate that over to a country like Africa, as it has been done, and the result is a complete and utter disaster.
 
VainJane said:
Miffed Madonna's adoption anger spills over on Jolie and Stefani


The 48-year-old pop diva also recently called up Jolie and expressed disappointment, saying it isn't fair that she has to suffer accusations when others - such as the Mr and Mrs Smith couple - Pitt and Jolie - are free to live their lives and adopt two babies from overseas without any accusatory glances or comments.



I have to agree...There are many couples who adopt children here in the U.S. who still have parents around. It may not be exactly the same reason as David's father, but even in the U.S. there are parents who are very poor and can't raise their child because they can't meet their financial means. However....most of the time the reasons are that a parent/parents are abusive to their child and or abuse drugs. I may not have children of my own, but I do feel Madonna's frustrations. I do feel she has been treated unfairly....
 
BodhiTree said:
I may not have children of my own, but I do feel Madonna's frustrations. I do feel she has been treated unfairly....

I agree with you; I have to admit that Madonna's getting way more crap than any other celebs have received after adopting kids.

Then again, Madonna is the queen of publicity stunts so I can also understand why she's coming under fire. After basing much of her career on controversial/attention-getting antics, I'm surprised that she's acting surprised that people think she's pulling a publicity stunt.
 
mellowdrama said:
Things have gotten much much worse in Africa of late: Darfur, Sudan. Mogadishu, Somalia, the Congo War. Western Aid in the form of G8, IMF, World Bank has, in the minds of many, caused more harm than good. In sub-Saharan countries, AIDS infects up to 1/3 of the population. There is death, poverty, war, and resulting dissolution of the rule of law. Countering this devastation is the Western Free Trade concept, or the North African/Arab 7th century solution of Sharia, Islamic law. I won't argue the merits and defects of either, just noting that when things swing too horribly far one way, they swing horribly far back in the other.

I think the stars are being drafted into this, quite honestly. It's the battle for hearts and minds, remember? No different than Gotta save the bodies if you want the hearts and minds! The souls we can do without...

Stars, with their visibility, remind us millions of "nobodies" that if we'd take even a small percentage of the time, interest, and money they put into these things--a couple million U2 or Madonna fans giving just a dollar to whatever cause certainly can make a difference. I don't know if it's "saving the world", but it's not idly standing by. If it makes them feel better and saves some lives, great. If it prevents a holy war, double-plus good. If it's the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions, well, what else is new under the sun?

Couldn't agree more.
 
Wonderful site from PBS show P.O.V. from filmmaker and international adoptee Deann Borshay Liem, who was adopted from Korea to the US in the late 1960's. Although she was told she was an orphan, she had clear memories of a mother and sisters. Further research as an adult led Deann to find her birth mother in Korea, who was widowed with five daughters. Deann's mother made a choice forced by poverty and the post war political relations between Korea and the US to give up her child, who was switched with and given another child's name.

The interviews with Deann at this link are great. (Quicktime or Real Player needed). She sounds like a pre-Brit Madonna (the quality and tone of her voice), it's kinda funny.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,421
Messages
15,301,681
Members
89,408
Latest member
hruys
Back
Top