http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/12/madonna-mercy-malawi

What has happened with Madonna adopting a second child against their family’s wishes is very disturbing. Angelina Jolie’s oldest daughter also was adopted in a disturbing manner, with the grandmother against the adoption.

Mercy’s father is a very young man, holds a job, and his story is very sad. Governments of these countries are pressured by these rich westeners who in turn pressure these childrens families. Mercy’s grandmother actually delivered Mercy. She has emphatically and repeatedly stated she does not want her granddaughter, whom she ushered into this world and whose daughter she watched die to have her, taken from her country.

Just because a person is struggling to survive does not mean they do not love their offspring. There are different understandings, coping mechanisms and means of bonding and feeling cared for in poverty stricken counries where the children are raised in orphanages. In war torn and impoverished countries children often are sent to orphanages so they can simply eat, however they do not lose connection with their families nor identity. It is horrible to see truly desperate peoples familial bonds broken over and over again because westerners who want their babies have enough money to break them. Madonna set up a visit between David and his father but the fact stands that steamrolling over a povety sricken family’s wishes is not right. These people love their children, or childrens children, too, but can’t stand up to such wealth and power of their governments pressuring them not to make scenes and then guilting them that the child will be better off. They have little to no rescource or recourse to fight or plead their case.

If celebrities bond with babies that have family, better to send the family/baby a monthly stipend so the child can have education, and support the family with a means to travel to see the child and feed and provide for the child. Breaking up families is not right and not good for the country, international relations, the people of the country nor the children themselves.

“In terms of Westerners sweeping in an “doing good”, since they/we are responsible for the impoverishment of the third world it is our duty to mitigate some of the damage that we have done in whatever way we can without enforcing harmful cultural norms.”

I agree! BUT I’m not sure a popstar giving financial aid to a single family accomplishes this goal–especially if she just takes it upon herself to figure out how and what to give. I’m saying that this may do more/other damage that we cannot–as cultural outsiders–foresee or appreciate AND that the money–if the transaction was not handled in a culturally appropriate way–might not go to Mercy’s care. I’m all for supporting the child remaining with her family of origin–I’m just not sure what the best way of going about that is.

As to your other comment:
“Madonna is interested in collecting children like prada purses not in doing good.”
I actually think that Madonna IS interested in doing good, but she has a very confused/screwed up notion of what that means. There’s some analysis of that and some suggestions of what might be useful here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111200943.html?
I’ve also written about this article here: http://nobody-asked-you.blogspot.com/2009/04/in-all-hubbub-and-bluster-swirling.html

In terms of Westerners sweeping in an “doing good”, since they/we are responsible for the impoverishment of the third world it is our duty to mitigate some of the damage that we have done in whatever way we can without enforcing harmful cultural norms.

As for this “If Madonna’s interests were truly not predatory, she could provide Mercy’s family with more than enough financial aid for them to raise her with advantages,”–I’d say that it’s not that simple. If only it were. Of course Madonna could provide Mercy’s family with more than enough money to live well. But what would be the consequences? An outsider swooping in with lots of money for a single family in an impoverished area is also problematic, and also has a bit of the Western Savior stuff to it that gives me the willies. But beyond that, what would be the social consequences for the family? Would everyone around them be jealous? Would they become targets of thieves? Of corrupt politicans? I’m all for the Oprah-like intervention that helps a whole community but I think this sponsor-a-family idea is a bit naive, and has consequences we can’t know.

And I agree that she should have gone the Oprah route.

There are a number of children in orphanages without relatives who are living or without relatives who care about them. Full disclosure: my parents adopted two such children.