Madonna and (black) child: Why all the fuss?

Last week, in Plane crash sends New York (and all of America) into 9/11 panic mode…, I dismissed media coverage of this African-adoption story as just idle-minded reporting on:

…the “breaking news” of Madonna following the new celebrity fashion of adopting African babies the way others adopt exotic pets.

Since then, however, Madonna’s adoption of this black child (David Banda) has turned into an international (political, cultural, and racial) morality tale. Perhaps all you need to know is that his mother died soon after giving birth, two brothers died of malaria,  and his  father put him in an orphanage because he could not afford to care for him.

Listening to her morally outraged critics, you’d think Madonna is the first rich white American to pluck a poor black child out of poverty and drop it in the lap of luxury. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, I remember well the criticism that was hurled at other Americans many years ago who went shopping for babies in poor countries. Except that the criticism back then did not condemn the transaction itself. Instead, it merely questioned why these whites were always shopping in Eastern Europe (and Asia); but never in Africa!

Never mind, that it was as politically, culturally and racially untenable for whites to adopt black babies back then as it is today. This because, for some god forsaken reason, many black activists (and the social workers responsible for finding adoptive parents for unwanted black American children) would rather see those children shuttled from one unloving foster home to another before allowing white people to adopt them – even if it’s to care for them in privileged homes like Madonna’s.

Frankly, it behooves Madonna’s critics – especially black Americans – to atone for their collective sin of abandoning so many black American children to foster care, to say nothing of showing absolutely no interest in the welfare of millions of abandoned babies in Africa, before casting stones at her.

That said, the details surrounding Madonna’s adoption of David from Malawi give one the impression that it’s just the whimsical gesture of a rich white girl who believes her money can satisfy her maternal instincts as readily as it can her material desires. Indeed, to her mind, donating millions to a poor African village for the right to pick the best from its litter of welfare babies might seem not only a reasonable entitlement but also a moral deed.

Truth be told, however, the more I thought about this adoption, the more I questioned my visceral objection to it. And I soon realized that my outrage stemmed from a moral (and perhaps cultural) arrogance that made me no less whimsical in my regard for David’s welfare than Madonna appeared to be. Because it is undeniable that, by adopting him, Madonna will do more for him, his village, and his entire country than the whole bunch of her sanctimonious critics combined.

Moreover, what African parent (like David’s) – so unable to care for his own child that he had to relinquish custody to an orphanage – would not consider it a godsend for a rich white women to choose his child for a life of unimaginable privilege?

Of course, I sympathise with those who argue that, if Madonna made such a “connection” with this child, the truly caring thing would have been for her to have provided the means for his father to care for him; that is, instead of taking David even further away. Indeed, it does seem a bit self-indulgent and heartless under these circumstances to take a child who has a parent, when “over one million orphans” were available to be adopted. But this does not vitiate the greater good this adoption will bring. Meanwhile, it’s for Madonna to reconcile her act of God with her conscience and her Maker.

Alas, from my enlightened perspective, all of the haranguing about Madonna using her money and power to gain special favors seems utterly fatuous. After all, she hardly pioneered this antic goodwill: this dubious honor goes to a lesser known celebrity named Mia Farrow. It was popularized, however, by Angelina Jolie who I felt compelled to criticise, here, not because she adopted poor Cambodian and Ethiopian babies. Instead, I did so because she commandeered the national security apparatus of Namibia (for a paltry donation of $400,000) only to fly-in an American obstetrician team to give birth to her own child.

Therefore, despite all the furore, Madonna’s will be done. And I suspect this is with the full blessings of the Malawian government, which granted her (a celebrity) exemption from the onerous 18-month residency requirement for adopting a Malawian child; notwithstanding that Madonna seems to think she was accorded no special favors:

After learning that there were over one million orphans in Malawi, it was my wish to open up our home and help one child escape an extreme life of hardship, poverty and in many cases death….

….[We] have gone about the adoption procedure according to the law like anyone else who adopts a child. Reports to the contrary are totally inaccurate

[Open Letter by Madonna Ritchie October 17, 2006 London, England]

NOTE: I hope the irony, if not outright absurdity, of putting Madonna on an 18-month probation and sending welfare workers to her various mansions to ensure that they’re a suitable places in which to raise David is not lost on the Malawian government.

Because, for all intents and purposes, no one doubts the boy is now hers. But just imagine the lobbying going on in Malawi to be assigned as Madonna’s probation supervisor.

Madonna African adoption