Are MJ's white children facing cultural genocide

[boxerdudeuk]

using michael jackson's family as a lightning rod for normalcy isn't exactly a great idea to begin with.

i think being with michael jackson's mom and his siblings are probably the best place for them.

 

[G-Lexington]

You sure seem to have a lot to say about them coloreds.

Lex

 

[G-Lexington]

I can start threads and point out stupid/questionable things that whites, gays, and bears have done until the cows come home. And hide behind the "Hey, I'm just presenting the facts" argument as well.

Lex

 

[metta]

Growing up in a multiracial family, I just wanna say

...hogwash!


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUag7tnYI0[/ame]

 

[Lukeee]

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I think the loss of their father is going to have a greater effect on them that living with a black person.

Children who don't have families just want a home. Whether that home has black, white or purple people in it, they probably won't be bothered.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

They probably have more to suffer from that travesty of a family than the skincolor of its inhabitants.

 

[metta]

I dont think Pitt/Jolie kids will face cultural genocide


*Moderator Edit : photo of Pitt/Jolie's children removed*

I love that photo!

 

[Alpha1851]

Actually it is a question, the National Association of Black Social Workers interjected color into the question in '72.

Sure, but let's be also note the historical events and societal attitudes of that era. I believe Brown v. Brd of edu. was ruled on in 1954. Even after the SCOTUS made segregation illegal, many southern schools still refused to implement the law. It took years to fully integrate the public school system and at times, it could only be done through police force. The media depicted children being beaten by angry white parents. People getting shot and stabbed, all b/c the white parents did not want their children to mix w/ black children.

Then, I believe the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Again, it took years to fully implement this law and many folks drug their feet kicking and screaming about it. It's not like non-whites were considered equal to white people overnight. Not in the eyes of many citizens.

Even after all of this, I believe George Wallace (Gov. of Alabama) continued to advocate support of segregation and did not change his ways until around 1970.

So yes, I can imagine that generation of African American's being concerned when a white family adopts a black child (although it was very rare then, and is still rare today). Racial tensions were high then.

 

[Alpha1851]

I searched for a retraction from the National Association of Black Social Workers or a change of view from them, but have yet to find one. Still looking...

Maybe it's to late for them. Maybe the damage was already done and their not capable of healing, forgiving, and forgetting. After all, the same is true for every generation. Our culture changes and the younger folks seem to roll w/ the changes, yet some of the older folks dig their heels in and refuse to move forward or are mentally unable to move forward. Additionally, it's not like their aren't any white people who still harbor hatred and prejudice. And are quite vocal about it.

It's somewhat similar to Christians and some members of theLGBT community. It doesn't matter how many Christians attempt to heal that rift, the damage has already been done. Some people are unable to overcome the mental anguish they endured at the hands of another. And, just like there are plenty of white folks who still feel superior to all other races, there are plenty of Christians who feel superior to non-heteros.

By the way, why exactly did you pick the white/black issue in regards to adoption instead of the gay/straight issue? There are plenty of people who do not believe a child should be raised by gay parents and interestingly, there are some gay couples who request to adopt a gay child.

 

[Apollo]

The childrens live in nany is black, and she sees them pretty much as much as MJ did. Not to mention, MJ was surrounded by black people all the time, this really shouldn't be an issue.

And is MJ's mom still living with the dad? Cause if she is, those kids should be kept away from that leech.

 

[polobro25]

This is topical (MJ, his kids & Jackson clan), as if you didnt know

yeah... but BearDaddy, your initial topic / guiding question for this thread doesn't relate to the research that you found from the NY times article (which was written over 15 years ago, btw) nor the info from the NABSW. So I'm confused. Both the article that you used to initiate the thread and the NABSW website relate to trans-cultural adoption of black children by white families = cultural genocide, not the reverse.

So in short, to answer your question, NO. MJ's adopted (multicultural) children are not facing cultural genocide by being adopted into a family to which they have already belong for their entire lives. It doesn't sound possible.

Otherwise, I get it, I feel that your aim is to be provocative by creating controversial posts, etc. but could you make sure your background info on topical subjects is accurate and up to date so that the forum can have an honest discussion??

 

[Alpha1851]

This is topical (MJ, his kids & Jackson clan), as if you didnt know

Ah, I thought the broad discussion was about whether a child looses their cultural identity when they are adopted by someone who isn't of that culture. And whether there could somehow be enough of these adoptions to wipe an entire culture off the face of the earth. And of course, this isn't just a black/white issue, it pertains to every individual distinction possible. I personally brought up the gay adoption issue b/c it's more modern. Same type of analysis though.

But fair enough, I see you wish to narrow it down. Now, I already provided my take on the issue and the citation you provided. It's your turn.

 

[polobro25]

That brings up another interesting topic... The equability of Double-Standards.

The SCOTUS sorta ruled on that today.

errrr BearDaddy, not sure I follow.. please stay on topic.

 

[polobro25]

Yeah... cultural genocide

polobro25 brought up an interesting point. Maybe the National Association of Black Social Workers believe it ONLY applies to black children going into white homes. I was thinking, maybe wrongly, the NABSW would think the same the other way around.

Yup, the NABSW relates solely towards the advocacy of children of african heritage in the US in regards to adoption.

 

[Telstra]

baiting title again like ObamaCo ....................

 

[BabiGayPimp]

BearDaddy, you really have to come up with something better than inflamatory statements made nearly forty years ago by activist organizations in the heat of a pitched civil rights battle. Radicalism and militancy were the norm in certain circles. Of course they'll never take it back, but I suspect they've moved on since then.

 

[polobro25]

Do you believe their position/stance is correct here?

Here as in relationship to MJ's children?? But I've already explained why it doesn't relate to the situation...

I hope the thread won't be closed, it's interesting.

 

[Alpha1851]

Yeah... cultural genocide

polobro25 brought up an interesting point. Maybe the National Association of Black Social Workers believe it ONLY applies to black children going into white homes. I was thinking, maybe wrongly, the NABSW would think the same the other way around.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions in this thread. First, you assumed that the NABSW still supports their assertions made in 1972. And although you point out that you are unable to locate a retraction from them, the other side is that if the NABSW still maintained their idea, they'd continue to research it and to produce new information backing up their original claim. In other words, the lack of current info really doesn't support either assumption.

Second, you assume that the org. does not believe that white children, when adopted by black families (or any non-white family) will loose their cultural as well. When you are unsure of a persons or organizations stance, it's really better to not go out on a limb by using your assumption. Opens you up for attack later.

However, let's assume that the NABSW is only concerned w/ maintaining the cultural of African Americans and only researched the issues surrounding adoptions of black children by white families. Well, so what? Undoubtedly, the NABSW is concerned w/ promoting, researching, lobbying, and discussing the issues surrounding black folks. And that's okay. Hey, do you think that GLSEN is equally concerned w/ heteros as they are homos? Yeah, they factor us in b/c we effect them, but that's it. Do you think that the NCFM is concerned w/ women's rights? Nope, that's not why they were created. That org. looks out for men and boys in terms of sex discrimination (least you feel excluded).

There's a group out there for each of us.

 

[wastingmymind]

Ooh, something that happened in 1972 is still relevant today. What are you gonna complain about next, that coloured dictator Idi Amin?

Get over it, old man.

 

[polobro25]

I saw that answer of yours But, no. Do you agree with their 'narrow' statement which you pointed out.

I disagree that they have a 'narrow' statement. This org. potentially, and based on their mission, seeks to aid millions of individuals, and as Alpha just pointed out, there are org.'s promoting all sorts of interests for different groups and individuals.

Anyway, why do you want to know whether I agree with their statement??