Plan "A"

A response (Part 2) – let’s get more personal

The writer of the facebook comment accused us of cultural genocide:  The deliberate destruction of the culture or heritage of a people. Clearly, that was neither our intent or the result.

Back on November 19th I wrote these words from my guest room at the orphanage:

I am more convinced than ever that this adoption is of God.   The longer I’m here, the more I see that He has created a situation in time (in the Ugandan government) and in the general process here that is just a slip of an opening.   We are squeezing through the crack for these two specific children and are squeezing back out.    It’s a little like a parting of the Red Sea, actually.    Something incomprehensible and unreasonable and yet, it’s happening so that God can rescue His people and get them to the land of His choosing.

Today I still have no doubt whatsoever that Philip and Zachary are in the country and the culture of God’s choosing.   With only 55 children leaving Uganda last year to live in American homes, it makes the reality of their presence here all the more amazing.   But let’s get beyond the statistics and talk about it on a more human level.

Africa is a land of sweeping paradox.   Beautiful landscapes, exotic animals, a rich history and intoxicating music are all part of the African experience.    So is the unavoidable reality of limited educational opportunities, inadequate health care, a skyrocketing culture of AIDS and poverty,  disease-infested water and a host of other ills.  To let the preservation of their culture trump everything else would mean leaving Philip and Zachary to experience all of Uganda…..the beauty and the pain.

Perhaps it’s a matter of looking at the very corporate issue of ‘culture preservation’ from the other side of the coin.

I believe that anyone, if they saw a child lying limp in the street while a giant semi-truck was roaring towards them, would do what he could to shove that child out of harm’s way.     The semi racing towards third-world orphans is devastating.

No one gets to decide what hand you’re dealt.   My boys didn’t ask to be orphaned and only survived that status because they were brought to  Amani Baby Cottage. Many orphans aren’t as lucky.   Some die in trash heaps or are drowned in pit latrines or are left to wither in the tall reeds of a sugar cane field.   Some are lucky enough to be put directly into ‘orphan for life’ group homes.  Older children who are orphaned often live on the streets begging, selling small items, offering simple services or selling themselves to stay alive.    So what can we do to ‘shove a child out of the way’ of an impending catastrophe?

Surely, there are the legitimate macro concerns regarding the protection of a nation’s culture.  And it’s obvious that you need children around to preserve any country’s future.   But look into the eyes of a 2 year old orphan who has no family, who’s health is compromised by malnutrition, disease and neglect, who has no idea how to care for himself and no prospects of an adult to care for him, and suddenly the issue of ‘culture preservation’  drops a lot lower on the list of important things to debate.

When we looked into those eyes, all philosophical arguments paled completely out of view.

As we, personally, recognized Africa’s vast needs and pondered ways to best assist, we could not forget ~ The micro issues that involve real human beings are at least as important as the macro issues that surrounding culture protection.    Protecting the most vulnerable is absolutely necessary – and, with the blessing of the Ugandan government and the careful eye of social services in the US, adoption offers a beautiful and deliberate means to do just that.

A response (Part 1) – the cold, hard facts

Our previous post referenced a quote that I received on facebook not long ago. The writer condemned our adoption calling our actions “horrific” and accusing us of committing cultural genocide in Uganda.

As promised, here’s our take on international adoption and it’s effects on the culture of Uganda. (Part 1)

We are well aware that we have intentionally removed two citizens of Uganda from their country and their culture. Uganda has lost Philip and Zach. And Philip and Zach have lost Uganda. That’s a reality. While we honor and celebrate our sons’ origins in Africa, we live in America and Philip and Zachary will become Americans in every way – including culturally.

Is that bad for Uganda? Does international adoption wound a culture and rob it of it’s rightful citizenry and hope for a future? If children were leaving Uganda by the hundreds of thousands, I would answer, “Yes”.

But that is not the case. The immigration and adoption statistics for 2008 were recently released by the U.S. State Department revealing that last year a total of 2,399 children were adopted into the US from the continent of Africa.   Of those, 55 were Ugandan.  Only fifty five!

In 2005 UNICEF reported the number of orphans in Uganda to be 2.3 MILLION .   55 children out of 2.3 million is a percentage almost infinitesimal in regards to its impact on the overall culture.

With an orphan population as staggering as Uganda’s (roughly the same as the population of America’s 4th largest city ~ Houston Texas) the nation’s infrastructure cannot possibly handle the demands it is faces in orphan care. There are church-run orphan villages , local ministries such as Wototo and ministries from the US such as Our Own Home that are doing a great job in ministering to orphans. There are good men and women working in the social welfare department and good government-run baby homes.  There are Ugandan families that adopt children and keep them in their culture. And there are international families that adopt children and remove them from their culture.  ALL of these efforts combine to make some difference in the lives of these most vulnerable children.

Fifty five internationally adopted children hardly constitute a death-blow to the culture and the future of Uganda.  Those who oppose international adoption because of the cultural damage it does to the birth nation suggest that adoption removes Africa’s brightest and best and, therefore removes the nation’s hope for a future.

While I agree that Philip and Zachary are some of the brightest and best, as orphans in their homeland they were not in a position to ever have a major influence on their culture. They were not in a position to stay alive long enough to do that. The trajectory of an orphan’s life in a third world country isn’t like a Hollywood movie.

Cross cultural adoption is not the only solution for Uganda’s orphans, but it is ONE solution that will, in fact, help to preserve the Uganda by reducing the number of orphans that need help from an already overwhelmed system.

Next post: the reasons supporting cross cultural adoption from a personal point of view.