Yesterday, I voted for Jenny Bowen, the founder of Half the Sky-an organization dedicated to making the lives of children living in orphanages better-to carry the Olympic Torch.

Jenny, an American, lives and works in Beijing. She said she will run with eight Chinese children who are orphans.

On many levels this is a wonderful thing-it raises awareness for the kids who are left behind in China’s orphanages, the publicity could help Half the Sky raise money which could help more children, its a great image of international co-operation and it is great showcase for adoption.

Today, I read some of the comments on the site. There are some people that think Jenny is ‘cheating’. They question how she could have gotten so many votes in a short period of time. Indeed, her votes nearly doubled in less than 24 hours and it appears she is closing in on the leader.

This is a perfect example of the power of the internet-adoption groups-representing thousands of families formed via adoption-all over the world are being rallied to Jenny’s side.

Of course, in many cases the rank and file Chinese citizen is not privvy to groups, blogs and other lightning fast communciation tools. It is easy to see where the idea that Jenny was cheating could come from.

So, is Jenny’s selection really a good thing? I am certainly not as sure as I was yestday. I wonder how we would react if a Chinese citizen had carried the torch in Atlanta or Salt Lake City? I suspect there would be outrage that one of ‘our own’ got supplanted by someone who was not a citizen. Should Jenny win, what impact will it really have on international relations? on adoption?

The Chinese have a long tradition of saving face. How will they handle the international public scrutiny on their adoption policies. Not only will the world comment on what happens to China’s children, but the Chinese themselves will be made aware of just how many kids are leaving the country or languishing in orphanages. Much of this information has been kept from rank and file Chinese citizens.

So, like most complex questions there are positives and negatives. I know which way I am leaning. Maybe the eight kids representing all the children in the orphanages should carry the torch…

What do you think?

With Respect,
Deb

Please take a minute and vote for Jenny Bowan to carry the Olympic Torch in Beijing. Jenny is the founder of the Half the Sky Foundation which is dedicated to the children in China that are still in orphanages. The program has done some incredible things-increased the number of foster parents, improved orphanage conditions dramatically, provided education and medical care. In short, this organization is performing miracles. We would love to see Jenny represent the orphans of China-usually girls. They are a group that is often forgotten. Please vote for Jenny today-and pass this onto anyone you think might be interested.

Vote here:http://pub1.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/torch/members.shtml?mid=212

Good Monday morning and welcome to October. October is a busy month-the Supreme Court begins its sessions today, harvest festivals begin popping up all over the country,kids gear up for Halloween-second only to Christmas in terms of retail sales.
Beijing is choosing their Olympic torch bearer and people all over the world put their own unique spin on the transition from summer to autumn.

We celebrated Asian Mid-Autumn festival last night-albeit a few days late-we ate moon cakes (we liked the winter melon the best), the kids made dumplings and we ate delicious, homemade and authentic Chinese food. Seated at our table were three Shanghai natives, one girl who’s mom is Chinese and her father white, one woman born in Uruguay, a couple of plain old Americans of European ancestry and a girl who joined her family via adoption from China.

It was quite exciting-people speaking in Chinese and Spanish, the kids trying to communicate with the the non-English speaking group, the English-speaking rolling Chinese words around on their tongues, and the non-English speakers doing the same with English. Of course, there was plenty of Spanish thrown in to the mix.

As I was shooed out of my kitchen when the Shanghaiense women took over, I was able to sit back and watch the show. Not once did I hear the kids-or adults-become frustrated by the difficulty in communication. Not once did I hear anything about the ‘unusual food’. The kids-and adults-listened in awe as they were told the story of the Mid-Autumn festival communicated in Chinese, Spanish, English, and pantomime.

Of course, there were some goofs-we forgot to treat the older women with the respect they deserved. We should have seated them at the head of the table-but everyone sat down willy-nilly. But in general, we managed the evening without international incidents.

We were lucky to truly bring authentic experiences to our children. It broadened their horizons and gave them insight into a distinctly different cultural experience.

With more of these kinds of experiences the kids (and their adults) will truly be able to understand and respect culture, choices and ‘abilities’. We are five kids closer to a bully-free future!

I came across this book as I was looking for ways to show my daughter that there were other kids-maybe not exactly like her-dealing with issues that were difficult for them. While I do believe that we are lucky-we are healthy, have a roof over our heads and lots of love-I also believe that we have the right to ruminate on our problems-even if there are others in the world in more dire straigths. I believe that we have the right to think our problems are as important, albeit only to us, as anyone else’s problems.

That’s why I liked this book. The short stories and poems collected in this are arranged in sections that focus on particular problems and crises children may face that isolate them from “normal” peers. Themes include sickness, disability, hospitalization, loss, conflict, developmental change, and loneliness.

The stories are simple, most 2-3 pages followed by a few questions to talk about. Characters featured in the stories represent a range of ethnicities and socio-economic situations.

If you want to help your children either cope with some of these issues-or help them walk in another child’s shoes for a moment, then this is the book for you.

It isn’t rocket science and won’t ‘fix’ problems that kids face, but it is a beginning and you and your child can explore the issues together in ’safety’ because the problems aren’t happening to your child.

So, enjoy this week’s selection.

With respect,
Deb

Did our notion of free speech go out the window when Columbia University President, Lee Bollinger introduced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “a petty and cruel dictator.” Granted, Ahmadinejad did say some flamboyant and controversial things-like questioning the Holocaust’s impact on Palestine and claiming that there are no homosexuals in Iran-which reminds me of an equally ridicules statement by Bill Clinton claiming there were no gays in the military-but that is another story!

At any rate, I am not supporting Ahmadinejad or Iran in any shape or form, but I am questioning the wisdom of Lee Bollinger’s introduction-which if it doesn’t undermine our sense of free speech, it certainly seems like it can be selective use of free speech to me.

And while I don’t condone the Iranian president, I also don’t appreciate Lee Bollinger playing fast and loose with one of the most important tenets of the Bill of Rights.

Here’s why: it is clear that most American don’t like the things that the Iranian President said and don’t like the schemes that they suspect the Iranian people are concocting even as we speak-and that is OK. I am totally concerned with what is going on in the Middle East-and in Asia-and any other place where nuclear weapons are a real threat.

Can we separate what the Iranian government and people are “doing” from who the Iranian people “are”.

We need to be able to separate deeds from the people who are doing them or talking about doing them…..just like we do with our kids. You probably always like your kids-although this might be tested at times, but you probably don’t like the things that theydo. You might not like what George Bush is doing
in his role as President, but unless you know him, you can’t determine if you “like” him.

To put it another way, don’t say “I don’t like George Bush”. Say instead, “I don’t like anything that George Bush is doing in the Middle East.” You have the right to say what you want(remember Freedom of Speech) but you need to be mindful of the consequences especially when it comes to our kids forming points of view on people.

You may be tempted to shrug this off as just semantics-but words can be weapons, too.

Yesterday, we defined bias, prejudice and discrimination. Today, we need to think about the consequences of our biases and prejudices about Iran and its people and the actions that it might lead us to take. More importantly, we need to be mindful of how our children will interpret our thoughts and actions.

Will they assume that all Iranian people are “bad”. Do you want them to make decisions about people based on the actions of one person. How do you square biases and prejudices driven by the Iranian president with the family from Iran that just moved in to the neighborhood.

Equally as important is if you want your children to be judged by the prejudices spewed from the Iranian president. Do you want you new Iranian neighbors to make the assumption that your family-like all Americans-are fatally flawed?

Bias, prejudice and discrimination is a two way street, but we do have the opportunity to evaluate people on a ‘one-off’ basis by they kind of people they are, by the things that they do-and not just by what they say. And I would venture to guess that we want our children judged by their own merit, not by some stereotypical measures that other ascribe to all Americans.

Person by person and community by community, we need to look beyond the rhetoric-we don’t have to agree with, like or respect the rhetoric, but we do need to respect a person’s right to their own views…..and decide if we want them in our circles by how they act on their views.

With respect,
Deb

I was tooling around the Internet yesterday and came across a statement that biases were based in facts while prejudice was not based on facts. That struck me as odd, so I decided to look around a bit more. I wanted other opinions on the differences between bias and prejudice.

I found these definitions from Southern Mississippi University the most succinct and informative-and considering their location in the Deep South, I assumed that they were pretty familiar with bias, prejudice and its consequences.

So here goes:

Bias

There are many definitions for the word “bias”. In human relationships, the most important of these connects bias with prejudice.Bias implies unfair judgment based on these arbitrary human characteristics. It’s also something we all do, whether through a systematic like or dislike of certain characteristics, or simply through lack of familiarity with the world of human difference.

Prejudice

Prejudice is a feeling we have about one another and our human characteristics: age, facial features, hair texture, body size and shape, gender, skin color, nationality, language, religious values, cultural values, sexual orientation … the list is endless!

Discrimination

When people act on their biased feelings — whether intentionally or unintentionally — then they are acting out “isms”, such as racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism … the list is endless and devastating to human potential. This is what is meant by terms such as “harassment” and “discrimination.”

When all is said and done, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck-then it is a duck. So, lets be honest and not get caught up in semantics. We need to own our biases, stereotypes and prejudices-and not let our kids imitate them.

With Respect,
Deb

Do you remember that great children’s book-Are you my mother?-where a baby bird falls out of its nest and goes looking for its mother. The baby bird stops to ask the cow, dog, and even a steam shovel if they are its mother. They all tell it no, and he keeps on searching until, lo and behold, he finds his mother-and she is a bird.

But let’s rewrite that story just a bit. A weak and sickly baby macaque monkey is abandoned by his mother. He was found, near death, and brought to an animal hospital. where a white pigeon literally took him under her wing and ‘mothered’ him.

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in what people look like that we forget that we don’t have to look like anyone to be loved. And isn’t that what we all want-to be loved no matter how we look? Isn’t that the message you want to send to your children?

I know that I do.

With Respect,
Deb

“The Jade Dragon” is a story of two girls-one born in China-Stephanie-and adopted and one born in the US to Chinese-born parents-Ginny. Ginny, feeling like the odd-girl out is thrilled when Stephanie joins her class. At last, another girl who looks like her. Maybe she can finally get a best friend. Unfortunately, Stephanie is not interested in anything Chinese-even Ginny-and Stephanie’s mother continually rants about Stephanie’s lack of “Chineseness”, making it difficult for her daughter to forge a relationship she desires.

While the story, is about the relationship between the two girls, it is the context in which the story plays out that is interesting. Written in the 80s with references to “The Smurf” and “Star Wars”, the language used about adoption is now considered a no-no. For example, Ginny’s mother refers to Stephanie’s birth parents as her ‘real’ parents-a moniker that parents whose children joined them via adoption have fought hard to stamp out and how unlucky Stephanie is because her parents didn’t want her (ouch). Ginny’s mother also refers to Ginny as an ABC-American Born Chinese. She scoffs at Ginny’s attempt to walk the line between dutiful Chinese daughter and hip American girl.

Most interesting is the peek into the girls’ psyches. Both girls feel that they are outcasts-different in a fundamental way. Ginny asks Stephanie if she wishes her white parents were Chinese. Stephanie confesses that she wishes they all were white. Ginny also ‘confesses’ to not wanting to be Chinese-more to please Stephanie and gain her trust than anything else.

This type of story is important for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides insight on the difficulties growing up as a person of color in
the world.
2. It highlights the juxtaposition between kids wanting to be “American” and
their parents desires to instill traditional values and culture.
3. It shows the lenghths that kids will go to in order to fit in.

While I cringed at the ‘improper’ adoption language and other slang, my daughter didn’t blink at them. She related to both characters-Stephanie for being the Asian daughter adopted by white parents and to Ginny, always feeling like she didn’t belong-except when surrounded by other Asians.

Your children may not be Asian or adopted, but the feelings that Ginny and Stephanie explore may be a wake up call. If your kids aren’t ‘different’ they may get a better understanding of what that feels like. And you can start to “really” understand the power of language for form values.

With respect,
Deb

The pink triangle was originally used to identify homosexual men in Nazi concentration camps. Today, the pink triangle has evolved to a symbol of gay pride. Of course, some men-regardless of their sexual orientation-simply like to wear pink and don’t think twice about the color’s significance. But, there are some people who assume that a man wearing pink, must be gay and then go out of their way to make sure that man knows how he feels about homosexuality as the ’story’ below indicates!

Once upon a time, a high school boy came to school wearing a pink shirt. He was minding his business when a group of older boys began to harass and threaten-they thought that he was gay because he was wearing a pink shirt.

The younger boy was devastated, but he was not alone. Another senior decided ‘enough was enough’ and decided to give the bullies something to talk about.

The next day, the older boy and his friend handed out 75 pink shirts before class-and also brought a pink basketball to school and pink material for headbands and arm bands. About 1/2 of the schools 830 students wore pink that day-including the young man who had been bullied for wearing pink in the first place.

The bullies got made and began to throw chairs in the cafeteria, asking if the kids knew that pink on a male is a symbol for homosexuality. The response-who care-and that it didn’t matter to him or anyone else. Judging people by the color of their shirts or pants is ridicules, is also what the bullies heard.

And the young man who was bullied in the first place-was supported and defended by his fellow students. Those kids were sure raised right!

The End!

Of course, this is not a once upon a time story. It happened in Nova Scotia earlier in the month.

What do you think your child would do in a similar situation? Would the stand up to the bullies or would they look the other way-not wanting to get involved? What do you think you would have done?

With Respect,
Deb

The battle over the appropriateness of a recent YouTube video depicting adoption from China is still raging-weeks after the video was first uploaded. This discussion followed hot on the heels of the controversy generated by O. Yang’s photos of white fathers and daughters born in China. Like everything, some people feel that it is satire and other think it is a horrendous and destructive and racist piece of ‘entertainment’.

Who is right? And do we have the right to make that decision?

Merriman-Webster Online dictionary defines satire as:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Franky, both the video and photo series meet the criteria as satire. Yet, members of the community were enraged that these artistic endeavors saw the light of day.
They want these types of things stricken from our collective memories? Other think that if something offends you then you should just not partake.

So what is a thinking person to do? Surely, ignoring the offensive material is one way. Censorship of offensive material may be desirable, but not realistic in our free speech society.

Thinking people have to come to grips with the fact that there will always be material, billed as entertainment, will sneak into our lives-and it will always create controversy. However, as time goes by, things that were once considered ok, become obsolete (think about Aunt Jemima Pancakes-Aunt Jemima was portrayed with a kerchief on her head, thick, full lips and curly, curly hair early on…and by the next generation her look had changed significantly because the earlier look was hopelessly stereotyped.) We can hope that what we find offensive will go the way of the original Aunt Jemima.

Until that happens, we might want to look at these things as opportunities to help our kids understand the role that the media plays in our points of view of what is ok and what isn’t. We can use these opportunities to discuss the ‘whys’ and ‘what ifs’ of our value systems.

It is a great opportunity for you to show your kids the difference between satire and racism-from your point of view. We should not give up the fight to eliminate bias and racism, but we should use what examples to show our kids the consequences of ’satire’.

With luck, by the time our kids get older, they will find hurtful satire has gone by the wayside because they don’t get the play they once had.

With respect,
Deb

Just when we were all excited about the way Binky Barnes’s family expansion was handled on PBS, another video surfaces on YouTube. You don’t even what to see what was behind door number two.

Someone thought it was funny to present adoption from China as a shopping trip-pick the one you want, wrap her up and bring her home. The video came complete with images of girls from China in plastic shopping bags. Not only was the video in horrendously bad taste, it was just plain stupid.

Of course, those in the adoption community were shocked and dismayed at the portrayal of adoption, but the damage goes far deeper than families formed by adoption.

While Binky Barnes was likely watched by many people, the video on YouTube had the opportunity to travel worldwide. It is likely that many more people were able to see the YouTube video than watched the Arthur episode.

In 30 seconds-or even from the opening shot, the YouTube video did more damage to adoption than we have seen in a long time. It is frustrating, of course, that just as we think we are making progress, something devastating happens that makes us shake our collective heads in bewilderment. Some people will give up, thinking that they can’t do anything about it. Others will become militant and angry, determined to have the world see their ‘correct’ point of view. Still others, will hunker down, regroup and continue to raise awarness and consciouness that bias-and clearly the YouTube video was biased-is just not acceptable in the 21st Century.

While the target of this YouTube video was adoption and adoption from China in particular, the next target could be ANY group, or anyone who is ‘different’. The target of the next attack could be your family, your child, your community.

The 9/11 attacks were caused in part by bias against Americans-that is a very visible reminder of the consequences of bias.

It is our job to stop biases before they escalate-to bullying, to violence or worse.

What course of action will you take in your home today?

With Respect,
Deb