I apologize in advance as this posting may read a trifle disjointed. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm having a hard time articulating myself properly....
I came across this article tonight while adoption blog hopping (instead of doing my training homework assignment) - Adopted: When It Fits,When It Doesn't, and Why, by Sara Kiesler at the Poynter Institute. It points out inappropriate use of the term 'adopted.'
Of course, this discussion is nothing new to me; I've been reading a lot about this in the growing stack of adoption books I have by my bed (I keep meaning to add a list of them to this site) and in the adoption blogs & forums I check out. I was just intrigued by this article due to a recent story here in Calgary that had been bugging me: I was listening to the news on the way to work the other morning - the story was about a recent car accident where two pedestrians, a 6-yr old girl and an adult female, were hit & killed by a car. This is an awful tragedy, but in addition to the sorrow of it all, I was also struck by how every news report on the story mentioned the driver was in a BMW. What difference does it make that it was a BMW that hit them? Would the reporters keep mentioning the make if her vehicle was a Ford? Or a Toyota? Apparently the driver was distracted by something in her car and took her eye off the road, but that happens in all makes & models. IMO, the media ended up making the driver out to be some spoiled, airhead bimbo driving the car her parents gave her for her 18th. Even if she is from a wealthy family - so what? Does that make her a bad person who deserves to be sneered at?
My point (and I do have one) is that these days we are often so quick to label everyone so that they fit into familiar, easily identifiable little compartments in our increasingly shrinking, media- overloaded, attention deficit brains, allowing us to relate to them in the way we see fit and easy. Because, God forbid we take 5 minutes to really find out about someone instead of instantly jumping to conclusions about them based on their appearance, background, job, or automobile. By labelling people, we totally miss out on who they really are because nobody is any one thing - adopted, homeless, rich, white, black, female, male, single mother - you name it. We are not one dimensional beings. Casually labelling someone as adopted (as in "this is so-and-so's adopted child, X") seems to imply they are not a 'real' child or any different to their parent than if they were biologically-born. No one goes around saying "this is so-and-so's Cesarean-born child, Y." ...or (sounds even worse) "vaginally-born" for that matter. It's just not necessary nor is it appropriate to always point out how a child came into a family.
I am definitely becoming more and more sensitive to the way people talk about adoption and how we talk about and represent each other, period! It is very important to me that my child grow up to understand that no one is defined by any one thing about themselves - especially not being adopted. I have to ensure I set the best example I can and that includes watching that I don't label people either.
There is a whole other discussion on when and how I intend to explain to my daughter that she is adopted...but that's definitely for another post.
And don't even get me started on how we treat the homeless....
