Week #8- Transnational Adoption and ideas of the "home"

          The subject or “object” at hand are children being adopted in to Western mindset and values, leaving the “home” or what Castaneda calls the “soils of significance, and the specific ideologies associated around the geopolitics, social and political relations associated around the body of these children taken from their homes. In the context of speaking, children are not commodities placed at the hand or expense of an empire, president, or state or national/transnational relations. The body is more than a price placed on their heads. They are individuals with backgrounds, needs, and mobility. These children in Korea during the middle of the 20^th century era are believed by the U.S. soldiers, Korean president, and “needy” families to provide a “better” life for these kids. They are given no choice to where they live, how they adapt and why, and the adopters are erasing the small amount of “soil of significance” that obtained from birth.

            Home, displacement, mobility, and the atmosphere to which one is surrounded allows adaptation needed for survival, but also death to the previous world to which one was a part. In this, space and time revolve around a social contract for gain of power and satisfaction of relations among Korea and the U.S. after the Korean War. The Korean War in my understanding was the start and sustaining of the adoptions of Asian kids cross-nationally. This comprise allowed for production of power as well as another created aspect of colonialism in a different light. Children at this time in Korea are being adopted in order to lessen the quota of orphanage children present in Korea (controlling of the female body and her reproduction), and yet satisfying these American, Canadian, and Swiss families who are looking for a child to adopt as well as giving them a “better” quality of life.

            The created “home” wanting to be given to these Korean children are ways viewed as “saving” them if you will. This particular term isn’t used per say, but it is implied indefinitely. The question lies as in much of previous work by feminists is “who are you saving, and do they want to be saved?” These implications are viewed as another way in which choice is taken, being spoken for, and only given voice when certain circumstances of approval are needed to help the process. Adoption is viewed in the eyes of most as a helping hand to the unfortunate; however, who are the unfortunate individuals? We live in a world, where they say, “you can’t miss something you’ve never had” therefore, if these children were orphans upon birth, or lived in shelters or homes as children, what would make a U.S. families, or Canadian workers believe they can “give” life to another human being through materiality, commercialized love, and education. Education, in the Western philosophy is only to steer you into the connection and beliefs societal norms, capital exchange, and formation of a person who they are not. Cultural foundations are instilled in those children regardless of taught systems. Korean is Korean and White is White. As some of the men and women adoptees mentioned, they were a yellow face in a White world. They were conditioned to be White, feel White, and act of and like the superior class. Where is the children’s choice, autonomy, or even self-liberation?

            This relates to the ICI’s, mothers and fathers of Japan, and the woman’s ability to reproduce. The ICI’s, and parents of the children in Japan were also forced to leave their homes to make a better life for themselves as well as their families, but the children were supposedly “given” a better life outside of the one they have. The difference is in the creation of Westernized thoughts globally. The U.S., the land the free, is a country that is looked upon as better opportunity, but in what way? Is America a place for a better life?