Multi-cultural does not mean better; why do people still push this narrative? Often it makes for a less cohesive family.
It's especially frustrating when you see hollywood types do this (Madonna, Angelina Jolie) where they mix and match non-White kids for some progressive reason.
Multi-cultural does not mean better; why do people still push this narrative? Often it makes for a less cohesive family.
It's especially frustrating when you see hollywood types do this (Madonna, Angelina Jolie) where they mix and match non-White kids for some progressive reason.
You are moving into dangerous territory here BFM. What you say is objectively true; families of common backgrounds do tend to be more cohesive and there is no shortage of white kids needing adoption. That being said, perfect is the enemy of good.
In my mind, it all boils down to motivation. If someone is adopting a different race child to draw attention to themselves and virtue signal (as no doubt most of these Hollywood types do) then it's despicable. If someone feels called by God to share their blessing with a child that almost certainly will be worse off if they don't, that's a different story.
But there's often another layer of weirdness on top of all this. Speaker Mike Johnson took legal guardianship of a 14 year old black boy when he was 25. Johnson has given vague answers on the exact date but it was apparently two years before he got married (see edit below). Matt Gaetz has done something similar with a young Cuban immigrant. As a pretty normal guy that grew up lower middle class, this is not typical behavior, it is strange. I don't mean to imply anything untoward, but it does make me wonder if there's a Savior complex at play. Another strange aspect is that those that rise to power always seem to have some aberrational behavior in their past (good or bad) that most of us would never choose to do.
Bottom line though is that society demands we always praise these types of actions, and we are never allowed to openly question them. Doing so is off limits. When people demand that we never question something it almost always makes me question it more. Nothing man does is so above reproach that it cannot be questioned.
Edit: I need to note that Speaker Johnson has stated on one occasion that he took the boy in when he and his wife were newlyweds. Other statements he's made regarding the timeline place it a couple years before he was married. It's not clear exactly when it happened which itself is odd for someone so powerful.
I am for FREE SPEECH. I fear the loss of that freedom. I fear desperately that we are becoming a society in which political correctness is more important than free speech. Free speech is exactly what you find abhorrent to hear. Something you do not agree with. Then once it is said, let the audience decide. Don't shout them down. Don't cancel them and block them. Consider the merits of the argument and respond with Bless you or Hell no..... but freedom of speech is sacred.
The idea that multi-culty families is better is a false narrative.
Here's a great example, where some well meaning Whites adopted a young Black boy, only to have him grow up to call them racists. Here's a mild version of him calling out his parents:
"It's isolating," ...had to navigate as a biracial adoptee being raised by White parents.
"I've had a lot of responses from other transracial adoptees on that front," Kaepernick said."
I don't argue with that at all. We have been fed a narrative regarding all stuff racial, most of which is a lie. It's been done to destroy the dominant Christian European culture that made the US prosperous until recent decades. Ask yourself who that benefits, and it's not the typical American.
My former pastor had a son who also went into the ministry. Our pastor told us his son and his wife had decided they wouldn't have a biological child when there are so many kids needing adoption. They flew to Korea (they are both white) and adopted a baby. This was presented to us as a noble act of sacrifice, and of course all the congregation applauded and talked about how wonderful it was. It never sat right with me.
The Bible says, "go forth and multiply" along with "care for orphans". It doesn't say forsake having your own kids and instead raise someone else's kids. Yet this was somehow presented as a good thing despite not having any clear biblical basis. He's no longer our pastor as he retired many years ago.
I call these types of people "turn the other cheek" Christians. They have taken a clear teaching from Christ regarding de-escalation (turn the other cheek), and turned it into an ethos of self-inflicted debasement and guilt that we deserve poor treatment. It's like battered wife syndrome. The world plays on this by constantly portraying strong, confident Christianity as a bad thing. We are told that we are collectively guilty for the sins of others, and that Christ expects us to pay a price for that. It's a lie from Hell.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having as many biological kids as one wants regardless of how many orphans there are in the world. Yet this young couple had been brainwashed to think otherwise, egged on by a worldly society that views multiculturalism itself as some sort of Nirvana. It's so great even our families must be multicultural, according to them. There's zero biblical basis for it.
If one feels led by the Holy Spirit to adopt an infant then that's great, I would never criticize someone for doing it with loving intentions (though I may question their psychological mindset if they go out of the way to adopt a different race child). But it doesn't score any brownie points over those that have their own biological children.
Multi culti families are good when they are good and not good when they are not. Remember that lesbian couple that drive their six adopted children off a cliff in California? That was NOT GOOD. I think the praise of multi culti families often comes from a loathing of (white) traditional families and i think that is what Based was after. My family is multi culti … I have five kids with my Chinese born and raised husband … any fawning over us based on race is a mistake through and through. It is a strength and weakness and one of the least interesting aspects of who we are as a family
My friend who was Director of a prominent adoption society, and who had both biological and (same-race) adopted children of her own said, "There's something about adopted kids." It would be hard to be fully normal when your primary relationships, with your biological mother and father (and unborn babies know their mothers' voices, at least, before birth), have been torn asunder.
Thanks for the edit--as I had read your original yesterday, the edit this a.m. I was a newlywed only once, but sure as shooting wouldn't have invited (or accepted) a third person to that party.
How do you even determine who is “white” BFM? I asked you that before and your response was more or less “everyone knows.” Well, my Italian grandfather was referred to as “black” by the mostly Anglo Irish residents of the town where he grew up. So was he? Where does “white” stop and something else begin? How many races are there? What are the criteria to be grouped into one race or another? If you can’t define or qualify it, what does “race” really mean? I have decided I don’t believe in the concept of race anymore. It’s artificial and arbitrary. It’s only used to divide people and to create a hierarchy. I’m not buying into that and allowing this idea to be used to manipulate me.
My brilliant 5th grade teacher pointed out to us, his students, the conundrum in using the word "race". He made us see if "human race" is a legitimate meaningful phrase, then how can people be members of different "races"? I prefer the term "people groups".
Identifying race is increasingly difficult in the U.S. due to all the intermarriages that have occurred over the past 40 years. Example: Kamala Harris was AG in my state of California. I was vaguely aware of her, didn't pay a lot of attention to be honest. But I can say I never once thought of her as black in any way. California has so many Indians, Sikhs, Hispanics and other people with skin of a gazillion shades, at the most I might have figured she had either Indian or Hispanic in her background. I really didn't give her racial background any thought. When the Democrats started portraying Kamala as black, I was actually surprised because she doesn't look like it in my opinion. And this just shows how stupid all the leftist focus on race is at this point in time in our country. When the movie "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner" came out in 1967, it was a hugely major thing and a controversial topic to portray a white woman bringing home a black man to meet her parents. It's hard to imagine the relative culture shock that movie caused at that particular time. That kind of controversy is laughable today.
It isn’t clearly defined anymore… Culture is still a vastly different concept.
A traditional Mexican family is indeed very different from a traditional Dominican family culture. (for a very random example).
I would adopt if I could & will, if God ever gives me the opportunity. It would be a child that needed placement- full stop.
Any race or cultural background etc. I wouldn’t particularly care. Kinda like when people having a baby want it to have a specific eye color or hair color- I do not think that’s what having a child is about.
I will say I find it interesting that many don’t know that one of the primary reasons it is so common to find “white” couples (or simply any American) adopting from other countries is because it is very hard to adopt kids in America.
So let’s not assume we know the motives of a family that adopt a child from a different racial, cultural or ethnic background.
The big “tell” for me, is that unlike say, a man and a woman, no one can really seem to define these racial categories is a quantifiable way with clear comprehensible criteria. I remember when we were taught about “race” in school and there were only three races. The criteria were things like “a wide nose” (what does that even mean? Wide compared to what? How much wider?) and of course skin color. But those only work up to a point. There are plenty of medium skin tone people who could be placed in more than one category, or in none. It’s something “scientists” made up but that has little relevance to most people’s reality.
The phrase "people group" probably is a better descriptor. Among native black Africans, there is a wide variety of physical characteristics that differentiate them. Once you start mixing between people groups, you're right, there's no real definition that works well. Still, probably most Americans might describe themselves into 'white,' 'black,' 'East Asian,' 'South Asian,' etc. If the government didn't use race as a factor in so many things, its importance would have faded much more than it has.
Ethnicity works just as well. But many people are combinations of ethnicities. And yes, the government using it helps keep the idea front and center. Not necessarily a good thing.
Still not answering my questions. Where is the dividing line? What are the criteria? Why did people call my Italian grandfather black? Would you call him black? Why or why not?
Rather than race, you might find the cultural lens more useful. My Greek immigrant grandfather was othered by the German immigrants in the Midwest town in 1900’s. He married my Norwegian grandmother who was othered by her Greek in laws. By today’s definitions they’d all be lumped into the “white” group.
Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I was enchanted and fascinated by other cultures and other races. I wanted to learn their languages and know about their cultural practices. I was always excited to meet someone from another country and a different culture from my own.
Well how do you know if I am satisfied since you don’t provide any answers? Your previous “answer” didn’t have any direct relationship to the questions I asked.
Interesting! I had to look up Octoroon, I don’t recall ever hearing that term before. I guess the assumption was that since their skin was a bit darker there must have been some “black” in their ancestry? Yet another example of how arbitrary all this is though!
Every single person has one of 3 patriarchal DNA types. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The 3 sons of Noah. So we all go back to Noah in the end. I read about this in one of the articles from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). I thought that was amazing and incredible that it backs up the biblical historical account that we all came from one of 3 men that survived the flood. There is one race. The human race. The human race has many cultures.
There is no guarantee that the child in need of a home when you are ready to adopt will have the same skin color as you. If you're not going to accept a child whose needs you can meet based on their skin color, then you have no business being a parent, adoptive or otherwise.
Also, there are issues with adoptive parents being unable to adopt due to marital status or religious beliefs. Back in 2008 some red states restricted adoption to married couples only. More recently, some blue states have refused to allow a church going single mother to adopt a child. Sometimes the only option is to adopt from a country with less restrictive rules, and the child will most likely not be the same race as the parents.
Celebrities can afford to bypass all of these issues and virtue signal with their choice of kids to adopt.
I don't agree at all that BFM's comments are borderline racism. Ideally, mixed marriages and adoption would work perfectly. But you have to consider the times and society in which you live, which is distinctly NOT ideal. Society doesn't usually (yet) have perfect opinions on such things. While a black child being raised in a white family can be loved just as much as a biological child, difficulties will present themselves throughout that child's life. It's not insurmountable, but it's there in myriad ways. Our society still makes it difficult, sadly.
Here's an interesting observation: Many white families adopt black orphans. It seem like rare to almost never that black families adopt white orphans. In fact, fewer black families adopt orphans than do white families. I don't know why that is the case.
As for racism, I spent over 12 years living, working and traveling in various countries. I saw racism in every culture. In Saudi Arabia, they were very skin conscious and what I would deem racist. A great many Saudis are from tribes that are actually as white as I am in terms of skin color. Other tribes are darker, and some tribes of African origin (such as Sudanese) are very black. I learned very quickly that there was a hierarchy of color there and groups were definitely judged by their skin color. Any person (male or female) who married someone of even slightly darker skin color was considered to be marrying down. Capital punishment is common in Saudi Arabia. The executioners who perform beheadings in the public square were black Sudanese in origin. I suspect the white Saudi elites found it distasteful to do such work.
Then there is Thailand. My granddaughter was there for awhile as a teacher. Her Thai co-teachers and friends used to tell her "Wear a hat in the sun or you will start to look like a black person." Lots of obvious racism in that country.
yes racism takes many forms, some subtle, some more blatant. in Central America where I live historically darker skinned people were looked down upon while the lighter skinned were more privileged. it gets more complicated in the same family.
Liz - Is BFM standing outside the home of a couple contemplating a different race adoption with a bullhorn condemning them? Is he trying to drive them out of the neighborhood? Off course not. He is simply observing that there is something unusual going on here that would have been unimaginable not that long ago. And the jury is still out about whether or not it's a good thing. There are real world examples that did not work out well, we are allowed to discuss this.
Your definition of "leaving people alone" means that people never face any criticism for decisions they make regardless of whether or not it's good for them, good for the kids they bring into the world, or good for society in general. We are allowed to discuss this stuff, particularly when by just about every objective measure the typical family is in much worse shape than it was seventy years ago.
For nearly all time up to the mid 1900's, mixed race relationships were very rare and not at all mainstream. In less than a generation it's another tradition that has been diluted.
It's like the many American missionaries who trot to Haiti or Africa at great expense (and danger) and totally bypass the many need people in their own country. Very odd behavior.
When you are adopting you have full control of your decisions. You can take your time to find the best family and reducing 'multi-cultural tension' should be an important consideration.
Note only White people pull this stuff. You almost never see Korean families or Black families adopting outside of their race. But Whites revel in it, to their own demise, ultimately.
Chas. Dickens, in Bleak House, describes a do-gooder woman who thinks globally, but does NOT act locally. Classics are classics for good reason. I am with you, Based Florida Man.
I get your point, but: (a) "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..." Matthew 28:19, so God said to; also, we have many Christians here, and like the sign I like so much says, as people exit a church parking lot, "You are now entering the mission field." We are all missionaries. (b) because so many American professional women's biological alarm clocks go off when it's too late to have children naturally, the market for white adoptive kids, esp. babies (and it is a market, I'm afraid) is intense, and black families are more likely to be broken, I think, so there are way more non-white children available for adoption even here than there are white children. The two situations I know of with a black child adopted into a white family are highly successful.
My problem is when youth groups and other church groups love to take overseas trips to do "mission work" but have never once shared the gospel in their own city.
You are so right! There are so many orphans in our own country, and so many kids who are shuttled from foster home to foster home. Why don't people help those in need in our own country first? If a relative was in need, would you not help that person and instead go help someone in another country? A friend of mine finally ended up adopting two sisters from Chile because she and her husband had unsuccessfully tried to adopt here. I understand that completely. But a LOT of people, especially those high profile celebrities out there who appear to just want to virtue signal, "Look t me, look at me, I adopted black orphans from X". They could easily have helped American orphans, white, black or other. But they wanted to virtue signal about how wonderful, open, and not racist they were." Ugh!
Virtue signaling. Once Anglos make themselves a definite minority, we can see how well we’re treated by other races. We’ll see the true value of all the virtue signaling.
It’s artificial and arbitrary anyway. Skin color variation is real but grouping people into “races” based on skin color and a few other characteristics is made up. There is no way to really define where one race ends and another begins. No one can seem to define racial characteristics in a clear, quantifiable way. People with the same skin color but different origins are grouped into different races (Arabs, Mediterranean Europeans, some Central and South Americans) and people from the same country with different skin colors are the same race (example: Indians grouped into the Asian race even though their skin tone is as dark as many Africans’ skin and Indians look nothing like other Asians like Koreans or Japanese). Physical characteristics including skin color are on a continuum which makes it quite impossible to clearly delineate any “race.” In my opinion we would all do better not to buy into this myth of race.
Do you remember the book "Radical"? One of the propositions was that every Christian family must adopt foster kids. I knew a woman whose church in AZ "adopted" this policy. She and her husband disagreed that everyone should do this and did not participate and were looked down upon as not being spiritual enough. She said that every couple in the church with maybe one exception divorced after adopting foster kids. Bringing a foster child into your home is far from a cake walk. It is extremely difficult. Even as young as 5 years old these children may be uncontrollable and cause irreparable harm to your own family and if they are older and you have your own children, there can be risk to your biological children. I really dislike the state run ads for adopting teens out of foster care as if all they need is for you to be a new BFF. I'm not opposed to adopting out of foster care, but there are stringent restrictions on discipline and unfortunately there may be extreme behavioral problems with these children. There is a reason that their parents no longer have custody and thus many of these children have suffered from trauma with related behavioral issues that not everyone will be able to handle. If you chose to adopt through this process, please be aware of all the difficulties that lie ahead. While there are difficulties (and some of those can be extreme) with raising your own biological children, there is a multitude of difficulties that arise when adopting out of foster care. Again, if God lays it on a persons heart and through much prayer a decision is made to do this, be prepared for the battles ahead.
Had a friend whose mother did foster care. Pretty much every single one of those kids had issues of some kind, often serious. Not to say they shouldn't be cared for, but know what you're getting into.
Multi-cultural does not mean better; why do people still push this narrative? Often it makes for a less cohesive family.
It's especially frustrating when you see hollywood types do this (Madonna, Angelina Jolie) where they mix and match non-White kids for some progressive reason.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/493811/meet-madonnas-six-kids-and-see-how-much-theyve-grown-up/
https://people.com/parents/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-children/
Meanwhile the White population continues to collapse faster than any other.
You are moving into dangerous territory here BFM. What you say is objectively true; families of common backgrounds do tend to be more cohesive and there is no shortage of white kids needing adoption. That being said, perfect is the enemy of good.
In my mind, it all boils down to motivation. If someone is adopting a different race child to draw attention to themselves and virtue signal (as no doubt most of these Hollywood types do) then it's despicable. If someone feels called by God to share their blessing with a child that almost certainly will be worse off if they don't, that's a different story.
But there's often another layer of weirdness on top of all this. Speaker Mike Johnson took legal guardianship of a 14 year old black boy when he was 25. Johnson has given vague answers on the exact date but it was apparently two years before he got married (see edit below). Matt Gaetz has done something similar with a young Cuban immigrant. As a pretty normal guy that grew up lower middle class, this is not typical behavior, it is strange. I don't mean to imply anything untoward, but it does make me wonder if there's a Savior complex at play. Another strange aspect is that those that rise to power always seem to have some aberrational behavior in their past (good or bad) that most of us would never choose to do.
Bottom line though is that society demands we always praise these types of actions, and we are never allowed to openly question them. Doing so is off limits. When people demand that we never question something it almost always makes me question it more. Nothing man does is so above reproach that it cannot be questioned.
Edit: I need to note that Speaker Johnson has stated on one occasion that he took the boy in when he and his wife were newlyweds. Other statements he's made regarding the timeline place it a couple years before he was married. It's not clear exactly when it happened which itself is odd for someone so powerful.
What a thoughtful comment. Thank you. And--but for you, I would never have known that about our Congressional representatives.
I am for FREE SPEECH. I fear the loss of that freedom. I fear desperately that we are becoming a society in which political correctness is more important than free speech. Free speech is exactly what you find abhorrent to hear. Something you do not agree with. Then once it is said, let the audience decide. Don't shout them down. Don't cancel them and block them. Consider the merits of the argument and respond with Bless you or Hell no..... but freedom of speech is sacred.
Thank you. !!
The idea that multi-culty families is better is a false narrative.
Here's a great example, where some well meaning Whites adopted a young Black boy, only to have him grow up to call them racists. Here's a mild version of him calling out his parents:
"It's isolating," ...had to navigate as a biracial adoptee being raised by White parents.
"I've had a lot of responses from other transracial adoptees on that front," Kaepernick said."
https://people.com/sports/colin-kaepernick-found-it-hard-to-call-out-adoptive-parents-over-race/
I don't argue with that at all. We have been fed a narrative regarding all stuff racial, most of which is a lie. It's been done to destroy the dominant Christian European culture that made the US prosperous until recent decades. Ask yourself who that benefits, and it's not the typical American.
My former pastor had a son who also went into the ministry. Our pastor told us his son and his wife had decided they wouldn't have a biological child when there are so many kids needing adoption. They flew to Korea (they are both white) and adopted a baby. This was presented to us as a noble act of sacrifice, and of course all the congregation applauded and talked about how wonderful it was. It never sat right with me.
The Bible says, "go forth and multiply" along with "care for orphans". It doesn't say forsake having your own kids and instead raise someone else's kids. Yet this was somehow presented as a good thing despite not having any clear biblical basis. He's no longer our pastor as he retired many years ago.
I call these types of people "turn the other cheek" Christians. They have taken a clear teaching from Christ regarding de-escalation (turn the other cheek), and turned it into an ethos of self-inflicted debasement and guilt that we deserve poor treatment. It's like battered wife syndrome. The world plays on this by constantly portraying strong, confident Christianity as a bad thing. We are told that we are collectively guilty for the sins of others, and that Christ expects us to pay a price for that. It's a lie from Hell.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having as many biological kids as one wants regardless of how many orphans there are in the world. Yet this young couple had been brainwashed to think otherwise, egged on by a worldly society that views multiculturalism itself as some sort of Nirvana. It's so great even our families must be multicultural, according to them. There's zero biblical basis for it.
If one feels led by the Holy Spirit to adopt an infant then that's great, I would never criticize someone for doing it with loving intentions (though I may question their psychological mindset if they go out of the way to adopt a different race child). But it doesn't score any brownie points over those that have their own biological children.
I take Kaepernick with a huge grain of salt. He's a loudmouthed race-baiting Marxist agitator.
Like!
Multi culti families are good when they are good and not good when they are not. Remember that lesbian couple that drive their six adopted children off a cliff in California? That was NOT GOOD. I think the praise of multi culti families often comes from a loathing of (white) traditional families and i think that is what Based was after. My family is multi culti … I have five kids with my Chinese born and raised husband … any fawning over us based on race is a mistake through and through. It is a strength and weakness and one of the least interesting aspects of who we are as a family
My friend who was Director of a prominent adoption society, and who had both biological and (same-race) adopted children of her own said, "There's something about adopted kids." It would be hard to be fully normal when your primary relationships, with your biological mother and father (and unborn babies know their mothers' voices, at least, before birth), have been torn asunder.
Excellent comment
Thanks for the edit--as I had read your original yesterday, the edit this a.m. I was a newlywed only once, but sure as shooting wouldn't have invited (or accepted) a third person to that party.
How do you even determine who is “white” BFM? I asked you that before and your response was more or less “everyone knows.” Well, my Italian grandfather was referred to as “black” by the mostly Anglo Irish residents of the town where he grew up. So was he? Where does “white” stop and something else begin? How many races are there? What are the criteria to be grouped into one race or another? If you can’t define or qualify it, what does “race” really mean? I have decided I don’t believe in the concept of race anymore. It’s artificial and arbitrary. It’s only used to divide people and to create a hierarchy. I’m not buying into that and allowing this idea to be used to manipulate me.
My brilliant 5th grade teacher pointed out to us, his students, the conundrum in using the word "race". He made us see if "human race" is a legitimate meaningful phrase, then how can people be members of different "races"? I prefer the term "people groups".
Yep. Similarly, I tend to use "ethnicity" or "ethnic heritage". If anyone ever asks my "race", I intend to tell them just "human"... ;)
Culture is way more significant than ethnic heritage. All ethnicity will do for you is give you a predisposition to certain genetically-based defects!
I just commented that that's the right phrase, before seeing your comment.
And even the people groups are fluid and changeable, not biologically defined or easy to separate out from each other.
Identifying race is increasingly difficult in the U.S. due to all the intermarriages that have occurred over the past 40 years. Example: Kamala Harris was AG in my state of California. I was vaguely aware of her, didn't pay a lot of attention to be honest. But I can say I never once thought of her as black in any way. California has so many Indians, Sikhs, Hispanics and other people with skin of a gazillion shades, at the most I might have figured she had either Indian or Hispanic in her background. I really didn't give her racial background any thought. When the Democrats started portraying Kamala as black, I was actually surprised because she doesn't look like it in my opinion. And this just shows how stupid all the leftist focus on race is at this point in time in our country. When the movie "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner" came out in 1967, it was a hugely major thing and a controversial topic to portray a white woman bringing home a black man to meet her parents. It's hard to imagine the relative culture shock that movie caused at that particular time. That kind of controversy is laughable today.
It isn’t clearly defined anymore… Culture is still a vastly different concept.
A traditional Mexican family is indeed very different from a traditional Dominican family culture. (for a very random example).
I would adopt if I could & will, if God ever gives me the opportunity. It would be a child that needed placement- full stop.
Any race or cultural background etc. I wouldn’t particularly care. Kinda like when people having a baby want it to have a specific eye color or hair color- I do not think that’s what having a child is about.
I will say I find it interesting that many don’t know that one of the primary reasons it is so common to find “white” couples (or simply any American) adopting from other countries is because it is very hard to adopt kids in America.
So let’s not assume we know the motives of a family that adopt a child from a different racial, cultural or ethnic background.
It is exactly as you say.... an ideology.
Let's just be human.
They pollute us all in every way possible.
God knows and they will be judged.
The big “tell” for me, is that unlike say, a man and a woman, no one can really seem to define these racial categories is a quantifiable way with clear comprehensible criteria. I remember when we were taught about “race” in school and there were only three races. The criteria were things like “a wide nose” (what does that even mean? Wide compared to what? How much wider?) and of course skin color. But those only work up to a point. There are plenty of medium skin tone people who could be placed in more than one category, or in none. It’s something “scientists” made up but that has little relevance to most people’s reality.
The phrase "people group" probably is a better descriptor. Among native black Africans, there is a wide variety of physical characteristics that differentiate them. Once you start mixing between people groups, you're right, there's no real definition that works well. Still, probably most Americans might describe themselves into 'white,' 'black,' 'East Asian,' 'South Asian,' etc. If the government didn't use race as a factor in so many things, its importance would have faded much more than it has.
Ethnicity works just as well. But many people are combinations of ethnicities. And yes, the government using it helps keep the idea front and center. Not necessarily a good thing.
Some examples might help. Ben Carson, that's a Black fellow.
Donnie Trump, that's a White dude.
etc.
Still not answering my questions. Where is the dividing line? What are the criteria? Why did people call my Italian grandfather black? Would you call him black? Why or why not?
Rather than race, you might find the cultural lens more useful. My Greek immigrant grandfather was othered by the German immigrants in the Midwest town in 1900’s. He married my Norwegian grandmother who was othered by her Greek in laws. By today’s definitions they’d all be lumped into the “white” group.
Growing up in the 1950s and 60s, I was enchanted and fascinated by other cultures and other races. I wanted to learn their languages and know about their cultural practices. I was always excited to meet someone from another country and a different culture from my own.
I’ve always been the same and so have many others in my family. I just find it so interesting and enjoy the variety.
Agree but as you mentioned, even that is context dependent and fluid. No truly objective criteria.
You are never satisfied with the answers. You you are welcome to believe race is only a social structure.
Well how do you know if I am satisfied since you don’t provide any answers? Your previous “answer” didn’t have any direct relationship to the questions I asked.
In the 1910 U.S. Census, some Mexican Americans in South Texas were noted as "Octoroons" even though their entire families were Mexican.
Interesting! I had to look up Octoroon, I don’t recall ever hearing that term before. I guess the assumption was that since their skin was a bit darker there must have been some “black” in their ancestry? Yet another example of how arbitrary all this is though!
I think they were 1/8th black. I think I learned that word by reading Gone With the Wind or something.
Yes with the Octo part that would make sense. That’s maybe where I heard it, I haven’t read the book in a long time though so couldn’t recall.
Every single person has one of 3 patriarchal DNA types. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The 3 sons of Noah. So we all go back to Noah in the end. I read about this in one of the articles from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). I thought that was amazing and incredible that it backs up the biblical historical account that we all came from one of 3 men that survived the flood. There is one race. The human race. The human race has many cultures.
So what was the original commenter supposed to do with the adopted children? Not adopt a child in need because they don't look like the parents?
The original commenter should have done precisely what he did: embraced and loved his adopted children.
This is hardly an either/or matter.
Love never is. 💕
He could have done that with White children, are in the fastest disappearing group at only 8% of world population.
And would have had a more cohesive family unit.
Many examples of multi-culty family disasters. A notable one: https://nypost.com/2023/11/03/news/mike-johnsons-adopted-son-michael-t-james-says-hes-thankful-to-the-house-speakers-family-after-troubled-past-is-revealed/
There is no guarantee that the child in need of a home when you are ready to adopt will have the same skin color as you. If you're not going to accept a child whose needs you can meet based on their skin color, then you have no business being a parent, adoptive or otherwise.
Also, there are issues with adoptive parents being unable to adopt due to marital status or religious beliefs. Back in 2008 some red states restricted adoption to married couples only. More recently, some blue states have refused to allow a church going single mother to adopt a child. Sometimes the only option is to adopt from a country with less restrictive rules, and the child will most likely not be the same race as the parents.
Celebrities can afford to bypass all of these issues and virtue signal with their choice of kids to adopt.
agreed. I usually really like BFM comments but these border on racism so I,m kinda disappointed.
I don't agree at all that BFM's comments are borderline racism. Ideally, mixed marriages and adoption would work perfectly. But you have to consider the times and society in which you live, which is distinctly NOT ideal. Society doesn't usually (yet) have perfect opinions on such things. While a black child being raised in a white family can be loved just as much as a biological child, difficulties will present themselves throughout that child's life. It's not insurmountable, but it's there in myriad ways. Our society still makes it difficult, sadly.
Here's an interesting observation: Many white families adopt black orphans. It seem like rare to almost never that black families adopt white orphans. In fact, fewer black families adopt orphans than do white families. I don't know why that is the case.
As for racism, I spent over 12 years living, working and traveling in various countries. I saw racism in every culture. In Saudi Arabia, they were very skin conscious and what I would deem racist. A great many Saudis are from tribes that are actually as white as I am in terms of skin color. Other tribes are darker, and some tribes of African origin (such as Sudanese) are very black. I learned very quickly that there was a hierarchy of color there and groups were definitely judged by their skin color. Any person (male or female) who married someone of even slightly darker skin color was considered to be marrying down. Capital punishment is common in Saudi Arabia. The executioners who perform beheadings in the public square were black Sudanese in origin. I suspect the white Saudi elites found it distasteful to do such work.
Then there is Thailand. My granddaughter was there for awhile as a teacher. Her Thai co-teachers and friends used to tell her "Wear a hat in the sun or you will start to look like a black person." Lots of obvious racism in that country.
yes racism takes many forms, some subtle, some more blatant. in Central America where I live historically darker skinned people were looked down upon while the lighter skinned were more privileged. it gets more complicated in the same family.
For almost of time, until a few decades ago, interracial marriage (or adoption) was highly scorned. It's hardly a racist subject.
We've been so programmed to accept multi-culty.
People need to be left alone to love who they love.
Liz - Is BFM standing outside the home of a couple contemplating a different race adoption with a bullhorn condemning them? Is he trying to drive them out of the neighborhood? Off course not. He is simply observing that there is something unusual going on here that would have been unimaginable not that long ago. And the jury is still out about whether or not it's a good thing. There are real world examples that did not work out well, we are allowed to discuss this.
Your definition of "leaving people alone" means that people never face any criticism for decisions they make regardless of whether or not it's good for them, good for the kids they bring into the world, or good for society in general. We are allowed to discuss this stuff, particularly when by just about every objective measure the typical family is in much worse shape than it was seventy years ago.
You're claiming that adoptive parents should not at all consider the race of the child? So absurd.
People like you are the reason why I'm grateful to not have had children and why I'll probably never adopt either.
We're just discussing a controversial topic on the internet.
For almost all of time, until just a few decades ago, society didn't support homosexuals or interracial relationships.
So I'm hardly making an earth shattering point to take a critical view of mixed adoption (or marriage).
Yeah. You wouldn't want me to exisr or to have children anyway, my boyfriend and I are both of mixed races.
I feel you. some of the people on this page are aware on some topics but extremely backwards on others. sending abrazos!
I'm talking about history.
For nearly all time up to the mid 1900's, mixed race relationships were very rare and not at all mainstream. In less than a generation it's another tradition that has been diluted.
Well since I won't be having kids we will undilute this tradition in a generation.
Thanks for reminding me why I find the right to be just as disgusting as the left.
It's like the many American missionaries who trot to Haiti or Africa at great expense (and danger) and totally bypass the many need people in their own country. Very odd behavior.
When you are adopting you have full control of your decisions. You can take your time to find the best family and reducing 'multi-cultural tension' should be an important consideration.
Note only White people pull this stuff. You almost never see Korean families or Black families adopting outside of their race. But Whites revel in it, to their own demise, ultimately.
Chas. Dickens, in Bleak House, describes a do-gooder woman who thinks globally, but does NOT act locally. Classics are classics for good reason. I am with you, Based Florida Man.
Agree also
I get your point, but: (a) "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..." Matthew 28:19, so God said to; also, we have many Christians here, and like the sign I like so much says, as people exit a church parking lot, "You are now entering the mission field." We are all missionaries. (b) because so many American professional women's biological alarm clocks go off when it's too late to have children naturally, the market for white adoptive kids, esp. babies (and it is a market, I'm afraid) is intense, and black families are more likely to be broken, I think, so there are way more non-white children available for adoption even here than there are white children. The two situations I know of with a black child adopted into a white family are highly successful.
My problem is when youth groups and other church groups love to take overseas trips to do "mission work" but have never once shared the gospel in their own city.
You are so right! There are so many orphans in our own country, and so many kids who are shuttled from foster home to foster home. Why don't people help those in need in our own country first? If a relative was in need, would you not help that person and instead go help someone in another country? A friend of mine finally ended up adopting two sisters from Chile because she and her husband had unsuccessfully tried to adopt here. I understand that completely. But a LOT of people, especially those high profile celebrities out there who appear to just want to virtue signal, "Look t me, look at me, I adopted black orphans from X". They could easily have helped American orphans, white, black or other. But they wanted to virtue signal about how wonderful, open, and not racist they were." Ugh!
Virtue signaling. Once Anglos make themselves a definite minority, we can see how well we’re treated by other races. We’ll see the true value of all the virtue signaling.
Yep. South Africa is a good example of the White future.
Europe is on it's way as well.
Sadly, I think so too.
I agree about Missionaries stay home, right up there with use our taxes at home. but Love makes a family and we need to open our hearts more.
I pray fervently and earnestly for the day when race is no longer even discussed. We are people... all....... under One God.
It’s artificial and arbitrary anyway. Skin color variation is real but grouping people into “races” based on skin color and a few other characteristics is made up. There is no way to really define where one race ends and another begins. No one can seem to define racial characteristics in a clear, quantifiable way. People with the same skin color but different origins are grouped into different races (Arabs, Mediterranean Europeans, some Central and South Americans) and people from the same country with different skin colors are the same race (example: Indians grouped into the Asian race even though their skin tone is as dark as many Africans’ skin and Indians look nothing like other Asians like Koreans or Japanese). Physical characteristics including skin color are on a continuum which makes it quite impossible to clearly delineate any “race.” In my opinion we would all do better not to buy into this myth of race.
Do you remember the book "Radical"? One of the propositions was that every Christian family must adopt foster kids. I knew a woman whose church in AZ "adopted" this policy. She and her husband disagreed that everyone should do this and did not participate and were looked down upon as not being spiritual enough. She said that every couple in the church with maybe one exception divorced after adopting foster kids. Bringing a foster child into your home is far from a cake walk. It is extremely difficult. Even as young as 5 years old these children may be uncontrollable and cause irreparable harm to your own family and if they are older and you have your own children, there can be risk to your biological children. I really dislike the state run ads for adopting teens out of foster care as if all they need is for you to be a new BFF. I'm not opposed to adopting out of foster care, but there are stringent restrictions on discipline and unfortunately there may be extreme behavioral problems with these children. There is a reason that their parents no longer have custody and thus many of these children have suffered from trauma with related behavioral issues that not everyone will be able to handle. If you chose to adopt through this process, please be aware of all the difficulties that lie ahead. While there are difficulties (and some of those can be extreme) with raising your own biological children, there is a multitude of difficulties that arise when adopting out of foster care. Again, if God lays it on a persons heart and through much prayer a decision is made to do this, be prepared for the battles ahead.
Had a friend whose mother did foster care. Pretty much every single one of those kids had issues of some kind, often serious. Not to say they shouldn't be cared for, but know what you're getting into.
Exactly.
Virtue signaling.