[Continued from
HERE.]
There are a few more ideas that I believe could go a long way to addressing some of the issues raised by the M Fray.

The concern that children lose their heritage by being taken to other countries because of adoption can be true. I have seen children still living in their original country with their adoptive American parents have no connection to their culture, not even a smattering of language. Is it important? Yes, I think it is on many levels.
So here’s a thought: when people immigrate to America and adopt it as their new country, we require that they learn about America’s history, culture, political system, etc. Would it be so outrageous to have a “short course” requirement whereby adoptive parents must learn at least the basics (history, culture, etc) about the birth country of their chosen child before the adoption is final and an agreement to share this information with their child be made inherent to the adoption?
If the people on this web-site are any indicator, adoptive parents are often very interested in the country/culture of their child’s birth. Wouldn’t it be nice to be given a bit of a crash course as part of the process rather than having to spend even more time looking for information with no one to ask questions?
I mentioned open adoption with an active extended family as an option if a child has no living birth parents in the previous blog. Since old-school “adoption” truly is a foreign, actually ALIEN, concept in most African countries, even if there is at least one known/living parent wouldn’t it make more sense to make a special breed of open adoption the standard? Couldn’t this new breed of adoption take into consideration both concepts of parent/child/family relationships and adoption?
In Africa, aunties, other wives of the father (many places are polygamous) and even neighbors are referred to as mothers or “little mothers.” Since families are communities are big, having extra mothers and fathers around is, yep, no problem, and yet, I have not met anyone on the continent who was suffering from an identity crisis because of a multitude of mothers.
My final idea is to help alleviate the manipulation of illiterate people, as may have happened to Mr. Banda. If someone involved in the adoption process is illiterate (as may often be the case throughout Africa) why not create, in addition to the standard “hard copy” written agreement, a “hard copy” oral agreement?
The oral agreement could be a recording of the contract translated into the applicable local language (most official documents are in a colonial language while the population communicates in their local or tribal language) and then explained to the illiterate party involved in terms he and/or she can understand. A representative of the adoptive parents could, and probably should, also be present if appropriate as well as a neutral representative to ensure that the information given is accurate. Verbal “signatures” of understanding would be given by all involved parties, even (maybe even especially) the translator. “Adoption Live: The Album.”
So that is it, for now, in the solutions department, though things keep popping in and out of my head on the topic.
At the end of all of this, I still don’t know what I think about the M Fray and many of its components. I do know that what I think doesn’t really matter. I am not in the Fray. I have been, for the past oh-so-many blogs, just another rubber-necker … and I’m done now.