I often hear of couples saying how hard and drawn out it is to adopt a child here in the US, yet one of my friends in Tennessee adopted a little girl within just months of applying. He is single and has never been married. I don't get how he, being single, could adopt so quickly while couples take so long.
The Adoption agency knows that single dads make Better ParentsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
he probably did all the groundwork before going into it, that can make a big difference, it also depends on the child and if that child is totally free for adoption.
I talked to him recently and asked how and he said because the child is black, the waiting list is very short compared to white children. I didn't know that.
Its because most couples in the US want children, particularly babies, from their own race and there are few white babies up for adoption. Also since minorities are the least likely to adopt there are more minority children left in the system.
Can you equally make the decision to serve only white people in restaurant? No, because that is racist. But you can make the decision to just adopt a white child? Maybe you are used to the system and fail to see the racism, but picking a child based on skin colour is really racist.
A couple has the right to adopt within their race. But maybe this is part of the reason: in 1972, when the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a statement that took “a vehement stand against the placements of black children in white homes for any reason,” calling transracial adoption “unnatural,” “artificial,” “unnecessary,” and proof that African-Americans continued to be assigned to “chattel status.” The organization was so committed to the position that black children’s healthy development depended on having black parents that its President, Cenie J. Williams, argued that temporary foster and even institutional placements were preferable to adoption by white families. This opposition slowed black-white adoptions to a trickle. In 1973, the Child Welfare League of America adoption standards, which had been revised in 1968 to make them slightly friendlier to transracial adoption, were rewritten to clarify that same-race placements were always better. The child welfare establishment never supported transracial adoptions. http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/transracialadoption.htm
i really wanna post replys here, but noone will understand where I am coming from or where I am even going with my post..so I will just say, no its not raciest to marry in ur own race.. love is color blind
Even though this is a form of racism, I see nothing wrong with it and no, I am not a social racist. This type of racism is at the biological level, not social. They are totally different. I have never adopted a child, have none, and want none, but I can pretty much deduct that most humans are going to want to adopt a child that will be fairly similar with them. They want some similarity to themselves for normalcy and to not make it always evident that they were adopted.
A forum of 'racists'?:bugeye: This motley crew? As for the adoptions inter-racial adoptions were discouraged and it was mostly black advocate groups that created the situation. Its changing but..you know. I do agree with you that the majority of couples looking to adopt will prefer children or babies of their own race.
