"Angry Adoptee" and "Angry Black Man"
⬤
public
By Kim Yoonmi
March 23, 2009 / Korean Adoptee
Do you know what they called a Black Man that spoke out against the white masters? An"Angry Black Man" this served to function to other the person so they were not human but "other."
What was Malcolm X? An Angry Black Man.
What was Rosa Parks? An Angry Black Woman.
What was Martin Luther King? An Angry Black Man.
Who was the "good" black man? The one that shut up and took the oppression and let himself seem dumb to his masters. Because this man was grateful to his masters for feeding him, clothing him, and treating him like crap when the master dehumanized him. Sure, these masters also committed genocide on 30% of the full 90% of Native American populations and sure there were plenty of acts later down the line to prove that White Superiority was shown through things like "Manifest Destiny" Immigration Acts (mainly to block Chinese, Japanese and "foreign", let's admit it, "other than white" races.) But let's get this straight. The man who does not speak up against oppression is the "good" slave and the one that speaks up is the "bad" slave.
Since most East Asians use passive means of social correction, this makes them the "good" minority.
The bad minority are those Native Americans without tribes, you know the "red" people whom we like to misnomer things like "Indian" and "Eskimo" (For anyone living in a cold climate must be "Eskimo") that do things like sue the government for reparation money for the 90% of the population and irreplaceable land they lost through sleazy displacing. Yup, they are the "angry" ones. The ones that we like to call things like, "Skinheads." (taking from a Mohawk stereotype... and mixing it with Blackfoot Native American traditions... Way to go! Mix those Plains Indians with Sedentary Agricultural New York State Native Americans!) Don't forget those African Americans (Why should they be angry at almost 150 years of slavery and prejudice?) And those Catholics too... Man, what were they thinking by believing in the Pope. Let's ban those "bad" white people of Eastern Europe from coming into the country with their Papist views. They are "angry" Irish and "drunk" Scots and "seductive" Italians with Immigration Acts to ban them from the country--religious freedom! Yay! If they speak out they are "angry."
So Uncle Tom that lived in the cabin was a "good" slave, but Jim was a "bad" slave, 'cause he ran away from his master/mistress in Huckleberry Finn.
What do I think when someone calls me an "Angry Adoptee?" I think the "good" adoptee is the one that has faced hardships and tried very, very hard to cope with their surroundings, but is afraid to speak out. While the ones that speak about the injustices of the system are the "angry" adoptees. As history has shown for the African American slaves, I don't think either is the "wrong" way. There are good and bad adoptions, things that are good and things that need to change. And if I point out things that need to change at the same time that I point out the good things about adoption, it's likely I'll be labeled as the "angry" adoptee. Because I called for change to the system. Because I feel like certain unalienable rights were taken away when I had to take on this label given to me by certain institutions and governments. And if I fight for them and the next generation of adoptees, isn't that just as frightening as it was when advocates of race spoke out? So it's easier to label me as angry, take away my humanity and voice by labeling me with a "negative" emotion, because who wants change to a system that seems to serve the adoptive parents' and agencys' good which the media entirely endorses (well, most of the time). However, remember that Susan Soon-keum Cox of Holt said, "Families for children, not children for families."
So go ahead and call me angry. And I'll be happy to call you out right back--prejudiced and afraid. And if you are prejudiced and afraid, then please educate yourself so you are not. Because I think the next generation of children--adopted or not--deserve that much.
What was Malcolm X? An Angry Black Man.
What was Rosa Parks? An Angry Black Woman.
What was Martin Luther King? An Angry Black Man.
Who was the "good" black man? The one that shut up and took the oppression and let himself seem dumb to his masters. Because this man was grateful to his masters for feeding him, clothing him, and treating him like crap when the master dehumanized him. Sure, these masters also committed genocide on 30% of the full 90% of Native American populations and sure there were plenty of acts later down the line to prove that White Superiority was shown through things like "Manifest Destiny" Immigration Acts (mainly to block Chinese, Japanese and "foreign", let's admit it, "other than white" races.) But let's get this straight. The man who does not speak up against oppression is the "good" slave and the one that speaks up is the "bad" slave.
Since most East Asians use passive means of social correction, this makes them the "good" minority.
The bad minority are those Native Americans without tribes, you know the "red" people whom we like to misnomer things like "Indian" and "Eskimo" (For anyone living in a cold climate must be "Eskimo") that do things like sue the government for reparation money for the 90% of the population and irreplaceable land they lost through sleazy displacing. Yup, they are the "angry" ones. The ones that we like to call things like, "Skinheads." (taking from a Mohawk stereotype... and mixing it with Blackfoot Native American traditions... Way to go! Mix those Plains Indians with Sedentary Agricultural New York State Native Americans!) Don't forget those African Americans (Why should they be angry at almost 150 years of slavery and prejudice?) And those Catholics too... Man, what were they thinking by believing in the Pope. Let's ban those "bad" white people of Eastern Europe from coming into the country with their Papist views. They are "angry" Irish and "drunk" Scots and "seductive" Italians with Immigration Acts to ban them from the country--religious freedom! Yay! If they speak out they are "angry."
So Uncle Tom that lived in the cabin was a "good" slave, but Jim was a "bad" slave, 'cause he ran away from his master/mistress in Huckleberry Finn.
What do I think when someone calls me an "Angry Adoptee?" I think the "good" adoptee is the one that has faced hardships and tried very, very hard to cope with their surroundings, but is afraid to speak out. While the ones that speak about the injustices of the system are the "angry" adoptees. As history has shown for the African American slaves, I don't think either is the "wrong" way. There are good and bad adoptions, things that are good and things that need to change. And if I point out things that need to change at the same time that I point out the good things about adoption, it's likely I'll be labeled as the "angry" adoptee. Because I called for change to the system. Because I feel like certain unalienable rights were taken away when I had to take on this label given to me by certain institutions and governments. And if I fight for them and the next generation of adoptees, isn't that just as frightening as it was when advocates of race spoke out? So it's easier to label me as angry, take away my humanity and voice by labeling me with a "negative" emotion, because who wants change to a system that seems to serve the adoptive parents' and agencys' good which the media entirely endorses (well, most of the time). However, remember that Susan Soon-keum Cox of Holt said, "Families for children, not children for families."
So go ahead and call me angry. And I'll be happy to call you out right back--prejudiced and afraid. And if you are prejudiced and afraid, then please educate yourself so you are not. Because I think the next generation of children--adopted or not--deserve that much.
2009 Mar 23