Support the motherland

Finally, I’m ready to break my silence on the Madonna/Baby David issue. If you don’t know who David is, you’ve obviously been on another planet over the last two weeks. The burning issue, besides AIDS, the war in Iraq, cancer research and global warming, is whether the Material Girl should be able to adopt a little 13 month-old African boy.

It seems Madonna was doing some philanthropic work for children in Malawi. Yea, Madge gets down like that these days. While visiting, she formed a connection with little orphan and started adopting procedures. She had been thinking about adopting for years. Part of that adoption process is an 18-month probation period where the child is brought into the home and officials decide whether it’s a good fit.

The backlash started immediately with the boy’s father coming forward saying he wasn’t aware of the intricacies of the adoption. He thought Madonna was acting as a sponsor and he would have access to his child. Human rights advocates jumped on the bandwagon accusing her of using her affluence to fast track the adoption.

After days of being battered and releasing cryptic statements, she went to the highest authority to make sure her message hit the masses. Oprah. She told O that David’s father hadn’t had contact with him since he was 2 weeks old. She says she sat with the father and explained her intentions. She feels he was put in a hard place by the media and she’s probably right.

My first question to Madonna is why Malawi. I understand that she’s building a facility there but she knew that there were no set adoption policies and was even discouraged from adopting there. She was advised to go to Ethiopia or Kenya. We know she likes a challenge but as a sharp businesswoman I’m surprised she took the risk but I guess you don’t become Madonna by not taking chances, which brings another point. This decision involves a child and your heart. Why take such a big chance when this adoption could be revoked by a parent? Why not select a child with no living parents? She could still sponsor David.

I admire the fact that she’s supporting Africa. More celebrities need to put their money in Africa and out of Kitson. As Americans we can all do more; the Diva included. However, I don’t know that adopting African children is the answer. It’s not that these children aren’t wanted like in China. The problem is an infrastructure that can’t support the issues of the continent. More money needs to be funneled into Africa for food, education and health.

Taking these children out of their native land doesn’t help Africa in the long run unless they are able to visit and cultivate their roots. The ultimate goal should be an Africa that is self-sufficient and that can’t happen if an entire generation is removed. I’m not saying this based on race but from a culture perspective.

Madonna was wise from a PR perspective to finally tell her story. I do believe that she wants what it right for the boy but I know her status moved this adoption forward because the average American couldn’t afford the entire process between time constraints and travel. Only a wealthy person could adopt in Malawi. She put a pretty cool spin on the issue by saying that the media attention will scare other people away from adopting and that will negatively impact Africa. She also asserts that the media confused David’s father and put words in his mouth. I think she also learned that when it comes down to it millions may buy her records but thousand don’t want her to adopt children. Advocates used the adoption to send a clear message. This message wasn’t sent to Angelina Jolie and she cavorted with a married man and had a child out of wedlock.

The adoption might as well go ahead. My only hope is that if the father truly wants to see his son that he is able to work out some kind of arrangement with Madonna. Maybe it’s a matter of David and his father being sponsored by Madonna in order to stay together as a family.

What are your thoughts?