Weather: Hi 4°C / Lo 2°C
Madonna has to adopt a defiant stance
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Print
Email
Why all this moral fingerpointing about Madonna’s wish to adopt a second child from Malawi?
Fair enough, she's a global megastar. Fair enough, she's only recently dumped ‘our own’ Guy Ritchie — the chap who for a while gave us rights of ownership to ‘Madge’ — and that brought her domestic arrangements into focus once again.
But really we had all this last time round, with the adoption of her son David. The reaction then was particularly venomous, with the little boy hunted from the airport to his front door with the same hysterical mania as if he’d actually been Madeleine McCann.
Madonna held her ground then, with her usual disdain for whatever drivel the media can serve up about her. And now quite remarkably she’s returned to the same contentious process to adopt Mercy James, a four-year-old orphan.
It's easy to see why the star is one of the most resilient, enduring icons of modern culture — the bitch just won't let go. Anyone else would have said after the last adoption: “That was a PR disaster. No more of that.” But not Madonna. And that's because she knows it's been a success.
Her charity, Raising Malawi, is well bedded in now — jibes about its Kaballah ethos are about as tasteless as comments about any faith-based mission. The notion, as put forward by some charities, that children like David and Mercy would be better left in their own culture, is actually an argument for the withdrawal of all Western aid agencies from countries similarly afflicted by hunger and disease.
Intervention takes many forms, but the idea that creating a small island of wealth in which a chosen child might be brought up and the standards of their family raised to an impossible level in comparison with the next village is untenable and stupid.
Next we’d be told it would be that Madonna did nothing — and that that would be a better outcome. Child dies in its natural habitat and the western world is safe for freetrade chocolate and eco-ethical flip flops.
But this isn't some ‘rent a random refugee' scheme. This is an adoption. David is her son. Mercy James will be Madonna's daughter. Just as if she had conceived and given birth to her. All the rights belonging to blood belong to these two children. It's for keeps. The value of Madonna's action will be felt by adoption agencies here who are still struggling to place children because there’s still felt to be something peculiar about it all, with the Press routinely more interested in who the real parents are and if they have traced them yet.
The only people whose views count on this are the children themselves. They will be the ones who will judge Madonna Louise Ciccone, in the way we all do as we look back on our childhoods.
It's understandable Save The Children will seize on the opportunity to attach themselves to a megastar in order to raise their profile a few blocks up the websites. But I doubt anyone is giving money to that charity in order for it to sound forth about Madonna's quite legitimate, ethical and love-based adoption. After all, Madonna doesn't have to do this, she doesn't need the feelgood-ery, the profile boost.
As for the critics who object because she’s a single mother? Yes, a two-parent family is always the ideal, but there are many single mothers — often not by choice — doing an outstanding job bringing up children on their own.
Besides, the evidence would suggest that Madonna presides over a tight family unit. Her older daughter Lourdes is with her in Malawi, involved in the process and keen to welcome her new sister.
Would every teenager be so keen? It shows Madonna is able to give her family real, engaged responsibilies in thinking of others less well-off than themselves.
If David and Mercy grow up thinking they are different in that family set-up, it will only because of the rubber-necking and mutterings of the society they are living in. It won't be as a result of the family that they’re now part of.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
"usual disdain for whatever drivel the media can serve up..."
Oh, the irony of one Gail Walker talking about the media she works in and the type of drivel she gets away with week after week.
Gail, it is quite simple. Madonna is playing to a fashion, this fashion for rainbow families. This grotesque competition that she appears to be in with Angelina Jolie is nothing more than a superstar believing her own hype and indulging in patronising colonialism for her own end.
I have to ask, what is so wrong with those needing adoption in her own country? Surely there are as many needy unwanted children in New York and the great wide industrial wastelands of the American northeast? Isn't it just because this child is African and African aid is fashionable that she's done it once and been trying it again?
Madonna and Angelina are no great saviours. If this really was the case shouldn't they be shedding their millions and their excess homes to help children where they are born?
Posted by Conal Stewart | 07.04.09, 10:48 GMT
This is a brilliant article. It's wonderful to finally see Madonna praised for what I believe are her genuinely heartfelt actions.
Madonna is the sort of person who has a real interest in other cultures and that is more than apparent now by the way that she's back in Malawi with David and even meeting up with David's biological father. There is no way that she will allow her adopted children to forget their roots and she more than anyone has all the resources to ensure that the ties to Africa remain, should the children so wish as they get older.
I've grown tired of reading so much negativity about Madonna and these adoptions. The argument seems to be based on the idea that if you can't help a million orphans then you might as well not help any at all. Now THAT really is shamefully scandalous.
Posted by Edward | 01.04.09, 19:11 GMT
completely agree with everything you said. its unfair the amount of critism Madonna gets for this, people completely ignore the fact she is doing a lot for Malawi with her organisation, and also raising the country's profile so that others will be inspired to help too. good on you, Madonna.
Posted by C | 01.04.09, 15:38 GMT
To Mr. Richard Peterson..
I am an adoptee also. I spent the first few months of my life in an orphanage. I was given a living home, a good education, a great start in life. Madonna is giving these children exactly the same. I most definitely would prefer to be given these opportunities than remain in an orphanage in poverty. I believe all adoptees have certain issues to deal with later on in life. I know I do, and reading your comment it is clear you do too. But I'm surprised you aren't supportive of anyone trying to give a child a better home. I think Gail is spot on here..
Posted by Rachel | 01.04.09, 11:41 GMT
To Mr. Richard Peterson....
Just what if, you're an orphan and your relatives put you in an orphanage because they claim they cannot give you a good life, then in the orphanage you have to scramble with other children to get food, clothing, and struggle to get educated. Don't you wish to be adopted???? Would you wish someone would come and take you away and feed you, clothe you, and educate you??? Oh, but you Mr. Richardson, you're the one who's selfish, you don't wanted to be adopted by Madonna....no no no......you'd rather die in the orphanage than be treated like a piece of meat like Madonna is treating David. He's just a piece of meat. Look at David, he's so pathetic looking when he's with Madonna. Don't you think??????
Posted by Andy | 01.04.09, 08:02 GMT
Madonna deserves huge praise for this, and what is not being reported is that she is funding the construction and upkeep of an orphanage that will house, feed and care for 4,000 children there, so why is she ridiculed and Angelina Jolie is praised to high heaven for doing much less?
Posted by Paul | 31.03.09, 23:59 GMT
Gail - could not have said better myself. What Madonna is doing (and has previously done) is fantastic. All this 'Who does Madonna think she is for taking a child away from its country' - yes she maybe taking her away from her country, but she is also taking her away from a life of poverty, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, no education.........
Apparently the little girls grandmother wants to oppose. Then why is the girl in an orphanage. Why is she not with the grandmother. Because the grandmother wants to wait until she sees the money coming in that media interest would generate - otherwise (I repeat) WHY IS SHE IN AN ORPHANAGE!
Gail - fantastic words
Madonna - fantastic humanitarian
Posted by GammyC | 31.03.09, 17:18 GMT
Well said and well done to Madonna for being a loving mother and not only for her natural children.
Posted by Kerry | 31.03.09, 17:09 GMT
Well said and well done to Madonna for being a loving mother and not only for her natural children.
Posted by Kerry | 31.03.09, 17:09 GMT
It is amazing how people can be ignorant to the fact that the child will have such a healthy, comfortable life and the opportunity to be educated.
It is absolutley unbelievable that one says that they would rather let the child grow up in its natural enviroment...in this case meaning in poverty and disease. Are they implying that the orphaned children in Africa should be treated like animals in a national park, where if nature demands that a calf be left to die because its mother is dead so be it??...Pathetic
who says that Madonna isnt a good mother? I think she is a great mother..not becuase im a huge fan but one just has to see the mannerisms of her children to know how their mother is, You honestly can not judge her by her personal life style and her acts on stage, Shes giving what people want on stage and off stage she is givinga child a life..a second chance in life..
Viva Madonna!
Posted by Anant Patel | 31.03.09, 12:37 GMT
Yes, let's let celebrities do what they wish. As an adoptee, I tend to lean toward adoptee's rights. If Madonna really felt she should do something, it wouldn't just be starting a charity fund for the village she happened to adopt from. It would be so much more. Does she really need her multi-million dollar homes? no. Her actions are selfish, not selfless. This isn't about whether Madonna would be able to give this girl a better life, it's about whether it's right to take her away from family. I doubt you'll really understand much about that if you haven't been closely linked to an adoptee. I don't mean someone trying to adopt either, I mean someone who has been adopted. Let's not forget that there are two parties involved here. The adopting parent is just one piece. You keep treating all these adoptees as if they're pieces of meat, or kittens being chosen at random. We most certainly are not.
Posted by Richard Peterson | 31.03.09, 09:57 GMT