Do y'all know about “transracial adoption” (which almost always refers to whites buying nonwhite children)? Shit is wild.

“Although most adoption social workers espouse the view that the child should be the central client…when adoption is pitched, the needs of the paying customer (i.e., the prospective adoptive parent) get elevated.

If the parents are the clients, this means that the child, at least temporarily, becomes the object of exchange.”

That's already fucked but not even sure where to start with this:

“private adoption underwent a massive transformation since there were fewer Asian and Hispanic babies available for adoption. This shortage meant that adoption providers had to rethink how they sold transracial adoption,

putting more emphasis on the placement of foreign-born African children and U.S.-born biracial (i.e., part White) Black children. I am able to show how the market shift helped reformulate the racial boundary, effectively expanding it to include these children.

Adoption workers played up these distinctions by differentially pricing, labeling, and allocating biracial Black children.

Likewise, adoption agencies also perpetuated the idea that the placement of foreign-born Black children would be different from adopting a native-born Black child, permitting White parents to characterize their African children as ’not Black.‘”

“Even though private adoption routinely requires the transfer of thousands of dollars from one party to another, any allusion to private adoption as baby buying threatens what sociologist Viviana Zelizer calls ‘the exaltation of children’s sentimental worth.’

However, as Zelizer shows in her landmark study tracing the desirability of babies put up for adoption throughout the twentieth century, private adoption has always been a marketplace where some children were in greater demand than others.

Whereas in the 1900s, would-be adoptive parents sought out older children who could contribute to the upkeep of the household, in contemporary adoption it is the babies who are the most valuable.

Zelizer argues that this change catalyzed a new demand for babies and ‘stimulated a new kind of baby market.’”

quotes from the introduction to the book Selling Transracial Adoption: Families, Markets, and the Color Line

from further in the book:

“American preference for a foreign non-White child over a domestic Black child became firmly established during the 1970s. Unable to obtain a White child, and unwilling or unable to adopt a Black child, Americans turned to Korean children:

a ‘racial middle ground’ that did not require white parents to cross the highly charged black-white divide.”

“The extent to which the cross-race adoption of Asian children was seen as distinct from the cross-race adoption of Black children is also evident…

in the adoption terminology used to describe these placements. Reviewing the literature, Mia Tuan describes how ‘the term “transracial adoption” is typically reserved for those adoptions involving the domestic placement of African-American children with White American parents,

while “international adoption” or “inter-country adoption” refers to foreign-born Asian or Latin-American children adopted by White American parents.’

By linguistically separating Black children from Asian and Hispanic children, adoption social workers implicitly reinforced the racial hierarchy and sent the message to their White clients that overseas placements provided a more palatable form of transracial adoption.

Park Nelson describes this calculus: ‘Since the anti-transracial-adoption positions of the NABSW and in the ICWA emphasized histories of racial discrimination against African Americans and American Indians,

the perceived absence of racial discrimination against Asian Americans made the transracial adoption of Asians into White homes appear safe in comparison to domestic transracial adoption.’

Although there is a general scholarly consensus that…greater willingness among White parents to adopt Asian & Hispanic children [relies on] the aversion to adopting Black children, studies suggest…few White parents are willing to frame their decisions in such calculated terms.

Instead, Kathryn Sweeney describes how the White adoptive parents she interviewed ‘talked about race without directly doing so,’ especially ‘when rationalizing the decision to not adopt a Black child.’ …

White adoptive parents often rely on coded language, using terminology such as it would have been ‘too much’ to adopt a Black child, explaining that this reasoning was likely a euphemism for it would have been too ‘undesirable.’”

“The practice of charging less for Black children is an open secret in private adoption. Barbara Fedders argues, ‘The laws regulating private adoption grant agencies much discretion in how they set fees,

and a significant number of agencies charge prospective adoptive parents a higher fee to adopt a White infant than to adopt a Black infant.’ But it was not until NPR ran its Race Card Project broadcast [in 2013] that the general public became aware of the practice.

Since that broadcast and the outrage that followed, racial pricing seems to have gone more underground. It still happens, but researchers now have to dig a little deeper to uncover this fee structure.”

“The practice of pricing [nonblack] Asian and Hispanic children on par with White children may stem from adoption workers’ awareness that these children are perceived as a second-best option, given the shortage of White infants in the domestic market.

Irene details how her clients are willing to adopt non-White children, but within a narrow scope: ‘I would say that most of our clients are White. And not all—we definitely have African American and Hispanic clients—but I would say that the vast majority of them are White.

And most of them are hoping to adopt a White child or a White/Asian child or a White/Hispanic child.’

…not all Hispanics are afforded an honorary White status. In a marked departure from the practice of classifying Hispanics of any race as Hispanic, [adoption agency] Family Tapestry would categorize and price Black Hispanic children as Black.”

“Unlike Family Tapestry and Baby Bunting, who charge a set price by race, fees at placement agencies tend to vary. The [a placement agency] presenter explained, ‘These fees typically fall between $15,000 and $23,000.’

Notably, the price not only varies among placement organizations but oscillates depending on the racial composition of the individual child. These race-based fees are likely similar to the ones profiled on NPR’s Race Card Project,

which featured a screenshot from a placement agency website listing the fee for a Caucasian baby as $29,000, the fee for a biracial White and African American baby girl as $25,000, and the fee for an African American baby girl as $17,000.”

ok that's enough for now.