"But... but... you're in reunion. Doesn't that make it better? Doesn't that fix it?"
No, Normie. It doesn't "make it better". It "fixes" nothing. Sometimes it answers questions. Occasionally (very occasionally) it provides a genuine connection with a blood relative. But no, it doesn't "fix" my adoption. It doesn't mitigate the trauma of my relinquishment. It doesn't undo the damage my adopters did when they purchased me.
Being in awkward, uncomfortable reunion doesn't give me back the time I missed with my siblings. In fact, reuniting with them as adults just reminds me that I should not have had to reunite with them in the first place. It shows me my "better life" wasn't better, just different. It shows me that if I had been kept, I would have grown up to be a relatively well adjusted adult with actual connections to my blood, family, and history. It brings up another life to mourn. Another world to wonder about.
Being in tenuous, hesitant reunion with my father doesn't repair the break between us. Contrarily, it brings it into sharp relief. There is no way to recover a parent/child relationship when the parent gave the child away. Yes, I can call for medical and family history. How does that improve the fact that I should have grown up knowing these things?
How does having a name and phone number "fix" being relinquished as an infant and adopted and raised by strangers? How does being able to speak to family members occasionally "make it better" that we have been separated my whole life?
Really, explain this to me. Everyone assumes it "fixes" the trauma, that it makes up for the separation. Adopters, counselors, adoption professionals... they all shout "REUNION!" from the rooftops as though it is some kind of restorative potion to drink.
Tell me, how does finally hearing the story of my birth for the first time as an adult make up for the fact that I didn't grow up with the people responsible for my birth?
Does reunion give me back my childhood with my parents?
Does reunion allow me to grow up with my siblings?
Does reunion give me the intimate lifelong knowledge of my heritage and history?
Does reunion put me back in the family pictures?
No. I'm still staring at the hallway of the lifetime of pictures of MY FAMILY, and I'm not in any of them.
Does reunion "fix" that?
Does reunion give me my life back?
No. I have been forced to "reunite" with people I should have always known. It's not loving. It's not heartwarming. It's not joyful.
It is a further casualty of my relinquishment and adoption. It is a testament to my broken family.
No, Normie. It doesn't "make it better". It "fixes" nothing. Sometimes it answers questions. Occasionally (very occasionally) it provides a genuine connection with a blood relative. But no, it doesn't "fix" my adoption. It doesn't mitigate the trauma of my relinquishment. It doesn't undo the damage my adopters did when they purchased me.
Being in awkward, uncomfortable reunion doesn't give me back the time I missed with my siblings. In fact, reuniting with them as adults just reminds me that I should not have had to reunite with them in the first place. It shows me my "better life" wasn't better, just different. It shows me that if I had been kept, I would have grown up to be a relatively well adjusted adult with actual connections to my blood, family, and history. It brings up another life to mourn. Another world to wonder about.
Being in tenuous, hesitant reunion with my father doesn't repair the break between us. Contrarily, it brings it into sharp relief. There is no way to recover a parent/child relationship when the parent gave the child away. Yes, I can call for medical and family history. How does that improve the fact that I should have grown up knowing these things?
How does having a name and phone number "fix" being relinquished as an infant and adopted and raised by strangers? How does being able to speak to family members occasionally "make it better" that we have been separated my whole life?
Really, explain this to me. Everyone assumes it "fixes" the trauma, that it makes up for the separation. Adopters, counselors, adoption professionals... they all shout "REUNION!" from the rooftops as though it is some kind of restorative potion to drink.
Tell me, how does finally hearing the story of my birth for the first time as an adult make up for the fact that I didn't grow up with the people responsible for my birth?
Does reunion give me back my childhood with my parents?
Does reunion allow me to grow up with my siblings?
Does reunion give me the intimate lifelong knowledge of my heritage and history?
Does reunion put me back in the family pictures?
No. I'm still staring at the hallway of the lifetime of pictures of MY FAMILY, and I'm not in any of them.
Does reunion "fix" that?
Does reunion give me my life back?
No. I have been forced to "reunite" with people I should have always known. It's not loving. It's not heartwarming. It's not joyful.
It is a further casualty of my relinquishment and adoption. It is a testament to my broken family.
Excellent examination of a very complex issuehttps://theungratefuladopteeii.blogspot.com/logout?d=https://www.blogger.com/logout-redirect.g?blogID%3D2089428897390426817%26postID%3D3368726933923108122
ReplyDeletethe reunion narrative is yet another adoptospeak myth. One cannot form a relationship with one's father or mother or both who abandoned one when a baby unless they categorically own that they consciously deliberately abandoned one. Should they do so and express genuine comprehending regret at having done so their is a very remote chance that some semblance of a functional relationship might ensue but frankly this is highly unlikely.
ReplyDeletemost 'adoptees' don't realise that they are in fact abandonees and so they locate their parents and 'happily ever after' 'reunite' whilst the issue of initial abandonment remains swept under the carpet: the elephant in the room is never shot ergo the relationship is at best no less phony than one's relationship with one's abandoner 'adopters'. the issue of abandonment has to be confronted head on with no self-justifying excuses permitted.
the main problem here i suggest is internal within the abandonee he cannot bring himself to identify other than as adoptee, he cannot own that he is an out and out abandonee but rather is intent on making excuses for all those (ir)responsible adults, those abandoners. he must ruthlessly call all of them out for what they are, to do otherwise is to attempt to relate to an individual on the basis of a lie, what transpires is at best fake and altogether unsatisfactory.
The chief aim behind 'reunion' should be to locate as much information concerning one's true identity and physical bloodline as possible, little else can be achieved but this info is very valuable
i should add my true identity is Barnaby Austin Wheway. David Hughes is merely a fake, an adoptee persona
ReplyDeleteThank you again.
ReplyDeleteOK, you are clearly right about reunion as not even vaguely the panacea it's held out to be (been there, done that)
ReplyDeleteBut the fury against the relinquisher is a tougher bit to swallow. I understand being furious with a birthmom who abandons a baby in the 90s or 00s or now. But back in the 50s and 60s, and even up until the 70s, companies wouldn't hire a "fallen woman". Having an out-of-wedlock baby pretty much condemed mother and child to a meager life on the edge of society. Now, it makes life harder. Back then, it made life impossible. I'm not sure I'm willing to condemn teenagers from the Baby Scoop Era who were forced into Maternity Homes and robbed of their babies.
The seventies were forty years ago. Hundreds of thousands of babies relinquished since then. And none of their mothers were physically forced into any way. I'd say fury at relinquishers is far from misplaced. They are the main reason adoption as it is now exists.
Delete