Ned Flanders goes to Haiti

Papa needs a brand new... orphan?

"Papa needs a brand new... orphan?"

I presume everyone has heard about the American church group who have been rounding up random kids in Haiti to adopt.

Has the effect of Brangelina and Madonna been to move adoption right up to the top of development responses? I am genuinely shocked. Many of these children apparently aren’t even orphans. What were they thinking?

“Whaddya mean you still have parents? You’re poor, aren’t you? There’s a collapsed building next to you. Bring your lying ass over here. We’re taking you to the Dominican Republic.”

They may also have slightly unrealistic expectations of Haitian jail conditions these days. A quote from the Grauniad article I linked above:

One of their lawyers said they were being treated poorly: “There is no air conditioning, no electricity. It is very disturbing,” Attorney Jorge Puello said by phone from the Dominican Republic, where the Baptists hoped to shelter the children in a rented beach hotel.

Dudes, you’re in jail. In Zanzibar I don’t have that stuff in my apartment *at all* anymore.

3 thoughts on “Ned Flanders goes to Haiti

  1. […] to Haiti February 2, 2010 Gabriel Leave a comment Go to comments I liked this post from Aid Thoughts: I presume everyone has heard about the American church group who have been rounding up random kids […]

  2. Ian

    February 2, 2010 at 12:07pm

    Their reactions to ‘poor kids in Haiti’ is the same as their reaction to what they perceive to be lost souls. Their mindset is all about the ends, the means rarely matter. Just like lost souls need to be saved, these kids need to be saved and it doesn’t really matter how.

  3. dev d

    February 2, 2010 at 7:45pm

    What was shocking was their belief that they were doing the right thing, despite what many were telling them. Eerily familiar–good intentions paving the way to (development) hell.

    The BBC tries to make the story a little more complicated, pointing to “a traditional pattern of families sending children away to live in other, more prosperous households”:
    Maybe they are trying to suggest that this type of “adoption” wasn’t usual. Not sure what they had in mind there.. But they do have an interesting (but short) profile of the Idaho group (on the sidebar).

Comments are closed.