Initially, all the news about Bullock' adoption focused on the secrecy she was able to maintain. Now the feedback is coming in from all over on her people magazine cover spread and it's a mixed bag, a shave been all the big news celeb adoptions - some (Madonna's) mired in more negativity than others (Angie's).
Even so, most articles, such as "Bullock’s adoption of black baby stirs debate" are more fluff than substance and avoid the sticky-wicket issues such as the Nazi proclivities of Jesse James, who Bullock has stated she wants in the child's life. Also ignored - in this and all articles I've seen on the subject - is the white privilege that allows for color-blindness.
On the other extreme, however, is an article on NewsNet14 which clims to be "devoted to bringing you news that the mainstream media feels isn’t newsworthy" but is, in reality a white supremacist racist rag.
However slanted this European website, this is a far too scary view of racism today - in adoption and in general. So hideous and inciting (not to be confused with insightful) that I would not re-print them and give such filth any additional exposure. So, you'll just have to click here to read them.
The places we call home are no longer “our” nations. These people who decide our fate, these “elected officials” are put there not by you or me, but by Zionist media mongers.
They are leading our people to a path of extinction, and we cannot allow this to succeed. The European race makes up only 2% of the world population, and at the current rate we will be extinct in only 5 generations. Our enemies know this, and continue to bombard us with the same anti European propaganda, designed to proliferate guilt and self hatred on a daily basis.
Yet as tough as it is to read, it is important to know that this is part of the world we live in today. It is not all liberal color-blond folk or even those who "tolerate" "others" and claim not be racist because they have a friend or two who looks a bit different but will share a raucous laugh at racist joke and forward them to you via email. Neighbors of mine who tell me how "they" are ruining the neighborhood, or "I wouldn't go to a doctor" who's name was so "un-American" (which I frequently hear) because you can't be sure if their credentials are real, or because they simply don't want "one of them" touching them (which I've also been told) - not that they're racist, mind you...as I am sure no Arizonians are either.
So white supremacist extreme website aside, these (more subtle?) forms of racism exist in every city and town across the nation. Ask any person of color, and ask especially one adopted into or living in a predominantly white area.
Racism aside, Bullock adopted not just a healthy child, but a fresh-from-the-oven NEWBORN. This is significant because it is a Black newborn - not the most common child available for adoption as the stigma on single motherhood has not historically been an issue in Black culture. It is indicative of the fact that as Black's become more upwardly mobile, they take on the good - and the bad - of white culture. It is also significant because one can only wonder if far from Bullock deciding to accept any child regardless of color as she states, did she request a Black child to make herself feel good or to show off her liberalism as some have suggested? Why did Madonna choose to go to Ethiopia of all places she was able to adopt from?
Obviously given their financial position the could each have had any child they wanted, yet Bullock wound up with a Black newborn infant.
I would say to Sandra that if she really wanted to show off her liberal open-mindedness and be a role model, she'd have an open adoption and welcome her babies' original family as her extended kin. In that way, she could top off both Madonna and Angie and be the real star of the adoption show. Think of the publicity! But of course, she'd also have to face the music if it went sour as so many do, and especially in this case with Nazi supporter JJ in the wings.