Despite being told “no” regarding her bid to adopt a second child from Malawi, Madonna remains hopeful that her appeal will be successful. She wants what amounts to a companion piece to little David, the boy she adopted from that nation in 2006. That adoption had its problems, as critics said she used her wealth and fame to skirt laws that prevent non-Malawian citizens from adopting.
The idea that she wants to give little Mercy “a home, a loving family environment and the best education and health-care possible” is admirable. But if her final goal is, as she says, to give David and Mercy the tools they need to “one day return to Malawi and help the people of their country,” why doesn’t she just stick with the school she is planning on building? Or perhaps invest in the local economy, providing jobs for parents who are unable to adequately care for their own children? Wouldn’t that go further than holding what amounts to a kind of lottery and then whisking the lucky winners away to a fantasyland of luxury?
Forgive my cynicism, but it seems to me that like many celebrities, Madonna’s actions are more about burnishing her image as a progressive, caring person than helping the children of Malawi. “See, I’m not one of those people with lots of money who’s selfish! I’m doing something good!” Perhaps I’m wrong, but adopting these two children isn’t going to do much for the plight of the others left behind.
Plus, being surrounded by “yes” men day in and day out, it should not surprise anyone that Madonna would take “no” as an answer from anyone.
Now don’t get me wrong – Americans adopt children from overseas all the time. I personally know of several couples who did. Yet these were everyday people of average means who, unlike Madonna, could have no children of their own and who received no publicity for their very time consuming, very expensive efforts to adopt. No photo ops, no public accolades, no interviews in People Magazine and on the Oprah show, nothing to “show off” to the masses. Just children to love and raise as their own.
Funny too, when you think of it, that when little David first arrived in London, he was accompanied not by his adoptive mother, but by her aides. What, could she not find the time in her hectic schedule to accompany her new son to his new home? It reminded me of ordering from a catalog and having it delivered right to your door. No muss, no fuss.
On a related note, Christian Toto wonders if Madonna’s daughter Lourdes is picking up on Mom’s narcissistic qualities:
She once told “Today” staffers Lourdes tends to “walk into a room and demand that everyone pay attention to her.”
Who knows where she picked up that attitude from?
Indeed. And what screams “pay attention to me” more than a couple of cute little kiddies from a poor African nation in the care of a pop music icon?
Headlines about a school or some other philanthropic endeavor only last for a couple of days, unless there’s some sort of scandal involved (just ask Oprah). Nope, like Angelina Jolie – who seems to be intent upon being the first on her block to collect the complete multi-ethnic set of orphans – Madonna sees the public relations value in adopting ethnic children from impoverished countries. The queen of reinvention, Madonna once again seeks to remake herself – this time as the doting mother with a gaggle of international children (now sans husband, since she and Guy Ritchie divorced late last year).
Like I said, forgive my cynicism. I expect not everyone will agree with me and some will say I’m being overly critical of such a selfless gesture. They might even ask me what I’ve done for the international community lately. (Answer: nothing. I’m too busy with my own family.) But considering all of Madonna’s colorful past, it’s hard to believe this isn’t just the latest in a long line of publicity stunts. I just hope the children make it through unscathed.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.