Klein -- Assenting

It seems as though no one can ignore or even really disagree with Klein’s claim of familial ties creating political obligation. I find that I also agree with her idea and if it did not create an actual political obligation it at least created a definite sense of responsibility in the Western world. The family is supposed to be a close-knit community where one should be mentally and physically nourished; those who need help are given it and those who are searching for compassion can easily find it. Since American families could not really relate to Asians, what better way to bring them together than in a family setting? Klein shows that if a new member is introduced into the family circle, they will be tended to when in need, for those who are in bad shape are nursed out of it with the care of the other members of the family. This could be the case of the impoverished Asian child – a family feels compelled to adopt and support this child, wanting to make their living situation bearable.

With the media attention surrounding first the Hiroshima Maidens and then the CCF effort, the Western world could not help but be bombarded with the issues. By helping either of these groups, the American was in turn fighting communism from spreading its evil wings. Particularly with the CCF, the idea of adoption as a way to become involved and educated in Asian relations was popularized. As Klein points out, adoption of Asian children was actually being seen as an “effective means to fight the Cold War” (153). The most interesting thing about this idea is that actual breakdown of how this fights the Cold War: war leads to poverty which in turn leads to starving children, and those children are susceptible to communist promises – if we adopt and support these children, they will be saved from falling into communist hands and will not prove to be a threat to the security of the United States. Since “the hungry children of the world are more dangerous… than the atom bomb,” if we harness them and invite them into our families we can prevent the explosion and destruction of our culture (154). It is so interesting the ‘adoption’ almost became synonymous with ‘foreign aid’ and, in turn, ‘American preservation and expansion.’

The most telling part of Klein’s argument, in my opinion, is not the analysis of South Pacific, but rather the example she provided in Kennedy. Kennedy’s reliance and exploitation of America’s “political-obligation-as-parenthood” in a speech he gave made it clear that this was actually a rather common feeling in the Western world. “If we are not the parents of little Vietnam… then surely we are the godparents… this is our offspring – we cannot abandon it, we cannot ignore its needs” (189). This speech completely infantilizes and personifies South Vietnam, making it something that we must comfort and rock gently back to sleep before we can further nourish and raise it. He is using the obvious metaphor of adoption for expansion. Until her inclusion of this speech I thought the argument was only loosely based, but once I read this it became clear to me that this idea tapped into the feelings of a large chunk of Americans.