I was listening to the ABC broadcast of the ANZAC day march and i heard the RSL commentator report how the Peacekeepers marching are very few but one day the will join the real soldiers. This fired a trigger in me because one of the reasons i have not had anything to do with ex service clubs, even after twenty years in the Royal Australian Air Force, was because i hated being told I was not a real serviceman.
Normally a trigger like that would make me angry but this time it made me reflect as to why such a statement triggers me. And it would appear that it goes back to my past.
I think from the time i can remember I never felt like i fitted in and the feelings of discomfort i have in thinking of my local town exacerbates this. Whilst my a/parents did their best, i felt that the extended Legro and Yates family looked down at me. Whilst this may only be an impression there must be some basis for it. later on after i found out about my true past, I learnt that my older brother, also adopted attempted to find out more about the history of the Legro family only to be rebuffed because he was not a real Legro and a few years ago i dropped in for a hour chats with a cousin i had not seen in years from the Yates side, only to be told to make an appointment next time. So maybe as a child i detected these feelings of not being a real member of the extended family.
When i was nearly twelve i went to Launceston to go to high school and after boarding at my uncles hotel for three months, my parents found me a place to board with a good Christian family not far from the school. There were four people in the family and i had to sleep in the room of a 28 year old man and their daughter was 21. They were good people but they were not my real family . And my a/parents i saw on weekends and holidays . as the years progressed i tended to skip going home and not long after i started working at 15 I gradually reduced it to almost zero.
I joined the RAAF in 1968 and lived in barracks until 12 months after my marriage in December 1969. One thing that annoyed me was the fact that my father in law continually decried i did not have a real job but earned more money than him. Again this issue of what was real flared. But in the RAAF itself no such issue arose and i was able to be part of a team or extended family, albeit the black sheep because my job involved auditing them and investigating their discrepancies. And my family was quiet possibly a accessory to the RAAF. Working that one out is going to be a hard case to crack. Finding out i was adopted in 1984 definitely brought images of having a phony life and unreal past
Anyway i retired from the RAAF in 1988, was in the RSL for twelve months before giving it the flick because of the real issue and became a suburban husband , albeit not too good at that one. I found my mother and her first letter said that " She was not my mother only the person who gave birth to me" again images of unreality. Then when she said via her sister she could not handle meeting me it further invoked that feelings around what is reality plus the normal rejections. After her death one of her daughters disowned me saying she hated me representing her mothers past and i was not a member of that family (not real again)
So this particular trigger has been well fed by circumstances. Even the Salvation army bloke who did not even acknowledge initially the home i was born in created a trigger whereby I have very deep suspicions as to the integrity of the Salvation army something that has bought me into conflict with a friend of mine.
The final straw was the fact that a few mothers continued to denigrate our past by implying we were brainwashed, Stockholm syndrome etc as well as implying our a/parents were baby stealer's. By pushing that dogmatic agenda they were reinforcing the distress of not being real and eventually it became a major issue.
as you can see the abuse of the word real has been a major issue in my life and i wonder just how many other adoptee's have had the same reality
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Allan Roy Legro
Allan Roy Legro born 1897 died 1982, My adoptive father.
A lot has been said recently about truth and facts. facts are actual hard copy records. With my father the fact was he was born in 1897 and died in 1982. A fact is he was married on 20 December 1939and that he , along with his wife adopted me on 14 April 1950. A fact that can be verified was that he was a shepherd on the farm where he lived, Tullochgorum, Tasmania. He was born there and apart from two trips to hospital, lived there all his life.
Now the truth about my adopting father as i see it. he was a kind man who worked hard all his life up at dawn and finished usually at dusk and loved his work as a shepherd. What he did not know about Merino sheep was not worth knowing. he was giving lambs mouth to mouth resuscitation long before it was acceptable and approved practise. he would often swim flooded rivers on his horse to save flocks during the flood seasons. in his holidays he would head bush for two weeks and come home with heap of wallaby and possum carcass's which he skinned and sold the pelts to the local pelt trader. This was how he earned the money to put us through high school which was over 60 miles away. he was a good honest hardworking provider who ensured we never went hungry and ensured we had a schooling.
My father never got married until he was 42. Apparently he was engaged a few times but never got to the alter. he told me he left school at 13 which would have been in 1910 and continued to work on the same property until his cataracts were so bad he could not see when he was 80. Apparently he used to get his working dogs to guide so no one knew of his condition. When he retired he continued to live in the house where he and us were raised until his passing. Despite his educational limitations, he was a learned man i that he would read incessantly and was a lover of history, particularly Roman and Greek. he was very much aware of world events and was a lifetime member of the Australian workers union and was also a member of the Liberal Party of Australia (which in Australia is the conservative party). For much of his life i should imagine he considered himself to be a British subject which was how our forebears saw themselves even after federation in 1900. Sad to say he was also a person of his period in that he was a racist who believed in the white Australia policy and really did not look kindly upon our indigenous brothers and sisters. He would after and frequently tell how a small tribe of koori's were ambushed at a place called Pepper Hill and many were killed. but as i said he was a man of that period so it is no surprise that he adopted.
The father i knew was a kindly man, who left the raising of the children to our adopting mother. I remember him gruffly saying " sort those bloody kids out woman". The only time I ever saw him get angry with me was when i was preteen and we were out rabbiting and i showed my younger brother how to do a rabbit killer literally . dropped him like a school bag. Dad grabbed a stick and chased me but could not catch me. mother got e that night when i came home for dinner. He would reign supreme over the dinner table though telling the same old stories and same old jokes, something many think i have got from him. but really there is not much to say on the relationship. I would go rabbiting with him as i loved doing that but much of the time there was no meaningful interaction. And i believe his age (he was 52 going on 53 when they adopted me) was a factor in this.
Do I think my father wanted to adopt. I think he felt he may have had to because our mother wanted children. Do i think he actually look upon me as his son. I am not too sure. I would like to think so. Did he care for us. Yes he did and also provided for us. did he love us. in his own way i think he did but again i am not too sure. Was he proud of me. That is a vexed question. I am sure in my early teens he would have received some flak because of my mischievous nature. my older brother (also adopted) was the quiet dutiful type and i am sure most of the townsfolk thought he was the ideal adoptee whereas i was looked on as Trouble. but i think that changed when i joined the air force. I sent a silver tray from the unit i was doing my basic training at and he used to get it out,so i have been told, and show it to the locals as if to say "see you were wrong". so some pride must have been there for me.
Why my father apparently broke laws ,in relation to the fact he was too old to be legally accepted as an adoptive parent, I don't know but it appears he did. do i condemn him for it. no i don't but it adds to the complexity of the situation. do i condemn him for not telling me i was adopted. Again no i don't but the damage that created has been lifelong for me. it proves that the road to hell can be strewn with good intentions.
In retrospect I consider my adoptive father a good man, but to this day i don't really know whether he looked upon me as a son or someone who needed to be raised. And that uncertainty will stay with me forever.
A lot has been said recently about truth and facts. facts are actual hard copy records. With my father the fact was he was born in 1897 and died in 1982. A fact is he was married on 20 December 1939and that he , along with his wife adopted me on 14 April 1950. A fact that can be verified was that he was a shepherd on the farm where he lived, Tullochgorum, Tasmania. He was born there and apart from two trips to hospital, lived there all his life.
Now the truth about my adopting father as i see it. he was a kind man who worked hard all his life up at dawn and finished usually at dusk and loved his work as a shepherd. What he did not know about Merino sheep was not worth knowing. he was giving lambs mouth to mouth resuscitation long before it was acceptable and approved practise. he would often swim flooded rivers on his horse to save flocks during the flood seasons. in his holidays he would head bush for two weeks and come home with heap of wallaby and possum carcass's which he skinned and sold the pelts to the local pelt trader. This was how he earned the money to put us through high school which was over 60 miles away. he was a good honest hardworking provider who ensured we never went hungry and ensured we had a schooling.
My father never got married until he was 42. Apparently he was engaged a few times but never got to the alter. he told me he left school at 13 which would have been in 1910 and continued to work on the same property until his cataracts were so bad he could not see when he was 80. Apparently he used to get his working dogs to guide so no one knew of his condition. When he retired he continued to live in the house where he and us were raised until his passing. Despite his educational limitations, he was a learned man i that he would read incessantly and was a lover of history, particularly Roman and Greek. he was very much aware of world events and was a lifetime member of the Australian workers union and was also a member of the Liberal Party of Australia (which in Australia is the conservative party). For much of his life i should imagine he considered himself to be a British subject which was how our forebears saw themselves even after federation in 1900. Sad to say he was also a person of his period in that he was a racist who believed in the white Australia policy and really did not look kindly upon our indigenous brothers and sisters. He would after and frequently tell how a small tribe of koori's were ambushed at a place called Pepper Hill and many were killed. but as i said he was a man of that period so it is no surprise that he adopted.
The father i knew was a kindly man, who left the raising of the children to our adopting mother. I remember him gruffly saying " sort those bloody kids out woman". The only time I ever saw him get angry with me was when i was preteen and we were out rabbiting and i showed my younger brother how to do a rabbit killer literally . dropped him like a school bag. Dad grabbed a stick and chased me but could not catch me. mother got e that night when i came home for dinner. He would reign supreme over the dinner table though telling the same old stories and same old jokes, something many think i have got from him. but really there is not much to say on the relationship. I would go rabbiting with him as i loved doing that but much of the time there was no meaningful interaction. And i believe his age (he was 52 going on 53 when they adopted me) was a factor in this.
Do I think my father wanted to adopt. I think he felt he may have had to because our mother wanted children. Do i think he actually look upon me as his son. I am not too sure. I would like to think so. Did he care for us. Yes he did and also provided for us. did he love us. in his own way i think he did but again i am not too sure. Was he proud of me. That is a vexed question. I am sure in my early teens he would have received some flak because of my mischievous nature. my older brother (also adopted) was the quiet dutiful type and i am sure most of the townsfolk thought he was the ideal adoptee whereas i was looked on as Trouble. but i think that changed when i joined the air force. I sent a silver tray from the unit i was doing my basic training at and he used to get it out,so i have been told, and show it to the locals as if to say "see you were wrong". so some pride must have been there for me.
Why my father apparently broke laws ,in relation to the fact he was too old to be legally accepted as an adoptive parent, I don't know but it appears he did. do i condemn him for it. no i don't but it adds to the complexity of the situation. do i condemn him for not telling me i was adopted. Again no i don't but the damage that created has been lifelong for me. it proves that the road to hell can be strewn with good intentions.
In retrospect I consider my adoptive father a good man, but to this day i don't really know whether he looked upon me as a son or someone who needed to be raised. And that uncertainty will stay with me forever.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
The Hidden Truth of Rocklyn
As an adoptee, we all have a burning desire to find out as much about our true past as possible. Sometimes the truth may be painful, sometimes it may be joyful and sadly sometimes it may be subject to a cover up. Such is the case of the events at Rocklyn House between it's inception in 1896 and when it was finally closed down in the early 1960's.
The building itself which is now called Edenholme Grange was originally constructed as the Launceston harbour master's residence when the Tamar River used to flow up to the old Paton's woollen mill. After it is believed the building was used as a brothel. When the Salvation army took control of the building it was used as a Female rescue home, Maternity home for unwed mothers etc. Yet with a history of over 60 years under the control of the Salvation army there is very little public record of the place where young pregnant girls were incarcerated by their parents and made to work in the laundry until they gave birth.
The Salvation Army with it's proud history of believing all their homes were run in a caring manner and whose belief is they have nothing to hide appear to be very reticent in talking about their involvement. So reticent in fact that the current Divisional Commander of Tasmania was not even aware of the fact that the organisation had the home and after becoming aware of it has had to rely on outside sources for his information. I have no reason to doubt the Commander's integrity in this matter as i have been informed by other sources he is a man of honour .
However, for some unknown reason the Salvation Army is hiding something in relation to Rocklyn house. At the Tasmanian Inquiry into adoption practises in 1999, they again were very vague about Rocklyn. Maybe it was the result of a north Tasmania/ south Tasmania internal conflict; but just as likely they may not have wanted to stand the embarrassment of the nation knowing they had ran maternity hospitals in a prison like manner. What i do know is that when i was talking to residents in the vicinity of the former home back in 1993 when i was searching for my past, these good people did tell me of the fact they heard constant screaming of the young girls at night. I was also told by a salvation army officer who had mover from Launceston to Ballarat that Rocklyn was a disgraceful and terrible place. What i also know is that when comparing two separate consent to adopt forms completed in February and March of 1950, the handwriting of the consenting parties are similar and may warrant further analysis. What i also know is that any media comments on the home back in the period of it's operation is very sparse indeed with only a society piece in 1953 about the retirement of the matron after 7 years where she talked about the 1000 babies she had delivered for adoption and how she vetted the potential adopting parents by talking with them.
The Salvation Army appears to have something to hide in relation to Rocklyn House and have probably been hoping all that passed through their doors will also pass on thus keeping whatever happened there a secret. But as all organisations have found out, covering up any injustice does not work and will only make them all appear guilty. There are over sixty years of records in relation Rocklyn house and to say that " it appears that all records were destroyed in a boiler room fire in the 1960's" is an insult to every mother who suffered and gave birth there and for every adoptee and forgotten Australian who was born there. This is the most unchristian thing a christian organisation can do and they now need to be held fully accountable
The building itself which is now called Edenholme Grange was originally constructed as the Launceston harbour master's residence when the Tamar River used to flow up to the old Paton's woollen mill. After it is believed the building was used as a brothel. When the Salvation army took control of the building it was used as a Female rescue home, Maternity home for unwed mothers etc. Yet with a history of over 60 years under the control of the Salvation army there is very little public record of the place where young pregnant girls were incarcerated by their parents and made to work in the laundry until they gave birth.
The Salvation Army with it's proud history of believing all their homes were run in a caring manner and whose belief is they have nothing to hide appear to be very reticent in talking about their involvement. So reticent in fact that the current Divisional Commander of Tasmania was not even aware of the fact that the organisation had the home and after becoming aware of it has had to rely on outside sources for his information. I have no reason to doubt the Commander's integrity in this matter as i have been informed by other sources he is a man of honour .
However, for some unknown reason the Salvation Army is hiding something in relation to Rocklyn house. At the Tasmanian Inquiry into adoption practises in 1999, they again were very vague about Rocklyn. Maybe it was the result of a north Tasmania/ south Tasmania internal conflict; but just as likely they may not have wanted to stand the embarrassment of the nation knowing they had ran maternity hospitals in a prison like manner. What i do know is that when i was talking to residents in the vicinity of the former home back in 1993 when i was searching for my past, these good people did tell me of the fact they heard constant screaming of the young girls at night. I was also told by a salvation army officer who had mover from Launceston to Ballarat that Rocklyn was a disgraceful and terrible place. What i also know is that when comparing two separate consent to adopt forms completed in February and March of 1950, the handwriting of the consenting parties are similar and may warrant further analysis. What i also know is that any media comments on the home back in the period of it's operation is very sparse indeed with only a society piece in 1953 about the retirement of the matron after 7 years where she talked about the 1000 babies she had delivered for adoption and how she vetted the potential adopting parents by talking with them.
The Salvation Army appears to have something to hide in relation to Rocklyn House and have probably been hoping all that passed through their doors will also pass on thus keeping whatever happened there a secret. But as all organisations have found out, covering up any injustice does not work and will only make them all appear guilty. There are over sixty years of records in relation Rocklyn house and to say that " it appears that all records were destroyed in a boiler room fire in the 1960's" is an insult to every mother who suffered and gave birth there and for every adoptee and forgotten Australian who was born there. This is the most unchristian thing a christian organisation can do and they now need to be held fully accountable
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Rewriting The truth
To day in the Melbourne Age , i read an opinion piece by Dmetri Kakmi in which he tried to blame the fact that the late Peter roebuck might still be alive today if people did frown on his homosexuality. he describes Roebuck as a person whose homosexuality (hidden from his family) was why he was driven to set up a home for disadvantaged boys in Africa and paid for their education whilst at the same time abusing them sexually and physically with canings. He calls it a sad case. This opinion whilst not excusing the abuse has tried to sanitise the late late Mr Roebucks behaviour by blaming upon his homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Any other paedophile who travels overseas to places like Cambodia and Thailand, the federal police would be on this case and he would be before the federal court. It would appear the Mr roebuck who came to the attention of British police many years ago was able to enter australia and become a resident despite his less than idyllic past. One must ask why has the cricketing fraternity helped to cover up what was known about Mr Roebuck. I have criticised the Catholic church over it's cover ups of abuse within that churches organisations. i have also been very critical of other organisation that allowed it to occur.
As an adoptee i am highly critical of the attempts by state authorities to hide the truth behind the non compliance of the state governments own rules and procedures. So now as a person who was subject to decades of cover ups about my own past, I deplore any attempt by anyone to sanitise the actions of Mr Roebuck and then to falsely blame it on the fact he was a closet homosexual. it was never his homosexuality that caused the activities to occur. it was because of a desire to control people and have his own stable of youths. And his caning of many of them indicates a sadistic streak may have been present.
The death of Mr Roebuck is a personal tragedy for his family and to have his dark side surface in such a manner must be horrendous to them. But please do not try to justify his actions.
this is not an adoptee related issue but it does show that abuse of young people quite easily occurs when conducted without the proper scrutiny of the media and the public. Young people like my mother whom i never met were abused within the system. Hundreds of thousands of others were also quietly abused and sometimes with the assistance of the police. hundreds and thousands of adoptees were raised many unaware of the truth behind their circumstances . Many adoptees were also abused by their legal parents as no one wanted to know their fate once they were taken. Yes hidden abuse also occurred with natural parents under the noses of authorities. but with adoptees, some one in a position of authority gave us to complete strangers so the onus was on the authorities to ensure things went smoothly. But sadly as with Mr Roebuck's charges thing went wrong and no one cared
Nothing could be further from the truth. Any other paedophile who travels overseas to places like Cambodia and Thailand, the federal police would be on this case and he would be before the federal court. It would appear the Mr roebuck who came to the attention of British police many years ago was able to enter australia and become a resident despite his less than idyllic past. One must ask why has the cricketing fraternity helped to cover up what was known about Mr Roebuck. I have criticised the Catholic church over it's cover ups of abuse within that churches organisations. i have also been very critical of other organisation that allowed it to occur.
As an adoptee i am highly critical of the attempts by state authorities to hide the truth behind the non compliance of the state governments own rules and procedures. So now as a person who was subject to decades of cover ups about my own past, I deplore any attempt by anyone to sanitise the actions of Mr Roebuck and then to falsely blame it on the fact he was a closet homosexual. it was never his homosexuality that caused the activities to occur. it was because of a desire to control people and have his own stable of youths. And his caning of many of them indicates a sadistic streak may have been present.
The death of Mr Roebuck is a personal tragedy for his family and to have his dark side surface in such a manner must be horrendous to them. But please do not try to justify his actions.
this is not an adoptee related issue but it does show that abuse of young people quite easily occurs when conducted without the proper scrutiny of the media and the public. Young people like my mother whom i never met were abused within the system. Hundreds of thousands of others were also quietly abused and sometimes with the assistance of the police. hundreds and thousands of adoptees were raised many unaware of the truth behind their circumstances . Many adoptees were also abused by their legal parents as no one wanted to know their fate once they were taken. Yes hidden abuse also occurred with natural parents under the noses of authorities. but with adoptees, some one in a position of authority gave us to complete strangers so the onus was on the authorities to ensure things went smoothly. But sadly as with Mr Roebuck's charges thing went wrong and no one cared
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
The Hidden Truth
Yesterday i read and heard media reports about changes being made the ACMA in relation to reporting of refugees. These changes are alleged to be the result of the media breaching the privacy of refugees because their photos are appearing which show their anguish and pain in daily news reports. However based on past experience it is a crude attempt to sanitise the truth so as to control the message being presented to the Australian public.
Sadly this is not the first time governments have attempted to sanitise a message so that only their version reaches the public. In the past the media has been as guilty as governments of sanitising the message. Here are some of the media reports that have actually affected this writer personally:
On Wednesday 3rd September 1947 An article in the Launceston Examiner reports;
Child Hungry couples are besieging the registrar of births (the person responsible for approving adoptions) and that demand for children was exceeding supply. 200 adoptions occurred in 1946. The department made enquiries into the suitability of applicants. age limits for applicants were set at 45 for women and 50 for men. They were able to select the best homes for the babies.
On Wednesday 26 January, 1949 and article in the Hobart mercury reports;
The registrar of births in Tasmania reports that he is concerned that the demand for babies would create a black market. he reiterated that careful enquiries were made concerning those who wished to adopt.
This was the message being put out by the Tasmania government authorities and the media lapped it up and as result the Tasmanian public were not aware of what was going on.
The reality was somewhat different. Centacare Tasmania website when recording the history of adoptions in Tasmania:
At that time, a couple who wished to adopt a child in Tasmania, registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. There was no assessment, virtually no waiting time and no follow up. Once the adoption Order was granted, the adoptive parents received a copy of the Order of Adoption, which contained the original surname and Christian names, if given, of the child.
As you can see this is contrary to what the public was being told at the time. The final piece of evidence is the fact that my father was 52 and one half years when i was adopted, contrary to what the registrar was telling the pubic. Also the application to Adopt and the Approval of adoption was dated the very same day 14 April 1950. And the Extract of Birth which was issued in place of a new birth certificate was not even signed by the said registrar.
I have often said that the public was responsible for the horror inflicted upon mothers during the 1940's to early 1980's and i still stand by that. I do this mainly because of the way society had reverted to a phony and hypocritical view of themselves. Society had in general forgotten what they were like as young people and acted in a Upper Class Victorian era manner. Because of this those in power who had no regard for an individuals well being were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace with impunity with disinformation and a media campaign that hides the grim reality. much like what the immigration department are now attempting to do in the name of privacy.
In the past adoptees and the public were given the first class mushroom treatment. And the mothers we're handled in such a way as to ensure their silence.The media has been guilty of portraying other incidents like the Stolen Generations and the Forgotten Australians. In other words the media has been used and abused by the governments of the day. THEY MUST ENSURE THAT NO LONGER OCCURS. Embedding reporters within military units is one example of such abuse and now the attempt to doctor the reports on refugees is another
Sadly this is not the first time governments have attempted to sanitise a message so that only their version reaches the public. In the past the media has been as guilty as governments of sanitising the message. Here are some of the media reports that have actually affected this writer personally:
On Wednesday 3rd September 1947 An article in the Launceston Examiner reports;
Child Hungry couples are besieging the registrar of births (the person responsible for approving adoptions) and that demand for children was exceeding supply. 200 adoptions occurred in 1946. The department made enquiries into the suitability of applicants. age limits for applicants were set at 45 for women and 50 for men. They were able to select the best homes for the babies.
On Wednesday 26 January, 1949 and article in the Hobart mercury reports;
The registrar of births in Tasmania reports that he is concerned that the demand for babies would create a black market. he reiterated that careful enquiries were made concerning those who wished to adopt.
This was the message being put out by the Tasmania government authorities and the media lapped it up and as result the Tasmanian public were not aware of what was going on.
The reality was somewhat different. Centacare Tasmania website when recording the history of adoptions in Tasmania:
At that time, a couple who wished to adopt a child in Tasmania, registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. There was no assessment, virtually no waiting time and no follow up. Once the adoption Order was granted, the adoptive parents received a copy of the Order of Adoption, which contained the original surname and Christian names, if given, of the child.
As you can see this is contrary to what the public was being told at the time. The final piece of evidence is the fact that my father was 52 and one half years when i was adopted, contrary to what the registrar was telling the pubic. Also the application to Adopt and the Approval of adoption was dated the very same day 14 April 1950. And the Extract of Birth which was issued in place of a new birth certificate was not even signed by the said registrar.
I have often said that the public was responsible for the horror inflicted upon mothers during the 1940's to early 1980's and i still stand by that. I do this mainly because of the way society had reverted to a phony and hypocritical view of themselves. Society had in general forgotten what they were like as young people and acted in a Upper Class Victorian era manner. Because of this those in power who had no regard for an individuals well being were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace with impunity with disinformation and a media campaign that hides the grim reality. much like what the immigration department are now attempting to do in the name of privacy.
In the past adoptees and the public were given the first class mushroom treatment. And the mothers we're handled in such a way as to ensure their silence.The media has been guilty of portraying other incidents like the Stolen Generations and the Forgotten Australians. In other words the media has been used and abused by the governments of the day. THEY MUST ENSURE THAT NO LONGER OCCURS. Embedding reporters within military units is one example of such abuse and now the attempt to doctor the reports on refugees is another
Monday, 12 December 2011
What is an Identity
In the early 1950's Australia was racked with a scandal called the Petrov affair. Vladimir Petrov, a KGB agent for the then Soviet Union defected to Australia and an attempt to take his wife Avdokia back to the Soviet union was foiled by Australian authorities . This affair caused the demise of the then leader of the Australian Labor Party, Dr H. Evatt.
After being debriefed the Petrov's were given a new identity and lived the remainder of their lives in Melbourne as Sven and Maria Allyson. The Petrov's like adoptees learnt to live their lives under a name chosen for them by the government. One would hope they lived a quiet and peaceful existence. But they would both have been able to remember the lives they had lived previously and the favourable lifestyle they had lived as members of the soviet elite.
A adoptees have no such memory as they had their identities changed by either a state official or court order before they had really had a chance to develop who they were. As a result adoptees did not have the luxury of the Petrov's in remembering a past life. They only carry the subliminal burden of being forcible removed from their security blanket namely the mother who gave birth to them. The circumstances surrounding that removal whilst important to understand today is not a factor in the initial trauma that an adoptee suffered. All that mattered at the time was that their giver of life had left their presence forever. And that event has influenced their lives forever. A "well adjusted" adoptee who is quite content with his life did inform me that the fact he is adopted is always there in the background.
I do not know if the Petrov's ever regretted their decision the change their lives and identity and complete way of life. but at least they had a memory to fall back on. All adoptees regardless of how well adjusted they may or may not be will never have the luxury the Petrov's had pf remembering a life that could have been
After being debriefed the Petrov's were given a new identity and lived the remainder of their lives in Melbourne as Sven and Maria Allyson. The Petrov's like adoptees learnt to live their lives under a name chosen for them by the government. One would hope they lived a quiet and peaceful existence. But they would both have been able to remember the lives they had lived previously and the favourable lifestyle they had lived as members of the soviet elite.
A adoptees have no such memory as they had their identities changed by either a state official or court order before they had really had a chance to develop who they were. As a result adoptees did not have the luxury of the Petrov's in remembering a past life. They only carry the subliminal burden of being forcible removed from their security blanket namely the mother who gave birth to them. The circumstances surrounding that removal whilst important to understand today is not a factor in the initial trauma that an adoptee suffered. All that mattered at the time was that their giver of life had left their presence forever. And that event has influenced their lives forever. A "well adjusted" adoptee who is quite content with his life did inform me that the fact he is adopted is always there in the background.
I do not know if the Petrov's ever regretted their decision the change their lives and identity and complete way of life. but at least they had a memory to fall back on. All adoptees regardless of how well adjusted they may or may not be will never have the luxury the Petrov's had pf remembering a life that could have been
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Adoptees and their status as second class citizen
Recent events have come to light that show adoptees are treated by some businesses and the bureaucracy as second class citizens. it reminds me of my time in Malaysia where the average Malaysian citizen mixed well in a multicultural way but the system issued different coloured Identity cards for different races and treated Bumiputra's different from Chinese, Indian and Anglo citizens. Bumiputra's could purchase houses cheaper, entire tertiary institutions based on a quota system not ability system and had preference over non Bumiputra's when applying for government contracts.
This positive discrimination is the opposite to what we as adoptees currently have in our great country. Adoptees are sometimes unable to obtain all their birth details, unlike other citizens. adoptees are in some cases unable to know their true family heritage, unlike non adoptees, adoptees whose identity was changed by a government regulation are now sometimes hindered by government in their normal daily life , like obtaining a passport, proving identity for some businesses , their ability to show they have no criminal record when required. This situation is ludicrous and if not so debilitating to the psyche of my fellow adoptees would look like something from Hey Minister.
One common thread amongst many adoptees is the subliminal feeling that we were not good enough, that life is a continual struggle to prove that you are as good as every other citizen./ And for late discovery adoptees like myself that " We can't handle the truth" .
Now to have our governments confirm this status is so very debilitating. Government changed who we were and now they demand we prove who we are and to rub salt into the wound they want payment to enable this identification process to go ahead. What about illegal adoptions, what about false original birth certificates, what birth records that have been made up in a less than professional manner.
Isn't it time for all the governments of this country to start treating the 300,000 plus adoptees as valued members of our community and stop the shenanigans in relation to our identity. You gave us our identity now start dealing with it without damaging adoptees any more than they have already been damaged.
This positive discrimination is the opposite to what we as adoptees currently have in our great country. Adoptees are sometimes unable to obtain all their birth details, unlike other citizens. adoptees are in some cases unable to know their true family heritage, unlike non adoptees, adoptees whose identity was changed by a government regulation are now sometimes hindered by government in their normal daily life , like obtaining a passport, proving identity for some businesses , their ability to show they have no criminal record when required. This situation is ludicrous and if not so debilitating to the psyche of my fellow adoptees would look like something from Hey Minister.
One common thread amongst many adoptees is the subliminal feeling that we were not good enough, that life is a continual struggle to prove that you are as good as every other citizen./ And for late discovery adoptees like myself that " We can't handle the truth" .
Now to have our governments confirm this status is so very debilitating. Government changed who we were and now they demand we prove who we are and to rub salt into the wound they want payment to enable this identification process to go ahead. What about illegal adoptions, what about false original birth certificates, what birth records that have been made up in a less than professional manner.
Isn't it time for all the governments of this country to start treating the 300,000 plus adoptees as valued members of our community and stop the shenanigans in relation to our identity. You gave us our identity now start dealing with it without damaging adoptees any more than they have already been damaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)