Korean adoptees (1950s- ), or KADs as they are called, are children from Korea who were adopted and grew up overseas. There are more than 150,000 of them, most of them in America, though a surprising number are found in Scandinavia. You see them in other Western countries too.
Most of those in America were placed with white families and were brought up white. They talk white, act white, have white friends, go to a white school, have white parents and may even have a white name.
And yet they do not look white.
Because of white racism it means that they are stereotyped by whites, that growing up they get called names, that white children, those darlings, pull up the corner of their eyes at them. It means whites will never truly accept them as they are. If they are girls, it means they do not look like what America sees as beautiful.
And so, many do not feel like they belong, they feel out of place in America.
Some go to Korea, to the country where they were born, where everyone looks like them. But most do not feel like they fit in there either. While Korea feels bad about sending so many of its children away, the KADs are too American to be Korean.
So they become lost souls, many of them, white on the inside, yellow on the outside, caught between two worlds, never truly belonging to either.
There are three main ways they deal with this:
- They try not to think about it and try to fit in as honorary whites.
- They learn about Korea. It helps but it does not become a part of their daily life.
- They seek out other KADs, people who understand them. They come to see themselves as KADs, as something neither white American nor Korean but something new.
In the 1950s Korea started sending children overseas to be adopted. Back then it was torn apart by war and very poor. But even as late as the 1980s one Korean child in 100 was being sent overseas. And even now in the 2000s, as rich as South Korea is and with South Korean women having only 1.2 children on average, even now one in 200 is sent overseas. Only China and Russia, much bigger countries, send more children.
South Korea is not proud of this and wants to stop the practice completely by 2015.
In America white parents at first were told to bring up their Korean children in a completely colour-blind fashion, just as if they were white. But that meant these children faced white racism completely unprepared and with no one to turn to who understood. Often they were the only Asian person at school or in town!
The common wisdom now is to teach the children as much about Korea as possible. Not sure where that leaves the racism bit, but it has to help to know where you are from and be proud of it.
See also:
Thanks for talking about Korean adoptees. They may be adopted more by nonblack Americans, they aren’t fully accepted in mainstream society. Sure, they may get some privileges that Black American children don’t get, but still aren’t treated as equals in this society.
Steph
I am working on a post about blacks adopted by white parents. I found out about Korean adoptees along the way – there is way more about them on the Internet it seems.
I found it interesting how KADs are about as white as you can be short of being physically white and yet they are not accepted. It shows you where whites have drawn their lines, that it is not as tra-la-la as some white commenters on this blog would have you believe.
Every parent around the world, well not every, as we are not using absolutes, but a good majority of them send them to America because the education and opportunities here are pretty much unmatched in the rest of the world.
Koreans, or any other race of people that immigrates here, are not acting “White,” they are acting American.
South Korea does not have much in the way of foster care or orphanages and few Koreans adopt. All that gets out-sourced to America and other willing countries. So if a woman abandons her baby knowing the police will send it off to America, it creates a moral hazard.
Almost anyone brought up in a white family in a white part of town is going to act white, white American. There is no “American” in the sense you seem to mean it. Everyone is something-American: white American, black American, Cuban American and all the rest. I think KADs prove it.
Hello! My name is Kim Bomin from Korea Maritime University.
First of all, i’m so sorry for my terrible English…
I’m studying Korean network for communication between Korean and overseas Koreans.
I ask your help! If you don’t mind, please tell me your ideas about the emigration and overseas residence.
If you have resided for over 15 years in overseas, answer the question below.
Q1. Name/sex/age/occupation/academic background (If you don’t want to answer, skip it)
Q2. What qualification or specific character should be requested to be recognized as Korean? Please tell me your opinion.
Q3. Are you proud of being a Korean? When do you feel it?
Q4 What benefits or disadvantages are caused at your work because of the fact that you are a Korean?
Q5. Is there any difficulty to live abroad?
Q6. Do you think that Korean people in your region are helping each other?
Q7. Are you joining groups or meetings that are operated by overseas Korean? Then what is the purpose of the activities?
Q8. What things should the Korean government and Korean people do for overseas Koreans?
Tell me your ideas.
Q9. Do you want to recommend emigration to people who are living in Korea?
Q10. What do you think about the problem of the Korean race(한민족) and the future of it?
Please send me the answer to qhalskim@yahoo.co.kr
Thank you so much for your help!
I wish for your happy life in overseas.
Then maybe people other than whites should adopt the Koreans, since they’d give better advice on how to deal with racism than white people could.
Thanks for bumping this, dee. It’s a good example of Abagond’s way of thinking. The topic of the post is the adoption of hundreds of thousands of often starving, orphaned Korean babies by white people, who raised them as their own. Yet Abagond uses this premise to launch into another tirade about what a bunch vile racists white people are! Another typical feature of this post is the complete lack of sources for the many strong claims he makes. It’s also interesting how totally at odds this post is with the idea that race is merely a social construct.
Korean adoptees in the West are an interesting subject for studying the effects of nature and nurture. For example, a Belgian study found that Korean adoptees in Belgium average higher IQs than white Belgians, just like East Asians do everywhere. Yet many of the adoptees were severely malnourished before adoption.
This is another interesting study: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/nature_nurture_.html
It always amazes me what the Stever Sailor crowd feels is “proof” of their beliefs.
In this case, it’s a right-wing political blog which intentionally mistates a serious scientist’s research. Here’s said scientist’s conclusions:
Overall, this study yields several useful conclusions. First, in a case with random assignment of children to families, family size is still negatively correlated with education and income. Second, there is a strong level effect of family environment on child education and income. However transmission of education and income for adoptees is much less strong than for
non-adoptees. Hence, by definition, either initial endowments or the interaction between family
environment and initial endowments must be driving a large portion of the transmission of income
and education to children. Smoking and drinking habits are transmitted almost equally strongly to
adoptees and non-adoptees. Perhaps most interesting is the fact that parents do not transmit a
tendency for obesity to their adoptees.
In other words, environment is still HEAVILY linked to income and education. Furthermore, when Sacerdote says “initial endowments”, he doesn’t mean only genetics or even biology: these children were not turned over to adoptive parents as blank slates: they could indeed have suffered from abuse, malnourishment, or inadequate early learning. Thirdly, as Sacerdote himself claims, there’s no proof that these results are caused by “initial endowments” alone: environment could equally have a role to play. Sacerdote’s results tell us nothing about this.
But finally – and this is the kicker – our pal Jack’s argument is that somehow these results “prove” Korean intellectual superiority. In fact, they show something of the opposite. The Korean adoptees were LESS likely to be affected by positive environmental factors contributing to wealth and education than the biological children. For example, having a mother with a college education improved an adoptee’s chances of getting a the same by 7% while it improved biological children’s chances by 28%.
What this means is that, on the whole, FEWER Korean adoptee babies were going to college than biological babies.
If there were thus a biological factor at play here, it’s one that makes Koreans stupider in relation to native-born Americans.
However, there’s a much more simpler and biologically sound hypothesis possible here: to wit, adoptive parents do not invest as much in their adopted children as they do their biological children. What we already know about evolution and human culture would tend to indicate this as a much more viable hypothesis than some sort of genetic factor.
In this case, it’s a right-wing political blog which intentionally mistates a serious scientist’s research.
He misstates nothing. You simply do not understand the study.
But finally – and this is the kicker – our pal Jack’s argument is that somehow these results “prove” Korean intellectual superiority. In fact, they show something of the opposite. The Korean adoptees were LESS likely to be affected by positive environmental factors contributing to wealth and education than the biological children. For example, having a mother with a college education improved an adoptee’s chances of getting a the same by 7% while it improved biological children’s chances by 28%.
What this means is that, on the whole, FEWER Korean adoptee babies were going to college than biological babies.
The Korean adoptees in the sample had, on average, more education and higher incomes than white Americans in general. This was true regardless of the income level of the adoptive parents (who were disproportionately upper-middle class but included also poor people). In other words, the socio-economic status of the parents had a strong effect on the eventual education and income levels of their biological children, but little effect on those of their adoptive children.
Adopted Koreans had similar education and income outcomes whether they were raised by poor or rich adoptive parents. They had better outcomes than the biological children of poor parents, but worse than the biological children of rich parents. This is not fully reflected in Tabarrok’s graph because the adoptees were, on average, six years younger than the biological children (income and the amount of education tend to increase with age). If you controlled for age, the adoptee line in the graph would go up. See here: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/nature_and_nurt.html
What is your explanation for the fact that parental SES has a large effect on biological children but not on adoptees?
If there were thus a biological factor at play here, it’s one that makes Koreans stupider in relation to native-born Americans.
The adopted Koreans had higher average incomes and more education than white Americans on average. How does that make them stupid?
However, there’s a much more simpler and biologically sound hypothesis possible here: to wit, adoptive parents do not invest as much in their adopted children as they do their biological children. What we already know about evolution and human culture would tend to indicate this as a much more viable hypothesis than some sort of genetic factor.
That may have something to it, but this study shows that adoptive parents invest more time and money in adopted children than biological children. However, this may be because adoptees tend to have more behavioral problems.
Note that one study, such as Sacerdote’s, does not prove much, but when it is combined with a hundred others with similar results, one cannot help but conclude that genetic inheritance is perhaps the major factor in explaining different socio-economic outcomes in contemporary Western society.
Actually, you misstate Sacerdote’s results. It’s pretty clear to me that you didn’t read them, Jack.
Here’s straight from the horse’s mouth, Jack. Sacerdote, page 13, last paragraph:
Forty eight percent of the adoptees [Korean] have four years of college versus 65 percent for the nonadoptees [non-Korean].
So how do you square that with your comment that the Korean adoptees had MORE education?
Oh, and here’s another thing that you “forget” to mention: only 30% of the adoptees are male as opposed to 60% of the non-adoptees. So even presuming that these differences DO some inborn genetic trait (very unlikely), odds are very good that it could be a SEX-linked trait.
And yet I don’t see you running around crowing that women are “naturally” more intelligent than men, do I? Strange, that…
…but when it is combined with a hundred others with similar results…
BS, Jack. You can’t even accurately report the results of ONE scientific study, yet you want us to believe that there are hundreds more just like this one?
Fail, Jack. Learn to read science papers before you start making extravagant claims! Hint: when you start going way beyond what the scientist himself claims, you’re probably overreaching.
So how do you square that with your comment that the Korean adoptees had MORE education?
What I wrote was this: “The Korean adoptees in the sample had, on average, more education and higher incomes than white Americans in general. I never said that the adoptees were more successful than the whites in the study.
Look at this chart of race differences in bachelor’s degree attainment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Higher_education_in_the_US_by_race.svg
48% of the Korean adoptees had bachelor’s degrees versus 48.3% of Asians in the general population. In contrast, 65% of the nonadopted whites in the study had bachelor’s degrees versus 30% of whites in the general population. I leave it as homework for you to figure out what this implies about the average socio-economic status of the adoptive parents and the genes they passed on to their biological children.
Oh, and here’s another thing that you “forget” to mention: only 30% of the adoptees are male as opposed to 60% of the non-adoptees. So even presuming that these differences DO some inborn genetic trait (very unlikely), odds are very good that it could be a SEX-linked trait.
Do you honestly think that Sacerdote is such a sloppy researcher that he wouldn’t control for gender? Of course he does! Read the damn study!
However, all that stuff is irrelevant to Tabarrok’s point, namely that the income of biological children increases strongly with parental income but the income of adoptive children is flat [with regard to] parent income. What non-genetic factors explain this? Please tell.
What I wrote was this: “The Korean adoptees in the sample had, on average, more education and higher incomes than white Americans in general. I never said that the adoptees were more successful than the whites in the study.
And yet the study itself makes NO COMPARISON, WHATSOEVER, between these Korean adoptees and the general population, does it Jack?
Like I said originally: you’re attributing things to this study that simply aren’t there.
However, all that stuff is irrelevant to Tabarrok’s point, namely that the income of biological children increases strongly with parental income but the income of adoptive children is flat [with regard to] parent income. What non-genetic factors explain this? Please tell.
And you think this proves Korean “superiority” do you? What Sacerdote is saying is that adopptees DON’T gain the home court advantage here that biological kids and one hypothesis is quite obvious. I mentioned it above: relative lack of investment in adopted kids.
So what’s the trouble here, Jack?
As for correcting for gender, show me where he does that please, Jack: I don’t see it.
The study says absolutely nothing about the inferiority or superiority of any race. What’s interesting in it is what it tells us about nature and nurture.
And yet the study itself makes NO COMPARISON, WHATSOEVER, between these Korean adoptees and the general population, does it Jack?
.
That’s false. From page 4:
“The adoptees in the sample have educational attainment and family income that is only modestly higher than U.S. averages. The mean years of education for the Holt adoptees is 14.75 years versus 14.11 for Asian-Americans in the NLSY and 13.57 for all other subjects in the NLSY.”
However, for the purposes of Tabarrok’s argument that’s irrelevant.
What Sacerdote is saying is that adopptees DON’T gain the home court advantage here that biological kids and one hypothesis is quite obvious. I mentioned it above: relative lack of investment in adopted kids.
Sacerdote says that adoptees raised in poorer families had larger incomes than their unrelated siblings, whereas the opposite is true for richer families. If what you hypothesize were true, it would imply that poorer parents invest more in their adopted children than their biological children, while richer parents invest relatively more in their biological children. To put it another way, you suggest that parents raise adopted children in an identical manner regardless of their socio-economic status, which means that poorer parents neglect their biological children in favor of adopted children. It does not sound like a good hypothesis. On what page does Sacerdote suggest it, by the way?
Moreover, what exactly does the parental investment that you are suggesting here consist of? I ask this because the nurture component of behavioral variation is a bit of a mystery. Differences in parenting styles, for example, are pretty much irrelevant.
As for correcting for gender, show me where he does that please, Jack: I don’t see it.
He does it in several spots. Search for ‘gender’. But, again, that doesn’t really matter to Tabarrok’s argument.
The study says absolutely nothing about the inferiority or superiority of any race. What’s interesting in it is what it tells us about nature and nurture.
Ah. So you finally DO admit that you’re reading things into it then. As for “nature vs. nurture”, no it doesn’t tell us much, as the author himself admits. Could be nature. Could be early nurture. Could be later nurture. Most probably its some combination. THIS is his conclusion.
Which you, sir, are too intellectually dishonest to admit.
He does it [correct for gender] in several spots. Search for ‘gender’. But, again, that doesn’t really matter to Tabarrok’s argument.
I already did. I want YOU to show us all where, precisely , he does this. Because I think you are bullshitting completely, Jack, when you say you can read and understand Sacerdote’s argument.
Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.
“In America white parents at first were told to bring up their Korean children in a completely colour-blind fashion, just as if they were white.”
“The common wisdom now is to teach the children as much about Korea as possible.”
There is one thing still missing. They also have to learn about being Asian American, or what it means to be of Asian descent in America. Neither raising them as white and nor teaching them about Korea prepares them for that. And if anything, that is what they need the most.
They also have to learn about being Asian American, or what it means to be of Asian descent in America. Neither raising them as white and nor teaching them about Korea prepares them for that. And if anything, that is what they need the most.”
This is on the money.
Great post. I’m a Korean adoptee and unfortunately was raised in a mostly white community with white parents. It’s jarring and humiliating to turn 7 or 8 and suddenly the white kids who grew up on the same block as you are calling you “chinky” and telling you to go back where you came from. Or their parents asking my adoptive mom “if I’d be able to learn english” (I kid you not. And this was outside of New York). I’m sure it’s no coincidence that all my closest friends were (and still are) other people of color. White parents have NOT A CLUE how to handle race. They don’t understand that just because they bring a child up “white”, white America will never see them that way.
While I’m not a Korean adoptee, I can relate where Kim is coming from. I mean, as an Asian-Canadian, I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood and I had other white children pointing out that I looked different even ridiculing my facial features, or telling me to go home to my own country. I ran home to my mother crying wondering why the kids were very mean and she comforted me by telling me these kids had parents who didn’t teach them very well. Now who can a Korean adoptee or any adopted child of color turn to but to his/her parents?
Oh, Give it a rest Leigh, Asians parents can’t raise a black child any better. Most Asians are filled with racism and scorn for black people with no idea of what we are going through. “Of colour” yeah…
@Metsi:
No, YOU give it a rest. Most Korean adoptees are adopted by, who else, white people. And yeah, nice try with the generalizing.
Kim – I am sorry to hear that. For me personally I turned to my friends. Because luckily even in a predominantly white area, I’m still from NY and was able to connect with the Black, Pakistani, Indian etc kids. What if I had I grown up in say Oklahoma? I honestly don’t know.
Metsi – Why are you discounting leigh204′s experiences growing up? And how many Asian parent’s do you see adopting black children? White people adopt Asian and Latin babies in large numbers and have no idea how to deal with race.
“Most Asians are filled with racism and scorn for black people with no idea of what we are going through.”
I’m sorry this has been your experience.
sorry at the beginning – i meant leigh!
@kim:
It’s okay, kim. There weren’t a lot of people of color around me when I was growing up, but I was blessed to have a mother who supported me and she gave me the strength to overcome whatever came my way. I am the person I am today because of her.
I found this article regarding a Korean adoptee’s experience. He was adopted by an African-American couple. It’s a great story.
http://iamkoream.com/where-i-come-from/
Man, where do you get the idea that white people always act like this towards Asians? I come from a small town in New Mexico, that was pretty much just White and Latino(sorry mestizo) except for 3 of these Korean adoptees you’re talking about. I must say, these three dated plenty of white people, and as far as I can recall no one spoke negatively of them, or called them names. In fact whites were very careful to make them feel accepted(no not patronizing, just sensitive) . On the other hand, many mestizos(myself included, sadly) were a whole different story. We called them Chinos sucios(dirty Chinese), jeered at them, and made no end of jokes about their appearance. While I know there are a huge number of whites who engage in the kind of racism against adopted Asians you describe here, I think you’re incorrect when you say they can never be fully accepted. I also think you’re wrong to single out whites with this assertion. While I realize you’re talking about a specific group of adopted Asians, you make it seem as though whites engage in this behavior because of their race, not because of ideas and environment. Do you think Blacks would be any more accepting of them? Or mestizos? I would say not, because in my personal experience, many older Latinos and many Blacks are racist in the open, slur using variety. In your other article you de-emphasized black racism by saying it is mostly directed at themselves. Thats ridiculous, I’ve heard many Blacks complain about “damn greasy spics taking our jobs”, the same as I’ve heard many Latinos talk about “lazy niggers on welfare”. Racism is not a white specific problem, they’re just the most visible because they are the majority, and have the most power. All racism is equally harmful, no matter what color, and while I wholeheartedly agree with most things on your site, I think you’re letting your own experiences with white racism slant your perception of things.