The Photo-shoot Continues

"The immediate response among the soldiers to the miserable plight of orphaned children was a whole mixture of evacuations, fundraising drives for food and clothing, the setting up of orphanages, and, most importantly, the spontaneous incorporation of children into care at military bases as regimental mascots, houseboys or interpreters. In many cases, these relationships developed into a kind of informal adoption" (Hubinette 278).

        My immediate reaction to this picture is to take this as proof that the US Military really cares about the welfare of civilian life during times of war. But this is probably what the journalist that wrote the blurb beneath it wanted to communicate to the American public. There is obviously a hint of propaganda in this image that is attempting to hold or gain support for the military and its involvement in Korea. The more critical side of me takes this as a "puff piece" with a purpose. Clearly, the deliberate language choice of the phrase  tiny tots is attempting to inspire an emotional response. Thus, the military comes off as humanitarian and urges us (the public) to believe that they really do mean well. I now look at this image and wonder if the GIs in this picture are responsible for the orphaning of these children. I wonder why the GIs in this picture are all black. I'm curious as to what will happen to these children when and if these GIs are killed in action, after all they are gunners. How are these children going to be kept safe if these GIs cannot guarantee their own safety? Are these children really orphaned or just separated from their families?

        Knowing what  know now, this photo inspires more questions than answers and inspires me with more anxiety than security. Frankly, I consider their other actions (fundraising drives and the setting up of orphanages) to be more successful and helpful over all. What these children need is the surroundings of their own country and the support of the US. Domestic adoption should be the goal for the welfare of these children. Even now, the rate of international adoption is higher, hence this picture:

        This is a fairly recent Vogue related campaign aimed at promoting more domestic adoptions. Though this picture is a great deal later than the first and the orphans in the second are not war orphans, these pictures are not entirely unrelated. The differences are evident but the similarities are striking. Both are using a similar technique to promote adoptions. In each, the "models" (GIs and an all-girl Pop group) are using their influence to persuade others to support their cause. Even still, international adoptions trump the number of domestic adoptions and that can be directly linked to the history of Korean orphan adoptions which had its major start with the Korean War. Thus, the first picture actually inspired the second. And this is only one of the many attempts to promote more domestic adoption.

        "Tax reductions were provided to encourage domestic adoption, which was projected to grow by 400-600 placements a year... At the same time, the government has encouraged domestic adoption, which, by the end of the 1990's stood for one-third of all adoptions. Also, since the end of the economic crisis, the government has strived to create a long term foster care system based on Western models as an alternative to adoption" (Hubinette 286).

These facts are relatively old but the facts remain, more or less, the same, hence the need for this Vogue campaign.