Sexual Sin, Racial Purity and the Beginning of Trans-racial Adoption

Christian nationalists are painfully aware of the popularity of trans-racial adoption in Evangelical circles. As children of different races have different loyalties, obligations, temperaments and abilities, it is most unjust to place children into families of racial aliens. This practice seriously hinders the Christian in his duty to live in distinct, ethnic communities as ordained by God. Because trans-racial adoption can be sold in Christian garb, and because it can cause such permanent damage, it has become one of the choice weapons of the globalists who seek to destroy the Church.

While I have always been opposed to the practice, I have never investigated its history. A recent article from Christianity Today provides some very interesting details about the origins of trans-racial adoption.

The first foreign, non-white children brought to America to be adopted by white Christian families were from Korea. They were not, however, pure Koreans. Rather they were the offspring of white American GI’s stationed in Korea and native prostitutes:

“At that time, GI babies born between Korean women and American servicemen faced a triple stigma: they were deemed fatherless and racially ‘impure’ children of prostitutes. Many Korean mothers tried to hide the mixed-race children as long as possible, but some abandoned their children…

[S]ince many mixed-race children were born in the US-occupied camp towns rife with prostitution, many Koreans shamed and shunned them and their mothers. Although prostitution was illegal in South Korea, the US military government permitted it around military bases. The Korean government also condoned prostitution, as it saw an opportunity to pick up foreign currency. In this situation, mixed-race children were collateral damage. American fathers abandoned their mixed-race children, and without a father, the Amerasian children were ostracized as fathers had the responsibility of registering the children’s births and providing for them.”

It is perhaps fitting that the origin of trans-racial adoption, today such a threat to white identity, is to be found in the sexual sins of white men. While we certainly never want to minimize personal responsibility for sin, it is appropriate to point out that in this case the US government also bears some responsibility. Stationing troops in foreign countries far from their own wives always brings about sexual immorality, something which governments are aware of. These governments simply care more about conquest than the immortal souls of their soldiers.

The South Korean government supported the adoption of mixed-race children, interestingly for its own “racist” motives. The South Korean President wanted to have a purely Korean state without any white admixture, and he was glad to be rid of half-breeds.

“South Korea’s President Syngman Rhee championed the transnational adoption movement…Rhee’s motivation for such support was multifaceted. Ideologically, he campaigned for ilmin juui (one people ideology), an ultranationalism that celebrated the imagined racial homogeneity of Koreans. He also advocated for the reunification of North and South Korea. His emphasis on racial purity, which ostracized mixed-race children, was widespread among Koreans. The children were given the debasing moniker twigi, which meant half-blood.”

In another poetic twist, the wise Korean zeal for racial purity played a role in diluting our own purity. And of course it is hardly justified to claim, as the author does, that the racial homogeneity of Korea is “imagined.” The reality of this homogeneity is confirmed by simply looking at a crowd of Koreans.

While trans-racial adoption initially focused these mixed-race children, the scope was soon broadened.

“From the 1960s, transnational adoption entered a new phase as Korea slowly recovered from the ashes of war. The adoption of mostly mixed-race war orphans was replaced with the adoption of ‘full-blooded’ Asian children born out of wedlock.”

A half-white half-Asian child is probably the least offensive candidate for trans-racial adoption, so it makes sense that this was the particular breed that first made the practice palatable. We then quickly moved on to “full-blooded” Asians and now full-blooded Negroes from Africa.

The article highlights the humanitarian motives and paternalistic hopes of the parents who practiced trans-racial adoption in the early days.

“American rhetoric concerning Korean children was at times tinged with paternalism. World Vision’s newsletter referenced generous Americans saving fortunate Korean children and providing them with warm food and clothing. It predicted that the older children would soon ‘forget their life in Korea’ and would have only ‘memories of kind parents whose hearts were big enough to take them in.’ Adoptive parents generally assumed that life in America would be automatically better for the children even if that meant uprooting them from their own country and cultural heritage.”

Buried near the end of the article, however, is a fascinating paragraph about the long-term fate of the adopted children.

“Recently, adult adoptees who were adopted around the time of the Korean War have started to produce adoption narratives in creative forms such as films, documentaries, poems, and novels. These adoptees, who were usually the subject of discussion, began to write their own narratives. Their stories are often layered with experiences of abandonment, identity crisis, and longing for their cultural roots. One adoptee, during her interview, expressed that she never related to her adoptive mother because she was ‘always wondering what my biological mother was like, and what she looked like, and how I was like her.’ When she was seeking therapy in college, she realized how deep her wounds were for from being abandoned by her biological mother.”

While I have not thoroughly studied these narratives, I believe it is significant that in an article meant to paint trans-racial adoption in a positive light, the author only mentions negative experiences of the adoptees. Apparently the author was unable to find any adoptees who have happily embraced a white American identity and are full of unadulterated gratitude for their white saviors.

May God grant all children of the world the opportunity to be raised by loving families of the same blood as themselves.


  1. Ian T.D. Wilson

    Very interesting. I can confirm that even in modern-day Korea, non-Koreans are a curiosity, even if they’re less rare than they used to be.

    On the subject of Korean adoptees, I’m reminded of this standup comedy bit I saw years ago from a Korean trans-racial adoptee. While he plays it for humor, you can tell the guy finds the situation absurd, and that despite having a European name and upbringing, he still considers himself Asian. It’s absurd to think someone’s outward appearance won’t affect his sense of identity and belonging.

  2. John

    I’m failing to see why the adoption of nonwhite orphans by white Christian parents is a negative in the final analysis. Sure it’s not ideal compared to homogenous families, but isn’t the benefit for the child greater than the possible social harm? Supposing the white family is the only one willing to take the child, of course.
    Babies shouldn’t be conceived when they can’t be provided for of course, and a healthy nation will place the babies in families of their own race, but we know it doesn’t always happen. Consider the case of a black baby born from an incarcerated woman, father unknown. There are no suitable relatives and no black parents are requesting adoption. This is a very common situation in the American south. Would you say the Christian parents are sinning to raise this baby in a Christian home, rather than as an abused ward of the state?
    Perhaps you could elaborate on this.

    1. Doug

      It is a negative because it is a result of disobeying God’s commands and continues in further disobedience to Him. Interracial adoption is a sin resulting from a more elemental sin. In God’s order for mankind He dispersed groups of people over the whole earth by their kinds into their determined bounds of habitation. God’s people were repeatedly forbidden to break this design and to work against those who did. God forbade them to alter borders, to intermarry, to allow invaders, to make pacts, etc. Fallen man wanted unity instead of God’s demanded distinction. Man desired collectivity, conformity, self-reliance, self-determination, self-judgement as man worshiped himself. God is always about separation, distinction, and His honour through our obedience in continuing His creative plan. God did not change, man did. As mankind was rebellious, he became confused over what is obvious and true. This is still the case today. Mankind can’t even decide what is a man or a woman. They call evil good and good evil. Thus, man turns away from God and does what is evil bringing God’s judgment against him. Today we live under this judgement. Our lands are full of strangers and foreigners who we do not treat in the way God commands. Instead of demanding they follow our laws, disbarring them from ruling over us, and not intermarrying with them, what does fallen man do? He fornicates with them, he gives them equal powers, he accepts them to rule over him, and he becomes their economic slave. This is satan’s subversion of God’s order. Even worse, being weak by our own self-reliance, we are knowingly invaded by hostile heathens and cry, “woe is me” but are paralyzed to act. We can’t even speak against it as we are so fearful of satan political correctness as we reject the fear God and His Truth.

      Interracial adoption is not ideal, it is sin. As I have described, it is a sin that we created and accommodate because we hate God’s order. Now that we have it in our land, on our lap, we will suffer the societal consequences of it. You mention that a White family could supposedly adopt orphans of a different kind. We don’t have t suppose as we all know that it is only White families that adopt children that are not of their kind. Other races would never and don’t as they understand the fundamentals of natural order and societal cohesion which has been endowed in all mankind and understood even by children unless one suppresses this truth in unrighteousness.

      Would I say White Christian parents are sinning to raise a non-White orphan; yes. I would equally say that White Christian parents also sin when helping their addicted children continue in their habits. Both are claimed as noble acts, both are purported to be an exercise in love, both are community expectations. But both commonly damage the marriage, family, and community. I would argue that the benefit of a child should not take precedence over God’s Law, over one’s family Covenant, and over your society’s well-being. Yet saying this I expect these circumstances to continue to the detriment of our peoples as we are weak in faith and strong in sin. These situations should never occur in a Godly society and by Godly families.

      God’s will is well described in this matter in the book of Ezra. Peace in Truth.

  3. Tim Folke

    I do not believe that, in the long run, trans-racial adoption is good for anyone.

    But, what I think is most odious is the reason why most Christians do this. In my opinion, I believe for the most part it is done out of a spirit that combines narcissism and cowardice. Many mainstream White Christians are nauseatingly eager to prove they are politically correct, and the best way is to adopt, say, a Negro child.

    At this point they broadcast their self-righteousness by promenading the adoptee in family photos, shopping trips, church attendance, etc… with the message being “See! I am NOT a racist!”

    1. Doug

      Maybe not the most odious, but certainly the most common reason for interracial adoption is exactly as you said. Self-righteousness pervades our people. We still live in a land of Pharisees and God will still judge them.

  4. Karen Biser

    I am opposed to interracial adoption for all the reasons stated in the above article and comments. However, it does seem to be a duty to help the kinds of non-white children described above. Maybe the answer lies in taking such children in as wards, and not as adopted children. I float that as an idea only; I am not dogmatic about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *