okay. the research on this goes crazy, the shifts between national and familial storytelling are very neatly done, and it made me feel like i understood argentinian political history somewhat. several moments made me tear up but none of them were saccharine-- the human focus on the truly astonishing determination and bravery of the abuelas (and earlier the madres) is instead a force that drives the book and you reading it forward to something new
but can i just say. i am by no means an argentinian custody judge in the 1990s. the grief and impossible choices herein are not mine to negotiate. but as the book's narrative focus shifts to the issues rippling out from actually finding the grandchildren-- if the children are minors, should their custody be transferred immediately and fully to their biological grandparents, whom they do not remember, from the people they have always known as their parents, some of whom knowingly took them from torture centers, and some of whom instead suspected a horrible history and concealed or did not investigate it? if the children are adults, and outside evidence points to the fact that they may be the children of the disappeared, but they do not want to be blood tested, particularly because a confirmed childhood abduction means the parents who raised them will be jailed, but maybe also because they do not want to know, should they be forced to be tested, against their will? if their underwear is stolen from their homes by cops, if they are made to strip naked in a judge's office, will they later be grateful they did it, because this was a choice too overwhelming for them to make, and therefore it is the domain of the state?
the book argues yes! it does not seem to think these are overly difficult arguments! and i think that's simply crazy. the families the book chooses to focus on are all families who echo this line of thinking-- in the main narrated family, he is found by his biological family in his 20s and embraces them completely as his real family; his kidnapping father was a military torturer and domestic abuser, and his mother was violently domestically abused his whole childhood and they had a complex and painful relationship in his adulthood that he "came to see was unhealthy." in some smaller narrative families, the discovered children have similar narratives-- they perhaps initially resist "being found" but come to embrace their true families, with whom they also have better emotional relationships-- particularly the abuelas are universally adored, and one of them is noted to have "instantly forgiven" her grandchild for avoiding blood testing for years even though she DID NOT HAVE LONG ON THIS EARTH. there are a couple mentioned grandchildren who state that they continue to love the families who stole/adopted* them, because love is complicated, and these stories we do not learn more about-- maybe these people were less willing to participate in interviews.
i obviously found all of this unbelievably frustrating-- not because i think there needs to be more sympathy for the dictatorship military men & their associates for systemically stealing the babies of those they murdered, but because i think those grandchildren (now adults) deserve more complexity than is rendered here, in their multiple forms of identity, in their multiple different worlds, in their multiple different rights, and as people who are themselves people-- not people with a static "good" identity that can be restored to them in place of the "false" one, and not only as truth meant to be administered to a nation, nor the the reward to comfort an old woman from her grief over her murdered adult child.
all this to say-- i think there are many threads of much richer and more interesting stories of aftermath buried here, thornier stories which required perhaps more emotional curiosity and tolerance to uncover, and i hope people will continue to write those.
*there's a note in the afterward that the author uses "adopted" in an early text about this history and that now, knowing more, she would say "stolen"-- this makes me think the author does not know very much about "adoption" as a system, which is often violent, punitive, and reflective of social oppressions. the author also exclusively uses "appropriator" in place of "mother/father/parent" for the stealing/adoptive parents-- nevertheless, these people did raise their abducted children for the first 10-40 years of their lives. i would be curious what language the grandchildren themselves continue to use, and what diversity is there. for my part, and again, i am not a custody judge, i think there is not a hard cap on how many parents a person can have, and not all parents are good, but i understand that this linguistic trick perhaps makes it feel simpler.
i know it's crazy i'm giving it 4 stars after all this but it really was a great and very informative read, i just also had my thoughts.