Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Steve Jobs’s Father Is . . .
. . . his father—period.

By Dennis Prager


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

On a daily basis, I sit in awe at the amount of nonsense that pervades the world’s media. The latest is the preoccupation with the ethnicity of Steve Jobs’s biological father.

Steve Jobs was adopted at birth. And until his untimely death last week, as far as almost anyone in the world knew, he was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Jobs.

Advertisement

In fact, as far as Steve Jobs himself was concerned, his only parents were Paul and Clara Jobs. As the New York Times reported nearly 15 years ago (“Creating Jobs,” Jan. 12, 1997): “Jobs holds a firm belief that Paul and Clara Jobs were his true parents. A mention of his ‘adoptive parents’ is quickly cut off. ‘They were my parents,’ he says emphatically.”

But reading much of the world’s press in the past week, one would be excused if one came to think of another man as Steve Jobs’s father.

The amount of attention paid to his biological father, a Syrian-born American named Abdulfattah Jandali, dwarfed the amount of attention paid to Paul (or, for that matter, Clara) Jobs.

By all accounts, Mr. Jandali is a fine man, and nothing written here is meant in any way to counter that assessment.

But I have to ask, given that Mr. Jandali and Steve Jobs never once met, and that Steve Jobs thought only of Paul Jobs as his father, why all the attention to Mr. Jandali? And why no attention to Jobs’s biological mother?

For example, take this headline in the International Business Times: “Steve Jobs Dies: He Was the Most Famous Arab in the World.”

Or this headline in the New York Times: “Steve Jobs, Son of a Syrian, Is Embraced in the Arab World.”

I suspect that there are two unimpressive things going on here: political correctness and a widespread belief that blood is important and therefore adoptive parents aren’t a person’s “real” parents.

First, the political correctness.

The press feels bad for the Arab world in general and for Arab-Americans in particular. The former is almost never in the news for anything positive, and the latter are deemed victims of xenophobia and Islamophobia. So if one of the giants of our age can be declared an Arab and an Arab-American, many in the media are only too delighted to do so.

Although the biological father played no role whatsoever in the life of Steve Jobs, article after article has been written about Mr. Jandali. That this has been motivated by a desire to label Steve Jobs an Arab-American is further proven by the fact that we read nothing of his biological mother — which is particularly noteworthy given that those who are preoccupied with blood parents are almost always more preoccupied with the identity of the biological mother than with that of the biological father. But the poor woman is merely a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, a member of the only American group that is granted no special status by the politically correct.

So a man whose parents were WASPs, and one of whose biological parents was a WASP, is now declared an Arab. Type “Steve Jobs Arab” in Google and you get 86 million hits.

The other unfortunate trend is the belief — widely held in the media, academia, the social-work community, and among the well-educated generally — that adoptive parents are not one’s “real” parents. Even many adoptive parents have been persuaded by social workers and others to believe that their foreign-born son or daughter must be educated in the language and culture of the group into which he or she was born. Instead of regarding their Korean- or Chinese- or Honduran-born child as fully American, many American adoptive parents are convinced that they must teach their child the Korean, Chinese, or Spanish language and culture. And many of the particularly sophisticated are adamant that their child must one day go to the country in question to find his or her “birth family.”

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   49

EXPAND  

   10/11/11 00:58
   10/11/11 08:29

Why, in the 21st Century, when all of us acknowledge that adoptive children should be treated exactly like natural children, do we still hear references to adoption?

Consideration of this question leads to some insight on the issue of gay marriage.

A hundred years from now, Tom and Steve, the gay couple across the street with the marriage license, will be referred to as "the gay married couple," while Tom and Nancy next door will be referred to as "the married couple."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Navratil
   10/11/11 09:59

MikeB,

Perhaps we should get rid of ALL adjectives.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 10:25
red speck
   10/11/11 10:52

Mike's point is that -- in his role as a perpetual malcontent -- he couldn't bring himself to agree with Mr. Prager on something without interjecting an entirely unrelated hot-button issue into the equation.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 13:50

Actually, I do have a point.

There's someting about us that attaches some meaning to natural progeny v. adopted progeny. In all likelihood it's baked into our genes. As much as we agree that we ought to make nothing of the distinction, we persist in doing so, acknowledging all the time (as Prager correctly does) that we shouldn't.

Likewise, "the way the parts fit together" makes it very difficult for heterosexuals to view "gay marriage" as "marriage."

That was my point, and a pretty un-lefty one at that.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
red speck
   10/11/11 16:30

Well, thank you, Mike, for codifying the Right's entire opposition to gay marriage: If the parts don't fit, it ain't legit.

Game over. I am undone.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 10:31

Your evidence, Mike?

(I always love it when people state their dreamy predictions as fact.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 10:52
   10/11/11 08:42

In the PC world, Clara should be granted "special status" simply because she is a woman. Her exclusion from the loop merely demonstrates the selective hypocrisy of that world.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Charles Norris
   10/11/11 09:02

@ Mike -
Way to twist a topic to apparently one of your favorite subjects.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 09:23

I wish someone had asked Steve Jobs: "which is more important hardware or software?.

Paul and Clara Jobs provided the software which I believe is ultimately more important

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 16:26
   10/11/11 09:26

It is quite obvious that despite strong boisterous statements to the contrary by marriage corruption supporters; biology matters.

These truths we hold to be self evident are like a finger in the eye to perversion activists. Societies should never base themselves on the exceptions to the rule; no matter how tyrannical the exceptions may be.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to insulate future societies from the abuse of popular culture; an abuse they were all too familiar with.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 09:32

It is astonishing to hear the liberal argument in favor of abortion versus adoption.

The basic premise goes something like this: I would rather kill my unborn child than to live knowing that he or she is out there, being raised by someone else.

Monumental selfishness on display - and yet this rationale is promoted without any sense of irony.

Also, no one seems to wonder what the child would prefer.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Steve Monime
   10/11/11 14:07

Unborn fetuses don't have preferences.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 18:16

Neither do people in a coma but that doesn't make it okay to suffocate them with a pillow.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/12/11 12:10

Neither to people merely sleeping, or people unaware of the bullet coming faster than the speed of sound.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 10:17

"So a man whose parents were WASPs, and one of whose biological parents was a WASP, is now declared an Arab."

Kind of recalls a certain president of ours, whose mother, if I'm not mistaken, was white. Yet somehow, that inconvenient 50% always seems to be ignored.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
MrRoivas
   10/11/11 10:26

Is this Mr. Prager's endorsement of Gay parenthood? As some on this site seem to think the principle he mentions doesn't apply to gay people.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact