Kids institutionalised abroad - What's this about?

It was on the news today about kids in the 50s, 60s and early 70s being taken abroad to start a new life in Britain's colonies. There was something about some being orphans, but some actually taken away from their parents.

One newspaper article claims it was 'to provide the colonies with sturdy white workers'.

What's this all about? I went to school in the very late 70s until 1990. They taught us about decimalisation, the British Empire, the two world wars, slavery of Africans in the distant past and the bill that banned slavery in the 1800s. I don't recall any lessons about British kids being taken as effectively slaves up until just before I was born.

Does anyone know what the story is? At face value it looks pretty sick, especially for a nation that claims to be so righteous.

Could Britain really be responsible for such evil as recently as within living memory of about half the population, or have I misunderstood the story?

 

I'm not up on what actually went on but in my cynical way I tend to think this is more about getting compensation for what went on rather than anything else.
I'm sure if those that were taken there were given the opportunity to return to the UK there would not be many takers.

One question I ask is, why were these kids deserted by their parents?

 

hi clueless.:dh: dont know the full story .initially i was thinking of kids that went to australia during the war years, but i was wrong. i will have to read up on the situation before i can comment. music.

 

I've only heard a couple of tiny bits of the story from a couple of different sources, but they seem to be saying that in some cases the state took the kids away from the parents.

I'm sure you're right about the compensation thing, but at the same time I can't help but think that as it was obviously kept so quiet, there must be something about it that the government didn't want to be common knowledge.

 

Here is a link to the story - I'm afraid it's rather long but makes fascinating, if horrifying, reading.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2139344.ece
I had already heard of British children being sent to Australia as virtual slave labour from one of Lesley Pearce's books (can't remember which one at the moment). That was based on fact, and quite harrowing in places.

 

I read most of this article, and what Shiney said, and can now unfortunately say that I am ashamed to call myself British.

Poor struggling, but loving, parents being tricked into handing over their kids to slavery and abuse by the British government. Kids being forced to eat rotten food. Kids being routinely beaten severely, including one kid having his back broken with a hockey stick. Records of the whole thing, including records showing that one bloke was warned not to beat the kids with a hockey stick but was left in his post anyway. Kids writing to the parents and begging to be brought home, but the letters being withheld and the parents having no legal power to get them back anyway. There is no way the government could have not known about this. This is dispicable. If it had happened 200 years ago I'd have put it down to our dark and twisted history, along with burning innocent women on a whim that they might be a witch, but this happened after Britain stepped in against Hitler for his fascist and genocidal actions.

When Britain declared war on Germany, I was taught that it was because Hitler and his regime was persecuting innocent people, yet even for nearly three decades afterwards Britain was doing exactly that. The British government was not only turning a blind eye to, but was supporting the exploitation of poor families, kidnap of children on a massive scale, and unimaginable abuse.

It only stopped 40 years ago. Some of the perpetrators may still be alive. They should be tried for kidnap and abuse and locked up for the rest of their miserable twisted lives.

 

I must admit it all sounds very bad reading the documented cases in Tiarella's link.

I do tend to wonder how many good cases there were, where the situation was perhaps better than the one the kids left.
I agree there is no way you can condone such action as taking children away from their parents, but it was a different age, especially when it all started.

British history contains many things that are not exactly the done thing these days, slavery for instance, or killing thousands, (not sure on the correct total), conscripted troops in a single day during WW 1.

But it is "that", not nice, but history.

 

WW1 was war though. War can never be anything but horrific. Slavery was supposed to have ended in the early half of the 1800s.

This is different. This is something that went on in in living memory of many people, and it directly involved kids. Ok, you could say (quite accurately) that wars are fought by kids, a lot of soldiers in both world wars lied about their age to get into the armed forces, but they were at least in their teens. Still a bit wet behind the ears perhaps, even in a time of war when we needed every many we could muster, I doubt if any recruiting sergeant would have turned a blind eye to a four year old in the queue to join up.

I really hope the article is very heavily biased and isn't a true representation of the bigger picture. We know the media do things like that, but if it is anywhere near the truth, then we may still have men and women, albeit elderly by now, who are walking free while guilty of torture and sexual abuse of kids.

It is odd that governments commission their forces and intelligence services to go to great lengths in an attempt to bring to justice military generals that committed crimes against humanity in other countries in times of war, while people that took British kids and institutionally raped and tortured them in times of so called peace are completely overlooked.

 

So what your saying is, basically.

If things happened long enough ago its OK, but if people are still alive today that were involved its somehow different.

I'm sure there have been many cases of ill-treatment and sexual abuse of kids in orphanages, and such places, in the UK, many which have not come to the surface.
Maybe they will one day.

The difference seems to be that these kids were sent away to build the colonies, ok colonies are a dirty word these days, but thats how people thought in those days.


I know it seems barbaric now, and we have moved on, but as I say its history.


"It is odd that governments commission their forces and intelligence services to go to great lengths in an attempt to bring to justice military generals that committed crimes against humanity in other countries in times of war, while people that took British kids and institutionally raped and tortured them in times of so called peace are completely overlooked."

To compare this to such things as the Holocaust or what more recently happened in Bosnia, is a bit OTT.

 

The point is that the children were sent to Australia under false pretences - they thought they were going to a wonderful new life. WW1 & WW2 were entirely different inasmuch as recruits knew they were going into battle, even though they may sometimes have had a "Boys Own" view of it. These events are all within the 20th Century and so are a little more recent and difficult to understand within the structure of our so-called civilised society.

I think the World Wars were appalling, as are any wars, but the sending of British children into virtual slavery in Australia is unforgiveable. I think it's a bit late for the Australian Government to be apologising at this late stage. In fact it is our own Government who should be apologising for condoning such practices in the first place.

The Lesley Pearse book I was thinking of is called "Trust Me".

 

No. I think some of the stuff from history is pretty horrific. The difference is if those accountable aren't around anymore, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I know you're right. My mate's mother went to a Catholic boarding school. Her parents (who were devout Catholics themselves) thought they were doing the right thing. My mate's mother has tales of brutal cruelty that were sufficiently out of order to compel her to reject her faith, believing that any religion so cruel can't be right (I know, and she now knows that what she endured was not representative of Catholicism in general).

That's the point (my bolds), what sort of nation sends kids away? I've long believed that something about British society hates kids, I just didn't realise it went so far back. I thought it was a recent thing.

There is a line that the majority of folks won't cross no matter what. Some do cross that line. When a person knowingly and intentionally destroy a life of another human being, they have crossed that line. Breaking a kids back with a hockey stick is crossing that line. Forcing kids to eat rotten maggot infested meat is crossing the line. A person that can break a kids back and not think they've done anything wrong is a person who, in different circumstances, might think its ok to do anything to anyone. To turn a blind eye to this sort of behaviour, as the British and Australian governments did, is about as bad. I won't say its as bad as the holocaust or Bosnia, but I won't say its not as bad either, because they are all examples of pure evil to my mind.

Of course there is the possibility that I've misunderstood the whole thing, or that the news articles are heavily biased and exaggerated and no kids were forced to eat maggot infested meat or had their backs broken with hockey sticks. I'd love that to be the case, and will try to read up a bit more on it to see if I can find an objective version of events anywhere.

 

We are looking at this from a 21st century prospective. 40, 50, 60 years ago things were a lot different. 'Mental' cases were routinely locked in lunatic asylums and forgotten about and what went on there might well be seen as even worse (frontal lobotomy, electric shock therapy anyone?). Like Pete says, children were frequently abandoned in orphanages, childrens homes, or abused by Catholic nuns and priests in this country, let alone elsewhere.

Actually, what bothers me more is the current public angst of having to apologise for everything Britain has done in history. I am no fan of Gordon Brown, but why is HE having to apologise. He wasn't in power when these policies were implemented and carried out. Similar to slavery, why the public apology of a country? Do we next apologise to the Middle East for the horrors carried out during the Crusades? By all means accept it happened, have it properly documented and taught that it happened, but leave it there.

PS Australia was no longer a colony when this happened - at the very least it had Dominion status, at the most it was a fully independent country and member of the UN.

 

Funny, I've always thought the cult of the child was pretty strong here. But then I speak as a childless person and will happily remain so. But I do think this country bends over backwards for children, in ways that other countries do not.

 

I agree with you on that one. The people that should be apologising are any folks that are still around that either did it, or knew about it and turned a blind eye. Its not for anyone else to apologise, an apology means nothing if it doesn't come from the person that did it.

In some respects yes, all kids get an education and free healthcare, but that's about as far as it goes. Kids aren't allowed to be kids anymore, because all forms of fun are illegal it seems. You see signs everywhere saying 'No ball games' or 'Groups of one or more youths will be moved on'. There are even electronic gadgets mounted in some public places that emit a high pitched sound designed to irritate kids while being inaudible to older folks. And try getting on public transport, or into many public building or shops if you're pushing a pushchair. It can be done, sometimes, but is a real pain. Also if any sort of crime or antisocial behaviour happens, it is all too often just assumed that it was kids.