Video: Why did the British send their children into slavery until the 1970s
2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55
At the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century, children's charities were very popular in Great Britain. Kind-hearted English ladies and gentlemen worried about the poor children helped them find new families. Homeless and poor children were promised a new happy life among farmers. True, this "earthly paradise" was located far away - in Australia, New Zealand and other countries of the British Commonwealth … Huge beautiful ships were taking tens of thousands of children from the shores of foggy Albion across the ocean. Most of the young “settlers” never returned to their homeland.
The Home Children program was founded in 1869 by the evangelist Annie MacPherson, although the practice of kidnapping children and sending cheap laborers to the colony has existed since the 17th century. Of course, like any good undertaking, this business was conceived with noble intentions. First, Annie and her sister opened several "Industrial Houses", where children of the poor and street children could work and at the same time get an education. However, over time, the active lady came to the conclusion that the best way for the unfortunate orphans would be migration to fabulous and well-fed colonies. It is warm there, there is work, so it is worth sending the children there.
In its first year, the Migration Aid Foundation sent 500 orphans from London orphanages to Canada. This was the beginning of the mass migration of children. Some of the “lucky ones” were found by kind-hearted helpers on the streets, others were already brought up in orphanages, but sometimes the children were taken from their families if they looked dysfunctional. Sometimes babies were simply kidnapped on the streets or deceived with the promise of a "heavenly life." Future settlers were put on ships and sent overseas. It was believed that adoptive families were waiting for them in the colonies. Local farmers, they say, traditionally raise many children and need helpers.
In fact, only a few fell into foster families. Thousands of children who were taken from the UK to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa ended up in real labor camps upon arrival in their new homeland. They were used as free labor in the fields of farmers, at construction sites, in factories, and older boys were even sent to the mines. The children often lived in simple sheds, not far from their places of work, and, of course, they could not even dream of any kind of study. Their conditions of detention ranged from bearable to downright awful. Some small settlers were sent to orphanages or church shelters, but often it was even worse.
The reason for this barbaric attitude towards children was, of course, money. Very simple calculations show that it cost about £ 5 a day to keep a child in a British government institution, compared to only ten shillings in Australia. Plus the use of free labor. The business turned out to be extremely profitable, so it flourished for a very long time.
Many immigrant children left England at the beginning of the 20th century. Then, during the Great Depression, this practice stopped, but after the Second World War it resumed with renewed vigor, because there were so many orphans on the streets … The program completely stopped in the 1970s, and twenty years later shocking facts emerged.
In 1986, social worker Margaret Humphries received a letter in which a woman from Australia told her story: at the age of four, she was sent from the UK to her new home in an orphanage, and now she was looking for parents. Margaret began to delve into this case and realized that she was dealing with a large-scale crime that had been committed for hundreds of years. After the exposing materials were made public, the woman created and headed the charitable organization Union of Migrant Children. For several decades, activists of this movement have been trying to at least partially compensate for the harm done to thousands of families. Former migrants are looking for their relatives, although this task is often impossible.
In 1998, the Special Committee of the British Parliament conducted its own investigation. In the published report, the reality of child migration looks even worse. Religious organizations were especially criticized. Numerous facts indicate that in Catholic shelters, migrant children were subjected to various types of violence. The Western Australian Legislature issued a statement on August 13, 1998, in which it apologized to the former young migrants.
After data on child migration was collected and consolidated around the world, society was horrified. According to published data, over 350 years (from 1618 to the late 1960s) about 150,000 children were sent from Great Britain overseas. Contemporaries were sure that all these settlers were orphans, but today researchers believe that many small migrants were taken from poor families by force or simply kidnapped.
The resettlement of peoples often occurs for natural reasons, but sometimes it is associated with national tragedies. Photographer Dagmar van Wiigel has created a series of colorful portraits of Migrants from African countries: Portraits of those who are usually overlooked
Recommended:
Why did Lenin replace the general with a warrant officer and what during the years of the Civil War meant "to send to the headquarters to Dukhonin"
Nikolai Nikolaevich Dukhonin is the last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army. He took over these responsibilities after the Bolshevik seized power. He was demanded to begin peace negotiations with the Germans so that Russia would withdraw from the First World War, but the Commander-in-Chief disobeyed. And then Vladimir Lenin removed him from his post, replacing him with Warrant Officer Krylenko. Dukhonin understood that death awaited him, but he did not run away. He took the last fight of his life and, of course, lost. After all, all his yesterday's union
What did the carvers do in pre-revolutionary Russia, and why did the peasant women give them their hair
The word carver, according to the explanatory dictionary, is a person who is engaged in wood carving or simply cuts something. And in pre-revolutionary Russia, this word was used to describe people who had nothing to do with such activities. They tirelessly traveled across the vast country and bought hair from peasant women. And then luxurious braids found special use. Read where the purchased hair went later, what they did in stupid workshops and how wigs protected soldiers during the war
Why did the ex-model shoot her lover, or Why the prim British did not condemn the last woman executed in England
In the spring of 1955, the British public was shocked by a high-profile crime in the style of American gangster action. The bright blonde on the street took a revolver out of her purse and coolly released the clip at her lover. At the trial, the former fashion model behaved so worthily that she managed to win the hearts of even the most prim supporters of law. Ruth became the last woman to be executed in Great Britain, and her case is still considered one of the most significant for the 20th century
How the British sold their wives in the market, how much they asked for and why they did it
The fair, lively traders, interrupting each other, offer their goods, buyers and just onlookers are everywhere. There and then a man leads a woman on a leash. Both of them are poorly and unprepossessingly dressed and try not to collide with their eyes either with each other or with those around them, although the latter are not surprised by what is happening, rather amused. The picture leaves no doubt - the sale of his own wife is taking place. And we are not talking about the Middle Ages, but about the 18-19 century, and even England. Selling your own wife was widespread and considered
Why did rich mothers not feed their children themselves, and Where did the nurses take their babies?
Why did they keep wet nurses in rich houses, and why mothers did not feed their children on their own? What happened to the children of the women themselves, hired to feed the offspring of the master? And, finally, why did the peasant women need all this? There are a lot of questions that arise regarding the topic of infant feeding in pre-revolutionary Russia, and the deeper you plunge into the topic, the more there are. Let's try to figure it out