To wonder why Australia's 'stolen generation' isn't taught in schools or well known?

[workingdilemma]

I was in oz a decade or so ago, and learny of the stolen generation. Aboriginal children who were taken out of their families, put with white families and ein an effort to remove their culture. A lot of people also say part of this was a more shocking plan to eventually 'breed out' the aboriginal people.

This 'strategy' continued at least in part till the 1970s - so shockingly recently.

In australia they have in recent years attempted to attone in some manner by apologising to the aboriginal people, but i find it incredible that over here or elsewhere, very few people know about this.

I was interested to read the ww2 thread just now and it made me wonder again about why this isn't discussed and taught in schools.

Aibu to think this episode of history should be discussed more globally as a historical mistake (and more)?

but they are not taught about the dreadful things which happened where the UK government shipped 1000's of kids to the "new World' as recently as "1980s" to be 'taught' by the evil Christian Brothers- ie forced labour and maltreatment, corporal punishment.

Very similar to the atrocities in Ireland and the laundries

Shadow yes there were different exam boards, that must have been it. And I got why (for GCSE) we only studied 1 or 2 topics/eras of history in so much depth - the object at that point is, presumably 'educate child so that they can answer essay questions on these selected topics in depth, demonstrate their understanding of the subject and pass exams' more than it is 'ensure child has a full rounded knowledge of British history including the bad bits'.

I just thought the topics covered on our particular curriculum were very limited - most of what we studied was from the years 1917-1939, a very limited period of history, although admittedly quite a lot went on then! It would just have been nice to do one thing that wasn't 20th century, just for a bit of variety.

It is taught in schools. I remember doing quite a lot on it in my very ordinary high school. I don't know what country you are in DodgedAnAsbo but there were many part-Aboriginal people in my town growing up that were of of my parent's generation and who had been taken away from their parents.

My gcse was similar to shadows at same time. But anything not about England only mentioned as a reference to England. Eg potato famine = even more people crowding English slums. Slavery = the churchgoing English were the driving factor and so on. Literally sentences.
A-level was mainly about foreign policy of European powers from 1600's on and English social policy during the industrial revolution. Or at least the teachers personal slant on the above, which was probably considered an informed view around 1860.

banana
the facts are
reports of the Curtis and Clyde committees in 1946 and the substance of the Children Act of 1948 affected voluntary sector as well as public sector child welfare professionals. (22) Even so, the last party of Barnardo's children did not leave until 1967.
not the 1980s then ?

Lurked
your GCSE would have been 'British History' as taught from the persective of England if that was where you lived
had you been in Scotland or N Ireland - your British history would have been from the perspective of those countries.
this is not surprising
in any country the history is taught from the perspective of that country

Mollie123 but weirdly my GCSE wasn't British history at all, it was US and European, in 1993. Some of it was interesting but I do ponder how odd it is that I know more about Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge than any British politician.

In theory mollie but you'd expect it to be at least the current knowledge and thinking of the time, not the out dated English supremacy version. Eg the potato famine and centuries of problems with Ireland were not down to dumb irish farming habits. Ditto Scotland etc. I can see the logic in England being the main focus in England, but if you're doing British history then you'd expect firstly that there'd be a decent mention of the history with other British countries that played a huge part in English history, and secondly that they'd be taught without bias. Perspective is one thing but missing out huge influential factors, and/or painting England to be perfect is not British history from an English perspective.
I know not every teacher is biased, in fact I'm sure most aren't. But the fact is the heavily biased curriculum allowed plenty of scope for warping the truth even more.

In my experience (Scottish education and English primary school teaching, school history curricula are tired and dated. Even attempts to change the subject matter in primary history teaching is subverted by teachers unwilling to deviate from what they know. Therefore they stick to old favourites such as 'Ancient Egypt' 'The Victorians' and 'World War II'.
A few key figures are focussed on such as Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. Therefore the reason that some atrocities from the past are not taught may be inertia.

Up until the late 1960's/early 70s (i think), thousands of British and Northern Irish children in the care system were 'adopted' out to Australia to, essentially, work as indentured servants/slaves on farms and building sites.

I grew up in Northern Ireland. I went to Catholic maintained schools...my experience of history teaching was very different to my friends in the nearby Protestant school, at least until GCSE. I'm a bit of a history geek, so had this conversation with many people from both sides of the divide over the years and the general consensus is that if you went to a Protestant school you got the 'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves' perspective on history, and if you went to Catholic school, you got the other side of the argument...not just to Irish history but other colonies- shared experience of subjugation etc.

I can well believe that loolah.

Loolah many where not even in care - there are stories of children picked up off the street - deemed to be poor and sent away without their parents consent

ghostyslovesheep it's really sad, that's living memory in the UK...but sounds so utterly Dickensian

With the British kids shipped off to colonies it was a book and then a film that sparked my interest, can't remember the name of either, about post ww2 kids shipped off to Australia. I remember thinking wtf, can't have been a real approved policy after reading the book (I was only a child/early teen). Then years after saw a film about different kids and was shocked to discover when I researched it the fiction wasn't an exaggeration or based on a rare occurrence.

Lurked - the miniseries was called The Leaving of Liverpool, I think?

Could be jassy, it was mainly about a boy and a girl and the girls mum tracked her down, and I'm sure one was a scouser, but it was years ago.
The book I remember very little about, apart from it being about a teen girl sent as a maid/ servant to an outback farmer and being raped, under some scheme that blurred the lines between shipping off orphans and farmers needing wives.

If its any consolation to those who didn't learn about Australian history, I have no idea what a highland clearance or a potato famine are {blush}

or how to blush, it seems

Empty Cradles (also known as Oranges and Sunshine) by Margaret Humphreys is a good book on the subject of the children removed and sent to Australia, Canada, and Kenya.

My son has just finished a-level history (we're in England). I don't think he's done any Australian history at all. He studied Ireland and the American civil rights movement. He is pretty much aware of the role the English played in the Irish famine, along with other colonies. He was pretty shocked, tbh.
I suppose that's progress. I did history to A-level and didn't really get the same message. I've found out quite a lot lately over the last 10 years or so through reading on the internet, and watching TV and films.
It is just so shocking that human beings can treat other human beings so badly, and lets face it, it wasn't just Britain either.
I do dream of a 'star trek' type of society where the human race is united but I don't know if that's ever possible.

What's really shocking (or perhaps not if you already knew this) is that so many of these schemes seem to be Christian in basis? Brits in South Africa and the other colonies, Magdalen Laundries, the Canadian schools, why is that? We'd never accept it if (for example) Muslim groups decided that the whole world should be muslim and enacted mass programs of conversion. Why is it thought okay when it's our own culture which is reflected? It makes me want to ban any kind of conversion or Missionary organisation. Be religious, of course, if you want, but don't force it on people who are not actively seeking it out!

Yes BertieBotts where the expansionists went, the missions followed....turning 'savages' into good Christians with British values who procreate on their backs (missionary position).

I remember that miniseries, the Leaving of Liverpool.

BertieBotts It isn't that simple. Certainly this thread has focussed on the Christian-led schemes/schools which have removed the indigenous belief systems and cultural traditions from people. However, taking the wider history over time, Christians themselves have been persecuted given the choice of conversion, death or exile (depending on when/where).

The power of religion is still tied into culture and law in some areas. For example, look at the case of Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman who was raised as a Christian and married an American Christian. As Meriam's father was a Muslim, she was tried under Sheria Law for apostacy. She would not convert to Islam and was sentenced to death in 2014. (Since over-turned and released)

A report in 2013 indicated that nine of the worst 10 nations for the persecution of Christians are Islamic: Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Maldives, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen are among 'the worst of the worst'. But for 12 years running now, the communist North Korean regime is at the top of the list.

www.wnd.com/2014/01/37-muslim-nations-persecuting-christians/#FwAATyPL4Y1usRqQ.99

It is truly unacceptable what is done in the name of many religions!