Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Google:
Yes, the historical practice of kidnapping street children and sending them to colonies for forced labor did occur, primarily from Britain and Ireland to the Americas and later Australia and Canada, spanning from the 17th century well into the 20th century.
Historical Context
Motivation: The practice served a dual purpose: to relieve the strain on the welfare system and workhouses in Britain and to provide cheap labor for the colonies. Colonial authorities and merchants often actively encouraged the trade.
Methods: Some children were officially transported by city authorities or charities, sometimes with their parents being misled or coerced into giving consent. Others were simply abducted from the streets by gangs of kidnappers, known as “spirits”.
Destinations and Conditions: Children were sent to various colonies, including the Virginia Colony, Maryland, the West Indies, Canada, and Australia. Upon arrival, they were often sold into indentured servitude, where many faced harsh conditions, abuse, and hard labor.
Timeline: The earliest recorded instance of this official transportation was in 1618, when 100 children were sent from London to Virginia. The practice continued under various schemes (like the “Home Children” program) until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Victims: It was often falsely claimed that all the children were orphans, but it is now known that most had living parents who were often unaware of their children’s true fate.Exactly, and brilliantly put.
In the workplace today, and in schools and, yes, even in universities, colleges, and leisure groups (!), the bullies in authority have been largely replaced with the bullies who are colleagues, fellow-students, fellow-enthusiasts etc.
When the drivel “Rule Britannia” (“Britons never will be slaves”) was written, British children were being rounded up in Britain and sold to the colonies as slaves for 900 lbs of cotton per child.
How many times do we hear from elders: “Youngsters don’t know how lucky they are!” “In my day they’d have got what was coming!” “Bring back hanging. That’ll sort them!”
And “Our dad would take his belt off to us”, said with great relish as though it were a virtue?Very well said.
In a similar vein, an American made a quip that many love their cars more than their children. S/he pointed out that people whose sons/daughters/grandsons/grandaughters have been killed or mutilated through war don’t hate the authorities that sent them to war. Instead, they become even more militaristic, jingoistic, and fawning than they were before.
Whereas, if someone damages their cars, they know whom to blame straightaway!War between Russia and NATO by 2029.
To repeat, I’m not talking about rules of dress, but neurosis. And primarily neurosis about one’s body: leading to bulimia and other psychological illnesses.
Young noblemen of the 16th century and earlier would have been fit: not for body image or sexual attractiveness, but for war. They learned to ride while small children, and to fight in armour with sword, axe, lance and shield. Peasants worked in the fields from childhood too. Hardly either were navel-gazing over their waistlines or whether they stank, nor about what other members of their class were thinking of them.
But was he neurotic about it, or was he preoccupied with pleasure?
I am referring to modern mass neuroses in the post-industrial world. The preening of Renaissance aristocrats is not part of this. Were they cowered – like modern wage-slaves are? I think not.
