Hundreds of Scottish orphanage children allegedly buried in mass grave.

MilesMorales1

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/10/smyllum-park-lanark-orphanage-catholic-nuns-children-mass-grave-allegedly

The Scottish child abuse inquiry is to investigate claims that the bodies of at least 400 children from a home once run by Catholic nuns are buried in an unmarked mass grave.

The high infant mortality rate has raised concerns about conditions at Smyllum Park orphanage in Lanark, which was operated by the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul.

The institution, which looked after children from broken homes, opened in 1864 and closed in 1981. More than 11,000 children stayed at the orphanage over that period.

How awful, poor children.

tomwaterford

Jesus....what is with nuns and mass graves

Donald Trump

tomwaterford wrote: »

Jesus....what is with nuns and mass graves

I think that maybe they just misunderstood/misheard the phrase:

"Is there anything to be said for having another Mass" [grave]

_Whimsical_

tomwaterford wrote: »

Jesus....what is with nuns and mass graves

You could also say though what is it with societies who took no care and made no provision for their most vulnerable and that the church were the only people/institution that did anything?

Would a lot of those 11,000 kids have been dead on the side of a road somewhere without them?

Noveight

One of the deaths recorded at the Scottish orphanage is that of Francis McColl, who died in 1961, aged 13. His death certificate indicates he died from a brain haemorrhage. His brother Eddie had heard that he was struck on the head by a golf club.

Nothing short of murder.

_Whimsical_

Noveight wrote: »

Nothing short of murder.

You're right, plain and simply murder.

What the hell was wrong with everyone that they let these things happen though? Children in government run care homes in the UK in the 60s endured horrific things too including most awful murders.

The_Kew_Tour

A disgrace. Utter shame and murder/blood of RCC

Gatling

So in 117 years they looked after 11,000 children , according to rumors 400 may have died and be buried at the location ,
But am I the only one who has noticed all these claims of mass burials have turned very little yet

somefeen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You could also say though what is it with societies who took no care and made no provision for their most vulnerable and that the church were the only people/institution that did anything?

Would a lot of those 11,000 kids have been dead on the side of a road somewhere without them?

There's no excuse for what they did.
If the catholic church had not existed then another organisation would have taken them in.

Its actually disgusting that you would try to rationalise such abuse and neglect.
Are neglectful and abusive parents somehow less awful seeing as without them their children would be homeless?

Gatling

somefeen wrote: »

There's no excuse for what they did.
If the catholic church had not existed then another organisation would have taken them in.

Like who and it's likely the same would have happened , especially at time when caring ,and loving orpanage were not the thing, Most operating with no regulatory over sight or care in the world

Senna

I'm no supporter of the church, but mass graves does not equal any sinister. There was never going to be individual graves for poor people, so mass graves would have been the norm.

Article says 400 bodies, with a high national child mortality rate for most of the institutions existence, 400 seems low.

There may have been foul play and I'm sure there was in any institution that was around for 100 years, but that has nothing to do with the words mass grave or 400.

hatrickpatrick

I don't understand the psychological aspect of being so obsessed with and craving for control over somebody that you are willing to resort to brutal and even lethal violence all in the name of obtaining compliance from that person. I literally do not understand the mindset, at all. The desire for power and for obedience / compliance from others for the sheer sake of a power trip, even in people who don't resort to violence to enforce it, is something which pretty much automatically makes me consider someone an awful human being, I don't understand that in and of itself, but to resort to sadistic and brutal violence because it's not forthcoming? I just don't get it. So, a kid "talked back", didn't do his homework, didn't finish his dinner, whatever - in what f*cked up way of thinking does that end with a logical conclusion of "beat the ever living sh!t out of him so that he will submit to authority out of fear"?

If anyone could shed light on this incredibly nasty personality type I'd find it fascinating. Like, people always talk about the standards of the time, the training, the instruction, the law, etc - all of that is secondary in my view. To deliberately harm somebody for no reason other than "I am in charge, do what you're told" requires an evil person, simple as that. And I genuinely don't understand how those peoples' brains work.

hatrickpatrick

Gatling wrote: »

So in 117 years they looked after 11,000 children , according to rumors 400 may have died and be buried at the location ,
But am I the only one who has noticed all these claims of mass burials have turned very little yet

Did you read the story posted above? One kid died of a brain haemorrhage and his brother had heard that he was hit with a golf club. The only type of human being who would do something like that is a subhuman and vile individual, plain and simple.

MickDoyle1979

What I find weird is that pro choice people who want mothers to be allowed kill their babies in the womb are getting upset about unwanted children dying in homes?

A bit hypocritical isn't it?

I was on the train today and some silly little miss wore a repeal jersey but at the same time wore a bag with an emblem opposing experiments on animals in labs.

She clearly is fine with murdering children but opposed to experiments on animals that save human lives in the long run.

Society didn't want these kids and misguided religious orders took them in. I think we are judging society then by standards we can only afford to have now.

Before the bright shiney consumer society with technology and freedoms we enjoy the world was a harsh bleak mean place for most.

Gatling

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did you read the story posted above? One kid died of a brain haemorrhage and his brother had heard that he was hit with a golf club.

Heard that's no proof it actually happened now is it ,
Prime example is thousands of YouTube videos saying this video contains abuse of power and police brutality , hundreds of people comment about whats in the videos but normal people view the same videos and see nothing untoward but yet people heard this and that ,

Senna

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

What I find weird is that pro choice people who want mothers to be allowed kill their babies in the womb are getting upset about unwanted children dying in homes?

A bit hypocritical isn't it?

I was on the train today and some silly little miss wore a repeal jersey but at the same time wore a bag with an emblem opposing experiments on animals in labs.

Of course, because pro choice means killing anything that moves is fair game. You're making a huge leap and a pretty pathetic dig at someone who's pro choice.

hatrickpatrick

Gatling wrote: »

Heard that's no proof it actually happened now is it ,
Prime example is thousands of YouTube videos saying this video contains abuse of power and police brutality , hundreds of people comment about whats in the videos but normal people view the same videos and see nothing untoward but yet people heard this and that ,

Leaving aside the fact that kids don't just have brain haemorrhages for no reason out of the blue, how about this:

The recorded death rate, according to the reports, is calculated to have been, in some periods, around three times the average for children in Scotland.

From the Guardian article.

_Whimsical_

somefeen wrote: »

There's no excuse for what they did.
If the catholic church had not existed then another organisation would have taken them in.

Its actually disgusting that you would try to rationalise such abuse and neglect.
Are neglectful and abusive parents somehow less awful seeing as without them their children would be homeless?

How have I rationalised it? I asked why larger society didn't play a role in or demand of their governments to protect the vulnerable.

A comparison with abusive parents is not apt. No one is saying "hey it's fine, they'd a roof over their head". Sadly though it has to be comprehended against the backdrop of the times. A time when society and governments said "we don't consider these children our responsibility, we won't help keep them alive" and 11,000 children were then kept alive by an institution. It wasn't the right place, they didn't do a good enough job, they just about kept most of them alive.
Sadly it's more than anyone or anywhere would have done for them during a large part of the time that orphanage was in existence.

Why do we never talk about that? We still don't provide the most vulnerable children with what they need. State run care in Ireland is still very inadequate and children in care in Ireland right now have a much higher mortality rate and much higher incidence of going missing than other children. I really feel we need to widen these discussions beyond the past and the church. It's so easy to pin all these things on one institution. Wider society was culpable then and still is for the terrible things that happen to children in care.

I agree with the below too. Mass graves were always part of the story for the poor. In Ireland in famine times people died on the side of the road walking to find help and were buried where they fell. Keeping the living in one piece was prioritized over burying people and tending graves for a large portion of the time that institution existed. Again it's not right or ideal at all but it was sadly a reflection of the time rather than of malicious intent.
Foul play is obviously horrific and inexcusable, I mean the above to refer to graves only.

Senna wrote: »

I'm no supporter of the church, but mass graves does not equal any sinister. There was never going to be individual graves for poor people, so mass graves would have been the norm.

Article says 400 bodies, with a high national child mortality rate for most of the institutions existence, 400 seems low.

There may have been foul play and I'm sure there was in any institution that was around for 100 years, but that has nothing to do with the words mass grave or 400.

Gatling

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that kids don't just have brain haemorrhages for no reason out of the blue, how about this:



From the Guardian article.

From the same article

"Records reveal that most of the deaths were due to natural causes, mainly from diseases such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy. About a third of the victims were under the age of five, and the majority of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930"

Again id rather facts than some one said ,who heard from someone else that they saw

hatrickpatrick

Gatling wrote: »

From the same article

"Records reveal that most of the deaths were due to natural causes, mainly from diseases such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy. About a third of the victims were under the age of five, and the majority of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930"

Again id rather facts than some one said ,who heard from someone else that they saw

Majority, so that's an admission that some were caused by unnatural causes. Leaving that to one side for a moment, do you accept that if the death rate was multiple times the national average at the time, then it is indicative of probable neglect? If kids weren't dying of TB, pneumonia, and pleurisy as often among the general population as among this orphanage's population, it can be reasonably extrapolated in combination with other factors that they weren't properly looked after.

_Whimsical_

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Majority, so that's an admission that some were caused by unnatural causes. Leaving that to one side for a moment, do you accept that if the death rate was multiple times the national average at the time, then it is indicative of probable neglect? If kids weren't dying of TB, pneumonia, and pleurisy as often among the general population as among this orphanage's population, it can be reasonably extrapolated in combination with other factors that they weren't properly looked after.

No that would not be a correct extrapolation.
In orphanage conditions back then you'd have been looking at children living in very close quarters, sleeping in very large dormitories, a set number of staff employed. Those illnesses would have spread much more rapidly and through many more children in those living conditions than they would have in a home. Trying to care for maybe 100 very ill children at one time, while keeping an orphanage running, would have been much more difficult than parents and older siblings caring for several sick small children in a home. Sadly it stands to reason that there would have been more casualties in orphanages.
You have to realise too that for most of that period people did not understand about sterilisation, how some bacterias were airbourne etc and how to stop transmission.

Spider Web

A lot of the time, those children were sent to those institutions because their families were simply too poor to care for them. Or they were born out of wedlock (this was considered as dreadful in Britain as it was here) or their mothers were prostitutes.

Senna wrote: »

Of course, because pro choice means killing anything that moves is fair game. You're making a huge leap and a pretty pathetic dig at someone who's pro choice.

Well I agree with that poster's points and I'm pro choice (early in a pregnancy). There is a lot of hypocrisy from the very vocal elements of the pro-choice lobby.

RobertKK

Disease again and again is the main reason for these mass graves, how they were buried is the bigger issue.
Some people act as if the nuns had modern facilities, that diseases were under control to the extent they are today, that sanitation and other things we take for granted were available.

Are Am Eye

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Majority, so that's an admission that some were caused by unnatural causes.

No the remainder could be indeterminate.

Your Face

Very vague and leading article, but of course, that was the point.

ceadaoin.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

You could also say though what is it with societies who took no care and made no provision for their most vulnerable and that the church were the only people/institution that did anything?

Would a lot of those 11,000 kids have been dead on the side of a road somewhere without them?

Yes, but the church and its teachings played a huge part in creating the societal attitudes that led to unmarried mothers and other "undesirable" women and their children being treated with such disdain.

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

What I find weird is that pro choice people who want mothers to be allowed kill their babies in the womb are getting upset about unwanted children dying in homes?

A bit hypocritical isn't it?

.

About as hypocritical as the people so concerned with unborn foetuses not being murdered, but who don't give a **** about what happens to these unwanted children once they are born. claiming that an organisation known to be responsible for the abuse, neglect and even murder of many such children was simply "misguided", whilst at the same time denouncing women who terminate pregnancies as "murderers" is the epitome of hypocrisy