Chuck Stone wrote: » For children? Bollocks. Don't bother trying to steer the discussion towards your mind-numbing evangelism and piousness - it's boring and I've told you on many occasions I'm not interested in it.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Read the study I've posted above. It backs up the stance of most civilised countries (which I agree with) as regards foster placement and culture - not your naivety.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Oh I agree that this was very badly handled but we don't have the details of the case. I'm talking about the practice of matching children to potential FP's not this couple in particular (indeed, they have my sympathy and the SW who cried racism should be fired) You can see how people are using it to question the entire practice of culturally sensitive foster placements which is more about their own prejudices and perhaps a little anti-state axe grinding. I've as much as been called a bigot and racist by people who should know better just because I believe that culturally sensitivity as regards placing FK's is a good thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The couple, who do not want to be named to avoid identifying the children they have fostered, are in their late 50s and live in a neat detached house in a village in South Yorkshire. The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse. Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years. They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement. They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.
DiggingDeep wrote: » If these kids aren't showing up to school with whipping scars on their back chances are they're being looked after just fine. Unless you're one of those who believes teaching religion = child abuse.
Killer Wench wrote: » If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform: "End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies." This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts. Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.
philologos wrote: » The reality is that children eventually make up their own mind irrespective of whether their parents like it.
What do you define as a "civilised" country?
I don't believe that it is naive to believe that a child of any ethnicity can be brought up well by those of other ethnicities. I wish you'd make an actual argument for your position.
Killer Wench wrote: » If I was the social worker placing these children, I would have been alarmed too. This is taken from the UKIP's Immigration and Asylum platform: "End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies." This topic is particularly sensitive for me. In the US, there was an active policy of taking Native children and placing them in the homes of White Christian families with the intention of assimilating the children into the dominant culture, and to destroy Native families and communities by decimating their youth population (evolution of the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" thought) As a result, there were many children of my grandfather's generation who were taken from their communities and families, and raised by non-Natives only to attempt to return to their cultural communities and be viewed as outcasts.Thus, it isn't a stretch for my imagination to conjure up an image of two radical individuals who took in non-British children with the idea that they would take on the "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" approach.
philologos wrote: » This is utterly sensationalist. This isn't about creating a policy to "assimilate" anyone. Rather it is pretty simple, people should be allowed to foster children even if they are of a different ethnicity. Adding non-existent racist connotations to something that is simply about saying that people even if they are of a different ethnicity can do a brilliant job of raising children.
My name is URL wrote: » That most definitely is a stretch. Fine Gael as a party have some terribly old fashioned and archaic views (granted they're not comparable to UKIP), but you wouldn't assume that every member of the party agrees with every single one of those ideals. It's an extremely cynical way of looking at things.. to imagine that the people involved merely want to instill racist views in the children they look after.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Stop talking shite and stop trying to steer the conversation towards your bullshit.
Chuck Stone wrote: » No death penalty. No torture. Due process. Separation of powers. Civilian policing. Social safety nets etc.
Chuck Stone wrote: » I've already said that we've arrived from a time when kids were placed because of notions of cultural superiority and imbalanced power. Thankfully we're more humane these days and attempt to value cultural differences between people and this extends to placing children in foster care.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Read the abstract of the study.
Killer Wench wrote: » Unless you are the foster parents, or know them intimately, you can't say that they would or would not use their position of influence and authority to try to assimilate children under their care to their position. Parents raise their children in a household that reflects their own personal values and their own cultural heritage. Their party advocates for the elimination of the multicultural state which seems to me that they do not want to celebrate difference, and that they believe that every immigrant should assimilate into British culture.
Killer Wench wrote: » People on this board frequently misuse the term racist and racism. In this particular situation, the primary concern would be Xenophobia which is a fear, dislike, or hatred of individuals from another country or culture. These individuals have taken on a multicultural household yet they belong to a party that condemns multiculturalism and believes that it has led to the destruction of traditional British society. It is a reason to be concerned.
philologos wrote: » Why would people foster children of different ethnicities if they were genuinely xenophobic? Although I disagree with UKIP's stance on the European Union, the party isn't xenophobic. What it campaigns for is tighter restrictions on immigration.
Killer Wench wrote: » And for the end of multicultural policies: "6 Our Way Of Life • Our traditional values have been undermined. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Multiculturalism has split our society. Political correctness is stifling free speech. • The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law. • End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels. • Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban." Re: why Xenophobic individuals would foster children of a different culture, again, because they could be hoping to assimilate a younger generation into their preferred culture, or they could be in it for the monetary benefits.
philologos wrote: » By the by, David Cameron has suggested in the past that there is a responsibility on immigrants to integrate into British life. Is that inherently wrong? I mean even from my perspective, I understand that I as an Irish person should make an effort to fit into British life. Parents will always impart their values onto children that they are bringing up. That's unavoidable, and I think it's pretty silly to suggest that they can do this.
Killer Wench wrote: » Right - he has taken the position of integration which is not the same thing as assimilation. To integrate means that one can observe their own cultural rites and rights, but they should be accept the country's laws, perspectives on freedom or restrictions, and there is a commitment to allow for the minority culture to coexist with the majority culture. To assimilate means to force the minority culture to adopt the cultural values of the majority culture; it does not allow for a two way street - you simply become one of them.
philologos wrote: » There are numerous forms of thinking about how immigration should work in a society. For example the 'melting pot' approach of America is rather different to the 'multiculture' approach of European states. I don't see anything xenophobic about the 'melting pot' approach. It makes clear that we are all in this society together rather than having different societies within a single state. I disagree with the smoking ban stuff and with the hunting ban stuff. I think there is a discussion to be had on what form multiculturalism takes. I don't think that's a xenophobic discussion either. As I said, if these foster parents were really xenophobic I can't imagine them taking in kids of other backgrounds.
philologos wrote: » Where has this happened in this case?
Killer Wench wrote: » It could have been happening or it could have happened which is why the children were removed!
Killer Wench wrote: » Children are taught to be ashamed of our past.
Killer Wench wrote: » Multiculturalism has split our society.
Killer Wench wrote: » Political correctness is stifling free speech.
Killer Wench wrote: » • The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law.
Killer Wench wrote: » • End the ban on smoking in allocated rooms in public houses, clubs and hotels.
Killer Wench wrote: » • Hold County wide referenda on the hunting ban."
philologos wrote: » Why is allowing people of different ethnicities foster children not "civilised"
If you feel that way, why don't you apply it to other subjects like inter-racial marriage? Why does the "keep them all with their own kind" logic extend further?
Exactly. That's why I feel that we can move towards not having these sorts of draconian, archaic restrictions on foster parenting and adoption any more.
By the by, David Cameron has suggested in the past that there is a responsibility on immigrants to integrate into British life. Is that inherently wrong?
philologos wrote: » I think that's your assumption rather than anything else. I don't agree with UKIP's policy but their main objection is that they feel there has been too much immigration into Britain too quickly and that they want to limit this. That's not the same thing as a hatred of foreigners and you'd have to be highly dishonest to believe that. This family wouldn't have taken children from other ethnic backgrounds if they were genuinely xenophobic.
“Joyce Thacker referred to us as carers not being able to meet the cultural needs of these children in the long term. My argument here is that we feel that we were meeting the cultural needs of these children - we were actively encouraging these children to speak their own language and to teach us their language. “We enjoyed singing one of their folk songs inn their native language, and having been told of the religious denomination of these children we took steps to ensure that a school of their denomination was found. “These children have now bee placed with families who are also white British, therefore how are these people going meet the cultural needs of the children?”
My name is URL wrote: » It's indefensible, and building strawman / hypothetical arguments and situations to excuse it doesn't change the fact that major screw-ups were made.
Rascasse wrote: » The foster mother has spoken to the local paper and had this to say: No much evidence of assimilation or xenophobia there.
end of the road wrote: » in fairness that is true, same is happening here, but thats down to political correctness. .............
Killer Wench wrote: » It is an assumption that seems to have been shared with the social worker on charge of this case. Xenophobia isn't solely about hating foreigners, it is also about disliking foreign cultures and fearing the rise of those foreign cultures. Again, one does not have love or embrace the culture of the children they take in; there are many nefarious reasons why people take children from different cultures into their home, some do it with the goal of influencing those children and others do it because of the money or benefits they receive from the state for taking children in. Here's another case where a foster family - who had previously fostered children - were blocked from fostering other children because of their views.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8370280/David-Cameron-defends-ban-on-anti-gay-foster-parents.html Ultimately, the state has a desire in seeing children raised in homes that are "tolerant, welcoming, and broad-minded".
