To be fair, the British system was mentioned, but not really in a favorable way (although as with other things in the report, it could sound like rationalization, or justification).
From Theresa's report:
Pg 14. "Understanding of Child Abuse in a Historical Context In the decades before the 1990s, child abuse was poorly understood by government institutions, mission agencies, and others. Society as a whole, including mission organizations, failed previous generations of children by not understanding the prevalence of child abuse or its damaging effects. NTM, like other organizations, had a limited understanding of child abuse at that time. Other additional issues for NTM were high staff turnover, lack of adequate training and supervision, an attitude of putting ministry first, poor management of difficult people, and childcare modeled on a system of elite boarding schools that originally developed in the UK."
Pgs 24-25 "Boarding schools evolved out of the British tradition, which dated back to medieval times. During the colonial period of the British Empire, children were sent home from India and other countries to boarding schools for health and educational reasons. In addition, the British upper class commonly sent children to elite boarding schools, a tradition that continues today. Boarding school was thus seen as a high-end option, the educational choice of privileged classes.
As time went by, mission and colonial agencies founded boarding schools in host countries, so that the children could be closer to parents. Instead of seeing parents once in several years, children would see their parents several times a year. This was seen as an educational and personal advancement. During the early twentieth century, it was believed that children got a good education and did well in these settings.
However, there were drawbacks for boarding schools that were not on the radar for missions at the time. Many children felt abandoned by parents. Some never were able to establish close family relationships. Families could not know what was happening in boarding schools in a day- to-day basis, and a harsh or even abusive environment sometimes prevailed."
Theresa acknowledges some of the same residual issues as the ones pointed out in the Guardian article.
In my opinion, the IHART report falls far short of what should have been its reasonable conclusion, which is to publicly name those who Theresa acknowledges hurt the children and young people at EHM. The re-injuring of the abuse survivors just floors me. Theresa edges toward showing some compassion, and then backs away and protects her client: NTM.
It makes me sick.
|