What was it like in American Orphanages?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
That’s not really true, at least in the 19th century. It was very common for iunwed mothers or widows to give up young children with the intent or hope of coming back for them when they were in a better place. Many did come back — either they had a neighbor that could watch a slightly older child, or they got married, or just improved their financial condition. I think many orphanages would not adopt out the youngest children because the mothers returned so frequently. There’s a great book, which is mostly about a total bizarre racist thing that happened in Arizona but the first part is about orphanages in NY: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Arizona-Orphan-Abduction/dp/067400535X |
Anonymous
Rheumatic fever was incredibly common before WW2, even for kids from good homes. (It’s just strep and think about how often our kids get that.). My aunt had rheumatic fever and it eventually killed her. |
Anonymous
| I am only familiar with Indian residential schools, which were horrific. |
Anonymous
|
Horrible
Particularly ones that are religious In the 1970 s catholic ones all over the country were shut down. Same with unwed mother’s homes. The Catholic ones were horrific Guess who plans on restarting these? Don and Betsey Devos and Youngkin |
Anonymous
I do think there was a major shift in the second half of the twentieth century. I read the entire report on the Irish orphanages plus I’ve done some reading on American orphanages. I think in the 19th and early 20th century, there was actually a lot more sympathy for the idea that any girl/woman could end up in a bad situation with a baby. People were very poor, lots of men died in industrial accidents or with contagious diseases, women got raped or coerced into sex with no real repercussions for the men. Yes, there was some stigma to unwed pregnancy but it was so common, especially among the very poor, to end up in that situation or widowed with young children. There was a communal appreciation for the work that orphanages did. Then around WW2, it seems like something sort of broke and the whole system became much more punitive and shame based and there just wasn’t wide spread social support for it so donations went down, etc. I think also that the decline in people entering the convent might also have had an effect — there just weren’t as many nuns overall so maybe it was harder to find nuns that really had a calling for working with young children? Or maybe part of it was the comparison with middle class home life, as standards of living rose for non-orphanage lfkfe. So whereas an orphaned was maybe better than an unsanitary urban hovel of the 19th century, it wasn’t better than a nice Levitt suburban house of the 1950s. I’d actually like to do more reading about it, if anyone has good book references. |
Anonymous
What a horrible woman!! |
Anonymous
"Before We Were Yours" was a tough one to read. Stealing and selling children, some to prominent people. I'm trying to remember which actress bought a baby this way. |
Anonymous
| My grandfather lived in one run by nuns in the early 1900s. It saved his life, and they helped him find relatives who took him in after a few years. He always talked well of how he was cared for in a time of crisis. |
Anonymous
Of course you would say that, even without facts or cites or evidence. |
Anonymous
And the parents often told the orphanages to tell the kids they had died so they wouldn't go looking for them when they were older. |
Anonymous
Quoting myself, it was Joan Crawford. |
Anonymous
Some orphanages were no better. |
Anonymous
My child’s sibling was sold in an unethical adoption. We fought it in court for several years with the birth family but the courts a child welfare allowed it to happen. It’s still happening now. I worked at several group homes and there was a lot of abuse. Same in foster care. |
Anonymous
| Lots of kids arrive due to trauma, never enough funds. |
Anonymous
|
In the days of orphanages, each should be viewed in the context of its surroundings, which typically were horrendous too. Often, as bad as these places were, they were better than the circumstances the children had been in before they were taken in.
"The school buildings are in many cases crowded, dark, dirty, often of three stories, and bad fire risks. The condition of the children in these schools good and bad, rich and poor, may be shown by the large proportion having defective teeth, reduced hearing, imperfect vision. An excessively large number of them are mouth breathers, partially so because they are unable to breathe through their noses in the smoky air ..., and a very considerable number are below stature for weight of that determined for the average child. In a large percentage, the defects of teeth, nose and throat, bring them below the physical normal. These are the children that wear out in childhood." "A family of five, consisting of father, mother and three little children, cooked, ate and slept in one uncurtained room. The mother and four year old girl were taken sick at the same time. The girl occupied an Arbuckle coffee box, with a pillow and pillow-case for a mattress, and the man's overcoat was her only covering. The mother slept in the only bed, furnished with a mattress and one small comforter, and shared it at night with the father, the baby and their six year old girl, who lay across the foot of the bed. The girl was in danger of contracting pneumonia from exposure. A family of seven occupied a store and kitchen on the first floor and two rooms upstairs. A small bedroom was the only one which had a fireplace; and the entire family slept there; the mother (who had typhoid), in the only bed, and the father and five children in a row on the floor." And so on. |