Preliminary Programme

In its colonies, the ideologues of British imperialism instituted educational systems -- schools, teachers, textbooks -- that taught children British or English geography and the achievements of British generals and statesmen. In some countries such British-centeredness did not change with either dominion-status or independence. In this paper I will use immigrant autobiographies and scholarly analyses from Canada with glimpses to developments in Australia, India, and Jamaica to discuss children's reactions to such lessons. I will ask, how they connected their everyday lives to the "facts" learnt in school -- if they did so at all. I will make suggestions on possible lasting results of such frame of reference programmed into pupils minds at an early age. (Show less)

I am dealing with a group of (re-)migrant children and youths hardly mentioned in migration studies, namely children of Western background brought up in a non-Western environment before “returning” to a “home,” which in many cases has never been or is no longer home to them. I deal with German children coming to live in Germany after having spent most of their childhood in Sub-Saharan Africa. Many of these children spent most of their social lives in German and/or international expatriate environments. I look at what it means to be brought up as a white child in Africa and how this experience affects (re-)migration to Germany. Upon “return” many of these children often find themselves in a dilemma: they are expected to be the same – speaking the same language and looking the same as everyone else – while their experiences, views, and ways of life are usually quite different from those of children and youths who have spent all their lives “at home” in Germany. Their difference is often neither recognized nor appreciated by teachers, peers, or their own families. What makes it even harder for them to find some comfort in their situation is the fact that compared to other groups of “real” migrants, it is usually more difficult for them to find others around them who share their experiences and problems. I examine the views and attitudes these children and youths develop in the course of (re-)integration and some of their ways “in to” and “out of” German society – including social isolation, self-exotization, multiple identifications, and idealization of one’s former “real” home back in Africa. I analyze whether and to what extent the notion of “TCK” – “Third Culture Kid” – which has been used for some time now to denote children brought up as (children of) expatriates – is appropriate to denote those under study. (Show less)

How do young people find and define their own position and 'culture'? And how do dominant discourses - used in politics, the media, and academia - reflect as well as shape young peoples' strategies of self-positioning? While in Germany, young people with migration background are often seen as having or producing problems, the Canadian experience of the policy of multiculturalism has lead to an understanding of difference as generally beneficial for all members of society. German dominant discourse, on the other hand, still constructs this society as culturally and linguistically homogenous. How does that translate into young peoples lives in both societies? How, in turn, do youth influence the societies they live in?
Findings of a comparative qualitative study with young people in schools in Germany and Canada show that children and youth negotiate their roles and positions on a number of levels within the context of their societies, as well as wider networks that can include family and friends in countries of origin (that can be a place of a person's experiences, or a heimat on a more abstract level). The study at a German secondary school indicates that discourses of belonging are flexible (and sometimes strategic), yet often more emotionally charged for young people with migration experiences than for their non-migrant peers. Young people's strategies and positions, then, are rarely monocultural, but draw from and link a number of options - parental influence, school as a nation-state institution, friendship networks, sports and other activities, media - with their sometimes conflicting values and norms. (Show less)

The paper will discuss philanthropic actions organized for children by religious, social and ethnic groups. It will mostly concentrate on the controversial aspect of the problem - whether the social or institutional actions aiming to help poor, neglected and lonely children in the 19th and 20th century America were the attempts to subordinate and control children of the poor by the elites. Orphan asylums and asylums for young delinquents were tools of "social control." I will use he examples of Jewish orphan asylums and Polish Catholic orphan ones (especially from Chicago). Jewish orphan asylums functioned in order to 'Americanize' the orphans. Polish institutions only partly support this thesis. Catholic institutions were established so that the children would not loose contact with their religion, Polish language and the culture , they were not supposed to bring up the 'American Poles'. The last part of the paper will discuss still another attempt to control children through a movement called Junior Republics, in particular the Progress City that was active in Cleveland before World War I. (Show less)