Who's Picking Your Berries? America's DISGRACEFUL little secret!

This doesn't surprise me....
but it still disgusts me.

More:

Corporate Farms doing this should have their farms seized.

I was picking berries at 5. Back then it was legal and called "chores".

Time for America to go back to Rural life.....ohhhh... those iLLuminati don't want that.

Originally posted by paraphi
Well, in the context of an economy the size of the US some child abusive child labour would be inevitable. It is not systematic like in the countries of other developing or undeveloped economies, like (er) China, India and most of Africa, Asia and South America. etc. This is not to excuse any US companies who employ child labour - just to point out that it is the exception rather than the norm.

I think INICEF estimate one in five children (5-16) are working and not in school, globally. Mind you most of Africa has not schooling network.

Also, it does not help that the US is (I think) the only country who has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Regards

And yet it is one country that does not allow child labour legally. Seems in other countries it is allowed, but socialists are going in trying to change the way things have been done for generations. What's new?


Hillary Clinton has been behind a huge push for the rights of the child. However, as she is a Marxist also, this is because she puts up the State as Supreme as all Marxists do. The State has supreme power of the individual. The person exists only for the State. Parental rights will be stripped systematically for the Marxist communist system.

Oh, and by the way, Marxist Obam is seeking to add the US to the UN Rights of the Child
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Democrats from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of a Senate subcommittee on human rights, have advocated pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires two-thirds approval in the 100-seat chamber.
But opponents in the U.S. have long argued that it could open the door to outside interference from government and U.N. officials in what they say are parents' rights to raise a child as they see fit. Republicans in Congress also have put forward a measure that has gained limited support but is aimed at blocking such a treaty.

Originally posted by loam


• An estimated 300 children die each year in farming accidents

SIDS kills 8 times that many. Heck, three times as many are killed by accidental poisoning. TEN TIMES as many die in car crashes (most of them urban, no doubt). No threads about those dangers, though.

• Farm children are twice as likely to die from an accident than their urban counterparts

So, what? Move all the kids out of rural america, and put them in urban orphanages? It will double their chance of being victims of homicide---but maybe that's preferable to snakebite....

Maybe the goverment needs to ban 4-H

Originally posted by Tharsis
It's the families that bring their children here to work.

They get paid by weight, so the more hands to pick the more money for the family. And yes, the families do force their children to work. Often the employers will turn a blind eye because the families need money.

This is what happens when poor cultures continue to have child after child that they cannot afford.

I've seen it a bunch over here, we have a lot of berry farms.

Actually, for families that do manual labor, additional children provide economic benefit to the parents, especially when they become elderly. But in the meantime, more children means more workers.

It is only in the white middle-class culture that children represent a financial burden.

reply to post by loam


Well forcing very young children to work is just as bad as not allowing older children to work.I worked a full time job since i was 11 during summers and weekends and the things i learned are not taught in any school.If the economy shut down today many of these youngsters would be better off then a whole lot of you.

reply to post by deadeyedick


I think what this represents fundamentally is class warfare, pure and simple.

The people who declaim against the indignity of child labor are always upper and middle-class whites. Take a look at Loam's posted statistics; the real culprit is obviously the agrarian lifestyle. If the families were good citizens, then of course they'd be living in the suburbs, where life is better. Anyone who can't or won't raise their child by white upper-class (liberal) standards is obviously an unfit parent.

It always comes down to war on the working class

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Never mind those pesky injury statistics...

• An estimated 30,000 children under 20 years of age are injured each year in farming accidents

• If children who visit or work on non-family farms are added the total is estimated to be close to 100,000 injuries

Not to mention:

• Children under the age of 16 comprise 20% of all farm fatalities

Do they account for 20% of the labor force?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Conservatives can love their children too, ya know.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

I think what this represents fundamentally is class warfare, pure and simple.

The people who declaim against the indignity of child labor are always upper and middle-class whites. Take a look at Loam's posted statistics; the real culprit is obviously the agrarian lifestyle. If the families were good citizens, then of course they'd be living in the suburbs, where life is better. Anyone who can't or won't raise their child by white upper-class (liberal) standards is obviously an unfit parent.

It always comes down to war on the working class

edit on 13-8-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: (no reason given)

It is class warfare, but this goes way deeper than just the ability of families to determine their own work styles on rural farms. This is just the argument the socialists use to make their statement that the State must have control over every aspect of our lives. In the eyes of Marxists, the children belong to the State. So they present it as the State protecting the children from their horrid parents and from the evil capitalists. Just look at the increased activities of the Child Protective Services in arbitrarily snatching children from their parents. In some instances it is over the parent refusing to give their children ritalin or some other State sanctioned behavioral drug. Believe me, it will go way beyond that. In the UK there are nanny cams to watch and see if parents are making their kids do their homework and eat their broccoli.
Some thoughts on the UN involvement

Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.

Article 3 of the CRC states that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child's best interest as the primary concern.

But the Convention's emphasis on the "best interests" principle is a sharp break from American law. In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody." the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, the Court struck down a grandparent visitation statute because decisions about the child were made "solely on the judge's determination of the child's best interests," without regard to the wishes of the parent.The Court's decisions in Reno and Troxel reflect a fundamental tenet of American family law, which recognizes that parents typically act in the best interests of their children. Indeed, "United States case law is replete with examples of parents fighting for the best interests of their children," ranging from a child’s right to an education to the right of personal injury compensation.Thus, except in cases where a parent has been proven to be "unfit," American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent's decision. The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state.

www.parentalrights.org...

reply to post by loam


Who made this about conservatives? You are implying that only conservative capitaists are forcing their children and the children of migrant mexicans into agricultural labor? Typical class warfare nonsense of socialists. Marx would be so proud of you. By the way he had a maid.

www.freerepublic.com...


And more ideas on the UN Rights of Child

The UN’s cause célèbre is advancing “human rights,” but its declarations and proclamations, including the CRC, do not mean personal rights or self-determination as our forebears knew them. The UN version has everything to do with advancing group consensus, transfers of wealth and relegating the family to “breeders and feeders.” However, one has to study UN statements closely — very closely — to get the message. Just enough words are plagiarized from our founding documents to make UN pronouncements sound credible, and just enough words are surreptitiously inserted to fool the inattentive. Today’s mainstream media, with two-minute segments passed off as in-depth reporting, and quickie print mediums like USA Today, that supposedly tell you everything you need to know in one sentence or a headline, have conditioned us to scan, not actually read. The Human Rights Council, for example, is ludicrously headed by “member states” hostile to human rights (e.g., Libya). Some free-worlders grimace, hoping that some decency or other will inadvertently “rub off” on delinquent nations.

This might pass if parents were encouraged to transmit traditional moral and spiritual boundaries. But in a value-neutral culture where children are assaulted with every sort of perversion, from innuendoes to images, it is a recipe for disaster. Given that fact, it’s easy to lump countries like Somalia with the United States. Leaders who wink at selling children, genital mutilation, and infanticide begin to bear a passing resemblance to New Age, free-world ideologies like euthanasia, abortion, and rationed healthcare.

source: www.thenewamerican.com...

and my personal favorite, Berit Kjos
www.crossroad.to...

reply to post by loam


I think you may be missing the fact that people die no matter who or where they are.Im glad your out there trying to make a differance and when you find some real injustice i will stand strong to support you.

Just look at the birthrate of black babies.
look at all the slow kill methods being carried out against you right now.Anywhere you look you are being attacked from each direction.I pray that your eyes will soon see the real problems.