Two year old forced to take part in Rosa Parks re-enactment

[VaughanJB]

When one has ONE child they become surrounded by children and other mothers. From their earliest moments you are taking that child out, socializing. Soon, you become surrounded by dozens of kids and parents. When school begins, your knowledge of other children grow, thirty fold.

It's not one child you have, it grows to knowing children. YOU don't have that experience. People who write papers and are childless at least, hopefully, watch and study children. They don't write in a vacuum.

Surprisingly, most children are the same. It shouldn't be a surprise. Most people are the same, it's our egos telling us our individual selves are special. We're not.

Gee, even my head is shaking, I'm a mess!

Thanks for that. But you don't have to be a parent to experience most of that.

Why do you assume I'm "writing in a vacuum"?

Children are a result of their environment, and as such, can be quite different.

I hope it's not me causing your angst.

 

[Pepper]

I didn't assume YOU were writing in a vacuum, just saying it can't be done properly writing in a vacuum.

Children of a certain age are usually very similar, in terms of patterns of growth, ability to speak, their size, what they are exposed to in the wider world. Yes, some can be very different, but usually humans are ants in an ant hill. IMO.

I'm shaking less. Maybe I can think more.

Childless people of course can know children, and know quite a lot; can be exposed by being close to them, not necessarily be their parents. Some childless people have no real access to kids. I don't know where you fall here. How could I?

 

[CallMeKate]

Why do you assume I'm "writing in a vacuum"?
Children are a result of their environment, and as such, can be quite different.

I hope Pepper doesn't mind if I answer this one. You are writing in a vacuum because you have tunnel vision and are not considering all facts into forming your conclusions. (Didn't you claim to be a technical writer?! ) You have tunnel vision that only says "children should be taught about racism" and totally ignore that the subject is about a 24 month old baby.

Of course they should be taught. When it's an appropriate time to do that... and never EVER taught by having a white child of any age handcuff a black child of any age to "arrest" and handcuff them. The fact that you think that's fine and dandy is sobering.

 

[VaughanJB]

I didn't assume YOU were writing in a vacuum, just saying it can't be done properly writing in a vacuum.

Children of a certain age are usually very similar, in terms of patterns of growth, ability to speak, their size, what they are exposed to in the wider world. Yes, some can be very different, but usually humans are ants in an ant hill. IMO.

I'm shaking less. Maybe I can think more.

Childless people of course can know children, and know quite a lot; can be exposed by being close to them, not necessarily be their parents. Some childless people have no real access to kids. I don't know where you fall here. How could I?

I was mistaken in thinking you were referring to me, rather than generally. I guess someone who has never seen a child before could be accused of knowing nothing.

Still, in the context of this thread, I don't see how this particular point fits. I seem to be alone in thinking context matters here. Regardless, I think it's (very) safe to assume most people are in agreement with you.

 

[Pepper]

Of course I don't mind, @CallMeKate. Everyone here is free to comment on anything, I hope!

 

[Pepper]

Regardless, I think it's (very) safe to assume most people are in agreement with you.

That's a rarity for me

 

[VaughanJB]

I hope Pepper doesn't mind if I answer this one. You are writing in a vacuum because you have tunnel vision and are not considering all facts into forming your conclusions. (Didn't you claim to be a technical writer?! ) You have tunnel vision that only says "children should be taught about racism" and totally ignore that the subject is about a 24 month old baby.

Of course they should be taught. When it's an appropriate time to do that... and never EVER taught by having a white child of any age handcuff a black child of any age to "arrest" and handcuff them. The fact that you think that's fine and dandy is sobering.

That's an insinuation, not fact. Which facts have I ignored? You really don't think I have taken into account this child is a 2 year old, when it's stated in the thread title? How about I considered all the facts and came to a different or nuanced opinion? Or are you saying if you "know all the facts", there is one, and only possible conclusion?

Still, you assert and assume a lot. I've not stated that this is "fine and dandy". You are putting words in my mouth to support your indignation.

In my very first post in this thread I wrote the following:

"Good grief, we're become a society of delicate flowers. A two year old "forced"? Forced? Really? It's highly unlikely a two year old would have had much idea of what was going on. As to a two year old being "visibly disturbed and upset", I'm sure that happens in that classroom, oh, every hour or so.

I think it's important to discuss this type of thing, but we mustn't let sensationalism from all sides of the media dictate the narrative. From what I can make out, a teacher decided - rightly or wrongly - to teach children about the horrors of racism, and an historical figure within American history. This has been dressed up in clothes that scream "shocking", "disturbed", and so on for dramatic effect. It's so tiresome.

When is it too young to teach about racism?
At two years of age, what is the best way to tackle such a topic?
What methods are most effective in teaching the young about this insidious problem?

Those are the questions that should be asked. But instead, we get sensationalist headlines that all but shut down debate on this serious topic, but instead throw attacks on the teacher. We're getting to a point where teachers are going to be afraid to teach anything that isn't Walt Disney."

Not a "fine and dandy" there.

Honestly, I think you're letting your personal dislike of me color your response. As such, it's hard for me to take your comments seriously. If I followed your line of thinking, there is an unwillingness to discuss different aspects of this issue. As Hitchens said, "don't take refuge in the false safety of consensus".

 

[CallMeKate]

Honestly, I think you're letting your personal dislike of me color your response. If I followed your line of thinking, there is an unwillingness to discuss different aspects of this issue. As Hitchens said, "don't take refuge in the false safety of consensus".

Aw, what makes ya think I dislike you, Scrappy?! You amuse me. You entertain me. You have some... "unconventional" ideas and that's not a reason to dislike someone. I do wish you'd find a way to handle people disagreeing with you in a more mature and less confrontational way, though. In any case, here's a hug for ya in case you're having another bad day.

As for me, I have a grocery pickup 17 miles away in 30 minutes, so I have to skedaddle. Enjoy your Saturday.

 

[VaughanJB]

Aw, what makes ya think I dislike you, Scrappy?! You amuse me. You entertain me. You have some... "unconventional" ideas and that's not a reason to dislike someone. I do wish you'd find a way to handle people disagreeing with you in a more mature and less confrontational way, though. In any case, here's a hug for ya in case you're having another bad day.

As for me, I have a grocery pickup 17 miles away in 30 minutes, so I have to skedaddle. Enjoy your Saturday.

Points to you for doing irony.