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

CallMeKate said:
Aw, here we go again. You sure are scrappy sometimes. Your points concerning teaching racism are valid... when it's a proper age to do it. You'd need to know and understand children to see what I'm saying. Two years old is too young.
Click to expand...

Scrappy? I don't even know what that means.

How about you answer the question? At what age should a child be told Jesus was tortured, nailed to a cross, and then came back from the dead?

Where is it written that two years old is too young to be taught about racism? Which is not to question whether two years is too early, but simply to suggest that someone who decided to teach two year olds might simply have had a different opinion. I get your opinion, and I'm not even saying that *I* think two years old is the best time. On the other hand, context matters, the story is sensational, and I'm not aware of any dictates that two years is too early.

I understand children plenty. And you know what, I doubt that child has suffered any lasting damage. The sensationalism is likely to cause damage though. Since you seem to know about two year olds, are you suggesting otherwise?
 

Scrappy means argumentative. Sorry, thought you'd know the definition. My error.
Why are you trying to turn this about ... Jesus?! Say what?
A 2 year old was just BORN 24 to 35 months previously. Think about that. You teach love and inclusion at that age... not "slap handcuffs on this child." You teach that we're all the same when they're young enough to internalize it... there will be plenty of time to teach the ugly reality in a couple of years.
If you want to talk about Jesus which has nothing to do with this thread, go ahead and start a thread on that.
 
hollydolly said:
I feel that Teachers in many places including the UK, are now becoming a force answerable only to themselves, and it has to stop...
Click to expand...

I'm the parent of a teacher in the US and the idea that teachers "are only answerable to themselves" is absurd. She answers to the parents, and to the school admin and the school district. And then there is the "parents rights" group of culture warriors ready to pounce on the the most innocent actions of teachers, which any teacher w a ounce of sense has front of mind at all times.
 

Last edited:
CallMeKate said:
Scrappy means argumentative. Sorry, thought you'd know the definition. My error.
Why are you trying to turn this about ... Jesus?! Say what?
A 2 year old was just BORN 24 to 35 months previously. Think about that. You teach love and inclusion at that age... not "slap handcuffs on this child." You teach that we're all the same when they're young enough to internalize it... there will be plenty of time to teach the ugly reality in a couple of years.
If you want to talk about Jesus which has nothing to do with this thread, go ahead and start a thread on that.
Click to expand...

It's a simple question. It addresses the question of when children should be taught "traumatic", or potentially traumatic, information. So, when is too young to hear about torture, and death by torture? You seem to have judged being taught about racism at two years of age, is too early. I'm trying to find out where your lines are drawn. So how about public humiliation, pain, torture, and death? That you refuse to address it says a lot, imo.
 
I’m sorry, but handcuffing a 2-year-old is not an appropriate way to teach them about racism. In fact, it is not appropriate to handcuff any child unless they pose an imminent danger to themselves or others, and only after all other measures have been exhausted 1. The use of handcuffs on children in care when they are being transported has been called into question by two British MPs, Sarah Champion and John McDonnell, who have written a letter calling for an end to this practice 1.

The UN committee on the rights of the child has also stated that restraint against children should only be used if the child poses an imminent danger to themselves or others, under the direct supervision of a medical professional, and only after all other measures have been exhausted. It should never be used to secure compliance or as a punishment, and all incidents should be recorded, monitored and evaluated by the state
 
@VaughanJB
"Do you feel the same about taking a two year old to Church? I mean, that's indoctrination of a world view that is far greater than they can grasp? Should a two year old be taught the parables?'

Oh, now we're getting somewhere! Kids are soaking up stuff from their birth. Believe me, I wish I did not know what I knew so young, but it was taught for our SURVIVAL. Literally, given the time of my birth.

I did not have to teach that to my son at his age, Thank Goodness.
 
VaughanJB said:
It's a simple question. It addresses the question of when children should be taught "traumatic", or potentially traumatic, information. So, when is too young to hear about torture, and death by torture? You seem to have judged being taught about racism at two years of age, is too early. I'm trying to find out where your lines are drawn. So how about public humiliation, pain, torture, and death? That you refuse to address it says a lot, imo.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness. I'm going to let someone with more tolerance for drama than I have this morning take you on. The questions you're asking about Jesus are coming across as... well kind of bizarre. I suggest asking a local minister or priest for the answers you are seeking. I don't have them.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I’m sorry, but handcuffing a 2-year-old is not an appropriate way to teach them about racism. In fact, it is not appropriate to handcuff any child unless they pose an imminent danger to themselves or others, and only after all other measures have been exhausted 1. The use of handcuffs on children in care when they are being transported has been called into question by two British MPs, Sarah Champion and John McDonnell, who have written a letter calling for an end to this practice 1.

The UN committee on the rights of the child has also stated that restraint against children should only be used if the child poses an imminent danger to themselves or others, under the direct supervision of a medical professional, and only after all other measures have been exhausted. It should never be used to secure compliance or as a punishment, and all incidents should be recorded, monitored and evaluated by the state
Click to expand...

Wow, that's really out there. So I ask you, why do they sell handcuffs for kids to use (as shown on my earlier link)? I mean, it's illegal to sell a gun to a child, but they still sell toy guns. You know why? CONTEXT. The context you quite is entirely different.
 
CallMeKate said:
Oh my goodness. I'm going to let someone with more tolerance for drama than I have this morning take you on. The questions you're asking about Jesus are coming across as... well kind of bizarre. I suggest asking a local minister or priest for the answers you are seeking. I don't have them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You'd rather not answer. That tells me a lot.
 
Pepper said:
@VaughanJB
"Do you feel the same about taking a two year old to Church? I mean, that's indoctrination of a world view that is far greater than they can grasp? Should a two year old be taught the parables?'

Oh, now we're getting somewhere! Kids are soaking up stuff from their birth. Believe me, I wish I did not know what I knew so young, but it was taught for our SURVIVAL. Literally, given the time of my birth.

I did not have to teach that to my son at his age, Thank Goodness.
Click to expand...

I'm simply interested in where these lines are defined.

So, a parent of a colored child shouldn't teach their kids about racism until they're five? Even if it's the life experience of the parent? Was the teacher in the story white, or colored? Where is all this defined? OR - as I suggest, is there no set line?
 
VaughanJB said:
Fair enough. You'd rather not answer. That tells me a lot.
Click to expand...
Okay, Vaughn... I'll bite. At two years old, you teach a child about the love of Jesus. You teach the Bible stories like Noah, Jonah, Moses, etc. You teach that God is love and that He will always be there no matter how dark life seems to get or how dire things look. You teach that Jesus is their friend. You teach them how to pray. I don't know why you're going on about "torture" and the crucifixion... that gets taught in Sunday school at maybe age 7 or 8 if I recall.
 
VaughanJB said:
So, a parent of a colored child shouldn't teach their kids about racism until they're five? Even if it's the life experience of the parent? Was the teacher in the story white, or colored? Where is all this defined? OR - as I suggest, is there no set line?
Click to expand...
Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
@CongresswomanSC

The term “colored people” is racist, antiquated, and extremely offensive. In no place should its use be tolerated and certainly not on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. We have come too far to leave any remnants of this nation’s hidden caste system unchecked.
 
againstthegrain said:
I'm the parent of a teacher in the US and the idea that teachers "are only answerable to themselves" is absurd. She answers to the parents, and to the school admin and the school district. And then there is the "parents rights" group of culture warriors ready to pounce on the the most innocent actions of teachers, which any teacher w a ounce of sense has front of mind at all times.
Click to expand...
Teachers seem to be the new enemy. They are much maligned.
 
Pepper said:
Teachers seem to be the new enemy. They are much maligned.
Click to expand...
It seemed like 10-15 years ago the hate was directed at "govment skools" but now adaze we have put a face on the hate and teachers are in the crosshairs. "Indoctrination" is an oft used term, but curriculum is mandated by states, school districts, and in HS by outside agencies - not teachers.
 
CallMeKate said:
Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
@CongresswomanSC

The term “colored people” is racist, antiquated, and extremely offensive. In no place should its use be tolerated and certainly not on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. We have come too far to leave any remnants of this nation’s hidden caste system unchecked.
Click to expand...

And? You sure are willing to go to extremes not to address the topic properly, and to avoid the topic of when children should be taught potentially traumatic material. You're stretching now, while at the same time claiming I'm writing from a "lofty height". Why is that? Why do you feel more strongly about racism than you do religious based trauma? Is it the trauma, or the specific topic?
 
officerripley said:
I'm of the opinion that humans are indeed in some ways delicate snowflakes--it one of the things setting us apart from the other animals--therefore, due to the well-proven theory of the formative childhood years, 0-8 years (link to a UNICEF article here: file:///C:/Users/mocas/AppData/Local/Temp/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/889ca9ba-56cc-40be-aeca-16944bc6d9fb/Formative-Years-ECD-Brochure-EN.pdf), care must be taken with what is taught during those years and how it is taught.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we all agree things should be considered and taught carefully. We might even agree on this particular topic. It's the nature of the response that is more interesting here. The indignation. The lack of a willingness to truly discuss it, rather than state a determination that appears to be final. So entrenched is it, some are willing to throw a fellow forum member under the bus. Interesting, no?
 
Jackie23 said:
Two year old children should not be traumatized by being put in handcuffs....not even plastic handcuffs....imagine the fear and confusion.
Click to expand...

So, kids should never play "police"? Just curious - is this an absolute statement, or a specific one?
 
When I was four, and I know I was four, we kids sang, to the tune of whistle while you work:
Whistle while you work
Hitler was a jerk
Mussolini bit his weinie
Now it doesn't work

ALL of us knew very well who those men were, where they were from, and WHAT they did. We were all four. We all knew of WWII. We all knew of the holocaust. Survivors lived with us. We were four and we also knew about segregation. At four.

Not saying it was good or right, it was for our very survival. Can't stress that enough.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top