BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU READ TO YOUR KIDS!!! We need to ban Arthur, Berenstein Bears, Good Night Moon, and Five Little Monkeys!!! http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-and-socially-dominant-norms-researcher-says/ Sigh....
The comments were pretty amusing. I also liked the fact the writer of the article makes a point of saying that the writer of the paper doesn't have any background at all in children's psychology or, for that matter, anything to do with children at all. She's in environmental studies! LOL Honestly, if you want to rail on evil children's books, go after Pinocchio. That book was seriously twisted.
So is James and the Giant Peach! But an article like this, even written by a know-nothing, gets attention and there are plenty of idiots out there who will accept it as absolute truth. It bothers me to see "traditional" stories attacked, when modern "progressive" books are considered so enlightening for our children!
What?! People look at things way too closely sometimes. Do they think that kids won't figure out that these stories are make believe? If you really want to analyze some things that have violence and such, look at nursery rhymes and stuff like that. "Ring Around the Rosey"- I have heard that it originated at a funeral or something. "Rock A-Bye Baby"- Is it really entertaining to imagine a baby falling out of a tree (cradle or no cradle) "The Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe" (title?) - she beats her kids
Ring around the Rosey had to do with the Black Death. I Rosey refered to the rash you'd get, and the pocket full of posies had to do with people thinking posies warded off the Plague, and would carry them in their pocket. Rock A Bye Baby, I'm not as certain on. I think it had to do with the beheading of the king of England. Eenie-Meenie-Miney Mo is said to have its origins with the Druids, dealing with human sacrifice!!!
I was frightened when I read that she said these things to "Congress" then I read more closely and realize it was not the U.S. Congress. Whew!
I must say I've never heard her reasons before. Weird. I thought she might point out the anti-male prejudice in Berenstein Bears or something, but not advocate for books that only depict reality. There is great beauty in the imagination.
I'd be curious about her gripe over the Five Little Monkeys. I mean, there is no dad anywhere, so it's not exactly a "traditional" home, and all the kids share a common bed!
So per the article 'socially dominant norms' are bad? Secular humanists don't have enough control over the education system, now they find a need to attack children's books that predate political correctness?
It was the Great Plague of 1665 in London. You're right that the ring was the tell-tale mark on the forehead, and city dwellers did carry flowers in an attempt to ward off the disease. It turns out that it was carried by fleas on rats, so the flowers didn't really help. Instead, the sick went "Atishoo, Atisho", and they all fell down - dead. Nope. Humpty Dumpty was Charles I - who, after being beheaded, could not be put back together again. Rock a Bye Baby is the oldest of all nursery rhymes and comes from my part of the world - the Celtic nations. They would put their children in a hammock to sleep. We view nursery rhymes as children's stories, but they are not. They were a popular way to laugh at kings and royals without someone finding out and arresting you. Little Jack Horner and Sing a Song of Sixpence relate to the same fascinating story about Henry VIII. Dr. Foster was Edward III, who fell off his horse while fording a river. Baa baa black sheep mocked both the government and churches over taxes. Mary mary quite contrary was Mary Queen of Scots. Three blind mice were church leaders. Old King Cole was the Roman king of Britain, after whom Colchester was named. The list goes on and on. Some of the stories are quite gruesome.
As for the story, I have some sympathy. Growing up in Britain, racism was rampant. I had no idea until later, when I lived in a very international community at university, just how insulting and demeaning we all were. I say 'we' because I heard and told jokes and stories like everyone else; it was part of the culture. My dad said them and laughed, and so did my cousins and uncles. So why shouldn't I? Thank goodness we are more sympathetic today. A large part of the problem, of course, was that, in our part of the country, you hardly ever saw an African or Asian face. One of the standard toys was the golliwog. The golliwog doll was a popular child's toy. Robertson's jam included golliwog stickers and they used this character as their symbol. Then there were the Black and White minstrels, a popular variety act on TV, which we would find offensive today. As for popular comedy shows on TV, they were extremely racist. There are scenes in Fawlty Towers that today are just embarrassing. FT also made fun of the Spanish all the time, although some episodes were innocent enough. The worst of the bunch, despite being very popular, was Love Thy Neighbour. Sad to say it was my dad's favorite show, and I remember, as a child, being taken to the cinema to watch the movie they made based on the series. So, I do have a lot of sympathy with this person's aims. We should indeed be sensitive,, especially when characters appear to mock someone from a different group from ourselves and others find it funny. As an aside, I've had people talk to me in a fake toffee-nosed English accent, saying the archetypal things they hear in the media as supposedly funny. I always laugh it off, but it's actually quite insulting. We just don't think about these things. We don't mean to hurt others, but we can do so unintentionally. PS - I know I've strayed a little from the topic of children's books, but that's even more of a sensitive issue. Children believe what we tell them, especially young children. What's written in a book - or seen on television or heard from us as parents - can have a major impact on attitudes, so it's right to be cautious and sensitive about it. We may view tradition as valuable, but some traditions need to be consigned to history.
Steve, I read Tarzan out loud to the kids this past year. I really enjoyed the book, but the British attitude REALLY came through. And even more so with Alan Quartermain! This is the dedication H. Rider Haggard wrote for Allan Quartemain: I inscribe this book of adventure to my son ARTHUR JOHN RIDER HAGGARD in the hope that in days to come he, and many other boys whom I shall never know, may, in the acts and thoughts of Allan Quatermain and his companions, as herein recorded, find something to help him and them to reach to what, with Sir Henry Curtis, I hold to be the highest rank whereto we can attain -- the state and dignity of English gentlemen I might add that I believe his son died before reaching adulthood.
If this critic of children's literature is offended by the Berenstains and Arthur the Aardvark, what would she think of "fairy tales" that were old when I was a child? Truly gruesome, even gory, tales told with the express purpose of frightening children into behaving properly! And every culture had them! Some of the milder ones survive until today, but if you are able, look up the oldest ones you can find: ogres, trolls, giants, witches of one description or another, banshees, and most of them ATE children!
Actually, Ring Around a Rosie is probably not a reference to the plague at all: http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp I know, I was disappointed, too. It was such a cool story!
Nah! I think Snopes blew it on this one! And as far as different versions go, that's always true in things passed on through oral tradition.
But how can you account for the fact that it didn't show up in print until 1881? And the earliest reference to it being about the plague was in a book published in 1961? Things that get passed down in oral tradition change in meaning a lot. There's really no way to know what the original rhyme sounded like or was about. I think the 1961 interpretation has simply stuck because it sounds cool and seems reasonable, not because there's any solid evidence for it.
