How to talk race and diversity with a preschooler?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the poster to whom you are referring. I think you misunderstood me. Maybe you did not read all of the previous posts, because I was responding to posters who said that it was wrong to be emphatic. I did not say anything about white parents are not being emphatic. I was saying that there is nothing wrong with being emphatic and did not understand why others labeled this as the wrong approach. Just wanted to clear that up for ya.

thanks for responding.

No problem, I just wanted to be clear about my point. Other poster keeps arguing with me that being emphatic is shaming and traumatic and does not allow the kid to learn. I beg to differ. Maybe I have a different definition of emphatic

The other poster seems to be arguing that when you tell a child they are not allowed to use certain words, the child will stop using those words in conversation with you but may continue to think the words in their head. You seem to be arguing that by changing the language the child uses (eliminating the bad words), the thoughts will change in response. Neither of these arguments seem crazy to me. I'm surprised that each of you---two of the more thoughtful posters I've seen in my too-many years on DCUM---can't each see the value in the other's approach. Different strokes, I guess.

[Anonymous]

OP again. FWIW, both perspectives make sense to me. We're down with emphatic (and hopefully have been emphatic enough in addressing this, but will ratchet it up a notch if it happens again) but not with shaming, just because that's not part of how our family approaches discipline. But I'm not super convinced that either of those responses does much to address the underlying thoughts--words and actions, yes, and those do matter to me too. But it's the thoughts I'm worried most about, because if we can address those I like to think that appropriate words and actions will [eventually] follow. And if we can't, I worry that even if the words and actions stop because of whatever stick or carrot we use now, they'll just resurface later in some other form. :/

[Anonymous]

Our children at that age did not notice or comment on a skin or ethnic difference.

They did know who was mean to them, and therefore didn't want to be near them.

Op, realize your child may be having difficulty with particular children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the poster to whom you are referring. I think you misunderstood me. Maybe you did not read all of the previous posts, because I was responding to posters who said that it was wrong to be emphatic. I did not say anything about white parents are not being emphatic. I was saying that there is nothing wrong with being emphatic and did not understand why others labeled this as the wrong approach. Just wanted to clear that up for ya.

thanks for responding.

No problem, I just wanted to be clear about my point. Other poster keeps arguing with me that being emphatic is shaming and traumatic and does not allow the kid to learn. I beg to differ. Maybe I have a different definition of emphatic

The other poster seems to be arguing that when you tell a child they are not allowed to use certain words, the child will stop using those words in conversation with you but may continue to think the words in their head. You seem to be arguing that by changing the language the child uses (eliminating the bad words), the thoughts will change in response. Neither of these arguments seem crazy to me. I'm surprised that each of you---two of the more thoughtful posters I've seen in my too-many years on DCUM---can't each see the value in the other's approach. Different strokes, I guess.

Kudos to you -- I think you gave a much more thoughtful and plausible explanation of the other poster's point. Let me clarify my point. I am not saying that eliminating the words, eliminates the thoughts. As an English major, and quite frankly a black person for almost 50 years, I understand the power of language. I understand that it is important for people to be "THOUGHTFUL" and to "THINK ABOUT" the words that they use. Words have the power to EMPOWER and to DEMEAN. I never once said that all you say to a child is to "not say those words". That's simplistic, ineffective, and asinine. What I said is that you tell kids that is not how you refer to other people, that is not how you judge people. You explain that the wrong words can hurt, minimize and demean another person. Even if that is not your intention.As I mentioned before, I tell my kids all the time that people are affected by your actions, not your intentions. And yes, in a way, words are actions. So, on an age appropriate level, you let them know what NOT to say, and you give them better words/phrases, you explain, you lead and you guide. That's what parents do. And for me, there is nothing wrong in being clear about 'that is not what we do, it is hurtful'. I do not think that is shaming or traumatizing and that it is part of a life long conversation and education. NO one gets it after one time. You keep talking. The other poster erected a strawman, I NEVER said that eliminating the words magically changed the thoughts. But when their is wrong action, you have to call it out, stop it, and teach from there. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. FWIW, both perspectives make sense to me. We're down with emphatic (and hopefully have been emphatic enough in addressing this, but will ratchet it up a notch if it happens again) but not with shaming, just because that's not part of how our family approaches discipline. But I'm not super convinced that either of those responses does much to address the underlying thoughts--words and actions, yes, and those do matter to me too. But it's the thoughts I'm worried most about, because if we can address those I like to think that appropriate words and actions will [eventually] follow. And if we can't, I worry that even if the words and actions stop because of whatever stick or carrot we use now, they'll just resurface later in some other form. :/

I am the poster who said that emphatic is not wrong(I need therapy now, because I feel so misunderstood -- )
Seriously, as I have posted time and again, it is about an ongoing conversation, again, and again and again. You cannot just tell the kid that is now how we refer to people. You have to explain that people are all unique and and have value and they are more than their physical/racial/national characteristics. I am a lighter skinned AA woman, my DH is dark skinned. When one of my brown skinned kids was young, she used to say I want to be white like you mommy. She did not understand race, and complexion, etc. So I would tell her that she was beautiful and not just because of her color, but all of the things that make her, "her" , make her special. I pointed out that in our family, as in lots of black families, there are people of all different hues. We like to emphasize that God made everyone unique, not that everyone is different from us, but that we are all special unto ourselves. We want people to see all of who we are and to whittle that down to one physical characteristic is hurtful. you keep talking, that's all I can tell you. Keep the conversation going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous And yes, I have no problem saying that I find it arrogant and often a manifestation of white privilege for someone who is not a person of color, to tell a person of color how to discuss race/racism/politics of color in this society. [/quote wrote:

It's equally arrogant for you to tell anyone else how they are to discuss it, pp. Because you're being dictatorial. And the admonishment "check your privilege" is blatantly offensive and aggressive tactic aimed at shutting down dialogue, not to encourage it. It is, effectively, an attempt to "shame" adults who may not have the malicious intent you assume them to have.

Your perspective is valued. However, when you attempt to dictate the parameters of discussion in such a strident fashion that immediately attacks or dismisses those who have a different viewpoint, you forfeit the moral high ground you think you've staked out.

And if you use this same shaming technique with children, you fail miserably. Yeah, you can make kids succumb to intimidation. But they're not really learning the messages you think you are imparting.

In other words, stop telling others how to think, behave, and conduct themselves. It's uncivil.

[Anonymous]

I thought we were a post-racial society why the need for discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous And yes, I have no problem saying that I find it arrogant and often a manifestation of white privilege for someone who is not a person of color, to tell a person of color how to discuss race/racism/politics of color in this society. [/quote wrote:

It's equally arrogant for you to tell anyone else how they are to discuss it, pp. Because you're being dictatorial. And the admonishment "check your privilege" is blatantly offensive and aggressive tactic aimed at shutting down dialogue, not to encourage it. It is, effectively, an attempt to "shame" adults who may not have the malicious intent you assume them to have.

Your perspective is valued. However, when you attempt to dictate the parameters of discussion in such a strident fashion that immediately attacks or dismisses those who have a different viewpoint, you forfeit the moral high ground you think you've staked out.

And if you use this same shaming technique with children, you fail miserably. Yeah, you can make kids succumb to intimidation. But they're not really learning the messages you think you are imparting.

In other words, stop telling others how to think, behave, and conduct themselves. It's uncivil.

Enough with the shame garbage, I never advocated that. Muss me with that bull****!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were a post-racial society why the need for discussion.

Ya think?!
LOL!

[Anonymous]

We took the approach that it would feel BAD to be left out for something so unimportant as skin color.

We review:

1. How would you feel if you were told, "I don't want to be your friend/sit next to you/play with you because you have X color eyes or Y color skin or you are too short, too tall, have an ear that sticks out, wear glasses". You would feel bad, I know!

2. What is it that makes someone a good friend? They are nice to you, and they make you feel good when you are feeling sad. That's right! Does the way someone look--their eyes, hair, or skin--make them a good friend? No. That doesn't matter at all. I mean, look at Hans! He had light skin like Elsa did, and he was really mean! Olaf was a snowman, and ____ was a reindeer, and they were GREAT friends!

3. What would you do if you saw someone making fun of a friend, saying mean things about their hair, eyes, or skin, or how tall or short they were, or their accent or where they are from. You would STAND UP FOR THEM, right? Yes, in our family, that is what we do. (And then tell your child a story of when someone they love stood up for someone. I have a good one about my dad. In elementary school, his (tall, strong, fearless) older sister stepped into a fight that was being instigated around him. She declared, "WE JOHNSONS DO NOT ABIDE BY SUCH NONSENSE. YOU PICK ON MY BROTHER, YOU MESS WITH ME. YOU PICK ON ANYONE ELSE, YOU MESS WITH US BOTH." I know this aunt. She's a soft-spoken, sweet, kind, and VERY RIGHTEOUS and dignified woman. I can totally see her doing this as a kid. It's part of the family lore. Ha. )

[Anonymous]

We tell our kids that everyone's skin is a different color and leave it at that. Our kids are both biracial and have different skin from us and from each other. Most of the kids in their (public school) class are biracial as well, with a wide variety of racial mixes. At a certain point, categorizing people by their race loses its meaning.

[Anonymous]

Another example of hiw abd why words matter



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/18/gifted-black-student-told-nggers-dont-belong-in-class-school-bans-her-parents-for-complaining-video/