Purpose of 2nd grade segregation chat..

[Anonymous]

Im sorry, but yours is the privileged view of someone who is lucky enough to not have to think about their race. For many of those children, this IS personal, and it will continue to be personal throughout their lives. It won't hurt the little white kids to have to think about it for a day or two.

Actually, you are incredibly naïve if you think that is the problem. It is the little non-white children that I am thinking about. Do you really want to point out that 70 years ago that "Susie" would not have been in the class? Yes, again, it is right to point out that AA's were mistreated and were segregated. It is right to learn about MLK. It is NOT right to personalize it and say that "Susie could not have been in our class."
FWIW, I am white and taught for some years in mostly AA schools. Then I taught in a quite well mixed school. Little children do NOT see color. We teach them to see color. "You've got to be carefully taught." Do you really want to foster resentment? Sounds like it. Sounds like you want to foster resentment on the part of AA kids and guilt on the part of white kids. That does not lead to harmonious relationships. None of these kids were slaves and none were alive during Jim Crow.
If problems arise and names are called, then you address the problem more personally. However, it is wrong to create a problem when there is none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can draw comparisons to the history of African Americans in the US, and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. One of the most critical things that we teach about the Holocaust is "never forget." It is important to talk about it, to know, to be aware. If we do not learn about what happened, and live our lives to make sure we do not make the same mistakes again, we are doomed to repeat the errors. And it starts young. When hatred is brewing, they indoctrinate young. The converse is true...if we teach children to be open-minded, they will be. Children do notice differences - and ignoring it gives more significance to those differences. In the same way we teach children not to make fun of or tease children with physical or cognitive disabilities and get to know them, and to be kind to elders, and to treat boys and girls the same way, we need to tell them that some people are blonde, and some people have brown hair, and some people have blue eyes, and some people have darker skin, and some people have lighter skin...and that there are people in this world who think the color of your skin or hair is of value, the truth is, we are all people and more than that. And it needs to start young - Dr. Seuss wrote the book about the star-bellied Sneetches for exactly this reason. Children need to learn young that war and bad things happen because people fail to look past the color of hair or skin or religious beliefs.

That doesn't mean it is appropriate to personalize it with the kids.

Sorry I'm not white but I guess all minorities think the sane cayuse you said so... I guess if some wise old AA said it's okay to marginalized kids all AA must think it's okay... Sheesh..
Im sorry, but yours is the privileged view of someone who is lucky enough to not have to think about their race. For many of those children, this IS personal, and it will continue to be personal throughout their lives. It won't hurt the little white kids to have to think about it for a day or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can draw comparisons to the history of African Americans in the US, and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. One of the most critical things that we teach about the Holocaust is "never forget." It is important to talk about it, to know, to be aware. If we do not learn about what happened, and live our lives to make sure we do not make the same mistakes again, we are doomed to repeat the errors. And it starts young. When hatred is brewing, they indoctrinate young. The converse is true...if we teach children to be open-minded, they will be. Children do notice differences - and ignoring it gives more significance to those differences. In the same way we teach children not to make fun of or tease children with physical or cognitive disabilities and get to know them, and to be kind to elders, and to treat boys and girls the same way, we need to tell them that some people are blonde, and some people have brown hair, and some people have blue eyes, and some people have darker skin, and some people have lighter skin...and that there are people in this world who think the color of your skin or hair is of value, the truth is, we are all people and more than that. And it needs to start young - Dr. Seuss wrote the book about the star-bellied Sneetches for exactly this reason. Children need to learn young that war and bad things happen because people fail to look past the color of hair or skin or religious beliefs.

That doesn't mean it is appropriate to personalize it with the kids.

Im sorry, but yours is the privileged view of someone who is lucky enough to not have to think about their race. For many of those children, this IS personal, and it will continue to be personal throughout their lives. It won't hurt the little white kids to have to think about it for a day or two.

Sorry I'm not white but I guess all minorities think the sane cayuse you said so... I guess if some wise old AA said it's okay to marginalized kids all AA must think it's okay... Sheesh..

I'm trying to imagine a seven year old taking this personally and insisting on thus being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
FWIW, I am white and taught for some years in mostly AA schools. Then I taught in a quite well mixed school. Little children do NOT see color. We teach them to see color. "You've got to be carefully taught." Do you really want to foster resentment? Sounds like it. Sounds like you want to foster resentment on the part of AA kids and guilt on the part of white kids. That does not lead to harmonious relationships. None of these kids were slaves and none were alive during Jim Crow.
If problems arise and names are called, then you address the problem more personally. However, it is wrong to create a problem when there is none.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/the-danger-of-not-talking-to-your-children-about-race/?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Im sorry, but yours is the privileged view of someone who is lucky enough to not have to think about their race. For many of those children, this IS personal, and it will continue to be personal throughout their lives. It won't hurt the little white kids to have to think about it for a day or two.

Actually, you are incredibly naïve if you think that is the problem. It is the little non-white children that I am thinking about. Do you really want to point out that 70 years ago that "Susie" would not have been in the class? Yes, again, it is right to point out that AA's were mistreated and were segregated. It is right to learn about MLK. It is NOT right to personalize it and say that "Susie could not have been in our class."
FWIW, I am white and taught for some years in mostly AA schools. Then I taught in a quite well mixed school. Little children do NOT see color. We teach them to see color. "You've got to be carefully taught." Do you really want to foster resentment? Sounds like it. Sounds like you want to foster resentment on the part of AA kids and guilt on the part of white kids. That does not lead to harmonious relationships. None of these kids were slaves and none were alive during Jim Crow.
If problems arise and names are called, then you address the problem more personally. However, it is wrong to create a problem when there is none.

The point is that children will do this anyway. You dont say "Susie wouldn't have been in our class," and leave it there. Yes doing so is a hit clumsy, but if it is part of a bigger conversation about the history and why it was wrong, it isn't going to create resentment. Little children DO see color. They do not naturally carry a (conscious) prejudice. The world is going to send them certain messages about race that we as a society should be trying to move beyond. It is the job of teachers and parents to control the message early. That means honestly addressing the facts and their concerns, and not glossing over the realities. The truth is, 50 years ago, little Susie wouldn't have been in their class. I'm sorry that truth makes you uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

The point is that children will do this anyway. You dont say "Susie wouldn't have been in our class," and leave it there. Yes doing so is a hit clumsy, but if it is part of a bigger conversation about the history and why it was wrong, it isn't going to create resentment. Little children DO see color. They do not naturally carry a (conscious) prejudice. The world is going to send them certain messages about race that we as a society should be trying to move beyond. It is the job of teachers and parents to control the message early. That means honestly addressing the facts and their concerns, and not glossing over the realities. The truth is, 50 years ago, little Susie wouldn't have been in their class. I'm sorry that truth makes you uncomfortable.

So, as long as you want to make "Susie" a victim, she will be a victim. You don't see that?

[Anonymous]

A couple of us brought this up in earlier posts - read Nutureshock.

I will bet in the University of OK incident, at least a few of those parents were blindsided that their kid was involved.

Racism should be discussed early and so should moral courage-- and what it could mean when faced with specific circumstances like peer pressure.

[Anonymous]

I told my kids (preschool & first grade), boy & girl, why MLK was such a great person. And we talk about how long ago, people were not treated equally. We talked about slavery and how women didn't have the right to vote. How that wasn't right and it wasn't fair. How would you like it if someone said you couldn't go to school because of the way you look. Or how an owner could separated you from your mom and sell you off. That's not right and I wouldn't like that. But I also tell them how things are much better now that we treat people how we want to be treated. We've had our first black president. We can be friends with whomever we like. But we have not had a woman as president. Why do you think that is? My son said maybe girls are not as smart as the boys. Well that certainly isn't true and we pointed out that girls are just as capable as boys. And he thought about it and agreed. So I think discussions do help children understand how we should treat everyone right.

[Anonymous]

I told my kids (preschool & first grade), boy & girl, why MLK was such a great person. And we talk about how long ago, people were not treated equally. We talked about slavery and how women didn't have the right to vote. How that wasn't right and it wasn't fair. How would you like it if someone said you couldn't go to school because of the way you look. Or how an owner could separated you from your mom and sell you off. That's not right and I wouldn't like that. But I also tell them how things are much better now that we treat people how we want to be treated. We've had our first black president. We can be friends with whomever we like. But we have not had a woman as president. Why do you think that is? My son said maybe girls are not as smart as the boys. Well that certainly isn't true and we pointed out that girls are just as capable as boys. And he thought about it and agreed. So I think discussions do help children understand how we should treat everyone right.

This is right and appropriate and at home. At school, the discussion earlier would make Susie uncomfortable and paint her as a "victim" rather than just another child in the class. If there is a problem in the school, then you discuss it there.

[Anonymous]

The point is that children will do this anyway. You dont say "Susie wouldn't have been in our class," and leave it there. Yes doing so is a hit clumsy, but if it is part of a bigger conversation about the history and why it was wrong, it isn't going to create resentment. Little children DO see color. They do not naturally carry a (conscious) prejudice. The world is going to send them certain messages about race that we as a society should be trying to move beyond. It is the job of teachers and parents to control the message early. That means honestly addressing the facts and their concerns, and not glossing over the realities. The truth is, 50 years ago, little Susie wouldn't have been in their class. I'm sorry that truth makes you uncomfortable.

Did you even read the post? She didn't say not to talk about it--she said not to "personalize" it. All that accomplishes is to make Susie a victim. Kids don't like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that children will do this anyway. You dont say "Susie wouldn't have been in our class," and leave it there. Yes doing so is a hit clumsy, but if it is part of a bigger conversation about the history and why it was wrong, it isn't going to create resentment. Little children DO see color. They do not naturally carry a (conscious) prejudice. The world is going to send them certain messages about race that we as a society should be trying to move beyond. It is the job of teachers and parents to control the message early. That means honestly addressing the facts and their concerns, and not glossing over the realities. The truth is, 50 years ago, little Susie wouldn't have been in their class. I'm sorry that truth makes you uncomfortable.

Did you even read the post? She didn't say not to talk about it--she said not to "personalize" it. All that accomplishes is to make Susie a victim. Kids don't like that.

No it doesn't. It points out an unfortunate FACT, and one that she and everyone else will eventually conclude. What other subject would a teacher be encouraged to ingore historic facts? You never did activities in school that personalized segregation? The real issue here is the insistence of so many of you that we need to brush our history under the rug. The situation could just as easily empower the child. Her ancestor were beaten and mistreated, and yet here she is today on equal footing because her ancestors were such bad asses. There is not a damn thing for her to be ashamed of.

[Anonymous]

No it doesn't. It points out an unfortunate FACT, and one that she and everyone else will eventually conclude. What other subject would a teacher be encouraged to ingore historic facts? You never did activities in school that personalized segregation? The real issue here is the insistence of so many of you that we need to brush our history under the rug. The situation could just as easily empower the child. Her ancestor were beaten and mistreated, and yet here she is today on equal footing because her ancestors were such bad asses. There is not a damn thing for her to be ashamed of.

Who said that historical facts are being ignored? Historical facts can be taught without making the child an example. Why do you want to personalize it? Don't you want to move beyond this? Do you really think it is a good idea to tell the kids that they should expect for Susie to be mistreated? Do you want them to feel like Susie is "different"? It sure sounds to me like you want Susie to feel like a victim. That is just sad.

Should we point out that Johnny would be slapped by his teacher if he used his left hand in the old days? That left handed people were thought to be evil? Be sure Johnny knows about that. Be sure the whole class knows that once upon a time that Johnny would be considered evil. That will make Johnny feel really special.
Should we point out that once upon a time, Sally's family would be embarrassed about her red hair? Be sure everyone knows that Sally's red hair used to be considered bad.

You can teach those things without personalization. I didn't realize that personalizing this was so important to the poster. The sad part is that you are making Sally a victim instead of encouraging her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No it doesn't. It points out an unfortunate FACT, and one that she and everyone else will eventually conclude. What other subject would a teacher be encouraged to ingore historic facts? You never did activities in school that personalized segregation? The real issue here is the insistence of so many of you that we need to brush our history under the rug. The situation could just as easily empower the child. Her ancestor were beaten and mistreated, and yet here she is today on equal footing because her ancestors were such bad asses. There is not a damn thing for her to be ashamed of.

Who said that historical facts are being ignored? Historical facts can be taught without making the child an example. Why do you want to personalize it? Don't you want to move beyond this? Do you really think it is a good idea to tell the kids that they should expect for Susie to be mistreated? Do you want them to feel like Susie is "different"? It sure sounds to me like you want Susie to feel like a victim. That is just sad.

Should we point out that Johnny would be slapped by his teacher if he used his left hand in the old days? That left handed people were thought to be evil? Be sure Johnny knows about that. Be sure the whole class knows that once upon a time that Johnny would be considered evil. That will make Johnny feel really special.
Should we point out that once upon a time, Sally's family would be embarrassed about her red hair? Be sure everyone knows that Sally's red hair used to be considered bad.

You can teach those things without personalization. I didn't realize that personalizing this was so important to the poster. The sad part is that you are making Sally a victim instead of encouraging her.

THIS! There are innumerable examples of horrible human behavior inside and outside the US. Why is it that black kids need to be singled out and how exactly does harping on it improve conditions today. Why not say that Irish need not apply was a common advertisement or that the Chinese once could not enter the US at all. I think it would be more appropriate/fair to say generically different groups were treated differently than to single out one.

And saying its a fact that kids couldn't play together is a lie. Segregation was primarily a southern phenomenon but in any event not going to the same school is not the same as not being able to have a friendship. Blacks and whites also were not segregated in many other countries long before the US so everyone who appears "black" to you does not have the same history.

[Anonymous]

It's a double standard - white parents don't want their children to learn about racism that black people have experienced in the past and currently experience and will complain until they're blue in the face.

Yet, their snowflakes can never learn enough about the Holocaust and anti-semitism which really do not have a long lasting impact on the Jews.

Fine, most people do not like Jews but no one is denying a Jew a job because they are a Jew. And Jews are the most successful minority in the world.

You cannot hide being black but you can sure as hell hide being a Jew.

The black experience in America and racism make most whites uncomfortable and the only way our society is going to get better is if we talk about these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it doesn't. It points out an unfortunate FACT, and one that she and everyone else will eventually conclude. What other subject would a teacher be encouraged to ingore historic facts? You never did activities in school that personalized segregation? The real issue here is the insistence of so many of you that we need to brush our history under the rug. The situation could just as easily empower the child. Her ancestor were beaten and mistreated, and yet here she is today on equal footing because her ancestors were such bad asses. There is not a damn thing for her to be ashamed of.

Who said that historical facts are being ignored? Historical facts can be taught without making the child an example. Why do you want to personalize it? Don't you want to move beyond this? Do you really think it is a good idea to tell the kids that they should expect for Susie to be mistreated? Do you want them to feel like Susie is "different"? It sure sounds to me like you want Susie to feel like a victim. That is just sad.

Should we point out that Johnny would be slapped by his teacher if he used his left hand in the old days? That left handed people were thought to be evil? Be sure Johnny knows about that. Be sure the whole class knows that once upon a time that Johnny would be considered evil. That will make Johnny feel really special.
Should we point out that once upon a time, Sally's family would be embarrassed about her red hair? Be sure everyone knows that Sally's red hair used to be considered bad.

You can teach those things without personalization. I didn't realize that personalizing this was so important to the poster. The sad part is that you are making Sally a victim instead of encouraging her.

THIS! There are innumerable examples of horrible human behavior inside and outside the US. Why is it that black kids need to be singled out and how exactly does harping on it improve conditions today. Why not say that Irish need not apply was a common advertisement or that the Chinese once could not enter the US at all. I think it would be more appropriate/fair to say generically different groups were treated differently than to single out one.

And saying its a fact that kids couldn't play together is a lie. Segregation was primarily a southern phenomenon but in any event not going to the same school is not the same as not being able to have a friendship. Blacks and whites also were not segregated in many other countries long before the US so everyone who appears "black" to you does not have the same history.

But aren't they teaching about racial segregation in the context of MLK and American slavery?