Jump to content

Menu

Vintage books and racism


Recommended Posts

I know the topic of racism in vintage history books has been brought up and I've read both sides of the argument - just read and discuss or don't read at all. Up until this point I didn't have a stance on either side of the argument. I've never considered using a vintage history book until now. Looking for US History reading books I found a book titled "Stories of Great Americans for Little Americans" . I downloaded the book and the first page really turned me off. It gave the impression, to me, that he was saying thank goodness the white people came to save those poor Indians. I had two thoughts, one was that a stance like that has of course been proven false and the other was maybe books like this is what caused people to see slavery as ok. If racism is subtly woven throughout all that you read or hear then you will grown up thinking it's ok. Even if the superior attitude is subtle it's still there. As far as discussions, are the children older that these books are normally read to? I've also heard people say you don't want to erase history and pretend like this wasn't a part of the past because it was. Just looking for more opinions and thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also heard people say you don't want to erase history and pretend like this wasn't a part of the past because it was.

 

When I decline to give my kids blatantly racist books to read, I'm not "erasing history". I'm keeping history in its proper place. There is a big difference between "Okay, so here are some sample texts that kids used to read, let's evaluate them" and "This is a fine piece of literature!"

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to be careful in evaluating material like this - using different words than we would, or seeing particular viewpoints represented (particularly in fiction) isn't necessarily racism.  Sometimes its just a different set of social norms or a different context.

 

The idea of Europeans "rescuing" other peoples in some was certainly used to justify colonialism.  I don't think I'd say it was what made slavery seem justifiable.  It is true that with regards to American slavery, there was a sense of racial superiority which supposedly was even biological, however I don't know that such an idea is always found along with slavery.  Slavery can be sometimes very simple (we won this war, you lost, too bad) and sometimes much more complex, where it becomes unclear where the line is drawn between it and other arrangements of social class.

 

So, with a book like that, there can be quite a few elements to consider - what are the features that are recommending the book, what is it really saying as opposed to the language of the moment, can you find something better, who is your student.

 

As far as children - I would never think that just because your child reads something, he or she will agree with the perspective of the writer.  This doesn't necessarily have to get into big, deep discussions, either - kids can and often do consider and reject, or withhold assent to, statements and ideas that seem questionable to them, without a parent telling them what the right answer is.  In itself, that is probably a very worthwhile experience

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use vintage history books for 2nd and 3rd tier history along with modern sources and original documents/original sources.

 

I won't use them for first exposure.  Here's why: the history these books carry is a two-fold history.  You have the story they are telling, and you have the societal expectations and feelings for the time period the book was written.  It is interesting to read what someone in Texas, 1943 thought while detailing a history of colonial America.  What words did they choose?  What justifications did they choose?  Let's read a book that was published in Penn, 1965 for their classrooms on the same topic.  Did the Cold War influence the writing?  Has it become more patriotic in tone?  What descriptions are given for interactions with people of other origins?

It's history inside of history.  The child has to be old enough to see through the bias and discern how the author's life influenced their own work. 
For first tier, we stick with an overview of the time periods and people, and slowly introduce influence (comparing the traditional story of Christopher Columbus to Sargon, for example, as a way that we like to make heroes seem larger than life and exaggerate features), but it's more of just a basic introduction to what history and a timeline is and different cultures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the topic of racism in vintage history books has been brought up and I've read both sides of the argument - just read and discuss or don't read at all. Up until this point I didn't have a stance on either side of the argument. I've never considered using a vintage history book until now. Looking for US History reading books I found a book titled "Stories of Great Americans for Little Americans" . I downloaded the book and the first page really turned me off. It gave the impression, to me, that he was saying thank goodness the white people came to save those poor Indians. I had two thoughts, one was that a stance like that has of course been proven false and the other was maybe books like this is what caused people to see slavery as ok. If racism is subtly woven throughout all that you read or hear then you will grown up thinking it's ok. Even if the superior attitude is subtle it's still there. As far as discussions, are the children older that these books are normally read to? I've also heard people say you don't want to erase history and pretend like this wasn't a part of the past because it was. Just looking for more opinions and thoughts on this.

 

 

But (I assume) this wouldn't be the case.  In a family who chooses to use vintage texts occasionally (or even regularly), it still would not be ALL that the child is reading or hearing.  

 

Personally, I'm less likely to choose a vintage non-fiction text than a more modern one.  But, I don't mind vintage fiction and historical fiction.  If the child is able to place both the author and the story on the timeline, there is a whole lot of deep understanding that can come, not only of the historical time period being portrayed, but also of the lens through which the author viewed his or her world.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the ages of your kids. For instance, if your child has no background knowledge to work with you are feeding them with whatever information you do give them. If not, you can help them learn to think critically. Point in case.. my kids had a solid background of US History. The pros, the cons, the good, the bad. We accept history as it was, we don't change it or hide it. We don't shy away from rough topics. 

We moved on to Australian History {cross-cultural family here.} We picked up a well known book in Australia that comes highly recommended. As I started to read the book went on about how welcomed the white people were & how the Aboriginal people wanted to learn from them etc. I was like, "Hmm.." & my kids responded with, "Well that's codswallop!" 

It doesn't mean we don't read books, there are many modern books that are filled with just as many modern day fallacies & political messages of stupidity as there are in vintage racist books. As a cross-cultural family we aren't newbies when it comes to racisim either. What I will say, is laced with messages {good or bad} my kids prefer books with opposing views or at least written from opposite positions/views in order to draw their own conclusions on where the 2 meet. 

In fact my high schoolers biggest beef this year with history was that the curriculum he used only offered ONE view point. He was constantly pulling books off the shelves to read differing views & garner more information. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not eliminating anything from the reading list, except strong language, as kids' values usually come from the family background. It does not really matter what they might read from the book, they are too smart to analyse, interpret and evaluate info correctly, according the family's values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the topic of racism in vintage history books has been brought up and I've read both sides of the argument - just read and discuss or don't read at all. Up until this point I didn't have a stance on either side of the argument. I've never considered using a vintage history book until now. Looking for US History reading books I found a book titled "Stories of Great Americans for Little Americans" . I downloaded the book and the first page really turned me off. It gave the impression, to me, that he was saying thank goodness the white people came to save those poor Indians. I had two thoughts, one was that a stance like that has of course been proven false and the other was maybe books like this is what caused people to see slavery as ok. If racism is subtly woven throughout all that you read or hear then you will grown up thinking it's ok. Even if the superior attitude is subtle it's still there. As far as discussions, are the children older that these books are normally read to? I've also heard people say you don't want to erase history and pretend like this wasn't a part of the past because it was. Just looking for more opinions and thoughts on this.

 

Here's a different perspective:

"Amazing Grace! How sweet the sound that SAVED a wretch like me!" (from the American Christian Hymn, "Amazing Grace")

 

Words like "saved" from a Christian perspective have theological meaning. Jesus saves! Missionaries spread the gospel message, which is a message of salvation.

 

You mentioned slavery; from a Christian worldview, sin enslaves us, and Jesus sets us free. I don't know if you are Christian or not, and I don't know what particular old history book you read that inspired you to start this thread. I know what books I read, and the old history books I read often come from a Christian perspective. Desire to spread the gospel is generally motivated by love of God and love for people.  Excluding someone from hearing Christ' message of salvation simply because they are of another race would be racist. Christians believe all humans are in need of salvation and Jesus came to save us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not use a full curriculum or spine that was from a worldview that I disagreed with, but I have and would use books where we needed to discuss comments, phrases, and vocabulary.  If it's one book that I know we need to be careful with and discuss, that is one thing, but it doesn't make sense to use a full curriculum that I have to constantly correct. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read vintage books with racism or sexism to my toddlers and preschoolers. I may include them in what I have my school aged and older children read. I read them when I think the kids are old enough for me to explain that people were racist/sexist and thought it was ok, how things have changed, etc. It's not erasing history to include them and point it out, but I'm not comfortable reading it and saying nothing. I had the most trouble with an unedited Dr Doolittle. I loved it as a kid but must have read an updated version. I could not read it to my kids as written- I just couldn't and I have no problem reading To Kill a Mockingbird or Tom Sawyer. I reworked Dr Doolittle on the fly but would have been better off ditching it or going with an edited copy.

 

I think at some point it's ok to say that some vintage books are crap and don't need to be included. The value they had is so tainted with bias that there's no point reading them when there are plenty of better written books available. I don't see it as censorship or erasing history but as discernment and that I don't have time for everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just say that from what I can tell, the book you refer to is intended for ages 6-8. My kids may be on the immature side, but at that age, they were/are not ready for nuanced discussions about authors' worldviews (or the lives of historical figures). Their thinking was very binary, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. And I do omit huge swathes of history at that age-- call it whitewashing if you wish, although I don't lie, I just postpone-- because I can't just gloss over inequality and cruelty, yet I don't want them feeling morally or intellectually superior to people of the past, and at that age, my kids are not prone to nodding understandingly and saying, "Hey, we're human. We make mistakes, and we're products of our time and circumstances. I can learn a lot from this author, even if he bought into the whole construction of 'race' unquestioningly along with his contemporaries." Ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

College, high school, and occasionally middle school students should read primary sources when learning about particular time periods. That often includes literature of the time that is riddled with racism, among other attitudes that we would find wrong today. That's an essential and appropriate part of learning history at those ages.

 

Some pieces of literature are high quality enough as to justify using them despite problematic elements. Especially when reading an a high school level, there are many classic books that students read that have what would be problematic elements in terms of race, sex, etc. It's still important to read those good books, of course, and discuss them. And balance them with other, usually more recent classics by marginalized peoples. Inevitably in these discussions people try to bring up To Kill a Mockingbird or Huck Finn or other books with difficult racial content that should be read by young adults and adults. But the OP is not about great classics of literature for high school and up. It's about an obscure vintage children's book about history for younger kids. Apples and oranges, people.

 

As for younger children, if a novel has a single scene or two or just a few instances of using inappropriate language, it's easy to discuss it or even just leave it out if you're reading aloud. A few books for younger students, like Doctor Doolittle or Little Babaji (aka Little Black Sambo) have revised versions for modern readers that change the language or remove some really offensive scenes (Little Babaji literally just changes the name of the characters and reillustrates the text with culturally appropriate imagery). So many older books are worth doing that with - especially if you're balancing them with more recent and diverse books. But a slightly obscure, older book where racism is integral to the plot? Just drop that nonsense and don't. Justifying that by saying you're teaching your kids about the "real world" is sad. You're teaching your kids to be racist when you approve of or require reading books like that.

 

A book that takes the attitude that the Europeans needed to "save" the indigenous peoples (yes, I'm aware of the Christian meaning as well, still offensive) throughout the text is not something I would call subtle.

 

I see almost no reason that younger students should be exposed to history books that are filled with racism. This is radically different from reading primary sources. You don't need to read a book from the 1930's about the 1700's. Yes, I get that older books have richer vocabulary sometimes. And a few of them are fine - they explore subjects unrelated to race and can still be read by children. And yes, I get that every era has their own take on history. But let's not get completely relativist, okay? The "white people are saviors for dark people" take on history is NOT one that you need to convey to your kids in the name of "better vocabulary". And if you think your 8 yo is somehow not absorbing those attitudes because he's all about the historiography and can understand the nuances of racism in the text, then you're fooling yourself.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

College, high school, and occasionally middle school students should read primary sources when learning about particular time periods. That often includes literature of the time that is riddled with racism, among other attitudes that we would find wrong today. That's an essential and appropriate part of learning history at those ages.

 

Some pieces of literature are high quality enough as to justify using them despite problematic elements. Especially when reading an a high school level, there are many classic books that students read that have what would be problematic elements in terms of race, sex, etc. It's still important to read those good books, of course, and discuss them. And balance them with other, usually more recent classics by marginalized peoples. Inevitably in these discussions people try to bring up To Kill a Mockingbird or Huck Finn or other books with difficult racial content that should be read by young adults and adults. But the OP is not about great classics of literature for high school and up. It's about an obscure vintage children's book about history for younger kids. Apples and oranges, people.

 

As for younger children, if a novel has a single scene or two or just a few instances of using inappropriate language, it's easy to discuss it or even just leave it out if you're reading aloud. A few books for younger students, like Doctor Doolittle or Little Babaji (aka Little Black Sambo) have revised versions for modern readers that change the language or remove some really offensive scenes (Little Babaji literally just changes the name of the characters and reillustrates the text with culturally appropriate imagery). So many older books are worth doing that with - especially if you're balancing them with more recent and diverse books. But a slightly obscure, older book where racism is integral to the plot? Just drop that nonsense and don't. Justifying that by saying you're teaching your kids about the "real world" is sad. You're teaching your kids to be racist when you approve of or require reading books like that.

 

A book that takes the attitude that the Europeans needed to "save" the indigenous peoples (yes, I'm aware of the Christian meaning as well, still offensive) throughout the text is not something I would call subtle.

 

I see almost no reason that younger students should be exposed to history books that are filled with racism. This is radically different from reading primary sources. You don't need to read a book from the 1930's about the 1700's. Yes, I get that older books have richer vocabulary sometimes. And a few of them are fine - they explore subjects unrelated to race and can still be read by children. And yes, I get that every era has their own take on history. But let's not get completely relativist, okay? The "white people are saviors for dark people" take on history is NOT one that you need to convey to your kids in the name of "better vocabulary". And if you think your 8 yo is somehow not absorbing those attitudes because he's all about the historiography and can understand the nuances of racism in the text, then you're fooling yourself.

I feel like giving a standing ovation to this post. So well said!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism makes me sad, but no sadder than other forms of marginalization and subjugation.

 

Humans are both amazing and evil. We are not getting better or worse. Modern books are no more or less flawed than older ones; we are just less aware of the stink in current books, because were are desensitized to it. We are soaked in our current prejudices and vices so completely that we don't even see them.

 

I think this age is going to be most condemned for their chronological snobbery, and for Isolating ourselves in our own stink. I find this mass banning of old books ironic. What other culture that banned books do we praise? I cannot think of one.

 

Books are written by humans and humans are a complex mix. There is no getting away from what humans are.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I suppose, Hunter, that it's heartening that you think that THIS is what we'll be judged on. Not for the environmental degradation, not for climate change, not for the eroding of civil rights, not for our callous insensitivity to the poor and to refugees, not for stumbling into WWIII, not even for helicopter parenting and reality TV - nope, we'll be judged for being too mean to people in the past. Yeah, okay.

 

(Also, I'm not sure what all exactly you're reading that you think nobody is criticizing today's media. Maybe we just run in different circles, but the people I know spend a lot of time carefully pointing out where today's media misses the mark, and how certain things are still problematic even if they're better.)

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what one of ds's college professors told his class. What's accepted today could very well be declared racist, etc., tomorrow.

When I talk to my kids about racism, sexism, slavery, and other difficult things from the past that were more accepted as normal and ok by many people, I always point out that they were not all bad people. Then, I tell them that we are not so different, and we should never think that we are better- we have advantages that they didn't; advantages of time and education, science, history...I then ask them to think about what evils our generation condones, to be on the look out for it because history tells us that it's there, and to try to be on the side of kindness and goodness.

 

I don't think I'm better than my ancestors, but that doesn't mean I have to relive their worst moments and act like it's ok. Modern literature also has its own racism and sexism and I try to avoid that with young children as well. I dislike the premise that vintage books and older authors are somehow higher quality simply because of their age. Some vintage stuff is awesome and has only gotten better with time; some of it was trash the day it was written. The same goes for modern books- some books are awesome and will become classics; some is not worth my time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP asked a question. I answered it according to MY worldview. Isn't that what we are all supposed to do? Answer the question according to our OWN worldview?

 

I will not debate at this forum. I will make ME statements. I will talk TOPICS. I will offer SUPPORT and encouragement to someone who is struggling. I will not debate or engage in any one-on-one negativity. That is not who I am.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what one of ds's college professors told his class.  What's accepted today could very well be declared racist, etc., tomorrow.

 

Yes, or some other metric we don't even know about could be used to measure them. 

 

The implications I think are two-fold - one is simply that while it is easy enough to see and talk about ideas that are visible to us in books, because we've been made aware of them.  Even kids in most cases are able to see this.  It's the ideas that we take for granted or don't see that are most difficult to deal with.  And it's not that wrong ideas might be there - they are there.

 

The second is that it's not ideal to have children believe, even implicitly, that it is true that all books will have the same view as they will, or even that they should.  It isn't just old ideas that can seem threatening either, often new ones that are challenging our own assumptions feel wrong or bad.  It's important to take ideas seriously and try to really understand them, even if they feel retrograde or decadent.  Often closer examination reveals insights about our own views. 

 

An experience of reading stories that have all kinds of ideas isn't a bad place to start - even quite young kids will listen to narratives and take a different view and that is an important experience in how to relate to books.  And kids old enough to study history formally are going to be at the right age to begin learning how to read and really, at the same time, disciple themselves to alien ideas while also keeping a critical distance from them.  That's one of the primary purposes of the study of history.

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our general worldview about humans in general, and our general ideas about the humans who write books, provide a lot of context that affects how we view books in general and individual books.

 

I said "general" an awful lot, but...I don't know what other word to use. We all arrive at this forum with a lot of background. Some of us come from different countries and religions and are different ages. Each and every little thought and choice we make is based off of our backgrounds.

 

Some Christians believe that all humans are born evil; they are going to react to books differently than someone who believes their child was born innocent. A belief that humans are evolving is going to lead to a different approach to books than someone that believes in a more cyclical or steady journey of humans through time.

 

We are approaching book choices with different backgrounds, sometimes vastly different ones. Our backgrounds, all of them, are relevant and important and should shape our OWN choices for our OWN.

 

We teachers are flawed. The authors are flawed. The students/children are flawed. That is MY worldview. It is a logical and natural conclusion to have come to after MY eventful and eclectic life. Is it right? I don't know if there is even anything like the concept of "right", so I'm not too worried about that.

 

I do not believe that sheltered children should be suddenly immersed in books full of foreign and upsetting-to-them ideas. Just as I don't believe a child without a tan, callouses, and strong muscles should be thrown out into a long day of work or even hard play. Background and preparation is everything. Sheltering an already sheltered child makes sense. But not all children grow up sheltered.

 

There is still a subset of homeschoolers that homeschool because they are NOT the norm. These people are not going to choose the norm. Sometimes these people don't have the norm available to them for a host of reasons. Some of us not-norms show up HERE, at a forum based on a pretty normal book.

 

Not-norms have homeschooled always, and were at the forefront of homeschooling becoming a legal option for anyone. There will always be not-norms homeschooling even if our numbers have become eclipsed by the norms.

 

Books...for some of us, are a primal need like food and sex. We can feel a lot of emotion when talking about them. We have interacted with them in some pretty intimate ways. They have shaped us and made us who we are. Books have a lot of power.

 

It is kind of scary, maybe, to watch people of other backgrounds rear children to perpetuate the worldview of that background, if it is foreign to ours, especially if we believe it to be a threat to ours.

 

We are told the world is getting smaller, but I'm not sure it is. As soon as a group reaches a certain size and sense of safety, it tends to divide itself. I have watched that happen among homeschoolers. Now that our numbers are larger and we are safer, we seem to be dividing ourselves more. People of vastly different world views and educational methods used to come together as one, defined and unified simply as homeschoolers.

 

We don't have to splinter here. It is a choice to splinter. Daily little choices, one after the other.

 

Books are man's thoughts put on paper, or a screen. Interacting with books is interacting with man.

 

I'm kind of rambling here. Sorry. But I think I'm rambling because discussion of what books we should or should not read is such a wide topic. It has tentacles into just about everything else we could discuss.

 

Books are...well...everything, pretty much.

Edited by Hunter
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our general worldview about humans in general, and our general ideas about the humans who write books, provide a lot of context that affects how we view books in general and individual books.

 

I said "general" an awful lot, but...I don't know what other word to use. We all arrive at this forum with a lot of background. Some of us come from different countries and religions and are different ages. Each and every little thought and choice we make is based off of our backgrounds.

 

Some Christians believe that all humans are born evil; they are going to react to books differently than someone who believes their child was born innocent. A belief that humans are evolving is going to lead to a different approach to books than someone that believes in a more cyclical or steady journey of humans through time.

 

We are approaching book choices with different backgrounds, sometimes vastly different ones. Our backgrounds, all of them, are relevant and important and should shape our OWN choices for our OWN.

 

We teachers are flawed. The authors are flawed. The students/children are flawed. That is MY worldview. It is a logical and natural conclusion to have come to after MY eventful and eclectic life. Is it right? I don't know if there is even anything like the concept of "right", so I'm not too worried about that.

 

I do not believe that sheltered children should be suddenly immersed in books full of foreign and upsetting-to-them ideas. Just as I don't believe a child without a tan, callouses, and strong muscles should be thrown out into a long day of work or even hard play. Background and preparation is everything. Sheltering an already sheltered child makes sense. But not all children grow up sheltered.

 

There is still a subset of homeschoolers that homeschool because they are NOT the norm. These people are not going to choose the norm. Sometimes these people don't have the norm available to them for a host of reasons. Some of us not-norms show up HERE, at a forum based on a pretty normal book.

 

Not-norms have homeschooled always, and were at the forefront of homeschooling becoming a legal option for anyone. There will always be not-norms homeschooling even if our numbers have become eclipsed by the norms.

 

Books...for some of us, are a primal need like food and sex. We can feel a lot of emotion when talking about them. We have interacted with them in some pretty intimate ways. They have shaped us and made us who we are. Books have a lot of power.

 

It is kind of scary, maybe, to watch people of other backgrounds rear children to perpetuate the worldview of that background, if it is foreign to ours, especially if we believe it to be a threat to ours.

 

We are told the world is getting smaller, but I'm not sure it is. As soon as a group reaches a certain size and sense of safety, it tends to divide itself. I have watched that happen among homeschoolers. Now that our numbers are larger and we are safer, we seem to be dividing ourselves more. People of vastly different world views and educational methods used to come together as one, defined and unified simply as homeschoolers.

 

We don't have to splinter here. It is a choice to splinter. Daily little choices, one after the other.

 

Books are man's thoughts put on paper, or a screen. Interacting with books is interacting with man.

 

I'm kind of rambling here. Sorry. But I think I'm rambling because discussion of what books we should or should not read is such a wide topic. It has tentacles into just about everything else we could discuss.

 

Books are...well...everything, pretty much.

 

I don't always agree with your posts, Hunter, but you invariably give me something to think about.  Thank you for that. :001_smile:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a lot of thoughts on this and haven't really been able to decide how to convey them. I guess I should have said that I was looking for books on history for my twins who are currently 5 but will be 6 in September. They are a bit young to have conversations about different world views. What I keep thinking is if my skin were a different color or my child's would I be comfortable reading these books to them? If my family had come out of slavery would I want to use these vintage books as our history books? I think for historical context they need to not be removed but to be used a child's history book I'm not so sure it's appropriate. At least that's the conclusion I've come to for my family. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically "Stories of Great Americans for Little Americans" --

We have that book. My kids have read it. At 6-7 years old they are old enough to engage in a simple conversation about the racist and sexist content as we come upon it. (Not only in this book, of course.) I distill it down to terms they will understand.  I ask them questions like, "If you were in so-and-so's shoes, how would you feel?"  "How do you think that person/that group of people felt about being treated that way?"  "Would YOU want to be treated that way/expected to do that?" "What if they switched places?" Often we draw comparisons with other people groups (other times in history).

 

Honestly, we use that book much less as a history book than we do as a reading primer. The history lessons, themselves, are too shallow. I prefer other resources, that go a bit deeper, as our spines even at those ages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had an interesting experience with the movie Hidden Figures. 

 

Ds11 watched it with us. I had not prepped him with the knowledge that "colored" is a term we no longer use nor that it is offensive. (He's never heard it before, but he likes to take new vocabulary and work it into his daily... well... you can see where this is going...)

 

Unfortunately, it happened when we were out in public. I just about died. We were at an aquarium in a very diverse city on a school day. Lots of school groups! Well, ds looked to one area of the sea lion theater and noticed all the school groups sitting together and said that it looked just like the "colored section." He said it with a smirk, thinking he was making a joke, but I was MORTIFIED that someone might have heard him and misunderstood that he was referring to the movie he had just seen the night before.

 

I ASSURE you that ds is not one to judge people by the color of their skin. We have a diverse family. We have discussed American history very bluntly for years. The movie made an impact on him that night...

 

I immediately began to hiss an explanation in his ear and made sure to let him know that this word is highly offensive to a great many people today and to please *not* use it in public.  (I also told him that I understood what he was referencing, but other people would not immediately see that and he needed to explain his point very clearly if he was going to say it out loud in the future.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...