Jump to content

Menu

dressing up like native americans for thanksgiving...feels icky to me


ktgrok
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they can understand the history behind the Thanksgiving mythology and act it out, surely they can understand that there is conflict today and think of ideas for how different groups of people might get along. My dd is seven, but I've been discussing simplified versions of current events with her for a couple years now. 

 

We just disagree.  I see no purpose in burdening small children with stories of genocide.  There is plenty of time for that when they are older.  The early years are the time for getting them interested in learning about people who are like themselves and people who are not like themselves. That is a way to build respect and a thirst for more knowledge, and can be accomplished with stories, playacting, visuals, etc.   We don't have to - and shouldn't - invent fake happy stories about pilgrims and Native Americans living in joyful harmony. I don't think anyone is advocating that.   But we don't have to give them all the grim details of the entire story of early American settlement at that age either.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And then, as an important part of the picture, how the Puritans and other groups who followed them years later went on to wage war against the peoples who helped them survive. Basically, they betrayed whatever lessons could have come out of such a meeting and we live with those consequences today.

 

Speaking of conflating different groups - don't conflate the Pilgrims aka 'Saints/Strangers' who founded Plimoth colony with the Puritans who founded the Massachusett Bay Colony about 10 years later.  Different people from different places, different socio-economic status (Plimoth settlers were mostly tradespeople who had been living in the Netherlands for almost a generation and sold everything to get to America, hence the leaky boats - one had to turn around - complete lack of adequate supplies and mass starvation).  The Puritans came 10 years later in a fleet of 30 boats and founded Boston.  They were quite well-off, well-funded, and from a completely different part of England, and also had a different charter from the King to set up a separate colony.  They did not starve - they showed up in the spring (instead of late November) with plenty of seeds and livestock.  The Puritans did not want to separate from the Church of England (as the 'Saints' did), but to 'purify' it from within.  Although once they got here, they set about making sure everyone believed the exact same thing in lock-step.  The Saints were much more live and let live.  They did not insist that the Strangers that came with them convert.  They did not try to convert the Native Americans.  The Puritans, on the other hand, set up "Praying Indian" villages where Native Americans were rounded up and converted and forced to wear European clothes. Later on they did such things like hanging Quakers on the Common.  A whole 'nother colony (Rhode Island) was founded to accommodate people who didn't agree with them 100% and were banished or ran away to escape being punished. There were many, many, many more Puritans in the end than the tiny group at Plimoth.  It was bound to go badly either way with the sheer masses of settlers that kept coming, but the original group at Plimoth did not treat the Native population the same way the Puritans did, and only partly because they desperately needed their help to survive.

Edited by Matryoshka
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the history of our country (and many if not most others) is full of discrimination, oppression, hate, and violence based on different races / nationalities / religions, and if we're not allowed to teach children about (and/or let them act out) an example of a peaceful collaboration, where is the hope in this country for any inter-group harmony?

 

Telling kids "in this country, it's always been about hating on those different from us," what do you think they will internalize?

 

What is the better way to help kids internalize the ideal of peace and collaboration among different groups?

 

There are better ways than myths and false heroes that leads to a lot of young people who internalize the message that the truth of their heritage and history is so bad that all the adults and all of the media actively lied about it all.  And - as a USian who left - the US isn't exactly an example of inter-group harmony around the world. I don't think the whole positive myth building to create unity and collaboration and positive identity that many have mentioned as vital to a strong country seems to be working. At all. Many other nations with horrible histories are working on it, I don't see why the US needs to stay stuck in the 'we must teach these myths to build identity and peace' ideas when there is no evidence that it is working. 

 

There are many better ways that people have been working on for years and often gets dismissed as 'too academic' or 'PC run amok'. There is actively putting forth actual people who worked for social justice in the spotlight throughout history. Discussing how the movements that has brought us forward were not really peaceful - Martin Luther King Jr, who is so often used to beat modern Black activists, had to deal with being arrested and threatened by authorities. John Brown, a White man who actively fought against slavery and died fighting for that, is so ignored when he easily could be used to show that there were White people of that time who willing gave their all on the issue. There are so many others who have been erased for national myths of Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln. We could do better.

 

Another one is actively discussing identities. We all have identities. These identities affect how we see ourselves, how we feel other see us, and the representation we see - or do not see - of ourselves. Discussing them, showing how much broader they are than the images around us, that we all have layers of them that make each of us different even from our own family -- and then into how with all of those we can work together. Encourage literature and history that shows the many layers of identities being represented in different ways. 

 

We really do not need past fantasies to teach our kids that we can build a peaceful tomorrow or that we can be strong together. There are plenty of other ways of doing it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy over-reaction, Batman. I had no idea that people got so worked up over this.

 

Last year, a friend posted some photos of her kids in those apparently highly offensive construction paper costumes at their Kindergarten Thanksgiving play, and I thought they looked adorable. So did all of the other people (and there were many) who posted comments about how cute they looked, and some said they still remembered how much fun it was to be in their class's Thanksgiving play when they were little kids.

 

I have to tell you that it's only on this forum that people seem to take such offense at things like this. We're talking about happy little Thanksgiving plays for little kids, not some sort of horrific conspiracy to offend Native Americans everywhere.

 

I see no reason to stop allowing little children to have fun with the traditional Thanksgiving story where the kindly Indians help the Pilgrims. The whole story is pro-Native American, so it seems like an odd thing to get upset about. And again, we're talking about the lower elementary grades, not middle school or high school.

Edited by Catwoman
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The attachment to having children dress up as Native Americans is puzzling as a result.

 

It's not "attachment," it's just something that happens in some schools (at the very early grades), and some of us don't believe it is a protest-worthy phenomenon.

 

I more dislike the early MLK lessons which leave children saying things like "boy, I'm glad I'm not as dark as ___."  Yet there is no general protest against the way these stories are told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this, and how an equivalent would be if a group of kids dressed up as First Fleeters and generic "Aborigines" meeting to celebrate Australia Day, and how no-one would do this. Literally no-one.

 

The attachment to having children dress up as Native Americans is puzzling as a result.

Different culture, different context. :)

 

It's just a cute little thing young schoolchildren have always done at Thanksgiving. I think some of the people here are attaching far too much importance to it. The kids think it's fun and it's a photo op for the parents who go see the little play. And then on Thanksgiving, the kids watch a parade and the family has a special dinner together. I don't know anyone who sits around talking about genocide over Thanksgiving dinner. It's a fun day for most people.

 

(Edited for typos!)

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

I do believe in miracles. I think I agreed with and (tried to though I may have missed some) liked every single post Bill made. Don't think that has ever happened. ;)

Bill you are giving me hope for a possibly peaceful holiday dinner. Happy Thanksgiving indeed!

:lol:

 

Same here! I have been having trouble getting my likes to work properly today, but if you're reading this, Bill, consider your posts liked! We don't always agree (okay, maybe we don't even often agree,) but we are definitely on the same page today! :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But giving up positive national myths—which Thanksgiving, being a holiday of thanks and brotherhood surely is—would only weaken our shared sense of nationhood. These cultural bonds help join us as a people.

 

 

 

That might work..until PETA goes crazy about children celebrating the annual Turkey genocide.

 

Bill

What part of "for much of the Indigenous population of this country, the Thanksgiving tale as traditionally enacted in elementary school is NOT positive" aren't you getting? It doesn't bind us all together if the way the story is told is alienating people.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I could be offended by the MLK story since it paints all white people in a pretty negative light.  I dislike it for other reasons, but I'm not offended on behalf of white people.  Just because it doesn't get into all the nuances and doesn't include one shred of consideration for the white people who are (and were) against race-based oppression doesn't mean they shouldn't tell the story at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "attachment," it's just something that happens in some schools (at the very early grades), and some of us don't believe it is a protest-worthy phenomenon.

 

I more dislike the early MLK lessons which leave children saying things like "boy, I'm glad I'm not as dark as ___."  Yet there is no general protest against the way these stories are told.

 

There are tons of protests on how Martin Luther King Jr, and civil rights movements in general, is taught throughout school. It's just generally not heard outside of January or February [or when big civil rights issues come up where he is often used to tell off activists] just as it is rare to hear about the issues many have with how American Indigenous people are represented in education, or anything else, outside of late October-November unless you're someone actively into these issues.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of protests on how Martin Luther King Jr, and civil rights movements in general, is taught throughout school. It's just generally not heard outside of January or February [or when big civil rights issues come up where he is often used to tell off activists] just as it is rare to hear about the issues many have with how American Indigenous people are represented in education, or anything else, outside of late October-November unless you're someone actively into these issues.  

 

Tons of protests?  How come I've never heard of any?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tons of protests?  How come I've never heard of any?

 

...I don't know why you haven't heard of any and I do not know how I could be expected to know why you haven't. The media is selective with it's posting of these things and, like I said, they tend to come on a cycle. 

 

I hear of them regularly, but I have a specific interest in representation within education and media both professionally and personally. I follow relevant places that openly report and discuss such things. There is the whole 'read the whole speech, read all the speeches' that comes up regularly. I see people posting up lists of reading recommendations to deal with how badly he, and the wider civil rights movement, is taught regularly. I see people posting about John Brown and how he should have a place in public school to counter the very issues you brought up previously about White people not being represented as working towards racial equality. 

 

I saw the protests and the reporting on them more regularly when I followed a lot of media websites. I follow less now so hear it less. It all happens, it just doesn't all happen where it's broadcast broadly and I find that the media has it's bones it throws on these things and other than that it doesn't bother. It depends on what you're listening to, I guess. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, we don't all hear about every protest.  And that is probably why there are still primary-school teachers who have not considered that their construction paper headband projects might offend someone somewhere.

 

I mean, nobody is saying we have to have children wear construction paper feathers.  Just that it isn't a big deal.  I'm sure teachers wouldn't do it if they really thought someone was going to be hurt by it.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the history of our country (and many if not most others) is full of discrimination, oppression, hate, and violence based on different races / nationalities / religions, and if we're not allowed to teach children about (and/or let them act out) an example of a peaceful collaboration, where is the hope in this country for any inter-group harmony?

 

Telling kids "in this country, it's always been about hating on those different from us," what do you think they will internalize?

 

What is the better way to help kids internalize the ideal of peace and collaboration among different groups?

You can teach about the story of the first Thanksgiving with more facts involved and without the dress-up pageant.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a matter of prioritizing what is to be covered in connection with Thanksgiving specifically. The study of Native Americans doesn't stop at the end of November.

 

Though, if we show Native Americans doing a traditional dance today, that would probably offend people who insist that the only truth is that white people wiped out Native Americans and all their traditions.

Who insists this?

 

You do realize that many tribes were wiped out, and that many who survived had much of their culture forcefully stripped from them? Both of those things remain true even though many also did survive and do continue some of their traditions.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I could be offended by the MLK story since it paints all white people in a pretty negative light. I dislike it for other reasons, but I'm not offended on behalf of white people. Just because it doesn't get into all the nuances and doesn't include one shred of consideration for the white people who are (and were) against race-based oppression doesn't mean they shouldn't tell the story at all.

No, it doesn't. Even a fairly cursory history of the civil rights movement will include discussion of white allies in the struggle.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Western Native Americans be offended about how one northeast US group is being portrayed (by 6-year-olds in the northeast)?  Do German people get angry when British kids dress in inaccurate costumes to re-enact the maypole?  Isn't it a generalization to speak as if the history and cultures of both groups are/were the same?

 

Another point.  The outcome of interactions among the groups was not all 100% genocide /devastation; it was mixed.  Many folks on the North American continent are literally "mixed" because there was in fact some level of understanding among at least some of the groups.  (No, it was not all because of abduction and rape.)  So yes, this is a complex topic.  It can be covered objectively by kids old enough to handle it, but not if the teaching reflects the level of outrage proposed in some of the posts above.

 

"The outcome of interactions among the groups was not all 100% genocide/devastation, it was mixed." But what a MIX! I mean genocide kind of puts a damper on whatever else was mixed in. Sure -- there are stories of resistance, of allies who countered what was going on, of ordinary people living their lives and doing the best they could. Let's pause to acknowledge that... AND, the overall arc of the history between Native Americans and Europeans (later their descendants) is pretty difficult. It is in that context that rethinking how we tell stories about Thanksgiving, and WHAT stories we tell about Thanksgiving is a worthy effort. As for why Western Native Americans might care about how the story of one northeast nation of indigenous people are portrayed is exactly because it's not like the most difficult and horrific parts of this history were bounded to only one indigenous nation. These individuals were, in policy and in practice, lumped together by the US government. Just like various people groups from Africa were brought here and lumped together in policy and practice as slaves. No one from my family hails from South Carolina, and, as far as I know, ain't visited there. But I am bound by a common history to black folks in South Carolina, as well as those in California, New York and everywhere in between. Does that mean I understand every little aspect of their lives in South Carolina, no -- but it would be ridiculous to assume that the common history of being the descendants of slaves doesn't create some sense of a group identity. So when the parishioners at Mother Emmanuel AME in South Carolina got gunned down, black people in churches around the country felt that. Tacitly understood it could have easily been their church, and rallied around them. That takes nothing away from the multi-racial nature of support that church received, but to suggest that there might not have been a unique set of feelings for black people about the incident -- based on a common history and set of sociological experiences -- would be beyond obtuse. If you can take that leap -- and it's not clear if you can -- perhaps you could apply that to NA people in many different places. 

 

I think it is a matter of prioritizing what is to be covered in connection with Thanksgiving specifically.  The study of Native Americans doesn't stop at the end of November.

 

Though, if we show Native Americans doing a traditional dance today, that would probably offend people who insist that the only truth is that white people wiped out Native Americans and all their traditions.

 

No one is insisting that the only truth is that Native Americans were wiped out. But d*** near close to it. Almost no one save avowed white supremacist conspiracy sites deputes that NA populations were killed in critically large numbers, making the label "genocide" particularly appropriate to apply. Really, lay off the hyperbole -- no one I know (and no one you know) is offended to see that there are NAs participating in traditional dance today, and that some aspects of their respective cultures remain (though some nations do so with great difficulty because of the practice of "Killing the Indian and saving the man)." Let's just keep it honest. 

 

Well I could be offended by the MLK story since it paints all white people in a pretty negative light.  I dislike it for other reasons, but I'm not offended on behalf of white people.  Just because it doesn't get into all the nuances and doesn't include one shred of consideration for the white people who are (and were) against race-based oppression doesn't mean they shouldn't tell the story at all.

 

Don't get offended, just broaden your circle. You've obviously been exposed to some pretty poor teaching. I'm not even sure what "the MLK story" is. There's not one official telling of it as far as I know. But if you are running into people who consistently water-down the story so much that it's been stripped of all its relevant and nuanced history, then you should speak up. I've always known there were white allies in the struggle and that the civil rights movement was a multiracial, multifaith movement, and I wouldn't consider my education on the civil rights movement before college to be particularly progressive or cutting-edge. Although, I do have to say, it's useful to remember that people were fighting against the status quo of the time. We don't want to create the impression that it was just a tiny minority that was complicit in maintaining the status quo of the day. Race-base oppression was pretty darn pervasive, making the heroes and sheroes of the time -- of all races -- quite exceptional individuals.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slojo, your comparison to current events involving racial hate crimes doesn't work, because the Southwestern etc. NA tribes wouldn't have known anything about what was going on with the Northeast tribes in the 1600s.  And they might not have cared if they did know, because they didn't consider themselves to all be the same group of people or to have a common history at that time.

 

And your comment about the US government treating all NAs the same is not relevant to something that happened before there was a US government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can teach about the story of the first Thanksgiving with more facts involved and without the dress-up pageant.

But it's not nearly as much fun for the kids. :)

 

The costumes and the crafts and the little play are fun. I am surprised that anyone would believe that the costumes should have to be authentic or that the story should be completely factual. We're talking about 5 and 6 year-old children having a fun way to celebrate Thanksgiving, not some sort of highly detailed history lesson for older kids.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsuga replied within the quote, so the following is my original post in normal text, her responses in italics and then my new responses in bold. For those who are dedicated enough to attempt it, lol. 

 

Can you link to any sources about blackface ever being regarded as honoring black culture? Because that is definitely something I have never heard of, and it would be interesting to learn about that. 

 

This should be easy:

 

https://reason.com/a...se-of-blackface(from 2012, still defending it)

http://www.vox.com/2...ts-so-offensive

 

I didn't even have to get historical, that's what's so hilarious. OBVIOUSLY there are still people who think this is totally cool to black people because they are STILL DOING IT and 

 

PEOPLE ARE DEFENDING DOING IT TO NATIVE AMERICANS RIGHT NOW SO HOW COULD THIS EVEN BE CONFUSING EVEN A LITTLE BIT?!?!

 

YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW!  Excuse me, but I am certainly NOT defending blackface. I stated that I had never heard of blackface being considered a way to honor black culture; ie, it has always been NEGATIVE in my experience. One of the links you gave me that is supposed to support this says - To be clear, these weren't flattering representations. At all. Taking place against the backdrop of a society that systematically mistreated and dehumanized black people, they were mocking portrayals that reinforced the idea that African-Americans were inferior in every way. - and that is exactly how I've always viewed it and heard about it, unflattering and dehumanizing. 

 

TO ME!

 

​But you don't think people could defend blackface? I did not say that at any point. I think that you are so overwrought about this that you are either reading carelessly, conflating posts, or both. 

 

Holy crap! You're doing it! Just go look in the mirror. Voila, someone defending blackface. Today. Right now. You. You don't need a link, it is happening, this whole thread is about that exact thing. Again, read more carefully. Stating that blackface, to my knowledge, has never been considered a way to honor black culture is not defending it. How is saying that something has ALWAYS been negative defending it??? 

 

:willy_nilly: (ETA: I need more of these.   :willy_nilly:   :willy_nilly:   :chillpill:   :001_huh: ) Okay. For real. What you are saying is the exact same thing as people say when defending blackface. It's not like... there will be no revelation. i fear if you read those articles you'll just be convinced, because you are convinced that people really like being imitated if you mean well and you yourself have a drop of AA or Indian blood. I really think, based on the logic you're using, you may read those articles and think, "Well they have a great point. I mean white people really do enjoy dressing like blacks because they do reject their whiteness. And that DOES make it okay." No it doesn't but what you are saying about dressing up here makes me think that you share the underlying beliefs about how people want to be treated as those defending blackface. Nobody wants to be a bad person. Everyone wants to be a nice person. Well most people anyway. Just because you want to be a nice person doesn't mean everything you're defending is right.

 

I don't think it's accurate to say that Thanksgiving programs gloss over genocide, because they are meant to represent one specific event, not the entire history. And it's aimed at very young children - the overwhelming majority of textbooks do, at a minimum,  make it clear that the settlers brought terrible suffering to the natives, both intentional and accidental. 

 

First, I did not say that the entire program glosses over genocide--certainly there are a wide variety of programs! I am talking about one specific activity that is repeated in many parts of the country, which is like a Thanksgiving nativity scene except instead of Jesus in the manger it's like Herod is right there and so are the Roman soldiers and they're pretending that the whole kick them out of their homes (sorry for all the Jewish comparisons, what can I say, I'm looking for common ground here and we've all read the Bible right?) and go to Bethlehem to get registered and everyone's gonna get slaughtered is just ignored and suddenly Herod and the Romans are the good guys. Like that. Not just, "Let's not talk about racial registration laws under the Roman Empire or killing all the firstborns," but, "I know, how about we pretend Herod was a nice kind and they were all friends?"

 

I know from my 20 years of the Internet that this is a very long metaphor to follow all in one sentence and that someone will ask me what Jews have to do with Indians since Jews are in the Bible but Indians are only in history books and I will just say right now I'm not going to explain a metaphor, you're just going to have to strain your brain to get the comparison. Persecuted, story avoids persecution but doesn't turn victims into participants in their own genocide, and persecuted, story avoids persecution but DOES turn victims into participants in their own genocide. Which one is okay? Which one is not? HM.

 

People were killed at the specific events. There is no need to dress up for that. Please understand that I am not opposed to Thanksgiving but of dressing up in costume, "redface", and presenting a false story of harmony as part of the story. Thanksgiving is actually my favorite holiday primarily because it's not very commercialized.

 

Again, this is conflating one event with an entire history. It's a feel-good story about one day, intended for very young children. People can and do tell similar feel-good stories about the holocaust: this person was brave and good and helped Jewish people escape! And the stories meant for young children do gloss over much of the horror.  

 

But those stories include the part of about the Jews being in danger, at least a little bit. The Thanksgiving story does not. It includes a lie about the people who were already living on this continent, to say they were active participants in what happened, i.e. not victims of a slaughter but that they freely gave the land to the pilgrims, and that's not true at all, not even remotely metaphorically true. Of course they include the Jews being in danger, otherwise they would not need rescuing, but they usually feature Germans and/or Christians as the rescuers, when Germans and Christians were also the oppressors and collaborators - not elaborating on that at length would be very troubling in a serious study, but is considered acceptable for very young children. 

 

I would very much object to any Thanksgiving program that said or even implied that Native Americans freely surrendered land to pilgrims or anyone else, but I have never seen that - it is simply, at one point the settlers did not have enough food, and certain natives gave them some. 

 

One could easily say that your post is a bit offensive, because it presents Jewish people as the only victims of the Holocaust. It takes numerous groups and conflates them, as though all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish. 

 

I'm not conflating different groups, I'm talking about the Jewish people because I'm talking about the intentional genocide. And really, Katy,  I think you're arguing just to argue. Is it really offensive not to mention the Roma and the homosexual population? When making a specific comparison to highlight the seriousness of the genocide?

 

Note: I'm not Katy, that's a different poster on this thread. Just because I don't agree with you or like your comparisons doesn't mean I'm arguing just to argue. Yes, I think it's a poor example, particularly because of the specific comparison you are making. I also think it simply doesn't make sense, because saying that some natives brought food to some settlers does not equal telling a feel-good story about the very lengthy history in question here. 

 

Little kids could do some (very-not-true-to-reality) beading, but very young children think and remember in broad strokes (headbands, not beaded headbands vs non-beaded headbands). Plus, beads are expensive and construction paper is cheap. 

 

Why can't you just not dress up like someone in the ethnic costume in which they underwent attempted extermination? Is it like, there is a force of nature making you dress up like someone who may have been a victim of genocide and pretend to be happy about it? How about just not do it? Not, no Thanksgiving, but no dress-up?

 

Again, I have never seen a Thanksgiving program in which Native Americans were presented as being happy about being forced off their land. I don't have a problem with cultural costumes in general. 

 

I don't get it - the first part of your post, the story worth telling, is exactly the story I've always heard told. The last part, that I bolded, is not. I have always just seen a very simple play (scene, really) with the Native Americans presented as the good guys who saved the day. 

 

They didn't save the day, though. They were attacked. They weren't good guys or bad guys. They were attacked guys and gals who surely did good and bad things, who tried to kill back and sometimes ran. They were real people, not superheroes or mythical creatures.

 

Granted, they do leave out the future warfare and betrayal, but you can only expect kindergartners do memorize so many lines. 

 

Honestly, there are a LOT of things kindergarteners cannot be expected to study, and this is one of many.

 

I think that we disagree on whether it is fundamentally wrong to present a simplified version of events to young children, rather than waiting until they are old enough for the complete history and details. I think the simplified versions are helpful to start with, and I think that kids have no trouble sorting it out as they get older. It is generally agreed that it is important for middle elementary students to have some awareness of the Holocaust, but also that it should be painted in broad strokes, with the judicious use of 'feel-good' true stories and historical fiction that leave out a LOT of details. 

 

 

Overall, I'm still working out exactly where I stand on this and related topics.

 

I definitely don't think it's always wrong for children to dress up in costumes meant to represent certain times and cultures. Our local Japanese club (which, yes, has a great many Japanese people in it) strongly encourages children to wear and use 'stereotypical' items such as kimonos, fans, and chopsticks. They are aiming for positive exposure, and don't seem too worried that little ones will think all Japanese people wear kimonos while folding origami swans. 

 

Yeah, but what if the Japanese kids all dressed up like Chinese kids welcoming them to their shores? Would that be cute? I'm assuming you know about what Imperial Japan did to China.

 

 

Once again: winners dressing up as themselves: okay. People wearing traditional dress and sharing: okay. Winners dressing up like the losers in the war and pretending the losers really like it: not okay. 

 

I think I'm okay with young children making inaccurate tribal headbands, painting flawed blue Celtic warrior symbols on themselves, and wearing lederhosen during Oktoberfest. 

 

But almost no non-German children do wear lederhosen for Oktoberfest, and same with Celtic symbols. Those are all actual German and Celtic kids just like Indian kids may actually go to powwow. My children are about 12% German and they did wear german outfits to Oktoberfest but they went to a German school and were asked to. We have never worn Celtic stuff precisely because I think it's ridiculous. We're not Celts. End of story. And the Celts and the Irish, by the way, have had their fair share of hard times, which is one major reason I'm sensitive to not just putting on their ceremonial symbols like an accessory. And it does bother Celts--they have told me so. I empathize completely.

 

I do believe that part of my post was in response to posts talking about whether cultural dressing up is ever okay, in various contexts. 

 

Around here, plenty of non-German children (and adults) do wear lederhosen for Oktoberfest, and it's strongly encouraged by the German club that puts it on. We have a ton of ethnic festivals, and that's held true for all of the ones I've attended, so perhaps it varies by area. 

 

The Celtic bit was actually referring to dressing up for history, which we did often - the Celtic one came from the SOTW activity guide, but we did plenty of others also. Sometimes as a specific person, sometimes as a general person from a certain time. We did try to get the broad strokes accurate, but didn't sweat the details. 

 

 Blackface and Thanksgiving aside, I certainly think there is room for a wide range of valid opinions on cultural dress in other contexts. 

 

I don't think anyone should use Redskins as a team name. Braves? I'm not sure; is it akin to Pirates or Colonels (a title, so to speak), or not? 

 

It's like Redskins and honestly, this thread is depressing enough, can we just not go there?

 

I think it's great to "go there" and discuss these things. My opinion has been influenced on many topics due to discussion on this board. Over the years, I have seen many posters graciously do a public turn-around on issues that were very important to them, due to discussion on this board. You should certainly bow out if you are finding it tiring and depressing, though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slojo, your comparison to current events involving racial hate crimes doesn't work, because the Southwestern etc. NA tribes wouldn't have known anything about what was going on with the Northeast tribes in the 1600s.  And they might not have cared if they did know, because they didn't consider themselves to all be the same group of people or to have a common history at that time.

 

And your comment about the US government treating all NAs the same is not relevant to something that happened before there was a US government.

But we are talking about people TODAY caring or not caring about Thanksgiving pageants TODAY. I'm sorry, did Thanksgiving pageants exist in the 1600's?  I thought that was the topic being debated. 

 

So, yes, you are right, two random indigenous groups in the 1600s would likely not have known about each or necessarily cared about the fate of the other group, just like slaves from what is now known as the Gambia would not have known or cared about slaves hailing from what is now known as Angola -- that is UNTIL they realized they were in the same situation. Since Thanksgiving pageants didn't exist -- and the topic was on Thanksgiving pageants today, and whether many of the practices associated with them could be offensive, I assumed you were referring to present-day NAs. But, yes, in the 1600s, Western nations would not have given two hooeys about six year olds dressing up for a Thanksgiving pageant and getting the clothing wrong. But over time, in history, they were quite impacted by all that followed. 

 

And sure, I prematurely invoked a government that did not come into existence until later. Europeans in a variety of places (though not all) harbored sentiments and conducted practices that led to the eventual mass destruction of a multiethnic group of people that we now associate under the common identity of Native American. Those European forebears set in motion a dynamic in which, once the US government became an official entity, continued to enact devastating policies against Native groups with the implicit sanction of the vast majority of European-descended Americans whose views of NAs were most likely negative (what African slaves - which was the condition of the vast majority of African-descended people at the time -- thought of the matter is of no consequence since they had no real power to accept or reject the policies of the US government toward NAs). 

 

It is those descendants that, at times (because identity is fluid and matters more or less depending on the circumstances), see themselves as having a common history/destiny (it's called "a community of shared experience") and may or may not, within the context of that common bond, have negative feelings about a Thanksgiving pageant that happens in Georgia even if they live in New York. It's not particularly difficult to find significant numbers of NA people who have called for a rethinking of Thanksgiving, and how it is portrayed, especially in light of the history that followed.

 

Allies and, gosh, just plain decent people of other backgrounds have listened to those voices and said, "Goodness. I guess I can understand that. I have no stake in the continuance of these rituals in schools, and can see how someone might find it offensive... There are other ways to celebrate Thanksgiving, and certainly other ways to honor NAs..." That's what education is for, we widen our circles of understanding and, sometimes, come to adjust our positions and stances, even on much beloved traditions. It's okay -- we may replace them with new ones - ones that do a better job of aiding our understanding while also not being hurtful or harmful, in big ways or small, to others. They used to do slavery pageants, too, in some schools. People learned better, and now they do better.

Edited by Slojo
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not nearly as much fun for the kids. :)

 

Which kids? Do you really think every single child feels that this is fun? I can think of some who might feel insulted or confused - and that's not counting those who object to "babyish" activities on principle. (I've got one of those.)

 

I'm sure that preschool teachers are more than competent enough to find a way to make the celebration fun without also being offensive.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Even a fairly cursory history of the civil rights movement will include discussion of white allies in the struggle.

And even if the MLK lesson didn't specifically include a nod to the non-Jim Crow-pushing white people, um, who cares? That's an All Lives Matter pile of steaming poop right there. The only people I hear complaining about MLK Day or Black History Month are crazed racists who are happy the state still celebrates Confederate Memorial Day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if the MLK lesson didn't specifically include a nod to the non-Jim Crow-pushing white people, um, who cares? That's an All Lives Matter pile of steaming poop right there. The only people I hear complaining about MLK Day or Black History Month are crazed racists who are happy the state still celebrates Confederate Memorial Day.

 

Great.  I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin.  And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast.  The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later.  Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks.  And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled.  But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live near Plymouth. The Wampanoag people consider Thanksgiving a day of mourning.

 

My kindergarten son learns generally positive things about thanksgiving , by the way, in public school. He learns the history of the kingdom the puritans were fleeing from; he learns about the culture of the Wamponoag people from the same era. They are having a feast in his school. They are thinking about what it was like to live here in New England before heated buildings and electric lights. It's fascinating stuff and great food for the imagination. All without wearing outfits that are culturally inappropriate or putting on a pageant that minimizes the grief of the thousands of Womanoag people in the region.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.  I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin.  And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast.  The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later.  Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks.  And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled.  But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

The MLK story is absolutely a triumph for people of all races in the US. The problem wasn't MLK, it was the previous 300 or so years.   If your teacher didn't get that across to you, I'm sorry.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a slavery pageant? 

 

Similar - usually a play put on as a tribute to the antebellum south. Basically a "heritage" play or presentation. There were tributes to mammy. There are accounts of people who as children were in such plays or presentations in schools or churches. Not everywhere, but, yes, they existed. My grandmother's day and earlier. I remember reading a few years back about a black woman recounting a story of when she was a little girl and was taken by the lady of the house her mother worked in to a picnic.The event was billed as "the woman just wanting to be nice to her daughter ("she can play with my daughter, and we'll make sure she has something to eat" kind of thing). The "picnic" included such a presentation, and the black daughter was put in a potato sack dress and placed on a wagon, presumably to represent a slave child. For obvious reasons, such events fell out of favor. But, these events surely happened under the guise of "teaching or remembering history." 

 

Great.  I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin.  And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast.  The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later.  Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks.  And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled.  But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

 

And you should care about the messages your children are receiving. But another strategy would be to seek out the wide range of resources that are available to you that do a much better job of telling the MLK story, because it really is a pretty important story in the arc of US history. My issue with your raising this as an example is that you don't go on to tell us what you've done counter that message, you just keep harping on "how offended you could decide to get" about any telling of the MLK story as if other resources and approaches aren't available to you. In other words, when it comes to education dealing with the complex and difficult portion of our collective history, your consistent response is "there's nothing good that can come of that" and then making some overly sweeping critique of even approaching the topic. Your kids are in 4th grade, and this experience happened in K -- that's plenty of time to have exposed them to a wider range of Civil Rights era stories. There are many who could suggest resources to you, but I imagine you are not interested. 

 

So, no, I actually don't think you are a crazed racist (but I do think you have a peculiar chip on your shoulder about the issue, from this and past posts you've made). The fact that you can't seem to articulate much beyond, "Well, the telling of the MLK story just leaves kids with the impression that whites are portrayed in a completely negative light means it's problematic to tell it..." doesn't make you racist, but do know that many avowed racists raise similar concerns, and it might, at some point, be helpful to you refine your comments to make clearer distinctions between your views and theirs.

 

Your kids have apparently been exposed to poor teaching. Lots of parents of color and parents raising kids of color struggle with how poorly civil rights history and/or issues related to race are taught in schools - in that we have common cause (though it's clear we quickly diverge after that).  There's lots of good teaching about MLK and the Civil Rights movement to be had. My brown kids seem to have gotten it -- with a reasonable level of nuance given their ages -- and no confusion over their brown skin or whether their dad and beloved grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins who are white are "the good guys" or "the bad guys." 

Edited by Slojo
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin. And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast. The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later. Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks. And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled. But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

Every school history lesson can't and shouldn't include an apologist whitewashing of history. Do you want your kids to be taught a version of the civil rights movement which focuses on the times white people were nice to MLK and the assassination is a quiet asterisk at the end? I don't know what version of MLK's story your kids were taught to come home with what you described as the takeaway. I grew up in a very large, 98%+ black elementary school, and as a white person, I've never come across a version of the story that made me think anything along those lines.

 

The people in my area who have a problem with kids being taught about MLK Jr. (well did you know he cheated on his wife?!?!) and Black History Month (we don't have a White History month!) and the ones going through and taking out Bad Things White People Did from history books (like Japanese internment camps, though apparently that's back as reasonable) are racist. My state still closes down for Confederate Memorial Day in "exchange" for putting MLK Jr. day on the calendar. That's insanity. If you're in that group, then yes, I'm pretty comfortable calling you a racist. Otherwise, we are talking about two very different things, and I have no idea why you quoted me.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin. And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast. The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later. Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks. And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled. But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

My DD came home from school at the same age and asked "Mommy, did you know that Darrell and Faith are Black?" She knew that kids had different skin colors, but until that lesson, she had never thought anything more of it than of hair and eye colors-she knew Faith was pretty, had brown eyes, brown hair with lots of braids, and brown skin in the same way that she knew Ashley had blue eyes, yellow hair in a pony tail, and pink skin, and that she had brown hair in two pigtails, brown eyes, and beige skin (I remember her drawing a picture of her friends and explaining the colors she used). But she didn't classify people into white and black and see Ashley as different than Faith, and that she falls in the group with Ashley even though her hair and eyes are closer to Faith's.

 

I do think that sometimes schools, teachers, and parents really do a bad job of teaching Civil Rights and US history. I'm sure my DD's preschool teacher didn't mean to teach her class that people should be classified first by skin color, but that's what happened.

 

Another thought-I wonder if there's a particular curriculum used that is problematic. I know SKL's DD's go to an LCMS school, as did my DD at the time. Maybe there's some picture book or something that they were using for that lesson that really gets kids focused on skin color at that age?

Edited by dmmetler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DD came home from school at the same age and asked "Mommy, did you know that Darrell and Faith are Black?" She knew that kids had different skin colors, but until that lesson, she had never thought anything more of it than of hair and eye colors-she knew Faith was pretty, had brown eyes, brown hair with lots of braids, and brown skin in the same way that she knew Ashley had blue eyes, yellow hair in a pony tail, and pink skin, and that she had brown hair in two pigtails, brown eyes, and beige skin (I remember her drawing a picture of her friends and explaining the colors she used). But she didn't classify people into white and black and see Ashley as different than Faith, and that she falls in the group with Ashley even though her hair and eyes are closer to Faith's.

 

I do think that sometimes schools, teachers, and parents really do a bad job of teaching Civil Rights and US history. I'm sure my DD's preschool teacher didn't mean to teach her class that people should be classified first by skin color, but that's what happened.

 

Another thought-I wonder if there's a particular curriculum used that is problematic. I know SKL's DD's go to an LCMS school, as did my DD at the time. Maybe there's some picture book or something that they were using for that lesson that really gets kids focused on skin color at that age?

 

Was the lesson about skin color discussed in the context of Civil Rights history, or was it just a lesson about skin color? The reason I ask is because there is no particular reason why knowing the fact that Faith is "black" needed to have been anything other than another fact about Faith, just like her brown skin or her braids. But you seem to be conflating "bad job of teaching Civil Rights history" with this story about how your daughter came to find out that some people are called black and others are called white. I can certainly imagine ways in which this could have been poorly presented, but I guess I'm missing more details as to how your child (after years of being in your home) would have made the leap to "now we classify all people by skin color."

 

Being black is a sociological fact of my identity, but there is no reason why one necessarily needs to make the leap to that being the way to "classify me first," though in some situations it is the most salient part of my identity.  It was the most salient part of the identity of people in the Jim Crow era. So if your daughter took something away from that because they were talking about history, well, I'm not sure how to make sense of your take away without more information. 

 

The fact is that my mother couldn't drink from water fountains or use public restrooms as a kid because of her skin color (it wasn't because of her height) -- that's a factual part of history that you just can't get around.  The most salient part of identity of Native Americans as far as US policy toward indigenous people was their skin color (because, as people have mentioned, before that they may not have had much shared sense of identity). Race is socially constructed, but it's a powerful social construction (money is also a social construction, but if I owe you $1000 and say, hey, doesn't matter if I pay it back because money is socially constructed, let's see how that goes over on you). 

 

I don't understand what's motivating the "we shouldn't talk about these things" brigade. Is it just about the age of the kids or about not feeling like white people come out looking like "the good guys?" I can understand some parental desire to protect kids from some harsh realities/history and can certainly understand the challenge of figuring out what to tell kids about those harsh realities. No one's asking you to tell all the gory details to a 6 year old, but maybe just tell a story that builds on the truth rather than falsehoods, so that it doesn't seem like you lied and then had to take it back when they were older. In a world where plenty of 6 year olds have had to (and continue to) endure very difficult hardship and oppression, I'm not sure that never telling my children about those realities serves them well. There was a poster who said something about the little 6 year old girl who survived the shooting at Emmanuel AME Church: "If that six year old girl can survive what she did last night, my six year old can survive me telling about why that little girl matters." There's something to that. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DD came home from school at the same age and asked "Mommy, did you know that Darrell and Faith are Black?" She knew that kids had different skin colors, but until that lesson, she had never thought anything more of it than of hair and eye colors-she knew Faith was pretty, had brown eyes, brown hair with lots of braids, and brown skin in the same way that she knew Ashley had blue eyes, yellow hair in a pony tail, and pink skin, and that she had brown hair in two pigtails, brown eyes, and beige skin (I remember her drawing a picture of her friends and explaining the colors she used). But she didn't classify people into white and black and see Ashley as different than Faith, and that she falls in the group with Ashley even though her hair and eyes are closer to Faith's.

 

I do think that sometimes schools, teachers, and parents really do a bad job of teaching Civil Rights and US history. I'm sure my DD's preschool teacher didn't mean to teach her class that people should be classified first by skin color, but that's what happened.

 

Another thought-I wonder if there's a particular curriculum used that is problematic. I know SKL's DD's go to an LCMS school, as did my DD at the time. Maybe there's some picture book or something that they were using for that lesson that really gets kids focused on skin color at that age?

 

Just one thing to keep in mind - in general, children of color often don't have the option of ignoring the color of their skin. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DD came home from school at the same age and asked "Mommy, did you know that Darrell and Faith are Black?" She knew that kids had different skin colors, but until that lesson, she had never thought anything more of it than of hair and eye colors-she knew Faith was pretty, had brown eyes, brown hair with lots of braids, and brown skin in the same way that she knew Ashley had blue eyes, yellow hair in a pony tail, and pink skin, and that she had brown hair in two pigtails, brown eyes, and beige skin (I remember her drawing a picture of her friends and explaining the colors she used). But she didn't classify people into white and black and see Ashley as different than Faith, and that she falls in the group with Ashley even though her hair and eyes are closer to Faith's.

 

I do think that sometimes schools, teachers, and parents really do a bad job of teaching Civil Rights and US history. I'm sure my DD's preschool teacher didn't mean to teach her class that people should be classified first by skin color, but that's what happened.

 

Another thought-I wonder if there's a particular curriculum used that is problematic. I know SKL's DD's go to an LCMS school, as did my DD at the time. Maybe there's some picture book or something that they were using for that lesson that really gets kids focused on skin color at that age?

 

I don't know what LCSM is, but yes, that does sound like an painfully problematic way to teach the MLK story. PAINFULLY. 

 

My daughter came home from 1st talking about the MLK story quite a bit. She knew he was a hero. She knew he helped people come together to make the world a better place.  She was SHOCKED he was murdered.  Talking to her,  it was pretty clear that she understood the story, but, didn't associate it with the race of the people in her classroom. We are white. She didn't really get that her friend who is black is a different race than her friend who is from India.  They both have darker skin than her, that was about it.  We talked a little about it over time, mostly in the context of discussing history and geography.  2 years later, obviously she does understand much more.  But at K-1st, they only talk about skin color in the context of "people are different on the outside, we are the same inside, we're all kind to each other" and that sort of thing.

Edited by poppy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not part of the "we shouldn't talk about it"-but that day, my DD picked up that the label meant a way people were classified in context of MLK Jr. and the Civil rights movement, and that it meant that this class of people were somehow different in a bad way, so MLK and other people had to fight against it and a lot of bad things happened, and it was still going on, so we all have to be strong and stand up for these poor people who are being persecuted and even killed due to their skin color. She knew skin colors were differences, but she picked up from the story that it was a BAD difference that caused people to be mean, hate, and kill, not a "differences that make us all special and unique".

 

I'm sure it was intended to be very positive, but it didn't come out that way in my car on the way home, and I can see how Darrell and Faith might have picked up the lesson that SKL's kids did.

 

I would have thought that four years of prior exposure would have muted that lesson, but apparently coming from a teacher really a lot of weight at the time (having said that, my DD is now just shy of 11, and doesn't even remember it-so I think it had more long-term impact on me than on her). It did make me very, very conscious about how groups were being portrayed, and I axed several books in early Sonlight cores because they had the attitude of "Oh, we have to go help these poor benighted people" because often it did carry that attitude of superiority that I didn't want in my home. I don't know that I would have picked up on it as something that needed to be avoided had I not had to do damage control.

 

The scary thing is that at the time I had DD, I'd taught for years in urban schools. I'd read Lisa Delpit and Ruby Payne, and done hour after hour of in-service on racism and class consciousness and how to combat it and great materials to choose to do so and how to present it. I should have been an EXPERT at this subject.  All it took was one poor lesson which probably lasted less than 15 minutes to blow that view out of the water! 

 

I don't know what kids take away from the paper headbands, etc (my DD's class made pumpkin bread to contribute to a school Thanksgiving lunch)-but it is definitely the case that kids can take away lessons I'm sure the adults never intended, and if you're a teacher, you need to be very, very conscious of that fact.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to take a stance against offensive holidays is to not celebrate them. End the tradition with your family and go to work. It'll have a ripple effect through your family and many of your friends and make a bigger real life difference than Internet outrage and cutting and pasting links.

 

On the flip side, there are no holidays that aren't offensive. To celebrate ANYTHING means you must defend your reasons for doing so. It's just the way things are now. We all know by now that there's something oppressive about every celebration. You have to choose to focus only on the good parts of the holiday, be comfortable with your own hipocracy, or opt out and hope enough people do so that the tradition dies out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to take a stance against offensive holidays is to not celebrate them. End the tradition with your family and go to work. It'll have a ripple effect through your family and many of your friends and make a bigger real life difference than Internet outrage and cutting and pasting links.

 

On the flip side, there are no holidays that aren't offensive. To celebrate ANYTHING means you must defend your reasons for doing so. It's just the way things are now. We all know by now that there's something oppressive about every celebration. You have to choose to focus only on the good parts of the holiday, be comfortable with your own hipocracy, or opt out and hope enough people do so that the tradition dies out.

 

I am not sure what your point is as I don't believe anyone ITT has said no one should celebrate Thanksgiving.  Our family does and we have found it quite easy to do so without ever focusing on the Pilgrims and Native Americans.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...many wise things, in several posts...

 

Thank you, Slojo, for your voice of wisdom and experience in this thread.  

 

 

But it's not nearly as much fun for the kids. :)

 

Which kids?  

 

When kids (and adults) hear stories (fictional, news items, etc.), they often identify with one of the characters or groups in the story, and that informs how they react to the story, and what messages they take away from it.  How strongly they identify - that is, whether they come away with "that could have been me" - also affects the take-away.  

 

When, for example, you give a Holocaust story to a (white, Christian, American-for-generations) sixth grader, they might read it as a story from long ago and far away that doesn't have much specific relevance to their own life.  But if you give the same story to a Jewish child, the story could have a much more personal impact - it could be a very, very scary story to that child, because they are more likely to closely identify with the characters, in a "that could have been ME" kind of way.  A Jewish mom with kids in my local elementary school shared with me her experience of how such a story, used in her daughter's class, was a very negative experience for her child.  And yet, because her family was one of only a handful of families in the school, she didn't want to make waves by bringing it up to the teacher; a reasonable choice, but one that allowed the teacher to continue to be oblivious to the harm she had done and was continuing to do by not fully understanding the impact such a story could have on a child who, way more deeply than the other students, identified with the Jewish characters.

 

 

Great.  I care, because I am a white mom raising brown kids, and the MLK lesson in KG made them feel like their brown skin entitled them to be viewed as less-than by anyone with lighter skin.  And also to view darker people as below them.

 

I brought it up because of the contrast.  The Thanksgiving lesson portrays both races in a positive light and a spirit of cooperation, but it's shameful because the costumes aren't accurate, and because it doesn't say enough about how rotten white people were later.  Meanwhile the MLK lesson portrays whites in a completely negative light (I'm talking KG level here) and has pretty much nothing positive to say about anyone other than MLK and Rosa Parks.  And it talks about a "dream" that hasn't been fulfilled.  But if I don't like the MLK lesson it's because I'm a crazed racist.

 

If the MLK lesson at your children's school was lacking, that's a good opportunity to bring it up with the school, and work with them to create awareness among the teaching staff so that they can choose curricula with a critical eye.  There is a lot out there to choose from, and a lot of thoughtful material written by and for educators around these topics.  Since your kids will presumably be in this school system for many years to come, and they are getting the bulk of their education through this system, this work would be well worth your time.  And, it would be an opportunity for you and your children together, as they grow older, to sort through the various approaches and opinions you find with an open mind, listening to the voices of a wide variety of people of color, thinking about which voices ring true to each of you, which make you uncomfortable, which are not getting the facts right, and so on.  It is a complex area, and there is not one right answer, but the very act of seeking answers is incredibly valuable.

 

...Allies and, gosh, just plain decent people of other backgrounds have listened to those voices and said, "Goodness. I guess I can understand that. I have no stake in the continuance of these rituals in schools, and can see how someone might find it offensive... There are other ways to celebrate Thanksgiving, and certainly other ways to honor NAs..." That's what education is for, we widen our circles of understanding and, sometimes, come to adjust our positions and stances, even on much beloved traditions. It's okay -- we may replace them with new ones - ones that do a better job of aiding our understanding while also not being hurtful or harmful, in big ways or small, to others. They used to do slavery pageants, too, in some schools. People learned better, and now they do better.

 

 This, a thousand times this.

 

One more thoughts - these conversations often use the word "offended" to describe the impact on people who are members of the affected minority group. But I think that's the wrong word. Being "offended" is an emotional reaction. It's easy to decide that "being offended" is an over-reaction, and that we should not have to go out of our way to avoid offending people who are over-sensitive.  But often these scenarios cause actual harm. If "offence" is the problem, then it's easy to say, "Well, we have no NA/Black/Brown/Non-Christian/Immigrant people in this group (or only a handful), so people should just get over it and not get offended - it's not that big of a deal." But if the way we tell and experience these stories has a lasting affect on the internal image non-minority students build of people in minority groups, and on the internal image minority students build of themselves (which is in part why we tell these stories in the first place) then it's easy to see that the way we tell the stories has the potential for harmful outcomes, and that we should listen to voices that are thoughtfully telling us about this harm, so that we can do our best to avoid it.

 

Three anecdotes - 1) I talked to a preschool child after their first lesson on "Indians".  They were able to articulate a number of positive things about Indians, but had somehow missed the key fact that Indians were people; instead constructing their mental image around more of an animal-like base.  Strange, and a single data point, but interesting nonetheless.  2) A homeschooled child showed me their lesson on Squanto, from a popular Christian textbook.  (I don't remember which one, perhaps an older edition of ABeka or BJU.)  The child's clear take-away was of Indians as "savages", who were very much "lesser than" the settlers. In addition, Squanto's kidnapping was portrayed as a positive thing (because then he could speak English with the settlers), with no mention of the idea that being kidnapped might have been a negative experience for Squanto himself.  3) A child dressed for the first grade Indians/Pilgrims event as a Pilgrim, with an attempt towards historical accuracy rather than the usual black hat/shoe buckles approach.  (Felted wool jacket with gold buttons over cotton button-up shirt with frilly cuffs, breeches to just below the knee, knee socks, black leather shoes.)  The teacher's surprised and somewhat confused reaction:  "He looks just like a real boy!" 

 

I am a big fan of dress-up.  But I'm also a big fan of listening to voices different from my own, and trying to see things through their eyes.  It is, I feel, an essential part of my continuing education.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's totally not OK anymore. 

 

Our preschool does it every year for their Thanksgiving potluck--construction paper crowns with cut-out glued-on shapes and colored feathers--and every year I squeal, "Oooh! Look! Adorable multicultural turkeys!!" because I can't deal.

 

Both my high school and college were schools that had former Native American mascots and it was a great choice in both cases. College was the Indians until 1972 and is now a color, high school was Warriors until 1996ish and is now the Wildcats.

 

In both cases, leaving the racist, dehumanizing past in the past was the correct and best choice.

 

Possibly relevant video from Buzzfeed, Native Americans Try On "Indian" Halloween Costumes:

 

Edited by kubiac
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to take a stance against offensive holidays is to not celebrate them. End the tradition with your family and go to work. It'll have a ripple effect through your family and many of your friends and make a bigger real life difference than Internet outrage and cutting and pasting links.

 

On the flip side, there are no holidays that aren't offensive. To celebrate ANYTHING means you must defend your reasons for doing so. It's just the way things are now. We all know by now that there's something oppressive about every celebration. You have to choose to focus only on the good parts of the holiday, be comfortable with your own hipocracy, or opt out and hope enough people do so that the tradition dies out.

 

What baloney.  There are options that are not (1) choose to ignore uncomfortable things  (2)   accepting kids in wearing "Indian" outfits while hating yourself and  (3) protesting the existence of the holiday.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar - usually a play put on as a tribute to the antebellum south. Basically a "heritage" play or presentation. There were tributes to mammy. There are accounts of people who as children were in such plays or presentations in schools or churches. Not everywhere, but, yes, they existed. My grandmother's day and earlier. I remember reading a few years back about a black woman recounting a story of when she was a little girl and was taken by the lady of the house her mother worked in to a picnic.The event was billed as "the woman just wanting to be nice to her daughter ("she can play with my daughter, and we'll make sure she has something to eat" kind of thing). The "picnic" included such a presentation, and the black daughter was put in a potato sack dress and placed on a wagon, presumably to represent a slave child. For obvious reasons, such events fell out of favor. But, these events surely happened under the guise of "teaching or remembering history." 

 

 

And you should care about the messages your children are receiving. But another strategy would be to seek out the wide range of resources that are available to you that do a much better job of telling the MLK story, because it really is a pretty important story in the arc of US history. My issue with your raising this as an example is that you don't go on to tell us what you've done counter that message, you just keep harping on "how offended you could decide to get" about any telling of the MLK story as if other resources and approaches aren't available to you. In other words, when it comes to education dealing with the complex and difficult portion of our collective history, your consistent response is "there's nothing good that can come of that" and then making some overly sweeping critique of even approaching the topic. Your kids are in 4th grade, and this experience happened in K -- that's plenty of time to have exposed them to a wider range of Civil Rights era stories. There are many who could suggest resources to you, but I imagine you are not interested. 

 

So, no, I actually don't think you are a crazed racist (but I do think you have a peculiar chip on your shoulder about the issue, from this and past posts you've made). The fact that you can't seem to articulate much beyond, "Well, the telling of the MLK story just leaves kids with the impression that whites are portrayed in a completely negative light means it's problematic to tell it..." doesn't make you racist, but do know that many avowed racists raise similar concerns, and it might, at some point, be helpful to you refine your comments to make clearer distinctions between your views and theirs.

 

Your kids have apparently been exposed to poor teaching. Lots of parents of color and parents raising kids of color struggle with how poorly civil rights history and/or issues related to race are taught in schools - in that we have common cause (though it's clear we quickly diverge after that).  There's lots of good teaching about MLK and the Civil Rights movement to be had. My brown kids seem to have gotten it -- with a reasonable level of nuance given their ages -- and no confusion over their brown skin or whether their dad and beloved grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins who are white are "the good guys" or "the bad guys." 

 

Well of course I have done a great deal to counter the poor school teaching and to provide a better explanation of things over the years.  As I said, my point in bring up the MLK lesson is to contrast public sentiment of the usual MLK lesson and the usual Thanksgiving lesson.  Except maybe for people who have made it their life work to point out things that should offend NA people, the MLK lesson has more in it to offend both black people and white people, and yet saying so gets me called a crazed racist.  Well no wonder nobody else dares to be offended by the early MLK lesson.  We'd better leave it alone even if it is damaging children of all colors and perpetuating division.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wearing blackface has always been a way to lampoon and ridicule black people. Children dressing for Thanksgiving have aways done so as a way of honoring American Indians. Not remotely similar circumstances.

 

Bill

 

Please allow me to introduce Zwarte Piet, the blackface-wearing companion to Sinterklaas, who is considered an essential part of the Dutch celebration of Christmas. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet

 

To me, as an American looking in from the outside, Zwarte Piet is the perfect visual representation of colonialism, ignorance and systemic racism. To a 60-year-old Dutchman, Zwarte Piet may be a symbol of warm holiday memories, familial love and national tradition. 

 

I would argue that Thanksgiving Indian-and-Pilgrim dress-up parades and Zwarte Piet are interchangable. Both are manufactured cultural products of a less enlightened age, both of which should be shed immediately.

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

Every school history lesson can't and shouldn't include an apologist whitewashing of history. Do you want your kids to be taught a version of the civil rights movement which focuses on the times white people were nice to MLK and the assassination is a quiet asterisk at the end? I don't know what version of MLK's story your kids were taught to come home with what you described as the takeaway. I grew up in a very large, 98%+ black elementary school, and as a white person, I've never come across a version of the story that made me think anything along those lines.

 

The people in my area who have a problem with kids being taught about MLK Jr. (well did you know he cheated on his wife?!?!) and Black History Month (we don't have a White History month!) and the ones going through and taking out Bad Things White People Did from history books (like Japanese internment camps, though apparently that's back as reasonable) are racist. My state still closes down for Confederate Memorial Day in "exchange" for putting MLK Jr. day on the calendar. That's insanity. If you're in that group, then yes, I'm pretty comfortable calling you a racist. Otherwise, we are talking about two very different things, and I have no idea why you quoted me.

 

Really?  I quoted you because you called me a crazed racist and said I shouldn't care about the message my kids hear about racial division in school.

 

FYI racial relations where I live are obviously very different from where you live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought-I wonder if there's a particular curriculum used that is problematic. I know SKL's DD's go to an LCMS school, as did my DD at the time. Maybe there's some picture book or something that they were using for that lesson that really gets kids focused on skin color at that age?

 

Just to clarify, my kids were in a public charter school (not religious) when they were in KG and received that particular lesson.

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...