http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/first-the-bad-news/?ref=opinion
This OP-ED is written by a mother who is concerned about the effect of the world's events on her young daughter. She believes that by not informing her daughter about events such as 9/11 and the Holocaust, her daughter will believe the world to be a better place, and be a better because of it. When her daughter asks about such events, the mother either ignores her, or blatantly lies to her. She believes this is good parenting.
The mother continues to blame schools for teaching about the Holocaust, as well as the wars, and other past events that are infortunately in our history. She says she tries to correct what the schools teach her daughter at home, but she is afraid that in this world, her daughter will never have only pure thoughts.
In my opinion, I think this mother is ludicrous. The only way to change or overpower the evil in this world is through knowledge. To learn about sad, and horrible events may be scarring, but it is the truth, and every person should be aware of what is happening, and be taught that even though it was wrong, it happened. This girl may never know that anything bad happens in life, and she will be completely oblivious to the world around her. This kind of igonorance is what causes discrimination, and hate, that powers the wars, and violence in this world.
12/9/08
Tuesday, December 9, 2008Posted by Cristin at 7:40 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I'm wondering Kristin if maybe there is some merit to what she is doing. Yes, I think she's crazy but what if we all brought up our children never to know evil? Would it improve the world? Also, I just read the article and I kind of disagree with your interpretation. I feel that the mother was not averse to telling her daughter the truth, but she felt conflicted about telling her daughter such things. And her daughter seems to be honing in on it. It's just a parental thing. I have a little brother and I didn't want to tell him about slavery or racism (for those who don't know me, I'm African American) because I didn't want to burden him with that knowledge. However, I do think it would have been better for the mother to just tell her and get it over with. And also tell her about human triumph, etc. This is random, but I didn't like the way the article was written. Blog articles annoy me.
I agree, I think this mother is doing more harm than good by sheltering her daughter. By sheltering her daughter she isn't letting her have her own opinions or even thoughts about different issues. I thing everyone needs to learn from mistakes of past events.
-Devon
I had the same reaction when I read the OP-ED. I think the author is conflicted. She has trouble coming to terms with these events herself, and thus doesn't want to expose her child to them. She wants to protect her daughter, yet realizes she can't hide everything from her daughter. It seems to me that she is having trouble striking that balance. Part of the problem is that as the author writes, her daughter "always observes the worst" is focused on, (perhaps even obsessed with)life's negative events. I have a cousin with a similar problem. He needs to understand what happened to ease his nerves, but at the same time, too much information might concern him more. I believe this is what the author worries about. Whenever she answers her daughters questions, she walks a thin line between calming her daughter with understanding, or making her panic more. I think the piece is relatable. Children do tend to worry about situations they hear on the news and their parents ultimately must decide how much information is too much information. Warner, though more concerned than most parents, has some valid points.
I will preface this response with the fact that my wife and I are expecting our first child, and to some degree, this alters my perspective of the topic. Now that that is out in the open, I have to admit, Warner is not wrong in wanting to shield her daughter from the world, if not only for a little while.
Now the naysayers will argue that it is naïve for Warner to think she can shield her child from the horrors of the world. But should she not try? Futile as it seems, it is an inevitable reality that eventually the pristine mind-set of a child will sooner or later fall prey to the realities of the modern world. She will undoubtedly experience lose, pain (both physically and mentally) and both sympathy and empathy for those less fortunate than her. Nevertheless, why rush the inevitable?
I don’t think Warner is being “ludicrous” or stripping her daughter of her “own opinions”. Instead, she is trying to offer her the opportunity to be a child for as long as she can, and dream without the toxins of a complicated world choking her as she sleeps.
Little Emile’s inquisitive nature will expose her to more than we will ever know, both good and bad. But like her mom, I too would be concerned as to the ramifications of a constant stream of negative information. Warren’s blight is not with the media or the teachers who talk about the atrocities of the past; it is with a world that sensationalizes the worst of what a human being is capable of, and ignores the beauty of what the human can achieve.
Post a Comment