From: reykja@col.hp.com (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 14 Dec 1992 05:11:43 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchub.cs.itc.hp.com

thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> 
> But if you obliterate the fact that a certain type of person exists
> in your portrayal of 'all people' as respectable, then that's as good
> as saying they're not respectable.

The main point here is to initially build a foundation. Children tend
to think in absolutes/either-or/black-white. It is not really productiv
to give them *so* much information that they just become confused. 

Remember the mugwumps? You know, those dirty birds who sit on the 
fence and never get off? No one is supporting that position. I think
Walter is just saying that the fundamental belief must be imparted
that *all* people are to be respected and valued. We can then build
from that foundation. 

Bringing too much detail into the equation would just be overwhelming
for a child. And where do we draw the line? Into how many boxes do we
put ourselves -- and how necessary are all the labels? 



> 
> Consider black people. It used to be that the only representation
> they had in media were negative. Other than that, everyone in the
> media was white. There were no black representations, which made

Not much has changed, has it? 

> the few representations that existed all the more influential in
> the formation of opinions of what black people are. So those few
> images of blacks as stupid and lazy and subservient went a long
> way towards cementing in the public's mind that black people were
> bad, especially since there were no portrayals of them as otherwise.
> 
The Blacks who are currently portrayed in a positive light are generally
those who have either sold out to the Establishment or those who are
willing to imitate White values. 

I would still say that nothing has changed because nothing of *substance*
has changed. 


> If you teach that all people are good, but include only European Americans
> in your definition of 'all people', then children are going to have
> big problems dealing with the fact that 'all people' includes all races.

If you are talking strictly of social engineering, then the portrayal 
would still have to be a general one. In advertising, TV shows, movies
and so on (the stalwarts of American culture), the best thing we can
do is to form a "rainbow coalition" of people and portray them regularly 
and consistently. 

And how do we define the various types of people? Therein lies another
dilemma. How does one show an individual to be gay or lesbian without
using tired stereotypes -- such as the "dyke" or the effeminate male? 


> If you limit your portrayal of 'all families' to a mommy, a daddy, 2
> kids and a dog, kids are going to have problems dealing with the fact
> that families like that are in the minority in real life.
> 
I must give a rousing AMEN!!! to that! Having come from a dysfunctional
family (which is a misnomer in itself given that most families are
not functional), I know that I spent a lot of time trying to create
an unrealistic ideal. 


> 
> Yes. And how are they supposed to do that if they have no exposure to
> certain types of families? 'All people' doesn't count if it's exclusive.
> 
I am not sure how you get the impression that 'all' is exclusive. ??


> Did that happen when all the children's books featured white-only casts?
> No. It qualified 'all people' to mean white families with both parents.
> You need to give the child exposure to all walks of life, so that he or
> she can be prepared for the world. It's that simple.
> 
So we are back to social engineering. 

> But should the child be exposed to the basics of Jewish culture?
> Hannukah as opposed to Xmas, things like that? We aren't talking getting
> the children to write dissertations about discrimination, we're talking
> about exposing the child to basic ideas about human existance.
> 
Exactly. That helps to build the foundation for acceptance of all types
of people. A good part of that is understanding. So the issue becomes
again of how to present the idea in a simple, understandable fashion. I
still don't find it necessary to go into a lot of detail with children
that small. I don't think homosexuality needs to be discussed in detail
any more than heterosexuality needs to be discussed in such elementary
grades. 


> >> Do you object to children
> >> being taught that black people are not inferior, even
> >> if some of the parents are racists and supremicists?
> 
> >If you teach that *all* people are vaulable and should be respected,
> >you leave no room for such an attitude.  
> 
Yes. With detail geared to the age group. If a child wants to know about
a particular group of people or culture, s/he should be free to ask the
teacher. 

And the teacher should be free to answer -- with the caveat that it 
is his/her opinion. 



> We don't want the child to be exposed to everything at once. An
> acknowledgement of 'all people''s existance is good enough for me.
> 

With more detail as requested. There are so many children who don't 
feel free to ask their parents things and that is no excuse for 
keeping someone in ignorance. In my home environment, there were
things that *were not* discussed and I would have liked to have had
some resource. The school seems just as viable a resource as any 
other. 


Newsgroups: soc.motss