From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:06:55 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>Note: please redirect all followups to: alt.politics.homosexuality

>glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>> So Heather, in first grade, deserves to be subjected
>> to teasing and pain by other children because of the
>> fact of her parents being of the same gender?  

>Greg, did you read what I wrote?  I've been saying that what 
>should be taught is that *all* people should be respected for
>who they are, *period*.  From this you derive that I think kids
>of gay parent-households should be teased?  

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.

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
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.

Another unfortunate thing about how blacks were portrayed in the media
is that since they were never shown in normal situations, it was hard
for the public to imagine them as normal people. Blacks were so unusual
in the media that people expected them to be remarkable in real life.

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 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.

>There's something that doesn't fit here, either.  From "Heather 
>has 2 mommies" kids aren't supposed to pick up on any sexual/gay
>overtones, just that heather has 2 mommies that love each other
>and her? Yet, these same kids are supposed to be able to tell that  
>the child in question has gay parents, and know to tease them
>for that? I can see this from older kids.   

No. This kid has 2 parents of the same sex. Billy, the kid they sit next
to in art class, has 2 parents of the same sex. That's all the further
the book expects the children to go, and that's all the further they
should have to. The book isn't asking them to deal with all the trappings
that society puts in with being queer (being bogeymanized, being stigma-
tised, even having a label for the family arrangement), it's just getting
them to see that the family arrangement exists. That's not that hard,
even though society does its best to make it so.

>> Or she
>> is to learn what gays and lesbians learn - to hide,
>> to be ashamed or embarrassed.

>She is to learn that *all* people are vaulable and should be 
>respected, even if you disagree with/dislike things that they 
>do.  And her classmates should learn the same.  

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.

>> Do you think it's the place of the schools to teach that
>> children live in many different types of homes, some religious,
>> some not, some with one parent, some with two, some same-sex
>> parents, some not?  

>And some with a dog and some without, some in the poor end of town, 
>some in the rich?  Some with mixed-race parents, some without?  Some 
>with new clothes, some with old?  Some with tall parents, some short?  
>No, I don't.  They should teach that *all* people are vaulable and 
>should be respected, even if they are different from you.  Covers 
>all the bases, without setting anyone off, or needing to specifically
>categorize people into little frames.  

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.

>> Do you object to children being taught about Jews and 
>> religious intolerance, even if some of the parents
>> may be holocaust revisionists?  

>I think this might go over the head of 1st graders a bit.  Sounds like 
>a subject for a later history or sociology class. 

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.

>> 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.  

That's just not true. If the child has never seen a black person before,
has never been aware that black people exist, and suddenly sees a real-
live Negro for the very first time, it's going to be an experience. And
if the experience is related to a negative opinion about blacks (if the
child sees the black person in a position of subservience, and hears
people muttering things about 'niggers' directed towards the person),
then the child will be well on its way to being prejudiced towards the
race.

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.

--
thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Kiss me, I'm an aphrodisiac!

		...and may all your Yuletides be trite.
Newsgroups: soc.motss