|
Subject: They were only children. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 99 - 09:06 AM This song was written for the 50th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, for Ester Brunstein and others who bravely returned there for that event and for the many others who did not.
They Were Only Children
Through the frosty window, candles on the track,
Are we not one family, on an island of stone?
Why are they returning, old women and old men?
Are we not one family, on an island of stone?
The place is in colour, surprised by the light,
She's lost her family, lost her home,
The lessons are for learning, we don't seem to learn?
THEY....... WERE ONLY CHILDREN.
They.......... were only children. ROGER GALL 1994 The survivors of the Holocaust, who were still alive in 1994, were only children in 1944. I chose the phrase, they were only children, very carefully, as this phrase seemed to sum up our ambivalence to children. For it has two, quite opposite meanings. The first one is our compassion when we realise that it was children that had to endure these horrors and endure them still in 1999. As in "poor things they were only CHILDREN". The second is the one that enable us to abuse and inflict pain and suffering on them and deny them the same consideration and rights, as we would adults, because they are ONLY children. It would seem a good time to discuss our attitude toward the children of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: katlaughing Date: 26 Apr 99 - 10:09 AM Dear Shambles, I love your writings. They are so eloquent and profound. Have you ever published a collection? Thank you for sharing them with us. Point well taken with the emphasis on certain words. Rick was telling me last night, one of his students pointed out that children today,(sorry, Rick, for beating you to the telling this, hope you don't mind!) are global from the minute they are born, in that they are so aware of the entire world and what is going on in it. She asked him to compare what he knew at 5yrs to what 5 yr olds today know. I personally do not think children are allowed to just be kids these days. I think their systems get overloaded with too much information, a lot of it adult info which even adults have a hard time processing. Life is too fast, too harried, too frantic, too full of negative and "fluff" which does nothing to uplift and inspire the little souls entrusted to our care. I have friends whose kids are so busy and structured in their lives, young kids, that I doubt they would know what to do with themselves if not presented with entertainment and activity of some sort all of the time. We had to learn to be creative with boredom. When my kids complained about being bored, they were given suggestions of creative things they could do to alleviate the boredom or just to sit or lie quietly and do nothing except clear their minds and relax. A couple of years ago I held a mini-retreat for myself at home. I sent a note to all of my friends and family that I would be incommunicado for at least 3 days, preferably a week. I turned off the tv, radio, newspaper, phone. Every hour, during the day, I would sit or lie down for a at least five minutes and become still, empty my mind ; let it go blank. This was very hard to do at first. My mind wanted to run around in circles thinking of a dozen different things that needed doing, all of which really could wait. The idea of this was to allow my mind/body/spirit/soul to align themselves without interference and help to heal my physical and mental self. This is not as easy as it may sound, but I do believe it is something everyone can benefit from whether they do it in a spiritual manner or practical. Most people in our busy world do not know how to sit still and *go into the quiet*. I believe children would benefit greatly from more quietude, reflection time, boredom with constructive suggestions, etc. Our society, esp in america, seems to think everyone has to be busy, whether it is of a positive and beneficial nature or not, no matter what. It's as though everyone is afraid of confronting themselves by NOT filling their lives with so much. Unity School of Christianity in Lee's Summit, MO is a very meatphysically based org. of churches all over the world. They used to sell a great childrens' book on meditation. I think the name is "Meditation for Little People", but not sure. The drawings in it are by the author's child. Children are encouraged to draw their own pics in it. It is a simple and very effective book for teaching children some of what I am talking about and I believe all of my kids really benefited from it. I highly recommend it. Thank you for starting this thread, I look forward to everyone's postings. katlaughing |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: AllisonA(Animaterra) Date: 26 Apr 99 - 10:32 AM Thanks again Kat and Shambles for your deep, thought-provoking words. Kat, I couldn't agree with you more that vast swathes of time alone with materials for creativity are the best for kids. We made a choice to live where we do because of the woods next door- 600 acres of relatively private wandering ground.They spend hours there; I think they're growing into pretty wonderful people. I call it "benign neglect" - they are given the opportunity to get to know themselves as their own best friends. By contrast when they have friends over or go to their homes, it's hurry scurry - they usually head straight to their rooms when it's over to recover awhile! Allison |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: danl Date: 26 Apr 99 - 11:17 AM this is a very intresting subject and one i would like to add to, perhaps becuase i am able to give a 'teenagers' point of veiw. being a young adult in this world is from all that ive seen very very different from any other generation for a number of reasons. the first is that so much is expected of us. i am doing 'A' levels at the moment in a school in england and oftern find i can go from sunday afternoon straight though to about midday saturday without ever stopping to have a moment when i am not either in lessons, doing work for lessons, or worrying about which univercity to apply for /my grades being good enough/ what career im aiming for... the list goes on. my school makes us work saturday mornings so my weekends are very precious and i oftern find i have to force myself to go away and Not think about work simply so that i dont wear myself out compleatly. my case is not a unique one. all my friends are the same, students in other schools over the country are the same and no doubt all over the world. the pressure starts as soon as we enter senior school to start WORRYING. no wonder so many teenagers suffer from stress related illnesses, eating disorders and low self esteem. i have friends doing phd s who say i work longer hours than them! if our childhood cant be a little free of fear and stress, what hope have we for the rest of our life. there was a phrase going round which said 'if theses are the best days of your life, im giving up now'. unfortunatly with all the competion nowadays it is nessersary for children to start working this hard as soon as they enter their senior schools, simply to keep up and try for a future. but with all this attention being paid to grades and standards, is anyone worrying about the EDUCATING rather than the QUALIFYING of these generations? given the choice, would you ever want to be a child in this day and age? would you swap places with your kids? children may be growing up too quickly but as far as they are concerned they are growing up to escape the pressures of institions, endless expectations and other people making desions for them while still expecting them to work harded than they may have to for the rest of their lives. i'll stop ranting on now. i do know that there is another side to the story and my generation have it very easy compared to many that have gone before. but those of you who have kids and cant understand why they dont do the stuff that you used to do, its because they have no time to. they probably wouldnt be able to just sit down and relax because its not a thing they are used to being allowed to do. this may all be a little long and rambling but i hope you get the point! so little time, so much to do. ivy b. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: hank Date: 26 Apr 99 - 11:53 AM I see your point Ivy. In engineering the best people are the ones who continously goof off, and never (almost) work more then 40 hours a week. Those who attack a problem on sight waste a lot of time with no idea what they are doing. The goof offs get done much faster because instead of doing it they consider the solution for a while, and then make it work quickly. Assembly line workers get twice as much done when they work twice as many hours. Brains accomplish less when they work too many hours! You need to learn two things byond sixth grade: how to learn something you need to know, and how to deal with people. The latter is more important, and it cannot be taught in a lecture setting. (Most important is people who don't agree with you, as we all painfully learned last week) Before sixeth grade you need the old three Rs. (reading writing arithmatic) After that, there is no way you can learn it all, so you need to learn to figgure out what you need and how to find it out. This is a major departure from education as it exists today. I'm not sure what our two posts have to do with the orginal thread though. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 99 - 01:56 PM Hank and dear Ivy B. Your points have everthing to do with the original question and Ivy's in particular made the tears start in my eyes. The point about education and qualifiying is exactly right and my thoughts are with you and all those in your position. Thanks for sharing them with us. Whatever qualification you do or not obtain, you will hopefully have a long and happy life, it is to our shame that we make you believe at this tender age that life is only, such a desperate contest, with no alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Peter T. Date: 26 Apr 99 - 03:42 PM Dear Ivy, Children have had it physically much harder than you have (than I had), but psychologically you are paying a terrible price for the "advances" in education and psychology that have drifted into the general mindset. It is very much like the environment (I am an environmentalist). Nature represents something that has either got to be developed as soon as possible, or protected in its wild innocence, which makes it an attractive dump site for dreams. You too are a project site: either you have to be developed as quickly as possible or you will fall behind, or (alternatively) you are a pristine innocent space that people can dump all their own hopes and frustrations into. Most previous societies just ignored children for the most part, or got them to help around the hunt or the farm until they turned into adults. It is not clear that that was a worse system than this panic-stricken developmentalist model. I will only say that all the people I have most admired in my life were total failures as children, and almost as bad as teenagers. All that you will get by following the rules is the life you see reflected in the myriad happy faces you see lining the subway cars, the strong songs they sing in improvised camaraderie as they come home from a fulfilling day, and the constant laughter spilling into the streets from spontaneous revelry. You can see it everywhere around you -- that widespread sense of self-possession and dignity borne by that vast segment of the population who have seen the need for courage and followed it where it led. William Blake celebrated the wonders of relentless rule-following in his poem, London. You might check it out before you decide to give up that trip to Greece before going off to university (wouldn't want to get a year behind, now would we?), or you choose a career in pharmacy. (Apologies to all visionary pharmacists). Yours, Peter T.
|
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: danl Date: 27 Apr 99 - 12:51 PM dear hank shambles and peter, thank you for your very touching replies. i didnt know what kind of response to expect from my message but your support has been inspiring. i can only hope that once i do 'get beyond sixth form' and into the big wide world i will be able to look back at my 'education' and be able to say it has taught me something, if only perserveance. thank you all. love ivy b. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 99 - 05:28 PM Peter T said. "Most previous societies just ignored children for the most part, or got them to help around the hunt or the farm until they turned into adults. It is not clear that that was a worse system than this panic-stricken developmentalist model." I always get shot down by my 'better half' for not coming up with alternatives to our present system. It strikes me that the difference between the present system and the model above, is that at least the children were there, learning what they needed to become part of that society. Not excluded from it and by necessity, forming sub-cultures of their own. Would it not be better to concentrate all our efforts on basic numeracy and literacy, the key to knowledge and let them enter society earlier? Rather than obtaining 'worthless' general qualifications, required seemingly, before they can enter society and wasting all that precious time to obtain them (or not)? They could then return to undertake any specific vocational qualifications they needed, if or when they decided what direction they wanted to go in. The main thing that children want, is to belong and contribute to our society, it seems that we want to deny them, that for as long as we can?... What are we so frightened of? I think were should be very careful what and how we teach our children in the institutions we place them in and accept the limitations of those institutions. No matter how well intentioned, they cannot be loved there, can they? |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: The Shambles Date: 21 Dec 99 - 03:33 AM I found this one whilst digging up some old songs and I thought there may some more people who would like to contribute to this? |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Dec 99 - 04:33 AM You've made me cry. Thanks, Roger. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: GeorgeH Date: 21 Dec 99 - 06:34 AM Ivy, thanks for an inspirational post. And - whatever you may feel - the powers of analysis (of your own situation, probably the hardest thing to analyse), clarity of thought and expression, and courage in speaking out, quietly but firmly, in a context where you were uncertain of the reaction you would receive, indicate how much you can contribute to this grossly unfair and imperfect world we share. Far more than any educational qualifications ever can. A spot of confessing a vested interest here. I taught, in secondary schools, for 18 years. 14 of them in the state system, where the approach I believed in - that of seeking to develop the whole individual, with formal "qualifications" being just one aspect of the education we sought to deliver - coming under increasing attack from politicians, the media and - under their encouragement - "society" and parents. And then 4 years in an independent school (and no, I don't approve of independent education, as I admitted in my interview for that job - but I did need a job!!) where parents were paying large sums of money for exactly that approach to education which was being denigrated elsewhere. (And the joy of suddenly finding oneself treated as a professional who actually had some idea about how best to educate children . . ) That was about 8.5 years ago. Education in the UK has got steadily worse since then. Forget the nonsensical comparisons of results - the goalposts have been moved, the pitch resized and the rules changed so often that the comparisons are meaningless. And wheras at one time most children enjoyed much if not most of their school careers, these days - almost from entering school, at an ever-earlier age, the best they can hope for is that the experience will be tollerable. (But don't blame the teachers; by and large those who have had the misfortune to be doing the job through this period of change - instigated largely against what evidence existed and without any genuine research or monitoring - are no happier about the changes than are their victims.) But (to get to the point; see, Ivy, I can easily out-rable you!). I HATE the idea of children and childhood; the division beteen the knowing, powerful adult "us" and the supposedly ignorant (or "misguided") and powerless "them". AND the pressure for "them" to achieve the badges of conformity which allow them to become one of "us". Any good teacher will recognise their continuing ability to learn from their pupils. Any decent adult will recognise the example they can draw from the moral clear-sightedness and unselfishness which is often evidenced by "children". This is hardly original, but my "philosophy" is that the moment we're born we start on both a journey and an exploration. And our responsibility to one another (including of parents to their children) is to offer what we can from our own experiences to those who may be helped by that experience in some area of their own exploration, or at some point in their journey. (And to accept similar help from others, regardless of their age.) And yes, I do reckon that's worked pretty well with our kids. George |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Ringer Date: 21 Dec 99 - 09:39 AM But, GeorgeH, the trouble with kids (I was one once, I have three now) is that they are so lacking in experience that they don't know that they're lacking in experience. So adults (parents, teachers) have to pass on their experience and frequently must enforce rules (encapsulated experience) with sanctions. You can't say there should be no divide between kids and adults; the division may be a continuum, but it's there. There is a modern trend, which I deplore, to let kids decide their own fate: to let them, for example, decide on the content of their school courses. How can the ignorant do that? And, in relation to parents and teachers, they are ignorant. Remember Mbo's quote of yesterday (I paraphrase from memory; the words may be wrong but the sense is right) from Mark Twain: "When I was 14 I considered my father to be an ignoramus. By the time I was 21 I marvelled at how quickly he'd learned." And, of course (I state the obvious) that is a reflection on the young MT, not on his father. "If youth knew. If age could." |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: GeorgeH Date: 21 Dec 99 - 01:18 PM Bald Eagle. No,it's got nothing to do with children/adults - because, as you note, there's a continuum . . yes, those with experience have to pass it on, and have to protect those without it from the dangers inherent in their lack of experience/knowledge. But that model applies outside the parent/child categorisation. In my experience it's a question of attitudes above all else; those who see children as individuals who simply haven't (in many but possibly not all areas) travelled as far or explored as extensively as they have, rather than as some sort of different entity, are more likely to do the best for both parties at least cost all round. Far worse than allowing kids to decide their own fate is excluding them from having any say in that "fate"; it's all about guided choice (and, if I'm honest, at times creating the illusion of choice). Probably 60% at least of the content of school courses has no practical relevence to anything, anyway!! Clearly I have more faith in children, and less in parents and teachers (both categories capable of showing PROFOUND ignorance, both in individuals and as the norm for the group; look at drugs education or - in the UK at least - sex education for group ignorance instances) than you do. And as for the MT quote - no, it's an adverse reflection on both parties. And actually I don't find it a convincing indication of most 14 year olds views of their parents; it's the simplistic "rose tinted spectacles" view of an older person looking back. The reality is far more complex. (Spoken by one who, far too often, has heard teenagers defend or excuse the indefensible in their parents' treatment of them.) G. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Ringer Date: 21 Dec 99 - 01:29 PM I'll come back tomorrow on this, G: haven't got time now, sorry |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Dec 99 - 02:15 PM The kind of grind, grind and worry that ivy talks about isn't new. I still wave up sometimes, and realise that I don't have any homework or exams, and feel so pleased. And its more than 40 years since I left school.
I don't know if it helps at all to say that. I'm not meaning to say "We had it as bad", but rather "It won't last for ever - you can get through it."
On balance I think it probably is worse for young people today. They don't get physically beaten at school, they probably eat food that tastes better (school dinners...)and dress more comfortably. But the pressures from the media and from contemporaries about how to look and what to say and so forth, and to grow up fast are far far worse.
For example it seems that pre-adolescent boys actually care how they look these days, and that is something I find astonishing. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 21 Dec 99 - 02:48 PM Wonderfull words, are they set to music? please do post if you know, they are a balm to the soul; and a kind memory of this grievous crime against humanity. The act of rememberance by the "children" is their legacy to us all, lest we forget. I pray that as we enter the new millennium that we may: "progress in wisdom, as well as technology" Let us rededicate ourselves never to allow such atrocity again. Sincerely. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Marymac90 Date: 21 Dec 99 - 04:56 PM Well said, Dave. The piece was very moving, Roger. Mary McCaffrey |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: bbelle Date: 21 Dec 99 - 05:43 PM Roger ... as a Jew, I thank you ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Ringer Date: 22 Dec 99 - 07:30 AM GeorgeH: First, let me admit that I haven't your long experience in teaching. But (repeating myself, but I think it's important) I am in that privileged position of having particular insight into 2 aspects of childhood: (a) I have been a child and (b) I am a parent (my oldest child is 19, my youngest 13). So while my recent experience of education (unlike yours) is solely as a consumer, I flatter myself that it is not insignificant. In your first para, I don't think there's a big difference between us. I don't disagree with your preference for experienced/inexperienced rather than adult/child, but point out that there's a greater preponderance of adults in the former (experienced) group and of children in the latter, so I don't think experienced/inexperienced is very different from adult/child (at the general level, though it may differ for an individual or for any particular aspect of an individual's psychological make-up). I'm not sure I fully understand your second para. Though I live 100-ish miles up the M1 from you I'm afraid I can't relate to either your drugs- or sex-education examples (though it's probably not important - I recognise that teachers can be profoundly ignorant, and parents ditto (myself excepted, of course *BG*)). However, that 60% of school courses has no practical relevance to anything I accept, but please note my italics. Education is different from training: the latter should provide the practical relevance, but education, I submit, even if not of practical relevance, is (almost) always valuable. Thus I encouraged my kids to study Latin, for example; no practical use, but with Latin they have direct access to ancient wisdom which is a worthwhile counterbalance to much of today's "wisdom". Nevertheless (I've just realised I'm considering your para 2 from end to start, sorry), I do believe that it is right and proper sometimes to deny kids all influence over their own fate, more frequently when they're young. Maths (eg) has to be rammed into them willy-nilly so that later they can be guided in their choice; how can a young adult decide he wants to be a rocket scientist if he chose in childhood to fart around on keyboards rather than do hard sums? (I'm not suggesting that everyone should do maths up to rocket science stage, but all kids need a grounding in all subjects so they can reasonably make choices later.) Teachers must bear (sorry, George) a lot of responsibility for the apalling state of English education, for having over 3 decades "encouraged discovery" rather than teaching. As an employer, I see the disastrous results. Oddly enough, I find my experience echos (echoes?) the sense of Mark Twain's quote quite accurately (certainly I'm "an older person looking back", but I don't believe that makes my (or MT's) view either simplistic or rose-tinted), and the changes in my eldest son as he approaches maturity lead me to believe the saw is good for the next generation, also. Hope you and yours (and Ahlam) have a happy Christmas. Happy Christmas to all other readers, too. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: GeorgeH Date: 22 Dec 99 - 08:04 AM Bald Eagle: Yourself excepted, certainly! One difficulty is that often it's the good, concerned parents who discuss these issues, and that's not where the problems lie. Mark Twain: Well, he holds VERY little appeal for me but I accept the quote encapsulates one aspect of the experience/inexperience (MY terms!!) divide. I find it inadequate simply because there are various other - often contradictory - aspects in play at the same time. Sex education: well, our pregnancy rates speak for themselves. And parents can opt their kids out of it. And issues of sexuality (let alone homosexuality) are no-go areas. All a bit of a waste of time, really. Drugs: With most drugs education there will be kids in the receiving group who know far more about the subject than those giving the patronising, moralising lecture (oops, my prejudices creeping in there!). There's too much morality, too little information, too little understanding. But while on the subject . . Here in Cambridge we have a hostel for the homeless, whose parent organisation is eminently respectable (management committee of the great and good of the area). Some years ago the wardens of this hostel, knowing of the problems of drugs being traded on the premises, approached the police for advice. As far as one can tell, the advice offered was "do what you can to prevent it and don't worry too much". Come our New-Labour anti-drugs "strategy" the police's attitude seems to have changed; the police mount a major undercover surveilance operation (minature video cameras in luggage and the like) on these premises, and record drug transactions taking place. Outcome: the two wardens are prosecuted for "knowingly allowing the premises to be used for the supply of proscribed drugs", convicted and gaoled for terms of four and five years!! Clearly two dangerous criminals have been removed from society!! And a great advance in the welfare of the homeless of Cambridge has been achieved!! (There appears to have been no evidence that the wardens witnessed or conived in any way in the drug deals that were recorded. However the fact that they refused to give the police their list of people banned from the centre because of suspected drug dealing, and refused to discuss confidential conversations with clients, were both used as "evidence" against them AND treated as very significant by the judge.) And thanks for the seasons good wishes; reciprocated to you and everyone else here! G. |
|
Subject: RE: They were only children. From: Ringer Date: 22 Dec 99 - 01:14 PM Thanks George. Read & digested. Compliments of the season |
| Share Thread: |
