What kid wouldn’t want to help Santa? And the message to parents?
“Play along, or look like a creep in your kids’ eyes.”

The Suzuki Foundation and many other Environmentalists often target children with such brainwashing approaches, and they are not joking! (See below for examples.) No matter what your opinion on global warming, the method used by the Suzuki Foundation is terribly wrong.

WhereWillSantaLive counts on prior indoctrination, and adds to it.  By simplistic understandings indoctrination generates such emotions as fear, pity, disgust, or anger, in a way that draws in untrained or undisciplined minds.  Indoctrination replaces judgment with prejudice, whether or not the simplifications are valid.

Indoctrination is particularly craven when used on children.  That David Suzuki & his Foundation have stooped that low, reveals how little they care about how children use facts and develop reasoning skills.  Contrary to the Foundation’s persistent claims of holding the scientific & moral high ground, their approach also reveals how little they care about facts and reason.

The subject of indoctrination can vary widely.  It is not enough to talk about indoctrination; one must see it in action. Religion is infamous for its use of indoctrination on children. This video shows the reality (yes, it is as racist as it is religious).  Notice the degree of happiness shown by the announcer.

In the next video you will see a 9 year old who has been trundled before the adult politicians and scientists at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janiero, Brazil.  She presents a plea to save the planet.  Yet, so young a child is completely without the necessary scientific, economic or philosophical understanding needed to form any rational opinion on Environmental Issues.

That was Suzuki’s daughter, Severn.  Perhaps she put the phrases together, but the phrases are not her own. She is too young to understand their full implications. Whatever she presented, her father has convinced her is true and sufficient knowledge.

It is immoral enough to lead children into a life of ongoing fear, hatred or anger (heard in Severn’s tone), but the wrongdoing runs more deeply.

The Fundamental Abuse

Indoctrinated children are (mis)lead to believe that the means by which they are indoctrinated exemplifies reasoning.

A child’s capacity for reason is her single most important and powerful faculty. Reason sets her apart from animals.  She needs reason to survive and be happy. Reason, or lack of it, establishes her character and does much to establish who she is.

Indoctrination undercuts her ability to learn and use reason.  She becomes a marionette, responding as someone else pulls strings.  On that day in 1992, Severn was her environmentalist-father’s puppet.

Suzuki & his foundation have long had a significant influence in public schools.  What does that say of the schools and teachers who condone his methods?

It would be fascinating to assemble a varied assortment of video samples, or well sourced quotations, of indoctrination on various subjects to the comments below.

More examples of indoctrination.

The Story of Stuff   Within 60 seconds, Annie Leonard begins telling us we are running out of everything and wrecking the planet.  Elements of truth, combined with exaggeration and scaremongering, to acquire a following.

Jesus Camp  A pentecostal summer camp for children who spend their summers learning and practicing their “prophetic gifts”, and being taught that they can “take back America for Christ.” Note the speaking tongues, the reference to Harry Potter, and how Pastor Becky Fisher claims she talks with God!

“Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man” ~attributed to the Jesuits, perhaps St. Francis Xavier, Ignatious Loyola or Baltasar Gracián.

But that ‘shield’ does exist, and is found in the principle that lies behind these words:

Being good, and knowing you are good, is the first defense against verbal bullying.

Sticks and stones can break my bones,
but words can never hurt me.

Its grade school wording is deceptive.  One may think the principle is simplistic and of little influence.  Not so.  As a teacher, I have taught it to verbally bullied young teenagers, and I’ve seen tears of appreciation as understanding dawned on the victim. Often, the bullying then died away. That shield is a principle that can save tens of thousands of children & adults from unnecessary stress, from damaged self esteem, and even from suicide.

What’s behind the principle:

We all know bullying starts with harsh words & tones of criticism towards the potential victim (the “target”). The bully is obviously not seeking friendly discussion.  He wants to establish superiority.  If the target shows shyness, fear, annoyance or anger, the bully quickly senses that he can influence his victim, right where it hurts. He has established, wordlessly, a kind of control, a superiority.

Worse, his target’s response proves it!

For bullying to really work, the target must unthinkingly accept the criticism as a meaningful personal attack. The victim’s wordless response is (e.g.):  “Debbie thinks I am a loser because I am so out-of-fashion!”  [fat, slow, ugly, a Paki, a Jew, gay, clumsy, etc.] Whether it is based in truth or not, she has accepted her position as a victim!

Even if the bully hits upon some small truth about his target, that truth does not define the entire person. The bully, of course, counts on the target believing it does.

So, both believe, wordlessly and very personally, that what other people think & say matters —matters more than facts and more than the entire character of the victim.

“Words Hurt” shows the logical consequence, and offers no solution:

Imagine if the bullied girl in the video knew that the bully words were nonsense?  The ‘flying words’ would never touch her and she would not be hurt.   Walking away would be easy.

Imagine how empowering that would be!

The Principle:

Bully words are nonsense that can only harm you with your permission.

Parents and teachers must teach the grade-school-saying, the ideas it depends upon, and the principle.

To help younger ‘targets’ of bullying to understand, suggest they think of  the bully as a dog on the other side of a fence, barking its fool head off.  The barking is a bit annoying, but all that barking is just meaningless noise… “Nothing worth taking seriously!”  Really, it isn’t.

By early high school, students should be able to understand the principle itself, be able to explain it, and to live by it.   These stories show characters who withstand bullies using their own sensible judgement.

Even if the bullying becomes threatening or violent (a greater problem and a legal issue), the child who understands the principle behind “words can never hurt me” knows the problem is not him, it’s the bully!

— Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week 2011: Nov 14 – 20 —

* The CCA may be hoping to arouse empathy to encourage support for victims & more direct action against bullying, but this is no way to do it.

Is it a cute thing for a children’s book?
Does it have literary merit for your child?
What if it included swearing?
What if the reader was not shown corrected wordings?

Children do not know what constitutes good quality writing and what does not.  They do not yet know the appropriate context for certain language and what is not.  They may not know whether a break with quality and context is a literary device, or a legitimate way of writing or speaking.

Consider this narrator (also a Grade One student in the story):

Just then I quick stopped writing.
‘Cause I couldn’t believe my eyeballs!
That snoopy-head May was stretching her neck across the aisle!
And was reading my journal page!
I slammed my book shut speedy fast.
. . .
[Calling on the teacher:]
“Mr. Scary! Mr. Scary!” she hollered real loud.
. . .
[a tussle over the journal ensued]
I pulled and pulled with all of my might!
And me and my journal went flying back to my seat.
I hugged my book all safe and sound.*

Readers know what narrator Junie B. means, and children enjoy the stories.  But children may not recognize the mistakes, and could copy them.  Many of the mistakes, such as “quick stopped writing” are contrived, the author’s pleased display of the finding new ways to corrupt English.  Speaking of the Junie B Jones series, one editor at “bellaonline” observes,

Parents dislike the inclusion of the poor grammar. Parents of children for whom English is a Second Language say her English confuses their children.

The narrating voice in literature for young children should never be based in corrupt English.  If a character uses corrupt English, the author must compose dialogue in a way that clearly contrasts the good and poor use of language, so the child reader can easily grasp the difference.  That cannot be done when the narrator is also a linguistically challenged character in the book.

Purposeful use of poor English, in a children’s book, appears to be rationalized as communicating at a juvenile reading level and/or an appeal to the young reader’s need for peer acceptance.  I’m not sure which is the more cynical and condescending.

Sure, the child reading the odd book with corrupt English will get past it, but why put them through it at all?  There are thousands of smart children’s books out there that are better written and at least as entertaining.

*  Junie B., First Grader: Jingle Bells, Batman Smells! (P.S. So Does May), by Barbara Park

At the computer, unguided. Fortunately, she's right handed.

The trick lies in appearing to be a hands off parent.

From a safe distance, I let my baby daughter make her own choices and actions —within the scope of her ability. I would play with her at frequent intervals, and then sit back. As she grew older our play intervals grew shorter, though supervision remained the same.

From the time she could sit up, I positioned toys, baby bottle, cookie snacks, etc., where she would have to deliberately turn or reach to use whichever she wanted. If she threw one away, I did not retrieve it. She would get it back after a nap, a meal, or other change in her day. As she reached the crawling stage, I positioned toys (according to her mobility) around the room. She had to crawl to them to use them.

This popular YouTube video shows how thoroughly a child can entertain his or her self, despite a minimum of parental interaction (edited out):

I did not want my daughter to rely on my being at her disposal.  I wanted her to choose, entirely on her own, what she was going to do next. Doting parents stifle a child’s mind. There was a side benefit in her entertaining herself.  I could get other things done, nearby, and could reduce my time at baby play, which I found unbearably boring  (undiagnosed sleep apnea had me falling asleep on the floor beside her).

She quickly learned not to throw away toys she might want later, and would choose what she wanted to do, rather than cry for me to entertain her. If she threw away a toy, she had her own motivation to retrieve it.

The consequences were almost miraculous. As a toddler, if she was being bothered by her older sister, she would take the toys she wanted to a different room, without a fuss. If she wanted something, she would ask without whining.  If you asked her to wait, she would do something else.

Her independence extended to how she related to friends. I promoted sharing & helping as something one does with friends (people she valued) ─but some personal & important things are not for just anybody.  To this end, when friends were coming over, we would choose what toys should not be shared, and put them away.  The combination of independent play & chosen sharing worked well when she began school.

At ~3.0 yrs of age she entered Montessori Casa-1.  She immediately took to the idea of working on her own ‘manipulatives’. If other children bothered her she would ask them to leave her alone, or ask them why they were not playing with their own manipulative. It was natural to her not to bother them.

If a classmate did not see how to use a manipulative, she would help.  Her motivation to help was not a dependence on friendship or obedience to required niceness, it was simple decency.  Her attitude set an example that helped the other children focus. By grade three she would try to get her homework done while in the car driving home, because it was hers to do.  Then she could play with friends, once home.

Ten years later, her daily behavior reflects that independence of thought and action.

Have you had a similar success using a different method?

[Update: added video ─very relevant─ & minor edits that required.]

Every year, publishers produce an avalanche of new children’s picture books, short stories, childrens’ animated TV programs and movies, hoping for marketable characters, .  In the U.S., the number of new children’s books published annually, ranges from 2,000 to almost 5,000!  A parent struggling to find stories of value faces a considerable challenge. Yet…

In the United States, half the books printed in 2002, and shipped to booksellers, were returned to the publishing company to be remaindered or destroyed (Association of American Publishers). In the U.S., it is estimated, of the books printed that do get sold to individuals, 95 percent are never read.

What an incredible waste.  Presumably, the books are not sufficiently informative, or relevant, or captivating.  Titles and cover graphics probably suggest more value than is provided, so the owner gave up reading it.

Bottom denominator

A booger for your child's thoughts.

With all the wonderful things in the world, with all the difficulties & challenges life can deliver, and the fabulous, exemplary, art, what self-respecting adult markets a vulgar book to children (positive ending notwithstanding)? So what if the outstandingly vulgar catches attention and sells, … guess what?  It’s still outstandingly vulgar.

The pop music industry seems to be the model for many a children’s book publishing department.  Song after forgettable song is thrust over the airwaves.  Song lyrics, melodies and accompanying videos, are selected for ‘catchiness’ and shock value — more sex, vulgarity,  etc. —aimed at ever younger kids, indiscriminately pursuing any possible audience.  It is an affront to decent sensibility.
Children’s literature suffers the same shame.

Haystack’s & Needles

A lifetime collectible!

Let the publishers do whatever they like because, buried in this marketing mêlée there are wonderful books by wonderful authors. The trick lies in finding them.

Help out.  Buy the better books from VM.  We pass on the royalties those authors deserve, and VM can grow to find more titles to parents who care, as do we.   If you know of a good one, re-read it to see if it really fits our standards (see Our Approach) then, after due consideration,  let us know.

I understand that this is a course called “How the Writer Writes”, and that each week you are exposed to a different writer who holds forth on the subject. The only parallel I can think of to this is having the zoo come to you, one animal at a time; and I expect that what you hear one week from the giraffe is contradicted next week by the baboon. — Flannery O’Connor

Now, you knew some students in your class liked the ‘higher’ ideas the ‘Giraffe’ put forth. Others had preferred the earthly perspective of the ‘Baboon’.

O’Connor’s introduction is a bit of an embarrassment!  Is she suggesting your course advocates a woozy, “anything goes” approach, or is it the useful survey of ideas you intended?

Then you wonder if you, their sage and mentor, are unsure, how are students to choose?  Does she really think definite writing principles are possible?  Is O’Connor the wise ‘Owl’, arguing for objective and enduring methods of writing?  Will she change the Baboon lovers’ minds, or will they clamor that Miss Owl is taking the fun out of writing?

A little humor would win over the ‘Baboons’. But the ‘Giraffes’ would find such humor beneath them.  A lofty, academic approach would sway the Giraffes, but have you ever seen a Baboon sway?  An off duty longshoreman comes to mind.

Suddenly you feel threatened.  This Owl has all but neutralized the Baboons and Giraffes …as well as the point of your course!  You’ve no choice.

After she leaves, you must assert your most academically confident posture.  You remind your class that writing is largely a matter of personal talent, with no clear standards.

Woozy has won.

Children’s Literature is like a big Woozy Zoo with many wings and outbuildings.  It has a wings for the literary-academics,  the award givers, the children’s book publishers, the celebrity-writers, the librarians, and the illustrator-writers.  It’s an idea parade just like the Professor’s woozy course.

For radical wooze, there is even the Activist Labyrinth!

This Labyrinth has many dead ends.  Each harbors the desk of a mind driven by issues of race, religion, by Gaia and things ‘green’, by multiculturalism, ‘social justice’, female chauvinism, revisions of history, animal ‘rights’, and even the origin of words (-why not call a pen a “frindle”?).

The Labyrinth’s tunnels provide many a ‘politically correct’ book with a route to the least discriminating wing of the Zoo, whereby it can emerge to an undeserved light-of-day —for publication to unsuspecting, seven year old, children!

Children’s literature needs more Owls.  Recommend some books of owlish quality in the comments below (please consider our standards, explained on the Literary Elements page)

She reached out her hand to grab that decorative edge.  Her fingers poked and pulled at that edge, trying to lift it.  Then she reached forward and pulled on the actual edge.  Up it came from our hardwood floor!  As soon as she knew the real edge, she lost interest.  But, she knew!

I had seen something in her that was more wonderful than baby’s first steps!

Her mind had asked, wordlessly,

“Is this first edge a part of the carpet or a separate thing?
Is it like the edge by the hardwood floor?“

More importantly, her mind was checking the world to see if her visual understanding of that first ‘edge’ was true, and in doing so she had discovered two facts of reality”

A simple fact about her surroundings:
—the first edge was a part of the carpet, and was simply decorative.

A complex fact about herself:
—information from one sense can be improved upon by using a second!

She was, in the most basic way, checking a premise about what she saw.

As we become adults, partly because our ideas become ever more abstract, premise checking becomes more difficult.  What premise(s) underpin your view of Socialism? Capitalism? Pet ownership? Abortion? Dating rules? Parenting?  Are they right? How do we check them?

Shouldn’t high school students, by their senior year, be comfortably practiced at introspecting —to habitually check what premises lie behind their ideas, choices, and conclusions?

At 7 months of age, KAKB checked, because she did not want to misjudge.

Tell us your anecdote of a child showing subtle, unexpected, thinking skills.

School of Athens — Raphael

The ValuedMinds blog will address ideas on,
— topics raised by popular children’s books,
— issues faced by parents and their children,
— the children’s literature industry (for casual observers)
. . . and burning issues raised in the comments.

See Introduction – How Use This Site for a visitor’s overview of the ValuedMinds site structure and use.