Are We Protecting the Innocence of Our Children?

My last blog centered on the Haitian children suffering in the aftermath of the earthquake, and dealt with the topic of "loss of innocence", and whether or not children who have "lost their innocence" can still be considered children. Later, I found an interesting website where author Michael Medved wrote about how he believes our country is not protecting the "innocence" of our children, but instead following a different path. He says, "we now go for a preparation model. That is the emphasis on American education. 'Let's warn the child about all of the dangers, about all of the horrors in the world."

Mr. Medved gave many examples in his article of ways in which our education systems are trying to "prepare" children for the real world, in sometimes harsh ways: Children in elementary school through highschool are being taught, "We're doomed! In the future there will be no clean air, there will be no clean water! The sky is falling!" (when in reality he says that the truth is, there have been many governmental success stories regarding the environment, and cities have more clean air than they did 20 years ago). I know that a couple years ago, my little sister learned about global warming in third grade. She came home and couldn't sleep with a stomach ache because she was so scared about how our world was going to survive. And, most shocking to me: the website said that in Minnesota, first graders are being educated on AIDS.

Is this right? Is there a certain age that is too young for children to hear about this kind of stuff? I am not an idealistic, and I believe that at somepoint everyone needs to find out about AIDS and be educated so that we can work to stop the epedemic, and everyone needs to learn to be aware in how they treat our planet. But why do first graders need to be conserned about AIDS? I think children need to have a higher level of maturity and brain development to handle topics such as that. And that goes for the environment, too. I believe that children in elementary schools should be taught the necessary fundamentals that will prepare them for their secondary educations, but not in a way that burdens them.

The author of the website said that children should be able to be optimistic, have a sense of wonder, and feel secure. But are we preventing them from having these things through our education? What do you think? Should we, as a country, be protecting our children - or educating them about the harshness of our world to "prepare" them for the future?

The Website: http://www.mfc.org/pfn/97-6/medved.html

Picture: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/images/deps/alphabet.jpg

Loss of Innocence

In light of our class theme revolving around children, I read an article, Children Adrift in a World of Unfathomable Chaos, about the suffering of children in Haiti. Just by reading the first few paragraphs of the article, I realized the title was true: the chaos and horror that these children are facing is unfathomable to me. A young girl, Daphne, recounted how she had to watch her mother's "lifeless" body be carried away in a wheelbarrow. Tons of children have lost their parents and homes, and almost all of them have lost their schools. Of course, with such great a tragedy, there are enormous concerns: "There are health concerns, malnutrition concerns, psychosocial issues, and, of course, we are concerned that unaccompanied children will be exploited by unscrupulous people who may wish to traffic them for adoption, for the sex trade, or for domestic servitude," said Kent Page, a UNICEF spokesman.

How do these children survive? Haiti's first lady said that without help, the Haitian children will have "lost their childhood, their innocence,". The term that resonated with me was "loss of innocence". This reminded me specifically of what we have been talking about in Huck Finn. At the age of 13 or 14, Huck has had to take care of himself, fend for himself, and make important decisions for himself. Personally, I believe that Huck although still a child, has "lost his innocence" through all of the life-experiences and challenges he has encountered. He, just like many children in Haiti, has had experiences with death, something no child should have to experience. But I don't think Huck is necessarily an adult. He is still figuring out life lessons and constructing the type of person he is going to be, which we see evidence of in his conflicts over what is right vs. wrong. Yet, he is clearly not an innocent or naive kid.

Does "losing ones innocence" mean that one loses their childhood? Or can you still be a child without it? What do you think? Is childhood defined by innocence?

Picture: http://www.france24.com/en/20100118-vincent-grammont-humanitarian-aid-worker-haiti-earthquake-port-au-prince-delmas

3D TV

The other day in class, we were told an extremely shocking statistic: the average American watches 4.5 hours of TV a day, or about 14.5 years of their life (with 72 being the average life-span) are devoted to watching TV. 14.5 years of one's life living in a separate world - think of how much you would miss if you spent a continuous 14.5 years watching TV! I'm only 16, but if you subtract 14.5 years, I'd only have lived 1.5 years of my life! Obviously, the 14.5 hours is just an average, and it is spread out over a much longer period of time. But to me, the statistic is horrifying.

Yesterday, my dad had NPR on when he picked me up after school, and there was a broadcast about the technology fair in Las Vegas happening these next couple of days. The woman speaking was talking about one of the bigger gadgets to be featured: 3D TVs. At first I thought that sounded extremely cool, who doesn't like going to IMax theaters and seeing movies in 3D? I personally really enjoyed the Polar Express in 3D a couple years ago and I know 3D Avatar has been a big hit. Yet when I started thinking about it, the prospect of 3D TV kind of scared me. When you watch TV, you are able to leave your world for a little and for lack of a better word, "watch" an alternate world. But if this world was taking place 3D around you, it would be like you were actually a part of this other world.

To me, this new type of television watching would most likely raise the amount of time people spend watching TV, and limit the amount of time they are exposed to the real world. Why go to a football game if you can watch it on a huge screen with surround sound and 3D images? It's like you're right there. I personally do not spend a lot of time watching TV; I don't have time and I'd rather be out doing stuff in the real world. But will these new TVs have a negative impact on our society? How will our future be impacted by TVs that draw Americans out of the real world?

picture: http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/3D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

Vegetables or a Face

The other day I learned about a man who suffered from severe epilepsy, so he received extreme treatment: the severing of his corpus callosum, a part in the brain which connects both the left and right brain hemispheres, allowing information to be transmitted to both sides. It was like the man had two different brains, but he was still able to go about his daily life. In one experiment the man took part in afterwards to help a scientists research study, he was asked to sit at a computer and look at images either on the right side of a divider on the screen or the left side. The images we see on the left are sent to the right side of the brain, which sees only the whole image, not the individual parts. The images we see on the right are sent to the left side of the brain, which only sees the individual parts. The left brain (which sees the individual parts) is the organized/planning/logical/sequential side of the brain. The right side of the brain (which sees the whole picture) is the artsy/big picture oriented side

The Man was asked to look at pictures made by the artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo, who is famous for his pictures of faces made out of objects such as vegetables, fruits, and books. Interestingly, when the man saw the picture on the right, he only saw the vegetables. However, when the image was flashed on his left, he reported only seeing a normal looking face.

This got me thinking about construction: the process vs. the final product. This man can experience something none of us can- he can look at a final product, see it, and then look at it differently and see all of its parts. A pile of vegetables is not very unique or special, but put together into a face, it's an artistic masterpiece. We don't have this opportunity to look at something and see the individual parts, the process. Which, can sometimes be a lot more important than the final product, in my opinion. Personally, I think that teachers value final products a lot more than the work and parts involved. Does our ability to only see "final constructions" inhibit us from appreciating things to their full extent?

picture: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/eye_trick_vegetable_man.jpg

Unity Through Adversity

I read an article, Shedding Old Rivalries and Pulling Together, about two different ethnic groups unified together in the face of adversity. Chicago has many interesting neighborhoods, with a large mix of people. In one such neighborhood specifically, on the corner of Western and Devon Avenues, about 200,000 Indian and Pakistani Chicagoans live and work side by side. While Indian and Pakistan have a rivalry over land in between their two countries, the Kashmir Valley, these Chicagoans of Indian and Pakistani descent are according to the article, unified in the face of the slumping economy. Many of the inhabitants of this neighborhood make a living selling electronics, telling fortunes, and driving taxis. However, with the downturn of the economy, tons of the residents have lost their jobs. Instead of arguing and fighting against each other over headlines involving the Kashmir Valley, Quoted in the article, Anwar Rajput said, "We discuss how we are going to pay our bills, kids, family. Of course, we talk about politics, both here and there. But what is everybody concerned about? The economy."

In times of adversity, people join together, putting aside their differences, at least in this neighborhood on the

North Side. But after reading the article, my question was: when the economy gets better, will these residents or any group of people/small business owners/workers that have been united because of a common fear, continue to work and live in solidarity? Does it really take everyone being on the same page, struggling with the same weakness, for there to be this comradeship? The economy unified two rival groups of people, but without this universal struggle, will their still be a union?

Picture from: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pics/acoffee.jpg