“Treating us like human beings.”
by Jason GodeskyThe video at right, featuring “the coolest 8 year old in the world,” was released on YouTube to help promote the Bastard Fairies‘ song, “We’re All Going to Hell.” There’s been a lot of blogger speculation that this is the daughter of Yellow Thunder Woman, who is herself the daughter of Native rights campaigner Greg Zephier. The Bastard Fairies also were involved in the production of The Canary Effect (we posted a clip from The Canary Effect, uploaded to YouTube, earlier this year in commemoration of Columbus Day). Of course, I disagree with some significant portion of this—since no one dies for religion—but her ultimate point—”the way to keep kids away from gangs and violence is to start treating us like human beings”—couldn’t be more spot on.
As if to prove her point, Bill O’Reilly took on the 8-year-old on his show, calling it “child abuse” to put a child out there who “has no idea” what she’s saying. I realize that my childhood was exceptional in many ways, but it was certainly not unique. I conferred with Giuli, and she agreed that she, too, was saying similar things at 8 years—though she admitted it would not have been with quite so sophisticated a vocabulary. I can’t say the same; at 8 years, I was already confusing many adults with words theyd’ never heard before. And of course, there’s the story Giuli’s mother tells, of passing out pamphlets against the Korean War when she was five years old and being confronted by a man who told her she didn’t even know what this was about. Her answer, at five years old, was, “Yes I do, it’s about peace!” Which, I think, is a far more insightful commentary on the Korean War than any theory about “dominoes” could ever hope to be.
We have, in our culture, the notion that a child is simply incapable of forming his or her own opinion—a view that nearly all children find unbearably condescending, particularly as we extend “childhood” to completely unreasonable limits. What do we mean by this—that a child’s opinion simply reflects the opinions of others around her? Are adults any different? Our opinions, too, are formed by those around us. We mimic one another’s facial expressions and speaking patterns in order to promote social harmony through mimicry. In a group, we normalize and feel enormous pressure to conform. This is not “merely” social pressure; in most evolutionary cases, conforming to social expectations have helped make stronger societies, and enhanced the survival of all involved.
Naturally, a child’s family will have greater influence on a child’s opinions than those she spends less time around. We are all influenced more by those we spend the most time with. If it is “abuse” to let someone voice their opinion because that opinion is influenced by others, then it is “abuse” to ever let anyone voice any opinion, ever. While the “abused” child above tells us how important it is to show respect and empathy, O’Reilly had nothing to say about the young, upstanding Christians featured in Jesus Camp, who, in the final clip here, discuss their desire to become martyrs. Earlier in the documentary, the pastor who organized the “Kids on Fire” program the film centers on explicitly stated that she wanted to create a generation of Christians willing to fight and die for Christ, just like children who blow themselves up in Palestine.
Plenty of atheists have made the argument that teaching your child your religion is child abuse. This is every bit as absurd as O’Reilly’s screed. Children are no different from adults in this regard—we’re all creating one another, every moment of every day. That process begins when you’re a child, but it never ends, and we shouldn’t presume that the “coolest 8 year old in the world” has no idea what she’s saying any more than we should assume it of the two aspiring martyrs from Jesus Camp. Kids are a lot more intelligent than we give them credit for. They can think for themselves, every bit as much as adults can. It’s time we started treating them like human beings.
I posted this on another forum that has a discussion about this post, in case anyone thinks, “Boy, this comment looks oddly familiar.”
The thing that has me the most is, Bill O’Reilly and the nutter he interviewed who sounds like she’s potentially just as abusive towards children as she claims others to be (treating them like lesser people and obviously wishing to stifle those who do have something to say that’s intelligent, saying they can’t possibly have a single understanding of what’s going on in the world - NOT TRUE some kids out there do have a general understanding, and what is so wrong with them learning at a young age about the world and politics?!), and also funny how O’Reilly claimed he wasn’t going to publicize the video or the “vile” things the girl says, and then directly after he says that, he plays part of the video. Does he really think the Internet exists in a bubble and people who watch FOX won’t be able to find it online?
I have to say that I agree with Godesky in his 3rd and 4th paragraphs, although the actual video of this particular girl does look rather staged. But the point behind all of it is what seems to matter the most with the entire situation. And I seriously don’t get why teaching children about those things is abuse, when you consider all the other things parents teach their kids, and in some families religion being taught should be the LEAST of anyone’s worries.
Comment by Lindsey D — 11 December 2006 @ 12:31 PM
It does seem rather obvious that she’s reading something, but we don’t know who wrote it. Did she write it? Did her parents? Most importantly, does she agree with what she’s reading? She gives a great performance for an 8 year old, and I don’t think there’s any reason why we should assume she doesn’t know what she’s reading.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 December 2006 @ 12:35 PM
According the accompanying official statement on the original video, the girl is considered an ‘actress playing a fictitious character.’ Therefore, she’s clearly reading or improvising from a script. That this escaped Bill O’Reilly and his compadre Wendy Murphy (see below) is not surprising, given the generally low level of their brainwave activity. (yes, it’s an ad hominem, insofar as O’Reilly qualifies as ‘homo’).
I think Jason gets the issue right when he points to the little girl’s own response to the opinions: let’s assume it’s a script, and she knows it is (her dramatic gesturing indicate to me that she’s clearly playing, and relishing, the part, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate acceptance or agreement). We can’t from the video alone determine her opinions, but the point doesn’t really rely on that, does it? Although O’Reilly and Murphy want to insist that kids are too unformed and stupid to have or voice opinions (or to change them, one supposes), the logic remains. If we accept that 1+1=2, it doesn’t matter who says it, be they 8 or 56 years old, it’s still true.
As for Murphy, she’s quite the character. I’d recommend a read of her bio at wikilaw, especially the last paragraph. Then take a look at the classroom discussion on the same site that developed after her performance there.
Comment by Erik Davis — 11 December 2006 @ 5:49 PM
Adults are different, they have experience as buffers, helping them to determine fantasy from fact, probable lies from probable truth. Brain washing works on certain people who have identity issues and on children because they often lack the filters and defenses necessary to discriminate, to tell ‘right’ from ‘wrong’.
‘Prejudice’ and ‘discrimination’ are terms given a dark and sinister connotation but the truth is, we need to have certain moral compases. By ‘moral’, I do not mean ‘religious’ or divinely derived. Prejuce and discrimination are usually known for their radical relations, like racism and sexism, which are wrong and not ‘morally’ sound. But the fact remains, a prejudicial and a discriminating mind keeps your hand from the flame, helps determine fact from fiction and increases the liklihood of developing healthy, working political theories rather than outlandish and unhealthy ‘conspiracy’ theories.
Like many have said before, the eight year old does not have a deep enough political perspective to understand the depth, seriousness and complexity of what she’s commenting on. Can she talk about life and death? Sure. War and Peace? Why not? Does she know enough to know mean spiritedness? Absolutely. We’re not contesting a child’s ability to perceive life, to understand what can be understood at her level.
But why, do tell, have many of you ‘adults’ missed the subtler points about what a child, or this child, shouldn’t be subjected to? How taking a life and death issue, which a child can understand, and making it into complex political statements, which this child most probably does not understand, is wrong? Also, if spoon fed by ‘adults’ with motives of their own, dishonest and disingenuous!? This is indoctrination if it’s what she’s exposed to everyday because she doesn’t have the emotional and experiential maturity to filter the issues and gain a greater perspective. Instead, she will most likely only gain one perspective, the one given to her.
Unfortunately, she will probably grow up with a filter that will most likely perceive only the ‘truth’ which was ‘baby-fed’ to her as a child, how sad and ironic. And yes, I do think many religious people do this to their children as well, indoctrination from birth, but that doesn’t make it right for these guys to do it to the other politcal and religious extreme?
Comment by REN — 29 December 2006 @ 2:15 PM