So here's one from my homeland of yore:

Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/forumOtherInsertThread.do;jsessionid=AC3DE76CBB9EF 21875FF94BAA91CC58F.drtomcat4

Names are one thing. But now we will regulate thought. This is what comes of not making George Orwell mandatory reading.

That link isn't working. But that is incredibly stupid. Every official that supported that program shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.

Well, that's the Telegraph. But they'll keep holding office, because that's what they do.

Names are one thing, taste preferences quite another.

What the FUCK?????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not liking food does not make you a racist. Hating foreigners makes you a racist.

What the FUCK?????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not liking food does not make you a racist. Hating foreigners makes you a racist.

Well yes. But that would make sense. And we know the bureaucrats always makes sense (end sarcasm).:p

Of course, it will mean that every single child on this planet is racist at some point or another, since all children lift their noses up at just about everything you put in front of them, foreign or not.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to render my children's mouths inoperative by smearing it with chilli. Oh wait, I'm in Australia. I'll just use copious amounts of vegemite instead.:p...

Kidding... :D..

Click here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html) for Rosa Prince's Telegraph story.

One of the things about the anti-PC outbursts that no longer surprises me is the simplicity of the complaint. Yes, a child turning down food could be expressing racism. I mean, the topic post did actually boldface the word "could", so I'm puzzled as to how it slipped through:

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

(Prince (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html))

In imitating the topic post's boldfaced accent of a sentence, I added an italic accent to the word "could", so that it would have a harder time slipping by unnoticed.

Now comes the part that I can't believe I have to explain to anyone.

The word could indicates possibility. The word "will", as in—


Names are one thing. But now we will regulate thought.

—does not. It's a little more definite.

Start with a short, bizarre anecdote. Once upon a time, there was a boy at a middle school in a small town. He talked to and got along with another boy. Certainly, they weren't fast friends, or anything, but there wasn't any animosity between them. Then one day, one of the one boy found out that the other was not fully white. From that day forward, the one antagonized the other for ethnic considerations. Apparently, even though the antagonist couldn't tell by looking at the other, the mere fact of the other's ethnicity was enough to inspire racism.

Now consider foods. Personally, there are a number of things I never ate as a kid in any form. According to the word "could", as relates young children refusing food, it wouldn't have mattered to me what kind of food it was in. There were some things I just didn't eat. Period.

Now, that shouldn't be a disturbing thing. But what if a child suddenly stops eating something after finding out that it's "Mexican" or "Middle Eastern"?

There are circumstances under which a child's eating habits do reflect attitudes. And this is where the NCB standards will get sticky. Because not every teacher or play leader is going to be specifically qualified to hypothesize about a child's conduct. Inevitably, there will be notorious borderline cases to serve as examples of what's wrong with the policy.

Remember that racism begins at home.

The real task is to find out what the report actually says. Because, as the NCB itself notes,

A spokesperson from NCB said: "It is an excellent resource which has been specially designed to help teachers and nursery leaders recognise what is, and just as importantly, what is NOT potentially racist behaviour and attitudes in youngsters in their care.

"References to use of the word 'yuk', 'spicy foods' and reporting young children to local authorities, in this 366-page book, have been misrepresented and misunderstood as a consequence of that.

"This book is being funded by NCB from book sales alone – and not from government funding or from any grants, as has also been reported. The sales have been excellent so far which goes to show there is an acknowledged need for books like it."

(National Children's Bureau (http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_6073ic_23555200356948j64k_2008772 856u))

The simple fact of a child's palate is not an indication of racism. But if eating habits reflect other suggestions of budding ethnic prejudice, there is no reason to overlook the point.
____________________

Notes:

Prince, Rosa. "Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'". Telegraph. July 8, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

National Children's Bureau. "Young Children and Racial Justice". NCB.org. July 9, 2008. http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_6073ic_23555200356948j64k_2008772 856u

But what if a child suddenly stops eating something after finding out that it's "Mexican" or "Middle Eastern"?


Is it any different if a Muslim or Jewish child stops eating something (with a 'yuk') because they find out it has pork in it? Conceivably, it could be considered a slur against Christians given the way the N.C.B. has presented the argument.

Is it any different if a Muslim or Jewish child stops eating something (with a 'yuk') because they find out it has pork in it? Conceivably, it could be considered a slur against Christians given the way the N.C.B. has presented the argument.

Maybe. But I would propose there's a difference between "God says I shouldn't eat this food", and "I'm not eating Spic food!"

Goddamn, if I don't eat deep-fried Twinkies, am I being a bigot against fat people?

What I'm getting at is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for not eating something. Bigotry against people isn't on the list.

(And, yes, I think "Because God says so" is pretty stupid, but that just shows my bigotry toward the delusional.)

i agree tiassa.

This actually happens all the time and could be obserbed at my local shopping center. there were two shops side by side BOTH serving identical suvlacies (though in SA they call them youros's). One shop was a greek and the other was run by two iranian brothers. The food from the iranian brothers was FAR superia from the greek (not oily ect) and yet it was the iranian shop that went out of buiness

WHY?

Because its "arab food". Bloody stupid

The Iranians probably closed shop on being referred to as Arabs. They are Persians. :D

my mestake, they just refered to it as an iranian restraunt

my mestake, they just refered to it as an iranian restraunt You are very honest. You could have said 'Oh, I know that, but that is what people actually said." Which is quite likely. So points for honesty.

hehe

I never ate spicy food as a child. My family would make plain unspicy food ONLY for me [my younger siblings all ate spicy food, or at least more spicy than I did]. I would cry giant tears [I checked in the mirror to see how giant they were, always an exhibitionist, moi] if I was forced to eat spicy food.

I was a terrible child in some ways.

hehehheh, i cant wait to see how much of this PB eats:p

i had to buy LOTS of yoghurt to make lassies so that she wouldnt winge:p
she HATES hot food and i convinced her to eat vindiloo:p

Oh boy cut down the chillies to a tenth of what I gave you. :eek:

Now comes the part that I can't believe I have to explain to anyone.

The word could indicates possibility. The word "will", as in—

—does not. It's a little more definite.

Ah. The guidelines are meant to be guided away from. The law will not be enforced. Very prophetic; and as unrooted as any other interpretation. What a stirring example of supposition.

Now, that shouldn't be a disturbing thing. But what if a child suddenly stops eating something after finding out that it's "Mexican" or "Middle Eastern"?

And you know this is the limit to which such a law will be extrapolated? Again: how prophetic. Will the children receive a disciplinary note themselves, or will instead the parents be the guilty parties? I can't wait to see the other mealy-mouthed defenses of Orwellian logic you might conjure up.

I can't wait to see the other mealy-mouthed defenses of Orwellian logic you might conjure up.

You really should invest your self-identification in something other than being afraid.

The most stirring example of supposition so far is your topic post.

I'm not the one pretending to foresee the practical use of the law, O honoured swami. Do you have a setting aside from "bitter armchair activist"? And in a counter-proposal, are you invested in anything other than fear vis-a-vis the Patriot Act, say?

SAM dont worry, if worst comes to worst i bought 2 cans of conconut milk that i can use to cut down the heat in the dish if i need to

Is it racist to say that most Oriental food looks about as appetizing as a rotting rectum? What Chinese people actually eat is pretty gutwrenching: scorpions on sticks, bats in soups, cats, rats, dogs, monkeys, snakes, babies (no joke), etc. As long as it was once breathing, the Chinese will make a meal out of it. If I'm ever offered to eat some baboon's beet-red ass, you can bet I'll make a scene. "You want me to eat some monkey's red ass? Vato, fuck that shit!" I'd happily wear a jet-black t-shirt with "RACIST" printed on it in bold white letters for the rest of my life before eating the food found in China's markets. Same goes for Mexicans and the ant eggs they put in their spicy tacos.

Kadark the Hyena

Is it racist to say that most Oriental food looks about as appetizing as a rotting rectum? What Chinese people actually eat is pretty gutwrenching: scorpions on sticks, bats in soups, cats, rats, dogs, monkeys, snakes, babies (no joke), etc. As long as it was once breathing, the Chinese will make a meal out of it. If I'm ever offered to eat some baboon's beet-red ass, you can bet I'll make a scene. "You want me to eat some monkey's red ass? Vato, fuck that shit!" I'd happily wear a jet-black t-shirt with "RACIST" printed on it in bold white letters for the rest of my life before eating the food found in China's markets. Same goes for Mexicans and the ant eggs they put in their spicy tacos.

Kadark the Hyena

There's a Billion people living in China. So I'm sure allot of them would starve if they didn't resort to eating anything that's edible.

What the FUCK?????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not liking food does not make you a racist. Hating foreigners makes you a racist.

Actually, hating foreigners doesn't make your a racist in many cases :)

UK is busy creating a new breed of English folks, get used to it.

I'm not the one pretending to foresee the practical use of the law, O honoured swami.

I would point out that your topic post contradicts that claim, but then again, bitter projections of Orwellian thought regulation aren't exactly practical:

"Names are one thing. But now we will regulate thought. This is what comes of not making George Orwell mandatory reading."

In the meantime, I'll await—although not with any great anticipation—your analysis of my attempt to foresee the practical use of the law. (What law?)

Do you have a setting aside from "bitter armchair activist"?

Sure. Your question, however, suggests that you neither recognize or understand them.

And in a counter-proposal, are you invested in anything other than fear vis-a-vis the Patriot Act, say?

Sure. But, again, your question suggests you neither recognize or understand such investments.

• • •


I'd happily wear a jet-black t-shirt with "RACIST" printed on it in bold white letters for the rest of my life before eating the food found in China's markets. Same goes for Mexicans and the ant eggs they put in their spicy tacos.

Yes, but would you not eat the food because the food itself is unappetizing, or because the people who eat it are Chinese or Mexican?

I mean, on the one hand, I don't eat chorizo, a popular Mexican sausage. This has to do with what it's made of—lymph and snout. It has nothing to do with the Mexicans themselves.

In fact, I've been known to eat a Mexican before.

tiassa did you HAVE to tell me whats in a chorizo?:(
i USED to like that but now i feel sick:(

Admitedly i will try almost anything, at cooking school we had an offal day where we did dam near everything (brain, tripe, kidneys, liver, tongue, sweet breads) and i DID try everything. Well some of it wasnt that hard, liver and bacon is delicious and kidneys are ok. Tongue just tastes like silverside (but is more irritating to prepare) and even sweet breads were quite nice. However i will NEVER again eat brains or tripe. One guy did do the tripe so you couldnt actually taste it or even really know it was tripe (it was in a pasta dish) but crumbed brains made me want to puke

Yes, but would you not eat the food because the food itself is unappetizing, or because the people who eat it are Chinese or Mexican?

I mean, on the one hand, I don't eat chorizo, a popular Mexican sausage. This has to do with what it's made of—lymph and snout. It has nothing to do with the Mexicans themselves.

Well, of course - my refusal to eat the food has nothing to do with the people who make it. My problem lies within the food itself.

In fact, I've been known to eat a Mexican before.

Hmm, as in cannibalism, or as in you routinely "eat out" sexy latina women? I sincerely hope (for the sake of both of us) that your answer is the latter.

Hey, if your answer is the latter, would you want to hook me up with some phone numbers? Tell them you know me personally, and that I don't disappoint.

Kadark the Eager

I would point out that your topic post contradicts that claim

I merely point out the not-too-infrequent regress to the worst possible case. I wonder if your blithe naivety about societal fallout extends to, say, the Patriot Act or FISA. Still no answer to the question that I proposed. I don't suppose it would be much a leap to speculate as to your innate terror of those latter two laws. You really should step out of a personality box that you define solely on your paranoia, you know. Someone alluded to that earlier on this thread.

, but then again, bitter projections of Orwellian thought regulation aren't exactly practical:

Neither is the Orwellian regulation of preference in three year olds, which these guidelines will probably lead to. But if the problem doesn't concern you personally, I can see why it might escape your interest.

In the meantime, I'll await—although not with any great anticipation—your analysis of my attempt to foresee the practical use of the law. (What law?)

:yawn: Whichever law the guidelines have power of implementation in. Otherwise, such guidelines are meaningless by the first challenge thereto. Pedantry becomes you.

Sure. But, again, your question suggests you neither recognize or understand such investments.

On the contrary, your avoidance essentially confirms my speculations on your hypocrisy and defensive contraction, which is also suggested by your inevitable result to belittlement and insult. You have some sort of need for pretension to an intelligence your cerebellum can't really back up; yet, my pointing that out is admittedly cruel and needless.

I mean, on the one hand, I don't eat chorizo, a popular Mexican sausage. This has to do with what it's made of—lymph and snout. It has nothing to do with the Mexicans themselves.

Oh? How is this known? Can you objectively demonstrate proof you have no innate racism towards Mexicans? I'm sure no one - humans being innately fair creatures - could possibly use such a statement against you in some mean-spirited manner.

Geoff

Goddamn, if I don't eat deep-fried Twinkies, am I being a bigot against fat people?


No. But the result of your refusal includes an implicit (negative) judgment directed at people who do. That might be fat people, it might be poor people or it might be black people. It's probably a mixture of them all, making your action potentially prejudicial on a number of levels.

I merely point out the not-too-infrequent regress to the worst possible case. I wonder if your blithe naivety about societal fallout extends to, say, the Patriot Act or FISA. Still no answer to the question that I proposed.

No answer? Which question?

I don't suppose it would be much a leap to speculate as to your innate terror of those latter two laws. You really should step out of a personality box that you define solely on your paranoia, you know. Someone alluded to that earlier on this thread.

Must have missed it. Remind me of that allusion?

Neither is the Orwellian regulation of preference in three year olds, which these guidelines will probably lead to.

Something about paranoia goes here.

But if the problem doesn't concern you personally, I can see why it might escape your interest.

I just have greater respect for the British than you do. I don't think they're as stupid as your dystopian fears portray them.

Whichever law the guidelines have power of implementation in.

Show me that this book has any regulatory authority.

Otherwise, such guidelines are meaningless by the first challenge thereto.

No, not really. Perhaps the findings and advice will be diminished by the first substantive challenge thereto, but your panicked, Orwellian projections are pretty worthless, considering you don't actually know what the book says.

On the contrary, your avoidance essentially confirms my speculations on your hypocrisy and defensive contraction, which is also suggested by your inevitable result to belittlement and insult.

I am, conveniently, and depending on the critic, variously bitter, starry-eyed, pedantic, ignorant, paranoid, naîve, ad nauseam. It's entirely possible that you ask such stupid questions because you simply haven't been paying attention, but then again, given the amount you've bitched and whined and cried about me in the past, that would be a tough proposition to support.

Rather, I think the inevitable resort to belittlement and insult is your own, and you really should just cram it with walnuts.

You have some sort of need for pretension to an intelligence your cerebellum can't really back up; yet, my pointing that out is admittedly cruel and needless.

Oh come now, Geoff. We already know your purpose here isn't genuine. We already know your paranoid whining, invested in ignorance, is really just a front for your needless cruelty. There's nothing surprising about your conduct at this point.

Oh? How is this known? Can you objectively demonstrate proof you have no innate racism towards Mexicans? I'm sure no one - humans being innately fair creatures - could possibly use such a statement against you in some mean-spirited manner.

Of course I can't. After all, diverse humans have diverse standards. Like you, for instance: you'll grasp any ridiculous standard, no matter how ignorant or paranoid, if it fosters your mean spirit and needless cruelty.

Duh.

And besides, Geoff, some of us recognize our humanity. If someone pointed out objective evidence of racism toward Mexicans in my outlook, it would only represent one more thing I need to work on. Unlike some people, my faults aren't cause for panic and belligerence.

All I really ask of those who would purport to criticize is a modicum of honesty. I can't help it if that standard excludes you.

The book costs £24, and does not claim to be intended for regulatory construction. Rather, it is

Designed for use in professional development, with case studies, references and accessible articles for students, this book provides essential information for practitioners, volunteers, administrators, support workers, trainers, development workers, policy makers, leaders, managers, inspectors, officers and researchers.

(National Children's Bureau (http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_8761oq_5113477690040g44a_20086125 657e))

I would suggest that those most concerned about its impact should find a way to obtain a copy and figure out what's actually in it. While the NCB itself makes the point that the very controversy we're discussing in this topic is misrepresented, you don't seem to care.

Perhaps the book really is that bad. But you aren't in any position to make that case, preferring to wring your hands and prophesy doom from the shadows of ignorance.

• • •


But the result of your refusal includes an implicit (negative) judgment directed at people who do.

Wow. I guess I do have a lot to learn. I don't see how that judgment could be unless explicitly stated.

You know, like, "Of course I don't like carrots! What kind of savage do you think I am?"

When you have as selective a palate as I did growing up—and, in many ways, still do—and every day hear moral criticism about the fact that your body just won't adjust to accept certain foods—cooked carrots, for instance; I can't stand the texture of the things, and I don't know what the hell I need to do to change that—you learn to not judge people in any moral sense based on the foods they eat. Sure, something might look or smell repugnant, but that has no real moral value. If you extrapolate that all the way into fantasy, I don't oppose the vampire or the zombie because they're "evil", but rather because they're dangerous.

Remarkably, as a liberal, I'm often accused of believing the kind strangely oversensitive applications of principle as your "implicit (negative) judgment" suggests. Sometimes it seems that people's distress over the sorts of "liberal" things they complain about derives from their own superstitions about liberals.

Does the projection of the implicit judgment stem from your own liberalism?
_____________________

Notes:

National Children's Bureau. "NCB Publications - Young Children and Racial Justice". Viewed July 11, 2008. http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_8761oq_5113477690040g44a_20086125 657e

Asguard, this is off topic, but what are sweetbreads?

Must have missed it. Remind me of that allusion?

Oh, Lord.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924988&postcount=17

Something about paranoia goes here.

Because, surely, any objection to a law that Tiassa likes is paranoia. Of course.

I just have greater respect for the British than you do. I don't think they're as stupid as your dystopian fears portray them.

Being that I am British, you arrogant little fool, I find this hard to rationalize.

Show me that this book has any regulatory authority.

Then why discuss it at all? Why is it news of any kind? These guidelines might as well label the offending children as jelly donuts instead of racists, in that case. Absurd.

No, not really. Perhaps the findings and advice will be diminished by the first substantive challenge thereto, but your panicked, Orwellian projections are pretty worthless, considering you don't actually know what the book says.

Rather, they are of precisely the same worth as your blithe dismissals, with the exception that I am properly cynical of human nature. Certainly after discussion with you, I have no reason to be, naturally. But there it is.

Rather, I think the inevitable resort to belittlement and insult is your own, and you really should just cram it with walnuts.

Ah. This must be why your first post started with:

Now comes the part that I can't believe I have to explain to anyone.

Insulting and pedantic both. Tiassic?

Oh come now, Geoff. We already know your purpose here isn't genuine. We already know your paranoid whining, invested in ignorance, is really just a front for your needless cruelty. There's nothing surprising about your conduct at this point.

I'd love to hear more about my disingenuity, if you can spare a few seconds away from navel-gazing. What does it comprise then? Me and my cruel, cruel cruelty. Run along and sob, then.

And besides, Geoff, some of us recognize our humanity.

Hmm. Except when dealing with three-year olds, perhaps. Well, there have to be standards, you know. Can't just let anyone in. And anyone opposed to this is cruel! Cruel meanie cruelists. It astounds me how someone can purport rationality and yet still defend this pap for the mind.

The book costs £24, and does not claim to be intended for regulatory construction.

Yes, I read that, as you do not seem to have done. It amounts to more mealy mouthed talking around a novel standard for a new absurdity in reactionism. Racist three year olds, indeed. If the book has no regulatory construction, or is intended for the correction of no outstanding problem, then why publish and provide it at all? How logical.

Wow. I guess I do have a lot to learn. I don't see how that judgment could be unless explicitly stated.

You know, like, "Of course I don't like carrots! What kind of savage do you think I am?"

It's curious that your appeals to sociality and logic are always couched in imaginary scenarios.

Geoff

Sweetbread

Sweetbreads are the thymus glands of lamb, beef, or pork. There are two different connected glands; one set in the neck and the other near the heart. Although both are edible, the heart thymus gland is generally favored because of its delicate flavor and texture, and is thus more expensive[1]. Typically sweetbreads are soaked in salt water, then poached in milk after which an outer membrane is removed. Once dry and chilled, they're often breaded and fried until crisp. It is also popular to use them as a stuffing or in pâtés.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not the pancreas can be considered sweetbreads. Even though French Master Chef Phillip Boulot says no, there are numerous resources that say yes, such as Larousse Gastronomique, the French encyclopedia of gastronomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetbread

Oh, Lord.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=17

Well, you should be more specific:

"You really should step out of a personality box that you define solely on your paranoia, you know. Someone alluded to that earlier on this thread."

After all, the post you link to considers your paranoia, not any allegation of mine.

Because, surely, any objection to a law that Tiassa likes is paranoia. Of course

What law are you referring to? Your vague allusion—

"Whichever law the guidelines have power of implementation in."

—has no substantive foundation. There is no evidence that the considerations in Ms. Lane's book have any legislative authority.

Being that I am British, you arrogant little fool, I find this hard to rationalize.

Well, the fact that it's published in a book doesn't make it legislative policy. Your panic over the "Orwellian" suggestions of news reports said to misrepresent a situation requires the proposition that the British people are as incapable of showing refined judgment or recognizing subtlety as you are. I tend to think my neighbors across the Pond are smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong, but you'll have to convince me of that.

Then why discuss it at all? Why is it news of any kind? These guidelines might as well label the offending children as jelly donuts instead of racists, in that case. Absurd.

Not every investigation, inquiry, study, survey, or otherwise leads to regulation. Why discuss the subject at all? Because racism and other bigotry harms a society. One does not find progress by turning one's back on the problem and playing Pilate.

Rather, they are of precisely the same worth as your blithe dismissals, with the exception that I am properly cynical of human nature. Certainly after discussion with you, I have no reason to be, naturally. But there it is.

Blithe dismissals? Because I need more than inaccurate news reports?

Ah. This must be why your first post started with:


Now comes the part that I can't believe I have to explain to anyone.

Insulting and pedantic both. Tiassic?

You're the one jumping to the insulting conclusion that misconstruction on a foundation of ignorance is the appropriate response.

To the other, we won't dwell on the fact that the post started by offering a functioning link to the topic article and a consideration of the underlying simplicity of the complaint.

Yes, concepts can be misapplied. This fact does not warrant the leap to the presumption that they will be misapplied.

I'd love to hear more about my disingenuity, if you can spare a few seconds away from navel-gazing. What does it comprise then? Me and my cruel, cruel cruelty. Run along and sob, then.

Well, you simply ought to try something other than self-righteous ignorance.

Hmm. Except when dealing with three-year olds, perhaps. Well, there have to be standards, you know. Can't just let anyone in.

How is that not a non-sequitur?

And anyone opposed to this is cruel! Cruel meanie cruelists.

Actually, I was just referring to you. If you didn't want to discuss your needless cruelty, you probably shouldn't have brought it up.

It astounds me how someone can purport rationality and yet still defend this pap for the mind.

I admit it's rather amusing to see that sort of argument coming from someone who complains about the contents of a book he has not read and is not familiar with.

Like I suggested earlier, those most concerned about its impact should find a way to obtain a copy and figure out what's actually in it.

Racist three year olds, indeed.

Would you purport that it is impossible to teach a child bigotry by three years old? Are you prepared to assert that a child immersed in a racist environment does not absorb and adapt to any of those bigoted behavioral patterns?

If the book has no regulatory construction, or is intended for the correction of no outstanding problem, then why publish and provide it at all? How logical.

Well, we might consider the hundreds of psychological journals published in the United States. Very few, if any of those articles lead to regulation. Very few of the books published by those authors lead to regulation. If we take Roper v. Simmons, as an example, when the Supreme Court of the United Stats upheld the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to forbid the execution of convicts who were minors at the time of their crime, among the considerations was scientific evidence about the functions of juvenile brains. This sort of stuff wasn't published by a children's bureau; the decision did not look to the latest pop-psychology best-seller, but rather to scientific findings.

If the science behind the NCB book is sound, it will be the science that affects policy decisions.

Books like these are written to address a certain subject, a perceived issue. Whether the issue itself, the relevant data, or the conclusions drawn are valid is its own question. The first thing that a book like this will do is present the individual reader with data and perspective to consider, to accept, reject, or adapt as one sees fit. If a teacher or play leader reads the material and decides it's bullshit, he or she won't apply the concepts.

Critiques from the book's intended audience will probably offer some enlightening considerations.

It's curious that your appeals to sociality and logic are always couched in imaginary scenarios.

This from you?

And what imaginary scenario? I don't like carrots. I do not see how that fact forms an implicit negative judgment about people who do. If the explicit statement is imaginary, there's a reason for that: I don't believe people who like carrots are savages.

And that's another thing I find it odd that I should need to explain.

Again?

I'm not going to go to the trouble of fisking you, because it's not necessary. To tell the truth, I scarcely scanned it. Yet, it's easy to see that you've contradicted your own ethics: you claim the guidelines have no power (why? because teachers reading them have no power to enforce discipline in their own classrooms??) and then go on about how important it is that racism (as you define it) needs to be combatted in defense of the same perspective. So which is it, a move towards (in your mind) justifiable regulation or not? Your duplicity is absurd.

As a final note, illustrate to me the frequency with which science actually affects policy decisions. I'll give you a hint: it occurs at a correlation less than 1.0.

Your post illustrates yet again that even a self-important pedant can become a moderator.

Best,

Geoff

the frequency with which science actually affects policy decisions.

Can't throw a bomb you don't invent. Cannot have military might without it.

Much to my culinary chagrin, I've seen many Mideastern restaurants close in US cities since 9-11. I suspect this phenomena is indicative of an unhealthy decline in multiculturalism. The small ethnic groceries hold on better, but the places where the clientele were ethnically mixed have visibly suffered.

If only Mideastern food had been assimilated in the USA like "Mexican" food has: Rednecks who loathe immigrants from the South America can be seen all over this country, wolfing down their gringo tacos.

I'll confess to some culinary "racism" of my own: When I crave some fresh khubs (which is every single day) I most often have to settle for cold, bland kosher pita wrapped in plastic. Those who have never tasted really fresh Arabic bread, still puffed up from cooking, just don't know what they're missing. We make a lot of Mideastern delicacies in my house, but the bread-making savoir-faire escapes us.

Yeah, the Middle Eastern sandwich defies description. Ever had a samouli stuffed with eggplant and falafel? :p

My own fantasies revolve around the Iranian double baked brun pav or brown bread. Hot and fresh it is crunchy on the outside and liberally lathered in salted butter, is a stairway to heaven. Its a unique food made by Persian Iranians only in Mumbai :p

http://www.uppercrustindia.com/21crust/twentyone/people3.htm

Hot and fresh it is crunchy on the outside and liberally lathered in salted butter, is a stairway to heaven. http://www.uppercrustindia.com/21crust/twentyone/people3.htm

Or Hell! Depending on your cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

Or Hell! Depending on your cholesterol levels and blood pressure.


Give me real bread and butter over fake food any day. :p

Zend seems to be doing pretty well at 70 :p

Who's Zend?

You know, like, "Of course I don't like carrots! What kind of savage do you think I am?"


You've unsubtly changed the goalposts by bringing carrots into it, I see, which certainly don't have the same negative cultural connotations as deep fried Twinkies, a close culinary cousin of deep fried Mars Bars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar).

Wow. I guess I do have a lot to learn. I don't see how that judgment could be unless explicitly stated.


Is this another example of the psychological blind-spot at work which lead you to suggest that the religious give up their lives out of greed?

Or are you simply trying to cover up the brief but embarrassing exposure of your own latent intolerance?

Does the projection of the implicit judgment stem from your own liberalism?

Just like any other working class person in the West who is conned into believing that liberal education is the key to success, I avoided that path.

You've unsubtly changed the goalposts by bringing carrots into it, I see, which certainly don't have the same negative cultural connotations as deep fried Twinkies, a close culinary cousin of deep fried Mars Bars.

And what are the cultural connotations of deep fried Twinkies?

Is this another example of the psychological blind-spot at work which lead you to suggest that the religious give up their lives out of greed?

Or are you simply trying to cover up the brief but embarrassing exposure of your own latent intolerance?

And yet you managed to address the issue without actually touching it. How does your "Implied (negative) judgment" work? It sounds like you are more prone to embody Geoff's paranoid projections about the NCB book.

See, every once in a while, my body mysteriously turns on a switch. When I was nineteen, I started eating certain greens. When I was about thirty-two or so, hummus. Really, that one was out of the blue. We were on the way to a concert, stopped off at a bar up the street from the venue, and suddenly bacon burgers and cheese sticks didn't look appetizing. For some reason, I craved hummus. Now, I had eaten hummus once before, at a small pub near one of the houses where we had lived. That was probably five years before.

Normally, when one of these switches comes on, I figure it has something to do with my body identifying a source of something it wants. But, apparently, I'm just getting over some horrible bigotry against people who eat spinach, or hummus, or whatever.

Deep fried Twinkies? In truth, the idea isn't particularly appetizing. You could actually provide enlightenment by explaining how that fact equals an implicit condemnation or other negative judgment of people who eat such things.

Just like any other working class person in the West who is conned into believing that liberal education is the key to success, I avoided that path.

Explains a lot.

tiassa did you HAVE to tell me whats in a chorizo?:(
i USED to like that but now i feel sick:(

Admitedly i will try almost anything, at cooking school we had an offal day where we did dam near everything (brain, tripe, kidneys, liver, tongue, sweet breads) and i DID try everything. Well some of it wasnt that hard, liver and bacon is delicious and kidneys are ok. Tongue just tastes like silverside (but is more irritating to prepare) and even sweet breads were quite nice. However i will NEVER again eat brains or tripe. One guy did do the tripe so you couldnt actually taste it or even really know it was tripe (it was in a pasta dish) but crumbed brains made me want to puke

Tongue has to be prepared well to be tasty. I usually make gashes in it with a sharp knife, rub it with salt, pepper and garlic, add some vinegar and then pressure cook it on a slow pressure for 30 minutes. Makes it soft as butter. Its an excellent sandwich on plain bread slices with butter or horse radish spread.

Both brain and tripe are also tricky to prepare, but can turn out delicious when made well. I usually boil the brain before removing all its membranes, slice it into thick medallions and make a green curry out of it. But its also great just dipped in eggwhite and batter and fried crisp.

Similarly, tripe has to be cleaned with lime, then dipped for a few seconds in boiling hot water and rubbed to remove its outer membranes. It should look fresh and white and clean. Then I usually prepare a spicy curry from it.

But my favorites are liver [goat or chicken] and goat feet, which we use to make nihari, a popular dish in winter. However, I need someone to burn off the hair on the feet, thats way too nauseating for me, I don't like the smell of burning hair.:bugeye:

Can't throw a bomb you don't invent. Cannot have military might without it.

Other than blowing people up, I mean. Everyone's always for that.

chicken liver is generally (at least in the west) turned into cheap pate (the proper stuff is ducks liver)

Sam try this:

lamb Liver and bacon

You just clean the liver and slice it into strips about 1cm across, then flour it (put salt and peper in the flour)
Saute liver, large pieces of bacon and a sliced onion.
add a little water and let it simmer into a gravy

Serve with sauted cabbage with caraway seeds and mashed potato:)

DELICIOUS:D

And liberal retards say that whites don't walk on eggshells in regards to the issues of race and ethnicity?

HAH!

I repeat:

HAH!

How can they tell if a child is racist at only three years old. When I was three my parents took me to a Vietnamese restaurant called B-7 or something like that and I told everyone including the waiter that all of the food was "yucky" and ate airline peanuts that my mother had in her purse for dinner. But as a three year old all I didn't even know where we were or what kind of food I was eating all I knew was that I didn't like it. I didn't even find out it was a Vietnamese place until I was in high school. I suppose that would make me racist according to the study, right? Or are there other qualifications that need to be met? Just curious. My internet won't load any of the articles I find on it.

And liberal retards say that whites don't walk on eggshells in regards to the issues of race and ethnicity?

HAH!

I repeat:

HAH!

Anyone who says that is retarded. White people are always careful about what they say and do that involves race, especially black people. Too such an extent that it's kind of funny in an annoying way.
It's okay most black people aren't offended if you call them black. :)

What I find hilarious is that Tiassa isn't bothered by these absurd guidelines, because hey, a child 'could' be found to be racist simply for disliking food. It's not a sure thing, after all. :rolleyes:

And what are the cultural connotations of deep fried Twinkies?


http://www.bostonblueyes.com/blog/redneck-twinkies.jpg


I guess the Twinkie itself had enough cultural connotations, the practice of deep frying it only offered another opportunity - in that tired old dynamic of Western society - for educated liberals to deal with the frustrations of their own prejudices by projecting them onto working class whites.

And yet you managed to address the issue without actually touching it. How does your "Implied (negative) judgment" work?

Do you live in a cultural vacuum in your part of America?

But, apparently, I'm just getting over some horrible bigotry against people who eat spinach, or hummus, or whatever.

Quite the reverse. Most Western liberals eat foreign food to further distance themselves from the 'uneducated masses'. Many of them don't even particularly like what they're eating.

Tabouleh is simply divine.

Sweetbread

Sweetbreads are the thymus glands of lamb, beef, or pork. There are two different connected glands; one set in the neck and the other near the heart. Although both are edible, the heart thymus gland is generally favored because of its delicate flavor and texture, and is thus more expensive[1]. Typically sweetbreads are soaked in salt water, then poached in milk after which an outer membrane is removed. Once dry and chilled, they're often breaded and fried until crisp. It is also popular to use them as a stuffing or in pâtés.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not the pancreas can be considered sweetbreads. Even though French Master Chef Phillip Boulot says no, there are numerous resources that say yes, such as Larousse Gastronomique, the French encyclopedia of gastronomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetbread

vlech. That's horrible. Endocrine glands for fuck's sake....*that syllable Enmos does not like*

I guess the Twinkie itself had enough cultural connotations, the practice of deep frying it only offered another opportunity - in that tired old dynamic of Western society - for educated liberals to deal with the frustrations of their own prejudices by projecting them onto working class whites.

How many rednecks are there in Brooklyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Twinkie)?

I'm not sure what bigotry I'm displaying by preferring my Twinkies sans the "'meaty' flavor".

Do you live in a cultural vacuum in your part of America?

Seattle has, before, been accused of that sort of thing.

Most Western liberals eat foreign food to further distance themselves from the 'uneducated masses'. Many of them don't even particularly like what they're eating.

Yes, when my body turned onto spinach, it wasn't about nutrition or biochemistry or anything like that. It was a chance to show my contempt for all the iceberg lettuce munching riff-raff in America. And when I suddenly started liking hummus, it must have been because my subconscious spied an opportunity to discriminate against the macaroni salad contingent.

That's a hell of a theory, Deep Thought, and even more superstitious than I would have expected from you.

Here, let's try this one on. There's this place in Seattle, called Bimbo's. Serves great burritos. Now, I've been all cool with rice for years—although your theory explains that in consuming a worldwide staple like rice, I must be expressing my contempt for rich people, or something—I've never really eaten many beans. Nor did I eat sour cream; let's hear your bigotry theory on that one. But Bimbo's used this really good sour cream, with a bit of chili and lime; I don't recall seeing it drizzled before, as I'm more accustomed to the whipped and fluffed sour cream. But after eating some of their superb nachos, I had a craving for a burrito. A goddamn thirteen-inch burrito. (Really, I didn't expect it to be thirteen inches around, as well.) And it was really good. For the first time I can recall, my body actually wanted the goddamn beans. Must be showing my contempt for white anti-immigration people. Couldn't have a thing to do, could it, with being thirty-four and never having had a balanced diet in my life, could it?

In truth, I still have no idea which beans I was eating. That, more than anything, testifies to my cultural ignorance, which is more of a worry to me than any ridiculous theory that I'm making a social commentary by eating beans.

I'm not a fan of calamari. What does that say? Who do I hate?

Are you capable of recognizing the difference between something that is and the reasons why?

It seems like you're honoring the paranoid exaggerations of what the NCB book might say and the impacts thereof in order to make some absurd political statement. Perhaps I'm wrong; but I don't think you actually believe the biscuits you're floating.
____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Deep-fried Twinkie". Updated June 27, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Twinkie

I think satay vegetables are disgusting, they look like blobs of cartilage and taste like piss. (or how I imagine piss to taste...never actually tasted urine.)

Doesn't mean I have hatred or prejudice against Chinese people.

Must be showing my contempt for white anti-immigration people. Couldn't have a thing to do, could it, with being thirty-four and never having had a balanced diet in my life, could it?

Amusing. You can decry endlessly the stupidity of having yourself subjected to scrutiny on whatever spurious grounds, but still feel that investigating three-year olds is a good idea. Can you still not see the absurdity of the entire proposition, particularly when excuses and any amount of creativity can generate - as you do - any number of scenarios to explain the supposed or real bigotry?

Cruel, cruel me for pointing that one out also, I suppose.

Amusing. You can decry endlessly the stupidity of having yourself subjected to scrutiny on whatever spurious grounds, but still feel that investigating three-year olds is a good idea. Can you still not see the absurdity of the entire proposition, particularly when excuses and any amount of creativity can generate - as you do - any number of scenarios to explain the supposed or real bigotry?

Cruel, cruel me for pointing that one out also, I suppose.

Lets just say one day, your 3 year old tells you he's not going to eat Indian food anymore. You ask him why and he tells you that it's because it's made by Indians and because they're 'insert racist comment of choice here'. How would you reply to that? What if one day your 3 year old expresses similar sentiments at his day care center? Would you want the teachers to let you know of what he said? Or just to treat his reaction to Indian people (or people from other nationalities) as being normal? You can substitute the nationality of people who make the food to be whatever you might like.

It's not about children being picky eaters and not wanting to eat things. It is the reasoning behind why they might not want to eat it. This isn't aimed at children who just don't want to eat Indian food or Chinese food, etc. This is aimed at children who refuse to eat certain food because it happens to be prepared by a person of a particular nationality and they, for some reason or other, think that people from that particular country are *again, insert racist comment of choice here*...

For example, a child who says "I don't like Chinese food because it tastes yucky".. is a normal child with a picky apetite.. But a child who says "I don't like Chinese food because they're *whatever racist things one might say about the Chinese" and my mummy and daddy told me they are *insert racist comments*.." would be a child who would be brought to the notice of his/her teachers as per the guidelines.

Now, can you tell which one is racist and which one is not?

GeoffP

A partial review of your exaggerations:

• "But now we will regulate thought." (#1 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924292)) — Regulate as opposed to what? Any other schooling? The NCB book does not establish any regulations.

• "The guidelines are meant to be guided away from. The law will not be enforced. Very prophetic; and as unrooted as any other interpretation." (#16 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924986)) — What law? The NCB book does not establish any laws.

• "I'm not the one pretending to foresee the practical use of the law, O honoured swami." (#18 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924991)) — What law? The NCB book does not establish any laws.

• "I wonder if your blithe naivety about societal fallout extends to, say, the Patriot Act or FISA." (#26 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1925137)) — Comparing the NCB book to the USA Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping is a bit disingenuous, at least.

• "Neither is the Orwellian regulation of preference in three year olds, which these guidelines will probably lead to." (ibid) — Will probably lead to? It would seem to me that, instead of whining about what might come, a more productive strategy would be to make a good-faith effort to expose the flaws of the NCB book and make sure it never does affect laws. Look, dude, being chased by zombies is one thing, but when you're imagining a glow-in-the-dark skeleton to tack onto your door at Hallowe'en, you're not being chased by zombies.

• "Because, surely, any objection to a law that Tiassa likes is paranoia." (#30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1925898)) — What law? The NCB book does not establish any laws. Oh, right. The regulations yet to come. (Insert scary music here.)

• "You can decry endlessly the stupidity of having yourself subjected to scrutiny on whatever spurious grounds, but still feel that investigating three-year olds is a good idea." (#53 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1929942)) — Quick! Someone call the NBTI (National Bureau of Toddler Investigation)! Young children are routinely "investigated", Geoff. Your exaggerations only belittle your cause.

If e'er I decide I feel so badly about life that I can only buoy myself by reveling in other people's inadequacies, I only need read through your part in this topic to make myself feel better.

So maybe, just maybe, someday I'll be shot in the head and rendered so goddamn stupid that your histrionics might be of benefit.

Lets just say one day, your 3 year old tells you he's not going to eat Indian food anymore. You ask him why and he tells you that it's because it's made by Indians and because they're 'insert racist comment of choice here'.

Do you have any three-year olds? My three-year old is so barely aware of the origin of any food that he is comfortably far from making any such distinction based on race or anything else, although he does like chicken fingers a great deal.

Now, if you honestly believe "It's not about children being picky eaters and not wanting to eat things. It is the reasoning behind why they might not want to eat it", then good and well for you. I am extremely dubious of any such capacity. Instead, I'm quite a bit more sure that it will be used to simply flail away at any perceived inequity of thought, with children being brought ad libitum to "the notice of his/her teachers as per the guidelines."

Now, can you tell which one is racist and which one is not?

I don't know. Can they? Should I trust them to do so? What happens when no such events are reported at a given school? Will they be required to delve a little deeper? Lead kids on, perhaps? What happens when I object to their characterizing of my child in such a manner? Is there, perhaps, a chapter in the book about what to do with a parent who objects? The entire notion is rife with the possibility for misuse; and the accusation of racism is a Teflon-coated bullet, really.


Tiassa

A partial review of your omissions.


• "But now we will regulate thought." (#1 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924292)) — Regulate as opposed to what? Any other schooling? The NCB book does not establish any regulations.

Then what power has it to effect any change? Will these scurrilous incidents - of whatever dubious calibre they may possess - be duly reported to the iron-spined authorities...and then quietly dropped? How will the NCB screed advise teachers to deal with these events? On what grounds will they be applied?

• "The guidelines are meant to be guided away from. The law will not be enforced. Very prophetic; and as unrooted as any other interpretation." (#16 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1924986)) — What law? The NCB book does not establish any laws.

Yes, yes, you've already said this. You seem to have bored yourself almost to death, to the point that you're repeated old news. See above for my reply.

• "I wonder if your blithe naivety about societal fallout extends to, say, the Patriot Act or FISA." (#26 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1925137)) — Comparing the NCB book to the USA Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping is a bit disingenuous, at least.

A bit off topic, but is warrantless wiretapping harmful in any way to the innocent? Compared to whatever sort of punishment, "treatment" or "mediation" that the absurdly vague NCB book will undoubtedly be used to justify? Let's all give the little children complexes before they turn five, shall we?

• "Neither is the Orwellian regulation of preference in [i]three year olds, which these guidelines will probably lead to." (ibid) — Will probably lead to? It would seem to me that, instead of whining about what might come, a more productive strategy would be to make a good-faith effort to expose the flaws of the NCB book and make sure it never does affect laws. Look, dude, being chased by zombies is one thing, but when you're imagining a glow-in-the-dark skeleton to tack onto your door at Hallowe'en, you're not being chased by zombies.

I am deeply honoured to say that I have not the foggiest impression of where your curious metaphor emits from, or what it is designed to demonstrate. I applaud it's nonsensicality.

As for whining about "what might come", see also above. It's hardly limited to me; generally one refers to it as "prediction", "common sense" or "perspective". Your argument reminds me of the little child on the rooftop, told not to jump but obstinately demanding to do so.

If e'er I decide I feel so badly about life that I can only buoy myself by reveling in other people's inadequacies, I only need read through your part in this topic to make myself feel better.

But, Tiassa, this is what you do, post after post. You revel in the supposed inadequacies of others, again and again, whenever you're confronted by anything your sensitive stomach can't absorb. And when your boat is tipped, you whine about "cruelty". It's endlessly amusing, but seemingly endless. The guidelines will probably be used wrongly, since it's aimed at young children's preferences, to which I object, and am therefore labeled cruel. So far I think we've gone through anti-American, homophobic and now cruel. A short litany of my supposed crimes so far; still, I hope sincerely to expand it in your estimation.

I won't speculate as to your likelihood of any near-fatal injury. It would be cruel to do so.

Geoff

Then what power has it to effect any change?

To reiterate:

Not every investigation, inquiry, study, survey, or otherwise leads to regulation. Why discuss the subject at all? Because racism and other bigotry harms a society. One does not find progress by turning one's back on the problem and playing Pilate.

It's information, Geoff. Teachers and play leaders are not robots. The people who read the NCB book will make their own decisions. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of researching a subject and drawing conclusions therefrom.

Will these scurrilous incidents - of whatever dubious calibre they may possess - be duly reported to the iron-spined authorities...and then quietly dropped?

Depends entirely on the individual.

How will the NCB screed advise teachers to deal with these events?

Oh, I'm sure there's some of that in the book. Let me know when you get around to it.

A bit off topic, but is warrantless wiretapping harmful in any way to the innocent?

A bit off topic? You brought it up.

And yes, the innocent are harmed. They have the right to carry on without some hack spy listening in on their quarrels with mother, or long-distance sex lives.

... I have not the foggiest impression of where your curious metaphor emits from, or what it is designed to demonstrate.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. The point is that if you stop pretending to see monsters everywhere you look, you won't be worried about the monsters you see everywhere you look.

... generally one refers to it as "prediction", "common sense" or "perspective".

Anyone can make a prediction. Common sense and perspective require more knowledge than you're applying here. For instance, it would probably help if you were responding to actual text from the book instead of inaccurate press reports pandering to sensationalism.

But, Tiassa, this is what you do, post after post.

Not quite. Although I do admit I see how one might think so if they're hoping to find a monster wherever they look.

I can only accommodate so much paranoia. The rest of you are on your own.

And when your boat is tipped, you whine about "cruelty".

If you don't want your cruelty discussed, don't bring it up (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1925137).

(Duh ....)

The guidelines will probably be used wrongly ....

This is the human species, Geoff. That's predictable. Do your objections stop at four? Five? At what age do you not object to the idea of educating a child at all, since history indicates that entire educational systems have been used wrongly before?

In the meantime, don't confuse information with people. There's always some moron out there who can fuck up pretty much anything.

I think satay vegetables are disgusting, they look like blobs of cartilage and taste like piss. (or how I imagine piss to taste...never actually tasted urine.)

Doesn't mean I have hatred or prejudice against Chinese people.

Ohhh!, V.I you have never tasted real satay ( very few have).
Ask any Malaysian, Chinese, Indonesian about satay and they will salivate on the spot.

Get perspective first please.

Satay..drool..

Seriously. It's just food. what the fuck ?.

back to drooling...

Do you have any three-year olds? My three-year old is so barely aware of the origin of any food that he is comfortably far from making any such distinction based on race or anything else, although he does like chicken fingers a great deal.



I have a two and a half year old. While he too is unaware of the origin of food (and hates chicken fingers to his very soul), wouldn't it be surprising to come across a 3 year old who says he/she hates Indian food because "dirty Indians" or "black nigger Indians" make it? Can you see where I'm going with this? I would imagine the greater majority of 3 year olds would not know or care about the racial origin of their foods. It's those who do and refuse to eat it as a result that this new guideline is aimed at. The 3 year old is not to blame. He/she will only believe as such because its parents will have taught it to think like that.

Now, if you honestly believe "It's not about children being picky eaters and not wanting to eat things. It is the reasoning behind why they might not want to eat it", then good and well for you. I am extremely dubious of any such capacity. Instead, I'm quite a bit more sure that it will be used to simply flail away at any perceived inequity of thought, with children being brought ad libitum to "the notice of his/her teachers as per the guidelines."
The capacity for the 3 year old is not there naturally. It is usually instilled in children by the parents and family. Can it be misused? Yes. Probably. But the reasoning behind it is food for thought.. pardon the pun.

Wouldn't you be surprised if a 3 year old told you it hated Chinese food because the people who make it are Chinese and *insert racist comment here*? I know I would be. And I would wonder where and how said 3 year old came to believe as such.

I don't know. Can they?
The children? No. The teachers? One would hope so. Seeing that you're having a bit of difficulty with it, I won't hold out much hope for the run of the mill teacher.

Should I trust them to do so?
Do you trust your children's teacher to teach them and have some form of intelligence?

What happens when no such events are reported at a given school? Will they be required to delve a little deeper? Lead kids on, perhaps?
Aren't you getting a bit paranoid?

You do realise teachers are trained to pick up racism amongst the students, don't you? This is just a guideline.. a heads up if you will.

Why would they need to lead the child on? It's not the child who will be punished. What? Do you think they're going to take it out back and give it a good belting?

What happens when I object to their characterizing of my child in such a manner?
Why would you object to your children's teachers being able to flag possible racist tendencies in your children? You would object if your kid's teacher called you and told you that your child called a black kid on the playground a "nigger" or said he wouldn't share his food with the "nigger" because he doesn't want to eat "nigger" food? You would object to your child's teacher flagging that as racism and getting back to you on the subject to attempt to ascertain where your child might have picked up that kind of belief? That's what the book is telling teachers to look out for.

As a parent, I would want to know if my child said something like that and I'd damn well want to know where or how it might have picked it up. I guess we're vastly different.

Is there, perhaps, a chapter in the book about what to do with a parent who objects?
You tell me. I am assuming you have read it to be finding it so objectionable?

The entire notion is rife with the possibility for misuse; and the accusation of racism is a Teflon-coated bullet, really.
Of course it is rife for misuse. So is anything really. Hell, your ability to use the internet is rife for misuse. So is getting a driver's license. But teachers do and should have the ability to distinguish between racism and a child being a picky eater.

I agree.. If this is just about flagging a child racist because it doesn't like certain ethnic foods, then yes, it is a bit of a joke. But if used as a guideline, as I suggested above, being able to determine if a child is being taught racist ideology at home or elsewhere in how and why it hates the certain food or ethnic origin of the food, then it might not be such a bad thing.

It's information, Geoff. Teachers and play leaders are not robots.

Precisely: they're humans, Tiassa. It smacks of witch hunting, and they will makes mistakes. The guidelines will eventually provoke legislation, and the entire issue will take on a life of its own.

Depends entirely on the individual.

Ah! At last, an admission. So, in other words: yes, these 'guidelines' will be used for correction and punishment. Now, this is all very well in a reasoned case of racism, but not, seemingly, as defined here, to the very edge of taste. If I say I dislike curry, then am I racist? Who decides that? On what basis?

A bit off topic? You brought it up.

Yes. That is why I wrote "A bit off topic", as in I'm going a bit off topic. It astounds me that your usual mode de critique is that of poor understanding in your targets.

And yes, the innocent are harmed. They have the right to carry on without some hack spy listening in on their quarrels with mother, or long-distance sex lives.

Interesting. Does a three-year old then have the right to taste preference, without some hack teacher listening in on and judging such preference?

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

It was indeed an extraordinarily bizarre comparison. I thank you for your suggestions, but you will allow me the guidance to decide my opinion on a particular issue, without being referred to the importance of some larger problem.

Anyone can make a prediction. Common sense and perspective require more knowledge than you're applying here.

Does this also apply to you, then? You do like to make sweeping dismissals without having read the book yourself. Do let me know when you've turned one of its pages.

Not quite.

No, no, no, you fool. Paranoia is not the issue. Do you read, man? The issue is that your responses to every issue, in all cases, from the get-go is slander and the accusation of ignorance. There really isn't anything you can say to this, because those who've seen your responses to people know it full well.

If you don't want your cruelty discussed

Again, you misunderstand.

I care nothing really for your accusation of cruelty; you have already asserted far worse. I merely point out that it is representative of the elements of your argumentation; that your opponent is puerile, ignorant, uneducated, and so forth. Yet the above responses of yours illustrate that you seemingly didn't read or follow my statements. You are the very image of what you claim no interest in: belittling others to attempt to prove a point. This is what you do.

This is the human species, Geoff. That's predictable. Do your objections stop at four? Five? At what age do you not object to the idea of educating a child at all, since history indicates that entire educational systems have been used wrongly before?

My objections stop at the point of reasonability, and not before. Three is, simply put, unreasonable.

I have a two and a half year old. While he too is unaware of the origin of food (and hates chicken fingers to his very soul), wouldn't it be surprising to come across a 3 year old who says he/she hates Indian food because "dirty Indians" or "black nigger Indians" make it?

Bells, I consider such language quite impossible for a three-year old of any kind. Now, as Tiassa has, above, pointed out, it is not clear where the guidelines are in theory aimed at, but I have little doubt where they will end up. It is the natural tendency of the human mind to progression, one restriction building on the next, indefinitely. Wherever it is now, it will end up worse.

The capacity for the 3 year old is not there naturally. It is usually instilled in children by the parents and family.

Here I can agree with you and Tiassa, in part. Such language might well be indicative of a racist home environment. But

Do you trust your children's teacher to teach them and have some form of intelligence?

Of course not. My trust is founded on experience. You're implying faith in their abilities; I have none until I know otherwise. You trust where you have evidence to support trust, balanced against the importance of the issue. My children's future is a critically important issue.

Why would they need to lead the child on? It's not the child who will be punished. What? Do you think they're going to take it out back and give it a good belting?

No, merely a good labelling. Once that's done, very little else need be accomplished.

Why would you object to your children's teachers being able to flag possible racist tendencies in your children?

I don't. I merely doubt very much their capacity to decide where something likes that begins and ends. My children aren't racist or bigoted, and I'm deeply suspicious of anything that could lay traps in their path to pick them off randomly from the herd, merely because Superintendent Jones requires a racism body count for the year. Now, it's entirely possible that it's as innocuous as the screening already being done. Then again, the initial tone of the article makes me quite suspicious. Was it founded on nothing at all? It smacks of preference control, which is thought control.

Geoff

Ohhh!, V.I you have never tasted real satay ( very few have).
Ask any Malaysian, Chinese, Indonesian about satay and they will salivate on the spot.

Get perspective first please.
You mean about the taste of urine?

How many rednecks are there in Brooklyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Twinkie)?

The deep fried Twinkie only became successful after the creators began selling it at county fairs.

I'm not sure what bigotry I'm displaying by preferring my Twinkies sans the "'meaty' flavor".

One mans bigotry is another mans opinion. Herein lies the great danger of allowing people like Jane Lane & Co to lay down guidelines for determining what children should think in their early years.

Personally, I find the title of this publication absurd in the extreme, not to mention frightening: "Young Children and Racial Justice".

I mean, justice?

This whole thing has troubling connotations of Nazi-style thought police.

That's a hell of a theory, Deep Thought, and even more superstitious than I would have expected from you.

Here, let's try this one on.

Sure, have some fun with it Tiassa.

Consider this scenario, for example, it's a Home Economics lesson in an English school, 1944.

Teacher: Today, we're going to make some of the wonderful cuisine of Germany - schweinshaxe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinshaxe). I hope you've all bought along the necessary ingredients.

Pupil: [Raises hand] I haven't Miss. My dad told me he'd be furious if I ate any of that Kraut muck.

Now, why can't I imagine an academic like Jane Lane being around during this period?

Surely altruism exists somewhere?

Sob.

In truth, I still have no idea which beans I was eating. That, more than anything, testifies to my cultural ignorance, which is more of a worry to me than any ridiculous theory that I'm making a social commentary by eating beans.


Do you really think there's no link between social class and diet? Or that that link is determined solely by health reasons?

Why have lobster for dinner when you can indulge in a deep fried Twinkie with fries? Why drink champagne or wine as opposed to high strength lager or over proof rum?

What criteria do we use when we select groceries, clothes, places to live, etc...?

Come on man, I'm the last person on here who's going to take you to task over simple snobbery.

Bells, I consider such language quite impossible for a three-year old of any kind. Now, as Tiassa has, above, pointed out, it is not clear where the guidelines are in theory aimed at, but I have little doubt where they will end up. It is the natural tendency of the human mind to progression, one restriction building on the next, indefinitely. Wherever it is now, it will end up worse.


I disagree. You'd be surprised at just how much toddlers pick up. There was a 2 year old who was pulled out of the play area, in my son's day care, when he made fairly distinct and hateful racist comments to a young African child who was there. My husband was there to pick up our son at the time, as were many other parents who had come along to pick up their children, and all, the parents (my husband included) and the staff were shocked. The 2 year old called the African child a "nigger shit". The African child was too young to understand what it meant, as were the other toddlers there, but the parents and staff who heard it yelled out were, as my husband told me, horrified. The child was taken back inside away from the other children and it was later found out that he picked it up from his father. The childcare center called the parents in straight away and it was discovered that was how they happen to believe at home, so of course, the toddler picked up on the behaviour and words used. When the parents refused to correct their child's behaviour or their own, they were informed by the center that racism was not tolerated and they could take their child elsewhere. We were informed of the rest of the details in a letter sent home to all parents, warning everyone that racism will never be tolerated at that center.

It might be ideal to think that such language is impossible in such small children. But it is not. Children that age pick everything up from their parents, racism included.

I think if you read a bit more into the story, you would have found where it was aimed at. Here is what I found out from the BBC:

It said: "A child may react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying, 'Yuck!"'.

That may indicate a lack of familiarity with that particular food, or "more seriously a reaction to a food associated with people from a particular ethnic or cultural community".

It also warned: "Racist incidents among children in early-years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

Staff should be watchful of children using racist language, it added.

Guide author Jane Lane said: "The book is about being alert and asking questions, being sensitive and never attacking a child, but always trying to think about why they may have said or done something."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7493654.stm


Of course not. My trust is founded on experience. You're implying faith in their abilities; I have none until I know otherwise. You trust where you have evidence to support trust, balanced against the importance of the issue. My children's future is a critically important issue.
The reasoning behind the foreign food debate is that it could be because of something that is racist.. racism at home for example. It is there to attempt to guide teachers into how they should approach it and how it should be identified. What to look out for, if you will. The reason it has been brought out is because not everyone understands it. The author of the guideline is quite clear about that:

I wrote 'Young children and racial justice – taking action for racial equality in the early years' because I am increasingly aware that many people do not take issues of racial equality sufficiently seriously. From national to local government and from trainers to practitioners there is a significant gap between policies and recognition of how racism continues to distort the lives of many children and their families. Despite improvements in resources, training and individual practice and statutory race related requirements, racism remains alive and well.

I know that nearly everyone working in the sector genuinely cares about children but many institutional practices and procedures perpetuate racial barriers of which they are unaware. Consequently, in the absence of a strategy, addressing them remains ad hoc, depending on the commitment of individuals.

I believe that the main reason for these barriers is the lack of understanding of what racism is, and is not. Critically this has resulted in a situation where important early years antiracist practice is misunderstood by those responsible for implementing it. Without an understanding of racism no one can put racial equality into practice. Without it the very word often engenders apprehension, discomfort, guilt, fear of using the apparently ‘wrong’ term or being called a ‘racist’.

In my book I have tried to unpack racism, to expose it for the evil that it is. By doing so it can be seen more clearly why it exists in largely white and rural areas of the country as well as in multiethnic areas. Talking about it openly and honestly within an ethos of no-blame opens up ways to understand it better, to accept that we all have different backgrounds and experiences but that, together we can get rid of this blight on the lives of both black and white young children, early years services and settings.
http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_5983tl_481469454475d76r_200862749 37s



No, merely a good labelling. Once that's done, very little else need be accomplished.
Could be. Or maybe the opposite is true.

I don't. I merely doubt very much their capacity to decide where something likes that begins and ends. My children aren't racist or bigoted, and I'm deeply suspicious of anything that could lay traps in their path to pick them off randomly from the herd, merely because Superintendent Jones requires a racism body count for the year. Now, it's entirely possible that it's as innocuous as the screening already being done. Then again, the initial tone of the article makes me quite suspicious. Was it founded on nothing at all? It smacks of preference control, which is thought control.
The article was written badly in my opinion. It was written in a way that could lead to raised hackles because people will think that any child who doesn't want to eat different food will be automatically labeled a racist. I think a bit of deeper delving might tell you the truth of the matter. And that's exactly what this guideline is trying to help staff with.. how to delve deeper into racism in small children and how to attempt to stamp it out.. It's not about labeling a child for life.. merely attempting to find out why that child believes as they do and trying to find ways to combat it.

At least, one would hope so. Meh... I could be completely wrong.. but the hope is that it won't be abused.

Well, then we disagree. I am cynical about societal regulation in this manner. Words are one thing, dietary preference another.

The 2 year old called the African child a "nigger shit".


Your attempt to terrify GeoffP into siding with you appears to have failed.

During medieval times an accusation of witchcraft was enough to get someone burnt to death, or worse.

Your attempt to terrify GeoffP into siding with you appears to have failed.

During medieval times an accusation of witchcraft was enough to get someone burnt to death, or worse.

Here is something you don't understand. The day Geoff and I are on the same side of an argument is probably the day I start sprouting daisies out of my head. Ergo, probably never going to happen. He commented that he didn't think a child that young was capable of making racist comments and I disagreed. The child at my son's daycare is no longer there. His parents were told to go elsewhere because racism is not allowed or acceptable in that center.

My husband heard it, as did many other parents who were there to pick up their children. As I understand it, no one blamed the child or was angry at him. But everyone is angry at the parents who are teaching him that. And no one wants those parents to have access to their children in that school. I know I personally do not and the other parents also feel the same. I don't want my child picking up that kind of language or be influenced by something like that.

But here's the thing, that kind of behaviour and belief is heavily reliant on the parents. In other words, children learn their behaviour and beliefs from their parents. For that child, it is entirely natural to hate other races because his/her parents have made it natural for them. They simply do not know any better. And being able to identify that kind of behaviour and belief in small children will go a long way in attempting to turn that tide around. Do I believe in reporting the child to the local Government body? No. I think a lot more could be done.. speaking one on one to the child and its parents.. letting the child know and understand that racism is not acceptable in the general society.. etc..