Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist'

[financeguy]

Toddlers who dislike spicy food racist, say report - Telegraph

More bullshit from Nu Lab Thought Police:

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.

It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives".

The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

 

[corianderstem]

I'm torn between saying:

"Oh my god."

and

"Are you effing kidding me?"

 

[anitram]

The food thing is silly. I am the world's pickiest eater and can't stand the smell of at least something from every culture. A three year old is just reacting on instinct and unfamiliar smells.

Now the "blackie" and "Paki" - well I have no problem with them wanting to stamp that out.

 

[BVS]

The food thing is silly. I am the world's pickiest eater and can't stand the smell of at least something from every culture. A three year old is just reacting on instinct and unfamiliar smells.

Now the "blackie" and "Paki" - well I have no problem with them wanting to stamp that out.

 

[yolland]

While that particular suggestion does indeed sound pretty silly (though it'd be nice to see the relevant quote in context), so far as I can tell, this is just some random book published by some umbrella nonprofit's publishing wing, and not part of a government policy plan or anything like that.

 

[Kieran McConville]

i'm definitely goutraged. I never thought I'd say this but if the UK tories can hide their toxic elements as they seem to be trying to these days, they're a shoo-in next time. If David Cameron falls under a bus they can always call on that nice Mr Saxon.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I believe that Mr. Griffin has already taken those votes away. If mainstream political parties ignore negative consequences of social policy racists and extremists will pick up the slack.

 

[vaz02]

How can anyone under the age of 10 be branded racist, its laughable.

 

[MsPurrl]

Puh-leeeeeeze . . . .

 

[Pearl]

This is so ridiculous. Don't they realize taste buds change over time?

 

[Vincent Vega]

^You mean there is hope for these racist toddlers?

 

[Pearl]

 

[deep]

This is so ridiculous. Don't they realize taste buds change over time?

humans are born with a tendency toward bias, intolerance, not liking anything that is different

as they get older, some are able to over come these bias and become more accepting, of different foods and people

 

[MissMoo]

Also I was reading a book that talked about child development and most kids don't like spicy foods because they have more taste buds than adults do. As they age they lose some of them and adjust to spicy or sour or any other strong flavour.

 

[mobvok]

The alert about spicy food is part of a 366 page report, they obviously were trying to be comprehensive. The title is misleading, the report appears to be saying a dislike of spicy food can demonstrate the start of potentially racist attitudes, not that the kids *are* racist. Of course, I think it's dumb to be analyzing kids to that extent at all.

 

[coolian2]

IT BURNZ

 

[maycocksean]

How can anyone under the age of 10 be branded racist, its laughable.

Of course a kid under the age of ten can be racist.

 

[vaz02]

Of course a kid under the age of ten can be racist.

How possibly could a kid understand race at that age. I remember when i was at that age, i would say anything without knowing the true meaning of the pharse or word i was saying. Children can be very impressionable.

 

[maycocksean]

How possibly could a kid understand race at that age. I remember when i was at that age, i would say anything without knowing the true meaning of the pharse or word i was saying. Children can be very impressionable.

Perhaps you don't work around kids? I'm a teacher so I work with kids every day and kids under the age of ten are a lot smarter and more aware than you're giving them credit for. If a kid is old enough to hate then they are old enough to be racist. And sometimes seven and eight year olds can be awfully cruel--it's not as if they "don't know" they are being mean.

As for saying "racist things" without knowing the true meaning or import of what they're saying, there are adults who have that problem.

And anyway even if a kid is throwing around racist slurs without knowing what they mean it's our responsiblity to teach them what these words mean and make it clear that they're inappropriate rather than smile and say "Aw isn't that cute. After all he doesn't know what he's saying!" You don't need to browbeat the kid but you do need to educate him.

I have a feeling that this was probably the actual point of this 366 page document--not to encourage the "policing of thought."

 

[vaz02]

If a kid is old enough to hate then they are old enough to be racist.

What could a kid possibly hate at that age ? To truely hate something you must have a rational understanding of the situation.
My mum works as a teacher in both a nursery and a primary school so im not totally alien to the concept of young children.

 

[corianderstem]

They might not understand why they're hating, but I think they can hate ... and I would take a gander that they hate because they were taught to do so.

 

[BVS]

To truely hate something you must have a rational understanding of the situation.

Um, no, that is, in essesnse the defintion of ignorance, to not have a rational understanding.

 

[vaz02]

I understand the point, but i can rationally understand the current economic situation and still hate it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You seem to be assuming that hatred is predicated on ignorance. One can make an informed judgement and hate an ideology. Hatred can be perfectly rational, and at times useful.

Race is different than ideology because it is an innate quality, and has little bearing in actual ability (although racial variation does exist it isn't cause for discrimination).

 

[BVS]

I understand the point, but i can rationally understand the current economic situation and still hate it.

You're confusing me.

First you said HAVE to have a rational understanding in order to hate. Now you say you understand.

Then you go on to give an example of how one CAN have a rational understanding and still hate.



I think one can hate with or without a rational understanding...

 

[A_Wanderer]

If your talking to be I used can not HAVE.

I can think of a few examples, heres an obvious one.

The views of the Muslim Brotherhood are antithetical to mine, I find the concept that a state must be in line with God dehumanising and the agenda that such groups pursue frequently angers me.

I hate what such groups stand for, and since I am not a Christian I can say I hate them for what they do.

 

[BVS]

I quoted vazo2

 

[maycocksean]

They might not understand why they're hating, but I think they can hate ... and I would take a gander that they hate because they were taught to do so.

Hate isn't all that deep. It doesn't take some great amount of high-level thinking and "understanding" to hate.

Kids can hate, and when hatred takes the form of racism, that's generally taught.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I think there's something of an equivocation going on about definitions of 'hate' here that might be causing confusion.

One is 'hate' as the manifestation of ignorance and fear of what you don't understand.
Two is 'hate' as the outrage and consternation with a viewpoint understood and deemed to be wrong, invalid, reprehensible, etc. yet held anyway.

In case one someone who 'hates' would hate the person for a reason non-essential to the person, and in case two the person who 'hates' would hold hatred of the principle and the fervor of those who hold it but not the people themselves. There's not as much wrong with the latter, since the exploration of truth requires the eradication of errors and non-truths. Some of the more insipid and insidious haters do an excellent job at blurring those lines, though -- but I'd say most (if not all) of those people aren't children.

 

[yolland]

BVS, could you please cut back on all the and ? It starts to have a similar effect to that of certain posters who always SHOUT!!!! after awhile.



I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable applying the term "racist" to the behavior of actual preschool-age children (early 5 and under), which seems to be what the article was referring to. I guess mostly because racism, at least as I understand it, requires grasping the notion of social 'categories' into which people can be divided, and it hasn't been my experience as a parent that children that young reliably have this grasp (an 8-year-old, on the other hand, absolutely would). But it's all very much of a continuum, so it's hard to say; I do think for example that many children towards the upper end of the preschool age range show an awareness of stigma--that certain traits cue for 'open season' on kids who have them in a way that others don't--and even though they may not quite grasp the implicit system underlying that yet, still, it's clearly a precursor. (White kids that age don't call other white people n-----, nor do they taunt other kids for having non-stigmatized traits like blond hair or green eyes, so there's clearly something a little more conscious and intentional than incomprehending parroting going on when they use racial slurs.) And certainly many 4-year-olds for instance are quite capable of intentionally humiliating other children and enjoying it, or of gloating that they're 'better than' others somehow. So all the ingredients are there, in a sense.

I don't think coming to be aware of those social categories is bad in itself; on the contrary, you can't usefully talk to children about racism if they're too young to understand what race is. It's certainly a more complex concept than simply noticing that people have varying skin colors, which happens much earlier. But it's something parents should discuss with their children at least before they start regular school, if not well before--don't wait until and if they use, or receive, their first racial slur themselves. Just because you haven't heard your children articulate negative associations with people who are black, South Asian, overweight, whatever, doesn't mean they aren't forming them...often with help from adults who don't explicitly articulate those things either, but convey them by reacting to and treating certain 'kinds' of people differently.

"Hate" is such a strong word; I think introducing that into it might be misleading, too. Not that plenty of children and adults who hold racist attitudes aren't clearly hateful--but I don't think it's always a question of felt hostility towards some collective they belong to.