Probably smoking a pipe is the least of Mr. Mulligan's lung troubles, coal isn't the cleanest stuff to work next too, and we are talking about old technology (sans catalytic converters and scrubbers). Nor is coffee a bad thing, my toddlers both drink it, well, one I give the smallest drop since he gets hyper - the other one is mellowed by it. I am the smallest bit hopeful they will have good coffee in their homes when I visit them as adults, good coffee habits start young.

Books and literature is full of characters with bad habits, and bad actions, and learning about that isn't terrible if one's parent's actions are laudatory. Should we protect kids from the knowledge of things or the experience? There is innocence and ignorance, knowing about something doesn't mean that innocence is lost too.

Reply

Your question can be extended to a lot of the arguments we have here at PD... should we be teaching our children about same-sex marriage in Kindergarten? Should we be providing sex education to 4th and 5th graders? Should we allow teachers to discuss the Bible in the classroom? Now, we all have our own opinions, but what all of these arguments have in common is that we tend to agree that providing our children with MORE information, rather than less, is a good thing.

Personally, I'm in favor of using books such as those you discuss as "teaching tools", and I am completely in favor of them - within the family. So yeah, read those books to your children, and discuss those habits you don't agree with. Use them as an opportunity to teach your child that what was appropriate behavior 40 or 50 years ago may not be appropriate now (like smoking).

My problem comes when the school officials tell me that this stuff must be discussed in school, and that the school's opinions must replace mine, i.e... 'guns are bad'.

Reply

I'm glad you wrote about this Christina--I picked up the original Curious George the other day and was pretty much offended by the whole book! My how times have changed!
I'm not really sure what to do ... I want my son to be exposed to wonderful, diverse literature, but feel the same division you do.
But you know, really, some modern characters aren't great influences either. My 2.5 yr old loves Skippyjon Jones, Lola, and the rebel cows and ducks from Doreen Cronin's books, all characters who are not always on their best behavior. I guess it is our job as parents not to just let the story stand for itself, but to allow it to open the discussion about the characters, their motivations, consequences, etc. Everyone has flaws, makes bad choices, etc. This is what we learn from, either from our own experience or from the experience of others.

Reply

I also think this is a good mirror for ourselves... in our quest to become a more "tolerant" society, we have actually become LESS tolerant, to the point of not even wanting our children to KNOW that things existed.

For example, how are our children supposed to understand why the "N-word" is a bad word when they constantly hear it in 'music'? Is it enough to simply say, "because I said so?" Well, that argument certainly doesn't work with drinking, smoking and other behaviors, especially as our children reach the rebellious teen years. But when you read books to them from our recent (and not-so-recent) past, they can begin to understand. They can put that "N-word" into context, understand how it evolved from "Negro" (the dark-skinned slaves) to what it has become today, which is derogatory and insulting.

Without those books, even so-called "banned" books like "Little Black Sambo" and "Huckleberry Finn", we have no historical context, and we are doomed to repeat our failures again and again, until we finally learn from them.

What I see, when people start looking at those old books (Curious George and the like) and being "offended" by the behaviors depicted in them, is our overriding knee-jerk reaction to be Politically Correct. Instead of using common sense, we simply say, "I'm offended" and dismiss the whole of the book, which could offer excellent lessons, despite being a little less-than-PC.

Reply

I have thought about this a lot because I love showing my son the books I grew up reading. With that said, I grew up reading these books and was never a smoker (but I was also into athletics and these two things do not go hand in hand...) or someone who advocates guns, violence, etc...

I think that there is a line. That if we are TOO PC with our children they will learn this stuff in other ways. I would rather explain to my son that smoking is bad for you and those around you but also this book was written a long time ago like the time when grandma was born or mommy used to read this book when she was a kid too. I figure as long as he keeps asking me questions I can at least provide some decent information about it versus learning the wrong or bad things from his peers one day (because inevitably our kids will learn whatever we are trying to protect them from...)

Finally, I have to admit as much as I want to sound mature in this regard I was watching 101 Dalmatians with my son yesterday and was appalled by the number of people smoking in the movie. BUT the thing that calmed me once again was the thought: 'holy crap I watched this movie a ton when I was a kid and I never ever remember the smoking. I remember the puppies and the sweet couple falling in love, etc...'

Reply

Use these books for historical context. What was going on in that time of history to make this book relevent? Where have we gone since those days? Of course, the discussion is going to be different depending on the book and the age of the child; but it can be done as an educational point.
When they wrote Mike Mulligan, they didn't know everything we know today about smoking. (Okay, that's a debatable point but you get my meaning).

Reply

This is how I deal with these kinds of things... I explain that it (the movie, book etc) was made a long time ago, and they didn't know it was bad for them. So in the case of dear Mr. Milligan, the poor guy just thought he was doing something fun like having a lollipop, and he didn't realize that it was bad for his body. Now we know better.

Reply

I have struggled a lot with this lately. From the "chinese boy carrying sticks" in Dr Seuss's I saw it on Mulberry Street to the images in Dumbo. I think books are a great way to start a discussion about these topics. However my son is only almost 2 and while I think the topic of racism is way over his head right now I also don't want him to become desensitized to it. I refuse to ban the books (although I did gloss over the death of Babar's mother in one book). Parenting is so complicated.

Reply

Well we have Mike Mulligan, Huckleberry Finn and Pippi in our house. My kids are still a bit young for the last two, but I just bought the new Pippi Longstocking illustrated by Lauren Child (of Charlie & Lola fame) ready to read it to my daughter. My son LOVES Mike and asked what a pipe was, but didn't make a thing about it.

I can't believe that Huck Finn was banned. We seem to live in a Nanny State and it drives me mad. Kids are brought up in bubbles as it is - they get out into the 'Real World' without experiencing anything, and thus don't have the facility to deal with new experiences later in life. Books provide a 'safety valve', so you can read them to your child and discuss events in the story, and how to deal with them. They are therefore very important in the absence of 'real' experiences. Banning them is just ridiculous and irresponsible.

Reply

Tell him the truth - grown-ups are allowed to do some things that they know are bad for them, and some grown-ups really *don't* know how dangerous smoking is, or they think it can't hurt them, even though it can.

Reply

Ms Sbarro,

I think taking the direct route when reading these books with our children is to identify the good and the bad and explain it with clarity as best we can. I wouldn't avoid the books as life's experiences cannot be avoided whether good or bad. We embrace them and learn from them. I believe in teaching these lessons early to our children in order to aid them in identifying the subtle differences later in life.

Reply