 |
| Kansa is bad. Why? Because he is bad. |
Now, she also needed to nap, and she insisted she'll nap only if I nap with with and we tell each other stories. From my own previous experience of telling story on demand, I have realised I suck at it. I'm so bad with coming up with kiddy stories that I almost felt ashamed of myself. I have more respect for nursery and kindergarten teachers because kids can ask a lot of questions, and I found myself at loss of answers for most of them.
So, it was story time. She brought up her story book of Krishna (Kahnudo, as she fondly calls him) and was pointing at various pictures of Krishna. At one page, she pointed at a picture of Kansa. Our conversation went something like this: (translated to Hindi from Gujarati)
She: Yeh Kansa hai, uspe gussa karu?
Me: Kyun gussa karna hai?
She: Kyunki woh bura hai.
Me: Woh bura kyun hai?
She: Kyunki woh bura hai.
Me: Lekin agar tum uspe gussa karogi, toh tum buri nahin banogi?
She: Na
Me: Kyun?
She: Kyunki woh bura hai.
She is 3.
In her mind, Kansa is bad. And there is no reason.
She will grow up believing Kansa (or anyone else we've told her is bad) is a bad person without questioning our judgement.
Are we letting our prejudices, what is good and what is bad in our opinion influence other people's perception about people?
People tell me I am trusting. My father refuses to accept that I can make a sane decision. I ask what is wrong in being trusting? Isn't there too much negativity in the world already? Why do we have to question intentions of other people before we befriend them? Yes, so we all should be cautious, and I do not deny that, but why do we have to go with an assumption that the other person is bad?
Why are we so keen to let our own prejudices cloud other people's opinions?
Why wasn't that 3 year old told the story of Kansa as is and let her decide whether he was bad or not? Why do we have to teach morals we think are right? Why not keep things open to interpretation and let everyone draw their own conclusions?
And in my limited exposure to people, complete strangers, especially those who I have come to know through the medium of internet, most of them are fabulous people. Most have turned out to be great friends. And having said that, I know there are creeps over the internet too. But that doesn't mean I go about doubting anyone I come across.
I'd still like to believe there is more good than bad in the world.
4 comments:
The example (of the niece) you have chosen does not support the points you've made. It would probably work if you were talking of an adult who gave similar responses.
At some point in her life, sooner or later, she will actually understand the story of Kansa and see why he was bad or why he wasn't. Her current beliefs are not immutable. Why do you assume that she will continue believing that he was bad merely because she has been told he is? Surely you were also told Kansa is bad, have you never questioned that information in life? Your blogpost shows you have. The concern you have would be appropriate if in later life, she is not allowed to think for herself.
"Are we letting our prejudices, what is good and what is bad in our opinion influence other people's perception about people?""Why wasn't that 3 year old told the story of Kansa as is and let her decide whether he was bad or not? Why do we have to teach morals we think are right?"
We are and we should be influencing our children with regards to these morals. There is a centuries old debate about whether ethics and morals are innate or induced. So no one has the answer to what will happen if we start doing what is suggested by you here. Why not extend the logic only a bit further? Why not tell the facts of rape and killing to a child, and let them decide if it is right or wrong. Try telling the child that some people might touch them inappropriately or might try to have intercourse with them but don't add any words of 'morals' about how that is wrong. Let the child decide. Do not let any judgemental or moral or warning words get into your communication with the child. Are you willing to take that risk?
"Why are we so keen to let our own prejudices cloud other people's opinions?"
Because that is human nature and an integral part of human communication. It encompasses the spectrum of human activity from selling to creating policies to expressing love to helping someone avoid suicide. If that is stopped, communication will turn into one long BBC news bulletin. The challenge is to listen but still have your own thoughts and interpretation. Don't put the burden of your freedom of thought on others, get it yourself. It is not anybody else's obligation to not influence you. It is your duty to yourself to see through other people's prejudices.
"but why do we have to go with an assumption that the other person is bad?"
This is the only part of the post I agree with. People probably do this to avoid the disappointment of unmet expectations or because they have had bad experiences before. If you start out with no or low expectations, you are unlikely to get disappointed. It is logical to not assume that the other person is bad but to see first what they have to offer and interpret what they have to say.
Story of Kansa is just an example. There are a lot of things she's just told that they're good and that they're bad. She may question her parents when she grows up, but there are chances, she may not and she may carry the prejudices with her.
I'm sure I too carry some of the things I was taught when I was younger right now, without really thinking too much on those lines.
No, so tell her the story as is and ask her questions and then tell her what is right or wrong. Give her a chance to ask questions instead of deciding for her. Being curious is good, and should be encouraged. I guess I should've been clearer in the post.
You know, you sound like a friend of mine. Almost thought it's him.
And well, good at least you agree with something in the post. :D
Just the way you shouldn't let other people's prejudices influence you, you probably shouldn't let your past experiences spoil your new experiences. (of course, with the learning woven in :D)
Just for the record, you were very clear in the blog post. You have not clarified any hazy point, instead in this comment, you have changed the stance that you had in the post. (Earlier, your point was that we should not teach morals which we think are right. In the comment, your stance is that we should let the child question but then tell her what is right or wrong. Those are diametrically opposite actions, not a clarification.)
I appreciate that you re-thought your position and changed your point of view.
My point had always been we shouldn't force our views on others. Yes, I did say we shouldn't teach morals and let the children decide for themselves what is good and what is bad, but that would happen only if they ask questions. You cannot trust a 3 year old to be a good judge of morals.
You know what I'm thinking and saying better than me, I guess.
Post a Comment