But you basically did...

Posted by Abner from global.mactemps.com on September 23, 1999 at 06:53:35:

In Reply to: Re: I don't really agree... posted by Laurie Jensen on September 22, 1999 at 13:06:46:

: : Now I see parents teaching their kids to ride with helmets, training wheels, and about a million pads of different sorts so they look like marshmallow men. Times change- we are a lot more safety conscious today (And I would say "Wimpy" too...) than even 20 years ago. In the early 1900s people still sent kids to work in factories with incredibly dangerous machinery and thought nothing of it. This notion of idealized childhood really emerged after WWII.

: : Cheers,
: : Abner

: I don't think "wimpy" has anything to do with it. The reason people are more protective of children is because they are having fewer kids than ever before. Sixty years ago everyone had at least five or six kids, but nowdays most families in western countries only have one, maybe two children. If something happens to an only child, that's it, no grandchildren, no one to help you in old age. Obviously, parents in this situation are going to be more protective than if they had several children. And lets not forget that the fewer the children the more time parents get to spend nuturing; only children are usually closer to their parents than kids from a multi-child family because they get more individual care. Parents have more time to focus on one child, and that focus will sometimes shift toward excess, just like with anything else.

: The funny thing is that human children started off very pampered. Hunter gatherer societies are extremely nuturing of young children; mothers nurse children until the kid is four or five years old, and they travel everywhere with the child secured unto their back or shoulder. There is great reverence for children because birth rates in such societies are generally low and every person's contribution to the group must be maximized to ensure survival. Industrialization brought the idea of the little adult, which was later amended as these countries became wealthier. Such an idea didn't always exist.

: As for child labor, this is more a factor of economic deprivation than lack of concern for child safety. Kids had to work (everyone in the family had to work) because the wages were so incredibly low in those pre-Unionization days. It was starve or get a factory job. You still see this pattern in poorer countries today, unfortunately, as cheaper labor is exploited by western companies from abroad. Countries with wealth don't have child labor, countries that are poor do.

: Laurie

It was America's postwar propserity that made possible the notion of the idealized childhood, and the concept of the "teenager" we are so familiar with today. Lower birth rates are a direct result of becoming wealthier. Children used to be considered more of a "burden" or a "necessity" to work on the farm or help earn money. Today they are put on pedestals and there is a general concept that they should be insulated from the worries of the world. I was not talking about mothers' relationship to their children or how much they valued them, but how society treats children as a whole. This treatment has changed as economies have changed, and it was very different 70 years ago. History bears this out- not only the books but the people who were there- I've asked people about their childhood during the Depression, and they paint a very different picture than those who grew up in the 1950s, 60s, or even today.

Kids today are spoiled in comparison, but I wouldn't want to see them work in factories again. I just think some historical perspective is necessary. It's easy to assume society's values were always the same, but they change- and that's the problem with judging someone from the past with values from the present.

Cheers,
Abner

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : Now I see parents teaching their kids to ride with helmets, training wheels, and about a million pads of different sorts so they look like marshmallow men.  Times change- we are a lot more safety conscious today (And I would say "Wimpy" too...) than even 20 years ago.  In the early 1900s people still sent kids to work in factories with incredibly dangerous machinery and thought nothing of it. This notion of idealized childhood really emerged after WWII.

: : : Cheers,
: : : Abner

: : I don't think "wimpy" has anything to do with it.  The reason people are more protective of children is because they are having fewer kids than ever before.  Sixty years ago everyone had at least five or six kids, but nowdays most families in western countries only have one, maybe two children.  If something happens to an only child, that's it, no grandchildren, no one to help you in old age.  Obviously, parents in this situation are going to be more protective than if they had several children.  And lets not forget that the fewer the children the more time parents get to spend nuturing; only children are usually closer to their parents than kids from a multi-child family because they get more individual care.  Parents have more time to focus on one child, and that focus will sometimes shift toward excess, just like with anything else.

: : The funny thing is that human children started off very pampered.  Hunter gatherer societies are extremely nuturing of young children; mothers nurse children until the kid is four or five years old, and they travel everywhere with the child secured unto their back or shoulder.  There is great reverence for children because birth rates in such societies are generally low and every person's contribution to the group must be maximized to ensure survival.  Industrialization brought the idea of the little adult, which was later amended as these countries became wealthier.  Such an idea didn't always exist.

: : As for child labor, this is more a factor of economic deprivation than lack of concern for child safety.  Kids had to work (everyone in the family had to work) because the wages were so incredibly low in those pre-Unionization days.  It was starve or get a factory job.  You still see this pattern in poorer countries today, unfortunately,  as cheaper labor is exploited by western companies from abroad.  Countries with wealth don't have child labor, countries that are poor do.

: : Laurie

: It was America's postwar propserity that made possible the notion of the idealized childhood, and the concept of the "teenager" we are so familiar with today.  Lower birth rates are a direct result of becoming wealthier. Children used to be considered more of a "burden" or a "necessity" to work on the farm or help earn money. Today they are put on pedestals and there is a general concept that they should be insulated from the worries of the world.  I was not talking about mothers' relationship to their children or how much they valued them, but how society treats children as a whole. This treatment has changed as economies have changed, and it was very different 70 years ago. History bears this out- not only the books but the people who were there-  I've asked people about their childhood during the Depression, and they paint a very different picture than those who grew up in the 1950s, 60s, or even today.

: Kids today are spoiled in comparison, but I wouldn't want to see them work in factories again.  I just think some historical perspective is necessary. It's easy to assume society's values were always the same, but they change- and that's the problem with judging someone from the past with values from the present.

: Cheers,
: Abner

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]