[Boogie_Man]

I don't want to be "that guy", but I often find myself as the "intolerable lib" in some situations and the "intolerable con" in others, so here we go:

There is a degree of quasi-political messaging in PBS children's shows. I can say this because I've watched more hours than I'd like of several of them, but I'd like to focus on on Molly Of Denali. It's a good children's show about an inuit girl who lives in Alaska and teaches children general good morals and specifics of inuit and Alaskan culture.

When I say it's political, I mean that it makes points without nuance on historical and current issues which range from widely accepted and important ideas (example: They didn't let Native Alaskan People vote in the past, so it's important to exercise the right to vote now), to what I would consider less widely agreed upon and important ideas, such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name. Another example is them introducing the importance of "land acknowledgements" in a children's show. A final example is the "clueless white" trope wherein the offensive rude white visitor has to be educated by the wise natives over and over and over.

I'm not trying to say that any of these examples are "right" or "wrong", but they do represent "politics" in the mind of wide sections of the population.

This said I like the show and of course we need to fund public broadcasting, I would just prefer if we did our best to keep the most controversial stuff for when the kids are a bit older to make it a smaller target for outrage (from the right or left).

The most jarring part, to me personally, is the drastic shift in tone and presentation for injustices with wildly different levels of impact. Perhaps rudely, I think to myself in the voice of the Inuit grandfather from the show "The white man took me from my family, did not allow me to speak my language, beat me and did not allow me to vote, and worst of all...... He did not let me smile in photos"

I don't mean any of this as racist or disrespectful and I hope this is a nuanced comment for consideration and not a kneeejerk reaction or evidence of my subconscious biases run wild.

[mcphage]

> When I say it's political, I mean that it makes points without nuance on historical and current issues which range from widely accepted and important ideas [...] to what I would consider less widely agreed upon and important ideas

Another example of this: when Mr. Rogers invited an African American neighbor to share his pool. It certainly wasn't widely agreed upon at the time.

[Boogie_Man]

I understand and sympathize with the desire to directly equate every current social issue no matter how small with a social issue from the past as part of a larger "chain of social progress" because I think it originates with the desire to correct past injustices and treat everyone with respect and decency.

I disagree that this is a useful or accurate way to engage in discussion about an entirely different and specific subject in an entirely different context. The only way they are related is with this "chain of social progress" framework, and even within that framework, they are not the same issue.

I perceive it to be a dismissive approach which shuts down conversation, and I think it's clear when viewed plainly in the opposite direction: "If you have concerns with any of the political messaging in children's shows, you would not allow a person of a different race into your swimming pool", or in a slightly different way, "If you have concerns about this you are explicitly the "bad guy"".

[mcphage]

> The only way they are related is with this "chain of social progress" framework, and even within that framework, they are not the same issue.

The way that they are related is that PBS childrens' shows deliberately address political content, and have done so for many years, and that is both important and good that they do so.

[Boogie_Man]

I agree with you generally, but the two points I want to make are that these shows are messaging politically (I know you agree with this, and I appreciate you saying so as many others in this thread do not agree), and that this political messaging is not inherently good in and of itself, and must be evaluated on a case by case basis, both for the "correctness" of the political messaging, and for potential concerns of alienating audiences when a specific case is included in a children's program.

[vel0city]

> such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name.

Imagine not finding it disrespectful for your teacher to just completely ignore and disrespect your heritage and you're expected to just accept it and be totally OK with it.

IMO kids should be taught to be proud of their names. Apparently, that's a political stance.

I have many coworkers who I have trouble saying their names. I try as best as I can to say their names and be as respectful as possible. I wouldn't just go "I can't say your name, so you're just T now."

[Boogie_Man]

I agree that it's generally important to respect other people and other cultures, both ethically because it is a ethical thing to do, and practically because it helps us all "get along".

I find, if we strip this from the colonial context, or remove it from the racial context entirely (this is now a conversation between two Han Chinese people of the same social class, for example) there is some relationship between what I perceive to be an increasing focus on the critical importance of a child being called their exact name and no abbreviation, mispronunciation, standard nickname, or contextually assigned nickname, to be a symptom of an American hyper individualism and "rights culture".

As an aside I have been told by more than one person with a foreign name before even attempting their name that they would prefer I just call them an Americanized abbreviation of their name for convenience. Obviously I want to try to do what they would like, but if they were to insist on a name I struggled with, I would consider them to be a generally annoying person.

[vel0city]

Wanting to be called your name and not liking having a person in a superior position arbitrarily rename you as an example of "American hyper individualism". Incredible.

It is literally someone over you stripping you of your own choice of identity.

Even if we removed the idea of teacher/student relationship from this, are you still fine with people just arbitrarily renaming you? That someone respects you so little they won't even respect your own choice in name, that's fine?

I'm absolutely fine with someone who has a name which could be difficult to pronounce in the local language choosing to go with another name. It is their choice. That's the big difference. They're choosing to go by that name in those contexts. It wasn't just arbitrarily chosen for them.

[legitster]

Counterpoint, when these episodes were first aired, these weren't viewed as political issues. Only in response to these ideas have they become politicized.

And since PBS has backed away from making episodes like these.

[Boogie_Man]

I might be missing what you mean, but I tried to explain as best as I could how I would understand these things to be "related to "politics" ".

Offensiveness of difficultly in pronouncing native Alaskan name - I believe this would be grouped under the umbrella of something like "linguistic imperialism" by people of particular political bents, which is an issue that at least heavily relates to politics.

Land acknowledgements - As far as I can tell, these have always been politicized because they originated "with indigenous Australian political movements and the arts" at least according to Wikipedia. I don't know much about the subject

Rude clueless white trope - I think this is to some extent a "positive" inversion of the "noble savage" trope, which Wikipedia tells me was historically political.

[legitster]

None of these things are inherently political unless you interpret them to be.

They have several shows that depict interracial marriages, while some people might try to take this as a political statement, most of us would not see it that way.

In a similar vein, I don't see how pronouncing names correctly could be a political issue.

[Boogie_Man]

I agree with you in that the question of something being "political" is inherently related to the context, and that some things some people might find political (like the importance of voting from my original comment) are not "political enough" to be something which shouldn't be in a children's show.

I would also agree with you that pronouncing names generally is not (and largely probably should not be) a political topic, but that it necessarily is in this context because of it being included in a show about native Alaskans. If the teacher were inuit, or the student also white, or it was presented a simple misunderstanding along the lines of "can I call you T" "No please don't" "okay sorry I'll do my best" it would not be "political". Because it's in this show in this context and explicitly connected to previous abuses of native people being made to use "white names", my contention is that the creators of the show intend for it to be political .

[Kye]

It's impossible to make self or mind small enough to be safe from regressives.

[Boogie_Man]

I appreciate the poetic response and think that the point I believe you're making: "people who are inclined to criticize anything which isn't exactly as they'd like it will never be pleased, so you can't spend all of your time trying to please them." is correct and useful generally.

Where I might disagree with you, if I understand you correctly, is in how applicable your comment is as a response to my mine. At the outset I attempted to communicate that some of the things that the most likely to be outraged people would take issue with (the importance of exercising the right to vote - especially if your ancestors didn't enjoy the right) are pretty universally accepted and even presenting it without nuance inside of a children's show is acceptable because it is done so with a positive focus (be involved in the democratic process).

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

[nobody9999]

>the importance of exercising the right to vote - especially if your ancestors didn't enjoy the right

So we shouldn't talk about the 19th Amendment[0] because it's no longer an issue because your mom, sister, wife and daughter are now allowed to vote? As such, we should actively stop talking about the fact that there was ~150 years of activism, protest and discussion before half the population was "allowed" to participate in the political life of the US?

Is that your contention? If not, claiming that we should ignore those same issues around the right of indigenous peoples to vote seems more than a little hypocritical.

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

[Boogie_Man]

No sorry, I was including that example because it's something "political" that is also pretty universally accepted and uncontroversial, and as a consequence could only really upset the most upsetable. I meant it as a contrast to the other more controversial political topics that would require more consideration before putting into a children's show.

The original premise of the first comment I replied to was that PBS kids programming does not include political content, and I wanted to provide examples of two kinds of political content it included.

I don't in any way blame you for misunderstanding what I was trying to say, because I think a lot of people who read my comment did based on the negative point score (?) it ended up with. I think that we (and I include myself in this we) tend to jump past the specific content of a response, and only "hear" the tone of the response and presume intention from it. This isn't necessary an ineffective strategy online where there's a Tsunami of legitimately (from my perspective) evil positions (some of which I previously held and now am ashamed of, shout out God) and the odds are that a person (or bot or person working for an influence campaign) stating anything other than complete excited agreement is probably trying to convince people they should also hold a particular evil view.

The trouble is, this tends to kill nuanced conversation. I get it, I'd be furious if I thought the person I was replying to online was telling me they don't want me to be able to vote, but it's entirely possible that's not what they're saying.

Another example might be "How many Jewish people died in the Holocaust". If you asked me this I would answer, based on my limited knowledge "Somewhere between five and a half and six and a half million, probably closer to six.". I would do better socially if I simply said "like six million what a terrible tragedy", but my goal wouldn't be honesty it'd be social positioning. I understand that most people who don't instantly say "six million what a terrible tragedy" are doing so because they are trying to do an evil thing (Holocaust denial/revisionism), but that's not the only possible reason someone could do it.

I hope this makes sense.

[nobody9999]

>No sorry, I was including that example because it's something "political" that is also pretty universally accepted and uncontroversial, and as a consequence could only really upset the most upsetable. I meant it as a contrast to the other more controversial political topics that would require more consideration before putting into a children's show.

Fair enough. However, you didn't really (at least IMHO) make that much of a contrast, especially considering the "contrasting" example (a teacher misnaming their student because they can't even be bothered to try pronouncing their name properly). You've significantly clarified that in the comment to which I'm currently replying -- and thank you!

>I think that we (and I include myself in this we) tend to jump past the specific content of a response, and only "hear" the tone of the response and presume intention from it.

That said, the negative reaction to your comment[0] isn't all that surprising, given what appears to be the tone you've taken.

While the HN guidelines clearly state that one should try to see the comments of others in the best possible light (and I tried to do so -- which is why I asked about it), but there's a more universal idea: who you are -- at least as far as others are concerned -- is how you are perceived by those others.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be true to yourself and your principles. Rather the opposite. That said, it might not be a bad idea to try and see how others might perceive you based on what you write.

I am emphatically not telling you what to do here. Rather, I'm just pointing out that others likely don't see the decent, fair-minded person you consider yourself to be -- because all they have to go on is what's right in front of them.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44760432

[bitlax]

Q.E.D.