Skip to main content

A child's calling

Many moons ago, very many, I conducted a writer's workshop with a vibrant missionary group in Little Rock, Arkansas. We worked all through a Friday night to publish their first newsletter. The main article was on the organization's new elementary school. Every time I mentioned writing about the "kids," Sister Cheryl and Company would glower at me and say, "We do not call our children kids! Kids are baby goats. We call our children, children."
They never let me off the hook, not once. They smiled, they laughed, they forgave my intransigence, but they never let me get by with calling their children kids.

At the time, I thought it was dear of them. Now, almost 20 years later, I can see that it was visionary. The word, children, is disappearing from the American vocabulary. They're all kids now, even on PBS, the media refuge for children in our contemporary, cluttered clot of cable and network programming. Pick up the kids, feed the kids, take care of the kids. When they're no longer kids but not quite teenagers, they are called tweens. Our language has taken our children from livestock, or something we don't take seriously (You're kidding, right?) to--to a word that isn't, even.

"Kids" was fun, kids was cute, as long as children could still be children, as long as multicolored tennis shoes could be shed, and bare feet curled under tucked covers while mothers and fathers read a bit of Longfellow, Carroll, or Stevenson--with illustrations that encouraged budding minds to unfold into dreaming hours.

"Kids" is not cute anymore. With each quickly passing 21st-century year, our children have fewer and fewer opportunities and less and less time to be children. We can start to change that. Now. With a word.

And bless you, Sister Cheryl, wherever you are.

Photo and text, copyright 2006, Ysabel de la Rosa, All rights reserved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Life without Television, Part 2

I began life without television with relief, which was consistent Monday through Friday. The first few weekends, though, felt awkward, anxious, lonely. When PBS has good programming on Saturday nights, it is extraordinarily good. Father Brown, Phryne Fisher, New Tricks... Extraordinary acting, high production values, and I fantasize about the pudgy, brilliant priest just perhaps having an innocent crush on one of his special parishioners, which would be moi. 

I called a friend one Sunday. "Maybe television helped with my anxiety more than I realized," I said. She told me about her aunt who, after her husband's death, kept the television on in his "man cave" 24/7. He has been gone years now. The television goes on, everlasting, in his absence. I don't blame her. Much of my frequent and prolonged television viewing began with grief.

After my sister died, I would watch almost anything, especially late at night when sleep eluded me. I even watched Convoy with …

Whose day?

Years ago, I made some collages using pages from a desk calendar from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The image that leads this post is one. Inside the hearts and flowers is a picture from the MMA collection of  a Japanese screen made in the 16th century. It is titled Tagasode, which means Whose sleeves?  The title comes from a 10th-century poem:


The fragrance seems even more alluring than the hue, Whose sleeves have brushed past? Or would it be this plum tree blossoming here at home?
Iro yori mo ka koso awaredo omohoyure tagasode fureshi ado no ume zo mo
The word haunts: tagasode. Whose sleeves? The question floats in my mind like a cloud on a still day. The sleeves materialize in my mind's eye. I hear them move through hushed air. I can imagine, though not name, the scent of the person to whom those sleeves belong. It's not unlike smelling the scent of your infant's clothes, or holding the perfume bottle that belonged to your mother...you don't need to open it... you know tha…

Glad to Hear It

This past week, Larry Wilmore and company mentioned Rachel Dolezol again on The Nightly Show. I don't remember who made the comment, but either Wilmore or one of the panelists said, "Did Rachel Dolezol do anything bad? No, she really didn't. Why did we get so uptight about that?" I was glad to hear it. Three cheers for being human.

I looked briefly at what's on Google currently about her and the now much-discussed Shaun White. I intend not to enter any of that fray mentally or verbally. I still maintain that humanity trumps color. We have a long way to go until we can leave our "paint by numbers" mentality behind, but we've made progress. Good changes can come, even in the midst of chaos and controversy. Maybe White and Dolezal will help us see that eventually.

As long as I'm here and continuing on the subject of color, I think I'm not alone in the fact that I don't like being called "white." As for my background, it includes …