Mr. Rogers sued the KKK (2021)
allthatsinteresting.com
allthatsinteresting.com
It later became Mister Rogers' Neighborhood [sic], which is what we know and remember him for today.
Some of the puppets he used were first introduced in Children's Corner in the 1950s, but the first show to carry his name, in any form, and starring him, was Misterogers in Canada.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Rogers%27_Neighborhoo...
To this day the memory brings a huge smile to my face. What a human being.
It was an enjoyable film about an apparently almost 'too good to be true' gentleman even without the context of having grown up with The Neighbourhood.
He was the real deal, with the courage to have unswayable adherence to pure humanitarian values. Look up the time he went to shame Congress into funding PBS.
And with no small amount of work... He was a trained Presbyterian minister and child psychologist. His show was a religious vocation.
Starts with:
1. State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand. Example: "It is dangerous to play in the street."
2. Rephrase in a positive manner, as in "It is good to play where it is safe."
3. Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust. As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
Ends with:
... 9. => "Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing."
Remainder of rules available at https://www.openculture.com/2019/05/mr-rogers-nine-rules-for...
When speaking to children, adults often start with the assumption that children are inferior in some way to adults and therefore they can't be spoken to in a rational way. On the contrary, Mr. Rogers spoke to children in a way that didn't condescend, and did so effectively, not shoving too many ideas into a single statement or making his audience feel shame for not initially knowing something.
Also note that in method 9, he provides a rationale for the lesson.
> It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
This might seem innocuous, but "because I say so" really isn't a good explanation for either children or adults. Relating the lesson to something that most children want, to grow, is both truthful and respectful.
People often underestimate the complexity of things they are used to. If you keep trying to use complexity/baggage without realising it, you might assume others aren't smart enough to understand, because it seems so obvious. It takes skill to see that something is not obvious and then break it down so that it can be understood.
No, he spoke to them in the way he spoke to all humans. For example here he is talking to Congress:
Pleasebegoodpleasebegoodpleasebegood
That went into overdrive after the first rumors about Bill Cosby started up. And then by John Lassiter I was a momentary wreck every time Fred made the news.
Fred Rogers has been gone long enough now that I’m more confident that he was genuinely the Nice Guy his public image paints him to be. Of course Fred Rogers sued the KKK.
Arsenio Hall had Fred on the first run of his talk show. He was agog. Major hero worship. Ended up gifting him a copy of his signature jacket. Which was even bigger on Fred than it was on Arsenio.
2004?
If I suddenly stop posting here in two days time it’s because They came for me. Please contact Amnesty International.
Which means that he at least occasionally did the nasty.
She's an absolute delight and an accomplished pianist in addition to her other accolades.
He was very mischievous too in his own way... I'm not surprised they were such a good match.
interesting that it didn't seem to affect him at all given the context of the prudishness of that age.
I wonder "when" flipping the bird suddenly become mainstream rude?
(yes, likely not entirely true)
bigots and racists unfortunately remembered that lesson very well. teaching lgbtq and the history of race in this country is all but forbidden in some States because it works.
It isn't forbidden "because it works", it is forbidden "because teaching works", and a step back, "they believe it to be wrong information"
By stating your shortcut, eg "teaching works", I feel you are glossing over, while unintentionally, the fact that there is an actual difference of belief here.
Such people can believe black people are inferior, or lgbtq is wrong, without it deriving from hate. Their hate comes from people trying to "corrupt" their children's beliefs, and anyone with a child would feel precisely the same way, if they thought the thing taught, was very wrong.
By understanding the source of the hate, by keeping the source in mind, we are better able to counter it... to perhaps fix it.
If a group is inferior it’s then ok to use the state and other social systems to keep them below you. That seems pretty hateful to me.
If you cannot see how they view they world, how their thinking is wrong, cannot see how they think, you have zero chance of correcting it.
None of that makes it any less of a hateful act.
We don’t want to lean back in our comfort and pontificate from our position of privilege and safety and ‘well, akchtually’ people who experience these acts of hate and violence.
Teaching and believing and spreading that some people are inferior because of where they were born or the color of their skin is just plain wrong. If you are telling your kids that, it isn’t an opinion, it’s hate.
It isn’t a position that deserves debate, conversation or any space in our polities.
Tolerance has it’s limits and a lot of people are tired and refusing to tolerate the likes of your juvenile, puerile attempts at ‘conversation’.
People here have been discussing how to teach people about equality, how to resolve racism in the young. My comment was about ensuring that is targeted correctly, both in youth and older people, so it actually works.
You cannot fix something, if you target the wrong thing to fix. You cannot fix something, if you don't even understand the source of the issue.
But sure... yell at the guy trying to rationally frame this issue, so we can correctly fix it.
That makes sense.
What presumption!
A few responses, are not indicative of the world, or even a majority opinion. They do not indicate "the way everyone else does", and in fact may be responses from people misusing the word!
This seems more to be the case, for the responses either tried to paint my statments in a poor light, even after I clarified my usage, or went off the deep end.
When you do the "a-ha, gotcha, I meant something totally unexpected by the word 'hate'" thing,
What are you even talking about? I clearly defined this from the start.
most of what you manage to communicate is that you think racial hatred is a game.
A game? It is as if you have not read my posts, or this thread. Or even the post you are responding to.
Just because I think racism can exist without hatred, does not mean racism cannot be hate based. This all or nothing, this "it is this way, and no other way", this "a problem can only be approached from one angle" thinking seldom results in solutions.
And we want to fix things, right? We don't just want to complain, and throw words at it, right?
Or do we want to understand, frame correctly, then fix?
See above.
Yes, racism can exist without hatred. We can view an ancient dead civilization through a racist lens without hating the people we study. But, so what?
This thread started from a specific example - segregated swimming pools. I don't know why you've written so much on this thread without actually discussing the issue.
We know whites were angry about desegregating swimming pools, and committed violence in order to preserve their belief in a segregated society protecting the legal and social status of whites over blacks.
That's not simply saying "there was hate", but giving a reason for the belief (white supremacy) an explanation of the anger (increasing desegregation overturned the status people regarded as their birthright), and a way out of it (showing beloved Mr. Rogers share a wading pool with his black friend, Officer Clemmons).
That's a chance to correct it, through Mr. Rogers' deliberate anti-racist efforts.
You earlier wrote "My prior comments discussed zero acts of violence", which rather highlights that your comments are completely decoupled from how Mr. Rogers was responding to widespread acts of violence when blacks tried to swim in what had been white-only swimming areas. That's the context everyone else is addressing.
So don't be surprised when people are irritated by your irrelevant hypotheticals.
This is what I was referring to. I responded to a specific point, of a specific post, about a specific thing.
This happens all the time. It's how conversation works. Yet you continue to ignore context, continue to ignore what I was discussing, which I have reiterated in every single reply. Instead, you find fault that I was not discussing.. what? What you wanted to discuss?
I repeat again, and go back to my original reply, we must truly understand cause, to effect correction.
For some reason this appears to bother you greatly. All of your replies have been to posts of mine stating this. Apparently, you disagree?
Well, why even bother responding? You apparently don't care for cause, and get upset at targeted correction.
There's little else to say here.
Which I have specifically addressed in my earlier reply. To wit:
reason for the belief = white supremacy
explanation of the anger = increasing desegregation overturned the status people regarded as their birthright
way out of it = showing beloved Mr. Rogers share a wading pool with his black friend, Officer Clemmons (anti-racism efforts)
> You apparently don't care for cause
Perhaps your frustration caused you to overlook my earlier summary of the cause, and overlook my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32289951 where I link to additional resources about the cause.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say but if you explore the next “layer” of their beliefs and ask why they’re so afraid you’ll find the ultimate root of these beliefs is hatred.
Yes. If you think black people or gay people are inferior, and that their rights should be suppressed because of that, that is hate.
> “they believe it to be wrong information”
And we believe what they peddle to be lies grounded in hate and bigotry.
The belief was one of racial superiority and hatred over the movement towards equal rights and equal access, which knocked them off the pedestal they believed they were born to be on. They didn't like how their children were being "corrupted" by the ideals of racial equality, which upset their views about social hierarchy.
Public pools shut down or were privatized after desegregation and civil rights laws made it impossible to have "whites only" public pools. There's a book on this overall topic: Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.
There's an infamous picture of a motel manager pouring pool chemicals into the motel pool to scare desegregationalist activists who were swimming in it - https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/motel-manager-pouring-acid-... .
Here's background on the context of the wading pool: https://www.today.com/popculture/how-mister-rogers-pool-mome... . "This 'Mister Rogers' moment broke race barriers. It's just as powerful today / The scene aired amid racial tensions in the U.S. over segregated swimming pools, and many see it as Rogers taking a stand against racism. ... The same year it aired, the Supreme Court ruled that pools could not be segregated by race."
You can also read what Clemmons (who played the officer) has to say about it in his memoir, "Officer Clemmons: A Memoir", which has this scene on the cover.
I didn't know this story, so I searched for a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6O_Ep9bY0U
Fred's show inoculated a generation against their lies.
I totally agree.
FYI check out this 1969 congressional hearing [1], especially as compared to hearings today.
First - this is the kind of thing that's typically handled and driven by 'the legal department'. They think differently, act differently, for non obvious reasons.
Second - 'fighting' is a form of aggression no doubt and suggest most people avoid that and confrontation esp. people like Rogers. I can see him rationalizing it's just not worth the effort, I mean, it depends a lot on the proportionality of the situation. Was someone handing out leaflets in 'nowhere USA'? Or was there a National Convention?
I cans see Rogers wanting to do something like wanting to call them and talk to them, and his lawyers saying 'no, that's not how it works, better to send them a firm letter from a reputable law firm, we'll take care of it' etc..