When children ask...

Aka - as I was referring to the 1970s I naturally used the correct term for that period. I am, of course, familiar with the recent terminology.

If a six year old announced to me that god was a myth, I would say I agreed but that many people found the idea comforting.

Greatnan, it's not about comfort! It's about what those who believe in God believe to be the truth. See my comments above.

As for a six year old. They announce all sorts of things. For example 'I don't have to go to bed now' even 'I hate you' or 'I think this dinner is poo'.

I would treat their comments with a response fitted to their understanding and emotional development. And I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist trying to debate the great questions of human existence with a small child whose understanding is just beginning to develop.

I certainly wouldn't use 70s terminology in the 21 century. When I think about some of the words that were in common use such as 'Mongols' and 'spastics' I shudder ...

Micelf - thanks for your post about Christianity.

Aka - I found Greatnan's post about teaching contraception in a Catholic high school interesting. I liked the fact that the priests accepted Greatnan's contributions and didn't try to silence someone whose views differed greatly from theirs. Did you mean to be so combative in your comment about Greatnan's post?

No MiceElf this was the beginning of a dialogue he was initiating. He is a very perceptive child and wanted a genuine debate on the subject. My response was 'what makes you say that?' and his reply made me realise he'd been thinking about this quite deeply. I didn't debate with him but allowed him times and space to put his emerging thoughts into words.

He is not the kind of child to say any of the things you mentioned and as you pointed out its a question of emotional development and understanding. I remember questioning the same beliefs myself at a very early age.

I beg you pardon Iam64? Am I not allowed to make a point without being attacked? I'm quite sure that Greatnan is more than capable of speaking for herself and mentally agile enough to enter into a spirited debate. I'm sure she took my point.

Aka - I agree with you about not using offensive terminology. It is sometimes difficult to write about institutions without using words that are no longer acceptable. Lunatic/simple minded etc. However, I do not believe Greatnan meant to be, or was offensive about the children she taught

Of course she wasn't! Remedial simply meant putting in a remedy for children who needed it. Doctors used to prescribe remedies, now they dispense medication. Same thing.

It's attitudes that need changing. Sadly, even the word 'special' has now become a term of abuse for some.

I did not say she was being offensive.

Please back off and stop attacking me for a simple post which was politely phrased and merely pointing out an unacceptable terminology.

I have been enjoying this thread. It's clear that both MiceElf and Greatnan can debate and share very different views in a civilised and friendly way. Good role models who don't resort to pulling each other's words to bits.

And another one jumps in!

Look this is all getting very predictable and tribal so you'll be pleased to know I'm off. Have a nice day ladies.

Last night when my twin grandsons were being put to bed, one of them said 'can we play at that church again, mum?' They go to a church school, and the church they go in is cold and imposing - very formal, despite being C of E. The catholic church they visited yesterday is modern, warm and light, but the deciding factor for them was getting their hands on the guitar that was used during the christening service.

At almost five, though, they are questioning concepts like heaven, life after death and the existence of a god. My daughter allows them to air their ideas without shaping them either way. They get enough age-relevant experiences of different cultures for them to decide for themselves whether they wish to follow a religion or not.

mice, I liked your first post very much but I'm still at a loss to understand what belief in god/religious faith has to do with the two tenets of good living that you mentioned. I think those are good tenets to live by too. I don't think religious faith is necessary to think that and to try to live by them. Nor was Christianity the first 'philosophy' to suggest those ideas. So, to me, they are not religious tenets but simply human ones.

aka, I respect your point of view about controversial words, but there really was no need to remark on Greatnan's terminology in this thread. You could have commented on it in Pedants' Corner if you feel strongly about it. I think that would have been better. As it is, your comment seems to me to be unnecessarily picky.

You know Greatnan is a thinking, caring person, and as miceelf said, 'remedial' is not intrinsically a problematic word. You complain about being 'attacked' but it was you who made the first unnecessary quibble which was, essentially, a kind of attack itself. A mild one, admittedly, but also an unnecessary one. I really don't think you can complain about the responses you got.

Micelf - I agree that many people believe implicitly in their faith and I was very careful when teaching to treat all their beliefs with respect, but I had to answer direct questions honestly.

There is a very dishonest debating technique which consists of mentioning unacceptable words or phrases in such a way as to suggest that the other party has used them. This has been used against me several times. I was Head of the Remedial Dept. so naturally that is the term I used. As I devoted many years to promoting the welfare of my pupils, including defending them against a Headteacher who had no understanding of their problems, I resent any suggestion that I regarded them as anything other than normal children who happened to have fallen behind for a variety of reasons.

Some of us share our views on different subjects - I don't see why one group should be labelled 'tribal' and not another. I note that Aka's posts are usually supported by the same group of people (especially the ones where I am criticised) - does that make them 'tribal'? I think it was Movedalot who told us how she rushes to the defence of anybody being unjustly treated - perhaps the members who have defended my innocuous post feel the same way.

I am now off on a long walk in the mountains in the sunshine.

The problem with general terms like learning disabilities etc etc is that most of them will eventually end up being used as terms of abuse. It's the way kids etc go, so I doubt if any particular term will be acceptable for long.

Whatever the terminology if someone wants to be abusive about a disability they will find a way. The problem is really the attitudes not the words.

The 1913 Mental Deficiency Act was of its time and unacceptable now but that introduced the terms Idiot, Imbecile and Feeble minded to define different levels of disability.
It sounds dire now but it was about the first piece of legislation to try and develop standards of care for those with learning disabilities .

Have a nice day now AKA !!!

Changes in terminology are very interesting. What they show above all is that a term which used non-judgmentally at one time to describe an existing condition accurately gradually comes to be used as a term of abuse by those whose perception of the condition itself is judgmental.

Aka's Mongols were named for their physical appearance, which was vaguely Mongolian, spastics for the way their limbs went into spasm and were uncontrollable. The terms were perfectly OK until they were hi-jacked as insults. The same with remedial - of course it was linked with an attempt to remedy children's difficulties by giving them special help. Different terms are used now because of reaction to the insults, but current versions will go downhill too unless the attitudes to the conditions are universally altered.

The same is true of "do-gooders", who were originally people who devoted their lives to doing good in a society without welfare nenefits and social workers. Many of those do-gooders were good Christians, many were not, but all saw the need and worked to help those in need.

Nellie and Ele - agree with your points about language/use of words changing over time. I've heard children and adults using 'special needs' in the same way people would have used mongrel/spastic years ago. I used to use 'nitty gritty' until a colleague from Jamaica took 10 of us to task over 20 years ago. I didn't know that the phrase came out of the slave ships. I don't use it now.

I am sure I have posted this before, but the origin of "silly" is a case in point (and no-one is going to go up in arms at me using the word!)

The original word "salig" meant holy or blessed or religious. Even in the 19th century Wordsworth could use "silly" in that sense in his "Lines written above Tintern Abbey, about the congregations neglected by absent clergy "The silly sheep look on, and are not fed"

It was thought in medieval times that God kept a special eye on those who were mentally unable to look after themselves, and protected them from harm, so the term was applied to them - they were "holy fools". Then it became used as an insult, probably mostly by youths taunting one another that they were stupid, and the original meaning was forgotten.

MiceElf - I know many people for whom religion is a comfort, and their practice is based upon this. It may - and clearly does not - apply to you, but it cannot be said of everyone. And I do not decry it - if some people find that this helps them through the challenges of this life, then that is fine.

The ritual and pattern that go with religions is immensely helpful to many, and this is what I was meaning when I talked about not wanting to deny children that comfort and security. Later in life their approach might (or might not) become a bit more sophisticated.

The idea of goodness within is a common thread with Christians and Humanists and many other religions. It is profound and important, and was what I focussed on with my children. That there were many paths to goodness and we choose our own (or now we are able to - in past times it was thrust upon us) - and that kindness is really the only thing that matters in life.

I see many parents in tribunals who state thar their children have 'special needs' or 'severe learning disabilities '.
Other people state that they attended special schools or attended remedial classes.My mother was a qualified remedial reading teacher and I see nothing wrong with these terms. They accurately describe what is the problem without wrapping it in euphemisms.
I equally dislike using terms such as 'willy' instead of the anatomically correct penis!

I used to teach remedial classes in the 80s. I do not see anything wrong with the term. I used to teach in a Catholic School.
My grandson who has autism/ is autistic/ is on the autistic spectrum/ has ASD - I can never remember what is the most acceptable phrase these days - is going to go into the nurture group at his new school next month.
Not quite sure yet what I will have to say!