How to explain 9-11 to kids? BBC gets it wrong?

[andyandy]

Not a particularly important story, but it got me wondering as to how best to approach complex topics with children without simplifying to the extent that the underlying details are missed....

This is from a guardian blog.

Newsround is a daily 5-10 minute news show for kids shown every day at 5.30pm, generally for about the 5-14 age range. Their website has featured the following 3 explanations to the "Why did they do it?" question, the first two removed after complaints....

(1)

Quote:

Attack on the World Trade Centre

Why did they do it?

A lot of countries don't like the way America gets involved with arguments in the Middle East.
They think that the US unfairly helps Israel in its conflict with Palestine. Israel and Palestine have been arguing for many years over who owns what land.

America is seen to be sympathetic towards Jewish Israelis, so some Arabs and Muslims think America does not like or understand them.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/


(2)

Quote:

Attack on the World Trade Centre

Why did they do it?

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks. In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do. When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

(3)

Quote:

Attack on the World Trade Centre

Why did they do it?

Al-Qaeda is unhappy with America and other countries getting involved in places like the Middle East. People linked to al-Qaeda have used violence to make this point in the USA, and in other countries. The events of 11 September 2001 and other al-Qaeda attacks have been condemned by many people all over the world, including large numbers of Muslims.

So which of (1) (2) (3) do you think are acceptable? Are all of them fine? None of them? Given 50 words or so, how would you write an article on this suitable for primary school (aged 5-11) kids?

[Uncle Feedle]

I work with children 8-14 in my job. In my experience, it is always better to give them all the facts from which they can form their own opinions. I am completely opposed to pushing certain opinions or viewpoints upon them in any way, and presenting a selection of theories like that tends to narrow things down a bit too much for my liking.

[gtc]

Was the first one up on the BBC at all? It basically blames the jews.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by gtc

Was the first one up on the BBC at all? It basically blames the jews.

No it doesn't.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Those all suck.

Angered by America's foreign policy in the Middle East, in particular the defense of Israel over the Palestinians and the sending of troups to countries such as Saudia Arabia and Iraq, Al-Qaeda, a radical Islamist terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, who America once helped to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, plotted an attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as part of an overall holy war against America.

Yay for run on sentences!

Actually, that would be presuming the public schools taught world geography. For the commoners:

After many years of US joining sides in Middle Eastern battles, some groups of radical Mulsims began to hate America. They decided to declare a holy war to destroy America for preventing their victories. One group, Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, decided to fly planes into large, centerpiece American buildings. They killed many innocent people.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I think all three are fine but I'd go with number 1.

It's odd but, with a few exceptions, I don't remember my parents ever "explaining things" to my sister and me. If we asked first, they'd tell us but it's not like they felt it was their job to tell us about world politics and social issues. Pretty much anything I knew came from school or half understanding what we half heard adults talking about.

My mom and dad talked about it between themselves or with their friends but they really didn't take it upon themselves to talk to us about it. There was no "What will we tell the children about Monica Lewinsky?!" or "How will we tell them what the Oklahoma City bombing was?" because we hardly talked about these things one way or another. And I suppose because they were shy about even mentioning stuff like that to kids.

Which is very, very bad.

[Alt+F4]

How is explaining 9/11 to a child any different than explaining any other murder to that child? There are some people who have very bad problems and sometimes they take those problems out on innocent people that don't deserve it.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

How is explaining 9/11 to a child any different than explaining any other murder to that child? There are some people who have very bad problems and sometimes they take those problems out on innocent people that don't deserve it.

Yeah, but then some smart kid asks about all the innocent Afghans and Iraqis who didn't deserve to die either, and you have to explain how when "we" kill innocent people it is for the greater good, but when "they" do it we call it murder.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yeah, but then some smart kid asks about all the innocent Afghans and Iraqis who didn't deserve to die either, and you have to explain how when "we" kill innocent people it is for the greater good, but when "they" do it we call it murder.

I'm a high school social studies teacher and if my kids called those innocent Iraqis and Afghans who have died in the war murder victims I would not disagree with them. With that said, 9/11 was also mass murder.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I'm a high school social studies teacher and if my kids called those innocent Iraqis and Afghans who have died in the war murder victims I would not disagree with them. With that said, 9/11 was also mass murder.

Yeah, but no one is looking to bring Americans to justice for their crimes against innocent people... and if adults have a hard time reconciling the contradictions, how can kids deal with it?

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yeah, but no one is looking to bring Americans to justice for their crimes against innocent people

Wasn't that what the 9/11 attack was all about?

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Wasn't that what the 9/11 attack was all about?

I guess you could look at it that way... certainly it was spun that way by the people responsible, although I'm pretty sure their motives were much more political. That political motive, of course, is the one that is missing from almost all the discussions of the situation.

So, all of the examples in the OP should include something along the lines of "reasonable and fact-based criticism of the West, including the United States, was used by terrorist leaders in order to engineer the 9-11 attacks, in order to advance their political goals within the region."

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You know what though, guys?

With the kids we have today, today's kids, I doubt the vast majority of them would even care anyway. Or know, which you have to do before you can care.

And why not when the vast majority of adults neither know or care about what's going on in their own country or the world around them? When less than two-thirds of eligible registered voters vote in presidential elections, most Americans couldn't find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map and up to one fourth of us believe that 9/11 could have been a government conspiracy, we can hardly expect children to know what "9/11 was all about".

The war in Iraq to the kids, are you kidding me? The vast majority of voting, working, functioning-in-the-world adults couldn't care less about it. Do their best to ignore it, in fact.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

up to one fourth of us believe that 9/11 could have been a government conspiracy...

Evidence please.

[Puppycow]

They all seem like reasonable attempts to me. It's one of those third rail topics where it's easy to cause offense without even intending to. I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Not a particularly important story, but it got me wondering as to how best to approach complex topics with children without simplifying to the extent that the underlying details are missed....

This is from a guardian blog.

Newsround is a daily 5-10 minute news show for kids shown every day at 5.30pm, generally for about the 5-14 age range. Their website has featured the following 3 explanations to the "Why did they do it?" question, the first two removed after complaints....

So which of (1) (2) (3) do you think are acceptable? Are all of them fine? None of them? Given 50 words or so, how would you write an article on this suitable for primary school (aged 5-11) kids?

I don't have kids - but I would tell them the truth, which is:
We made them angry while thinking we have good intentions - and
they showed that we were wrong.

And I know: Many Americans cannot accept this kind of sad truth.

[LostAngeles]

Personally, I would probably go with number 2 or mix them, had I only to choose from those scripts.

Me, I might try and explain some of the historical background and basically tell the kid, "I'm pretty sure that's how it went down and why, but let's look into it to be certain," and take them to the library.

Did I say, "me?" I meant, "My mom would have..." Cause that's how she rolled. Library and dictionary.

[geni]

Why did they do it?

Because the imbalance in convetional militry power was such that unconventional methods were preferable.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by geni

Why did they do it?

Because the imbalance in convetional militry power was such that unconventional methods were preferable.

Inasmuch was this a reason to attack the WTC in the first place?
By that I mean that this answer will result in a lot of questions concerning
what you meant by this ...

[LostAngeles]

Originally Posted by geni

Why did they do it?

Because the imbalance in convetional militry power was such that unconventional methods were preferable.

As good a one line answer as that it is, it does bring up more questions, which could be used as the jumping off point for the library.

Where's Library Lady? If anyone can help me push my mom's concept of taking the kid to the library and teaching them to look up answers as you learned too, it'd be her.

[Travis]

Those all stink.

4) A movement formed over the years centralized around a radical form of Islam. They wanted to forcefully convert all the worlds population to their brand of religion. One of the groups in this movement was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was led by a man who hated America because it had military troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from being invaded by Iraq. Because America also represented a competing culture that would have to be eliminated in order for the worldwide forced religious conversion to happen it was chosen to be attacked.


Any explanation that includes Israel or makes it out as America getting what it deserved are just shameful examples of anti-American propaganda made by the types of people who truly do want all Americans to die.

[rjh01]

All rather simplistic. Left off
- lack of democracy
- power of religion
in the middle East;

[andyandy]

some interesting replies...

I think (1) is really too narrow in focus - it gives the impression that the Israeli/palestine conflict is the fundamental motivator, without any appreciation of wider western historical involvement in the region and without any real appreciation of the role of fundamentalist Islam both as a unifier, and as a ideology of western rejection

and whilst (2) is better the sentence "al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks" is a bit unnecessary, giving at least some wedge room for the 9-11 CT...

"al Qaeda who were behind the attacks" would be more appropriate.

(3) is not great either - the "why" has been watered down to such an extent that it is just "unhappiness" at "involvement" in the middle east. In a desire to not offend anyone, there is virtually no information left.

though it's easier to criticise than to construct....i'll try to think of what i'd write....

[andyandy]

it's quite tough to know what level kids'll understand....

There have been longstanding tensions in the middle east from western involvement in the region. For some groups like al-qaeda, anti-western sentiment was further increased by their radical interpretation of Islam. They believed that there should be a struggle (jihad) with the west, and that innocent civilians could be legitimate targets.

this maybe for the 12+ age range....

and

There has been some anger in the middle east from western involvement in the region over many years. For some groups like al-qaeda, anti-western feeling was further increased by their understanding of their religion. They believed that there should be a struggle (jihad) with the west, and that innocent people could be killed.


for slightly younger kids....

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Evidence please.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6804

[Travis]

Originally Posted by andyandy

it's quite tough to know what level kids'll understand....

There have been longstanding tensions in the middle east from western involvement in the region. For some groups like al-qaeda, anti-western sentiment was further increased by their radical interpretation of Islam. They believed that there should be a struggle (jihad) with the west, and that innocent civilians could be legitimate targets.

this maybe for the 12+ age range....

and

There has been some anger in the middle east from western involvement in the region over many years. For some groups like al-qaeda, anti-western feeling was further increased by their understanding of their religion. They believed that there should be a struggle (jihad) with the west, and that innocent people could be killed.


for slightly younger kids....

Your ideas are similar to my suggestion. Perhaps some sort of collaboration is in order?

[Mycroft]

Wow. I think it's amazing how few people in this thread would stress the dangers of fundamentalist religion angle.

Kudos to Travis.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

1 implies we deserved it.

2 is giving credence to one of Osama's demands (removal of troops from Saudi Arabia) without mentioning that his other demands were for the world to become muslim.

3 seems the most neutral. But too simplified.

I'd go with 2... but add in about Osama's other demands.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

My son was two weeks old when it happened. I was in the rocking chair feeding him when I flipped on the news. I was still trying to figure out what was going on when I saw the second plane hit. When I realized what happened, I looked down at his sweet soft face and wondered what kind of world he would grow up in.

This year, when my son (just turned 6) asked me why the "bad guys" killed all those people, I said that it had to do with groups of people fighting and the terrorists thinking that it was what their god wanted.

I am always careful to tell my son the truth, but I do have to frame it in a way that is appropriate for his understanding. As he matures, we will discuss it a little more each year. And I'll still wonder what kind of world he's growing up in.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Travis

Your ideas are similar to my suggestion. Perhaps some sort of collaboration is in order?

yes - i quite liked yours, though perhaps an added sentence with a note about the longer standing anti-westernism stemming from western involvement in the region would broaden it a little....

it's always a tough balance...there's undoubtably legitimate grievances stemming from 20th century western involvement in the middle east - dating back through European colonialism and then through post war western neo-colonialist geopolitics....and then we see this anti-westernism harnessed and exacebated through religion throughout the region....but to overstate in a simplified form to kids might imply a legitimacy of action, which is obviously not something one wishes to do...

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Wow. I think it's amazing how few people in this thread would stress the dangers of fundamentalist religion angle.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us doubt the religious conviction of the terrorist leaders?

[Georg]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us doubt the religious conviction of the terrorist leaders?

Did you confess that to arti yet? She´ll be very disappointed that you are joining the "apologist-by-her-definition" camp....

[OldTigerCub]

Originally Posted by Travis

Those all stink.

4) A movement formed over the years centralized around a radical form of Islam. They wanted to forcefully convert all the worlds population to their brand of religion. One of the groups in this movement was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was led by a man who hated America because it had military troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from being invaded by Iraq. Because America also represented a competing culture that would have to be eliminated in order for the worldwide forced religious conversion to happen it was chosen to be attacked.


Any explanation that includes Israel or makes it out as America getting what it deserved are just shameful examples of anti-American propaganda made by the types of people who truly do want all Americans to die.

Of all of the explanations, your #4 seems to make the most sense as a way to explain to a child what happenned on 9-11. The complexity of the all of the reasons behind Bin Laden and al Quaeda attacking the U.S. still boggles the minds of many adults, but I think you captured the essence of the conflict in a nutshell.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us doubt the religious conviction of the terrorist leaders?

So you think the 9/11 terrorists were what? Political activists? Anarchists? Humanitarians? Performance Artists that took their work really seriously?

[Travis]

How about a combination of mine and Andyandy's.

4.1) A movement formed over the years centralized around a radical form of Islam. They wanted to forcefully convert all the worlds population to their brand of religion. One of the groups in this movement was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was led by a man who hated America because it had military troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from being invaded by Iraq. There had also already been longstanding tensions in the middle east stemming from western involvement in the region, particularly post World War One colonialism and perceptions of imperialism. Because America was already hated by the leader of Al Qaeda, represented western civilization and was a competing culture that would have to be eliminated in order for the worldwide forced religious conversion to happen, it was chosen to be attacked.

Of course the explanation is now somewhat complex for younger kids to understand, but then again something as complex as Islamist international terrorism is hard for a lot of adults to get their heads around as well.

[Beerina]

5) Bin Laden is upset that the US supports the House of Saud, which slaps around his own wealthy family. He uses tangential religious outrage to gain supporters in battling those who support the House of Saud. He has no intention of having any kind of free nation either in Saudia Arabia, the United States, or any other country he's attacked.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Travis

So you think the 9/11 terrorists were what? Political activists? Anarchists? Humanitarians? Performance Artists that took their work really seriously?

Do you think that maybe, possibly, there was a reason that I posted the words "terrorist LEADERS"? Or, should I assume that there's a reason you ignored what I actually posted?

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Travis

How about a combination of mine and Andyandy's.

4.1) A movement formed over the years centralized around a radical form of Islam. They wanted to forcefully convert all the worlds population to their brand of religion. One of the groups in this movement was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was led by a man who hated America because it had military troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from being invaded by Iraq. There had also already been longstanding tensions in the middle east stemming from western involvement in the region, particularly post World War One colonialism and perceptions of imperialism. Because America was already hated by the leader of Al Qaeda, represented western civilization and was a competing culture that would have to be eliminated in order for the worldwide forced religious conversion to happen, it was chosen to be attacked.

Of course the explanation is now somewhat complex for younger kids to understand, but then again something as complex as Islamist international terrorism is hard for a lot of adults to get their heads around as well.

I think if you drop the bolded part(because it is a magical fantasy, and kids won't understand that it is nothing but an impossible dream), and replace it with a chunk of Beerina's post, I think we're getting pretty close.

[JPK]

Good morning Travis.

Originally Posted by Travis

How about a combination of mine and Andyandy's.

4.1) A movement formed over the years centralized around a radical form of Islam. They wanted to forcefully convert all the worlds population to their brand of religion. One of the groups in this movement was Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was led by a man who hated America because it had military troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that country from being invaded by Iraq. There had also already been longstanding tensions in the middle east stemming from western involvement in the region, particularly post World War One colonialism and perceptions of imperialism. Because America was already hated by the leader of Al Qaeda, represented western civilization and was a competing culture that would have to be eliminated in order for the worldwide forced religious conversion to happen, it was chosen to be attacked.

Of course the explanation is now somewhat complex for younger kids to understand, but then again something as complex as Islamist international terrorism is hard for a lot of adults to get their heads around as well.

That pretty much sums it up for me. The only addition I would add is:
Al Qaeda has been attacking those that do no follow their particular brand of Islam since it began. Not just the US or it's interests. They had attacked the the World Trade Center before and had the opertunity to attack it again.
JPK

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some of us doubt the religious conviction of the terrorist leaders?

Are you saying you doubt the religious convictions of Osama Bin Laden? Or the convictions of the 19 hijackers? Both, perhaps?

Either way, I'd like to see your evidence supporting your theory.