Also, if seven year olds really don't have much concept of race and the whole thing will be over their heads, let me know that too. (I'm trying to write about Alabama, and Rosa Parks is about all I've got just now...)

People of color/white?

We need some new words.

I have no idea about appropriateness, but my seven-year-old says "brown-skinned" and "peach-skinned". I assume he picked it up at school.

My gut instinct is to use "black people and white people," but I'm worried it sounds weirdly condescending.

I'd go with that. "African-American" is too formal like you said.

Danostuporstar was one step ahead of me. I was going to ask if you knew any children around that age that you could ask them what "terms" they usually say when referring to people whose skin is either dark or light...

Sorry Occiblu, I did read the whole thing. I meant just because you don't spend lots of time around kids, doesn't mean you don't know any...

Yeah, I really don't know any, either. Child-free, urban, mostly friends with gay men. It's not a real child-rich environment. :)

I'd go with "beautiful black sisters and brothers" and "cracker-ass crackers."

Hugh, we prefer to be called 'paleface devilish peckerwood redneck whiteboys,' thank you.

You might consider looking into Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes exercise. A PBS documentary is available online. (MetaFilter post)

I thought white people were all called Gwei Lo, but that might just be my neighborhood. Haole?

What about choosing fantasy colors, e.g. blue people and green people? Teach the principle and then let the kids figure out the ugly reality on their own?

Or perhaps that's a terrible idea and I shouldn't be allowed near children.

I like all the exercises (and I've heard good things about them), but I'm stuck using writing only -- I'm working on a project for a publishing house, not directly with the kids themselves.

(I need "fun facts" about each of the states. Talking about a lady who thought it was unfair to have to change bus seats seemed age appropriate; I'm just trying to figure out how to quickly frame the context. Very quickly. Like, "under 50 words for the entire thing" quickly.)

Hey occhi,

I used to be a K-1-2 teacher and taught civil rights in the classroom. Your questions are common, but you don't need to stress too much over it. For one thing, kids are aware of skin color differences usuallly by the age of four. Normally, their families have helped give them some understanding of their ethnic heritage, so this will not come to them as the very first communication about race they have ever heard.

I used "black" and "white" most often, because they are terms kids are familiar with from home. However, I considered it part of my responsibility to teach that human diversity was not a binary system. We put the topic of race within as broad a structure as possible. There was a time where there were no gradations perceived between white and non-white; but in trying to present the world accurately to kids, our teaching included mentioning all sorts of variety. My classes contained South Asian, hispanic, white European immigrants, African-American black, Caribbean black, American white, and mixed-race kids...so it was pretty easy to talk about how many differences can exist among people, and how difficult it is to make arbitrary rules about race.

We could talk at the K-1-2 level about the inadequacy of 'black' or 'white' to describe skin tones - you can even find activities in lesson plans online where you identify skin color with the closest crayon in the box, to illustrate the variety of skin tones. I used "African-American" and "European-American," but with the understanding that those terms aren't always accurate: not all black kids are African-American, and not all white ones are Euro-American, of course.

Most of the K kids I taught always responded with incredulity that there was a time when people had different rules based on skin color. Their natural indignation (A very honest, kid-phrased "WTF?") was enough to bring tears to the eyes.

It underscored for me that kids are good at understanding difference, but that bigotry really has to be taught.

In teaching Civil Rights or other topics related to race, it also helped me greatly to really divorce past from present. Phrases like "People at that time thought..." or "Some people believed../but others thought..." really helped depersonalize the systems and enable everyone to look at them without feeling as though they reflected present-day reality. They do, of course, but the kids have a lot of life left to determine the ways in which historical constructions of race are still in effect. At the K-1-2 level, we were acknowledging difference and introducing ideas about how people can and have treated diversity: through bigotry, or through acceptance.

You might also get some help from SPLC's excellent Teaching Tolerance site.

But don't be afraid. Kids understand the world they're in a lot more than many adults think! They won't be surprised to hear people described as 'black' and 'white'. One of my favorite black history educators, who is black, says "Say black. Say African-American. Say colored or Negro if you have to - we can handle it. Just don't do the very worst thing, which is to say nothing at all." Her point is excellent: fear of saying the wrong thing can result in saying nothing, which renders the unspoken invisible.

[On further thought, since this is for publication, I'd go with 'black' just because that was the problem in Birmingham - Rosa Parks' blackness, not her African ancestry.]

Instructional video (Spike Lee at his best)

(that clip is brilliant for both the way it acknowledges the ubiquity (and scary seductiveness) of stereotypes, especially in an urban enviornment and for the final response)

Thanks, Miko. That actually helps a great deal. I was on the fence about even including the info on Rosa Parks (and now I'm in the midst of trying to figure out the least inflammatory, most comprehensible way of dealing with Native American terminology), and then I realized I'm sitting here with an actual chance at correcting some of the perception that the only people in US history worth talking about are white. Which is pretty awesome, and it would be stupidly lame to give up because I'm having to wrestle with semantics.

(Also, given that I wrestle with semantics no matter what the situation -- that's what I do, I wrestle with semantics -- I'd hate for my neuroses to get in the way of education.)

I've been writing a lot the last few weeks for kids and teenagers, and writing about a lot of colonized countries and race-relation issues in pieces that are required to stay really short. It's been interesting trying to present these issues in a way that's fair to both sides, and also in a way that's not going to get thrown aside as PC propaganda.

I think, all this to say: History can kind of suck sometimes.

On preview: Yeah, I think the black/white thing is actually the easiest to understand with this, since I'm talking about segregation in the South in the 50s. What I have right now is: "Montgomery, Alabama, became famous when a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat. Black people were required to sit in the back of the bus, and she thought that was unfair. Her actions led to the Civil Rights Movement, which ended the legal separation between black people and white people in the U.S."

It's a leeetle long. Further suggestions welcome.

Around the time of Rosa Park's death, I read an excellent summation about "the myth" of Rosa Parks. I know you've got limited space, occhiblu, so no time to go into the complex political environment of the time, but I wanted to share this article to debunk some of the crappy history I was taught as a first grader.

the perception that the only people in US history worth talking about are white....It's been interesting trying to present these issues in a way that's fair to both sides, and also in a way that's not going to get thrown aside as PC propaganda.

I don't know if that's truly possible, right wing propoganda aside. From the beginning, the most pivotal points in American History: the settlement of the West, the Civil War, the immigration boom/Ellis Island, World War II, Vietnam etc, were at least somewhat centered around questions of race, creed or color. And, I'm fairly sure that even by first grade, kids have awareness of racial conflict even if they havent internalized all the stereotypes yet.

That said, it is possible to be too delicate with language and come off sounding condescending and naive, but use your best judgement. As far as "Native American" goes..if possible use tribe names, otherwise Native American is probably your best bet to avoid offending.

As far as Rosa Parks, here's my attempt: In the 1960's down south it was still the law that a black person had to sit in the rear of the bus and give up their seat to a white person if they wanted it. One day an older black lady named Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat and got arrested. This inspired a lot of people to protest and talk to their leaders and get those laws (and other ones) changed.

(simplified, sure, but it sums things up)

muddgirl, thanks, that's a great article. Some of that was actually in the Wikipedia article on Parks, which I was using as a partial reference.

jonmc, part of the problem is that I'm trying to keep the focus on Alabama, since it's a project about the 50 states. I also feel weird about singling out the South for discrimination -- obviously it was legal there in a way that it wasn't in the North, but it's not like it was all sunshine and roses north of the Mason-Dixon line, either.

I like both y'all's points about mentioning the arrest and protest, though. I'm already over word count for this, but I'll see what I can rearrange...

Oh, and on the Native American thing -- yeah, I'm more worried about whether "tribe" is appropriate, and it seems the Navajo may actually call themselves the Dine? Or maybe that's just a term for part of the population? And then you get into "Native American Navajo tribe" vs. "The Navajo people, a Native American tribe," vs. "The Navajo, a Native American people," and grammatical issues about singulars and plurals, and did I mention I might get a little overly caught up in semantics?

And Arizona's and the Navajo's official websites are not particularly helpful.

Occhi, yeah, I think your instinct to include this is excellent. Really, there are few other facts about Alabama that are as historically significant as its centrality to the Civil Rights movement.

It's really hard to get the whole idea of segregation and the Civil Rights movement into 50 words. However, you did a good job. To reduce length, and to make sure Rosa doesn't get sole credit for the whole movement, how about this revision:

"Montgomery, Alabama, was the home of Rosa Parks, a woman who simply refused to give up her bus seat. At that time, segregation laws required Black people to sit in the back of the bus, and she thought segregation was unfair. Actions like hers led to the Civil Rights Movement, which made segregation illegal."

writing about a lot of colonized countries and race-relation issues in pieces that are required to stay really short

I feel for ya. These issues are among the most complex things to teach even when you have tons of time and space. Still, it's sooo worth it.

The more you know about our history, the more appalled you get at the shocking lousiness of a lot of it. There's plenty of greatness, too, but it really sucks to be the one breaking the news to kids about smallpox blankets, witch trials, Japanese internment, and the like.

then you get into "Native American Navajo tribe" vs. "The Navajo people, a Native American tribe," vs. "The Navajo, a Native American people,"

Folklorists and ethnographers tend to deal with this problem by using the more value-neutral "group", as in "The Navajo, a Native American group."

Why not say (for instance), 'in those days they were known as the Navajo*, these days they prefer to be called the Dine)

*I say to mention Navajo since someday, if they're lucky, these kids will have to do research using original source material and in sheer technical terms, it helps to know the terminology

did I mention I might get a little overly caught up in semantics?

Well, generally people can sense when your heart is in the right place and that can forgive the occasional verbal gaffe and getting bogged down in minutia is often the left's achilles heel. (although being too earnest has it's drawbacks, too. Watch the darkly hilarious 'Brotherhood Week' scene in the film The Wanderers to see wht I'm getting at (it also speaks to your point about the 1960's North not being some kind of racial oasis (although the South was where the overt discrimination was encoded in law)))

(sorry about the parentheses abuse)

these days they prefer to be called the Dine

But I have no idea if that's true. That's my problem! I'm guessing that since their website and reservation is called "Navajo Nation," I'm reasonably safe with that...

Sigh. All of this, and it's supposed to be snappy and fun.

(On the other hand, my other fun fact for AL involves the world's oldest chicken, so I guess that can be fun. :) )

And Miko, I might lift your edits almost wholesale, if you don't mind.

The more you know about our history, the more appalled you get at the shocking lousiness of a lot of it.

Especially when you're writing about Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and Alabama all in a row. It's just a giant, "What the hell are we doing to other people?" mindfuck.

I would avoid soft-soaping the South's fight against desegregation by introducing the idea that the North wasn't exactly the Promised Land. While it may be true that opportunities everywhere were not and continue not to be equal, it wasn't life-threateningly dangerous for blacks to vote, or walk on the sidewalk, or raise their eyes to a white woman's, in most places in the North the way it was in most places in the South, and that threat of death was never a point of pride for the majority of the white populace.

fear of saying the wrong thing can result in saying nothing, which renders the unspoken invisible.

Amen to that.

I would avoid soft-soaping the South's fight against desegregation by introducing the idea that the North wasn't exactly the Promised Land.

Well, no. My point was that I didn't really want to get into the North/South thing at all. And I do think there's a tendency to treat current racism as if it's just a Southern problem, which I take issue with. Given I'm working with about 50 words, it's important to me to be aware of the connotations of each, not just in terms of historical accuracy but also in terms of what ideas people are likely to take away with them. "Racism = South" is a belief that I think a lot of Americans adhere to, and it's not really something I want to encourage in the small space I have.

(Sorry, that "Well, no" was not meant quite so contrary as it came across. I have a tendency to start out comments with "No," when I mean "I agree with your negative proposition." We need a separate word for that in English.)

Like "si" in French.

Exactement.

Afrogenic and Eurogenic

Those sound like hair tonics, delmoi.

I'm leaning toward jonmc here. This is only 50 words, it's a small lesson in a fairly small unit, and you shouldn't obsess about being the one person to imprint them with a lifetime attitude about race or racism. Kids will kinda sense (some of them, anyway) if you're treating it as a minefield, and in a way that's exactly the wrong lesson. Just chill, tell a little story, and go on with your life -- you know they will.

-the navajo are a tribe

-it's ok to say "tribe"

-it's ok to say "indian" or "american indian"

-but it is generally preferable to use the tribe name rather than "native americans", which is dumb and usually only ever used by white people (aka honkies)

-Diné is the navajo term. it's ok to just say "navajo" if youre talking to other english speakers

Thanks, Wedge. (I was referring to the people as "Navajo," but I was the running into difficulties in explaining who the Navajo were. "The Navajo, an American Indian tribe, did X, Y, and Z." works very nicely, though.)