Legos as metaphor for Communism?
It's long, it's ridiculous, and it's the most blatant attempt at politically motivated teaching of elementary school kids I've read in a while.
For a small piece of background, in an after school program in Seattle, kids were playing with leggos. They built a city, bartered for good pieces, and built airports, restaurants, homes, etc. As a former lego fan, I am imagining they had one of those huge tables, and each kid got a section. And rather than build random things on each section, I'm thinking they were instructed to build a city.
Well, in the end, the kids were assuming ownership of the places they built, and the kids that were really good at the building weren't really letting the other kids get a turn to play.
So far, that's the only negative thing I see about their behavior. It's only natural to have a sense of ownership and personal pride and investment in a structure that you built. Wether its a skyscraper or a lego house.
Well the teachers didn't like this. To quote:
As they closed doors to other children, the Legotown builders turned their attention to complex negotiations among themselves about what sorts of structures to build, whether these ought to be primarily privately owned or collectively used, and how "cool pieces" would be distributed and protected. These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.
So they took it upon themselves to ban the legos in an effort to teach the children about "social justice."
You'll never look at blocks the same way. I agree that everyone should get a turn to play. But if Bobby made a skyscraper, and Jill made a non-descript tower, does Jill have the right to tear down Bobby's skyscraper because it's not as good as her tower? Or because it uses more pieces?
The resolution of this is revolting, ending with children building community houses and each getting 15-28 blocks a piece. And these things reminded me of a certain red state:
Collectivity is a good thing:
"You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto your structure with you, and it doesn't have to be the same way as when you left it.... A house is good because it is a community house."Personal expression matters:
"It's important that the little Lego plastic person has some identity. Lego houses might be all the same except for the people. A kid should have their own Lego character to live in the house so it makes the house different."Shared power is a valued goal:
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building. And it's important to have the same priorities.""Before, it was the older kids who had the power because they used Legos most. Little kids have more rights now than they used to and older kids have half the rights."
Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for:
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes.... We should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces."
Read the whole thing, and be careful what kind of after school program / day care / school your children are in. And hey, if you think property rights are garbage, look for a Hilltop near you. And ask yourself, why would you ever bother buying a home? You don't believe in the right to own property anyway. The war against individualism is not a myth.
Comments