Rhymes o' the times…
I came across some "research" recently, and initially I didn't
know whether it was seriously intended or not. At first glance,
it seemed on the level, albeit kooky…
According to a pair of Canadian researchers (as reported on the
Canadian medical Association's Web site), many age-old nursery
rhymes contain a common subtext that trivializes a child's view
of serious injuries, a frequent theme in these bedtime staples.
Also, they suggest, such trauma-laced nursery rhymes send
children the wrong messages about the need for urgent and
appropriate treatment following injuries.
Take Humpty Dumpty, for instance. As you'll recall, he sat on a
wall, had a great fall, and we all know what happened after that
- all the king's men couldn't patch poor Humpty up. On the plus
side, this is one of the few rhymes where the accident "victim"
receives any post-trauma attention or care at all. But on the
negative side of things, the study's authors suggest that this
rhyme improperly characterizes the king's horses and men as
appropriate "first responders," citing their lack of medical or
EMS training.
Humpty's not the only one on trial here, either. Remember Jack
and Jill? They went up the hill to fetch a pail of water, but
poor Jack fell down and "broke his crown" (sustained a skull
fracture, the study suggests). He receives no care whatsoever.
Also, the fact that Jill's condition remains unspecified -
despite the fact that she most certainly must have suffered
injuries when she came "tumbling after" - indicates a serious
bias against women in the medical dialogue, the authors
maintain.
Other offenders include "It's raining, it's pouring," where the
old man bumps his head, then goes to bed (a bad idea in the
event of a concussion), "Ring around the rosie" (when they all
fall down) and "Rock-a-bye baby," in which a child is unsafely
cradled high among tree limbs before falling, cradle and all.
It's absurd that the do-gooders are studying this, isn't it? I
thought so too, until…
To my relief, about halfway through this "study," I realized
that it was clearly intended to be humorous - and it is. The
authors even went so far as to write a hilarious "medically
sound" nursery rhyme that would instill in children the proper
perspective on injuries, injury prevention, and subsequent
medical treatment. When read in its entirety, anyone would see
the farcical nature of this "research." It's funny stuff.
But what's NOT so funny is the fact that some mainstream media
sources seized on the study and presented it as evidence of the
dangerous subtexts kids are absorbing from harmless nursery
rhymes. Keep reading…
***********************************************
The normally credible BBC News ran a headline for this story
that screamed:
Nursery rhymes put kids 'at risk'
After an alarming lead sentence about Canadian researchers'
conclusions that nursery rhymes are sending "dangerously
inaccurate messages" to children, the story outlines the
"concerned" authors' assertions that the actions of characters
in these popular bedtime rhymes might actually be skewing kids'
perceptions about injuries and necessary medical care.
The story contains just one thin reference to the notion that
the study may be tongue-in-cheek, and it's buried down in the
fourth paragraph!
This is so illustrative of the kind of shameless "health
reporting" that goes on every single day in the mainstream
press. At best, it's shamelessly sensationalist - at worst,
horribly misleading. And people wonder why I'm always railing
against the popular media…
It's because they're a bunch of liars and truth-distorters!
I wish I could put them all to bed (without supper), and here's
the nursery rhyme I'd read to them:
Rock-a-bye BBC, and others of your stock,
When your hot air blows, it's all just a crock,
When the truth breaks, your credibility will fall
And down'll come your networks, ratings and all!
No mistaking the "subtext" in that one, huh?
No rhymes, just reason,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
