What does "Pop Goes the Weasel" MEAN???
Laura Rompot
Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
Maggie LOVES this song and I must admit I'm rather fond of it myself,
but I would sleep better at night knowing what the heck its about ;-)
Or, is it gibberish and only meant to be fun?
Thanks, my dh is dying to know so I told him I'd ask you all!
Laura and Maggie 7/30/97....and her daddy too
Kimberly Spencer
In article <351C1A20...@ibm.net>, Laura Rompot <lro...@ibm.net> writes:
> Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
> I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
Believe it or not, the song is about spinning yarn. A weasel is another name
for the spindle (I can't think of what it's really called right now). When you
fill up a spool or a skeen of thread, it makes a popping noise.
Hope you feel more comfortable...
Kimberly
PAHALLAM
>Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
>I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>
>Maggie LOVES this song and I must admit I'm rather fond of it myself,
>but I would sleep better at night knowing what the heck its about ;-)
>Or, is it gibberish and only meant to be fun?
>
>Thanks, my dh is dying to know so I told him I'd ask you all!
>
>Laura and Maggie 7/30/97....and her daddy too
>
Okay - I'm not saying I'm an expert on this but this is what _I_ think it's
about:
Up and down the City Road
In and out the Eagle - public house
That's the way the money goes - gets spent on drink
Pop goes the weasel - Pop was a slang word for the
pawnbroker's
no idea what weasel means
in this context
2nd verse - Half a pound of tuppeny rice
Half a pound of treacle
Stir it up and make it nice - cheap working class pudding
Pop goes the weasel.
It's a traditional London Cockney working class rhyme.
There's a classic book published I think in the 1950s called "The lore and
language of schoolchildren" by Iona and Peter Opie which is a social history of
English playground songs and rhymes. Although it's British, see if it's
available in your library.
Pat.
Alison D.
Kimberly Spencer wrote:
> Believe it or not, the song is about spinning yarn. A weasel is another name
> for the spindle (I can't think of what it's really called right now). When you
> fill up a spool or a skeen of thread, it makes a popping noise.
That doesn't explain the monkey chasing the weasel around the mulberry
bush, unless those are also metaphors... I have heard alternate
explanations of this song that weren't so palatable, but I can't
remember what they were. I think there was a big discussion about this
song on misc.kids 2 or 3 years ago.
--
Alison D.
a...@sprynet.com
Marion Baumgarten
Alison D. <a...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> Kimberly Spencer wrote:
>
> > Believe it or not, the song is about spinning yarn. A weasel is another
> > name for the spindle (I can't think of what it's really called right
> > now). When you fill up a spool or a skeen of thread, it makes a popping
> > noise.
>
This is what I learned too, and I worked at a living history museum
where I wound yarn and it made a pop when full. It also ties in to the
second verse.. a penny for a spool of thread, a penny for a needle.
> That doesn't explain the monkey chasing the weasel around the mulberry
> bush, unless those are also metaphors... I have heard alternate
> explanations of this song that weren't so palatable, but I can't remember
> what they were. I think there was a big discussion about this song on
> misc.kids 2 or 3 years ago.
What mulberry bush?
--
Marion Betor Baumgarten- Mother to die Wunderkinder
-Martha (9) Peter (6)
St. John's College, Annapolis, 1982
Hamilton
> Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
> I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>
A penny for a spool of thread, a penny for a needle
That's the way the money goes, 'pop goes the weasle.'
I was always told that pop goes the weasle is an
expression refering to spending money -- i.e. spend
here, spend there and suddenly you have blown all
your dough
[on the other hand, my parents were masters of euphemism
so maybe it does have a more nefarious meaning.]
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
Elfanie wrote:
>
> On 27 Mar 98 16:10:55 -0600, kds...@tntech.edu (Kimberly Spencer)
> >>
> >> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
> >>
> >> I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
> >
> >for the spindle (I can't think of what it's really called right now). When you
> >fill up a spool or a skeen of thread, it makes a popping noise.
> >
> >
> >Kimberly
>
> "pop" means "to pawn something for money"....and the "weasel" is a
> tool used by shoemakers....and the "monkey" is an addiction (like the
> commonly used phrase "monkey on your back").
>
> 'Round and 'round the cobbler's bench
> The monkey chased the weasel,
> The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
> Pop! Goes the weasel.
>
Funny, the version I always sang as a kid was
Round and round the mulberry bush
the monkey chased th4e weasel
the monkey stopped to pull up his sock
pop goes the weasel.
I never knew it went any other way or had other verses. Amazing how
songs get twisted along the way.
Phan
Kevan Barfield
I remember from my distant past being told that small purses were made from
the skin of rodents such as weasels. The purse had a fastening which can be
seen today, two small balls which clip over each other. When the purse is
opened the balls click or 'pop'
So when money was spent the 'weasel' ( purse) when click (pop).
CandyBors
In article <6fh9l4$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
elfani...@worldnet.att.net (Elfanie) writes:
>Up and down the London road,
>In and out of the Eagle,
>That's the way the money goes,
>Pop! Goes the weasel.
>
>(the Eagle is a pub on London Road in London)
Its City Road, not London Road. :-)
Candy
Mummy to Peter, 9.4.96 and Isabel Louisa, 3.10.98
**********
See Peter (and Isabel!) at
http://members.aol.com/MimsDahlin/august96.html
**********
Julie
Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
was wrong! Here's hoping!
Julie
due 9/7 with #3
Banty
Well, my understanding is that that rhyme started at the time of the bubonic
plague in Europe.
There's another one, after the 1917 flu epidemic:
I had a little bird,
Her name was Enza.
I opened the window,
And in flew Enza.
Tanya L Frederick
Excerpts from netnews.misc.kids.pregnancy: 28-Mar-98 How about "Ring
around the .. by "Julie"@juno.com
> that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
> fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
> was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
> Julie
> due 9/7 with #3
This song is indeed about a deadly illness, I believe it's about bubonic
plague (But it's been awhile, it may be about some other gruesome
illness that I can't recall at this moment). It's kind of grim
dissecting childhood songs, isn't it?
Tanya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya L. Frederick
Engineering and Science Library; Reserves
Carnegie Mellon University
Mom to Zachary Alexander Frederick (8/5/96)
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
-Former V. P. Dan Quayle
Rachel Shreckengast
Julie,
> Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
> that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
> fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
> was wrong! Here's hoping!
Ring around the Rosey is thought to have been a dancing game. If you'd
like more info, check: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/ring.html
Hope this helps.
Best Wishes,
Rachel Sanfordlyn Shreckengast
--
*The Mining Company: WEDDINGS section - http://weddings.miningco.com
*The WEDDING FRUGALITY Page - http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/1940/
*Wedding Dollars and Sense - http://www.wednet.com/wedsense/wedsense.asp
*ANNOUNCE*: At Miningco - Online: Marriage Preparation
Jessica or Mitch
I always thought it meant the weasel ate the monkey! :-)
Jessica
Laura Rompot wrote:
> Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
> I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>
CandyBors
>
>Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
>that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
>was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
>Julie
>due 9/7 with #3
The actual words of the song are:
Ring, a ring o' roses
A pocket full of posies
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down!
This song does indeed refer to the Bubonic plague of the 15th Century in the UK
and the rest of Europe.
Line by line it means:
Ring of roses: it was believed (in these days before medicines) that a bunch of
sweet smelling flowers on the door would keep the plague away
A pocket full of posies: same. People would carry little bunches of flowers
("posies") with them to ward off the plague
A-tishoo!: sneezing was the first symptom of the plague
We all fall down: ie dead :-(
We Brits do come up with some fun songs, don't we!
Vernon Quaintance
Kimberly Spencer <kds...@tntech.edu> wrote:
> In article <351C1A20...@ibm.net>, Laura Rompot <lro...@ibm.net>
> writes: > Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question.... > >
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT??????? > > I gotta tell you, it
> doesn't sound good!
>
> Believe it or not, the song is about spinning yarn. A weasel is another
> name for the spindle (I can't think of what it's really called right now).
> When you fill up a spool or a skeen of thread, it makes a popping noise.
>
> Hope you feel more comfortable...
>
> Kimberly
This is actually total nonsense. The song is a traditional London one
from Victorian days. For the full explanation see my reply to
paha...@aol.com.
I am a born and bred Londoner who worked for many years near the Eagle
in the City Road and know the true story.
--
Vernon Quaintance
Vernon Quaintance
PAHALLAM <paha...@aol.com> wrote:
> Okay - I'm not saying I'm an expert on this but this is what _I_ think it's
> about:
> Up and down the City Road
> In and out the Eagle - public house
> That's the way the money goes - gets spent on drink
> Pop goes the weasel - Pop was a slang word for the
> pawnbroker's
> no idea what weasel means
> in this context
>
> 2nd verse - Half a pound of tuppeny rice
> Half a pound of treacle
> Stir it up and make it nice - cheap working class pudding
> Pop goes the weasel.
> It's a traditional London Cockney working class rhyme.
>
> There's a classic book published I think in the 1950s called "The lore and
> language of schoolchildren" by Iona and Peter Opie which is a social
> history of English playground songs and rhymes. Although it's British, see
> if it's available in your library.
> Pat.
>
Phalam has most of the details correct. "Pop Goes the Weasel" is indeed
a traditional London song from Victorian days.
The City Road is a road just north of the City of London.
The Eagle is a public house in the City Road (which still exists)
"Popping" means pawning
A 'Weasel" is a tool used by hat makers.
The City Road area was the centre of the hattery trade.
The song refers to the habit of some working class hatters "popping" (or
pawning) their "weasel" on a Friday night to buy alcoholic drink over
the weekend.
I used to wonder as a kid what the song really meant but as a Londoner I
found out when I became an adult. For the last 6 years of being
employed (I now run my own business) the office was close to The Eagle
and I used to pass there very often.
--
Vernon Quaintance
Laura Rompot
I always thought it meant the monkey ate the weasel!!!!!!!
Jessica or Mitch wrote:
>
> I always thought it meant the weasel ate the monkey! :-)
>
> Jessica
>
> Laura Rompot wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
> >
> > WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
> >
> > I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
> >
Julie
Laura Rompot wrote in message <351D94D...@ibm.net>...
>I always thought it meant the monkey ate the weasel!!!!!!!
>
>Jessica or Mitch wrote:
>>
>> I always thought it meant the weasel ate the monkey! :-)
>>
>> Jessica
>>
>> Laura Rompot wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>> >
>> > WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>> >
>> > I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>> >
>> > Maggie LOVES this song and I must admit I'm rather fond of it myself,
>> > but I would sleep better at night knowing what the heck its about ;-)
>> > Or, is it gibberish and only meant to be fun?
Here's how the second verse goes -sounds like gibberish to me.
The painter needs the canvas and brush
The artist needs the easel
The "something " needs the fiddler too
Pop goes the Weasel
I've no time to wave or sigh
Or to state the reason why
Kiss me quick I'm off goodbye
Pop goes the Weasel
Julie
due 9/7 with #3
who can't unlearn a song once I've heard it!
de...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Elfanie (elfani...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: 'Round and 'round the cobbler's bench
: The monkey chased the weasel,
: The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
: Pop! Goes the weasel.
Weird. I always sang:
Round and round the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel
The monkey stopped to ???? (pull up his sock?)
Pop! Goes the weasel
I always assumed that the pop was the weasel popping out from hiding.
Daisy
ax...@imap2.asu.edu
Julie (ken...@juno.com) wrote:
: Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
: that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
: fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
: was wrong! Here's hoping!
Unfortunately, it was right. Buboes (bubonic plague) look like red rings
around inflamed areas. The "pocket full of poseys" was to disguise the,
erm, odor of infected persons. The death rate in some towns seems to have
approached 90%, so they did "all fall down". Depressing, isn't it!
Then there's Rock A Bye Baby, which seems to have something to do with
postpartum depression...
--
--Caryn (ax...@imap2.asu.edu)
Ronald O. Christian
>Alison D. <a...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>> Kimberly Spencer wrote:
>> That doesn't explain the monkey chasing the weasel around the mulberry
>> bush, unless those are also metaphors... I have heard alternate
>> explanations of this song that weren't so palatable, but I can't remember
>> what they were. I think there was a big discussion about this song on
>> misc.kids 2 or 3 years ago.
>What mulberry bush?
I think she means "cobbler's bench". The way I remember it was "all
around the cobbler's bench the monkey chased the weasel". I've heard
some people substituting "mulberry bush", but I think they're
confusing two childhood songs.
Ron
Andrea Grieser
>that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
>was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
>due 9/7 with #3
>
>
I think the original words were (or close to):
Ring a'ring a rosey (the red skin rash rings)
A pocket full of posies (herbs supposed to 'cure' it)
Atishoo, Atishoo (sneezes)
We all fall dead (the unfortunate conclusion)
Cheerful, huh?
Andrea
Andrea Grieser
and...@mooncheese.demon.co.uk
Noah
What about this verse (which I always thought was the second) or is ita
chorus since it follows a slightly different tune for teh first two lines?
A penny for a spool of thread
A penny for a needle
That's the way the mon-ey goes
Pop! Goes the Weasel.
Noah
--------------------------------
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Julie wrote:
>
> Here's how the second verse goes -sounds like gibberish to me.
>
> The painter needs the canvas and brush
> The artist needs the easel
> The "something " needs the fiddler too
> Pop goes the Weasel
>
> I've no time to wave or sigh
> Or to state the reason why
> Kiss me quick I'm off goodbye
> Pop goes the Weasel
>
>
> Julie
> due 9/7 with #3
HyperMommy
Laura Rompot wrote:
> Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
> I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
Can't be worse than Ring Around the Rosey, Pocket Full of Posey, Ashes,
Ashes, We All Fall Down -- which was about the black plague.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Denise Duggan
HyperMommy to Jimmy (10/93) & Joey (9/95)
Once and (probably) Future Student
Computer Programmer
and all around interesting person
(well, according to some ;-) )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cindy
Yes, it started around the time of the bubonic plague (i believe)." Ring
around the rosie" represented the ring that formed around the sores.
"pocket full of posies" referred to the posies that people wore in their
pocket thinking it would protect them from the disease. "ashes,ashes"
referred to the fact that those who died were cremated in hopes of stopping
the spread of the disease. "we all fall down" talks of being dead/dying.
Sorry to crush your hopes!! but you know, Rock-a-bye baby isn't very nice of
you listen to the words........
cindy
Banty wrote in message <199803281507...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an
illness
>>that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>>fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe
that
>>was wrong! Here's hoping!
>>
>>due 9/7 with #3
>>
>>
>
>
les...@yahoo.com
In article <351C1A20...@ibm.net>,
lro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
I went to yahoo and did a shearch--unfortunately I didn't mark the URL, but
if you do a search for -- childrens songs, "pop goes the weasel"-- you get a
site call "A Rhyme and a Reason" tht has several popular kids songs/rhymes,
along with their original words and some theories as to their backgrounds &
Meanings.
They list the words as follows:
All around the mulberry bush
the monkey chaed the weasel, Pop! Goes the weasel!
Up and down the city road
in and out of the eagle
That's the way the mo ney goes
Pop! Goes the weasel!
Half a pound of tupenny rice,
Half a pound of treacle,
Mix it up and make it nice,
Pop! Goes the weasel!
Two theories cited there say the song refers to silk weavers during the 17
century. Mulberry leaves were cultivated to feed the sil worms; the weaver's
shuttle--or weasel-- could be sol--or Popped--when money was tight. the
eagle was a tavern on London's city road, a tuppence is british currency, and
treacle is british slang for molasses, so the second verse refers to making a
rice dish to eat.
Another theorizes that the Pop! is the sound the weasel (weaving shuttle)
made as it went through the loom.
A third theory is that the terms are cokney slang--weasel being a man's
coat. With this slang term on Friday's the wife would Pop--remove money from
the pockets of--the weasel--her husband'd coat.
There's also a version of this ryme which goes like this:
Round & round the cobler's bench
the monkey chased the weasel
The weasel though it was such fun
Pop goes the weasel.
Again, a weasel is tool, this time used by cobbers, and "popping" is pawning
something. So popping the cobbblers weasel got him money.
this is problably much more than you really wanted to know, but you sparked
my curiosity as well.
Check out the site..some of the info there is really intersting.
Lesa
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
PAHALLAM
>A third theory is that the terms are cokney slang--weasel being a man's
>coat. With this slang term on Friday's the wife would Pop--remove money from
>the pockets of--the weasel--her husband'd coat.
>
The wife "popping" the coat would be taking it down to the pawnbroker's on the
Monday morning. She would then redeem it on Saturday morning with money from
Friday's wagepacket, to wear at church on Sunday. (See my earlier post about
the meaning of this rhyme).
It seems there are subtle differences how this rhyme has evolved on the two
sides of the Atlantic. I didn't know there was any connection with silkweavers,
but it makes a lot of sense because French Huguenots (Protestants) settled in
the East End of London in the 17C, escaping religious persecution, and made
Spitalfields a centre of the silkweaving industry in Europe. So the use of
weasel to refer to a weaving shuttle could well be right. It seems to me that
the whole song has become mangled over the course of time.
Pat.
Vernon Quaintance
Julie <ken...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Here's how the second verse goes -sounds like gibberish to me.
>
> The painter needs the canvas and brush
> The artist needs the easel
> The "something " needs the fiddler too
> Pop goes the Weasel
>
> I've no time to wave or sigh
> Or to state the reason why
> Kiss me quick I'm off goodbye
> Pop goes the Weasel
>
>
It seems that once again the Americans have taken a traditional BRITISH
song, not understood any of it, and changed the words to utter nonsense
before arguing as to what the song means.
Lay off our BRITISH songs - try getting some culture of your own.
--
Vernon Quaintance
Bernice Watkins
In article <351C1A20...@ibm.net>, Laura Rompot <lro...@ibm.net>
writes
>Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
>I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>
>Maggie LOVES this song and I must admit I'm rather fond of it myself,
>but I would sleep better at night knowing what the heck its about ;-)
>Or, is it gibberish and only meant to be fun?
>
>Thanks, my dh is dying to know so I told him I'd ask you all!
>
>Laura and Maggie 7/30/97....and her daddy too
It is to do with making your income last the month without resorting to
a loan, or a pawn shop. The Eagle = pub, Monkey = £500, weasel =
something at the pawn brokers?
Up and down the city road,
In and out the Eagle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop goes the weasel.
Half a pound of tuppenny rice,
Half a pound of treacle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop goes the weasel.
Round and round the counting house,
the monkey chased the weasel,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop goes the weasel.
BTW, I tried looking in my nursery rhyme dictionary by Opie and it isn't
in it! This is what I remember my Grandad saying it meant. I also
think there are more verses, but I can't remember them.
Regards,
--
Bernice Watkins
Sheila Culpin
ax...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>
> Julie (ken...@juno.com) wrote:
>
> : Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
> : that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
> : fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
> : was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
> around inflamed areas. The "pocket full of poseys" was to disguise the,
> erm, odor of infected persons. The death rate in some towns seems to have
> approached 90%, so they did "all fall down". Depressing, isn't it!
>
> Then there's Rock A Bye Baby, which seems to have something to do with
> postpartum depression...
>
> --
> --Caryn (ax...@imap2.asu.edu)
Yippie, I know the answer to this one.
Yes, it was the bubonic plague, spread by rats exceedingly quickly in
very dirty overpopulated areas.
The first line is ring-a-ring-a-roses
The "pocket full of posies" was from the belief that it was the foul
smell that spread the disease and that if people breathed through the
posey of flowers they would not catch the disease.
The second verse we were taught (which was probably made up to make us
all feel better and get the kids that were doing the action song back up
off the ground) was:
Ashes on the water,
Ashes on the sea,
We all jump up with a
ONE, TWO, THREE!
It was years ago now but I remember doing this in the school playground.
Ah, the memories :-)
Sheila
Sheila Culpin
Not wishing to start a flame war, but weren't these songs in the culture
of the ancestors of a lot of now Americans just as much as they were in
the culture of yours, after all, a lot of BRITISH people did emigrate to
the Americas taking "their" songs with them and I would imagine they
would have as much right to sing the songs as those of us whose
ancestors decided to stay here.
Also, be careful about the British part of your argument, in my opionion
it was an English song and those of us who are Welsh, Scottish and Irish
had very little to do with it's conception and possibly, in your
opinion, have very little right to sing the song either. Argh, go call
the police, I'm mostly Irish and I've sung it!!!!! Oops, getting
carried away.
Finally, we are a pregnancy and parenting support group, not a have a go
at some foreigners group so, if you have nothing nice to say I suggest
you leave us alone until you do.
Sheila
Mum to Lewis 5 and Noah 2
Craven
i was just reading about this at "urbanlegends.miningco.com" they say the
whole bubonic plague thing is a myth, i don't know what to believe now = )
jean
Krysta Sutterfield wrote in message
<6fn4fl$p...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
>Julie (ken...@juno.com) wrote:
>: Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an
illness
>: that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>: fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe
that
>: was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
> It was the bubonic plague... First appears as a red spot with a
>ring around it, hence "ring around the rosey". I think the "pocket full
>of posey" refers to a remedy / attempt to ward off the plague. The rest
>is sadly self-explanatory.
>--
> ~Krysta Sutterfield / Lady Shandra
> A cement truck collided with a van carrying prisoners.
> Motorists are asked to watch for 16 hardened criminals.
Amy Breslin
The explanation I read is that the poseys were put in the pockets or hands
of the dead before burial (helped curb the odor?). The song used to go
"achoo, achoo" instead of "ashes, ashes" because some forms of the plague
were pulmonary and caused pneumonia-like symptoms - the "ashes, ashes" was
added later.
Just another .02
Amy
Roy
ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
>try getting some culture of your own.
You dare to say this about the country that gave the world Mickey
Mouse ;)
Roy
Christopher Biow
Sheila Culpin <Sheila...@iname.com> wrote:
>> : Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
>> : that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>> : fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
>> : was wrong! Here's hoping!
>> Unfortunately, it was right. Buboes (bubonic plague) look like red rings
>> around inflamed areas...
>Yes, it was the bubonic plague, spread by rats exceedingly quickly in
>very dirty overpopulated areas.
Please, everybody, got to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/ring.html and
read the FAQ. Rachel posted this pointer, but I guess a number of posters
passed it by without bothering.
It's quite thorough, with reference to primary sources as well as the best
secondary source in this area: _The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes_.
If you haven't consulted this Dictionary, another one that references it
directly, or one that gives explicit, primary sources, then you may be
reasonably sure that the explanation you have heard for any nursery rhyme
was distorted or flat-our wrong. More generally, urban folklore, such as
this example, is useful in understanding flaws in the trust one places in
one's beliefs. See http://snopes.simplenet.com/ for an extensive list of
commonly accepted folklore. If you haven't looked at a Folklore or Urban
Legends source yet, I guarantee you will unlearn a number of falsehoods in
your system of beliefs.
For those who may not have web access, see the "Accessing the Internet by
E-Mail FAQ" in news.answers. This page is worth getting if you are
interested in this subject.
Below is a brief citation from
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/versions.html:
-------------------------------------------------
The earliest reported versions are cited in William Wells Newell's _Games
and Songs of American Children_ (1883). Newell claims that this version was
current in New Bedford, Massachusetts in 1790 [CB: this claim is doubtful;
more likely the verse originated in mid-19th century America]:
Ring a ring a rosie,
A bottle full of posie,
All the girls in our town
Ring for little Josie
Note the near-impossibility of interpreting this as a reference to the
plague. Another version cited by Newell is especially useful, as it offers
a very plausible explanation for the "We all fall down" part of the modern
version:
Round the ring of roses,
Pots full of posies,
The one who stoops last
Shall tell whom she loves best
Newell comments, "At the end of the words the children suddenly stoop, and
the last to get down undergoes some penalty, or has to take the place of
the child in the centre, who represents the 'rosie' (rose-tree; French,
rosier)."
J. A. Scott
carrie salazar
CandyBors (cand...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
: >that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
: >fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
: >was wrong! Here's hoping!
: >Julie
: >due 9/7 with #3
: The actual words of the song are:
: Ring, a ring o' roses
: A pocket full of posies
: A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
: We all fall down!
: This song does indeed refer to the Bubonic plague of the 15th Century in the UK
: and the rest of Europe.
: Line by line it means:
: Ring of roses: it was believed (in these days before medicines) that a bunch of
: sweet smelling flowers on the door would keep the plague away
: A pocket full of posies: same. People would carry little bunches of flowers
: ("posies") with them to ward off the plague
: A-tishoo!: sneezing was the first symptom of the plague
: We all fall down: ie dead :-(
my history teacher back in the early 80s told me the exact
same thing, only the last line "we all fall down" was
originally "we all drop dead!"
: We Brits do come up with some fun songs, don't we!
: Candy
i am sure it was a "fun time" during the bubonic plaque period.
--
carrie
Alison D.
Ronald O. Christian wrote:
> I think she means "cobbler's bench". The way I remember it was "all
> around the cobbler's bench the monkey chased the weasel". I've heard
> some people substituting "mulberry bush", but I think they're
> confusing two childhood songs.
I had a book where the first line of "Pop Goes the Weasel" is "all
around the mulberry bush" and that's the way I knew the song as a child,
though I have heard the "cobbler's bench" version, too. Basically, folk
songs or stories that were passed around through oral tradition tend to
get distorted and tend to have different regional versions as they are
passed down. There are many, many versions of these types of songs out
there, all with people who will say they are the "real" version. I think
they are all real. :-)
--
Alison D.
a...@sprynet.com
Christopher Biow
sal...@darwin.regis.berkeley.edu (carrie salazar) wrote:
>i am sure it was a "fun time" during the bubonic plaque period.
Which should be a reminder to everybody to BRUSH YOUR TEETH.
;-)
Jessica or Mitch
Roy wrote:
> ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
>
> >try getting some culture of your own.
>
> You dare to say this about the country that gave the world Mickey
> Mouse ;)
Never mind Mickey Mouse... what about BARNEY? ;-)
Jessica
>
>
> Roy
Kevan Barfield
This is a child's rhyme, to amuse children. It may have been English in
origin but it's for children.
To my mind, this news group is about people who love and care about their
children, if we have to bicker (an English word to argue) about origins and
cultural significance of a children's rhyme, then God help us.
My best regards to all those who love their children first and foremost.
Turtle
I was unaware that anyone was bickering on this issue. Actually, I found
the answers to be interesting.
Kevan Barfield wrote in message <6fp5bm$4tr$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
mmel...@cruzio.com
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:50:14 -0500, "Julie" <ken...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>Does anyone know what this ones about? I once read that it was an illness
>that caused a ring around an inflammation of some sort but that was
>fatal-thus ashes, ashes, we all fall down. Pretty awful huh? Maybe that
>was wrong! Here's hoping!
>
>Julie
>due 9/7 with #3
If you're interested, check out Ian Munro's Ring Around the Rosie
Mini-FAQ at:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/ring.html
It's the most complete reference I could find.
--Mel
(remove first m for email)
mmel...@cruzio.com
Julie
I was the original "ring around the rosey" poster, and I thank you for your
info. I certainly like these versions better! I'm off to check out that
site you gave us!
Lianne Hargreaves
Alison D. wrote in message <35229D...@sprynet.com>...
>Ah, but the UK is about to give us Teletubbies, and the Teletubbies make
>Barney look deeply intellectual. Eeek! I was hoping something better
>than Barney would come along by the time I have kids (I'm 4 months
>pregnant), but Teletubbies seem much, much worse!
>
Yes I agree, but my 2 year old daughter saw the ads for the forthcoming
series and was instantly hooked, just as she was with Barney. They've
obviously got their target audience well sorted out. (I saw a programme
last time I was in the UK and it IS just awful).
Rgds
Lianne
ax...@imap2.asu.edu
Edward and Phantom MacLennan (the8...@visi.net) wrote:
: > 'Round and 'round the cobbler's bench
: > The monkey chased the weasel,
: > The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
: > Pop! Goes the weasel.
: >
: Funny, the version I always sang as a kid was
: Round and round the mulberry bush
: the monkey chased th4e weasel
: the monkey stopped to pull up his sock
: pop goes the weasel.
: I never knew it went any other way or had other verses. Amazing how
: songs get twisted along the way.
And no one's yet posted the version I always heard (weird Arizona verse,
I guess!) --
All around the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel
The preacher kissed the cobbler's wife
Pop! goes the weasel...
--
--Caryn (ax...@imap2.asu.edu)
Rachel Shreckengast
Hi all,
> Please, everybody, got to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/ring.html and
> read the FAQ. Rachel posted this pointer, but I guess a number of posters
> passed it by without bothering.
<snip text explaining urban legends as well as the explanation of Ring around the
Rosey)
> See http://snopes.simplenet.com/ for an extensive list of
> commonly accepted folklore. If you haven't looked at a Folklore or Urban
> Legends source yet, I guarantee you will unlearn a number of falsehoods in
> your system of beliefs.
>
> For those who may not have web access, see the "Accessing the Internet by
> E-Mail FAQ" in news.answers. This page is worth getting if you are
> interested in this subject.
Thank you very much. I wanted to keep the above sources in as they are
wonderful when researching stuff like this. I'm not adding much, but also suggest
the AFU page at: http://www.urbanlegends.com
It's an archive for the newsgroup of alt.folklore.urban If you want to check
out the newsgroup please be aware that is best to check the faq as well as page
before posting an urban legend that you come across. The newsgroup is extremely
active and takes a while to wade through, but it's pretty interesting regardless.
Best Wishes,
Rachel Sanfordlyn Shreckengast
--
*The Mining Company: WEDDINGS section - http://weddings.miningco.com
*The WEDDING FRUGALITY Page - http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/1940/
*Wedding Dollars and Sense - http://www.wednet.com/wedsense/wedsense.asp
*ANNOUNCE*: At Miningco - Online: Marriage Preparation
CandyBors
In article <351F6AB4...@iname.com>, Sheila Culpin
<Sheila...@iname.com> writes:
>
>The second verse we were taught (which was probably made up to make us
>all feel better and get the kids that were doing the action song back up
>off the ground) was:
>
>Ashes on the water,
>Ashes on the sea,
>We all jump up with a
>ONE, TWO, THREE!
>
>It was years ago now but I remember doing this in the school playground.
>
>Ah, the memories :-)
>
>Sheila
>
>
<grin> Peter's just starting going to a new play-group where we sing this
second verse. All the way through this thread, I've been trying to think of
good explanations for it (eg, cremation....burial at sea.....spiritual
resurrection......) but I think you just hit the nail on the head! :-)
Candy
Mummy to Peter, 9.4.96 and Isabel Louisa, 3.10.98
**********
See Peter (and Isabel!) at
http://members.aol.com/MimsDahlin/august96.html
**********
Ted Leonard
In article <1d6ob9v.7z...@th-eng08-113.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
ver...@dircon.co.uk says...
>
>It seems that once again the Americans have taken a traditional BRITISH
>song, not understood any of it, and changed the words to utter nonsense
>before arguing as to what the song means.
>
>Lay off our BRITISH songs - try getting some culture of your own.
>
>--
>Vernon Quaintance
>
>ver...@dircon.co.uk
As if we needed any more evidence of WHY we left these arrogant BRITISH
buffoons in the first place. Face it, Vernon, there's NOTHING GREAT about
Britain anymore. Get a life.
Christopher Nelson
> >
> > Mouse ;)
>
> Never mind Mickey Mouse... what about BARNEY? ;-)
Wait a minute! I thought the "Ring around the Rosey" branch of this
thread was about plagues... ;-)
Chris
--
As MIT is not "Massachusetts" neither is RPI "Rensselaer"
noca...@hotmail.com
In article <6fonat$6id$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
sal...@ced.NOSPAMberkeley.edu wrote:
>
> : We Brits do come up with some fun songs, don't we!
> : Candy
>
> i am sure it was a "fun time" during the bubonic plaque period.
That's british humor for ya.
Rob
Kevan Barfield
I was referring to the comments initiated by Vernon, not the answers to the
initial question, which i too found to be interesting.
Kind regards from an arrogant British buffoon (thank you Ted Leonard)
Turtle wrote in message <6fp5pf$106$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
Emily Anne Raphael
les...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
> >
> > WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
> >
> > Laura,
>
> I went to yahoo and did a shearch--unfortunately I didn't mark the
> URL, but
> if you do a search for -- childrens songs, "pop goes the weasel"-- you
> get a
> site call "A Rhyme and a Reason" tht has several popular kids
> songs/rhymes,
> along with their original words and some theories as to their
> backgrounds &
> Meanings.
>
> They list the words as follows:
>
> All around the mulberry bush
> the monkey chaed the weasel, Pop! Goes the weasel!
>
> Up and down the City Road
> in and out of the Eagle
> That's the way the mo ney goes
> Pop! Goes the weasel!
>
> Half a pound of tupenny rice,
> Half a pound of treacle,
> Mix it up and make it nice,
> Pop! Goes the weasel!
>
> Two theories cited there say the song refers to silk weavers during
> the 17
> century. Mulberry leaves were cultivated to feed the sil worms; the
> weaver's
> shuttle--or weasel-- could be sol--or Popped--when money was tight.
> the
> eagle was a tavern on London's city road, a tuppence is british
> currency, and
> treacle is british slang for molasses, so the second verse refers to
> making a
> rice dish to eat.
>
> Another theorizes that the Pop! is the sound the weasel (weaving
> shuttle)
> made as it went through the loom.
>
> A third theory is that the terms are cockney slang--weasel being a
> man's
> coat. With this slang term on Friday's the wife would Pop--remove
> money from
> the pockets of--the weasel--her husband'd coat.
>
> There's also a version of this ryme which goes like this:
>
> Round & round the cobbler's bench
> the monkey chased the weasel
> The weasel though it was such fun
> Pop goes the weasel.
>
> Again, a weasel is tool, this time used by cobblers, and "popping" is
> pawning
> something. So popping the cobbblers weasel got him money.
Here's what Bartlett's Familiar Quotations has to say on the subject:
The weasel was a hatter's tool, and "pop" was a term meaning to pawn or
"hock." The Eagle was a music hall in the City Road. The song is
attributed to W. R. Mandale.
ax...@imap2.asu.edu
Christopher Biow (bi...@ezmort.com) wrote:
: Please, everybody, got to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~imunro/ring.html and
: read the FAQ. Rachel posted this pointer, but I guess a number of posters
: passed it by without bothering.
Or have flaky servers... :-) Rachel's post still hasn't shown up here.
I'll have to write to my medieval history professors & send 'em this
reference.
--
--Caryn (ax...@imap2.asu.edu)
Chalybean
"Pop"
is old English slang for "to pawn" & weasel is either slang for a hat, or a
type of fancy waistcoat. That is the explanation I was given years ago, I
think I have seen it in an encyclopedia also but cannot recall which. Chris
Thomas
Ron Christian
> I went to yahoo and did a shearch--unfortunately I didn't mark the
> URL,
http://www-sqi.cit.gu.edu.au/~tracy/rhymes/r025.html
Ron
--
"Stamp out": 1) eliminate 2) reproduce rapidly in great quantity
Take your pick.
'mathochist' Angela Long
I don't know about the other explanations, but a weasel does
make a "pop" sound when it's mad/frightened. The yarn spinning
makes sense, though... it was probably invented as a nonsensical
singsong to keep track of how many times the yarn had gone 'round
and 'round. Rather than counting, just sing the rhyme in time
with your spinning, and when the rhyme is done, you have a skein.
--
-- Angi (angi...@math.washington.edu)
Mom to Paulanne (11), Alicia (9), Susan (7), and Stormy (6/1/97).
homebirther, breastfeeder, family bedder, licensed childcare,
partnerless polyamorist, omnivore, atheist, mathochist, B.A., B.S.
Merry Rabb
I have found this thread really enjoyable. I had heard the original
(British) explanation of "Pop Goes the Weasel" before but it was nice
to have it clarified a little, too.
I have always thought making up bogus explanations for nursery rhymes
would be a lot of fun. Maybe we should start a thread on that, too.
Merry
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:29:04 -0600, Laura Rompot <lro...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
>
> WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
>
>I gotta tell you, it doesn't sound good!
>
>Maggie LOVES this song and I must admit I'm rather fond of it myself,
>but I would sleep better at night knowing what the heck its about ;-)
>Or, is it gibberish and only meant to be fun?
>
>Thanks, my dh is dying to know so I told him I'd ask you all!
>
>Laura and Maggie 7/30/97....and her daddy too
D. Hardisty
This is the very same explanation that I was given when I was at school.
When people spun their own wool for weaving they used a yarn winder to
measure the yarn into a skein. When the wheel went around enough to wind the
length of the skein the yarn winder was geared to make a "popping" sound.
This let the person know that the skein was finished winding. The name of
the winder was "weasel." This song was possibly sang while waiting for the
"pop."
Debbie
Emily Anne Raphael wrote:
> les...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Does anyone have the answer to the age-old question....
> > >
> > > WHAT IN THE HECK IS THIS SONG ABOUT???????
> > >
> > > Laura,
> >
> > I went to yahoo and did a shearch--unfortunately I didn't mark the
Alison D.
Christopher Nelson wrote:
>
> Jessica or Mitch wrote:
> >
> > Roy wrote:
> >
> > > ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
> > >
> > > >try getting some culture of your own.
> > >
> > > You dare to say this about the country that gave the world Mickey
> > > Mouse ;)
> >
> > Never mind Mickey Mouse... what about BARNEY? ;-)
> ^^^^^^
Ah, but the UK is about to give us Teletubbies, and the Teletubbies make
Barney look deeply intellectual. Eeek! I was hoping something better
than Barney would come along by the time I have kids (I'm 4 months
pregnant), but Teletubbies seem much, much worse!
(If you haven't heard about the Teletubbies yet, just do a seach on
"Teletubbies" in AltaVista or another search engine...you will learn
more than you ever wanted to know.)
--
Alison D.
a...@sprynet.com
Hamilton
In article <6fuvhp$9...@camel12.mindspring.com>, "Lianne Hargreaves"
<lia...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Alison D. wrote in message <35229D...@sprynet.com>...
>
> >Ah, but the UK is about to give us Teletubbies, and the Teletubbies make
> >Barney look deeply intellectual. Eeek! I was hoping something better
> >than Barney would come along by the time I have kids (I'm 4 months
> >pregnant), but Teletubbies seem much, much worse!
> >
> Yes I agree, but my 2 year old daughter saw the ads for the forthcoming
> series and was instantly hooked, just as she was with Barney. They've
> obviously got their target audience well sorted out. (I saw a programme
> last time I was in the UK and it IS just awful).
And the title says it all. The Journal of the American Medical
Association just published and article on television viewing and
children in the US and among its findings [surprise!] was the very
close relationship between the amount of time kids watch TV and
their tendency to be overweight. So Teletubbies pretty much sums
it up.
k
penquin
In article <1d6ob9v.7z...@th-eng08-113.pool.dircon.co.uk> ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) writes:
>Subject: Re: What does "Pop Goes the Weasel" MEAN???
>From: ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance)
>Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:29:36 +0100
>Julie <ken...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here's how the second verse goes -sounds like gibberish to me.
>>
>> The painter needs the canvas and brush
>> The artist needs the easel
>> The "something " needs the fiddler too
>> Pop goes the Weasel
>>
>> I've no time to wave or sigh
>> Or to state the reason why
>> Kiss me quick I'm off goodbye
>> Pop goes the Weasel
>>
>>
>It seems that once again the Americans have taken a traditional BRITISH
>song, not understood any of it, and changed the words to utter nonsense
>before arguing as to what the song means.
>Lay off our BRITISH songs - try getting some culture of your own.
>--
>Vernon Quaintance
Okay, so what are the ''British" words to the song and what do they mean?
penguin
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <6fuvhp$9...@camel12.mindspring.com>, "Lianne Hargreaves" <lia...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>Alison D. wrote in message <35229D...@sprynet.com>...
>
>>Ah, but the UK is about to give us Teletubbies, and the Teletubbies make
>>Barney look deeply intellectual. Eeek! I was hoping something better
>>than Barney would come along by the time I have kids (I'm 4 months
>>pregnant), but Teletubbies seem much, much worse!
>>
>Yes I agree, but my 2 year old daughter saw the ads for the forthcoming
>series and was instantly hooked, just as she was with Barney. They've
>obviously got their target audience well sorted out. (I saw a programme
>last time I was in the UK and it IS just awful).
>
>Rgds
>Lianne
>
I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
I should think. I find they work around a term like a number, or like going
up and going down, they are pretty repetitive which is something very
young children like as they know what to expect. I think my 18 mo is more
challenged by them than by the documentaries on BBC2. They are awfully boring
for adults, but again, that is not the ages they are aimed for.
I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for Sesamo street.
Have not you question why do they get their target audience so well sorted
out?
Maria
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
M
>
> I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
>
>
Do I have to be the one to ask...Why is it really necessary for a child
"too young for seseme street" to watch TV at all? Before you know it,
thye'll be piping "Baby Barney" into hospital nurseries.
Phan
Jeremy M. Harmer
Edward and Phantom MacLennan (the8...@visi.net) wrote:
: Do I have to be the one to ask...Why is it really necessary for a child
: "too young for seseme street" to watch TV at all? Before you know it,
: thye'll be piping "Baby Barney" into hospital nurseries.
: Phan
I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
when they are in the room. Having said that I do have to prize ours
off the TV screen once in a while when he gets too close!
As for the Teletubbies, I hate them, they make me cringe, *but* our
18 mo watches them every morning at 7:15 for 20 minutes which is
long enough for me to get his breakfast and get dressed. When they
finish he stops watching TV and starts to play elsewhere, even though
the TV is still on.
Jeremy.
Christopher Nelson
Maria Garcia Pastor wrote:
>
> Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
> for adults, but again, that is not the ages they are aimed for.
But "boring" and "annoying" are different things. I rate kids shows
with a "Barney Factor" -- the higher the Factor, the more annoying the
program is to adults who want to flee, screaming from the room.
IMHO, *good* children's programming has a low Barney Factor so adults
can stand to view it with their kids, provide feedback and
reinforcement, etc. Sesame Street has a very low Barney Factor.
"Donald Duck in Mathemagics Land" and "The Phantom Tollbooth" have low
Barney Factors -- children can enjoy these movies long before they
understand them. While I have my problems with Disneyification of real
stories (Pocahontas, e.g.), "The Lion King" (obviously non-educational)
had a low Barney Factor because of comments like "shallow end of the
gene pool" which were funny to adults but went right over
kindergarteners' heads.
Alison D.
> > I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
> > I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for Sesamo street.
I guess I wouldn't think there is such a thing as "too young for Sesame
Street." I don't particularly want my kids learning baby talk (like the
Teletubbies use) from TV...they can do that on their own. It seems to me
that most kids can start learning from Sesame Street pretty early, even
if they can't verbalize what they are learning. But then, I'll bet most
very young children will probably watch both! (And I'm not saying I
won't let my child watch Teletubbies, but I personally think the
Teletubbies are frightening-looking, and I cringed when I read that they
repeat things like dull video clips over & over again; yikes.)
--
Alison D.
a...@sprynet.com
Ron Christian
In article <1998Apr2.1...@leeds.ac.uk>,
Jeremy M. Harmer <som...@somewhere.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
>when they are in the room.
One technique that works is don't turn it on in the first place. Or, in
our case, keep the kid occupied so she doesn't feel the need to go upstairs
to the room where Mommy is watching the TV. I admit, some of this time is
spent on her computer animated storybooks (she has six now) which is
better than TV only in that it requires a small amount of interaction,
but a lot of the time is spent playing with her various pets, coloring,
taking long bubble baths, pretending to play Pente (she likes the little
colored disks) and a dozen other things.
I don't know what "teletubbies" are. Barney is never allowed. We will
occasionally let her see Blue's Clues or Rugrats, or an occasional episode
of the Warner Batman or Superman, (very occasional now because I can't
remember when they're on and we don't get a TV Guide) and an occasional
Xena (which she really gets into). That's about it. Whatever it is they
want to see, remember it's just a TV show and it's not a tragedy if they
miss it. :-)
My wife and I both grew up staring at the TV, but as adults, about the
time our child was born, we went different directions. TV is more important
to her than anything, and I wouldn't care if the set caught fire. Happily,
my daughter appears to be following my lead rather than her mom's.
I sure miss that Nick commercial about "Real Reality". "Feel the basketball
in your hands because it's a *real* basketball!" They must have taken a lot
of heat from advertisers on that one.
Ron
--
"To be abused, even, by the mistress of one's heart is better than to be
ignored." -- Edgar Rice Burroughs
Ron Christian
In article <351FFB9E...@primenet.com>,
Jessica or Mitch <ram...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> You dare to say this about the country that gave the world Mickey
>> Mouse ;)
>
>Never mind Mickey Mouse... what about BARNEY? ;-)
You win. (hangs head in shame)
Hamilton
Why on earth would it be a good idea to plant a one year old child
in front of a TV set? Or a two year old for that matter? I can
think of a dozen more developmentally appropriate things for a young
toddler to be doing than watching the idiot box.
k
Merry Rabb
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:45:52 -0500, Christopher Nelson
<nel...@pinebush.com> wrote:
>Maria Garcia Pastor wrote:
>>
>> Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
>> I should think. <snip> They are awfully boring
>> for adults, but again, that is not the ages they are aimed for.
>
>But "boring" and "annoying" are different things. I rate kids shows
>with a "Barney Factor" -- the higher the Factor, the more annoying the
>program is to adults who want to flee, screaming from the room.
So Teletubbies are for very young children, but so is Barney! My son
was most interested in Barney from ages 1.5 to 2.5. Now (just turned
3) he doesn't watch it and only likes the songs (he likes ANY songs,
especially if kids are singing them). And yet Barney has all these
"messages" aimed at older kids like conserving water etc. I never
have figured out why a show obviously aimed at 1 and 2 year olds has
pretensions of teaching something to pre-schoolers. Maybe if a child
memorizes all those silly songs when he's 1 or 2 they will sink in as
messages when he is 4 or 5?
Merry
Anna S
Here's my slightly different perspective on this.
I'm in the UK and when Teletubbies first started, about a year ago, there
was a huge outcry in the press about it - how it was silly and didn't teach
children properly (they say eh-oh, instead of hello, for example). But then
I read an interview with the creators, who pointed out that they were aiming
at toddlers, not pre-school children - the characters look like toddlers
(big nappy-bottoms, babygrow outfits, waddle walk) and talk like toddlers.
And that's why it seems boring and childish to adults - it's supposed to be
for babies, not us.
Now I should add at this point that we don't have a telly, so don't give me
any grief about letting toddlers watch TV!
However, last week, Tilly (12mo) started saying "Hello" and waving at people
(she started talking this month, so this wasn't her first word). Very cute,
we thought, but couldn't figure out where she had got it from, since we
mostly say "Hiya". Until it occurred to me to ask the child minder if Tilly
watches Teletubbies at her house (I work two days a week) - and apparently,
yes, she does, and sits and waves at the TV saying "Hello" whenever they do.
So don't tell me the Teletubbies don't encourage children to talk!
Anna
Bernice Watkins
In article <6fuvhp$9...@camel12.mindspring.com>, Lianne Hargreaves
<lia...@mindspring.com> writes
>
>Alison D. wrote in message <35229D...@sprynet.com>...
>
>last time I was in the UK and it IS just awful).
but then would rather watch Playdays, which it replaced. Recently the
content of *some* episodes has improved. Topics covered in the last few
weeks include counting 1 - 8, sharing/fighting, milking cows, watering
plants, rainfall, mending the tubbicustard machine by singing to it! (I
suppose they would have had too many complaints if they had taken a
screwdriver to it), and those are just the episodes my kids have
watched!
The programme is aimed at 1-3 year olds, but has a cult following on the
club scene and the gay scene apparently! (Something to do with Tinky
Winky's handbag)
My 19 month old adores the programme. I have a couple of the better
episodes videoed and he gets the remote, sits on the sofa and offers me
the remote, asking "Dipsy, La La, Po?"
--
Bernice Watkins
Bernice Watkins
I asked my Dad what the Weasel in the song was, and he reckoned it was
your best hat that you took back to the pawn brokers on a Monday
morning!
By the way, Is vinegar & brown paper a cure for bruising? (Jack & Jill)
--
Bernice Watkins
alistair
Alison D. wrote:
>
>
> I guess I wouldn't think there is such a thing as "too young for Sesame
> Street." I don't particularly want my kids learning baby talk (like the
> Teletubbies use) from TV...they can do that on their own. It seems to me
> that most kids can start learning from Sesame Street pretty early, even
> if they can't verbalize what they are learning. But then, I'll bet most
> very young children will probably watch both! (And I'm not saying I
> won't let my child watch Teletubbies, but I personally think the
> Teletubbies are frightening-looking, and I cringed when I read that they
> repeat things like dull video clips over & over again; yikes.)
>
When we visited my parents for Christmas our son Thurston (7mo at the time) took to
Teletubbies instantly. He would sit and watch them quite patiently and really pay
attention to what was happening. Since we've returned to the US whenever he hears the
theme tune he instantly stops what he's doing and listens and loves to look at
pictures of them. With regard to their language it's not true baby talk as their
speech patterns are very limited but the words are pretty much well rounded and
complete. Also people have been voicing concerns at the elementary level Teletubbies
is placed at (especially with regard to S. Street and Barney) but the target audience
is around 1 year old so I feel it's quite appropriate. Furthermore the repetitive
nature of the programme is probably being overstated. The opening and closing scenes
are the same from episode to episode and the first "act" generally involves one of
the Teletubbies doing some activity (dancing, pulling levers, rolling, falling down
etc.) several times. The middle piece has them watching a video of children doing
something (signing carols, visiting a farm, visiting a train station, etc.) and this
is repeated once. The final "act" generally has all the Teletubbies having some kind
of adventure or some other interactive experience which involves little or no
repetition and after which they declare they love each other very much. The
repetitiveness isn't mindlessly numbing and for a young toddler it is probably quite
appropriate.Personally we're so happy that PBS picked up Teletubbies and have no
hesitation in letting Thurston watch it.
Alistair
cu...@op.net
> Well... I guess I've heard worse. I haven't watched Teletubbies yet,
>but
> I do know people who have, and yet maintain that B&F is still much
>worse
> for several reasons, one of the main being that B&F maintains an
> unrealistically happy view of the world, without acknowledging on a
> regular basis the skills that allow children to cope with a
>potentially
> hostile world.
:) We're talking about a show for TWO YEAR OLDS, right? I'm no big fan
of Barney and would never bother to defend it on merit, but I find it
amusing when people try to argue it's bad for kids. No person old enough
to not be _justified_ in having an unrealistic view of the world could
stand to watch barney without retching, so it doesn't concern me. My
problem with barney is that it is not particularly creative or
stimulating. Yes, it has taught my son a couple of cute little songs I
never heard before (just buy the tape), and it may have helped to
reinforce a couple of good lessons about being nice, etc., but I
consider it to generally be a waste of his time and that I can't abide,
not as far as TV. Compare this to Sesame Street, which I somehow never
saw before my son started watching at about 1 1/2 years, and which I
truly love. Though I always prefer him to be playing or reading, I
really don't feel guilty about him spending an hour on any given day
watching sesame street. Beth G.
Hamilton
> Jeremy M. Harmer <som...@somewhere.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
> >I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
> >when they are in the room.
well of course in a telecentric household where one can't imagine
the TV NOT being on -- it is not really possible to raise kids
who don't spend a lot of time in front of it. It is however possible
to go years at a time without owning one -- or to have one that is
only on when there is some burning desire to watch some particular
thing as opposed to TV watching as the default mode.
Penny Gaines
In article <3523A2...@visi.net>, the8...@visi.net wrote:
>> I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
>> I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for Sesamo street.
>
>"too young for seseme street" to watch TV at all? Before you know it,
>thye'll be piping "Baby Barney" into hospital nurseries.
I used to find Seasame Street useful for occuping Robert while I prepared
lunch - this was when he was about 15-21 months. The alternative was
having him cry the entire time, and as he didn't nap in the morning I
couldn't prepare it ahead of time. Then they changed the schedule, and
Isobel was born...
I read that the producers wanted a show that would entertain and educate
young children who were dropped in front of the TV by uninvolved parents.
It seems quite educational, but there are some aspects that I dislike -
when the windmill spins to let the Tubbies know that the film segment
is about to be shown they go "Uh oh" as if they are upset to have to stop
playing to watch TV.
Penny Gaines
Catherine McDiarmid
It's been bugging me ever since the debate started about which is
the "right" version?
Round and round the cobbler's bench
or
Round and round the mulberry bush
Someone mentioned that they were mixing up two different nursery
rhymes, and I've been waiting for someone to come up with the other
rhyme.
Finally, this morning it came to me!
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
Here we go round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning (?)
--
Catherine McDiarmid, at <mailto:born...@idirect.com>
Owner of Born to Love, a natural baby product catalogue
65+ articles on diapering /parenting.
<http://webhome.idirect.com/~born2luv>
Visit our on-line catalogue store at:
<http://www.diamondave.com/borntolove>
>> > All around the mulberry bush
>> > the monkey chaed the weasel, Pop! Goes the weasel!
>> > There's also a version of this ryme which goes like this:
Rob Bos
: : thye'll be piping "Baby Barney" into hospital nurseries.
*Rob shudders*
: I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
: when they are in the room. Having said that I do have to prize ours
: off the TV screen once in a while when he gets too close!
heh... I remember doing that as a kid, though, in my case it was because
of my poor eyesight. You may wish to have your child's eyes checked,
sitting too close to the television is a sure sign of that and poor
hearing. Speaking from personal experience here... my effective eyesight
range is 5cm to 20cm, and when I watched alone, you can guess how close I
was sitting. ;).
: As for the Teletubbies, I hate them, they make me cringe, *but* our
: 18 mo watches them every morning at 7:15 for 20 minutes which is
: long enough for me to get his breakfast and get dressed. When they
: finish he stops watching TV and starts to play elsewhere, even though
: the TV is still on.
Well... I guess I've heard worse. I haven't watched Teletubbies yet, but
I do know people who have, and yet maintain that B&F is still much worse
for several reasons, one of the main being that B&F maintains an
unrealistically happy view of the world, without acknowledging on a
regular basis the skills that allow children to cope with a potentially
hostile world.
Teletubbies at least acknowledges so-called 'bad' emotions and builds on
it. As such, I support the show as a reasonable alternative.
--
Rob Bos
"Everything he did and said taught me what love is, and how I should act
towards others. And let me tell you; I see none of his loving and caring
in a fake purple dinosaur. And I see no TV show in the world that could
ever hope or aspire to teach me in 30 minutes what I learned by spending
any *single* minute with him. "
-David Hibbs
CandyBors
>
>I guess I wouldn't think there is such a thing as "too young for Sesame
>Street." I don't particularly want my kids learning baby talk (like the
>Teletubbies use) from TV...they can do that on their own. It seems to me
>that most kids can start learning from Sesame Street pretty early, even
>if they can't verbalize what they are learning. But then, I'll bet most
>very young children will probably watch both! (And I'm not saying I
>won't let my child watch Teletubbies, but I personally think the
>Teletubbies are frightening-looking, and I cringed when I read that they
>repeat things like dull video clips over & over again; yikes.)
>
>--
>Alison D.
>a...@sprynet.com
>
>
OK, now this isn't getting at you, Alison, yours is just the post I happen to
have pasted in.
You're quite right that no child *needs* to see TV - I wouldn't deny that for a
moment. However, neither do I think that 20 minutes of TV a day (the length of
Teletubbies) is going to do any harm, and, more than that, can actually do some
good.
Most "children's" TV is aimed at much older children - say, 3 years and
upwards. The pace of many of them (including Sesame Street) is too fast for
baby/toddler concentration spans (having said that, my son *loves* Sesame
Street and I'm very happy for him to watch it).
Teletubbies is specifically designed for children aged between about 12 months
and 3 years. This is why it contains many facets which adults might find very
boring. Its *intensely* repetitive (which toddlers like, and is beneficial to
them: did you know, for instance, that a toddler first learning language needs
to hear a word over 500 times before they start using it? This applies right
up until the "language explosion" at about 18-20 months, when they suddenly
realise that words are labels; then, they learn vocab much, much quicker).
Incidentally, they don't repeat the video clips over and over, just twice, and
they aren't any more boring than similar clips about "real life" children that
appear in Sesame Street; the only difference is that the children featured are
slightly younger (Sesame Street, usually about 5, Teletubbies, about 2-3)
The "baby talk" objection is a myth; its understandable that people with no
knowledge of developmental psycholinguistics (which includes most TV critics)
might think that the Teletubbies babyish language might cause similar language
in the toddlers watching. But this misunderstands the mechanisms by which
language is learnt (which are too complicated and boring for me to go into
here).
Of course, any parent is completely within their rights to not like
Teletubbies, and not want their children to watch. After all, children managed
perfectly well without Teletubbies before March 1997. However, I would
strenuously deny that they are not educational (did you know that the programme
won one of the most valued prizes in international TV for being the best
pre-school educational programme in the world?). Also, I think (but this is
just a personal thing) that if you watched them, you wouldn't find them
frightening: they are extremely lovable and very gentle; the whole ethos is
about loving each other and being happy, a bit like Barney, except that it's
not gut-wrenchingly nauseating like Barney (not so much Barney, but the
*ghastly* children - where DO they get them from?)
Anyway, sorry for the long diatribe. Teletubbies is one of Peter's favourite
programmes, and he's learnt lots of nice things from it, like basic numbers and
counting, word pairs like fast/slow, in/out, up/down, and how to anticipate
familiar events (Teletubbies is very hot on familiar events! <g>).
<<Big Hug>>
Candy
Mummy to Peter, 9.4.96 and Isabel Louisa, 3.10.98
**********
See Peter (and Isabel!) at
http://members.aol.com/MimsDahlin/august96.html
**********
Jessica or Mitch
I'm embarassed to admit this, but I just saw the Teletubbies on the web
and I thought they were cute. :-(
Jessica
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <3523A2...@visi.net>, Edward and Phantom MacLennan <the8...@visi.net> writes:
>M
>>
>> I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
>> I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for Sesamo street.
>>
>>
>> Maria
>
>
>
>Do I have to be the one to ask...Why is it really necessary for a child
>"too young for seseme street" to watch TV at all? Before you know it,
>thye'll be piping "Baby Barney" into hospital nurseries.
> Phan
>
That is a good one, it is not necessary at all, not for a child too young
for seseme street, neither for a child in the right age for sesame street
nor for an older child and nor for myself.
Actually mine watches very little, teletubbies or any other
maria
Maria Garcia Pastor
In article <3523D1...@sprynet.com>, "Alison D." <a...@sprynet.com> writes:
>> > I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
>> > I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for Sesamo street.
>
>I guess I wouldn't think there is such a thing as "too young for Sesame
>Street." I don't particularly want my kids learning baby talk (like the
Again I desagree, actually, the teletubbies show a story kind of like some
of the stories that are shown in sesamo street, and I have found that her
interest for that part of the program has grown as she grew older,
when she was around one she got bored in 30 seconds (and for some people
around that jump into judgements my child watches at most 4/5
teletubbies a month, she does not watches them daily but we tape one every
now and again...and as soon as she shows no interest the off bottom is
clicked and we move to something else)
About the baby talk....this is an argument that has been discussed long here
in the uk, and I have to say that my daughter does not talk any different
or hear any different from her peers, and never from us, same in the program,
the tt are the peers, the children, the voices that tell stories or explain
things speak far better English than I will ever speak.
>Teletubbies use) from TV...they can do that on their own. It seems to me
>that most kids can start learning from Sesame Street pretty early, even
>if they can't verbalize what they are learning. But then, I'll bet most
Actually I am very fond of Sesame Street myself, and I agree that it is
very good for children from even a very young age, but I think children
themselves would definitely tell when they are ready for it. Edurne has
not been so far, and I am noticing a gradual change in her attention
span and in her interests. I would bet that she will love it in 3 or 4
months. Again, she will not get to watch much anyway. Actually I am very
disappointed since I wanted to have Sesamo Street taped for us in Spain
so she would have that one in Spanish (we are bringing her up bilingual
and I thought that was a good idea to help balancing languages in every
context...and that program is very up to date as well with local children
lives I find). Aparently none of the channels are showing it now which
I find a capital sin :(
>very young children will probably watch both! (And I'm not saying I
>won't let my child watch Teletubbies, but I personally think the
>Teletubbies are frightening-looking, and I cringed when I read that they
>repeat things like dull video clips over & over again; yikes.)
>
frightening-looking? :)
maria
>--
>Alison D.
>a...@sprynet.com
>
Maria Garcia Pastor
Do not be embarashed. They have kindda of a baby shape, bit bottoms, baby
walk, baby bid eyes....I find them cute too
maria
Sheila Culpin
> > >when they are in the room.
>
Then tell me what is wrong with my child? He is 2 years old and he just
isn't interested in the TV. If children's TV is on he may stop and look
at it for at the very most five minutes but then he loses interest and
gets on with his favourite hobby of following me around.
I know that too much TV can be a bad idea but sometimes I would like to
put a video on for him and get on with something - like cleaning the
toilet - without having him 'help' me.
p.s. this is meant to be lighthearted - my son is perfectly normal :-)
Sheila
Mum to Lewis 5 and Noah 2
Abby Hoffmann
Alison D. wrote:
>
> Christopher Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Jessica or Mitch wrote:
> > >
> > > Roy wrote:
> > >
> > > > ver...@dircon.co.uk (Vernon Quaintance) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >try getting some culture of your own.
> > > >
> > > > Mouse ;)
> > >
> > > Never mind Mickey Mouse... what about BARNEY? ;-)
>
> Ah, but the UK is about to give us Teletubbies, and the Teletubbies make
> Barney look deeply intellectual. Eeek! I was hoping something better
> than Barney would come along by the time I have kids (I'm 4 months
>
> (If you haven't heard about the Teletubbies yet, just do a seach on
> "Teletubbies" in AltaVista or another search engine...you will learn
> more than you ever wanted to know.)
>
> --
> Alison D.
> a...@sprynet.com
Teletubbies are very sweet!!!! All my adult friends over here love
em... No more brainrotting than those pesky Power rangers or any other
cartoon drivel you might care to mention.
Take the "tubs with a good dose of irony, children love them, and they
are aimed at BABIES and very young children.
*big hugs*
eh-oh! (all will be clear when you see them!)
Abby
Edward Charbonnier
In <35248F50...@primenet.com> Jessica or Mitch
<ram...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>I'm embarassed to admit this, but I just saw the Teletubbies on the
web
>and I thought they were cute. :-(
>
>Jessica
>
I remember seeing a spot on one on CNN or something last
christmas season where the reporter was talking of the rush to buy the
Teletubbie dolls...saying it was much like the Elmo doll or the Cabbage
Patch doll mania. I remember him saying that the veiwing #'s for the
show were higher than anyone expected. This is probably why all the
hullabaloo has started over the series starting here in USA (at least
here in Boston where I'm going to watch on Monday out of curiosity and
probably hook Emma on it with one episode). I guess if Barney lets me
do my dishes, then maybe Teletubbies will allow me a shower that longer
than 2 1/2 minutes.
Kathy
Mommy to Emma Jane 6/10/96c
and Maggie Theresa 2/12/98v
Laura
My 3YO watches Barney and puzzle place then turns the TV off on his own. It's no
challenge, that is just how it always done. We used to watch PBS in the afternoon,
but Mr. Rogers and sesame street are no longer on so click, he doesn't want to see
it.
--
To respond personally replace 'nospam' in email address with 'exp'
Jeremy M. Harmer wrote in message <1998Apr2.1...@leeds.ac.uk>...
>I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
alistair
Penny Gaines wrote:
I read that the producers wanted a show that would entertain and educate
young children who were dropped in front of the TV by uninvolved parents.
> It seems quite educational, but there are some aspects that I dislike -
> when the windmill spins to let the Tubbies know that the film segment
> is about to be shown they go "Uh oh" as if they are upset to have to stop
> playing to watch TV.
>
> Surely, it's more of an "Uh oh" of anticipation/excitement. They definately enjoy
> the process of being selected to receive the video and they enjoy it enough to ask
> for it to be repeated.
Just my take on it.
Alistair
Christopher Biow
Followups to misc.kids.
daf...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Charbonnier) wrote:
>Jessica or Mitch <ram...@primenet.com> writes:
>>I'm embarassed to admit this, but I just saw the Teletubbies on the
>>web and I thought they were cute. :-(
They are, in a way that Barney and his fellow trout decidedly are not.
(Yes, it has been scientifically proooven that they are trout, not
dinosaurs).
Our local Public Broadcasting Station had the Tubbies on the cover of its
monthly programming guide. Mark (18MO) saw it in the mail and became
instantly entranced. He spent the next half hour paging through the guide,
looking for more pictures of them, ooohing and aaahing.
Heck, in principle there is nothing about the technology of TV that is
inherently evil. It *should* be able to accomplish some good. The examples
of Sesame Street and Blarney show that this can be done well or in a "gut
wrenchingly nauseating" fashion, to steal Candy's phrase. Show time is the
morning of April 6, so I'll suspend judgement on the Tubbies until we get a
chance to watch it with Mark. See
http://www.pbs.org/whatson/1998/04/press/teletubbies.html or
http://www.weta.org/calendar/april/realvideo/tubbies.ram for a RealVideo
preview clip.
> I remember seeing a spot on one on CNN or something last
>christmas season where the reporter was talking of the rush to buy the
>Teletubbie dolls...saying it was much like the Elmo doll or the Cabbage
>Patch doll mania. I remember him saying that the veiwing #'s for the
>show were higher than anyone expected. This is probably why all the
>hullabaloo has started over the series starting here in USA (at least
>here in Boston where I'm going to watch on Monday out of curiosity and
>probably hook Emma on it with one episode).
I've seen (partly facetious) comparisons with the "British Invasion" of the
early 1960s. But do the Tubbies have more or less musical value than the
early Beatles did when they started? Lennon vs. Tinky Winky?
>I guess if Barney lets me
>do my dishes, then maybe Teletubbies will allow me a shower that longer
>than 2 1/2 minutes.
I do see a difference between using the TV as an educational or
entertainment source, or even a babysitter for a half-hour, and using it as
an hours-long substitute for parenting or plug-in drug. I worry far less
about any of the children's educational material than your generic
afternoon and evening fare--what Archibald MacLeash referred to as a
"disgusting parody of American life."
-----
OBCTTS--Abigail's (3YO) new song:
Lookin' out the window
and whaddaya see?
Old rubber things
like me, me, me.
Jumpin' up and down!
Jumpin' up and down!
Jumpin' up and down!
Jumpin' up and down!
Yaaay!!!
Shannon Lea Stelly
m>:
Distribution:
Sheila Culpin (Sheila...@iname.com) wrote:
: >
: > > Jeremy M. Harmer <som...@somewhere.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
: > > >I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
: > > >when they are in the room.
: >
: Then tell me what is wrong with my child? He is 2 years old and he just
: isn't interested in the TV. If children's TV is on he may stop and look
: at it for at the very most five minutes but then he loses interest and
: gets on with his favourite hobby of following me around.
Sounds like mine. He'll be 2 in May and has almost no interest in TV.
There are a few commercials that catch his attention--seems to be the
jingles he likes (and I'm noticing he has a fondness for country, which is
*not* my cup of tea--uh-oh :-), like those Ford truck commercials).
His record was about 10 minutes of Mr Rogers one day. I was amazed he sat
still for that long. And rather pleased, I must say, that it was that
particular show, as it's one I don't mind having on--so if he decides to
watch it one of these days, I can live with it now and then.
Generally, he claps along with people on TV, he dances to catchy music,
and if he sees a car, dog, or some other thing he likes he'll point it
out.
He doesn't sit still for books either, so I don't think it's TV in
particular :-)
Shannon
--
Shannon Stelly-Cavell
Mom to Quentin, 5/13/96
sst...@tiger.lsu.edu
BarbLuongo
>Do I have to be the one to ask...Why is it really necessary for a child
>"too young for seseme street" to watch TV at all?
That's what I was wondering. PBS plans to air it 3 times a day. I wondered
why infants who it's aimed at really need to watch tv. (and should
pre-schoolers be exposed to that baby talk garbage?)
<---Barb (barbl...@aol.com)--->
jreimer
Children Don't Think And What We Can Do About It" by Jane M. Healy.
($12.00 at Borders) Very briefly her thesis is that children learn very
little from television, even from programs such as Sesame Street. What
children do learn from is interaction, such as a conversation in which
the child responds to questions or is allowed to express his/herself.
Furthermore watching television for long periods hinders the development
of the areas of the brain responsible for concentration and thinking -
areas that will be essential when they start school. Even reading, or
being read to, is superior to watching TV because even though it isn't
interactive, it stimulates the imagination.
jreimer
Jane Lumley
In article <6fqdnc$kmu$1...@elf.dlc.fi>, Ted Leonard <ted.leonard@rmcshowse
rvice.fi> writes
>In article <1d6ob9v.7z...@th-eng08-113.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
>ver...@dircon.co.uk says...
>
>>
>>It seems that once again the Americans have taken a traditional BRITISH
>>song, not understood any of it, and changed the words to utter nonsense
>>before arguing as to what the song means.
>>
>>Lay off our BRITISH songs - try getting some culture of your own.
>>
>>--
>>Vernon Quaintance
>>
>>ver...@dircon.co.uk
>
>As if we needed any more evidence of WHY we left these arrogant BRITISH
>buffoons in the first place. Face it, Vernon, there's NOTHING GREAT about
>Britain anymore. Get a life.
>
Calm down. Not all British buffoons agree with Vernon, whose remark
struck this Brit as imbecilic and venomous.
NB: Up and down the city road/ In and out the Eagle/ That's the way the
money goes/ Pop goes the weasel// Half a pound of tuppeny rice/ Half a
pound of treacle/ That's the way the money goes/ Pop goes the weasel.
The definitive English version ;)
And I've always thought it doesn't have a deep meaning. It's very East
End-sounding and cockney and barrow-boy and streetwise, though.
--
Jane Lumley
Demma Down Under (Heidi Kneale)
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:34:43 +0100, "D. Hardisty" <mi...@super.net.uk>
wrote:
>This is the very same explanation that I was given when I was at school.
>
>When people spun their own wool for weaving they used a yarn winder to
>measure the yarn into a skein. When the wheel went around enough to wind the
>length of the skein the yarn winder was geared to make a "popping" sound.
>This let the person know that the skein was finished winding. The name of
>the winder was "weasel." This song was possibly sang while waiting for the
>"pop."
Songs and meanings tend to change from time to time and place to
place.
As a serious student of my favourite time and place in history
(American West, mid 19th Century), I learned pretty much what Debbie
speaks of.
As an Historic Interpreter at a living history Museum, I had the
opportunity for several years to work with fabric in the historic
setting. We sheared our own sheep, "imported" our own cotton, and
yes, even raised our own silkworks (sericulture). Silkworms ate *only*
mulberry leaves. We carded the wool, picked the cotton and unravelled
our own cocoons. (I hate unravelling cocoons.) We got to spin,
measure, dye and weave our own cloth. (Cochineal makes a wonderful
purple dye, but you've got to make sure you've got *only* female
Cochineal beetles, and they're roasted just right, or the colour is
not as rich.)
There were many experiments in sericulture in the West. Many of the
pioneers who chose to live in the Rocky Mountains were rather
isolated. Until the railroad came through in the 1860-70's It was
terribly expensive (not to mention took a long time) to import things,
like hardwoods and silk cloth. They got around the hardwood problem
by insisting that *everything* shipped out came in hardwood crates.
("Less damage, that way") Silk, they decided to raise themselves. It
was not successful, due to the sensitivity of the silk worms, but they
really tried.
Part of the spinning process was measuring out the skeins of yarn on a
weasel. Four turns equalled a "pop" (as there was a gear counter
inside that made a popping noise), and twenty-two pops was a skein.
The sizing was different from skeins of today. It was often a child's
job to turn the weasel. (We nickedname the child a "monkey".)
Most of the immigrants that migrated to my (in a historical sense)
corner of the American West were from England.
We have not been able to find any historical backing to claim that the
song was not taken from the activity. Believe me, we've really
looked.
In our niche, we laid claim to the verse:
All around the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel
The monkey thought it all in good fun
"Pop" goes the weasel.
Was turning a weasel fun? It was, compared to some of the other
chores handed out to children, like picking offal out of dirty sheep's
wool before washing, or pulling apart dead insects for dye, or boiling
up noxious-smelling plants also for dye.
So if any of you find yourself in Utah between Memorial and Labour day
(I recommend 24th of July), I suggest you check out This Is The Place
Monument Park and Old Deseret Village. In the Jewkes/Draper home,
they have all sorts of weaving items on display, including a weasel.
On holidays, visiting children can participate in some of the pioneer
activities, including turning the weasel.
__________________
Heidi
Yes, I live in Oz.
But I once lived in the States.
lpe...@hotmail.com
In article <6g0l4e$r0p$1...@usenet87.supernews.com>,
ro...@thetics.europa.com (Ron Christian) wrote:
>
> One technique that works is don't turn it on in the first place.
well "la de da" :)
>Or, in
> our case, keep the kid occupied so she doesn't feel the need to go upstairs
> to the room where Mommy is watching the TV.
I hope your wife is happy that she is being maligned publicly.
I find it rude when anyone speaks badly of his wife. Something wrong there.
>I admit, some of this time is
> spent on her computer animated storybooks (she has six now) which is
> better than TV only in that it requires a small amount of interaction,
> but a lot of the time is spent playing with her various pets, coloring,
> taking long bubble baths, pretending to play Pente (she likes the little
> colored disks) and a dozen other things.
>
My daughter does all those things (especially pretending to play: card,
checkers, and many other grownup games) as well as watching TV.
> I don't know what "teletubbies" are. Barney is never allowed.
And what is so wrong with Barney?
>We will
> occasionally let her see Blue's Clues or Rugrats, or an occasional episode
> of the Warner Batman or Superman, (very occasional now because I can't
> remember when they're on and we don't get a TV Guide) and an occasional
> Xena (which she really gets into).
I've never heard of Blue's Clues. I wouldn't let my daughter even watch the
rest of those shows. I would much prefer she watch Barney & Sesame street.
>That's about it. Whatever it is they
> want to see, remember it's just a TV show and it's not a tragedy if they
> miss it. :-)
>
> My wife and I both grew up staring at the TV, but as adults, about the
> time our child was born, we went different directions. TV is more important
> to her than anything, and I wouldn't care if the set caught fire. Happily,
> my daughter appears to be following my lead rather than her mom's.
>
> I sure miss that Nick commercial about "Real Reality". "Feel the basketball
> in your hands because it's a *real* basketball!" They must have taken a lot
> of heat from advertisers on that one.
>
>
I agree T.V. shouldn't be overdone but I believe it has helped my kids learn
to talk and read as well as introduce age relevant topics: fire & water
safety, cultural diversity, music, arts & crafts, look both ways, stop drop &
roll, ...
I'm much less worried about brain washing than I am about education, family
relationships, and unnecessary stress (like being in the middle of a parental
conflict regarding television watching.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
lpe...@hotmail.com
Indeed, the "fun" stuff (like toilet cleaning) parents do is often more
entertaining than T.V.
In article <3524B3C0...@iname.com>,
Sheila Culpin <Sheila...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Jeremy M. Harmer <som...@somewhere.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >I can't imagine how you stop a kid watching TV unless you turn it off
> > > >when they are in the room.
> >
>
> Then tell me what is wrong with my child? He is 2 years old and he just
> isn't interested in the TV. If children's TV is on he may stop and look
> at it for at the very most five minutes but then he loses interest and
> gets on with his favourite hobby of following me around.
>
> I know that too much TV can be a bad idea but sometimes I would like to
> put a video on for him and get on with something - like cleaning the
> toilet - without having him 'help' me.
>
> p.s. this is meant to be lighthearted - my son is perfectly normal :-)
>
> Sheila
> Mum to Lewis 5 and Noah 2
>
lpe...@hotmail.com
In article <hamilton-020...@dial056.vanderbilt.edu>,
hami...@DNVN.com (Hamilton) wrote:
>
> In article <3523D1...@sprynet.com>, a...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> > > > I desagree. Teletubbies are aimed to very yourng children, between 1 and 3
> > > > I think teletubbies are meant for children still too young for
> Sesamo street.
> >
> > I guess I wouldn't think there is such a thing as "too young for Sesame
> > Street." I don't particularly want my kids learning baby talk (like the
> > that most kids can start learning from Sesame Street pretty early, even
> > if they can't verbalize what they are learning. But then, I'll bet most
> > won't let my child watch Teletubbies, but I personally think the
> > Teletubbies are frightening-looking, and I cringed when I read that they
> > repeat things like dull video clips over & over again; yikes.)
> >
> > Alison D.
> > a...@sprynet.com
>
> Why on earth would it be a good idea to plant a one year old child
> in front of a TV set? Or a two year old for that matter? I can
> think of a dozen more developmentally appropriate things for a young
> toddler to be doing than watching the idiot box.
>
> k
>
Pardon us for living. And how toddlers children do you have? What
educational stuff are they doing while you sweep, clean kitchen & restrooms,
preparing meals, and chasing after the other children? Or who is doing your
laundry while you are spending 18 hours a day involving your children of
various age groups in developmentally appropriate activities?
"the idot box" is akin to the computer screen you are staring at and is an
potentially educational medium. It's a thing like ink and pen that is only
as good as what you use it for.