Author: Adithi Nythruva
When we think of children, one of the first thoughts that crosses our minds is their innocence. During the earlier stages of life, children possess an immense amount of naivety. The way they formulate ideas is grounded in creativity and joviality. Imagination flourishes through their minds, as they witness a playground transform into a royal castle or a backyard flooding becoming a crystalline stream running through a forest of luscious trees. For children, the world is their personalized oyster, serving as a modem for them to make their vivacious dreams, whether large or small, manifest into truth.
Regardless of others occasionally insisting that their understanding of reality nears the lines of make-believe, a ma- jority of children passionately persist against this. This fantasy world, formulated within their subconscious, has allowed them to staunchly view their environment with either limited bias or no bias at all. Without an external influence, children tend
to view a majority of the aspects of their life to be inherently positive, rather than negative. Often, this positivity is the main propeller of the kindness exhibited by children. It is, thus, their innate humanity which attracts adults and children alike to want to share in their experience. The innocence that children intrinsically possess, plays an integral role in their character development. It serves as the “rose-colored” lens, allowing them to formulate and further unique connections with the world, often overlooked by those with more life experience.
This childhood innocence is often preserved when adults, particularly parents, feed into the child’s beliefs. For example, if a child believes in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus the parents or guardians in question will often not disabuse them of their belief. Instead, the parents will continue to let their kid hold those such beliefs. However, there are many possibilities in which this bandwagon could abruptly halt. An elder peer from school could tell the kid that the Tooth Fairy is made up or the kid could see their parent rushedly typing up a fake letter from Santa Claus on the home computer. Regardless of this, a majority of parents can be reasonably held responsible, not only for the continuation of a child’s naivety, but also for serving as the primary enabler of these ideologies. This can last up till that point when the child is both older and more educated enough to grasp more awareness: both of themselves and the world around them. There is a tendency present that age is one of the factors in the expression of bias as well as the opinions that they cultivate. The younger they are, the more that these children are growing in developing the foundation of these future biases. What drives this development, is that children do not have as much life-experience as adults. Instead, they hold a vague approach in formulating their viewpoints, as opposed to adults with more life experience.
Nevertheless, parents, nor other adults, have the in- finite capacity to protect their kindred forever. The saying that “real protection means teaching children to manage risks on their own, not shielding them from every hazard” plays an im- portant role within society. As children grow up, they become more involved with what is presented on the outside. Over time, they lose that innocence and lack of bias that was so deeply ingrained early on. Whether that be within the classroom, listening to the experiences of their companions, or from expe- riences of their own, it is an inevitable part of the progression
of human life. Well-intentioned adults can only go so far as to impose their ideals, which limit the control children have when cultivating their viewpoints. This combined with their emotion- al and physical immaturity leads to them naturally displaying conditioned reactions to specific situations, thus turning into an aspect of their persona. With these variables present, children cannot perfectly replicate the expectations of their progenitors.
Despite the overall feeling of innocence slowly melting away during the inevitable transition from adolescence into adulthood, there is one aspect that could be carried on. One that could be intertwined with the more serious and vital conversations that shape our world. One that has the potential to be heavily integrated and explicitly remembered within debates of varied, and contradictory beliefs, every day. The concept is that creative purity within children allows them to recognize other children as human beings. Irrespective of the color of their skin, religious practices, gender, race, sexuality, or any other factors within the background scene, children view other children as mere companions, who simply express acceptance towards one another. Potential playmates, whom they can surround them- selves with, whose company they can enjoy while creating life- time memories; while simultaneously recollecting joyousness.
This theme of friendship based on “being human” is often reflected within various areas of the mainstream media. Particularly, it has been expressed in film. In 2018, UCLA Alumnus and Israeli Screenwriter Roy Zafrani, directed “Over the Wall”, regarding the ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict. Tak- ing place near the border of the Gaza Strip and Israel, a young Israeli, Nathan, walks home from school, when he notices a hole in the wall surrounding his side of the border. Peaking
in, he encounters a Palestinian around his age, Khaled. Even with Nathan speaking Hebrew and Khaled speaking Arabic,
the boys form this inseparable bond, playing tug of war, and ball, and sending drawings to one another through that very hole. Their view of each other was that of friends whom they could exchange intense laughs with. There was no hesitation for a second, to think of why that wall even stood between them nor why it was impossible for them to directly interact. Nathan never pondered upon how Khaled was of a darker complexion or how the difference in language made Khaled unable to un- derstand his words. They both simply enjoyed the company of one another and made use of the mode of interaction they had available.
Later on at school, when Nathan is warned that terrorists have infiltrated the kibbutz, instead of following his teacher’s instruction towards the hiding place, one of the first things Nathan does is go to that very wall to warn Khaled. Even when Khaled is on the “enemy” side, Nathan genuinely cares for him. This same concept can be traced back to other films, particularly Director Mark Herman’s “The Boy With The Striped Pajamas.” Set in World War 2, eight-year-old German Bruno, and his family move near a concentration camp for his father being promoted to commandant. Feeling lonely, he befriends a Jewish boy, Schmuel, who lives on the other side of the home, encapsulated by a thick, barbed wire fence. Amidst his tutor Herr Liszt attempting to indoctrinate him on how the Jews are bad, Bruno had his doubts about those teachings. He believed that the Jewish people were nice, since Pavel, the Jewish slave who worked for his family, helped take care of him after he got hurt. Similarly to Nathan and Khaled, Bruno and Schmuel continued their friendship through that hole in the fence regularly, playing ball, exchanging food, and sharing stories. Bruno, like Nathan, cared about Schmuel to the point where he helped him look for his lost father, even when it meant crossing that fence to do so. In both cases, the children are not entirely aware of the dire situation surrounding them. They knew that there were some uncontrollable circumstances circulating. They knew that by word of mouth, or through the news outlets, the “other side” was somewhat “bad”. However, despite this, they still maintained the collective view that being in the presence of other children is a window of opportunity for friendship which continually blossoms. They exhibited this sense of empathy towards one another. They delved into this chance to grow close with someone with similar ideals, creating a relationship that was placed on a higher pedestal than any of these seeming differences.
Beyond this world of film, friendships of contrasting backgrounds have continued to flourish more frequently than ever. In Miami, two preschoolers, Jia Sarnicola and Zuri Copeland, made their mark on the news, when they claimed to everyone that they were twins. Despite Jia being white and Zuri being black, they claimed they were twins for mainly three rea- sons: similar height, being four years old, and having birthdays that were “practically the same day”. Even at a birthday party, when an older peer told them that “they could not be twins” due to their skin color, Jia powerfully asserted “You don’t know what you are talking about. We’re twins because we share the same soul”. This is a soul that connects them. A soul which drives them to continue their story and friendship. A soul that is the same, no matter the external factors.
When embarking on adulthood, upon first coming across news outlets or worldly occurrences, the beliefs we develop can be categorized towards the extremities, intentionally or not. This is especially prominent with the recent bias ingrained into the media. A slight difference in morals or in- stilled values can lead to heated conflicts that can be the catalyst towards the brutal ending of a long-term friendship, or ending even relationships with family members. These family members could play an integral role within one’s life. When individuals hold such strong beliefs, with no room for alternatives, it can be complex to make way for breathing room, and thus, finding this seeming or easily placed, middle ground. The rise in technology has made it a more common occurrence for individuals to swipe past videos where two extreme sides debate on a popular issue at hand. Even displayed on the more influential social media sites, it is “required” to take a side, if you refuse to do so you are objectively either a traitor or a supporter. This action of choosing can positively or negatively impact your life, whether that be personal, or even within the context of the workforce. This partisanship could allow one to keep the job that is a necessity to provide for the family, or resign from work with the hopes that another entity will welcome one in.
However, underneath those differing views and- factors that make every individual a unique living being,
is simply another human being. A human with emotion. A human who endures hardship, and the inevitabilities of the life they were placed into. We tend to forget that the person we sit across from when debating, is simply another human being with value. There is a tendency to picture most things in life as absolutes. That a compromise or commonality is impossible to reach. That contrasting “sides” in general, are more necessary than not. However, this “impossible” compromise can be this whole idea of ex- istence as a human. The very compromise that these same, younger children employ daily. That individuals, regardless of those differing morals, are still at the core, living and breathing human beings. The trinity made up of human- ness, joviality, and creativity, naturally frameworking the breadth of children, are aspects integral to further molding and continuing into adulthood. The necessity for reaching that middle ground is taking this mental step back to those times of childhood, when there was a full, compassionate regard for humanity.