When I teach about the risks of formula-feeding to students, I use a set of
kids ABC blocks, and a piece of string strung between two stacks of books.
I talk about the string being the level at which symptoms of some
disease/condition begin to appear, and that once you get very far above
that level, you are really sick or even die. Then I start stacking the
blocks on the table, reaching up toward the level of the string. I usually
do it more or less in alphabetical order.
Block #1 -- genetic predisposition to the disease -- may be only one block,
or may be two blocks, if both of your parents contributed genes
predisposing you to the disease (diabetes, hypertension, heart disease,
breast cancer, ADHD, or whatever)
Block #2 -- formula-feeding -- may be only one block, if you were breastfed
for at least a year, or two blocks if you were breastfed only for a little
while, or it may be three blocks, if you were never breastfed at all
Block #3 -- other nutrition factors during childhood
Block #4 -- other diseases/conditions that may interact with the one under
consideration
Block #5 -- other environmental factors (pollution, chemical contaminants,
etc.) that may interact with the disease/condition under consideration
People who have many contributing factors will probably get above the level
of the string -- indicating symptoms, disease, death. People who have some
of the contributing factors may get close to the level, maybe even reach
it, and show some symptoms but not suffer very much. People who have few
of the contributing factors don't reach the level of the string, and so
don't have any symptoms/disease. So if you have 3 block #2 (never
breastfed), but none of the other blocks, you'll still be OK. If you have
no block #2 (breastfed for several years), but many of the other blocks,
you'll still get sick. Breastfeeding isn't always going to be the "make it
or break it" block. But the formula-feeding blocks certainly raise your
risk level, and the more you have of them, the higher you already are
before you start adding the genetic blocks and the other
nutritional/environmental blocks.
I think the same analogy can be used as we try to understand the violence
in Colorado. Some people would have us believe that the problem would be
solved if only we did something simple -- install metal detectors, require
Christian prayer in public schools, or don't let children surf the
Internet. I suspect that the situation is much more complex, and that a
whole host of factors had to intersect in just the right (wrong?) way for
these boys of explode. In other words, I think the string is set really
really high, and it takes many different building blocks to get to the
point where you are above the string and explode in violence. Among the
blocks:
-- dis-attachment parenting (formula use, cribs, not responding to needs,
forcing independence at an early age, lack of love) which leads to brain
development that is conducive to violence and alienation and anti-social
behaviors
-- lack of supervision of activities, probably beginning well before the
teenage years
-- fear of enforcing rules and guidelines for teenagers
-- violent video games, movies, TV shows that glorify violence, show the
good guys winning because they use violence better than the bad guys, and
just the sheer amount of killing that goes on that inures children to the
horror of real violence
-- easy access to guns (guns do kill people, much easier than knives or
fists, and semi-automatic ones do it even better than others)
-- encouragement of competition among children from the earliest ages,
instead of cooperation (I'm not blaming Little League for the shootings,
exactly, but I do think this sort of "us vs. them" mentality that is part
of organized sports for children is harmful); this leads to the
glorification of "jock culture" at our high schools and colleges and in
professional sports -- high schools often celebrate the athletic
achievements and totally ignore the kids who achieve academic successes
-- showing by example competition among the adults -- who has the most
income, the biggest house, the fanciest car, and the valuing of material
objects over people
-- showing by example elitism based on "lookism" -- who is the most
beautiful, who is the most chic, who is the most popular (again, I'm not
blaming "Homecoming Queen" and "Miss America" competitions for the
shootings, exactly, but I do think this sort of "we're the in crowd and you
guys are losers" mentality is harmful)
-- the stigma of mental illness that leads many parents to deny obvious
signs that their children's brain chemistry is messed up
-- the teaching of hatred and intolerance for those who are different,
whether they be of another ethnicity, socio-economic class, religion,
sexual orientation, or whatever; children are not born racists, or sexists,
or lookists -- they learn these things from our culture, and if we do not
take active steps to counter these messages every single day, then the
broader cultural messages will be the ones that are learned
-- and no doubt many others that I cannot even fathom or think of at the
moment. It seems clear to me that it was the addition, block by block, of
many or all of these factors that led to the massacre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D. email:
[log in to unmask]
Anthropology Department phone: (409) 845-5256
Texas A&M University fax: (409) 845-4070
College Station, TX 77843-4352
http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/dettwyler.html
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
