Submitted by Hiversitize t3_11g229t in history
Comments
Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_jap25m4 wrote
Yeah idk why people would think that. I remember reading a discription of a father playing with his daughter and how happy they were, I believe it was from the HRE. The concept that people ignored their children is asanine and ignorant.
mancala33 t1_jap7yri wrote
Seriously... It's pretty instinctive and is a big part of why humans developed so much faster than other species.
Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_japftkt wrote
Exactly we can look at historical record to reveal (no shock) that parents usually loved their children. Play and teaching although not formal was important to parents and kids.
Kris_n t1_jartent wrote
I think it is in the same league as those who have think that people in the past were straight up dumb. This, because they didn’t understand science and thought religion was the answer to all.
It is pretty ignorant and doesn’t really answer why these “dumbasses” could build towers, bridges, castles and invent things such as water or windmills.
Clio90808 t1_jaru8k4 wrote
There was a very influential book published in 1960, Centuries of Childhood by Philippe Aries, that promoted the thesis that the idea of childhood and the focus of the parents on their children was a very modern development. See Wikipedia link. This thesis has been debunked but held sway in historical circles for a significant period of time.
War_Hymn t1_jatydnc wrote
>The concept that people ignored their children is asanine and ignorant.
It seems to be a culture thing in certain parts of the world. My East Asian in-laws insist that children should be given as little attention as possible so that they wouldn't grow up "dependent" and weak. Came to a point where I got reprimanded for carrying my infant daughter around when I went to visit them.
Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_jatzfs7 wrote
See when I looked into this while I was in High School it was seen as apart of a Confusian way of teaching, am I wrong or am I missing something?
War_Hymn t1_jauq6d4 wrote
Could be, I'm not much of an expert on Confucianism.
Katherine_the_Grater t1_jaqyfzk wrote
Great article, thanks for sharing!
[deleted] t1_janhy30 wrote
[removed]
Boopieboop123456789 t1_jb2xxyl wrote
I think often people argue that premodern parents didn't care for their children, which absolutely isn't the case. As this article states, we have always tried our best to care for our young. I think the difference is, that children were much more likely to die and therefore attitudes were different, but that doesn't mean at all that parents did not care for, nurture or play with their offspring. I saw this video and found it quite interesting on the topic, largely based on the work of Amy Catalano: https://youtu.be/ZXXvbrBxpn0
Hiversitize OP t1_jam7mvg wrote
The article attempts to counter other historians' assertions that premodern babies were largely ignored. She argues that they often received a great deal of care and attention and that caregivers' concerns and dilemmas would be quite familiar to us.