Ban Charlie Brown? Good Grief!

 

I lived nearly all of my childhood in the Analog Age. In other words, pre-digital - there was no such thing as VCRs, DVD players, movie rentals, Netflix or Redbox. The concept of Tivo and DVR was not only foreign, it was non-existent. If I wanted to watch something on TV, I made sure there was a TV Guide in the house.

 

Never was paying attention to that weekly schedule more important than at Christmastime. Classics like How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman aired on one of the three networks only once each year. If a show was missed, the best we could do was try again in twelve months.

 

One show I never missed as a kid, however, was A Charlie Brown Christmas. I read Peanuts daily, and the sweet story of Charlie Brown's struggle to understand the true meaning of Christmas in the face of mass commercialism during the modern holiday season connects with people to this day. Combined with an understated jazz soundtrack and Linus' poignant coda, A Charlie Brown Christmas was - and remains - a cool balm to the feverish pace of December.

 

In recent years, however, A Charlie Brown Christmas has received a different kind of attention; the kind that would make Snoopy roll right off his doghouse. Specifically, a growing number of "concerned parents" groups have lobbied to ban A Charlie Brown Christmas from television because they believe the main character is repeatedly bullied by many of the Peanuts gang.

 

Expletive deleted.

 

I am a teacher. That means I have been on the ground floor of the anti-bullying  movement in education - and larger society - since the beginning. And naturally, when any spotlight is shined ("lights please") on a real or perceived problem, an unintended outcome of such focus is inevitably distortion of that same "problem".

 

When I was a teenager, bullying was a serious problem. I can still easily recall many incidents when I witnessed one (or more) students repeatedly tormenting another. One of my classmates even refused to attend our 20th class reunion because of childhood memories that still haunted her. As she stated in a questionnaire asking what message she wanted relayed to reunion attendees, she wrote, "I have not thought about any of you in the last twenty years, or all of the awful things you did and said to me." That's a direct quote. But she did remember, and the pains she endured still hurt her to the present day. Undoubtedly, Melissa was bullied.

 

But within the modern distortion lies the real definition of bullying. To be the victim of a bully a person needs to be intentionally targeted repeatedly and relentlessly, for persecution. Bullying can be either continual physical attacks or constant verbal harassment.

 

Keeping this definition in mind, it is my opinion that bullying of all kinds has actually been on the decline since bullying prevention initiatives began more than a decade ago. After all, that should be a logical consequence of drawing attention to any problem, right? And when I think about the middle school I now work in, I know that physical altercations on school grounds are very rare and verbal bullying (more common) is confronted immediately by staff as well as within our school's written policies regarding unacceptable student behavior. I have no doubt school districts nationwide are no different than ours regarding the seriousness with which bullying is treated. Simply put, while attention to bullying is on the rise, I believe actual bullying is on the decline.

 

That does not mean, however, that bullying can be prevented. It is human nature to occasionally be cruel to our fellow man (or woman). We do it for any number of reasons. Insecurity, low self-esteem, the belief that any attention to ourselves is better than none, a grasp for power and (false) sense of superiority, even just for "kicks". But there is certain behavior that bullying is NOT, but behavior overzealous parents often rush to judgment to, crying foul to well-meaning teachers and school districts.

 

Which brings me back to Charlie Brown.

 

For the record, Charlie Brown was NOT bullied in A Charlie Brown Christmas. Were many of the Peanuts gang mean to Charlie Brown? Definitely (actually, everyone but Linus). But being mean to someone does not necessarily make a person a bully. A jerk? Probably. But not a bully. There is clear distinction between the two.

 

To those parents who either want A Charlie Brown Christmas banned from network television or don't allow their children to watch it, I have two things to say. First, you are missing a great opportunity to teach your children the important lessons of Charles Schultz's creation  - that perseverence, kindness and redemption are transformative human traits. And secondly, Get a Life. Accept that childhood can be difficult (wasn't yours?) and that you are doing your son or daughter NO favors by sheltering him or her from every bump or challenge in the road.

 

After all, Charlie Brown figured out "what Christmas is all about . . ." on his own (with a little help from Linus). He knew getting that little wooden tree wouldn't be popular, would make him the object of ridicule, but he did what he believed was right, regardless of the personal cost. Isn't doing what is right what we all hope for our children?

 

"Charlie Brown is a blockhead, but he did get a nice tree."