words

Nicholas Bagnall
Saturday 18 May 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Kid

The American film s, a pseudo-realistic story about young teenagers, makes us think of these precocious degenerates with a mixture of pity and contempt. Twenty-five years ago, at least in Britain, the title's nuances would have been quite different.

As an education correspondent then, I didn't talk much about children. They were all kids, at any rate in conversation. Even education ministers spoke of them thus. Those were the years when it was fashionable to regard children as just as good as adults, to be deferred to where possible. Teachers' union leaders might speak grandly of the needs of the individual child, but elsewhere you called them the kids; it implied a certain mateyness, as well as an understanding of current educational theory. People stayed kids till they got to the sixth, when they became students. In America you were still a kid at college, without necessarily being patronised. Your limbs were assumed to be clean. To be a kid was to be in the early prime of life, like the gun-toting cowboys of the legendary West.

It is not clear why, perhaps some time in the 1600s, we started giving our children a name hitherto reserved for baby goats. Why not lions or foxes? Cub, applied to humans, was and is a dismissive word. Macduff called his murdered children chickens, and sentimental mothers have been known to call theirs lambs. But young goats? There may have been some sense in it. For a time in the 19th century, incidentally, a kid could be slang for a young thief.

There were already signs in the mid-1970s that British schoolkids were losing their haloes. "Initially," I remember a young teacher telling me back in 1975, "I thought, why should kids be forced to accept what is taught them? Then all this idealism evaporates..." s still, but tiresome kids.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in