 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
[Continue from Superman?]
Historical Perspectives
The first possible historical figure I would identify would be William Shakespeare. It is difficult to look at his works and believe a man of his social status could have produced them. This is so much the case that many people like to speculate that perhaps he was not the real author, but someone like Sir Francis Bacon wrote the works, and wanting to remain anonymous, attributed them to Shakespeare. His life was so long ago that we have little historical documentation of his early life to rely on. We can only surmise here that his mother or other guardian began exposing him to phonics at a very young age.
The next historical figure is the man who is considered to be the second greatest playwright behind Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950). His life is more current to our own history and therefore a great deal of his early life is known. We know he was the youngest of three children with sisters one and three years his senior. His socially well standing parents had a day governess for their children who taught them easy lessons with the alphabet and numbers. Can we speculate that young toddler George was hanging around and taking in the lessons given to his oldest sister? Shaw was a prolific writer and his biographer, Micheal Holroyd surmises "I suspect that with his shorthand and secretaries G.B.S. could actually write in a day more than I could read in a day". I find it interesting that Shaw seemed to understand the importance of phonics as evidenced by his play "Pgymalion" and he also entitled one of his plays "Man and Superman". I wonder why he entitled it that way since the play itself seems to have nothing to do with its title. I wonder if he had a sense of superman but couldn't identify what was behind it.
Other possible examples would include Abraham Lincoln, always regarded as excelling beyond what his social standing and educational opportunities would have considered possible. We really do not know much about his early life, as he would never talk about it. Can we guess that his mother taught him at a very young age? He had a sister that was a few years older than him and their mother did read to them. Is it possible that very young toddler Abe was taking in what his mother was teaching his older sister? Lincoln had said at one time that he owed everything he was to his mother. Other examples might include Booker T. Washington, who as the young son of former slaves was assigned the task of carrying the school books for the master's daughter, and then George Washington Carver, of a similar background to Booker T. Washington. We know that both boys were out with the farm hands at a very young age, their expertise later in life being agriculture. Then in the field of music there is Mozart and Beethoven, both taught from very young ages by their musician fathers.
Let me step a little further back in time and speculate about the brief moment in history which produced Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Hippocrates, etc. Isn't it amazing that this brief moment in time and this one isolated pocket of the world would produce all these geniuses? Do you think there might have been a reason? Could it be that it was standard practice in those days for parents to teach their very young children? Of course the democratic experiment of this time would foster all these individuals, but which was the cart and which was the horse. Isn't it possible that Pericles himself, who would spawn the democratic movement to its height, was also the product of early teaching. Alexander the Great, military genius extraordinary, was tutored at a young age by none other than Aristotle. Is it possible that he was the last remnant of a once common practice of very early learning exposure, but a practice that had never been identified as the common denominator in these geniuses, and so died out with him? Alexander's mother was a Greek princess and his father the military ruler of Greek Macedonia. This is all just guess work of course, but take it as food for thought.
The Life of Judy Garland
I am putting my last example in a separate area because she was so popular from such a young age that there is a wealth of information to draw from.
She was regarded by many as the greatest entertainer of her time and is still regarded thus to this day. She became popular at a very young age so her life was closely followed throughout.
She was born Frances Gumm in 1922, the third child of former vaudevillian parents, who were no longer on the circuit but had settled down to ownership of a theater. Talkies had not arrived yet so Mother Gumm would play the background music for the silent pictures shown and older sisters, Suzy and Jimmie, seven and five years her senior did song and dance routines during intermissions which were taught to them by their mother. So Baby Gumm as she was called was taking it all in on a daily bases from her birth.
She died at 47 in 1969 so this generation can only read about her magical performances. But by simply listening to her music, watching her films, or her 1963-64 TV variety show you will surely catch her magic.
Many times she would come on to a set and watch a rehearsal one time, where a stand in would do her part, and proceed to do the performance with such perfection the first time that only one take was needed.
Known as Miss Show Business and the World's Greatest Entertainer, I am going to give just a few quotes from some of her colleagues which were typical of what was said about her. Mickey Rooney who did many early films with her makes the comment "there will never be, there are not enough adjectives in the world, to express how the one and only Judy is Judy, because she is the greatest" and he recalls how she would wing her way through little practiced numbers, pull them off effortlessly, and be the best thing in the movie.
June Allyson, another famous actress of her day said of Judy, "she had more talent in one little finger than all of us put together".
Fred Astaire said "Judy Garland is the greatest entertainer who ever lived or probably ever will live".
Finally let me quote from George Maharis a popular actor of the day who said of Judy "When you understand what Judy Garland is, what she does, you also understand that nobody can touch her. Because there is nothing like her around, and there never will be". All common sentiments of the time and why do you think that was. Let me propose to you it was because Baby Gumm had taken in the very basic elements of entertainment virtually from her birth.
Despite her enormous talent Judy suffered throughout her life with insecurities and feelings of rejection and seemed to be unable to accept her abilities. George Bernard Shaw once said "I was born in 1856 I suppose about 50 years too early". I think Judy was the right person but in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think her parents were really able to understand her. Her mother was pushing too much while her father pampered his talented young daughter but I suspect there is more to it than that. I believe that when the neural pathways form that strongly at that young of an age there also forms an increased sensitivity in the brain which others don't have. And that is going to require insight and understanding on the part of the caregivers. Judy was signed on contact at MGM at the young age of 13 and because of her enormous talent, her innocence, and her willingness to work and please she was exploited beyond measure. She would refer to those days and say how she worked late into the night pumped up on stimulants prescribed by the studio doctors, go to sleep on her prescribed sleeping pills only to be awakened early to more stimulants. It is doubtful this was routine fare for her but it surely happened far too often and I don't think she was able to fully recover from those years. She certainly was never able to break her drug dependency although she tried to many times.
I believe Judy's life is a good example of what I am trying to establish. But it does have it's downside. A downside that should be taken seriously but not to the point of walking away from the upside.
Conclusion
I have presented you with my theories based on the discovery I made with my daughter and my subsequent research into its possible implications. Now I would like to venture to propose that with this discovery the potential of the emergence of superman is possible. Not a new step in the evolution of man but instead a discovery of how the natural functions of the brain can be understood and provide for the advancement of man. Can we look forward to another generation like ancient Greece which produced Plato, Aristotle, Euripides etc. I think it is possible by simply doing our part and exposing our infants and young toddlers to very basic learning experiences. As this concept has a chance to catch on and as other young toddlers now using the concept reach the appropriate age, I hope to have these theories proven. For now, realistically, even Victoria's potential is only in the formative stage. Given that my theories are correct, these children will be talented but also very vulnerable and at first more than likely little understood. I have found with my own daughter not to push her into the usual little mode but to give her the independence she needs to foster her budding creativity while simultaneously providing her with the emotional support and guidance she needs.
Back to Home _________________________________________________________________________
admin@thetoddlersedge.com
103 N Holmes St., Belton, South Carolina, 29627, US
phone: (864) 908-4331
Copyright 2000 The Toddler's Edge
