To object to childrens paintings of Hitler being displayed in school?

[coribells]

My DS is in year 6 . He will be studying WW 11 this year in History. Obviously a big part of that will be learning about the Nazis and Hitler.
Over the past couple of years ive noticed childrens work displayed in the entrance hall, and in the assembly hall. These have included quite a number of childrens paintings of Hitler and descriptions of his early life etc. My stomach turns whenever I see these displays, it almost looks like he is being glorified in some way.
I am of german descent and my kids father is Jewish. Am I being over sensitive. ? would be unreasonable to talk the teacher is about the manor in which they display pictures of Hitler?

Yabu

I don't really understand your logic. You are happy for you dc to read about him, to see photographs and to hear his speeches, but drawing him is just one step too far? Are you happy to let your dc write about him?

Anyone saying yabu, just think for a second...try to envisage you walk into your childs primary school to be see a load of new paintings all over the wall, 30 grinning brightly coloured Hitlers.
Seriously, try and picture it. If your true response isn't What the Fucking Fuck paralell universe have I just walked into, well hell jed I don't even wanna know you. You're loons.

Doesn't drawing him put a human face to evil?

And the thought of innocent children painting evil - it makes me shudder, tbh.

I must admit to being not quite impartial, as my DH is German. I suspect he would be horrified to hear that British children are gaily painting pictures of Hitler.

Extra points for invoking Mrs Landingham, MrS.

YANBU

It's plain strange at best and totally nasty at worst.

The grinning, brightly coloured Hitler pictures sound positively disturbing

One single portrait of hilter in the entrance hall would be disturbing - several drawings within a display about WWII is showing how the children have used art to express what they have learnt.

YANBU. I find it very odd. I know children learn through many different ways but what can you gain from painting a picture of Hitler?

Raspberry
I don't know about you, but my kids don't tend to draw dark and distressing pics. Children's paintings are generally bright and cheery.

ffs, it's primary school, of course the pictures will be brightly coloured and grinning

I think some people are missing the point here.... Noone, least of all the op, is suggesting the study of Hitler and WWII is inappropriate, just a display of paintings of Hitler. I agree totally, also as someone who is a huge fan of German and Germany, having spent many years of my childhood there and university level German here, but also with Jewish ancestory. As a primary school teacher myself, I would like to understand the objective of the lesson. We are doing the same subject at the moment with year 6 and are looking at Blitz artwork and creating our own. Portraits tend to be covered in the Tuodors topic.
I think it is perfectly resonable to query the purpose of the lesson and of the display itself.
If I were looking at propoganda, I would discuss the originals with the children and then look at creating our own about a modern issue ie "our school is the best in the area"- at a much more child-centred level.

Primrose -

How does painting a portrait of Hitler show what kids have learnt? It shows that they have learnt what his face looks like. Probably one of the least important facts of the matter. If you can paint a portrait of Pol Pot does that show what you have learnt about Cambodian history? No it shows that you've wasted an afternoon painting a portrait of a dictator.

I don't think the OP is saying that drawings of Hitler should be Verbotten - if kids were making booklets or a wall display on WWIi they might illustrate it with all kinds of relevant drawings. But that is quite different from "let's all paint a portrait of Hitler". That is just weird.

OP - do report back on what they say.

We don't know that the teacher said 'let's all paint a picture of Hilter'. They could have asked the class to draw people from the time or the most memorable image they have seen.

Studying photos of him can give an indication of how he saw himself and how he wanted to be perceived by others. Drawing him shows off artistic skills.

I don't understand how people can be happy for a child to write a poem or an essay about him but be upset with a picture.

Primrose - because it is reminiscent of the glorification of Hitler, and Mao, and plenty of other dictators who had great big pictures of themselves displayed everywhere. Because in an essay you can write quite a lot about how evil Hitler was, but in a picture you can only express a few very simple things - certainly a primary school child's picture (unless any of them are budding Holbeins).

I would complain about the educational value of pictorial representations of Hitler by the children.
How does this contribute to knowledge and understanding of the war period? How does painting Hitler's face contribute to an understanding of how he was voted into power? How does it contribute to an understanding of eliminationist anti-Semitism?

Painting a picture of one man does not explain anything about WW2 or the Holocaust, nor does it inspire me with confidence that the detail and complexity of the rise of the Nazis and the enormity they visited on Europe and European Russia is being explored.

If they want the children to learn in a cross curricular manner, how about producing maps of various stages of the Nazi conquest? How about maps showing the sites of the death camps and ghettos? Graphs illustrating the number of Jews alive in Europe and European USSR at six month intervals from 1933?

What constitutes pushing the cross curricular element too far? If not painting pictures or writing poems (WTAF?) of Hitler, then maybe teaching the children the Horst Wessel song would make someone sit up and ask the pertinent question here -- whose stupid idea was this?

I imagine the sight of paintings of Hitler would be extremely jarring to visiting grandparents. They once played the Horst Wessel song on RTE radio and my dad hit the roof. I know if he had ever seen a display of Hitler paintings in school he would have had someone's guts for garters. I don't have Jewish ancestry, but dad was in the RAF and his brother ended up stationed about 30km from Bergen Belsen as an Army engineer when his war came to an end.

I don't really understand your logic. You are happy for you dc to read about him, to see photographs and to hear his speeches, but drawing him is just one step too far? Are you happy to let your dc write about him?

A written exercise would inform you that Hitler didn't accomplish what was done in his name without the help and support of millions. Listening to his speeches would inform you that he had a huge audience, and that his audience lapped up every word he said. That is the whole point of learning about the Nazis (not learning about 'Hitler') -- that there were millions of them, not just one person.

Agree with the posters saying that firstly, this is a matter of context and OP YANBU and you wouldn't be unreasonable to enquire of the teacher the context of the art lesson to try to understand why painting Hitler's portrait is part of learning about wwII. You sound sensible, so am sure you can couch in diplomatic curious terms so as not to put the teacher on the defensive.... but I think a couple of posters might have hit the nail on the head with poor/lazy teaching. Propaganda is a rich seam in art leading into advertising and branding - the psychological effects of art? I dunno. I'm not an art teacher so maybe there's some strict syllabus requirement I'm missing. But I do remember doing a poster for WWII and I put Jesse Owens on the lowest stadium despite the gold medal but I found it all very thought-provoking at the time.

It sounds ridiculously comical (in a very black humour way) to be honest, 20+ 11 year old renditions of Hitler taped to a corridor wall - I have a feeling Mel Brooks would approve. In complete contrast to Achillea's view I don't think pictures of Hitler are ever going to make kids think "wow, he looks just like anybody I could know". Though I do agree with posters pointing out portraiture is a key ingredient for glorification/dictatorships I also think Hitler's face (with the toothbrush moustache) has become a cheap comedy shortcut (Richard Herring's last but one Edinburgh show involved growing a 'Hitler' moustache and we all know how funny he is...) and no, as a German chap last alive in the 1940s sporting an individualistic taste in facial hair, he probably does't look like anyone 11 year olds today would know! Possibly partially because no one would generally want to look like Hitler and so would avoid styling themselves thus. Instead he looks like the face everyone's been laughing at in that photo of a house that supposedly looks like Hitler

ffs, it's primary school, of course the pictures will be brightly coloured and grinning

Yeah, thats axtually the point?

WWII started almost 80 years ago. Lets imagine how huge an idea that is for a kid in year 6. "It's like forever dude..." Hitler just doesn't exist in the same way for them as he might for someone older. Would you object to pictures of Julius Caesar or William the Conqueror? They both made war in Europe, killed millions and inspired enormous hatred too - or is that just too long ago for us all to be sensitive about? I don't mean to be flippant about Caesar or about Hitler - but Hitler, for a year 6 child, is as remote as Kublai Khan or Marco Polo. Would it bother you if there were paintings of Isoroku Yamamoto ?

You're not being unreasonable exactly, I think you are just in a situation which you are bound to be personally more sensitive about than the children who are learning what is, for them, fairly remote and ancient history.

And let's not forget that back in the day, Charlie Chaplins' "Great Dictator" was a fabulous piece of anti fascist propaganda. Art is powerful stuff...
(and Chaplin had the moustache first) !

Point of Information -- Neither Julius Caesar nor William the Conqueror 'killed millions' (and it is hard to gauge whatever widespread hatred they may have inspired).

One of the elements in teaching history is giving children some idea of how long ago events happened. A teacher doing his or her job right would have explained to the class that many people alive today would have been alive and possibly around their age when the events of WW2 unfolded. It might not therefore be almost as unimaginably long ago as the Battle of Hastings or the adventures of Marco Polo. It shouldn't be.

Again, focusing on Hitler misses the point about the Nazis, the 'banality of evil', the complicity of millions of Germans in the mass murder.

Year 6 is far too young for children to be taught anything about the Nazis, World War 2, the Holocaust, etc. anyway.

I think it is difficult for the school if it is cross curricular teaching. If WWII is being taught properly then you need to start with the 1930s and Hilter's rise to power.

Hitler didn't just materialise as chancellor, he was democratically elected (although there was a lot of intimidation and violence).

I'm trying to think what you could do in art. Inflation graphs - possibly - but that would be better left to maths.

That leaves

The rise of Hitler
Kristalnaght (?SP)
The various laws passsed to persecute Jews
The portable gas chambers that toured homes for people with learning difficulties, people with mental health issues.

All fairly difficult things to do in art.

OP I can understand how this could upset you. I think you could approach the school and ask what is or is not being taught. In what contexct are pictures of hitler being painted.

I think with your heritage you might make a good guest speaker.

Sashh - I agree, year 6 is too early to study WWiI and the holocaust - I remember learning about at GCSE, after WWI, reparations, the League of Nations, the great depression, hyperinflation in Germany, Hitler's rise to power etc..

I don't think this can or should be taught to 11 year olds. So you are left with "look at this evil man and his funny moustache" which has 0 educational value.

Of course year 6 is not too young to learn about WW2!

HImalaya makes a good point though, it becomes devoid of meaning or context.
It is on the curriculum at year 6, mine also did in year 5, it mostly consisted of reading Anne Frank's diary.