Is it possible to still have a "Huckleberry Finn" childhood?

[EddieIzzardismyhero]

Have just finished reading "21st Century Boys" and found it a very interesting, if somewhat depressing read.

I have two sons, both under two at the moment so this is not something pressing. But I found myself musing on the type of childhood I would be able to offer them in comparison to the one I enjoyed myself.

I was brought up in the 70s in a small town in the west country and I remember long sunny days spent exploring the local fields and forests, hours spent playing out without adult supervision, running out of the house first thing in the morning and coming back only when you were hungry . . . Does this still exist anywhere in this country anymore?

We live in a market town in the SE of England. We live in a cul-de-sac but rarely see children playing out, partly because moronic drivers race up and down the road as if they're competing in F1 . We have lots of parks and open spaces but children are rarely unsupervised.

I would love to give my boys the kind of childhood I enjoyed but is it possible now? Does anyone else do it? Would I be on my own (and hence my children would be on their own too)?

Interested in your thoughts.

parents cannot win it seems
I thought you meant children were banned from making noise rather than they are free to be children. My lot don't seem to have volume control however much I ask.

Our children achieve this because of where we live.

We live in cottage type properties with interlinking gardens enabling the children a lot of freedom.

The biggest threat nowdays is cars. Take them away, and children could play again on the streets.

(We just don't have the streets)

I too grew up in a small town in the westcountry (i wonder if it was the same one eddieizzard?!) and also spent a lot of my childhood playing in fields and by a river that was a good mile or 2 away. I can't quite imagine letting my dc have such freedom (esp not near such a fast flowing river!) but they are both still little so maybw when they are older i will feel different. We are about to move to a fab city that is by the sea and near wonderful countryside and we are hoping that this will mean that our kids can be exposed to an outdoors-ish life but it will never be the same as living in the middle of nowhere. Which was great as a small child but a bit of a pita when a teenager

at 'commune type thing' - it is indeed, Helyg, but 'intentional community sounds less scary.
You can find lots of them here.
Here, here and here are the sort of thing.

its up to you what sort of childhood your dc have,stop going with the crowd and make your own choice as to what fredom they have. Make up your own minds and don't let the medai decide your cdc childhood IT IS SAFER OUTSIDE PLAYING THAN IT HAS EVEr been,

there is less statisticle evidence of abudction or car accident than ever before the envention of cars.

tbh I know of two children in my life time being knocked down by cars - one when i was 5 in the early 70's and she died, she played try and touch the car and my mum wouldn't let me play woth her...the other is my bf ds and he was walking home from school, somthing he had been doing for 5 years and he is thankfully still alive. he ran across the road and then tryed to run back..

how many children do you personely know that have been hit by cars?

see two children in 43 years is not a high amount in my book

We lived in Holland for some years and noticed huge differences when we moved back to UK. There it was normal for children to take themselves to and from school by bike from half way through year 3. We happily let our children cycle round the neighbourhood calling on friends from the age of 7. Once back here all that stopped. Bikes hardly come out because roads are so busy. The area they can move about in freely is much, much smaller. We also have problems with a combination of less tolerant neighbours who dont want to hear children playing combined with parents who let their children play too loudly too late. The result of this is that police get called and much misery all round.

My advice to OP would be to move to Holland. It was a wonderful place to raise children.

Ricky- are there less car accidents tyhough because there are no roaming children?

well first dc was playing stupid game - nothing to do with roaming - second dc was walking home from school with around 1000 other children - as 1500 at school and some bus and car but 60% walk to school - this is a secondary in a county town in the midlands and there is a population of around 100000 so we are not talking small and there is a large amount of cars in this area as the town is used as a short cut!

per population car accidents have decreased - let children out and cycle and there will be less as the more people that walk and cycel the less accidents there are statisticly - cause then motorist get used to the cycles and pedestrians.

I will be glad to see a 20mph through built up areas - this will be good.

The best method i ever saw for cars speeding was in fiji - the elders of the village throw stones at speeding cars they dopn't speed as they don't want rockes thrown at them...!! every car and lorry slwos to 20mph

another was in the algarve where they have random traffic lights and if you go to fast when you get 100yards up the road the traffic light is on red! great way to stop speeding as the motorists get to know and slwo down rather than have to stop...

That is the point bronze, there are fewer accidents because fewer children roam.

I know of quite a few kids who have been hit by cars (mostly from my own childhood). Many under 8's are simply too impulsive to remember to stop, look and listen everytime they cross the road esp if they have a football, are riding a bike, scooter, spot are with friends.

then combine this with increased number of cars on the road, distracted drivers, cars driving more quickly, younger drivers.

It depends on where you live, I suppose. My brother and I and the kids who lived by us grew up totally feral in the northwoods of Minnesota...we made forts and defended them with home-made spears, jumped in and out of the river with no thought at all, and didn't go home til we were hungry.

At some point DH and I may move to his family's farm (also surrounded by a forest) and DC and their cousins will have the same sort of thing I'd imagine.

Just read the first page and the last page of this thread (having seen how long it is) and a lot of people mention about traffic etc. Is this really the only problem though? I get the impression a lot of people (my friends) are actually quite paranoid that their child will be abducted by a paedophile. A lot of people tend to have such a heightened sense of what could happen to their children and the risks. Personally, I love the idea of this idyllic childhood (mine was also similar) and I would love it if DS could have a similar experience but I doubt it will ever happen.

we live on a quiet estate and have a small communal bit of grass outside our door, plus our driveway doesn't have a car on so is left free for playing on. Many neighbourhood children gather outside and will happily spend the day outside if left to their own devices

i would say 90% of the local parents let their children play out and think it is a good thing that they can, but my neighbour has had nasty confrontations with another neighbour who says it is neglectful and dangerous

Oops! intentional community! My tired brain not reading properly .

I do agree that the reason that there are fewer car accidents with children is cos children rarely walk anywhere unsupervised which is one of those vicious circle things I suppose.

expat, that is so that people are having notes pushed through their doors about the noise their children are making.

i agree people's PERCEPTION of the risks is the main problem
not enough children out on the street - adults scared to intervene in tricky situations, in case they are accused of interference, or worse - these both contribute
traffic is a real problem, but even if there's a quiet area without danger, people are paranoid to let their children out of sight, and quick to criticise those who do
i would give ds1 a lot MORE freedom if i was not scared of public opprobrium

PMSL at a Huckleberry Finn childhood being held up as some sort of ideal - Huck's father is an abusive drunk, and Huck fakes his own death to escape from him, narrowly avoids getting shot in a gunfight, witnesses a lynch mob...

So in answer to your thread title, I bloody well hope not!

'Is this really the only problem though?'

No, far from it.

Many children spend long periods of time in wraparound care because both their parents have to work long hours to keep the wolf from the door.

And/or live in a home which is unsuitable for playing, or much of anything.

This climate is growing more and more erratic weatherwise, and even in the best of times it's dark and wet in a lot of places for a not insignificant part of the year.

The test/target-driven school system is another factor.

As is capitalism itself. There is pressure to turn the children into the most productive product you can, for sale to the best university, so that they can have the best shot at making money. Because it's not enough just to be - only that which turns profit is valued.

Capitalism has increased the divide between have and have not, widened the gap between rich and poor, and this has brought its own set of ills to all of society - levels of alcohol-related disease are rising fast in middle-aged, middle-class white women. Levels of depression are increasing.

It's a problem of paradigm.

It's too simple to say people love their cars more than kids when too often, they use their car to get to the source of income they need to feed those kids because a) they can't afford to house their children near that source of work b) the car is the cheapest and fastest way to travel to and from their already long workday.

I feel if you're going to simplify it then instead say 'Capitalism loves money more than kids. Or anyone.'

And yy, children aren't valued. They make noise that interferes with someone's work.

Can't have that!

Have people never heard of earplugs?

sleepinglion, we did address that a while back on the thread - I meant the lack of adult supervision, that was all !

I agree capitalism is the source of much of soceity's problems but on a national scale that is too big an issue to tackle. Maybe if small communities worked together then something could be done - and a community could be as small as a street - but it takes a massive act of will from many people for this to happen.

Expat, you seem very angry and unhappy.

Have you tried self-help books?

PMSL, Iwould! That's a good one .

Passionate about social reform and social responsibility does not equate to angry and unhappy.

We could use more passion, where'd you go, Riven? , to change things for future generations.

if you let your own dc out to play and they "call" for there mate a couple of times - often but not always the mate will be allowed out, possibly only in the front garden at fisrt then into the street and a little further with time. my dd started playing out at 7/8ish and played around the corner as the dc she played with had to be in sight of their hopuse - this was fine with me as my dd was also being watched around the corner....it started with two then a few more were allowed to play.

the really odd thing was my street is quite of traffice with a green for playhing, but around the corner in sight of the house was a little mor estreet play and a few more cars - i thought it would be nice if the girls could play on the green but mum would allow this so they stayed in the street with more cars to be in sight of the other mum.

letting the dc out to play and soon others will followw as they see the other dc playing and want to join in and often break their own parents resistence

I think 'stranger danger' is largely a media made phenomina (ie it is not the primary concern of most parents). Traffic danger is very real. You don't get many 2nd chances when hit by a car. You can't learn from your mistakes.

I don't think kids need to be able to roam to be happy. I grew up in the country and it was a lonely place with the nearest kids being a hike away. I think kids need friends (lots) and family. They may roam with their friends but they may huddle together and lose themselves in some fantasy.

Parents would be happier to let their kids roam if there were fewer cars and if neighbourhoods looked out for the local kids. It takes a village to raise a kid and all that.

Times have changed whether we like it or not. Stats don't impress me. Years ago when my mother was a girl there was a local perv who flashed the kids. It never got reported as it was taboo. Most parets use their instinct judging the neighbourhood and their kid.

OK I'm lazy and I've only read the first and this page

My DH had a roaming childhood - I didn't - though still got freedom (sort of off you go but stay withing this area sort of thing - adn was able to bike/walk to local friends houses from about 8 and hten bus to friends houses from 12

To be honest I'd rather my kids did have the roam free thing from a young age it horrifies me the adult thing DH and his friends got up to at a v young age because of it

Another possibilty (one I'd like to be able to provide for my DSs) is having a 'den' for them - tree house/shed in your garden - one where their friends are free to come and go and is theirs and theirs alone (sort of secret sevenish really!!) You're not hovering over them and they have a bit of freedom but you know where they are!

My cousins in the Pacific Northwest (USA) have a very outdoor lifestyle and their kids do roam, but with boundaries. At 6 and 7, they play outside and in the nearby forest. Their property is next to a National Forest, and there isn't exactly a barbed wire fence...

Is an 'intentional community' a commune?