Aquinas, I agree with what you are saying-- I'm not suggesting that I was discussing the concepts of protracted, planned terrorist activities with my then-2yo in the wake of 9/11.
What we did discuss is that labeling people by a common characteristic, "otherness" and "othering" can lead to the kind of irrational ANGER and hatred that leads to such atrocities as flying commercial airliners into civilian buildings.
Because she did want and need to hear that. She was otherwise afraid that buildings can "just fall down." Or that airplanes routinely crash into them. Or that pretty much any angry adult is capable of such a thing.
All of those things are untrue, but they were hypotheses that her 2yo PG brain came up with as alternative explanations. The truth is less pleasant in some ways, but in others it is more comforting.
With another child, it might not have been possible to have that discussion of "othering" and hatred based upon immutable group characteristics-- but my DD had already felt the sting of exclusion and knew what it was. So for her, it WAS in context.
We have very deliberately made no topics "off limits" for our daughter. Sometimes I have to steel myself in order to have discussions with her that I'm not really ready for... like abortion or Mengele with my 7-8yo.
But she can talk to us about ANYTHING. She knows what she believes-- and why. Which is a lot more than many of her peers do at 18-20.
I do agree that sheltering kids who have developed a sense that there is a dichotomy about information (home versus not-home) can regard this not as parents being loving and wanting to protect their children, but as parents being unWILLING to discuss some topics, or failing to appreciate their growing sophistication.
Kids can often manage more sophisticated thinking about the world than their parents give them credit for. I see this a lot in working with youth.
