Ask ARP: What should I do about nursery rhymes with a racist past?
Dear Anti-Racist Parent,
I am a Mom of two girls and I live in Eastern Canada. I am looking for some advice about the children’s rhyme “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Catch a tiger by the toe”.
Last week, on the way home from daycare, my oldest daughter (who is 4) began to recite this rhyme. She said it was used by one of the teachers as a method to make a choice. When my husband and I heard this, we both felt uncomfortable and we were surprised that she had been taught this at her daycare.
I did a little research on the history of the rhyme. Among other things, I found out that, although the rhyme has been around in some form or another since the 1850’s, the word tiger was never used until after the racist version became popular. This, I believe this is why so many people feel it is so offensive. I also found out that there have been lawsuits against companies in the US who have used this in their marketing campaigns.
So, I talked with my daughter about the rhyme. I told her that in the past a very similar rhyme was used with words that were very hurtful to many people. For that reason, we would not use that rhyme in our house. I told her that she did nothing wrong, and her teachers did nothing wrong because they did not know others would be hurt by this (the teachers are all very young and would probably be unaware of much of the history of this).
Then I emailed the Director of the daycare, expressing my concern. This is the reply I received:
I was intrigued by your concern so I asked a few people over the lunch hour today what they thought about using the rhyme. One of the people (she is 23) was not aware that there were other words used in this rhyme in less enlightened times. She only knows the rhyme as we say it today.
I suppose if children know that this is a politically correct version of an old taunt then we should avoid it. But it seems that most children, even young adults, only know the “tiger” version. There are similar histories to many of the old nursery rhymes and songs, although I agree that the old version of this rhyme is particularly abhorrent.
I do have some concern about sensitizing a child to something that we cannot quite explain in full as there is no context for the child - we can’t tell them what the old words used to be. It is an interesting debate.
I have since talked to my child’s teacher, who apologized for using the rhyme. She thanked me for raising the issue and she said she could certainly find another rhyme to use. I guess this is the reaction I was expecting.
I’m not sure what to do about the Director’s response. My first instinct was to respond that perhaps none of the children knew the history, but what about their parents and grandparents. But I thought before I responded, I would seek help from others. So here are my questions. Did I make a big deal about nothing? Do people find this rhyme offensive? What should I do next?
I would appreciate any thoughts you have.
Sarah in Eastern Canada
If you’re interested in submitting a question, please email us at team@antiracistparent.com and put “Ask Anti-Racist Parent” in the subject line. You can read past Ask Anti-Racist columns here.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Ryan wrote:
Wow. I’m 31 and I have never hear of any other version other than “tiger” either. I never would have guess that it had such an involved history! I am assuming that the previously used word was n____, correct? What a horrible history for such a seemingly innocent rhyme!
I have no advice about this, simply because I have never heard of the history of the rhyme, and I don’t know anyone else who knows of the history. I hope you get some good advice though!
Ryan
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 12:52 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
At the risk of seeming like some kind of apologist, I’d be OK with kids learning the CURRENT version, with the caveat that the kids know age-appropriate information about the history of the rhyme, and with the knowledge that if anyone uses ANOTHER versions that insutls other people, they should tell an adult IMMEDIATELY. I’m not for banning outright, but for information.
It’s sort of how I feel about fairy and folk tales where elements are often… problematic. As a kid I read the original Grimms fairy tales, and loved them. I figured out some of the sexist and classist images then, and I continue to parse some out now (and I adore when I come across more information/interpretation as an adult - Rapunzel is still one of my favorite to back-interpret).
I never heard the origin of eeney-meenie until a few years ago, and I still have problems remembering it immediately - I just always disliked it as a choosing rhyme because it was so easy to rig - I wanted randomness, not favorites under the guise of randomness.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 1:00 pm ¶
Andie wrote:
Hi, at 41 (eek!) I also grew up with the “tiger” version of the rhyme and although I am pretty sure that in my pre-teen years I knew about the original version, I don’t have a problem with my kids learning this rhyme either. Actually I am thinking that instead of banning the “current” tiger version it might be an interesting teaching tool when they are older, to show how something that was hurtful and offensive has been re-worked to suit current times.
Andie in Montreal
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 2:26 pm ¶
Jen* wrote:
I’ve known about the history of this rhyme since I was a teenager, I guess. My father grew up hearing both versions. When I was little, all I knew of was the ‘tiger’ version.
I don’t think I’d be one to restrict total use of the cleaned up version. When children are old enough to understand the issue, I’d probably use it as a tool to discuss how hurtful thought processes can make their way into everyday things that we do.
Though my father has never seemed to be offended by the use of this rhyme, I can see how some might be sensitized to its use.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 2:48 pm ¶
Magi wrote:
I grew up saying the tiger version, but knew of the other. So many children’s stories and rhymes come from unfortunate pasts. The first one that comes to mind is Ring Around The Rosy. If I remember correctly, it has to do with people dying from the Plague. I think under its current guise, using tiger, it’s fine. I think it’s current understanding trumps any past connotations. As you stated, the original version is so dated that most adults under 40 aren’t even aware of it.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 6:19 pm ¶
Tinler wrote:
Wow, that’s news to me…wouldn’t have had a clue about the origin if it hadn’t been posted here. I grew up with a slightly different version of the rhyme:
Eeeny meeny miny moe
Catch a baby by the toe
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶
Hilary wrote:
Interesting. I was just pondering a similar dilemma here, since my 3 yr old is singing “Ooo wa ooo wa shoot the arrow!” all over the house.
Not as offensive as the original taunt you mentioned (I am 34 and I heard the offensive version first growing up, along with other taunts like “A fight! A fight! A n_____ and a white! If the n____ wins, we’ll all jump in!” when I was growing up. I had no idea what n_____ was, but everyone said these in my lily white elementary school in Miami Beach. But it does stereotype Native Americans, and I have an issue with it. His teacher is “old school”, easily in her late fifties or early sixties. I haven’t decided whether to make an issue of it or not.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 11:12 pm ¶
Erin wrote:
You know, my husband recently reported he noticed an older African American woman shot him a dirty look at the grocery store when our daughter chanted “Five little monkeys jumped on the bed.” He asked if there’s a significant history to that rhyme, and I couldn’t tell him. Our daughter still loves it, but now we feel a bit uncomfortable with it. Anyone know anything about that rhyme?
And for the record, I’m 32 and only learned anything other than “tiger” as an adult.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 11:45 pm ¶
KC wrote:
I’m 37, and had no idea there was another version beyond the tiger one. How awful! That said, I agree with the previous posters that I wouldn’t restrict my kids from using the tiger version. Actually, my kids don’t even know about the tiger — they just say “Eeny, meeny, miny, MOE!” and that’s it.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 1:57 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
I’m not telling anyone here anything they don’t know BUT…
The thing everyone working with children, either your own or someone else’s, has to remember is that our “fairy tales”, “folk tales” and “nursery rhymes” were rarely if ever written for children. I think we can largely blame the Victorians for cleaning them up and using them on kids (usually neutering them in the process).
Most originated as campfire, lodge, and barroom tales, for multiple ages, which is why they symbolically (and sometimes outright) work on multiple levels. Like the Muppet Show, but with more gore and monsters…. OK, maybe just more gore.
Some were morality tales, some showed poor people getting ahead by their wits and bucking the system, some showed the consequences of bucking the system, some showed how to get around the system.
So it shouldn’t shock anyone that there are negative elements all over these tales- they reflect the times in which they were invented and spread, and there’s a “whisper down the lane” effect over centuries. They reflect the prejudices of their creators, and they get recast to suit new needs.
So I don’t see anything wrong with reappropriating rhymes to fit our sensibilities and knowledge. It’s what’s always been done. Hopefully, we do it for the right reasons.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 3:01 am ¶
justamom wrote:
All of the comments, except one and it was about another rhyme, seem to focus on what WE parents think about the rhyme. What I keep coming back to is this. If I am out with my daughters, both black ages 8 and 10, and they say this in front of other black adults (or anyone, really) who WILL know the origins of the rhyme, what implications will that have for my daughters? What will that say about their understanding of and respect for their history? What will it say about me as a transracial parent? What will it say about my own respect for black people and the example that I set for my children? Beyond that, am I then less likely to be understanding/aware of words or situations that may cause pain or uncomfortableness for anyone who is not white like me?
For my family, I would have to say that this is not acceptable.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 10:38 am ¶
happybell wrote:
Hi! I’m in my earlier 20s and have known about the “other” version since middle school. But that’s probably because I speak English as a second language and teachers always tend to look-up the history behind sayings, folk tales, etc.
Quite frankly, it seems as if the “orginal version” has long ago being displaced by the “tiger” one, so I don’t see a problem with children using it as a rhyme to choose things (this is how I learnt it). But, it should be pointed out to kids that it used to contain really hurtful words in it, and that if they ever hear someone us it with hurtful language, they shoudl report it.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 10:46 am ¶
Stephanie W wrote:
I am 45 and grew up with the tiger version. My mom however is 80 and she knew the older version. She was just glad it got changed and never minded that we used it.
As for the ten little monkeys we have that book, but I wonder if it the older womans look was related to the poem the Agatha Christie’s book is based on. The current title here in the U.S. is “And then there were none”, but it was “Ten little N…” Back when first published in England. The original title still remains in some countries.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 11:47 am ¶
shelli wrote:
The monkey reference is that once again, back in the day, so to speak, the term monkey was used to refer to black children.
So we are very careful NOT to use that word around our daughter, and we point out it’s meaning to others when we can.
As for the rhyme, well, I knew that the “n word” was the orgin, but at 37 years old, I also grew up hearing tiger.
I personally find enough offensive in this world, that a simple nursery rhyme that has NO MAL INTENT in today’s usage is harmless.
There will be PLENTY for me to get my knickers in a twist about, and I guess under the guise of “picking one’s battles,” this would be towards the bottom of the list…
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 3:42 pm ¶
Nikkia wrote:
I have known about the n-word version of the rhyme since I was a little girl. I even had a girl say it around me when I was in high school. She was explaining to a friend that her grandfather was racist and uses the n-word version of it, but quickly explained that she wasnt racist. I’m not going to restrict my daughter from using the modern version of the rhyme because when I was little and we were playing games and trying to figure out who was ‘it’ we used the modern version of the rhyme. But I want to try to shield my daughter from other rhymes that are used today that I feel have racial overtones like baa baa black sheep. (’one for the master’……) and polly put the kettle on (’sukey take it off again’…..) I always skip over those when I read her mother goose book.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
I am a 41 year old black woman, and I never heard of the other version until reading this post. I certainly would not think any less of a parent for allowing their child to sing the tiger version.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:53 pm ¶
justamom wrote:
At what point, then, does a revised symbol (or rhyme, etc.) of racism become distanced enough from its past history to be acceptable? Does it depend on how many generations removed from the historical use of it we are? Does it depend on whether or not we can remember it being used that way? Does it depend on who is using it? I heard the racist version of this rhyme used as a child and, in fact, used it myself completely oblivious to what it was about.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 10:15 am ¶
S. Nguyen wrote:
Referring back to the Agatha Christie book, I’m pretty sure the title was “Ten Little Indians”, not “Ten Little N…”
I’m 33, and remember learning the old version from my Grandpa, not having a clue as to the significance. Where I grew up was rural and lily-white except for a handful of mixed Indians. Looking back, this is the only direct insight into my Grandpa’s racial attitudes, considering race otherwise never came up and he was otherwise a a very sweet man.
However, when I got past early elementary school and learned what n…. meant, I dropped the word and used tiger. I’m sure my parents wouldn’t have wanted me repeating the old version at school either. That being said, it’s a nursery rhyme, and like many others have mentioned above, you get past a point where people don’t even know the old versions anymore, so why be hypersensitive to something that has become fairly innocuous? There are much bigger fish to fry out there. And if I ever hear a kid using a not-so-nice version to hurt someone, they will be quickly talked to, whether they are mine or not.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 12:03 pm ¶
Nikkia wrote:
Actually, the original title of the book was Ten Little Niggers it was changed to Ten Little Indians (not much better) and then changed to ‘And Then There Were None,( which I read in high school. Excellent book!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None
I don’t think anybodys being ‘hypersensitive.’ racism is something that exist now. I have heard the n-word version of it recently and I heard it when I was young. I didn’t have the luxury of not knowing what ‘n-word’ meant. I’m sure there are children out there that know that version(We live in the south) and I certainly want to be careful when exposing my child to that. The rhyme doesn’t even sound good when you use the racist version of it. Why would you want to catch a n-word by the toe? That being said, I’m not going to stop my child from saying the tiger version if she wants to say the rhyme.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 5:42 pm ¶
Mother Laura wrote:
I am 42 and never heard the offensive version of the tiger rhyme until well into adulthood. I did hear the one about the fight, though I had forgotten until I saw it here, and am ashamed to say that I think I repeated it at some point.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 10:03 pm ¶
Scrapsbynobody wrote:
I am 40, and always knew/sang the tiger version as a child. It always puzzled me that a tiger would “holler”. Wouldn’t he roar, or growl? When I heard the racist version later on, it was like, “Oh, now THAT makes more sense.” I never gave consideration to whether or not I should use it…the tiger version I mean. I always knew the other version was very bad.
Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 3:32 pm ¶
Julie wrote:
I’m 35 and used the n-word version of the chant when I was young and didn’t know better–and it was used widely on the playground up here in the northern midwest.
And then I think about the song we used to sign called ‘Ten Little Indians,” which sometimes reverted back to the word “injuns” in certain places. Now around here we use a cleansed version when the kids sing it in class.
I’m uncomfortable just hearing either of these songs/chants because I know their history, and if I am uncomfortable, I might imagine that many Native Americans or African Americans who know the original version of them would feel negatively about them.
As a result, I know I won’t be teaching either of those songs to my son–until there’s no one around who knows the original version, it’s still a hurtful reminder.
Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 5:43 pm ¶
Lorraine wrote:
I am almost 38, and have vague memories of saying “catch a pigger” or “catch a piggy”?! in that rhyme. It was something vague like that–NEVER “tiger”.
When I grew up, I was horrified to realize what I had been taught to say, and to this day I still wonder if I am merely remembering it wrong and we really DID learn how to say the horrible version.
And to Hilary and any other parents concerned about portrayals of Native Americans–after having a Native American speaker come to speak to a group I’m associated with, I would protest loudly any activities, games, crafts used that somehow played upon our faulty perceptions of Native Americans. One thing that the speaker said was that the feathers they receive in ceremonies are a sacred, religiously significant item, and that making “indian hats” with feathers that are actually made of construction paper is beyond offensive.
but I’m not a “real” mommy, so although I can very easily say what I *would* do, I haven’t been in a situation where I’ve had to actually DO any of this, so do take my words with a grain of salt.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 8:15 pm ¶
justamom wrote:
I was four or five at the time that I remember using the racist rhyme. I did not know what the n-word meant. At some point I did understand and I quit using the rhyme. I hadn’t heard any tiger version of it at that point. I remember feeling ashamed that I had ever repeated the rhyme. I was maybe eight or nine then.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 11:34 pm ¶
DWS wrote:
I’m 43 and I remember both versions. I appreciate those of you who have uncovered the history of these “rhymes.” Parents need to be aware of the origins of them before allowing their children to recite them. Knowledge is power.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 8:22 am ¶
dave wrote:
Like many folks, I grew up knowing both versions, and I remember being chastised and corrected when using the inappropriate, racist version.
I struggle with so many of these rhymes, songs, and tales, as I, a white papa, parent my son, a black child. One that appears in some hand-me-down board books we received is “Ten Little Airplanes” which I only ever knew as “Ten Little Indians” growing up.
I stand firmly on the side of not repeating the racist versions of such rhymes, even as I’m sure that one day my son will recite the airplanes with someone else who will say the offensive version of it. At that point, it will become a learning opportunity.
As for eeny meeny miney moe, we quickly abandonned it for “bubble gum, bubble gum in a dish…” which called for a response from whoever it stopped on. Clever as I was, however, I still learned how to rig it!
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 12:44 am ¶
DO wrote:
We shouldn’t think that the sanitized version of an originally racist rhyme is okay. For many adults, even the sanitized version evokes the racist imagery. More children than we think are probably learning the racist version as well, and they will be teaching our children that version. In any case, its use maintains and reproduces a system of racial oppression in indirect and unconscious ways. Allowing its use in light of knowing its history suggests a refusal to face up to that history and its consequences today.
That said, I would explain to my daughter why it is problematic and insist that she not use it. If we are to raise children who are truly anti-racist then we need to teach them how to recognize and critique racism and white privilege in our everyday lives.
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 8:06 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
According to Wikipedia, various non-racist versions without ‘tiger’ are older than the racist one. The racist one seems unknown in England entirely, where it seems to have its origin. So it’s irrelevant that ‘tiger’ doesn’t appear in any written source other than ones later than documented racist versions.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 10:09 am ¶
mb wrote:
I am 25 and this is the first I’ve heard of another version of the “tiger” rhyme. Neither of my parents, in their late 50s one from CT and the other VA, had ever heard of the offensive version either.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶
Cookie wrote:
I’m 31, and I know the racist version, but did not use it when I was growing up because my mother did not allow it.
As far as your question about if you made a big deal about nothing. My answer is yes.
Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 12:00 am ¶
JustMe wrote:
Wow, I can’t believe people get all uptight about the changed version to the point where you’d actually expose your children to racist views and terms just to explain to them that something that has no context for them is something horrible in your mind. How does that make sense? The “tiger” version has been used for decades now, and my generation is probably the last that even knows another version was used (I’m 36, and we never used that version, it was taught to me by my grandfather under the loud protests of my grandmother, both of whom passed away many years ago already, so the last generation that even used that version is on their deathbed). Why would you taint your child’s innocence by exposing them to such ideas that any other version ever existed? I think I’ve been exposed to far more racism by people going out of their way to “shelter” others from racism by pointing out how bad something that sounds completly innocuous to a child is all because in some distant past, when attitudes were very different, another word was used that has long since been replaced. Ever heard the phrase, “More hindrance than help?” It applies here.
Posted 15 Nov 2007 at 7:45 pm ¶
Zack wrote:
I suppose we shouldn’t read Othello either?
Posted 17 Nov 2007 at 10:21 am ¶
Hana wrote:
I’m 47 and the only version I’ve ever heard is with the word “tiger”, although immediately upon reading the post, I was not surprised that it had different origins. Perhaps exposure to the different versions of it is related to where one grew up? Whether racist words were used in the home one grew up in? I don’t know.
Never thought about the 5 Little Monkeys song before either. Can anyone shed light on this?
It’s true that many nursery rhymes contain euphemisms for all kinds of things like disease, political oppression, etc. But I think that I would think differently about those that contain references that are still “fresh” in our history and could be offensive to one’s neighbors because of what it might personally mean to them, vs. rhymes that come from long ago times and faraway places, whose references are more obscure and faded by now.
Posted 17 Nov 2007 at 11:46 am ¶
Miriam in NJ wrote:
One of the things I’m noticing in terms of replies is an oft-repeated worry about destroying the “innocence” of childhood–or of giving children information about racism and history that they’re not yet old enough or mature enough to understand.
I’d argue that it’s worth thinking about the ways in which this “innocence” is a sign of racial privilege, as parents of White children can usually feel confident that their children aren’t going to be directly exposed to racism aimed at *them*, nor are they likely to feel they *have* to explain racism.
Questioning this privilege–and going to the sometimes uncomfortable places it takes us–can be a really good thing, both for ourselves and our children (who we may find aren’t as “innocent” as we might think).
Posted 27 Nov 2007 at 8:49 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
I think once someone learns the racist origin, there’s no excuse for continuing the cleaned up version. It’s nothing but backsliding. It’s like if you didn’t know the word nigger was bad, then you find out but keep using it anyway because you never meant it to be bad at the beginning. And the term political correctness is bogus — to abandon the rude nursery rhyme altogether is simply polite, not political. You can be rude or polite, take your pick. I used to say the words “gyp” and “gypped” all the time, until I found out where it comes from, now I only say “ripoff,” “rooked,” etc. There’s plenty of other words and rhymes you can find, you don’t have to handcuff yourself ones out of habit, I mean we’re better than that.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 11:20 am ¶