
Long Live Mister Rogers' Quiet Revolution - pepys
https://daily.jstor.org/long-live-mister-rogers-quiet-revolution
======
classichasclass
I grew up on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood; it was still in production when I was a
child.

I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it
papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded. As if children's perception,
compared to adults, is particularly realistic, deep or stable! What adult
worries about going down the drain after a bath? Who understands the deep,
existential angst a child feels looking over the precipice as the two most
important people in their lives "suddenly" aren't together anymore? Rogers'
genius was to take what was meaningful to a child and speak frankly about
that. He never belittled those anxieties; he merely explained them and what
they could do. And if there wasn't anything they could actually do, he could
at least convince them the world would not end.

The show represented an idealism that you just don't see anymore. I was too
young to have seen the episodes first-run where black community members were
simply introduced, without fanfare, but that's exactly how he would have done
it. Of _course_ black people live in our city. Lots of people live in our
city. They're just like you and me. They have the same jobs and live in the
same houses because _why shouldn 't they?_ It wasn't polarized or political,
it wasn't beating people over the head for not believing what he believed. It
was simply matter-of-fact.

When he did the Emmys in 1997, you saw that idealism in practice. Of _course_
there are special people in your lives who brought you to where you are today.
Why _wouldn 't_ you honour them? And people obeyed, for he was right. (If you
don't know this story, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#Emmys_for_programm...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#Emmys_for_programming)
.)

I have a DVD of some of the episodes with a little toy cardigan wrapped around
them. I was quite upset when he passed away, even with a graduate degree by
then.

As a moral authority, there couldn't have been one much better in the United
States.

~~~
neaden
I agree. In terms of being unrealistic I think it is important that we have to
be able to picture a better world if we are going to obtain it. You want kids
to know that certain things don't have to be the way they are, that the world
can be a different place.

~~~
gerbilly
Exactly.

Another notable show that tried to represent the future 'as it should be' was
Star Trek.

It had a Russian and a black woman as officers an 'alien' as 2nd in command
etc...

~~~
creep
Star Trek, to me, is more realistic to the inner workings of ourselves as
social members and as individual minds/hearts than any other program that has
before or since existed. It shows what the unknown feels like, it shows how
each person is not only a member of the whole but also a complete whole in and
of themselves, it shows not only compassion when things go wrong but also
justice (angry justice or not). Everything is there on the final frontier!
Literally the limits of human attainment and a drama within that exact
scenario.

~~~
skookumchuck
Star Trek has a lot of great aspects, but its model of utopian society is the
"benevolent dictator" one. Captain Kirk is the dictator - he's brave,
benevolent, incorruptible, and fixes everyone's problems by decree. His
minions utterly lack ambition and selfish desires, and are ideally altruistic
members of the collective.

It's a nice fantasy, but completely unworkable.

~~~
Jtsummers
Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally
the dictator of their vessel.

There are certainly valid criticisms of the quasi-utopian vision of society in
Star Trek, but that one ship was not meant as a model or microcosm of how the
whole of their society was run. Just one aspect.

~~~
skookumchuck
> Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally
> the dictator of their vessel.

That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the
perfect society. I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to
create the perfect society.

~~~
Jtsummers
> That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the
> perfect society.

My perspective: I grew up in and around the military, I understand military
command structures and I see them as distinct from our overall society. That
doesn't mean that there is no place for that sort of structure _within_ a
society. Star Trek always appeared to me as representing that military
structure within the overall structure of the Federation's society. In fact,
most members of the Federation were not members of anything military-like (or
so it's claimed in the show, you don't really see too much outside the ship
and non-Federation planets). The ship, the Enterprise, never seemed like a
metaphor for anything (the Federation, on the other hand, was clearly meant as
an analog to the the US and most of Western Europe, or the direction
Rodenberry thought they were headed).

> I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to create the
> perfect society.

I do not doubt that you've seen this. But I've, personally, only heard and
read people reference the _Federation_ as a perfect society, not the
_Enterprise_. Until today.

~~~
skookumchuck
> Until today.

Not much is ever seen of the Federation in ST. But the parent I replied to,
and its parent, are referring to the Enterprise.

Also, when I've seen references to ST as the model of utopia, Captain Kirk is
often talked about front and center. Clearly, they are referring to the
society on the Enterprise.

You can also see in this article cited later in this discussion:

[http://grantland.com/features/next-generation-
turns-25/](http://grantland.com/features/next-generation-turns-25/)

with quotes like this:

"and Picard’s personification of enlightened humanism"

~~~
kolpa
Picard was a model of a good leader. That doesn't mean a spaceship command is
a model for how all society functions.

------
hprotagonist
Besides the senate testimony linked in this article, my favorite Mr. Rogers
fact is this:

He would help move freshman into CMU and Pitt dorms every year, because he
lived only a few miles away _and he wanted to welcome them to his actual
neighborhood_.

How cool would it have been to look up from figuring out where to put your bag
of clothes to see Fred Rogers holding a box of your books...

~~~
mcgrath_sh
This story [1] from Anthony Breznican stuck with me after he shared it on
twitter. I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come
across as insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other
“celebrity”. However, that was the power of Mister Rodgers. He could connect
with anyone and made everyone feel like they genuinely mattered to him.

I grew up in Pittsburgh and was in a Catholic Grade School when he died. We
held a special memorial mass for him because of the impact he had on both our
city and kids generally. I can’t think of anyone else that would be done for,
not even Dan Rooney or Mario Lemieux. Mister Rodgers was one of a kind.

[1] [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-
now/2017/05/23/mr...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-
now/2017/05/23/mr-rogers-story-probably-make-you-cry/340111001/)

~~~
sdrothrock
> I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come across as
> insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other “celebrity”.

On the one hand, I think Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being. What I say
next is not meant to detract from that in any way at all.

I don't think Fred Rogers was special.

Anyone can do what he did; the problem is that most people simply don't want
to, I think. We've been taught that that kind of behavior is tiring, that we
deserve "me" time and thoughts, that the public space is also "our" space.

When I think about Fred Rogers, my mental image is that service is first, then
celebrity came from that consistent service. Any modern day celebrity could
slowly take on a Fred Rogers-like image if they chose to consistently and
wholly devote themselves to kindness and service.

In the beginning, it may seem insincere, but then as it continued
consistently, I think that sincerity would be born from that consistency.
Especially if they ceased other commercial activities or used those activities
solely to plainly drive their service.

Edit: I've been reading the Esquire article about him
([https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-
say-...](https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-say-hero-
esq1198/)) and interestingly enough, there's a quote about this: "You would
think it would be easy by now, being Mister Rogers; you would think that one
morning he would wake up and think, Okay, all I have to do is be nice for my
allotted half hour today, and then I'll just take the rest of the day off . .
. But no, Mister Rogers is a stubborn man"

~~~
a3n
> I don't think Fred Rogers was special. Anyone can do what he did ...

He's special because he stepped up and did it.

~~~
jstarfish
In this day and age though, who would want to?

Everybody has skeletons in their closet. Lots of people have tried to dig up
dirt on Mr. Rogers' saintly image, but failed.

Meanwhile, Melanie Martinez, the host on PBS' "The Good Night Show" for
children got canned when some "offensive" humor video she had made prior to
her position surfaced. Her on-air personality was perfectly congenial.

Mr. Rogers only worked because he was less human than the rest of us. He never
slipped up. We never caught him picking up hookers by the docks. We could
never find a reason to take him down.

------
fixermark
I moved to Pittsburgh for school, and became interested in the 'mythology'
that had grown up around Fred Rogers. In particular, there's an anecdote that
gets shared around that his car once got stolen, but it ended up parked back
in the spot a few days later with a note on the dash that said "If I'd known
whose it was, I wouldn't have taken it!"

As best I can tell, that one's just an urban legend. But what I discovered
most surprisingly poring over the newspaper clippings and books is that almost
everything else I'd heard isn't. Of every childhood hero I had, Fred Rogers is
the only one who turned out to be exactly who that child thought he was. And
more than that: his work was driven from both his education in theology as a
Presbyterian minister and his tutelage under Dr. Margaret McFarland, child
psychologist and associate professor at University of Pittsburgh. His show's
content and structure was grounded in those philosophical and scientific
foundations.

My favorite anecdote I can source
([http://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/mr_rodney/index.html](http://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/mr_rodney/index.html)):
Burger King ran an ad campaign for a bit in '84 that featured a 'Mr Rodney'
parody taking shots at McDonald's for inferior quality. Fred Rogers contacted
Burger King's SVP, Don Dempsey, and simply asked the ad be pulled, because he
was concerned it'd be confusing to children.

BK yanked the ad. As news sources quoted Mr. Dempsey, "Mister Rogers is one
guy you don't want to mess with."

~~~
majos
> Of every childhood hero I had, Fred Rogers is the only one who turned out to
> be exactly who that child thought he was.

Same. I like to think I'm not so wrapped up in the characters of celebrities,
but a scandal around Mr. Rogers would be a _serious_ bummer.

------
pc2g4d
I literally lived in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

As a Mormon missionary I lived in Latrobe, PA in a house just neighboring a
house Fred Rogers had lived in growing up. Latrobe was a quaint town with the
sort of mailman and library and cute little streets that I remembered from
"Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood". It was a well-ordered place in many ways (though
obviously with its own intrigues and local politics---people are people.) But
I could see that the show in many ways portrayed a not-that-idealized version
of a real place. To those who call it "unrealistic" I say that there actually
are lovely places and people in this world, and especially in the eyes of a
compassionate and loving person like Fred Rogers we can make our communities
and countries better and more beautiful.

I was living in Latrobe at the time of Rogers' death. We attended a memorial
service his Latrobe connections held in his honor, and the esteem he was held
in there was substantial.

The article is a good reminder of the power of a positive vision and of
consistency and compassion to make islands of love in this divisive human
existence. A very timely message indeed.

~~~
harleypig
I served in the Pitt Mission from 89-91. He had the missionaries for dinner
every few months.

I had the honor of being one of those missionaries, though at the time I
thought he was condescending. I've come to realize he was, but not the
negative kind. He was a genuinely kind and compassionate man.

The only thing I remember about that dinner was his opinion on our missionary
service, which was that even though we were misguided, our hearts were good
and God counted that. He sincerely prayed for our success as well as our
conversion. I left a very humbled young man.

------
exolymph
When I feel sad and frustrated, I watch the melodysheep remix of Mr. Rogers:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM)

Definitely read the Esquire profile of him:
[https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-
say-...](https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-say-hero-
esq1198/)

Honestly, I recommend reading everything you possibly can about Mr. Rogers. I
never watched his show as a kid, but I still idolize him. Stories of his life
and doings are good for the heart.

~~~
dwighttk
I recently listened to the audiobook of The Simple Faith of Mr. Rogers. It's
good:

[https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-simple-faith-of-
mister-...](https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-simple-faith-of-mister-
rogers-amy-hollingsworth/1111012865#/)

------
bitwize
Were he a Catholic, Fred Rogers would have by this point been beatified if not
fully canonized. Few people within living memory exemplified the values
Christianity purports to teach as thoroughly as he. If his approach was
unrealistic, it was supposed to be. He applied a sort of extreme version of
the Kantian categorical imperative: always acting as if he were at the same
time willing that the real world be as peaceful, gentle, and tolerant as the
Neighborhood of Make-Believe.

~~~
ECrownofFire
He was actually a Presbyterian minister, and the mission that the church gave
him was to do his show. He approached everything in a way that was incredibly
kind and caring for everyone, without being preachy in the slightest. He was
even part of an LGBT outreach program at his local church! I'm not Christian
(though I did grow up with a very religious mom and nana) nor am I a
particularly religious woman, but I'm sure Fred Rogers would be chilling with
the most holy people up in heaven lol. Like I honestly think that he was one
of the most "Christ-like" people in a long time.

------
madengr
Mr. Rogers was nice and calming. So were the early Sesame Streets. Now
children’s shows are hyper and frantic, refining that 3 second attention span.

There is a congressional testimony video in that link. He was still nice and
calming speaking to an asshat politician. He is like a kid’s Carl Sagan.

If you need to de-stress, bring up Mr. Rogers.

~~~
jpm_sd
The new animated show "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" is a rare example of a
successor that is true to the spirit of the original. My kids love it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tiger%27s_Neighborhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tiger%27s_Neighborhood)

~~~
faitswulff
I think it does miss out on some aspects of Mr. Rogers's humanity, though. I
think it's harder to learn from abstract characters.

~~~
classichasclass
I agree. There's a lot to be said for a kindly human figure explaining these
(to a child) weighty topics. An anthropomorphic tiger seems to undercut the
message.

(Mind you, this is not intended to be a heavy slam on the show, which in my
limited experience is head and shoulders above what passes for children's TV
now.)

------
aklemm
I think of Mister Rogers as a towering moral authority; he is basically my
Jesus. That said, the entirety of his goodness is boiled down to his simple
commitment to taking others exactly as they are. It seems simple, but it's
magic.

------
AnimalMuppet
Obligatory XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/767/](https://xkcd.com/767/)

Be sure to read the alt-text.

------
artur_makly
I grew up with MrR. However when I try to show it to my 5yr old, he can only
sit through the factory-on-site visits ( which are very cool ) the rest he
doesnt have the patience for as those interactions can't compare to all the
hyper activity of NetFlix Kid's shows. He prefers to watch a marathon of Power
Rangers kicking ass all day long.

Is there a moder-day Mr. Rogers out there ?? If not someone please invent him.

~~~
hateful
I grew up with him also, but Mr. Rogers isn't something we'd put on and sit
and watch and do nothing else. It's something that's on while you're playing
with other things. For example, building a Lego castle while the TV is on. The
non-factory scenes are more about listening and occasionally looking up rather
than staring at. At least that's my experience.

Years ago we'd leave on the TV in the background and watch sparingly
sometimes. But now, my TV is always on-demand and if I'm not watching a series
or movie, I'm on my computer in the other room.

~~~
kolpa
A big part of Mr. Rogers appeal was back in the pre-Internet less-connected
world, he and his cast were _people_ you could see and who talked to you when
you were home alone.

------
8bitsrule
Errata: that should read: WQED and 'The Children's Corner'.
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250142/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250142/)

... the show for which Rogers created many of the later famous characters. In
between (beginning in 1961) he did over over 300 'MisteRogers' shows for CBC.

------
mfer
I have to admit that I have trouble following stories with holes in basic
details. Conclusions drawn or stitched together end up missing something or
being wrong.

Early on the story notes:

> the former Presbyterian minister

Except his biography notes:

> He graduated from the Seminary and was ordained as a Presbyterian minister
> in 1963 with a charge to continue his work with children and families
> through the mass media.

[https://www.fredrogers.org/fred-rogers/bio/](https://www.fredrogers.org/fred-
rogers/bio/)

When telling the story of someone it's important to get core characteristics
right (or try to). His belief and faith, no matter how any of us feel about
it, was part of that.

~~~
kajecounterhack
1\. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of
his show (with historical commentary).

2\. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.

~~~
mfer
A couple thoughts...

> 1\. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact
> of his show (with historical commentary).

The values of his show were part of an active ministry, not as a pastor for a
local congregation but a different form of ministry. To talk about values and
impact while not capturing where those intentionally came from is misleading
at worst and at least a poor portrayal.

> 2\. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.

This is trying to put the concept of minister into the job designations we
typically have in the current work force structure we have today. It doesn't
fit.

There are many ministers who have the job of Pastor of a church congregation.
There are some who don't have have a job doing something that is part of their
ministry.

He had an active ministry, with the Presbyterian church, to do this. If
anything we get into semantic debates on roles rather than former vs active
association.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
Interesting. I think it's a rather small mistake, which does not invalidate
the whole story, but I agree it does change the perspective somewhat.

Do you know how much he was involved in the church? Was he a member of a
presbytery? Did he attend synods or general assemblies? (I might not be using
the terms exactly correctly.)

I'm just curious, doesn't change things much either way. My grandfather was a
Presbyterian minister and very much still considered himself active after
retiring from being a pastor to a congregation – I think in large part because
he attended a lot of the organizational meetings, mentored young pastors, etc.

~~~
kolpa
Being involved in the church is lovely, but rather separate from bring a
pastor. That's the point with Mr Rogers. He was an active pastor who
ministered _outside_ church.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
Sure, agreed, I totally get that point. I was trying to figure out to what
degree he was involved in the organization and to what degree they officially
supported him, endorsed his ministry, etc.

Like I said, it wouldn't affect my high opinion of him, but it could affect my
opinion of the church somewhat. I know the church honored him when he died,
but I was curious if _they_ considered his show a Presbyterian ministry –
i.e., outside of _a church_ does not mean outside of _the church_.

------
troymc
Mister Rogers' Neighborhood first aired in 1968.

Star Trek (the original series) first aired two years later and it's often
cited as "the first" for many things. But... Mr. Rogers often did it first. He
really was a pioneer.

~~~
Jtsummers
_Star Trek_ debuted in 1966, not 1970.

