Are you the one who put the black paper dolls in the newspaper? Well, that's not cute! That's not cute! You hurt a lot of people. That's not cute!" scolded the woman on the telephone, identifying herself as African-American, but not sharing her name.

"Those paper dolls were offensive," said another caller, who also did not identify herself. "I'm white. ... and I'm offended."

They were referring to a Washington Post story and photos that ran in the Living section two weeks ago. The illustrations showed historic black paper dolls, part of an exhibition currently running at the Smithsonian's Anacostia Community Museum; it's a center in Washington, D.C., dedicated to the preservation of materials related to African-American history and culture.

My response is they are both absolutely right.

Those pictures were not cute.

They were jarring; they were offensive.

As much as the notion of paper-doll-playing might suggest "sweet and innocent," history is not so sweet and innocent.

What do we gain, however, if we pretend it never existed? Does a newspaper shy away from presenting what is objectionable because it makes us uncomfortable? Do we refuse to share information with our readers about an exhibit because it lacks a "feel-good" quality?

The second caller said newspapers should be publishing stories that are "geared to fifth-graders." Her claim was most readers are not able to discern the point of the exhibition is to generate discussion and to educate.

I disagree. I believe just about every person who reads the Living section is considerably more intelligent than she gives them credit for being. I think most readers would be miffed — and bored — if our stories were written "down."

The first caller said she didn't think black children should have to see those pictures of paper dolls depicted as barefoot field workers in tattered clothes ... "This hurts them," she said.

I don't know their identities, but I have no doubt she and the second caller are wonderful, caring people.

Pretending our history never happened, however, has the potential to hurt the children more.

Imagine how easy it is for youth to be indoctrinated with feelings of superiority or inferiority when their very playthings cast them in those positions.

Just because those paper dolls were sketched with big smiles on their faces doesn't mean blacks enjoyed their roles as servants to families such as "Katy of Kentucky."

Parents should use those images as an opportunity to talk about race relations in the past and present, as well as what they want for their children's futures.

It's a discussion parents ought to be having anyway, about the way human beings have not always treated one another with respect, and about why we need to love all of humankind.

Would those callers propose we never run a story or photos on an exhibit at the Holocaust Museum?

Do we take a scissors to the parts of history that make us squirm?

I say we NEED to depict history as it was — even in its hate and haughtiness and repulsion — so that we never ever repeat it.

Let's not become so comfortable, so protected, so uninformed, so apathetic or so tender that we ignore or cut out the truth.

And let's most certainly not expect that from a newspaper!

Anne Koenig is editor of the Living section. Her e-mail address is akoenig@lnpnews.com.