Patterico's Pontifications

3/15/2021

North Carolina Teacher: Hey, Kids, Great Job On Your Pro-Slavery Tweets!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:52 am



[guest post by Dana]

It’s 2021. How on earth does a trained teacher think this is a good idea? Especially on the heels of Black History Month:

The mock Twitter posts were taped to a wall inside a North Carolina elementary school, written in the careful penmanship of fourth-graders.

“You may not agree with slavery but I do and I’m honest about it. #SlaveryforLife,” read one, above the made-up account name @dontStopSlavery. Said another, using the handle @Confederate4life: “Why do we need to leave the country? We can stay and our slaves! #SLAVERYFOREVER.”

The messages were the result of an assignment asking Waxhaw Elementary School students to write tweets that North Carolina residents might have posted if Twitter had existed in the Civil War era. Initially, the school about 20 miles south of Charlotte shared a photograph of the “Civil War Twitter Board” on Facebook, writing in the caption that the fourth-grade students “picked the tweet they were most proud of” for the display.

school

school

Thinking that this particular assignment would be an effective way for students to learn about *North Carolina’s* history during the Civil War era leads me to believe that the teacher should not be in the classroom. Moreover, that the school posted photos of the “tweets” on Facebook leads me to believe that it wasn’t just the teacher who approved of the project. Depending on their size, school districts either have a dedicated Communication Officer responsible for managing all district social media accounts or on-site teachers are paid a stipend to be the technology liaison for their site. Regardless of who it was that posted the assignment results on Facebook, it demonstrated an utter lack of discretion and sensitivity. How could they *not* know that parents and community members, especially those in the Black community, would be offended by the assignment and its involvement of young children? I don’t think that it was necessarily just an error in judgment, however. There remains the possibility that the teacher knew exactly what she was doing, and didn’t care who might be hurt as a result. I don’t know. But because children were involved, I am not inclined to give any adult involved the benefit of the doubt. Also, why did none of the other adults on campus protest? Surely, fellow teachers, custodians, and perhaps even an administrator had been in the classroom while the project was displayed on the walls.

You can read North Carolina’s Essential Standards: Fourth Grade Social Studies here. Excerpt:

The historical significance of various statues in North Carolina.

For example: The statue of the confederate soldier outside the Old State Capitol building is significant because it represents the confederacy and honors the lives of the southern men who fought for the Confederacy.

It should be noted that “the school is 20 minutes from the Monroe County Courthouse, where a Confederate monument has stood since 1910, and last year, a Union County school board member resigned after making racist posts on social media”. This helps to inform us of the region’s climate, even today. Also, 10.2% of the student population at the school are Black.

It’s sad too that there were no tweets against slavery in the Facebook post:

The “tweets,” which were taped to the classroom wall, do not mention any historical figure by name. None of the ones highlighted on the school’s Facebook page were anti-slavery. FOX 46 asked which historical figures the “tweets” were supposed to represent but did not get an answer.

Finally, district superintendent Andrew G. Houlihan issued a public apology to students, staff, and parents:

–Dana

41 Responses to “North Carolina Teacher: Hey, Kids, Great Job On Your Pro-Slavery Tweets!”

  1. Improving race relations one step at a time!

    Dana (fd537d)

  2. Teaching children about bad things in our national past should not require encouraging children to justify bad things in our national past.

    None of the ones highlighted on the school’s Facebook page were anti-slavery.

    It would be interesting to know the reason: Because of the teacher’s selection? Because of how she framed the exercise? Or worse: because the children were already conditioned to take a pro-slavery side?

    It’s astounding that anyone would have thought it’s all very innocent.

    Radegunda (f4d5c0)

  3. Seems like the only thing the teacher did wrong was not include proper context for the social media post.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  4. I don’t know if I agree, Time123. The assignments are there for everyone to see, and the teacher made no effort – that I’m aware of or could find – to correct any possible misconceptions.

    Dana (fd537d)

  5. I don’t know if I agree, Time123. The assignments are there for everyone to see, and the teacher made no effort – that I’m aware of or could find – to correct any possible misconceptions.

    Dana (fd537d) — 3/15/2021 @ 12:30 pm

    Are we agreed that an assignment to 4th graders to understand the perspective and motivations of the secessionists is appropriate? I assume that we are, but that the objection is sharing the output in a vacuum.

    I agree the school should have made that more clear. But, IMO that’s not a particularly egregious screw up.

    Time123 (306531)

  6. I’ve added to the post a screenshot of the school’s now-deleted tweet about the assignment.

    Dana (fd537d)

  7. Thinking that this particular assignment would be an effective way for students to learn about *North Carolina’s* history during the Civil War era leads me to believe that the teacher should not be in the classroom.

    But That makes it clear what they were doing; asking students to show they understood the perspective of the secessionists.

    I understand why people might get upset about this. But I don’t see much difference between this and writing a short answer about why the south left the union and what their motivations were.

    Time123 (306531)

  8. Are we agreed that an assignment to 4th graders to understand the perspective and motivations of the secessionists is appropriate? I assume that we are, but that the objection is sharing the output in a vacuum.

    I agree that 4th graders need to understand the perspective and motivations of the secessionists and an assignment toward that end is good. However, judging by the results of the assignment as posted, I don’t believe the assignment accomplished that.

    Dana (fd537d)

  9. It’s my understanding that NC was pretty divided about slavery back then. People in the mountainous Western part of the state didn’t have any use for it and were mostly pro-Union. What a dumb assignment.

    JRH (52aed3)

  10. Are we agreed that an assignment to 4th graders to understand the perspective and motivations of the secessionists is appropriate? I assume that we are, but that the objection is sharing the output in a vacuum.

    I agree that 4th graders need to understand the perspective and motivations of the secessionists and an assignment toward that end is good. However, I am not convinced that this assignment sought to do that.

    Dana (fd537d) — 3/15/2021 @ 12:43 pm

    But doesn’t your update make it clear that was the purpose of the assignment? What am I missing?

    Time123 (306531)

  11. It’s my understanding that NC was pretty divided about slavery back then. People in the mountainous Western part of the state didn’t have any use for it and were mostly pro-Union. What a dumb assignment.

    JRH (52aed3) — 3/15/2021 @ 12:44 pm

    Those tweets are a pretty spot on modern interpretation of why the left the union.

    Time123 (306531)

  12. Time123,

    Why do you think there were no tweets on display that voiced disapproval about slavery? Do you think there were any? And if there were some, why weren’t they on display? There were other people besides slave owners that were anti-slavery at the time (Quakers, Levi Coffin, anti-slavery movement in NC). Were they taught about this?

    Dana (fd537d)

  13. Also, if the assignment was not a foolish one, as well as being inflammatory, why do you think the tweet was deleted and the superintendent had to come out and apologize. Schools are, to varying degrees, functioning organs of political persuasions, and the fact is that the optics of this assignment are terrible.

    Dana (fd537d)

  14. future headline: “student kicked out of harvard for grade school assignment written when he was ten”

    schools are forcing discussions of race on fourth graders, most of whom are too young to process it, and are surprised when they don’t get the right answers

    indoctrination works better once they hit eighth grade but schools are afraid kids have already started thinking for themselves by then so it’s just way too late

    JF (3efb60)

  15. Have just been educating myself a little bit. It seems the unionists in the western part of NC wanted NC to stay in the Union *because* they thought it was the best way to preserve slavery. They thought a Civil War the best way to destroy slavery. (This is at odds with what I was taught growing up.). I need to do some reading.

    JRH (52aed3)

  16. Tomorrow’s assignment:

    Good Nazis!

    “I see nothing!” – Sergeant Hans Schultz [John Banner] ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ CBS TV, 1965-71

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  17. Also, if the assignment was not a foolish one, as well as being inflammatory, why do you think the tweet was deleted and the superintendent had to come out and apologize. Schools are, to varying degrees, functioning organs of political persuasions, and the fact is that the optics of this assignment are terrible.

    Dana (fd537d) — 3/15/2021 @ 1:04 pm

    I assume the tweet was deleted because of the negative attention it’s getting. I think it was a boneheaded mistake not to make it more clear what the assignment appears to have been. As you said, the optics were terrible.

    As to your other point about the diversity of thought. That’s probably more complex then they’re getting to in 4th grade. Based on what my kids are taught at that point they’re focusing on the main themes and causes and spending less time on the exceptions and nuances. It’s mostly true that the South Seceded to preserve slavery, so that’s what they focused on.

    Time123 (306531)

  18. future headline: “student kicked out of harvard for grade school assignment written when he was ten”

    schools are forcing discussions of race on fourth graders, most of whom are too young to process it, and are surprised when they don’t get the right answers

    indoctrination works better once they hit eighth grade but schools are afraid kids have already started thinking for themselves by then so it’s just way too late

    JF (3efb60) — 3/15/2021 @ 1:06 pm

    How would you explain the causes of the Civil War without talking about race?

    Time123 (306531)

  19. Have just been educating myself a little bit. It seems the unionists in the western part of NC wanted NC to stay in the Union *because* they thought it was the best way to preserve slavery. They thought a Civil War the best way to destroy slavery. (This is at odds with what I was taught growing up.). I need to do some reading.

    JRH (52aed3) — 3/15/2021 @ 1:14 pm

    I learned something new. thank you.

    Time123 (306531)

  20. People in the mountainous Western part of the state didn’t have any use for it and were mostly pro-Union.

    As late as 1850, most southerners were pro-Union. The wheels came off when it became clear that, sooner or later — given the expansion westward — the votes would be there to end slavery. Even then the benefits of Union outweighed the slavery interest in many places, but the issue had become emotional. Why, for example, did Texas care about slavery?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  21. Dave suggested a (Pulitzer-winning) book “The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861” on the causes of the Civil War. It was more train wreck than anything. Search for it on Amazon from Pat’s link.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  22. ……..The campaign for the convention was characterized by resignation rather than enthusiasm. Both Unionists and secessionists spoke of the need to act in the face of northern aggression. The major debate-whether North Carolina should separate based on “the right of revolution,” as some Unionists advocated, or on the Calhounian doctrine of secession-was over. The radical secessionists favored the latter position.

    A total of 122 Democratic and Whig delegates, 108 of whom were native North Carolinians, gathered on 20 May 1861. The delegates held an average of 30.5 slaves each, with the median being 21, which meant that over one-half of the delegates belonged to the small planter class. Sixty-eight delegates had attended college, making them far better educated than those who had elected them. The average personal and real property per delegate was valued at $61,817, placing them among the wealthy citizens of the state.

    The convention elected Weldon N. Edwards, a Democratic planter from Warren County, as president. (Edwards defeated William A. Graham of Orange County.) Edwards gave a speech denouncing continued connection with the “Black Republican Union.” Onetime Unionist George E. Badger introduced a resolution for separation from the Union based on the right of revolution. An alternate ordinance, simply dissolving the Union and representing the radical position, was proposed by Burton Craige of Rowan County. The Badger proposal was defeated by a vote of 72 to 40. An attempt to modify the Craige ordinance failed. The convention then unanimously passed the ordinance of secession and voted to accept the provisional Constitution of the Confederate States of America. As requested by Governor Ellis, the convention agreed not to put the secession ordinance to a popular vote. On 21 May 1861 the ordinance was signed and President Jefferson Davis proclaimed North Carolina a Confederate state.

    Source

    Interestingly, the North Carolina secession ordinance makes no reference to slavery or oppression by the Federal Government.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  23. @18 if you saw my fourth grader’s ELA assignment today you wouldn’t ask that

    she’s not learning about the civil war, maybe that’s fifth grade

    she’s learning about the boycotts in the south during the 1960s which she cannot process except as just another reading assignment, not because she’s not bright but because she’s ten

    if she had an assignment like this even in the proper context I cannot say for sure she wouldn’t write embarrassing cancel fodder, again not because she’s not bright but because she’s ten

    JF (3efb60)

  24. if she had an assignment like this even in the proper context I cannot say for sure she wouldn’t write embarrassing cancel fodder, again not because she’s not bright but because she’s ten

    Why, but this goes to her moral makeup and no doubt her parent’s beliefs! If she weren’t a member of the white oppressor class, she’d already know the true facts about inherent racism.

    [insert several pages of critical race theory and the need for oligarchical collectivism.]

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. JRH (52aed3) — 3/15/2021 @ 1:14 pm

    It seems the unionists in the western part of NC wanted NC to stay in the Union *because* they thought it was the best way to preserve slavery. They thought a Civil War the best way to destroy slavery. (This is at odds with what I was taught growing up.). I need to do some reading.

    North Carolina was one of the four states to secede later after the original seven: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. It seceded only after the inauguration of President Lincoln and Ft. Sumter – in fact only more than a month after Virginia had. Attempts to have Kentucky and Missouri secede were stopped. Kentuxcky tries to be neutral. The western parts of Virginia seceded from the state and was admitted to the Union as a separate state in 1863.

    About the pro-slavery argument against secession.

    his was what Abraham Lincoln said:

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

    …Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property [in arguing, they always called slaves property] and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, [what John Brown did, that is] no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

    I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.

    There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

    No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

    It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution–to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

    There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

    Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?

    I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional…

    [He speaks against the idea of secession and against the idea of the Sureme Court deciding thingsfor the entire nation as the result of private litigation]

    One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

    Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you….

    Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44)

  26. Of course, this speech didn’t work.

    Secession wasn’t about slavery – it was about what political offices defenders of slavery – and no white person in the south could not defend slavery after the 1840s – could aspire to.

    Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44)

  27. JRH wrote:

    It’s my understanding that NC was pretty divided about slavery back then. People in the mountainous Western part of the state didn’t have any use for it and were mostly pro-Union. What a dumb assignment.

    Not just North Carolina, but this was also true in Kentucky — which never seceded — Tennessee and the western part of Virginia, which became the separate Union state of West Virginia in 1863.

    The Appalachians, if not as towering as the Rocky Mountains, are still very much up-and-down; you’re either going uphill or you’re going downhill, and the flat land in between the hills is scarce. Larger farms and plantations, the kinds of places in which slavery could be useful, just aren’t found in significant numbers in the Appalachians.

    The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0)

  28. Mr 123 asked:

    How would you explain the causes of the Civil War without talking about race?

    You can’t. The only thing you can say is that the South was evil, evil, evil, because if you attempt to introduce any nuance, you are the most horrible racist ever, and subject to termination and ostracism.

    Today’s woke don’t do nuance.

    The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0)

  29. Lincoln did want to get the idea across that slavery was on a an inevitable course toward extinction. Just that was enough for him.

    As for this North Carolina assignment this has elementary school students coming up with their own ideas, rather than rephrasing real 1860-61 newspaper editorials as tweets.

    Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44)

  30. It was evil, or rather had perverted morality, where evil had settled in as good and nobody was allowed to argue otherwise.

    They went from not being able to criticize slavery to not being able to criticize secession and doomed themselves to a terrible war.

    Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44)

  31. 28. The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0) — 3/15/2021 @ 2:29 pm

    Today’s woke don’t do nuance.

    Today’s woke don;t believe in censorship, where people get told what not to say or words get stricken. They believe in purges from the public square. A person is either OK, or to be shunned. People may engage in SELF-CENSORSHIP, but the woke do not believe in censorship and allow no recanting.

    And they treat anything that is a matter of controversy like it happened yesterday. Even if it came up before and was handled. Attitudes change in two years.

    Sammy Finkelman (e5fb44)

  32. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    Secession wasn’t about slavery – it was about what political offices defenders of slavery – and no white person in the south could not defend slavery after the 1840s – could aspire to.

    South Carolina had a budding secessionist movement beginning in 1832:

    By the 1820s South Carolina had become, through the use of slave labor, the largest and wealthiest cotton-producing and-exporting state. But the desire of northern states for tariff protection for its manufacturers threatened South Carolina’s and other slave states’ dependence on a free market for the exportation of cotton. Vice President John C. Calhoun took the covert, and later overt, lead in the antitariff struggle. His 1832 nullification doctrine of state interposition of the federal tariff delivered the state’s first threat of secession from the Union.

    During the nullification crisis of 1832–1833, South Carolina failed to persuade other slave states of the graveness of the situation, and its leaders were divided over how to defend the state’s interests without support from the rest of the South. The crisis subsided shortly thereafter, but tensions over the need to protect slavery did not end. During the 1840s state leaders such as Governor James Henry Hammond and Robert Barnwell Rhett, with his organ the radical Charleston Mercury, once again advocated the secession of South Carolina. Rhett’s secessionist so-called Bluffton Movement of 1844 failed to convince either South Carolinians or other southern states of the dangers to their way of life.

    Much of the Palmetto State’s economy depended upon slavery, and even though there was no question of abolition in 1832 — Andrew Jackson, himself a slave owner, was President at the time — the tariff threatened the state’s economy. Even a white family which did not own slaves had a vested interest in slavery, because the economy of the state depended upon it.

    Regardless of the Civil War, slavery was eventually doomed by the industrial revolution. It provided labor, certainly enough, but it was horribly inefficient labor.

    The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0)

  33. Mr Finkelman noted President Lincoln’s inaugural address, given March 4, 1861, but I would point out that South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10, 1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861), and Texas (February 1, 1861) had all declared secession before President Lincoln took office.

    The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0)

  34. I think the educationally significant part is that in 1860 America not only there was no Twitter but that South of the Mason-Dixon Line only 3% of the population, if that, had achieved 4th grade literacy. (Ducks)

    nk (1d9030)

  35. Mr 123 asked:

    How would you explain the causes of the Civil War without talking about race?

    You can’t. The only thing you can say is that the South was evil, evil, evil, because if you attempt to introduce any nuance, you are the most horrible racist ever, and subject to termination and ostracism.

    Today’s woke don’t do nuance.

    The Dana in Kentucky (fa23a0) — 3/15/2021 @ 2:29 pm

    Obviously, you have to talk about race if you are talking about the causes of the Civil War. However, if said talks in the classroom result in students tweeting offensive crap about the wonders of slavery and then put on display, then to me it evidences that those talks were ineffective at the very least. It would concern me as a parent that their perception of slavery was not as accurate as it needed to be.

    Of course, the South’s view of slavery was evil. That they were willing to go to war over the issue only further evidenced that.

    Dana (fd537d)

  36. Systemic racism is definitely not a real thing.

    Dave (1bb933)

  37. Man, I was like “I can see the educational value in seeing things from all sides (in a history class)” but none of them were anti-slavery? That’s really surprising.

    nate (1f1d55)

  38. Kevin M – with respect to Texas, Texan sentiment was by no means uniform, and in fact the Governor opposed secession, denied that the convention which authorized secession had the power to authorize joining the confederacy, and was removed from power by the legislature when he refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the confederacy.

    What makes it even more striking is that he was the hero of the revolution.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  39. Just a general FYI:

    4th grade is state history, so your 4th grader is likely to learn anything significant that happened in local state history, so most southern states would talk about the Civil War and slavery while most western and even many northern states wouldn’t necessarily cover the Civil War. CA, for example, is very much missions and the gold rush and very little the Civil War.

    As for this particular assignment, if it was an actual variety of opinions regarding slavery and secession and the Civil War, as it would’ve been at the time, that would’ve been one thing, but all pro-slavery? That’s serious side-eye territory.

    Nic (896fdf)

  40. bviously, you have to talk about race if you are talking about the causes of the Civil War. However, if said talks in the classroom result in students tweeting offensive crap about the wonders of slavery and then put on display, then to me it evidences that those talks were ineffective at the very least. It would concern me as a parent that their perception of slavery was not as accurate as it needed to be.

    Of course, the South’s view of slavery was evil. That they were willing to go to war over the issue only further evidenced that.

    Dana (fd537d) — 3/15/2021 @ 3:18 pm

    I can’t read the Wapo piece so i’m going by the other links. Let me know if they have additional information that should change what I’m thinking. Really informative post btw.

    Below is the assignment the school handed out.
    First, they didn’t tweet these out, the wrote them on note cards and stuck them to a wall that would should put the assignment into context.
    Second, I can only make out one of the actual cards that were shared on social media.

    The assumptions I’m making here is that the school isn’t run by unapologetic racists/morons and that the actual assignment is similar to ones my kids have had where they have to put the position of a historical figure into their own words. I don’t have a problem with that. Understanding why the South seceded, or why the Reich pursued their final solution is valuable and should be part of the curriculum in an age appropriate way. If you wanted to simplify the causes of the civil war down to the forth grade level “Slavery” is the right answer.

    Following Black History Month, fourth graders at Waxhaw Elementary were told to make up tweets from the point-of-view of a historical figure. In the Facebook post, which has since been deleted, the school says students “studied North Carolinians that had different roles and perspectives on the Civil War.

    One student wrote on paper the handle “@dontStopSlavery” and said, “you may not agree with slavery but I do and I’m honest about it. #Slaveryforlife” Another student chose the name “Confederate4life” and wrote, “why do we need to leave the county. We can stay and our slaves! #SLAVERYFOREVER.”

    Time123 (36651d)

  41. 37. There were maybe some white people in the South who were against slavery in 1860, but they kept it strictly to themselves. Northern visitors mostly did too. It had been that way for close to 25 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (ff268d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1432 secs.