On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> Gus,
>
> It would be a rare fourth grader who would be able to read and get  
> sense out of that document.
We are there in agreement.
>
> I was thinking more that the teacher would point out that Nat  
> Turner sought to free his people from slavery, even if the attempt  
> was unsuccessful. The bloody details would not be appropriate for  
> 4th graders any more than the bloody details of other wars are  
> generally provided to this age group. It is the ideas, intents, and  
> the sincerety with which the ideals are pursued that would be of  
> interest at this age. Freedom is a powerful idea that is understood  
> at this age, and the knowledge that slaves did not quietly accept  
> their condition without any attempt at rebellion can be quite  
> comforting to those children who see the folley of one human owning  
> another.
Children can see the folly of human ownership, true. But the  
literature is replete with examples of small "rebellions" without  
bloodshed by which enslaved African-Americans coped with their lives.  
To then put that on the same footing with the intended slaughter of  
any person of another race is way beyond any moral teaching out  
there. That is the danger. You use the past as prelude. If, for some  
catastrophic reason, one of us ended in slavery, one would hope that  
actions taken to achieve freedom weren't futile, resulting in death  
and then worse for those who remained. That can be taught. But it  
needs to be taught at high school or higher where nuances can be  
dealt with. You rail against mass murder by authorities, but say it's  
OK for someone else oppressed? I think not.


> In the same grade, the children also learn about Martin Luther King  
> who achieved gave his life for his ideals which were met after his  
> death.
Putting Nat Turner on a par with MLK is as absurd as putting him on a  
par with GW & TJ. It just doesn't work. It's a very mixed message.

Lyle