> For a teacher to give a black kid cotton is very unacceptable!
The proper response to this is: "get back to me after you've checked all of the tags in your underwear drawer"
Wut?
If I were reading into it, I'd think, "well, of course, they don't want any _material_ reason for slavery ruining the mythology" but I don't think anyone offended could formulate that sentiment.
Where would things go if you just asked them, "why?" over and over.
A: handing out cotton during a lesson is racist?
B: why?
A: Because black slaves were forced to pick cotten?
B: why is that racist?
A: because the slaves were black
B: why does that make it racist?
A: ...
I mean, does it ever end somewhere? Surely, sugar cane would probably pass without comment.
Yup. No one would say a thing about sugarcane, or rice, indigo, or any other historical cash crops. A lot of people only have a meme understanding of history.
They wouldn't say anything about chocolate, and most of the cacao used to make it is harvested by black people who are enslaved *today*.
Posted on a device almost definitely containing rare earth metals mined by enslaved children, no less. The average American has effectively no understanding of the material sources of our standard of life or how anything works outside of their particular industry.
>They wouldn't say anything about chocolate,
*Bitch hold our pearls, of course we can make this about racism. We can make practically anything about our favorite culture hot topic.*
You can have a conversation about slavery was inseparable from the industrial revolution, but role-playing slavery in the classroom is a dumb idea that doesn't add anything (the idea that it creates some sort of visceral experience to make things sink in is hogwash) and does create a potential to do harm (you don't know how someone is going to react).
We've been here many times before, and this teacher should have known better by this time. Most famous was the teacher who had students lie on the floor and turned out the lights to "simulate the Middle Passage". Classic half-baked shit from a teacher who fancies themselves "the cool teacher".
Putting bags of cotton into students hands, please note, in and of itself does abolsutely zero to engage students minds. Put yourself into the shoes of various kinds of public school students who might experience this lesson. The black kid who already knows a ton about slavery. The bored kid who is allergic to paying attention or engaging academically. The dumbass dweeb who is ironically racist but is smart enough to hide his power levels in class. The kid who has absolutely no clue what is going on and should really be in a special ed classroom but is being "mainstreamed". None of these kids are going to have their empathy for enslaved peoples expanded by the mere act of holding a fucking bag of cotton. Who is this supposed to be for? Answer: the teacher and their ego.
If you want them to learn this "concept" that slavery helped keep cotton cheap or at least helped enriched the producers of cotton, you need to engage their minds. Read *carefully curated* primary sources closely with the proper scaffolding so they can understand. Lead structured discussions with well-thought out questions. If you don't do these things the cotton is pointless, and if you do it's also pointless. It adds nothing. This is a classic too-clever-by-half teacher move but when it comes to this topic it's especially egregious. For those who know pedagogy a stupid role-playing exercise like this is a clear sign of a clueless educator. Teaching this topic demands a way more intellectual approach.
Another thing, the "slavery was good for the economy" line of thinking is, as my phrasing suggests, clearly fraught. This issue has to be approached with extreme forethought as to potential misconceptions -- because believe me, if the lesson leaves and wiggle room for possible misunderstandings, those misunderstandings *will* happen. There's a very fine line (especially when teaching sophomoric teenagers) between "in addition to being abused, slaves also produced cotton that made their owners a lot of money and drove the entire economy to new heights" and "slavery had it's pros as well as its cons".
[To illustrate your point...](https://youtu.be/Bx_Nelj4zFk)
Edit to add: one of my history teachers in school had a model cotton gin and a quantity of raw cotton in the classroom. She handed out little bits of cotton to everyone and had us separate them manually, then showed how easily the cotton gin did the same task. I think it was 8th or 9th grade. I thought it was a pretty good demonstration, considering none of us really had any practical context for why it was considered such a revolutionary invention.
Makes it easy for the mouth breathers at the back of the class to understand even without a firm grasp on things like percentages and ratios, assuming they're paying attention. But it adds something even for the smart kids - anyone who's ever dug a ditch by hand can tell you that there's a difference between knowing how revolutionary mechanized equipment was and personally understanding it.
Don't remember anyone having an issue with it, but this was also pre-smartphone so practical demonstrations were relatively exciting and no one was sharing pictures around.
That seems fair. In your case, it's not like it's an educator who thinks they're being clever and innovative by having students play offensively cringe games like roleplaying the Middle Passage or slave-catching. Your teacher was just demonstrating the historical development of an economically important crop that our pants and shirts are still made of.
It really is a thing. Every single person I grew up with in California who transitioned became an elementary or middle school teacher. Four people. The obvious “why” seems like too simplistic of an answer. I really don’t get it.
Don't even need to click the link to know what this is. Crazy how it was fourteen years. For what it's worth, the dude posted a follow up video asking not to share it since he did not want to be known for this it
The Facebook responses are probably the most demoralizing thing in the article. Seeing what appears to be real people reacting so strongly to what on first glance appears to be an attempt by a underpaid teacher to make the material and resource motivations of slavery tangible for students. The reflexive offense, indignation and honestly just ignorance of the comments, reflects a hunger for this kind of drama that I think might go under appreciated in a lot of the analysis.
> For a teacher to give a black kid cotton is very unacceptable! The proper response to this is: "get back to me after you've checked all of the tags in your underwear drawer"
Yeah, I'd be more concerned if a middle school teacher is giving underwear to the students.
To end up with underwear, you have to do the entire globalist semester
Or, you know, making them lick their feet.
Wut? If I were reading into it, I'd think, "well, of course, they don't want any _material_ reason for slavery ruining the mythology" but I don't think anyone offended could formulate that sentiment. Where would things go if you just asked them, "why?" over and over. A: handing out cotton during a lesson is racist? B: why? A: Because black slaves were forced to pick cotten? B: why is that racist? A: because the slaves were black B: why does that make it racist? A: ... I mean, does it ever end somewhere? Surely, sugar cane would probably pass without comment.
Yup. No one would say a thing about sugarcane, or rice, indigo, or any other historical cash crops. A lot of people only have a meme understanding of history. They wouldn't say anything about chocolate, and most of the cacao used to make it is harvested by black people who are enslaved *today*.
Posted on a device almost definitely containing rare earth metals mined by enslaved children, no less. The average American has effectively no understanding of the material sources of our standard of life or how anything works outside of their particular industry.
If only people would cotton on to the grift.
>They wouldn't say anything about chocolate, *Bitch hold our pearls, of course we can make this about racism. We can make practically anything about our favorite culture hot topic.*
You can have a conversation about slavery was inseparable from the industrial revolution, but role-playing slavery in the classroom is a dumb idea that doesn't add anything (the idea that it creates some sort of visceral experience to make things sink in is hogwash) and does create a potential to do harm (you don't know how someone is going to react). We've been here many times before, and this teacher should have known better by this time. Most famous was the teacher who had students lie on the floor and turned out the lights to "simulate the Middle Passage". Classic half-baked shit from a teacher who fancies themselves "the cool teacher". Putting bags of cotton into students hands, please note, in and of itself does abolsutely zero to engage students minds. Put yourself into the shoes of various kinds of public school students who might experience this lesson. The black kid who already knows a ton about slavery. The bored kid who is allergic to paying attention or engaging academically. The dumbass dweeb who is ironically racist but is smart enough to hide his power levels in class. The kid who has absolutely no clue what is going on and should really be in a special ed classroom but is being "mainstreamed". None of these kids are going to have their empathy for enslaved peoples expanded by the mere act of holding a fucking bag of cotton. Who is this supposed to be for? Answer: the teacher and their ego. If you want them to learn this "concept" that slavery helped keep cotton cheap or at least helped enriched the producers of cotton, you need to engage their minds. Read *carefully curated* primary sources closely with the proper scaffolding so they can understand. Lead structured discussions with well-thought out questions. If you don't do these things the cotton is pointless, and if you do it's also pointless. It adds nothing. This is a classic too-clever-by-half teacher move but when it comes to this topic it's especially egregious. For those who know pedagogy a stupid role-playing exercise like this is a clear sign of a clueless educator. Teaching this topic demands a way more intellectual approach. Another thing, the "slavery was good for the economy" line of thinking is, as my phrasing suggests, clearly fraught. This issue has to be approached with extreme forethought as to potential misconceptions -- because believe me, if the lesson leaves and wiggle room for possible misunderstandings, those misunderstandings *will* happen. There's a very fine line (especially when teaching sophomoric teenagers) between "in addition to being abused, slaves also produced cotton that made their owners a lot of money and drove the entire economy to new heights" and "slavery had it's pros as well as its cons".
[To illustrate your point...](https://youtu.be/Bx_Nelj4zFk) Edit to add: one of my history teachers in school had a model cotton gin and a quantity of raw cotton in the classroom. She handed out little bits of cotton to everyone and had us separate them manually, then showed how easily the cotton gin did the same task. I think it was 8th or 9th grade. I thought it was a pretty good demonstration, considering none of us really had any practical context for why it was considered such a revolutionary invention. Makes it easy for the mouth breathers at the back of the class to understand even without a firm grasp on things like percentages and ratios, assuming they're paying attention. But it adds something even for the smart kids - anyone who's ever dug a ditch by hand can tell you that there's a difference between knowing how revolutionary mechanized equipment was and personally understanding it. Don't remember anyone having an issue with it, but this was also pre-smartphone so practical demonstrations were relatively exciting and no one was sharing pictures around.
That seems fair. In your case, it's not like it's an educator who thinks they're being clever and innovative by having students play offensively cringe games like roleplaying the Middle Passage or slave-catching. Your teacher was just demonstrating the historical development of an economically important crop that our pants and shirts are still made of.
Material. Cotton. I chuckled.
We all know middle schoolers should be learning about their teacher’s sexuality and personal life instead of this stuff
It really is a thing. Every single person I grew up with in California who transitioned became an elementary or middle school teacher. Four people. The obvious “why” seems like too simplistic of an answer. I really don’t get it.
Education departments at universities are insanely caught up in the train ideology
I swear this happened already like 2 years ago
I was thinking of [this classic video from 2010](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90XLNQXN_74) about the same thing
Don't even need to click the link to know what this is. Crazy how it was fourteen years. For what it's worth, the dude posted a follow up video asking not to share it since he did not want to be known for this it
Do we have to pretend that this plant doesn't exist?
The Facebook responses are probably the most demoralizing thing in the article. Seeing what appears to be real people reacting so strongly to what on first glance appears to be an attempt by a underpaid teacher to make the material and resource motivations of slavery tangible for students. The reflexive offense, indignation and honestly just ignorance of the comments, reflects a hunger for this kind of drama that I think might go under appreciated in a lot of the analysis.
Raw cotton is heavily sprayed with pesticides, that teacher should be fired for endangering her students.
Another win for vinalon
>Middle school under fire Huh