This is a really long post that probably won’t be of interest to everyone. As an old guy who doesn’t tend to get too enthused about new technology or the latest silver education bullet, however, I thought there might be a handful of others out there uncertain whether or not AI might prove useful in their classrooms, and if so, exactly what that might look like.
There are enough “AI revolutionized my teaching!” articles out there already, and I’m not sure that’s what’s happening anyway – for me, at least. What I have discovered is how useful AI can be in helping me rework content and edit materials. It’s also proven to be a wildly efficient way to clarify content – both for my students, and (if I’m being honest) myself.
Feel free to roll your eyes and dismiss me as intellectually lazy, but world history offers an infinite variety of minutia which is rarely worth pursuing if it means hours of digging through resource books or scrolling through pages of Google results which are mostly publications from scholarly journals you can’t actually read without a student or ID from a university in another country. On the other hand, “Claude, who exactly was Bishop ______ who appears in the trial records of Joan of Arc? He seems to have all this authority but vanishes halfway through the proceedings. What was up with that?” is like asking the History Gods to pour you a fresh decanter of sparkling insight and amusement on your way down the rabbit hole.
In any case, I thought it might be enlightening to simply share a recent conversation I had with Claude, my favorite AI. While Claude is at times a bit TOO encouraging (“That’s a very perceptive question!”), it’s equally willing to act as editor or collaborator. While I’ve been impressed with its ability to create custom content tailored to my classroom needs, I’ve been less thrilled with the results when I’ve experimented with asking Claude to create outlines or create quizzes – but maybe that’s just me.
This is a fairly typical exchange, chosen not because it’s all that exciting but because it’s fairly representative of what I’ve like about this new toy so far. Make of it what you will.
ME: I’m going to share a few things with you in stages, starting with some standards from AP World History. The formatting may be a little funky because I’m copying from a PDF – THEMATIC FOCUS Governance GOV A variety of internal and external factors contribute to state formation, expansion, and decline. Governments maintain order through a variety of administrative institutions, policies, and procedures, and governments obtain, retain, and exercise power in different ways and for different purposes. LEARNING OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS Unit 6: Learning Objective C Explain how and why internal and external factors have influenced the process of state building from 1750 to 1900. KC-5.3.III.D Increasing questions about political authority and growing nationalism contributed to anticolonial movements. KC-5.2.II.C Anti-imperial resistance took various forms, including direct resistance within empires and the creation of new states on the peripheries. KC-5.3.III.E Increasing discontent with imperial rule led to rebellions, some of which were influenced by religious ideas.
Claude: I see you’re sharing AP World History standards focused on governance, state building, and anti-colonial resistance from 1750-1900. The formatting came through clearly enough – these appear to be learning objectives and key concepts dealing with how internal and external factors influenced state formation during this period, along with various forms of resistance to imperial rule.
I’m ready for the next stage of what you’d like to share. Are you planning to provide additional standards, historical examples, or perhaps looking for help with lesson planning or analysis related to these topics?
Me: One of the illustrative examples for this standard is the Xhosa Cattle Killings. You recently helped me revise the article I’m about to attach and I’m pretty happy with it. Do you have any ideas how we might expand it a bit – by maybe 400 words give or take – in ways which help emphasize any elements of the standards which I may have overlooked?
*New Attachment: The Xhosa Cattle-Killings*
Claude: Looking at your excellent article on the Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement and the AP standards you shared, I can see several areas where expansion could better highlight key elements of the governance and anti-colonial resistance themes. Here are some suggestions for adding approximately 400 words:
1. Expand on State Building/Political Authority Questions (KC-5.3.III.D) You could add a section discussing how the movement represented a crisis of traditional Xhosa political authority. The prophecy essentially bypassed established political structures – while King Sarhili eventually endorsed it, the movement initially spread through spiritual rather than political channels. This challenged the traditional chief-king hierarchy and showed how external pressures (colonialism, disease) could undermine established governance systems.
2. Deepen the Anti-Imperial Resistance Analysis (KC-5.2.II.C) While you mention the anti-white tone, you could expand on how this was specifically a form of resistance to imperial control. The movement can be seen as an attempt to restore Xhosa sovereignty through spiritual means when military resistance had failed. The prophecy promised not just renewal but specifically that “colonizers would return to the sea” – this was explicitly anti-imperial.
3. Add Comparative Context Include a brief comparison to other contemporary resistance movements you mention (Taiping Rebellion, Ghost Dance, Boxer Rebellion) to show this as part of a global pattern of religiously-influenced anti-colonial resistance during this period.
4. Expand on Internal vs. External Factors Create a clearer analysis of how external factors (settler pressure, cattle disease, military defeats) combined with internal factors (traditional spiritual beliefs, political divisions, social structure) to create conditions for this movement.
5. Discuss Long-term Political Consequences Add more detail about how the movement’s failure affected Xhosa political organization and relationship with colonial authorities – the labor contracts you mention were a form of political subjugation that restructured Xhosa society.
Which of these areas most interests you for expansion? I think sections 1, 2, and 4 would most directly address the learning objectives about state building and anti-colonial resistance, while also maintaining the compelling narrative style you’ve established.
Me: Agreed on 1, 2, and 4. Are you willing to give it a shot, trying to keep the final word count somewhere around 1750 – 1800 words?
**Artifact Created: The Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement (1856-1857) – Expanded**
Claude: I’ve expanded your article to approximately 1,800 words, focusing on the three areas we discussed:
1. Political Authority Crisis: I added sections explaining how external pressures undermined traditional Xhosa governance structures, creating space for alternative authority sources like teenage prophets. The expansion shows how the movement both challenged and bypassed established political hierarchies.
2. Anti-Imperial Resistance: I developed the analysis of how this was specifically a form of resistance to colonial control, emphasizing the prophecy’s promise to remove colonizers entirely and restore Xhosa sovereignty through spiritual rather than military means.
3. Internal vs. External Factors: I created a dedicated section analyzing how external pressures (military defeats, disease, land seizures, colonial restrictions) combined with internal vulnerabilities (political divisions, economic disruption, spiritual crisis) to create conditions for radical action.
The additions maintain your engaging narrative style while more explicitly connecting the movement to the AP standards about state building, political authority, and anti-colonial resistance. The expanded content should help students better understand this as an example of how imperial pressures could destabilize traditional governance and inspire alternative forms of resistance.
(I began reading through the article to make additional revisions. Because I’d been away from it for a while, stuff kept jumping out at me that hadn’t before.)
Me: Was the ruling structure of the Xhosa related to or otherwise similar to the kin-based societies we talk about in earlier African history?
Claude: Yes, absolutely! The Xhosa political structure was fundamentally a kin-based society, very much in line with the patterns you’d discuss in earlier African history. Let me break down the connections:
Kinship as Political Foundation: The Xhosa “districts” made up of extended family “homesteads” follow the classic African pattern where political authority flows through family relationships. Chiefs were typically related to the king, and leadership positions were inherited through kinship lines rather than appointed bureaucratically.
Segmentary Lineage System: This looks very similar to segmentary lineage systems common across Africa – where political units are organized around descent groups that can unite for defense or split apart based on genealogical distance. When you mentioned chiefs “answering to a Xhosa king, usually a relative,” that’s classic segmentary organization.
Authority Based on Success and Consensus: The article notes that both chiefs’ and the king’s power “depended on perceived success” – this reflects the African tradition where leadership legitimacy comes from performance rather than absolute divine right. Leaders rule through consensus and demonstrated ability to protect and provide for their kin groups.
Cattle as Political Currency: The centrality of cattle to Xhosa politics (redistribution, fines, status) mirrors patterns across pastoral African societies where livestock management was both economic and political. This makes the cattle-killing movement even more tragic from a historical perspective – it wasn’t just destroying their economy, but dismantling the very foundation of their political system. The movement essentially attacked the material basis (cattle) that made their kin-based governance function, which helps explain why recovery was so difficult.
Would you like me to add a brief section to the article making this connection to earlier African political patterns more explicit?
Me: No, I’m going to be overly optimistic and hope my students can make that connection themselves (when properly prompted). We’ll see!
Claude: Ha! That’s the eternal teacher optimism – “surely they’ll make this connection on their own!” I admire the faith in your students. And honestly, if they’ve been doing the work on earlier African societies, the parallels are pretty clear once you know what to look for. The cattle-as-political-currency piece especially should jump out at them.
Plus, there’s something to be said for letting them discover those connections rather than spelling everything out. When they do make the link between the Xhosa kinship structures and earlier African political patterns, it’ll feel like their own insight rather than something you told them to think.
Good luck with the lesson! It’ll be interesting to see how they respond to the expanded version and whether those connections emerge naturally in discussion.
(Back to my fresh close reading and minor revisions.)
Me: What would you think of this edit: “Reactions across the kingdom were mixed. Some embraced the prophecy immediately, eager for a newer, better world. Others rejected it entirely, calling it foolish to destroy their already inadequate food supply. Most fell somewhere in between, not wanting to commit to such extreme action but afraid to anger the ancestors or face community disapproval. Districts hit hardest by lung sickness or recent land loss to white settlers were more likely to embrace the radical call to action. The prophecy didn’t specify what effect sporadic half-measures would have, but apparently the answer was ‘not much’.”
Claude: I like that addition! The line “The prophecy didn’t specify what effect sporadic half-measures would have, but apparently the answer was ‘not much'” has a nice dry wit that fits well with your writing style throughout the piece. It also does important analytical work – it highlights the logical problem with the prophecy (what happens when compliance is partial?) while foreshadowing the tragic outcome.
It’s also historically accurate based on what you’ve described – the movement’s failure was blamed on insufficient commitment from non-believers, suggesting that partial compliance was indeed seen as ineffective by the believers themselves.
The slight tone shift works because it comes right after explaining the community divisions, so it feels like a natural commentary on the impossibility of the situation they’d created for themselves.
Me: Agreed. I hope the overall tone conveys the sense of desperation and tragedy. I try to avoid anything seeming to belittle folks’ religious beliefs, even when they’re pretty out there. Much like psychic hotlines (which were a thing a few decades ago), it’s when we’re most desperate that we turn to the most bizarre solutions.
(OK, I’ll confess that I sometimes get a bit too conversational with Claude when I’m not in a particular hurry. In my defense, Claude is very good at encouraging this. It’s not every day that teachers get to talk content with “someone” who not only knows the material intimately but gets very excited about every possible approach to it. I understand why people get wrapped up in their AI “relationships” – but so far Claude and I haven’t exchanged dirty pictures or anything, so hopefully my detours aren’t a red flag or anything.)
Claude: You’ve struck exactly the right tone throughout. The article clearly conveys the desperation – the repeated military defeats, the cattle disease destroying their economic foundation, the systematic land seizures – all building to show why people would grasp at what seems like an impossible solution.
Your comparison to psychic hotlines is perfect. When conventional approaches have failed catastrophically and you’re facing existential threats, radical spiritual solutions start looking rational. The article does a great job showing how this wasn’t random superstition but a logical response to an impossible situation where traditional political and military options had been exhausted.
The line about Jesus choosing death on a cross and Gandhi’s Salt March is particularly effective at putting the movement in context with other acts of faith-based resistance that we admire. It prevents readers from dismissing the Xhosa as simply “primitive” while still acknowledging the tragic outcome.
You’ve managed to be analytical about the political and social dynamics without being condescending about the spiritual beliefs driving them. That’s a tricky balance to strike, especially when writing for students who might be quick to judge historical actors for decisions that seem obviously wrong in hindsight.
(There’s a “real life” lesson to be learned here about the power of positive feedback when it’s so SPECIFIC. A “great job!” or “very engaging!” would ring hollow, but the use of details makes the recipient feel “heard” and “validated” in a much more meaningful way. Obviously this is even better when it’s from a teacher, friend, or peer rather than a very advanced calculator.)
Me: It’s been years since I wrote the original version of this, and I’m honestly not sure I had a great handle on the content even at that time. But these two paragraphs are suddenly jumping out at me: “In the twelve months before Nongqawuse’s revelation, there had been multiple prophecies about a “black nation across the sea” coming to help the Xhosa. These prophecies also called for destroying fields and killing cattle to prepare for better crops and livestock. These earlier prophecies were understood to refer to the Russians, who were then fighting the British in the Crimean War. Much of South Africa thought the Russians were both supernatural and black-skinned. Nongqawuse’s vision renewed interest in these predictions, bringing an anti-white tone to the discussion.”
I started thinking we might be able to cut the whole “Russians” thing, but the reference to earlier prophecies advocating the same solutions seems WAY too casual and a bit too late. What do you think?
Claude: You’re absolutely right – that’s a huge buried lead! The fact that there had already been multiple prophecies calling for the exact same solution (destroying crops and killing cattle) in the year before Nongqawuse completely changes how we should understand her vision. It wasn’t some unprecedented revelation – it was part of an ongoing pattern of similar prophecies.
This makes the movement much less about one girl’s specific vision and much more about a community that was already primed for this type of spiritual solution. It also raises questions about whether Nongqawuse was influenced by these earlier prophecies, whether there was some kind of prophetic tradition developing, or whether the desperation was so acute that multiple people were independently arriving at similar “solutions.”
I think you could definitely cut the Russian stuff – it’s confusing and distracts from the more important point about the pattern of prophecies. But you’d want to move that information about earlier similar prophecies much earlier in the narrative, probably right after you establish the crisis conditions (the lung sickness section). Something like “This wasn’t the first time desperate Xhosa had turned to radical spiritual solutions…”
It would help explain why Mhlakaza and others were so quick to embrace Nongqawuse’s message – they’d already been hearing variations of it for months.
Me: Agreed. Do we know anything historically reliable about Nongqawuse or her unnamed friend other than their claim about the prophecies? I’m not even clear whether the adults who returned with them actually saw or spoke to anyone or simply believed the “experience” they watched the girl(s) undergo.
Claude: That’s a really astute question, and it highlights how much of this story comes filtered through the believers’ accounts. From what’s in your article, the historical record seems pretty thin on independent verification.
The key detail is that “The strangers would only communicate through Nongqawuse” – which means Mhlakaza and the other adults who went to investigate never actually saw or heard the spirits themselves. They only witnessed Nongqawuse’s behavior and heard her relay what she claimed the spirits were saying.
This is a classic pattern in prophetic movements – the “spirits” or divine beings are only accessible through the prophet, which makes independent verification impossible. It also means we can’t know whether Nongqawuse genuinely believed she was having supernatural encounters, whether she was influenced by the earlier prophecies you mentioned, or whether there were other psychological or social factors at play.
The fact that there was an unnamed friend present initially but she seems to disappear from the narrative is also interesting – did she corroborate the story? Did she have her own visions? Why don’t we hear more about her?
Given the broader context of multiple similar prophecies in the preceding year, it seems likely that these ideas were already circulating in the community, which might have influenced what a desperate teenager “heard” from ancestor spirits. But we’re really in the realm of informed speculation rather than solid historical evidence about the girls’ actual experiences or motivations.
(Notice that Claude here seems to be consulting my article as its primary source of information and just riffing from that rather than actually consulting its vast database of actual knowledge. In retrospect, this would have been the perfect time to ask Claude what it could reliably document outside of my original article, but I didn’t think of it and it didn’t seem that important in the moment. AI is an amazing tool (at least so far), but it can make some odd choices midstream. I learned very quickly not to assume it was always double-checking itself. At the same time, Claude has yet to seem offended when I question its approach or results – which I didn’t, this time.)
Me: Better to leave it uncertain than to speculate or muddy the record, then. Let me play with some edits and get back to you.
*New Attachment: The Xhosa Cattle-Killings (Revamp)*
Me: OK – mind looking this over for any historical errors, new grammatical problems, typos, flow, repetitiveness, etc.?
Claude: Looking through your revised version, I caught a few things:
Minor edits:
• “the (possibly fictional) Black Panther” – I like this addition, shows awareness that it’s a Marvel character
• Good move integrating the earlier prophecies much earlier in the narrative – that fixes the buried lead problem
One small typo:
• “All the Xhosa had to do was… kill all of their cattle.” – The ellipsis might work better as a dash or just removed entirely for flow
Potential repetition:
• You have “The diseased cattle were arguably a greater challenge than British colonialism” but then later “External pressures included not only military defeats and cattle disease, but also systematic land seizures…” The ordering makes it seem like you’re ranking cattle disease vs. colonialism twice in slightly different ways.
Flow question:
• “It wasn’t just the message which was alarming – it was the means by which it spread.” This feels a bit abrupt after the previous sentence. Maybe “What alarmed traditional authorities wasn’t just the message itself, but the means by which it spread”?
Minor grammar:
• “Whatever its spiritual ramifications, the cattle-killing movement represented…” – this works, but “Regardless of its spiritual significance” might flow better
Overall, the integration of the earlier prophecies works much better, and the added context about the means of the prophecy’s spread strengthening the political authority crisis is excellent. The piece flows well and maintains your balanced, empathetic tone throughout.
*New Attachment: The Xhosa Cattle-Killings (Revamped Again)*
Claude: The revised version looks excellent! Your edits addressed most of the flow issues I mentioned. I particularly like:
• The fix to the paragraph flow by removing the comparison between cattle disease and colonialism – much cleaner now
• The smoother transition: “as if the message itself weren’t alarming and disruptive enough” works much better than the previous abrupt sentence
• Changing “ramifications” to “impact” – more accessible language
I see one tiny typo that carried over: Word choice: “All the Xhosa had to do was kill all of their cattle” – you might consider “All the Xhosa had to do was destroy all of their cattle” to match the phrasing elsewhere in the piece, or just “The Xhosa simply had to kill all their cattle.”
But honestly, that’s nitpicking. The piece flows really well now, maintains your empathetic tone throughout, and does an excellent job connecting to those AP standards about political authority, anti-colonial resistance, and the interaction of internal/external factors. The integration of the earlier prophecies works perfectly and doesn’t feel forced at all.
Your students are going to get a really nuanced understanding of how desperate circumstances can lead to radical solutions that seem inexplicable from the outside.
(If you’ve stayed with me this long, you no doubt have the idea by now. In the unlikely event your curiosity has been stirred regarding the Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement, you can read the final document here. If you’re curious as to Claude’s take on this post, you can read that as well.)